Acts Of The Apostles

[Brother Adam]

Brethren, I've read about half way through Acts today and I ran across some verses that boggle my mind how a Catholic would deal with them, but you have never let me down, so I present them here for your consideration.

Acts 8:9-25 is just plain confusing. Why didn't they recieve the Holy Spirit at baptism? Isn't this the only time when someone recieves the Holy Spirit, thus making, in your view, baptism a necessity?

In 10:25, if Peter is the first Pope, and popes are willing to let people bow down to them, why did Peter stop someone from doing this? Why do Pope's allow it when the first did not?

In 10:45-48, again, why do the disciples recieve the Holy Spirit if they are not yet saved (have recieved baptism)?

[foundsheep]

[quote]ACTS 8
16
for it had not yet fallen upon any of them; [b]they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus[/b][/quote]

because they where not baptized with it. Remember baptism is [b]In the name of the father ,and of the son, and of the Holy Spirit.[/b]

Matthew 28
18
11 Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19
Go, therefore, 12 and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,

[Laudate_Dominum]

Brother. The Acts of the Apostles does not have all the Theological distinctions and detailed Sacramental Theology of today, but I will say a few things which may be a bit anachronistic, but this is how I understand these passages:

When one is baptised they receive sanctifying grace. This is scriptural and everything. You are born again at baptism, you die with Christ, you are given a new life, life in the Spirit, etc..
However there are different ways one can receive the Holy Spirit. The grace of baptism is real and effectual, but there is a sense in which the graces are latent in the person, not fully actualized.
Also in the Sacrament of Confirmation (which could be what the laying on of hands stuff is related to?) the person receives a special annointing which is supposed to help the person witness to the Faith and live in the Spirit more deeply.
There is also what some call baptism in the Holy Spirit, which is a special thing which might be what this is talking about. It is a special annointing which may bring about the charismatic gifts (tongues, prophecy, etc..)
So anyway, a person receives the Holy Spirit at baptism is one sense, but there are other senses where one can be said to receive the Holy Spirit (although it is really more of an actualization of what was received at baptism) and I believe that this is what is happening in Acts. It is talking about receiving the Holy Spirit more in the active sense of the gifts and everything. Especially since verse 13 indicates seeing signs and miracles it would seem that the sense of receiving the Holy Spirit in the preceding verses is the sense of this active annointing which manifests itself with special gifts.

Verse 10:25 says that the man "fell down at his feet and worshipped him". There are plenty of instances in the Bible of falling down at someones feet to show honor, reverence, submission or whatever that do not involve worship. The key here is that it says "and worshipped him", thus Peter rightly admonished him for worshipping a man. But also just because it can be appropriate to show respect to the pope through outward postures such as kneeling or whatever, doesn't mean the pope has to allow it. If the Pope said, "knock it off, you're makin' me nervous!" that would be perfectly fine. A common problem is to equate kneeling or bowing as intrinsically worship, this is not the case, the disposition of the heart determines that, the act itself can mean any number of things. And just because one Pope would allow or not allow a particular gesture of respect or whatever doesn't mean that the other Popes should do the same. The Papacy coexisted through eras of monarchies and nobility where it would be an outrageous act of disrespect to not bow or kneel and all that when in the presence of the Pope, it partly depends on the cultural context too. A small community of Jews hanging out in Jerusalem is a different context than say, the Popes who were seen as higher than the kings of their time.

As to vs 45-48, again, it indicates that in this context the "pouring out of the Holy Spirit" is in reference to the active, charismatic gifts. "For they heard them speaking in tongues..."
God chose to give these people the gifts as a sign to the Jewish Christians that the Gentiles were just as valid as they were. It was an extraordinary phenomenon, but the early days of the Church were packed with those anyway!

[foundsheep]

[quote]In 10:25, if Peter is the first Pope, and popes are willing to let people bow down to them, why did Peter stop someone from doing this? Why do Pope's allow it when the first did not?[/quote]

I would think Peter did not want Cornelius idolizing him as God. I myself would bow to the Pope out of reverence to him being the Lords representitive on earth.

[Lil Red]

Baptism is Salvific, Not Just Symbolic
Acts 8:12-13; 36; 10:47 - if belief is all one needs to be saved, why is everyone instantly baptized after learning of Jesus?


Infant Baptism
Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, which generally included infants and young children. There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults.


Pouring and Sprinkling versus Immersion
Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized in the house of Cornelius, even though hot tubs and swimming pools were not part of homes. Those in the house had to be sprinkled.


edited to add my source: [url="http://www.scripturecatholic.com/index.html"]Scripture Catholic[/url]

Edited March 11, 2004 by Lil Red Devil

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote]Acts 8:9-25 is just plain confusing. Why didn't they recieve the Holy Spirit at baptism? Isn't this the only time when someone recieves the Holy Spirit, thus making, in your view, baptism a necessity?[/quote]

The Holy Spirit is also conferred at Confirmation and Ordination, giving a new ministry each time. Basically, what Laudate Dominum said.

[quote]In 10:25, if Peter is the first Pope, and popes are willing to let people bow down to them, why did Peter stop someone from doing this? Why do Pope's allow it when the first did not?[/quote]

Peter was a very humble man. It is believed by many scholars that Mark was Peter's disciple, and Mark doesn't mention the events of Matthew 16:17-19. We think that Peter just left these things out.

Also, it is possible that he wouldn't allow it in that case because he knew that the intent was worship, not respect.

[quote]In 10:45-48, again, why do the disciples recieve the Holy Spirit if they are not yet saved (have recieved baptism)?[/quote]

I'm not sure that the text explicitly says that those who had received the Holy Spirit had not been baptized. It seems to me from the context that St. Peter meant something along the lines of "Gentiles (those of them who have been baptized) can receive the Holy Spirit, so certainly all Gentiles should be allowed baptism, if God would give the Spirit to the baptized Gentiles." That works with the wording and context.

Edited March 11, 2004 by Raphael

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Mar 10 2004, 04:54 PM'] Brethren, I've read about half way through Acts today and I ran across some verses that boggle my mind how a Catholic would deal with them, but you have never let me down, so I present them here for your consideration.

Acts 8:9-25 is just plain confusing. Why didn't they recieve the Holy Spirit at baptism? Isn't this the only time when someone recieves the Holy Spirit, thus making, in your view, baptism a necessity?

[/quote]
There are a couple of things to note.

First some background (not responding directly to your question).

The Apostles' Baptism was a tad different from ours, in that it wasn't Sacramental. It was simply a water baptism. Remember, the Holy Spirit was only sent AFTER Christ ascended. Jesus said, "If I do not go, then the Advocate will not be sent". Baptism became Sacramental when Christ told the Apostles to Baptise in the name of the Holy Trinity. John the Baptist wasn't baptising (as far as I know) in the name of the Trinity, because until then, this mistery had not been revealed. So after Penticost, when the Apostles were sent the Comforter, they were confirmed in their water baptism and in their faith, and they recieved the Holy Spirit in His Fullness.

Now, in response to your question...

Baptism makes us Children of God (Father Son and Spirit). We are given the Spirit, but as the Catechism points out - not in His Fullness. In Confirmation we recieve the Fullness of the Spirit. Why is this so? Because Baptism is a Birth in Spirit. We still need to grow. Confirmation can then be compared to a growth spirt. Those who "still needed the Spirit" in Acts 8, then, were Recieving the Spirit in Confirmation. They had been Born in Spirit through Baptism, yet they had not Recieved the Fullness of Spirit through Confirmation.

If anything this passage in acts reaffirms the Catholic Sacrament of Confirmation! It affirms the necessity of Baptism and then it also affirms the necessity of growth and a continuation in the Sacramental life.




[quote]In 10:25, if Peter is the first Pope, and popes are willing to let people bow down to them, why did Peter stop someone from doing this? Why do Pope's allow it when the first did not?[/quote]

It is a matter of intention on the part of the individual, and the will of the Pope. The person in Acts 10:25 was reverencing St. Peter. We don't know his intention. Peter, as we well know, was not the greatest of saints prior to his conversion and following of Christ. And even then he denied Christ three times. So, it might have been out of humility that Peter wanted no such respect (even if it was merely respect). But perhaps the Holy Spirit revealed to Peter that Cornelius was idolizing him as though he was God. So Peter told him to get up.

It doesn't at all take away from the fact that if the intention is NOT to worship as though God, then it is perfectly okay. The Isrealits had to look at a serpant to be healed. The ark of the Covenant couldn't even be touched.

The current Pope wouldn't want anyone to worship him. But he understands our desire to honor him. It can also be hurtfull sometimes to turn someone away that wishes to honor you. So it really is a judgment issue on the part of the Pope.

[quote]In 10:45-48, again, why do the disciples recieve the Holy Spirit if they are not yet saved (have recieved baptism)?[/quote]

The Holy Spirit blows as He wills. And though the Holy Spirit may use even pagans for GREAT events and miracles, miracles and supernatural Godley gifts are not requisit to salvation. That is why Saints of the Catholic Church are not cannonized based on the miracles they work on earth. It is testimony to the fact that the Holy Spirit is the worker of the miracles, not the individuals. Salvation comes from being a [b]member[/b] of the Holy Family, not necessarily by being an [b]instrument[/b] of the Holy Family.




Bro, actually, I've read Acts through and had the exact opposite thoughts. How Catholic it is! I mean, how do Protestants reconcile the use of relics (like how the deciples used washclothes of the Apostles to heal people). How people would be healed by being hit by the shadow of St. Peter.

There are numerous things that are simply Catholic.

Anyway. God bless you and I hope that answered some of your questions.

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='foundsheep' date='Mar 10 2004, 05:15 PM']
because they where not baptized with it. Remember baptism is [b]In the name of the father ,and of the son, and of the Holy Spirit.[/b]

Matthew 28
18
11 Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19
Go, therefore, 12 and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, [/quote]
Actually, foundsheep, this is not quite the right explenation. At first, I had the same thoughts. But after studying a bit...

"in the name of the Lord Jesus" doesn't mean what it sounds like.


When they said that they had only been Baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus, they didn't mean to say that the formula for their baptism was "in the name of the son".


"in the name of" whoever, often means, "as **whoever** had commanded".

Like for instance if I tell you to go to your mom and tell her "I love her". Then you go to your mom and tell yer that you love her. But a third person gives the acount saying that Foundsheep went to his mom in the name of Jake.

Therefore, the sentance should be read as, "they had only been Baptised [as the Lord Jesus had commanded]"


Jesus commanded them to Baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

So, in actuallity, they were Baptised in the name of the Trinity. But they were only Baptised. They still needed to be Confirmed (the laying of hands).

[Brother Adam]

So wait....they were baptized and unsaved?

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Mar 11 2004, 02:52 PM'] So wait....they were baptized and unsaved? [/quote]
No, they were baptised and "not-yet-but-in-the-process-of-being saved".


Just like we all are.

The were "saved" in the sence that as Children of God the Gates of Heaven were opened for them through the Graces they recieved in baptism. The were washed of their sins (both actual and original), and they were recieved into the Family of the trinity.

But they had not yet recieved the Spirit in His Fullness.

One need not have the fullness of the Spirit to be saved. Note: the good theif was only Baptised by desire, yet he did not "have the Spirit" (i.e. was not Confirmed).

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote] So wait....they were baptized and unsaved?[/quote]

Whom are you addressing?