The One Baptism
- Thread starter Charlie24
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
So you don’t believe the Spirit being the downpayment of our inheritance relates to our salvation?Sounds like MIS-speak to me, eh?
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
I think the root of so much division is when people try to justify separating water from spirit regarding baptism. Jesus didn't do that. (John 3:5) A better understanding of the Incarnation Principle would clear the fog.
There is, in the Catholic vision of reality, a profound understanding of the impenetration of matter by grace which we call the Incarnational principle. The Incarnation of God the Son as Jesus Christ is the bedrock which underlies the Christian vision of the relationship between God and man. In assuming a human nature, God demonstrates at once that creation, including human nature, is not only good but is capable of being further elevated through the impenetration of the Divine life.
There is, in the Catholic vision of reality, a profound understanding of the impenetration of matter by grace which we call the Incarnational principle. The Incarnation of God the Son as Jesus Christ is the bedrock which underlies the Christian vision of the relationship between God and man. In assuming a human nature, God demonstrates at once that creation, including human nature, is not only good but is capable of being further elevated through the impenetration of the Divine life.
GRACE ambassador
Well-Known Member
With all my heart:
2Co_1:22 Who (God, not man with water) Hath Also Sealed us,
And Given The Earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.
2Co_5:5 Now He That Hath Wrought us for the selfsame thing
is God, Who Also Hath Given Unto us The Earnest of The Spirit.
"Christ...In Whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard The Word
Of Truth, The Gospel of your Salvation: in Whom also after that
ye believed, ye Were Sealed with That Holy Spirit Of Promise,
Which Is The Earnest of our inheritance until The Redemption
of The Purchased Possession, Unto The Praise Of His Glory."
(Eph 12-14)
GRACE ambassador
Well-Known Member
Why not? God Separates/Identifies them for us, In His Two Different Contexts:
Three Different Bible Baptisms:
God's Context Of Prophecy/Law for ISRAEL:
►►► The Twelve Were Sent to {water} baptize! ◄◄◄
The TWO Main (of 12) baptismS =
A) water, For remission of sins/induction into Israeli "priesthood!":
(Matthew_3:5-6; Mark_1:4; Luke_3:3; John_1:31; Luke_7:29-30; Acts_10:37)
(Matthew_28:19; Mark_16:16; Acts_2:38, 22:16; Ezekiel_36:25; Isaiah 52:15)
+
B) WITH The Holy Spirit, Poured Out By CHRIST, for power, signs And wonders!
(Isaiah_44:3; Matthew_3:11; Mark_1:8, 16:17-18;
Luke_24:49; Acts_2:17-18, 38, 8:15-17, 11:16)
Prophecy/Law for ISRAEL!
Rightly Divided (2 Timothy 2:15) From “Things That Differ” (online)
God's Other Context Of Mystery/GRACE! =
our "apostle to the Gentiles" for The Body Of CHRIST:
►►► Paul Was Not Sent to {water} baptize! Why Not?: ◄◄◄
Today:
Only ONE Baptism = "BY" The ONE Spirit = God's OPERATION,
Spiritually Identifying members In (The ONE Body Of) CHRIST!!
(Ephesians_4:5; Colossians_2:12; Galatians_3:27;
Romans_6:3-4; 1_Corinthians_12:13 KJB!)
Conclusion: God's ONE Baptism Today? = (God's Math) ONE?
OR, (men's math) equals TWO? = watering Down The Gospel! Correct?
----------------------------------
These have also been Very Helpful:
Bible Answer To Confusing church Bewilderment! and: Water That Divides!!
GRACE, Peace, And JOY...
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Okay. Good.
But do you realize that there is a first baptism done by the Spirit into the body of Christ (with Christ being the head of that body)? See 1 Corinthians 12:13 and Colossians 1:18. This is not the same type of spiritual baptism that Jesus does afterward with us believers. John the baptist mentions how we are to be baptized by Jesus into the Holy Spirit in Matthew 3:11. This is the downpayment. But the first spiritual baptism is done by the Spirit and that type of spiritual baptism baptizes us into Jesus and the church body. So this is TWO forms of spiritual baptisms that is going on here that is salvific. There are actually three, but I am just focusing with you on two of them here.
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,392
- 1,671
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
First off, Scripture NOR The Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by ONLY good works. So you can delete that lie from your brain.
Second off, in a previous post you said we are saved by Grace alone. Now you say faith alone. Which one is it?
Third off, our works are not a gift to Christ. Our works (good deeds) are a gift to those that receive them no matter if they be atheist, Christian, Jew or agnostic. Our works are ONE of the things that saves us. Like Scripture says our faith, without works, is dead!
Fourth off, our works are what Jesus said they are, not what YOU think they are: for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ ....... ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.’
And what did Jesus tell you will happen to you if you don't do those works Charlie?
Charlie will go away into eternal punishment.
What did Jesus say happens to those that do those good works Charlie? They will go into eternal life.
So you can continue to misinterpret Paul's words, or you can listen to the clear words of Jesus. Your choice. Your soul.
Mary
1500 years and counting. I'll leave you Catholic folk alone now.
[/QUOTE]
Nice dodge Charlie.
What did Jesus say happens to those that do good works Charlie?
Nice dodge Charlie.
What did Jesus say happens to those that do good works Charlie?
[/QUOTE]
What did Paul say happens when we do the works for the wrong reasons?
Works are good and will be accomplished through the believer, but for what reason?
That reason will determine if your faith is acceptable or unacceptable.
We are no longer under Law, Marymog! Best to figure that out now, rather than later!
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,936
- 3,387
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
What did Paul say happens when we do the works for the wrong reasons?
Works are good and will be accomplished through the believer, but for what reason?
That reason will determine if your faith is acceptable or unacceptable.
We are no longer under Law, Marymog! Best to figure that out now, rather than later!
[/QUOTE]
Jesus emphasized:
John 14:15
“If you love me, keep my commands.
Ummmm, and Paul also said:
Gal. 5:6
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
Rom. 2:6
He will render to each one according to his works:
If YOU believe thatFaith is devoid of good works – you are NO better off than the demons (James 2:19), who also “believe” in God.
True Faith = Belief + Obedience/Works.
Anything else is just the false doctrine of easy-believeism . . .
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
What did Paul say happens when we do the works for the wrong reasons?
Works are good and will be accomplished through the believer, but for what reason?
That reason will determine if your faith is acceptable or unacceptable.
We are no longer under Law, Marymog! Best to figure that out now, rather than later!
[/QUOTE]
Good works, done in faith in Christ, strengthen our faith, they do not qualify our faith.
Good works, done in faith in Christ, strengthen our faith, they do not qualify our faith.
[/QUOTE]
There are many in this world who will not see the Kingdom of God because of their works.
They do not realize the Scripture says that "we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works."
Works are the result of salvation, never the cause.
When we make works the cause of salvation, then as Paul said, "Grace has been made void and of none effect!"
John's baptism did indeed remit sins as it was "the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" Luke 3:3, but unlike Acts 2:38, it had to be repeated periodically if new sins occurred no different than atonement under OT law, whereas when you're baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins per Acts 2:38, it's a one-time event with repentance required afterwards for subsequent sinning.
And the baptism with fire and the Holy Ghost per Luke 3:16, happened on the day of Pentecost and was meant for the apostles, fulfilling Jesus instructions to them in Luke 24:49 and cited again in Acts 1, the power from on high.
Further, we all receive the gift of the Holy Ghost per Acts 2:38, but that is NOT the miraculous manifestation of the various gifts noted in 1 Cor 12:8-10. The gift (singular) of the spirit itself is different than the gifts (plural) administered by or through the Spirit by the laying on of the apostle's hands, and they are all long dead as well as are those whom they laid their hands on.
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,392
- 1,671
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
What did Paul say happens when we do the works for the wrong reasons?
Works are good and will be accomplished through the believer, but for what reason?
That reason will determine if your faith is acceptable or unacceptable.
We are no longer under Law, Marymog! Best to figure that out now, rather than later!
[/QUOTE]
You dodged the question again Charlie. I asked you what JESUS said and in your answer you refer to Paul. I suspect you don't want to answer the question because if you did it would prove you wrong in your theory.
You dodged the question again Charlie. I asked you what JESUS said and in your answer you refer to Paul. I suspect you don't want to answer the question because if you did it would prove you wrong in your theory.
[/QUOTE]
You believe what you have to believe, Mary. We are opposites in belief, no need to continue striving with one another.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
Acts 8:14-17 – the people of Samaria were baptized in Christ, but did not receive the fullness of the Spirit until they were confirmed by the elders. Confirmation is a sacrament that Jesus Christ instituted within His Catholic Church to further strengthen those who have reached adulthood.
Acts 19:5-6 – the people of Ephesus were baptized in Christ, but Paul laid hands on them to seal them with the Holy Spirit. This sealing refers to the sacrament of confirmation.
Eph. 1:13 – Paul writes that the baptized Ephesians were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, in reference to confirmation.
Eph. 4:30 – Paul says the Ephesians were sealed in the Holy Spirit of God, in reference to the sealing of confirmation.
Heb. 6:2 – Paul gives instruction to the Hebrews about the laying on of hands, in reference to confirmation, not ordination. The early Church laid hands upon the confirmed and to administer the sacrament of confirmation.
Heb. 6:2 – this verse also refers to the cycle of life and its relationship to the sacraments – baptism, confirmation, death and judgment – which apply to all people.
John 6:27 – Jesus says the Father has set His seal on Him. As the Father sets His seal on Jesus, so Jesus sets His seal on us on the sacrament of baptism, and later, in the sacrament of confirmation.
Rev. 9:4 – the locusts could not harm those with the seal of God upon their foreheads. See also Rev. 14:1 and 22:4
Acts 19:5-6 – the people of Ephesus were baptized in Christ, but Paul laid hands on them to seal them with the Holy Spirit. This sealing refers to the sacrament of confirmation.
Eph. 1:13 – Paul writes that the baptized Ephesians were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, in reference to confirmation.
Eph. 4:30 – Paul says the Ephesians were sealed in the Holy Spirit of God, in reference to the sealing of confirmation.
Heb. 6:2 – Paul gives instruction to the Hebrews about the laying on of hands, in reference to confirmation, not ordination. The early Church laid hands upon the confirmed and to administer the sacrament of confirmation.
Heb. 6:2 – this verse also refers to the cycle of life and its relationship to the sacraments – baptism, confirmation, death and judgment – which apply to all people.
John 6:27 – Jesus says the Father has set His seal on Him. As the Father sets His seal on Jesus, so Jesus sets His seal on us on the sacrament of baptism, and later, in the sacrament of confirmation.
Rev. 9:4 – the locusts could not harm those with the seal of God upon their foreheads. See also Rev. 14:1 and 22:4
“And about your laughing at me and calling me “Christian,” you know not what you are saying. First, because that which is anointed is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible. For what ship can be serviceable and seaworthy, unless it be first caulked [anointed]? Or what castle or house is beautiful and serviceable when it has not been anointed? And what man, when he enters into this life or into the gymnasium, is not anointed with oil? And what work has either ornament or beauty unless it be anointed and burnished? Then the air and all that is under heaven is in a certain sort anointed by light and spirit; and are you unwilling to be anointed with the oil of God? Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God.”
Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, I:12 (A.D. 181).
Behold
Well-Known Member
God is not a Catholic.
Jesus is not a Catholic
Paul is not a Catholic
Peter is not a Catholic.
Originally the Catholic denomination was titled the "cult of Mary".
Also....When Paul speaks of being sealed in/by the Holy Spirit, He's speaking of becoming born again.
This is to become spiritually ONE with God, as the Holy Spirit birth's the believers spirit into the Holy Spirit of God.
Your analysis/logic is somewhat incorrect. There is no such thing as confirmation nor confirmation after the fact of infants who had water poured on them as a form of baptism prior to their belief, and their subsequent belief being supposedly then confirmed. It's unscriptural.
First of all, according to Acts 2:38, everyone baptized into Christ receives the Holy Ghost. That's the Holy Ghost or Spirit itself. The passage doesn't say you'll receive gifts of or from or by the Holy Ghost, but the Holy Ghost, singular, not the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, those listed in 1 Cor 12:8-10.
Secondly, Acts 8:14-17 clearly says the apostles laid their hands on them in verse 17.
This is no different to what occurred in Acts 19 when the Ephesians were re-baptized into Christ. Being baptized then into Christ, they too received the gift of the Holy Ghost per Acts 2:38, otherwise, Acts 2:38 would be untrue. Then, Paul, an apostle, laid his hands on them and they then received various miraculous gifts of the Spirit. Note they began speaking in tongues and prophesied.
This is a clear indication that the gift of the Holy Ghost is one thing, but the miraculous gifts received from or by the Holy Ghost is another and occurred as the result of the laying on of the apostle's hands. This is also consistent with Luke 24:49 (the power on high promised to the apostles) and Acts 1:4,5,8 and 2 when the Holy Ghost fell on them (the apostles) in the form of cloven tongues like fire in Acts 2:3 on the day of Pentecost.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
Since the practice of Confirmation in the Church is so well attested from Scripture forward, the earliest Protestant reformers didn’t outright reject it. The more liturgical, traditional Protestants — Lutherans, Anglicans, and Methodists, apparently some Presbyterians* — have retained Confirmation in some form. Because there is no explicit scriptural testimony that it was instituted by Christ Himself, however, these Protestants have generally held it not to have sacramental value. These groups, speaking generally, consider Confirmation to be a public profession of faith for children coming of age who wish to publicly embrace their Christian faith, a reaffirmation of the baptismal vows for those who were baptized as infants, and the end goal of a curriculum of catechesis (q.v. Calvin on Confirmation)
Most evangelicals, on the other hand, have completely rejected the practice of Confirmation as unbiblical — since the church can’t do anything that’s not in Scripture.† Most of these churches, in the Baptist tradition, practice believer’s baptism (the baptism only of adult believers, not infants), and for them Baptism takes the place of Confirmation as a public profession of faith for children coming of age and new believers.
And this is where, believe it or not, I feel we have some common ground. Though many of these groups consider it immoral and incorrect and unbiblical to baptize infants (or downright heretical if one is also Catholic), the practice of these churches outwardly is not completely alien from that of Catholics. Many of these communities, instead of infant baptism, have a rite of baby dedication that in many ways (by design, I think) mirrors a Catholic infant baptism. The child is dedicated to God, and the parents, and other family members, and the whole congregation, promise to diligently raise him or her up in the Christian faith. Likewise in the Catholic rite of baptism for an infant.
I have never understood, even when I was an evangelical, the evangelical objection to infant baptism. It seems in all literature I have ever read, especially from the Baptists, to be a vehement and visceral denial. “We do NOT believe in infant baptism,” any Baptist document is strident to point out. What are they afraid of — of appearing too Catholic? If Baptism is not sacramental, and is only a sign or public profession, why should it matter, regardless of what one church believes, how another church decides to present its public signs? But it does: paedobaptism (the baptism of infants) is often a major theological point of division among evangelicals, and has been, for many Catholic converts of an evangelical background, a major stumbling block.
At the other end, both Catholics and evangelicals have a rite of coming of age, of children reaching the age of reason and publicly professing to embrace the Christian faith. For evangelicals, it is Baptism, but — here’s the thing — for Catholics, Confirmation is part of the same process as Baptism. Confirmation is the completion — the confirmation — of the baptismal grace the believer received as an infant. I would present to my Baptist friends that Confirmation for Catholics functions in the same way as Baptism does in their churches, and is in truth part of the same movement of the Holy Spirit.
I’ve discovered another parallel in outward forms to Catholic Confirmation among Protestants — and they have no idea. It comes from the very neck of the woods from which I hail: the Pentecostal or Charismatic movement. I have mentioned it once before, almost exactly a year ago, and I wondered what it meant, without ever realizing that it ran parallel to the Sacrament of Confirmation: what Pentecostals call “the baptism of the Holy Spirit.” The Scriptures they read in the Acts of the Apostles as describing this second “baptism,” separated from the context of Church Tradition, are in fact the very passages that I have described that give the earliest accounts of Confirmation.
For Pentecostal churches, in particular the Assemblies of God in which I grew up, the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is necessarily accompanied by the evidence of speaking in tongues. They read in the Book of Acts that the descent of the Holy Spirit, in every case that it is mentioned, beginning with Acts 2, is accompanied by speaking in tongues and prophesying. In particular they note the incident in Acts 19 in which St. Paul “laid his hands on [believers]” and “the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying” (Acts 19:1–7). And this is commonly how Pentecostals receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit: by having other believers lay hands on them and pray that the Holy Spirit falls on them. This laying on of hands, in Acts, is precisely what we Catholics read as the Sacrament of Confirmation.
But we Catholics understand that the Sacrament of Confirmation “in a certain way perpetuates the grace of Pentecost in the Church”; that it is “the special outpouring of the Holy Spirit as once granted to the apostles on the day of Pentecost” (CCC 1288–1288,1302–1303). We believe that it, among other graces, “increases the gifts of the Holy Spirit in us.” This sounds in every way like the “Baptism of the Holy Spirit” I grew up with.
We Catholics believe that only a bishop has the authority to celebrate the Sacrament of Confirmation, or a priest to whom he delegates the authority (this actually goes for all of the Sacraments save Baptism). And, I can say without hesitation that Confirmation, spiritually, was for me unlike anything I’d ever experienced before. But, as I have written before, though God has instituted the Sacraments, He Himself is not bound by them (CCC 1257). It may be that in some portion, Pentecostals, in praying to receive the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, are given what they ask, by the overabundant grace of our God.
The Sacrament of Confirmation and Protestants: Profession of Faith or Pentecostal Fire?
So I’ve written a bit introducing the Sacrament of Confirmation, what it is and what it means; I’ve explicated Confirmation as it appears in Scripture and in the early Fathers of the Ch…
lonelypilgrim.com
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,936
- 3,387
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
WRONG on ALL counts.
For starters - the Catholic Church is not a “denomination”.. Denominations are PROTESTANT entities.
The Catholic Church is the Original Tree from which Protestantism splintered – and continues to splinter to this day. This fact is attested to by the likes of such men as eminent Protestant historians, J. N. D. Kelley in his book, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes and Kenneth Samples in his treatise, “What Think Ye of Rome?”.
Secondly - Peter and Paul were Catholics – and the BIBLE tells us that they were.
Pay attention:
Acts 9:31 talks about how the Church of the Apostles grew throughout the region. The language used here describes the Catholic Church:
“Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria experienced peace and thus was strengthened. Living in the fear of the Lord and in the encouragement of the Holy Spirit, the church increased in numbers.”
Here is the phrase in Greek:
η μεν ουν εκκλησια καθ ολης της ιουδαιας
The Catholic Church gets its name from the GREEK for “according to the whole” and “universal” - εκκλησια καθ ολης, which is pronounced “katah-holos”.
Εκκλησια (ekklesia) - A gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly; CHURCH
καθ (katah) - Through out, according to
ολης (holos) - All, whole, completely
"ekklesia Kata-holos" = CATHOLIC CHURCH.
Finally – I have challenged you on NUMEROUS occasions to prove your manure that the Catholic Church was originally called the “Cult of Mary”. You have RUN from this challenge EVERY time.
This is what God’s Word says about LIARS:
Rev. 21:8
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and ALL LIARS—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”
Do your HOMEWORK, son . . .
The practice of confirmation may be well attested to but that doesn't make it any more right or scriptural. It's neither and equates to adding to the word of God. Do it practice it believe it, doesn't matter, it's plain man made-up nonsense, wrong, and contrary to scripture.Since the practice of Confirmation in the Church is so well attested from Scripture forward, the earliest Protestant reformers didn’t outright reject it. The more liturgical, traditional Protestants — Lutherans, Anglicans, and Methodists, apparently some Presbyterians* — have retained Confirmation in some form. Because there is no explicit scriptural testimony that it was instituted by Christ Himself, however, these Protestants have generally held it not to have sacramental value. These groups, speaking generally, consider Confirmation to be a public profession of faith for children coming of age who wish to publicly embrace their Christian faith, a reaffirmation of the baptismal vows for those who were baptized as infants, and the end goal of a curriculum of catechesis (q.v. Calvin on Confirmation)
Most evangelicals, on the other hand, have completely rejected the practice of Confirmation as unbiblical — since the church can’t do anything that’s not in Scripture.† Most of these churches, in the Baptist tradition, practice believer’s baptism (the baptism only of adult believers, not infants), and for them Baptism takes the place of Confirmation as a public profession of faith for children coming of age and new believers.
And this is where, believe it or not, I feel we have some common ground. Though many of these groups consider it immoral and incorrect and unbiblical to baptize infants (or downright heretical if one is also Catholic), the practice of these churches outwardly is not completely alien from that of Catholics. Many of these communities, instead of infant baptism, have a rite of baby dedication that in many ways (by design, I think) mirrors a Catholic infant baptism. The child is dedicated to God, and the parents, and other family members, and the whole congregation, promise to diligently raise him or her up in the Christian faith. Likewise in the Catholic rite of baptism for an infant.
I have never understood, even when I was an evangelical, the evangelical objection to infant baptism. It seems in all literature I have ever read, especially from the Baptists, to be a vehement and visceral denial. “We do NOT believe in infant baptism,” any Baptist document is strident to point out. What are they afraid of — of appearing too Catholic? If Baptism is not sacramental, and is only a sign or public profession, why should it matter, regardless of what one church believes, how another church decides to present its public signs? But it does: paedobaptism (the baptism of infants) is often a major theological point of division among evangelicals, and has been, for many Catholic converts of an evangelical background, a major stumbling block.
At the other end, both Catholics and evangelicals have a rite of coming of age, of children reaching the age of reason and publicly professing to embrace the Christian faith. For evangelicals, it is Baptism, but — here’s the thing — for Catholics, Confirmation is part of the same process as Baptism. Confirmation is the completion — the confirmation — of the baptismal grace the believer received as an infant. I would present to my Baptist friends that Confirmation for Catholics functions in the same way as Baptism does in their churches, and is in truth part of the same movement of the Holy Spirit.
I’ve discovered another parallel in outward forms to Catholic Confirmation among Protestants — and they have no idea. It comes from the very neck of the woods from which I hail: the Pentecostal or Charismatic movement. I have mentioned it once before, almost exactly a year ago, and I wondered what it meant, without ever realizing that it ran parallel to the Sacrament of Confirmation: what Pentecostals call “the baptism of the Holy Spirit.” The Scriptures they read in the Acts of the Apostles as describing this second “baptism,” separated from the context of Church Tradition, are in fact the very passages that I have described that give the earliest accounts of Confirmation.
For Pentecostal churches, in particular the Assemblies of God in which I grew up, the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is necessarily accompanied by the evidence of speaking in tongues. They read in the Book of Acts that the descent of the Holy Spirit, in every case that it is mentioned, beginning with Acts 2, is accompanied by speaking in tongues and prophesying. In particular they note the incident in Acts 19 in which St. Paul “laid his hands on [believers]” and “the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying” (Acts 19:1–7). And this is commonly how Pentecostals receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit: by having other believers lay hands on them and pray that the Holy Spirit falls on them. This laying on of hands, in Acts, is precisely what we Catholics read as the Sacrament of Confirmation.
But we Catholics understand that the Sacrament of Confirmation “in a certain way perpetuates the grace of Pentecost in the Church”; that it is “the special outpouring of the Holy Spirit as once granted to the apostles on the day of Pentecost” (CCC 1288–1288,1302–1303). We believe that it, among other graces, “increases the gifts of the Holy Spirit in us.” This sounds in every way like the “Baptism of the Holy Spirit” I grew up with.
We Catholics believe that only a bishop has the authority to celebrate the Sacrament of Confirmation, or a priest to whom he delegates the authority (this actually goes for all of the Sacraments save Baptism). And, I can say without hesitation that Confirmation, spiritually, was for me unlike anything I’d ever experienced before. But, as I have written before, though God has instituted the Sacraments, He Himself is not bound by them (CCC 1257). It may be that in some portion, Pentecostals, in praying to receive the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, are given what they ask, by the overabundant grace of our God.
The Sacrament of Confirmation and Protestants: Profession of Faith or Pentecostal Fire?
So I’ve written a bit introducing the Sacrament of Confirmation, what it is and what it means; I’ve explicated Confirmation as it appears in Scripture and in the early Fathers of the Ch…lonelypilgrim.com
Similar threads
