Baptism In The Spirit...

[Jake Huether]

Acts 10: 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.

45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.

46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said,

47 Can anyone keep these people from being baptised with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.

Okay, this is clearly a different "tongues" than what happend on Penticost. They were speaking in tongues and praising God. Not speaking in tongues and preaching the Gospel (as were the Apostles). Yet, Peter says, "they have recieved the Holy Spirit JUST as we have. This must be in reference not to the gift of tongues on Penticost, but the gift of (what Charismatics call) a prayer language. It is used to praise God!

And they hadn't even been baptised with WATER.

So, when we are baptised, we are baptised with WATER. Not necessarily Spirit.

Baptism with water = the remishion of sins, and the acceptance into the family of God (by our Godparents on our behalf). Confirmation is like penticost, when we are confirmed in the Spirit. We are old enough to confirm our own baptism. Baptism in the Spirit is different.

1 Corinthians 12

10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues.

Clearly he is including tongues that aren't of human origin. Otherwise it woudn't be a "gift" to interpret tongues. Unless you call understanding Spanish (especially if you were born in a latin country) a gift.

Paul is saying, one gift is speaking in different tongues. If the language is an earthly language, then it wouldn't require a special gift of interpritation, because the gift is to speak in onather laguage! It wouldn't make sense for me to have the gift of speaking in spanish (in an english country) to have another english speaker interpret my spanish! Interpritation of tongues referes to another gift!

1 Corinthians 13:1

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

"men and of angels", there are two different types of tongues. One to make the Church grow out! The other UP!

1 Coritnthians 14: 18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.

19 But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.

Paul isn't saying that he speaks more languages! He speaks in angelic tongues more often.

1 Cor 14: 22 Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers.

23 So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?

Paul is showing here that tongues (this angelic type - for praise) is a special type, not that of the Apostles on Penticost. He is trying to inform the Corinths that this Type of tongues is for the individual to prais God!

1 Corinthians 14:39

Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.

If it were tongues in other languages in order to evangelize, then why would Paul have to say that it is "not forbidden". If it was for evangelization, that would be a given! He is refering to a prayer language.

On Pope John Paul and the Charismatic Renewal (note: renewal. It is not new. We want to bring back what was there).

http://www.mn.catholic.org.au/diocesan/cha...tic_renewal.htm

http://www.tsv.catholic.org.au/organisatio...harismatic.html

I heard from a relyable source that the Pope spoke in "babbling" tongues at a conference that they were at. Hope someone can back me up on this one. I'll look for a link. But you'll have to just take my word for it. ;)

[Anna]

So, when we are baptised, we are baptised with WATER.  Not necessarily Spirit. 

Baptism with water = the remishion of sins, and the acceptance into the family of God (by our Godparents on our behalf).  Confirmation is like penticost, when we are confirmed in the Spirit.  We are old enough to confirm our own baptism.  Baptism in the Spirit is different.

Jake,

Ya know I love ya, but......This isn't in line with Catholic teaching.

Pax Christi. <><

Edited November 7, 2003 by Anna

[BLAZEr]

"I baptise you in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

[Jake Huether]

Acts 10:  44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.

45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.

46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said,

47 Can anyone keep these people from being baptised with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.

Okay, this is clearly a different "tongues" than what happend on Penticost.  They were speaking in tongues and praising God.  Not speaking in tongues and preaching the Gospel (as were the Apostles).  Yet, Peter says, "they have recieved the Holy Spirit JUST as we have.  This must be in reference not to the gift of tongues on Penticost, but the gift of (what Charismatics call) a prayer language.  It is used to praise God! 

And they hadn't even been baptised with WATER.

So, when we are baptised, we are baptised with WATER.  Not necessarily Spirit. 

Baptism with water = the remishion of sins, and the acceptance into the family of God (by our Godparents on our behalf).  Confirmation is like penticost, when we are confirmed in the Spirit.  We are old enough to confirm our own baptism.  Baptism in the Spirit is different.

1 Corinthians 12

10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues.

Clearly he is including tongues that aren't of human origin.  Otherwise it woudn't be a "gift" to interpret tongues.  Unless you call understanding Spanish (especially if you were born in a latin country) a gift. 

Paul is saying, one gift is speaking in different tongues.  If the language is an earthly language, then it wouldn't require a special gift of interpritation, because the gift is to speak in onather laguage!  It wouldn't make sense for me to have the gift of speaking in spanish (in an english country) to have another english speaker interpret my spanish!  Interpritation of tongues referes to another gift!

1 Corinthians 13:1

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

"men and of angels", there are two different types of tongues.  One to make the Church grow out!  The other UP! 

1 Coritnthians 14: 18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.

19 But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.

Paul isn't saying that he speaks more languages!  He speaks in angelic tongues more often. 

1 Cor 14: 22 Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers.

23 So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?

Paul is showing here that tongues (this angelic type - for praise) is a special type, not that of the Apostles on Penticost.  He is trying to inform the Corinths that this Type of tongues is for the individual to prais God!

1 Corinthians 14:39

Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.

If it were tongues in other languages in order to evangelize, then why would Paul have to say that it is "not forbidden".  If it was for evangelization, that would be a given!  He is refering to a prayer language. 

On Pope John Paul and the Charismatic Renewal (note: renewal.  It is not new.  We want to bring back what was there).

http://www.mn.catholic.org.au/diocesan/cha...tic_renewal.htm

http://www.tsv.catholic.org.au/organisatio...harismatic.html

I heard from a relyable source that the Pope spoke in "babbling" tongues at a conference that they were at.  Hope someone can back me up on this one.  I'll look for a link.  But you'll have to just take my word for it. 

47 Can anyone keep these people from being baptised with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.

I meant what he meant. Unless Peter's teaching isn't in line with the Catholic CHurch.

We recieve the Spirit, but not in the sence of Baptism in the Spirit. "Baptism in the Spirit" is the opening of his gift.

Please believe me, it is in line with the CAtholic CHurch. I've been through this argument before. My family is involved. You know how straight I am with the CHurch, and I know my parents. If they weren't in line, I'd put them in line.

I'm sorry I can't explain it better. It isn't something that can be proven (because it's faith based). If you have a problem with it, that's cool. It isn't a doctrine issue (like I said before). But please don't say it aint Catholic. I'd challenge you then to prove that it is NOT Catholic (provide sources... hehehehe). I've been taught by very orthodox people on this. Fr. Hampsch, Dominic Berardino, Fr. Faricy...

I love you to Anna, but why do you question this. It isn't like CAtholics to ask for Scripture! LOL. (Just kidding of course - I don't mind explaining). It's as sound as the Pope!

It always amazes me that it is those who DON'T speak in tongues that are against it. If you haven't experienced it, then you can't really say that it isn't orthodox.

I can't say that I LIKE speaking in tongues too much. I don't feel called to worship like that. But I know it's Catholic.

[Anna]

I'm not challenging Scripture, Jake.

I'm challenging your assertion that the Sacrament of Baptism does not confer the Holy Spirit upon the baptized person.

So, when we are baptised, we are baptised with WATER.  Not necessarily Spirit. 

That is in contradiction to the Church's teachings.

CATECHISM:

1121: The three sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders confer, in addition to grace, a sacramental character or "seal" by which the Christian shares in Christ's priesthood and is made a member of the Church according to different states and functions. This configuration to Christ and to the Church, brought about by the Spirit, is indelible; it remains for ever in the Christian as a positive disposition for grace, a promise and guarantee of divine protection, and as a vocation to divine worship and to the service of the Church. Therefore these sacraments can never be repeated. 1129: The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. "Sacramental grace" is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. The Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature52 by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior.

Your assertion that:

Baptism in the Spirit is different.

is faulty.

Scripture calls for baptism of water and the holy spirit.

The Church is One Faith, with One Lord, conferring One Baptism.

We are baptized in water and the spirit in the Sacrament of Baptism.

We receive the Holy Spirit in the Sacrament of Baptism.

In Confirmation, we receive the Holy Spirit in His Fullness.

There may be other charisms and gifts and "outpourings" of the Holy Spirit, but they are not "Baptism of the Holy Spirit."

Baptism of water and the Holy Spirit are one and the same Sacrament. To claim otherwise, is to borrow directly from protestant thought.

I don't think there is anywhere in Scripture, nor in Church writings that will support two separate baptisms, one of water, and another of the Holy Spirit.

Pax Christi. <><

[Uncle Gus]

And just to clarify, Confirmation has nothing to do with the baptised person confirming anything. It has nothing to do with being of the age of reason or anything. When I receive the Sacrament of Confirmation, I am not confirming anything, nor am I being confirmed, rather my baptism is being confirmed.

When we are baptised, we are baptised by the priest, into our church, on a local level. We are also baptised into the Universal Church, of course, but we are not fully initiated. We receive the Holy Spirit and become a new creation. We die with Christ, and we rise with Him.

Then, the Bishop, who is the figure of the Universal Church, comes along and confirms that baptism. We receive the Holy Spirit in His fullness, and we are brought into a greater communion with the Universal Church. Then, to consumate that communion, and to express it, we receive the Eucharist, the Holy Communion.

The Holy Communion is what fully iniates us into the Church, that is why it is ridiculous to receive Confirmation after receiving Eucharist because what Confirmation is saying is "yes, you are permitted to become even more a part of our Church," and that's a pretty silly thing to say when you are already a full member of the Church, as is anyone who receives Holy Communion.

[Uncle Gus]

Originally posted by me in this thread

And just to clarify, Confirmation has nothing to do with the baptised person confirming anything. It has nothing to do with being of the age of reason or anything. When I receive the Sacrament of Confirmation, I am not confirming anything, nor am I being confirmed, rather my baptism is being confirmed.

When we are baptised, we are baptised by the priest, into our church, on a local level. We are also baptised into the Universal Church, of course, but we are not fully initiated. We receive the Holy Spirit and become a new creation. We die with Christ, and we rise with Him.

Then, the Bishop, who is the figure of the Universal Church, comes along and confirms that baptism. We receive the Holy Spirit in His fullness, and we are brought into a greater communion with the Universal Church. Then, to consumate that communion, and to express it, we receive the Eucharist, the Holy Communion.

The Holy Communion is what fully iniates us into the Church, that is why it is ridiculous to receive Confirmation after receiving Eucharist because what Confirmation is saying is "yes, you are permitted to become even more a part of our Church," and that's a pretty silly thing to say when you are already a full member of the Church, as is anyone who receives Holy Communion.

[Tony]

"Baptism of the Holy Spirit" as its known to some.. such as Charismatics and the like is not a Sacrament.. Its simply an outpouring of the Holy Spirit. hence it is possible to Experience this but not limited to after recieving an actual sacrament. so in fact.. this type of "Baptism" can be experienced more than once. Chances are, you have been "Baptised in the Holy Spirit" and not realise it. Its Legit, thats just how some choose to word it

[Anna]

I once read an article that traced the origins of the Catholic Charismatic movement to some very zealous protestants who wanted to share their enthusiasm for the Holy Spirit with us. It was a Catholic magazine, but I can't remember the name at the moment!

I'm saying this, not because I am against the Charismatic movement; inDouche, as a teenager, I attended many of these prayer meetings with my parents as well. And, yep, I can "pray in tongues," too....

But understanding correct terminology is important.

Otherwise, some will be deceived.

I saw many Catholics leave the Church and enter those denominations that fellowshipped in a more exhuberant manner.

They forgot all about the sacraments, the saints, the catechism, and were 'set free' by the 'spirit' that they'd been baptized in at the prayer meetings....(Our prayer meetings were often interfaith.)

When a Catholic goes along with the protestant terminology, that there is a Baptism with water AND THEN, THERE IS ANOTHER Baptism, a "Baptism of the Holy Spirit," which is outside of the Church's Sacrament of Baptism, the RED FLAG goes up. That is error at best, heresy at worst...

Call it whatever you like, but if you are going to call it a "Baptism," then you're playing into the protestants' thought that our Sacraments aren't sufficient. We need something more. We've only been baptized with water, but we still need the "other kind" of baptism, that of the Holy Spirit....

Do you see what I'm saying? The Church has always taught that the Sacrament of Baptism is the same baptism, instituted by Christ to give grace, a baptism of water AND the Holy Spirit.

So, to call something else--anything else--a "baptism of the Holy Spirit," is counterfiet theologyy, in my humble opinion...and a dangerous thing to do.

Pax Christi. <><

[IcePrincessKRS]

I have to agree with Anna here.

To say you are BAPTIZED means that you have been Baptized with water AND the Holy Spirit. To use the term in any other sense is a misuse of the word. Baptism, as you well know, is a Sacrament. You know what it entails, I doubt we need to reiterate it here.

We can receive the Holy Spirit aside from/in addition to Baptism to be sure, but we cannot be Baptized with water and NOT the Holy Spirit. To think that we can is certainly not "as Catholic as the Pope."

"Baptism of the Holy Spirit" is false terminology at best. I'm sure you're referring to a reception of the Holy Spirit outside of Baptism, but it cannot be called Baptism because it isn't! That use of the term goes against the very definition of the word, theologically and by its etymology.

From newadvent.org:

"The sacrament of regeneration" is the metaphysical essence of the sacrament, while the physical essence is expressed by the second part of the definition, i.e. the washing with water (matter), accompanied by the invocation of the Holy Trinity (form). Baptism is, therefore, the sacrament by which we are born again of water and the Holy Ghost, that is, by which we receive in a new and spiritual life, the dignity of adoption as sons of God and heirs of God's kingdom.

. . .

John baptized with water (Mark, i) and it was a baptism of penance for the remission of sins (Luke, iii). While, then, the symbolism of the sacrament instituted by Christ was not new, the efficacy which He joined to the rite is that which differentiates it from all its types. John's baptism did not produce grace, as he himself testifies (Matt., iii) when he declares that he is not the Messias whose baptism is to confer the Holy Ghost. Moreover, it was not John's baptism that remitted sin, but the penance that accompanied it; and hence St. Augustine calls it (De Bapt. contra Donat., V) "a remission of sins in hope". As to the nature of the Precursor's baptism, St. Thomas (III:38:1) declares: The baptism of John was not a sacrament of itself, but a certain sacramental as it were, preparing the way (disponens) for the baptism of Christ."

. . .

(John 3): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the Kingdom of God."

[Jake Huether]

Ayayaya! You guys have read to much into the "terminology" of what I have said.

I might have confused the wording, or maybe you were confused with what I said.

Let me try again:

I flipped through the Catechism this morning and it is exactly as I have said.

I never said that when you are Baptized IN WATER you don't recieve the Spirit. inDouche, I did say that you recieve him. I stated above that when you are Baptised IN water, it isn't necessarily "IN the Spirit", though you do recieve the Spirit. When you are Baptized IN WATER you are recieved into the family of God (FAther SON and Spirit!). But as the Catechism states, you recieve the Spirit, but not in His FULLNESS.

The Catechism then moves on to the Sacrament of Confirmation, in which, like the Apostles on Penticost, we recieve His fullness. We then have the gifts of the Spirit. In particular, and most necessary for our walk in the Catholic faith, is COURAGE. The Apostles had been baptized with WATER, and therefore they had the Spirit. Yet they were timid and afraid. When the were confirmed in the Spirit on Penticost, they had the Authority and Courage to go out and preach the Gospel. They Experienced the distinct "Baptism in the Holy Spirit" at the same time they were confirmed. Baptism in the Holy Spirit doesn't mean that they were baptized anew in the Spirit. As our creed states, we believe in ONE baptism for the forgivness of sins, in which we DO recieve the Spirit! Baptism in the Holy Spirit is defined as the OUTPOURING of the gifts of the Spirit. When the Apostles were confirmed, they immediately OPENED their gifts and the gifts were OUTPOURED from them to spread the Church! But confirmation, the recieving of the gifts, and the "Baptism in the Spirit", the opening of the gifts are different. For MOST Catholics Baptism in the Spirit does not accompany their Confirmation. In other words, they hold on to their gifts, but do not open them. The don't bennefit from the OUTPOURING of the gifts, though they inDouche benefit by recieving them (because they are equipted to be able to open them when ready)

And as to the Charesmatic RENEWAL movement, I believe you are correct. The RENEWAL started in a Episcopal Church in 1960's. However, that was the RENEWAL. The early Church was very Charismatic. That is why the prot's called it a "renewal". It wasn't new. But it had died down (not out). Although the "renewal" had started in a prot denom, the Charisms of the Spirit have always been attached to the Catholic faith. In the Lives of the Saints we see these Charisms at their very best! The renewal in the Catholic Church soon followed, but it wasn't as the Prot's because the Renewal in the Church was UNDER the Church. A better way to state it I suppose is that the Prot's had the right idea, but they aren't under the Authority of the Church (who was PROMISED the guidance of the Spirit). So that now they have this great MOVEMENT, but it escapes them because it isn't tandem to the FULLNESS of the faith. The Catholic Church is right in renewing the Charisms of the Spirit, because it is by these Charisms that the FULLNESS of the faith is spread, and the CHurch is built UP and OUT.

I apologise if I confused you guys with my wording. As I said, I myself am not VERY envolve in the movement. However, I maintain that the Charismatic renewal IN THE CHURCH is legit (and I hope you read the pages I posted). Along with all the Charisms of the Spirit that are OUTPOURED with the Baptism in the Spirit. Including "babbling". I agree that this particular charism is very much abused. I think though that those who use the gift according to it's associated GOOD (that is, it's very purpose) are following the Apostles in their example. It isn't a gift, as Paul confirms, that is supposed to be used to build the Church out. It is only supposed to strengthen YOU as the one who benefits from it. Paul also said, "I wish you all spoke in tongues". It is a way of praising God. If you don't have it, and don't want it, then it isn't a detriment to YOU or the Church. It is a gift! It is of benefit, but it isn't necessary (I suppose).

If you would like some Catholic resources for learning more about this (I'm not the greates of teachers). Please look up Fr. Hampsch, Fr. Faricy, Dominic Berardino, Fr. Peter Sanders, and I'm sure there's many more. You will find their teachings VERY in line with the CHurch, but more importantly, MUCH more clear than what I have said.

God bless yall.

[Jake Huether]

And Katie. I totally understand what you are saying. And I agree that it is confusing for Catholics to use the word Baptism in describing something other than the Sacrament. But you shouldn't read "baptism" as in the first sacrament.

When we say Baptism in the Spirit, the word "Baptism" doesn't reflect the Sacrament. It should be read, then, according to it's formal definition. I suppose it is best said, the when one recieves the OUTPOURING of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Thanks though for your insites. It has actually helped me to understand it better too. And I hope that it benefits those reading.

If I don't see ya. Have a wonderful weekend.

[Jake Huether]

Wow! I just had a thought, responding in another thread.

The term "Baptism in the Spirit" actually makes much more sense when you know that the Spirit is within you. Remember "Baptism" isn't supposed to mean what it means as the Sacrament, only as what it's definition implies. So the Spirit within us Baptises us, or FLOWS OUT of US in the form of the opened gifts.

Well, I can only say that I tried to explain it as best as I can. Of course, as you know, it is so difficult at times to express what you know in mere words. But I encourage you to learn more about the Charisms, and this renewal. It is very wonderful. And it is very Catholic. I will say, it can and has been abused. But if that was the test for a LIE, the we must concede that Indulgances are a lie too because they were abused. We know that that isn't the case. But I ask you, don't look at the abuses. Look at the fruit of those who use the gifts in line with the CHurch!

Okay, I'm off to my eye doctor for a regular check up.

See you on Monday. And please pray for me as always.

God bless.

[Jake Huether]

Wow! I just had a thought, responding in another thread.

The term "Baptism in the Spirit" actually makes much more sense when you know that the Spirit is within you. Remember "Baptism" isn't supposed to mean what it means as the Sacrament, only as what it's definition implies. So the Spirit within us Baptises us, or FLOWS OUT of US in the form of the opened gifts.

Well, I can only say that I tried to explain it as best as I can. Of course, as you know, it is so difficult at times to express what you know in mere words. But I encourage you to learn more about the Charisms, and this renewal. It is very wonderful. And it is very Catholic. I will say, it can and has been abused. But if that was the test for a LIE, the we must concede that Indulgances are a lie too because they were abused. We know that that isn't the case. But I ask you, don't look at the abuses. Look at the fruit of those who use the gifts in line with the CHurch!

Okay, I'm off to my eye doctor for a regular check up.

See you on Monday. And please pray for me as always.

God bless.

[Jake Huether]

Wow! I just had a thought, responding in another thread.

The term "Baptism in the Spirit" actually makes much more sense when you know that the Spirit is within you. Remember "Baptism" isn't supposed to mean what it means as the Sacrament, only as what it's definition implies. So the Spirit within us Baptises us, or FLOWS OUT of US in the form of the opened gifts.

Well, I can only say that I tried to explain it as best as I can. Of course, as you know, it is so difficult at times to express what you know in mere words. But I encourage you to learn more about the Charisms, and this renewal. It is very wonderful. And it is very Catholic. I will say, it can and has been abused. But if that was the test for a LIE, the we must concede that Indulgances are a lie too because they were abused. We know that that isn't the case. But I ask you, don't look at the abuses. Look at the fruit of those who use the gifts in line with the CHurch!

Okay, I'm off to my eye doctor for a regular check up.

See you on Monday. And please pray for me as always.

God bless.