Why don't Baptists believe Acts 2:38 literally?

[Thinkingstuff]

It's a poor reading of the Didache if it does (in my opinion)

I don't know it seems pretty clear

But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before. - Didache Chp 7

 

[The Biblicist]

I don't know it seems pretty clear

Here is another clear proof that the "Father's" are the records of apostasy. The Greek has a term for "pour" (epicheo) and it is used quite often in the New Testament but NOT ONCE in regard to the ordinance of baptism.

Jesus NEVER quoted oral traditions as his source of authority because the problem with all ORAL traditions is that they quickly corrupt into false and misleading ideas. Those false and misleading ideas were then written down and the consquence is the cult of catholicism.

 

[Yeshua1]

Here is another clear proof that the "Father's" are the records of apostasy. The Greek has a term for "pour" (epicheo) and it is used quite often in the New Testament but NOT ONCE in regard to the ordinance of baptism.

Jesus NEVER quoted oral traditions as his source of authority because the problem with all ORAL traditions is that they quickly corrupt into false and misleading ideas. Those false and misleading ideas were then written down and the consquence is the cult of catholicism.

The BIG problem reagrding oral traditions for Rome is that while even conservastiive Baptists would see that God would preserve parts of the Bible in the form of what was "handed down" as a tradition, such as what was held
to be historical accounts by the jewish people...

Those were JUST historical facts getting passed on down , NOT doctrinal, and ALL of it is guided over and preserved from any errors/mistake by the Holy Spirit, something RCC cannot calim!

 

[Doubting Thomas]

I don't know it seems pretty clear

Yep, to me as well.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Here is another clear proof that the "Father's" are the records of apostasy. The Greek has a term for "pour" (epicheo) and it is used quite often in the New Testament but NOT ONCE in regard to the ordinance of baptism.

Jesus NEVER quoted oral traditions as his source of authority because the problem with all ORAL traditions is that they quickly corrupt into false and misleading ideas. Those false and misleading ideas were then written down and the consquence is the cult of catholicism.

First support them and when you disagree with them throw them under the bus!!!! too funny. :laugh:

 

[reformed_baptist]

I don't know it seems pretty clear

That is only in refersense to the pouring though isn't it? Why the sudden additional explanation of what to do when pouring if this was for all modes presented I wonder?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That is only in refersense to the pouring though isn't it? Why the sudden additional explanation of what to do when pouring if this was for all modes presented I wonder?

Because if you read the passage if for instance you didn't have access to something then you would apply something else. However, its clear from the passage that Pouring is just as valid in the absence of being dunked.

 

[The Biblicist]

First support them and when you disagree with them throw them under the bus!!!! too funny. :laugh:

I don't support them in the least any more than I support the teaching aides of the Watchtower Society. However, I study their aides and use them to expose their false doctrine and that is precisely why I study the Apostate Nicene Fathers.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I don't support them in the least any more than I support the teaching aides of the Watchtower Society. However, I study their aides and use them to expose their false doctrine and that is precisely why I study the Apostate Nicene Fathers.

So you admit then that you treat the anti-nicene fathers like you do the scripture as a smorgishboard?

 

[The Biblicist]

So you admit then that you treat the anti-nicene fathers like you do the scripture as a smorgishboard?

Ha! No, I treat the "Father's" as apostate trash wherein some truths can be rarely found if one searches thoroughly. I treat the Scripture as final authority for faith and practice as the inspired Word of God.

 

[Wittenberger]

FYI for anyone interested: I have decided to only comment on one thread. I am on the "Baptism Debate" thread if you have any interest in listening to my comments."

Wittenberger
www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com

 

[reformed_baptist]

Because if you read the passage if for instance you didn't have access to something then you would apply something else. However, its clear from the passage that Pouring is just as valid in the absence of being dunked.

That is not an answer to the question I asked though is it! I am not disputing what the didache says is an acceptable mode of baptism. I am asking why the didache seperates one mode (the least favoured) and emphasises that this mode only requires three goes? It seems to me to imply that immerseion was just once and if you disagree the onus rest with you to make the case against the simple reading of the texts in question

 

[reformed_baptist]

FYI for anyone interested: I have decided to only comment on one thread. I am on the "Baptism Debate" thread if you have any interest in listening to my comments."

Wittenberger
www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com

Well that is one way to avoid having to answer the question and admit that you are wrong I suppose. However I will not drag a thread off topic just to make my point again it is here for all to read and consider and it clearly establishes that, contrary to your assertions, in the early church baptism by immersion upon profession of certain creedal statements was a recognised practice.

 

[Wittenberger]

I'm glad you are in agreement with me that the Didache is an authoritative source for confirming one's beliefs on the doctrine of Baptism. Here is a quote from the Didache:


"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

More accurate would be to say here is a portion of the quote, in full it reads;



A one ot two day fast is ordered prior to the baptism, now to me this suggests that infants were not the recipients of the this baptism! Notice also it says that one must first have 'rehearsed these things' - to what does that refer I wonder? To having to confirm certain beliefs prior to ones baptsim!

So, in this little chapter we have a baptism following a verbal profession, preferrably by immersion - it couldn't get more baptist them that my freind!



I never said it did! The word simply means to 'to dip' and is transliteration of the greek term for which Tyndale is still answering today, if he had translated this word instead of creating a new english term many of todays debates would be over ion the church!



Only when no other option was available!



I am sorry - but my naswer stands on this thread I am afriad



I can't find that thread!

In your above comments you state:

So, in this little chapter we have a baptism following a verbal profession, preferrably by immersion

You have sunk your own arguement, my Baptist friend!

Lutherans and all orthodox Christians believe that Christ was probably immersed and that immersion was the primary and preferred method of baptism for the early Christians.

"Preferred" is the key word! Do you think the people living underground in the catacombs of Rome after Nero started hunting them down, were going out to rivers to be immersed? No, the preferred method was too dangerous, so they used another ACCEPTABLE method---pouring.

Lutherans immerse. We believe it is the preferred method, but not the only acceptable method.

Many Baptists refuse to accept any baptism that is not by immersion. This is not scriptural.

Secondly, the reason there was a period of fasting mentioned is that the majority of baptismal candidates were adult converts. Lutherans and Roman Catholics still require that adult converts go through a period of instruction before being baptized.

Give me evidence that anyone in the early centuries condemned infant baptism other than Tertullian, who denounced for other heretical views that have nothing to do with the Baptist position of the issue.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I'm glad you are in agreement with me that the Didache is an authoritative source for confirming one's beliefs on the doctrine of Baptism. Here is a quote from the Didache:


"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

In your above comments you state:

So, in this little chapter we have a baptism following a verbal profession, preferrably by immersion

You have sunk your own arguement, my Baptist friend!

Lutherans and all orthodox Christians believe that Christ was probably immersed and that immersion was the primary and preferred method of baptism for the early Christians.

"Preferred" is the key word! Do you think the people living underground in the catacombs of Rome after Nero started hunting them down, were going out to rivers to be immersed? No, the preferred method was too dangerous, so they used another ACCEPTABLE method---pouring.

Lutherans immerse. We believe it is the preferred method, but not the only acceptable method.

Many Baptists refuse to accept any baptism that is not by immersion. This is not scriptural.

Secondly, the reason there was a period of fasting mentioned is that the majority of baptismal candidates were adult converts. Lutherans and Roman Catholics still require that adult converts go through a period of instruction before being baptized.

Give me evidence that anyone in the early centuries condemned infant baptism other than Tertullian, who denounced for other heretical views that have nothing to do with the Baptist position of the issue.

Give me evidence that anyone in the New Testament or the earliest churches practiced or taught infant baptism.

The Catholic Encyclopedia admits the only evidence and support for infant baptism is tradition, and a Franciscan priest and archaeologist supports the fact that the apostolic practice was believer's baptism only.

Infant baptism is a made-up doctrine done out of superstition, fear, ignorance, and error.

 

[DHK]

I'm glad you are in agreement with me that the Didache is an authoritative source for confirming one's beliefs on the doctrine of Baptism. Here is a quote from the Didache:


"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

In your above comments you state:

So, in this little chapter we have a baptism following a verbal profession, preferrably by immersion

You have sunk your own arguement, my Baptist friend!

And in the quote it says:

Only when no other option was available!

Now, when do you meet under threat of persecution, gathered in the catacombs, such as they did? Do you have such an excuse? Then you don't have an excuse not to immerse.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Ha! No, I treat the "Father's" as apostate trash wherein some truths can be rarely found if one searches thoroughly. I treat the Scripture as final authority for faith and practice as the inspired Word of God.

Yes..we know, and that's your problem.

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

Give me evidence that anyone in the New Testament or the earliest churches practiced or taught infant baptism.

The Catholic Encyclopedia admits the only evidence and support for infant baptism is tradition, and a Franciscan priest and archaeologist supports the fact that the apostolic practice was believer's baptism only.

Infant baptism is a made-up doctrine done out of superstition, fear, ignorance, and error.

Well, if you believe that it is of no importance, then why are so torqued about it?

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

So Jesus did not literally mean that the thief on the cross next to Him would be with Him in paradise. After all he had not been baptized.

God can do anything he wishes. However, had Jesus completed his sacrifice at that point? No.

WM

 

[Wittenberger]

Give me evidence that anyone in the New Testament or the earliest churches practiced or taught infant baptism.

The Catholic Encyclopedia admits the only evidence and support for infant baptism is tradition, and a Franciscan priest and archaeologist supports the fact that the apostolic practice was believer's baptism only.

Infant baptism is a made-up doctrine done out of superstition, fear, ignorance, and error.

You supposedly quote the Catholic encyclopedia and one priest.

Take a look at my recent comment on the thread entitled "the Baptism debate". I have listed many early Christians who give testimony to the orthodox/catholic/Lutheran view of baptism. You Baptists can't come up with even one who states that baptism is simply a public profession of faith.

The reason you cannot understand infant baptism, is that you do not understand the purpose of baptism.

No where in the Bible does it state that baptism is "OUR public profession of faith". That is something you Baptists/Anabaptists ASSUME.

You say baptism is a picture of our salvation: the water represents the blood of Christ washing over us to cleanse us of sins. Lutherans, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox all agree with you on this! Baptism does present a picture of what happens to us spiritually! But baptism is an act of God, not an act of man.

You don't know what the purpose of baptism is. Your belief in a "public profession" has no scriptural basis!