How do defenders of baptismal regeneration understand Acts 8?

Upvote: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.

Upvote: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.

Upvote: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.)

More post

Search Posts

Related post