What is Catholicism?

It is the scriptures that prove you were not baptized according to the Christian model.

 

You are wrong on Baptism and agree with the Papacy. What more can I say other than you have no interest in the truth concerning it.

 

Yet, you have zero scripture to support your assertion. Interesting.

 

How did Peter and the rest baptize? Answer this according to scripture and learn the truth.

 

How am I wrong on what the Bible teaches? To immerse in the "name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" is to do it in Jesus name as He taught. Matthew 28:19. Are you denying this?

 

We don't actually know. 5000 were baptized on Pentacost. We don't know if it was immersion, pouring or sprinkling.
The point is, you have provided zero scripture for your assertions.

 

You are wrong because you did not interpret Jesus the way the Apostles did. You rejected them and went with the Antichrist Papacy instead.

 

So you never read Acts to see how they baptized?

 

I attended a Baptist Church for a time but I had to move later. While I was there I was approached to become a Baptist and the only thing that held me up was they wanted me to renew my Baptism. I was already an adult and saved when I was baptized originally and to me, if I were to be baptized again, it would dishonor my original baptism so instead they put me under their "watch-care" is that still a thing in the Baptist Church?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I was re-baptized when I learned the Apostles understood Jesus' baptism to be "in the name of Jesus Christ", instead of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I didn't consider my baptism to be scriptural. The Papacy changed it to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the second century.

 

Sure I have read Acts 2. Tell me, were the 5000 immersed at Pentacost, sprinkled or poured. Show me in Acts 2 what was done.

Dave, are you a legalist?

 

I was baptized a long time ago, I remember I was immersed to represent dying to my sin and being buried with Jesus and then i was raised out of the water into a new life in Him; I don't remember the exact words that were said so do you think I should be baptized again because I don't remember?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

it seems obvious that there has to be water that you can "get in" and the water represents being buried. In Acts 8:36 when Phillip baptized the eunuch they came across water, they got OUT of the of chariot to get IN the water.
If you are representing being put in the ground because you're dead, being completely covered by the water would be the way to do that. It is true that baptism represents a good conscience towards God but I want to do my baptism like Jesus did His and I don't believe He just sloshed around in the Jordan to represent being buried. John the Baptist stayed around the Jordan I imagine because it was a big enough water source to submerse people...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Act 2:41 NKJVThen those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Thanks for clarifying. 3000 baptized that day. 11 disciples available to do the baptism. Where was the pool that could cover immersion for that many in Jerusalem?

Where does it say they were immersed?

My point is that Dave is so legalistic that he rejects a baptism if it is done in the name of the father, son and holy spirit. Such legalism is contrary to God's grace and speaks of a salvation by law.

 

We don't actually know. 5000 were [immersed] on Pentacost. We don't know if it was immersion, pouring or sprinkling.

 

No. You don't believe to immerse in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is in the name of Jesus Christ. Not to believe, that, is a false teaching of modalists.

 

and what if they didn't get started until 10 am or later then they only had a few hours to Baptize... the fact is the facts aren't there for us to know exactly how things went down, but when Jesus was baptized there was water and I want to follow His example. You ask where does it say they were immersed, and I say where does it say they were sprinkled. You say time constraints dictate that 3,000 people couldn't be immersed and there wasn't any water anyways. Good questions that the scripture doesn't answer, but what if more than the the 11 baptized people? Jesus only had 12 Apostles but He had more disciples. If recall Jesus appeared to 500 disciples before His ascension? 1 Cor 15 Paul seems to say this, and just before Pentecost in Acts 1:21 it shows that the Apostles weren't just hanging around by themselves, but what about water? The Gihon Spring is the only water source for Jerusalem (I think) so they store up water in pools and this has served the city for thousands of years. Jerusalem has several large pools, large enough for a hundred people to be baptized at once. When my church baptizes they can baptize about 30 people an hour easily, and if a hundred people baptized 30 people each that would take them about an hour to baptize 3,000 people? I don't know, I wasn't there but the scriptures seem to point to immersion to represent burial and not sprinkling. If someone thinks they are following God's will and are fully convinced in their mind that sprinkling is sufficient to imitate being buried with Christ, then God is their judge, but I think they are wrong


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

As a Baptist, you don't know how they baptized back then? You are supposed to know of all people.

 

The Apostolic Pentecostal cult has it right as far as Jesus' name. But they do not understand the trinity. That turns their baptism into a damnable heresy. The early church had it right for the right reasons. You also cannot understand the trinity unless you grasp the Name of Jesus Christ as it relates to it.