2

Acts 8:14-17:

“Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. These two went down and prayed for them so that they would receive the Holy Spirit. (For the Spirit had not yet come upon any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then Peter and John placed their hands on the Samaritans, and they received the Holy Spirit.”

For someone who claims that baptism fills us with the Holy Spirit (baptismal regeneration), how is this reconciled with this verse, which seems to indicate that baptism did not do anything?

Luke Hill
  • 5,023
  • 3
  • 15
  • 67
  • 2
    I understand that The Church of Christ and the International Church of Christ (ICOC) believe in baptismal regeneration, and that water baptism is essential for salvation. Both denominations came out of the Restoration Movement. Are there any others that believe water baptism is necessary in order to be filled with the Holy Spirit? – Lesley May 15 '23 at 16:32
  • @Lesley RCC and Orthodox – Luke Hill May 15 '23 at 16:43
  • By RCC I take it you mean the Roman Catholic Church and NOT The Religion Communicators Council which also uses the acronym RCC. Might I suggest it would be helpful if you included the Roman Catholic and Orthodox tags so people could respond without having to do a Wikipedia search first? – Lesley May 16 '23 at 07:40
  • 1
    @Lesley I didn’t do that because I’m talking about people who hold to baptismal regeneration on the whole. When I ask a question about eternal security, I need not list every single church that holds to eternal security in the tags. Instead, I’m asking for a general question about a specific doctrine. – Luke Hill May 16 '23 at 13:23

3 Answers3

2

The first baptism (referred to in Acts 8:16) did not achieve the in-filling of the Holy Spirit because He was not yet given (from the Father, through the ascended Christ - see the oil upon the head of the High Priest).

Only with the coming of the apostles (the ministers of Christ, sent by Christ to minister the gospel and to minister Christ) did the Samaritans receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Therefore they placed their hands upon them and prayed for them and they received the Holy Spirit.

(Note and note especially - the apostles did not re-baptise them.)

This was a transitional period, soon after the ascension, and the Holy Spirit had not yet been given in that part of the country.

This is an important feature, that the ministry sent of Christ, the apostolic ministry which preaches the gospel and ministers Christ, is essential to the Church.

But this does not prove 'baptismal regeneration', I have to add.

Regeneration is a work of the Father within the soul. Baptism is a public testimony that regeneration has occurred within the soul.

As noted in comment, there was - also - what is called 'the baptism of John', Acts 18:25, which was, again, a transitional baptism (John being the last, and greatest, of the prophets of Israel/Judah, yet overlapping in both time and function with Jesus, the Messiah, Himself).

This baptism, also, is not - yet - as commanded by Jesus' words 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit', Matthew 28:19, for, as yet, it could not be uttered as such : the Holy Spirit not having been granted as a gift from the Father in heaven. (Or, transitionally, not yet having been realised as given until ministered so by the apostolic Ministry sent of Jesus Christ, directly from heaven, as ascended in manhood.)

Nigel J
  • 25,017
  • 2
  • 26
  • 63
  • 1
    This doesn't really answer my question - if the baptismal regeneration claim is that it does fill a person with the Holy Spirit, why did it not work for these places that were under the new covenant at that point? In fact, if they had faith, why did they no receive the Holy Spirit under a non-baptismal regeneration view? – Luke Hill May 15 '23 at 16:13
  • 1
    @Luke Hill Do not the last two sentences by Nigel J. answer your last question in your comment? – Anne May 15 '23 at 16:31
  • 1
    @LukeHill I think I fully explained that. 'Able ministers of the new testament' are required (sent by Christ, Himself). The church does not operate in a vacuum. – Nigel J May 15 '23 at 16:31
  • 1
    @Anne the last two sentences deny baptismal regeneration. – Luke Hill May 15 '23 at 16:44
  • @NigelJ so are you saying the baptism wasn't valid? – Luke Hill May 15 '23 at 16:44
  • 1
    @LukeHill Not at all. In another place, the 'baptism of John' is referred to. Here, the 'baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus' is referred to. But Jesus' command was 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit'. Which was not - yet - fully fulfilled since the Holy Spirit was not yet given. I hope that is clarified for you. – Nigel J May 15 '23 at 19:52
  • 2
    @LukeHill as to 'baptismal regeneration', that wording (as such) is not in scripture. We have 'baptism' and we have 'regeneration' and, yes, they are connected. But they are not connected in quite the way your question implies. – Nigel J May 15 '23 at 19:54
  • 1
    @NigelJ I'm asking from the perspective of baptismal regeneration, not seeking to prove if its true or false. – Luke Hill May 15 '23 at 19:56
  • 1
    @LukeHill Well, yes, indeed. And I am doing my best to accommodate that but the true answer lies in between. – Nigel J May 15 '23 at 19:59
  • @LukeHill Please also see my edit regarding that the apostles did not re-baptise, they only *laid on hands*. – Nigel J May 15 '23 at 21:22
1

At the risk of being too direct, those who "defend baptismal generation" don't interact with Acts 8 much at all, since it's not a passage that clearly speaks to what baptism is and does. We learn very little about the doctrine of baptism from Acts 8. Instead, we follow the ancient practice of letting the clearer parts of scripture speak first and shed light on the less clear passages.

0

Traditionally there are 2 parts to the baptism service: baptism and chrismation. The chrismation involves the anointing with oil and sealing with the Holy Spirit. So I would understand this as the Samaritans had been baptized, but not chrismated. In fact, in the Orthodox church, some converts from other branches of Christianity are received simply by chrismation like the Samaritans as their baptisms are not regarded as having an invalid form.

Ian
  • 1,210
  • 10
  • 12
  • Is the belief that the Holy Spirit is not received till chrismation/confirmation? – Luke Hill May 16 '23 at 13:24
  • 1
    @LukeHill - Yes, I believe so: https://www.oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-sacraments/chrismation#:~:text=If%20baptism%20is%20our%20personal,Orthodox%20Church%20together%20with%20baptism. Baptism is a participation in the death and resurrection of Christ, and Chrismation is our personal Pentecost. – Ian May 16 '23 at 15:25
  • I should also add that just as Old Testament saints were saved without personally participating in Pentecost, so I believe many will find salvation who haven't been received what I understand as the fullness of the faith. – Ian May 16 '23 at 15:27