|
|
|
Baptism in Jesus' Name & "Holy Spirit" Baptism |
The early Church did not yet use the term "Trinity" and hence did not refer to Christian baptism specifically with that term. New Testament references to baptism in "Jesus' name" (Acts 2:38; Acts 19:5) was the Apostles' term for what today we call Trinitarian Baptism. They refer to the same thing. Christ's baptism is always in the Trinitarian form. Matt. 28:19 Let's look at Acts 19:1-7: "While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul passed through the interior of the country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples to whom he put the question: 'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?' They answered, 'We have not so much as heard that there is a Holy Spirit.' 'Well, how were you baptized?' he persisted. They replied, 'With the baptism of John.' Paul then explained, 'John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He used to tell the people about the one who would come after him in whom they were to believe--that is, Jesus.' When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. As Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came down on them and they began to speak in tongues and to utter prophecies. There were in the company about twelve men in all." Paul was surprised when the men responded that they had never heard of the Holy Spirit. Why? Because everyone who is baptized in Christ's baptism hears of the Holy Spirit in the Trinitarian formula: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." That's why Paul asked "how were you baptized." The fact they responded "with the baptism of John" confirmed that they had not received Christ's baptism - the Trinitarian formula. Some Protestants say that when the men were baptized in the "name of the Lord Jesus" they received "Holy Spirit" baptism as opposed to water baptism. They apparently equate all "water" baptism, even that of Christ - Trinitarian form - with John's baptism of repentance. Others, such as many Pentcostals, say that Paul re-baptized the men, but literally in "Jesus' name" rather than with the Trinitarian formula. Both are wrong. Paul DID water re-baptize the men…BUT WITH THE TRINITARIAN FORMULA! Confirmation What about Paul's laying on of hands? Paul's laying on of hands was the Sacrament of Confirmation! Compare Acts 8:13 -19 where Confirmation (laying-on of hands) was administered after Baptism. Philip had baptized. But since he was apparently only a deacon (per Catechism of Trent) he did not have authority to administer Confirmation. Peter & John were sent to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation by the laying-on of hands. See also Hebrews 6:2 regarding "instruction about baptisms and laying-on of hands." (Instructions which do not appear to be detailed in Scripture, but come down to us in the Apostolic Tradition of the Church.) To this date in the Holy Catholic Church, the Bishop is the ordinary minister of Confirmation. Christian Baptism vs. John's Baptism Baptism in "Jesus' name" is the New Testament way of distinguishing Christian Baptism from John's baptism. They are not the same thing. Paul's re-baptism of the men in Acts 19:1-7 conclusively shows that Christian baptism (the Trinitarian formula) is different from John's baptism. When Peter says: " 'You must reform and be baptized, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, that your sins may be forgiven….' " (Acts 2:38) he is specifically distinguishing Christian baptism (the Trinitarian form) from the Baptism of John. Indeed, it is probable that some in the crowd of 3,000 that day that accepted Christ's baptism (Trinitarian form) had already been baptized in John's baptism. No exception was stated for those who may have already received John's baptism. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia on Baptism (below), the Council of Trent anathematized as heresy the belief that: "The baptism of John (the Precursor) had the same efficacy as the baptism of Christ," You see, John's Baptism was merely a baptism of repentance foreshadowing Christ's. Acts 19:4. Christ's Baptism - in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit - is for the forgiveness of sin. Acts 2:38. It is the rebirth by water and the Holy Spirit. John 3:5. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church (below - section 1262) says: "Thus the two principal effects are purification from sins and new birth in the Holy Spirit." Not the same thing at all. _________________ For an Ecumenical Note, Trent also anathematized as heresy the belief that: "Baptism given by heretics in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost with the intention of performing what the Church performs, is not true baptism," The Holy Catholic Church recognizes Protestant Trinitarian baptism as valid. Which is more than many Protestants say of Catholic baptism. Further Materials Baptism Catechism of the Catholic Church Catholic Encyclopedia (Distinguishes John's Baptism from Christ's Baptism*) Confirmation Catechism of the Catholic Church Catholic Encyclopedia (Also sees Confirmation in Paul's laying-on of hands in Acts 19.)
* Excerpt from Catholic Encyclopedia on Baptism: Distinguishing Christ's Baptism from John's Baptism But above all must be considered the baptism of St. John the Precursor. 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." Durandus calls it a sacrament, indeed, but of the Old Law, and St. Bonaventure places it as a medium between the Old and New Dispensations. It is of Catholic faith that the Precursor's baptism was essentially different in its effects from the baptism of Christ, It is also to be noted that those who had previously received John's baptism had to receive later the Christian baptism (Acts, xix). | HOME | |