Saturday, August 31, 2019

Addressing Roman Catholic Apologetics On Acts 10:42-48 As It Relates To Baptismal Regeneration

  • Discussion:
          -A blogger who goes by the name of Catholic Nick recently published an article in which he tries proving that Cornelius is not a valid example to cite in favor of salvation taking place prior to baptism. Following are some of his remarks alongside with a critique:

          "Why would a Gentile Believer who just testified publicly with the Gift of Tongues need to further testify in a far less dramatic Baptismal rite? The Protestant claim is self-refuting here."

          First of all, there is no reason to believe that a person can be baptized with the Holy Spirit prior to conversion. Being filled with the Spirit of God and becoming a Christian are not separated in Scripture (Romans 8:9; 1 Corinthians 12:13).

          Secondly, we participate in the ordinance of baptism because Jesus Christ commanded us to do so.

           Thirdly, the gift of tongues was not meant for everybody in the church and served a purpose according to God's design.

          "Baptism as a mere symbol makes no sense at this point, because it cannot and doesn't prove anything that the Gift of Tongues didn't already prove. The only rational explanation here is that Baptism does do more for salvation and is necessary, and thus the Gentile Believers got Baptized to receive certain saving graces they still needed."

          The ritual of baptism is not a mere symbol. Neither is it optional. Moreover, the text of Acts 10:43-48 says nothing in regard to receiving grace from God through baptism.

           It can be seen clearly from the context of this passage that Cornelius believed and so was saved prior to the moment of his baptism. Having heard the gospel, Cornelius received the Spirit of God prior to being baptized. That is a sure indication that he believed what he heard.

          "For a Protestant to say they got Baptized as a mere formality just because Jesus said to do it is hardly a good argument, as if Jesus gives us empty commands that don't actually do anything."

          Baptism is not a mere formality. It serves as a reminder of our new identity in Jesus Christ. We are supposed to reflect on our baptism with the intent of building up our faith. Baptism is a picture of dying to sin in order to live for Christ. The fundamental problem with Catholic Nick's argumentation here is that it so grossly misrepresents the doctrine of Sola Fide.

          The Apostle John wrote an epistle for the express purpose of telling us how we can have assurance of eternal life (1 John 5:13). Yet, he nowhere mentions in that context the Eucharist, confession to a priest, baptism, Marian devotion, or any other concept linked to the sacramental system of justification taught by Rome. That point in of itself speaks volumes.

1 comment:

  1. Tongues don't demonstrate that someone has the Holy Spirit or are even Christian, because the Mormons and many pagan religions have tongue-speakers.

    In the Bible baptism always comes AFTER profession of faith; not the other way around. Baptism is what the Christians do because they have become Christians by being justified by faith in Christ; it is an outward, public sign of the person’s confession. There is nothing about baptism that saves a person who has not placed their faith in the atoning work of Christ. One is forced to ask why Christ never baptized anyone, and why Paul baptized only a few, if baptism was required for salvation? Faith in Christ alone is what saves us from sin (John 3:16, 36; John 5:24; John 6:47; John 20:31; Acts 16:31; Rom. 1:16; Rom. 3:22,25; Rom. 10:9; Tit. 3:5; Eph. 2:8-9, 16; et al).