Serious Question for Baptismal Regeneration

[brb3]

One can use the term “baptize” in other ways --like when Jesus said there is a baptism he was to receive (his suffering and death) …

But “baptism” as a Sacrament is about one and only one Baptism.

Exactly …

Can one be circumcised twice ? Once we are cleansed and adopted into Christ (the Holy Family)…it’s accomplished ------- not to be repeated again. BAPTISM is once only…

 

[Bookcat]

Take another case from Acts (19)

Paul encounters some men --indeed some “disciples” --He asked if they received the Holy Spirit – and had not even heard there was a Holy Spirit – so Paul asked about their baptism --and it turns out they were baptized only into John’s Baptism which was not Christian Baptism but one of repentance.

So they were then Baptized – and Paul laid hands on them and the Holy Spirit came and they manifested signs similar to the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Baptism and the laying on of hands.

 

[Ubenedictus]

OK I guess I was not clear enough.

Since water doesn’t itself do anything, what did it do for Cornelius? We know he received the holy spirit when he believed, so why did peter then command them to be baptized? What more needed to be done? If the baptists are right when they say that baptism is merely a sign with no grace, then this added work of baptism on Cornelius makes sense. But if in fact baptism actually confers grace, whatmore grace did Cornelius need having already received the spirit? That sounds more clear lol…sorry

i believe the case of cornelius is the exception not the rule, ofcourse God isnt bound to the sacrament and so can act outside it. Cornelius case was more to convince the early church that the gentiles were included in redemption and salvation. On the other hand various biblical passage are there to show that through that sacramental sign God wishes to bring men and women unto salvation.

 

[brb3]

OK I guess I was not clear enough.

Since water doesn’t itself do anything, what did it do for Cornelius? We know he received the holy spirit when he believed, so why did peter then command them to be baptized? What more needed to be done? If the baptists are right when they say that baptism is merely a sign with no grace, then this added work of baptism on Cornelius makes sense. But if in fact baptism actually confers grace, whatmore grace did Cornelius need having already received the spirit? That sounds more clear lol…sorry

What Baptist brethren do you reference ? The Baptists I know see water baptism as an essential command of Christ, and believe it efficacious, bringing grace upon those already graced by their faith & public confession/profession of " Jesus as Lord". And, while they don’t call it a Sacrament, they would doubt sincerity of any in their group who declined to “follow the Lord, in his baptism” .

 

[brb3]

Indeed, the Baptists point to Cornelius & family, as Exhibit A …proof that faith in Christ comes first, and Water Baptism 2nd. Thats why they don’t put much stock in Catholic infant Baptism. They see infant Baptism as symbolic, but theirs done of free-will, in response to Christ’s call they receive it as he taught…and thus of higher value/efficacy.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

I find some interesting information in the book of Acts which poses a bit of a suspicion in my mind. I will try to put this in succinct argumentation so that it is easy to understand.

Jesus tells his disciples that “John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now” (Acts 1:6-8). The present question is the following, is Christ making a distinguishing the baptism of water (John’s baptism) and the baptism of the Holy Spirit in such a way that he implies that “water” cannot do what the Holy Spirit can do? Is he distinguishing water baptism from Spirit baptism altogether, as if they are two different things which can occur at different times? (this would be implied by the fact that the apostles were baptized in the Holy Spirit without water). Or he Jesus simply distinguishing John’s baptism as a redemptive-historical mode of baptism with the redemptive-historical mode of the Spirit baptism?

We know that the apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit without the application of water in the upper room, and Peter even recounts this event of being baptized in the Holy Spirit (without water) when Cornelius is baptized. Jesus did not really say exactly how many days the apostles would have to wait before the promise of the Father, and so I can understand that God did not expect them to be waiting in water for 40 days for the Spirit to fall when there is water to be applied. This is understandable. But we cannot escape the fact that the apostles did get baptized with the Holy Spirit without the application of water. Observation kept.

If Jesus did contrast John’s water baptism and the Pentecostal Spirit baptism as a way to show the superfluity of being baptized in water versus the real effective-unto-salvation Spirit baptism without water, the apostles surely did not stop baptizing people in water. Why would they, then, continue to baptize in water if they had learned from Christ that such an event was not potent for salvation since it is the Spirit baptism, in contrast to John’s baptism, that actually brings about this entry into the Holy Spirit and the Trinitarian life. If it is true that Jesus meant that water baptism accomplishes no salvific grace, and yet the apostles continued to baptize with water, then the theology of mere symbolism in Protestant Baptist Circles is almost entirely justified.

If Christ was contrasting John’s baptism and The Spirit’s baptism as way to distinguish redemptive-historical shifts in salvation history, and yet the apostles continued to baptize with water, well then we can see the necessity for both baptism in water and Spirit. It seems that the apostles understood that baptism in water in the name of Jesus Christ as the normal means of receiving the Holy Spirit, for Peter, who himself was baptized in the Holy Spirit without water, still tells Israel “Repent, and let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). We cannot be too sure that Peter meant a rigid and inflexible rule, such as one must repent first, then be baptized in water for the remission of sin, and then and only then will one receive the Holy Spirit. Unless I’m mistaken, it does not seem Peter is suggesting such an inflexible rule.

The samaritans were baptized but had not yet received the Holy Spirit. This means that, in some sense, one can be fully baptized in water and yet not have the Holy Spirit. And this fact pushes someone to believe that either water baptism accomplishes something which is completely other than the baptism of the Spirit, maybe even nothing, or that baptism in water accomplishes something that has a relationship to the Spirit but is not the full application which comes with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Some sort of differentiation has to be made, since the samaritans were successfully baptized and yet were not baptized in the Holy Spirit. This question remains on the text of Scripture.

Cornelius received the baptism of the Holy Spirit before his baptism in water, and this also pushes one to question what exactly was Cornelius missing that he needed to be baptized in water? If indeed the baptism of the Spirit is the deciding factor over whether Gentiles can be saved (Avts 15), then it would seem as though Cornelius’ baptism in water really did not accomplish anything, but was a mere initiation symbol expressing one’s discipleship, as the Anabaptists argued. Simply put, what grace, if any at all, was applied to Cornelius in his water baptism, given the fact he was already completely baptized with the Holy Spirit?

 

[brb3]

Acts 10 &11 …gives the full answer, …Peter working it out in his mind, in light of what has happened with Cornelius …and reflecting back on words of John the Baptizer & Christ.
And, Peter, after figuring out the answer to the Mystery…does what ?
Gives Cornelius & family WATER baptism !!!

He recalls Christ’s teaching that we must be born of 1.) Water & 2.) HS
He recalls Great Commission, that the 12 take Gospel to the world ( Jews first, and Gentles), and that ALL receive Trinitarian WATER Baptism.
And, he recalls John Baptizer saying that man performs water baptism, but ONLY Christ can wash(baptismo) the Church Baptized disciples… with his FIRE BAPTISM !!

Two Baptisms … water by man, fire by Jesus .

Thus, Cornelius having received the Baptism of Fire …still needed Baptism of Water …which BOTH Cornelius & Saul (Paul) … promptly received at hands of man…fulfilling necessity of scripture.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

I guess it boils down to this. If water baptism effects rebirth, remission of sin, adoption, and renewal of heart, and these are all done by the spirit, what is the person lacking that he still needs one to impose hands for the spirit to fall down on him?

 

[davidv]

I guess it boils down to this. If water baptism effects rebirth, remission of sin, adoption, and renewal of heart, and these are all done by the spirit, what is the person lacking that he still needs one to impose hands for the spirit to fall down on him?

Completion is lacking. Baptism is only the beginning.

ARTICLE 2
THE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION
1285 Baptism, the Eucharist, and the sacrament of Confirmation together constitute the “sacraments of Christian initiation,” whose unity must be safeguarded. It must be explained to the faithful that the reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace.89 For "by the sacrament of Confirmation, [the baptized] are more perfectly bound to the Church and are enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit. Hence they are, as true witnesses of Christ, more strictly obliged to spread and defend the faith by word and deed."90

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Yes, I understand that it lacks completion, but what is more to confer after one is immersed in water?

 

[davidv]

Yes, I understand that it lacks completion, but what is more to confer after one is immersed in water?

The quoted CCC article answered this.

1. a more perfect bond to the Church
2. special strength of the Holy Spirit

 

[brb3]

Yes, I understand that it lacks completion, but what is more to confer after one is immersed in water?

What has been your experience…as Anglo Catholic ?
Water Baptism, Confirmation, etc.
Did you appreciate enlightenment via Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist …1,2,3 …or all three ?

 

[Bookcat]

Jesus tells his disciples that “John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now” (Acts 1:6-8). The present question is the following, is Christ making a distinguishing the baptism of water (John’s baptism) and the baptism of the Holy Spirit in such a way that he implies that “water” cannot do what the Holy Spirit can do? Is he distinguishing water baptism from Spirit baptism altogether, as if they are two different things which can occur at different times? (this would be implied by the fact that the apostles were baptized in the Holy Spirit without water). Or he Jesus simply distinguishing John’s baptism as a redemptive-historical mode of baptism with the redemptive-historical mode of the Spirit baptism?

Jesus is referring there basically to the event of Pentecost.

When the Holy Spirit came like tongues of fire upon the Apostles et al…

 

[brb3]

Yes, I understand that it lacks completion, but what is more to confer after one is immersed in water?

CCC #1296 …Christ himself declared that he was marked with his Father’s seal ( Jn.6:27). Christians are also marked with a seal: " It is God who establishes us with you in Christ and has commissioned us his Spirit in our hearts as a Guarantee."( 2 Cor 1:21-22 & Ephesians. 1:13). This seal of HS marks our total belonging to Christ, our enrollment in his service for ever, as well as the promise of divine protection in the great eschatological trial.( Rev. 7:2-3, 9:4, Ezekiel. 9:4-6).

When we recall Baptism of Jesus …it perfectly forms the picture of this 2 Fold Baptism:

1.) Water Baptism by man (John)… & 2.) Spirit Baptism by God [which ‘completes’ / CONFIRMS our water Baptisms].
The Hands of God, came down from heaven, in form of a Dove, and rested upon Jesus…confirming the HS upon him.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

But the baptism of John was not a sacrament. This is why the disciples in Acts 19 had to be re-baptized

So when someone is water baptized, are they instantly forgiven and reborn before this confirming seal?

 

[brb3]

But the baptism of John was not a sacrament. This is why the disciples in Acts 19 had to be re-baptized

So when someone is water baptized, are they instantly forgiven and reborn before this confirming seal?

Yes, but Christ didn’t need any of Sacraments for himself …as John pointed out in scripture. Nevertheless, we do …so Christ underwent Baptism & Confirmation …so as to show mankind what we need. Recall, Christ being Son of Man (as he called himself often) …needed to live life as we, to set example for us, yet he w/o sin, only bearing our sins.

 

[brb3]

But the baptism of John was not a sacrament. This is why the disciples in Acts 19 had to be re-baptized

So when someone is water baptized, are they instantly forgiven and reborn before this confirming seal?

They are forgiven of all PS & OS via baptism …washed clean of.

Now, clean of sin, they can be Sealed, with Holy Ghost, marked within by ‘infusion’ of HS. This is something the Confirmed senses… the HS is noted/recognized by the Confirmed. A new Godly quotient has been given them, …they now ONE with the Trinity …and, it is the Personal Experience of God to them. Its Supernatural, & they perceive it as the ’ In Christ’ factor Paul constantly speaks of in his letters.

 

[Bookcat]

So when someone is water baptized, are they instantly forgiven and reborn before this confirming seal?

All sins are forgiven in Baptism.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

If the disciples that Paul came across in Acts 19 were re-baptized after having been baptized by John, does this not show that the apostles must also have been re-baptized in the name of Jesus Christ?

 

[brb3]

If the disciples that Paul came across in Acts 19 were re-baptized after having been baptized by John, does this not show that the apostles must also have been re-baptized in the name of Jesus Christ?

Yes, … we all need Trinitarian Rite baptism…as taught by Christ in Great Commission charge to Apostles.

Because Apollos & friends had not received Trinitarian Baptism …the Apostles were obligated to properly baptize them.