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

[Wittenberger]

And in the quote it says:

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.

The Greek Orthodox immerse everyone, including children.

Lutherans will give up pouring, sprinkling, when immersionists stop demanding that everyone be immersed or they will not accept as valid the person's baptisim

Why did Paul circumcise Silas but not Timothy? He baptized Silas so as not to be a stumbling block to the unbelieving Jews to whom they were going to preach.

He refused to circumcise Timothy because he did not want to give in to legalistic Christians of the circumcision "denomination" who demanded it. Read what Paul says about them.

You Baptists accept the true purpose of baptism, and we Lutherans will start only immersing. Deal?

 

[Alcott]

Why did Paul circumcise Silas but not Timothy? ...
He refused to circumcise Timothy because he did not want to give in to legalistic Christians of the circumcision "denomination" who demanded it. Read what Paul says about them.

You're scripturally looney.
Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, 2 and he was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek [Acts 16:1-3].

As for Silas, when he first appears he is a "prophet."

 

[DHK]

Why did Paul circumcise Silas but not Timothy? He baptized Silas so as not to be a stumbling block to the unbelieving Jews to whom they were going to preach.

Silas was one of the brethren, a prophet. He accompanied Paul on one of his missionary journeys. If he was one of the brethren then he was saved and baptized and that is all that is important.

Timothy had a Jewish mother and Greek father. He therefore has a Jewish background. He was raised in the Jewish faith, by Lois and Eunice. He simply hadn't been circumcised. If he was going to be of use to Paul in the ministry, especially among the Jews he would need to be baptized--not for any religious requirement, but to be practical.

He refused to circumcise Timothy because he did not want to give in to legalistic Christians of the circumcision "denomination" who demanded it. Read what Paul says about them.

You read what Paul says!

Acts 16:3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

You Baptists accept the true purpose of baptism, and we Lutherans will start only immersing. Deal?

You need to get your facts straight. Study your Bible.
Paul did not give into the legalists.
Concerning Titus, here is what he says:

Galatians 2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
--He did not compel Titus to be circumcised in spite of his Greek background. He would not give into the legalists one iota.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

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!

Precisely! And because it is an act of God and not man, man cannot force God to act by using a magical incantation and magical water. God baptizes by the Spirit into the body of Christ which the water represents, not produces. The words and actions of man cannot produce actions from God. The Spirit bloweth where it listheth, not where man listeth that it should blow.

It is you paedobaptists who don't know the purpose of baptism. Like some that Jesus spoke to, you get the physical and spiritual mixed up.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Precisely! And because it is an act of God and not man, man cannot force God to act by using a magical incantation and magical water. God baptizes by the Spirit into the body of Christ which the water represents, not produces. The words and actions of man cannot produce actions from God. The Spirit bloweth where it listheth, not where man listeth that it should blow.

It is you paedobaptists who don't know the purpose of baptism. Like some that Jesus spoke to, you get the physical and spiritual mixed up.

Well then... I suppose Jesus got them confused when He used mud, spittle, and water when healing.

Hmmm...
WM

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Well then... I suppose Jesus got them confused when He used mud, spittle, and water when healing.

Hmmm...
WM

So, he sent his Spirit through the mud, etc., when healing.

Hmmm

 

[Wittenberger]

Silas was one of the brethren, a prophet. He accompanied Paul on one of his missionary journeys. If he was one of the brethren then he was saved and baptized and that is all that is important.

Timothy had a Jewish mother and Greek father. He therefore has a Jewish background. He was raised in the Jewish faith, by Lois and Eunice. He simply hadn't been circumcised. If he was going to be of use to Paul in the ministry, especially among the Jews he would need to be baptized--not for any religious requirement, but to be practical.

You read what Paul says!

Acts 16:3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

You need to get your facts straight. Study your Bible.
Paul did not give into the legalists.
Concerning Titus, here is what he says:

Galatians 2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
--He did not compel Titus to be circumcised in spite of his Greek background. He would not give into the legalists one iota.

You are correct! I mixed up the names!

I can admit when I"m wrong!

 

[WestminsterMan]

So, he sent his Spirit through the mud, etc., when healing.

Hmmm

He didn't need to heal that way - He healed other times without it. Yet He did!

Here are other examples..
1. The hemorrhaging woman is healed by touching Jesus' cloak
2. Peter's shadow is said to have healed those whom it touched as he passed by (Acts 5:15-16).
3. Handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched Paul brought healing (Acts 19:11-12).

Hmmm....

WM

 

[Moriah]

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

Water baptism is a pledge to God, a promise to God, that you will die to the ways of the world and live the Way of the Lord. See 1 Peter 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Infants cannot make a promise. Moreover, no one, not even the infant’s parents can make a promise for their child, nor can anyone make a promise for anyone else.

A person can be baptized with the Holy Spirit before water baptism, during water baptism, or after water baptism.

Jesus does the baptizing with the Holy Spirit. Jesus gives to those the Holy Spirit when he accepts them, Acts 15:8.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

He didn't need to heal that way - He healed other times without it. Yet He did!

Here are other examples..
1. The hemorrhaging woman is healed by touching Jesus' cloak
2. Peter's shadow is said to have healed those whom it touched as he passed by (Acts 5:15-16).
3. Handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched Paul brought healing (Acts 19:11-12).

Hmmm....

WM

Yes, that's true.

 

[Wittenberger]

Silas was one of the brethren, a prophet. He accompanied Paul on one of his missionary journeys. If he was one of the brethren then he was saved and baptized and that is all that is important.

Timothy had a Jewish mother and Greek father. He therefore has a Jewish background. He was raised in the Jewish faith, by Lois and Eunice. He simply hadn't been circumcised. If he was going to be of use to Paul in the ministry, especially among the Jews he would need to be baptized--not for any religious requirement, but to be practical.

You read what Paul says!

Acts 16:3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

You need to get your facts straight. Study your Bible.
Paul did not give into the legalists.
Concerning Titus, here is what he says:

Galatians 2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
--He did not compel Titus to be circumcised in spite of his Greek background. He would not give into the legalists one iota.

Yes, I got may names turned around.

Paul circumcised TIMOTHY, and did not circumcise TITUS. Thank you for pointing out my error.

He refused to give into the the legalists who demanded that Titus be circumcised.

Lutherans refuse to baptize only by immersion, so as not to give into legalists who demand that baptism is only valid by immersion.

The mode of baptism is not what matters. It is what God does in baptism that matters.

 

[Wittenberger]

Water baptism is a pledge to God, a promise to God, that you will die to the ways of the world and live the Way of the Lord. See 1 Peter 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Infants cannot make a promise. Moreover, no one, not even the infant’s parents can make a promise for their child, nor can anyone make a promise for anyone else.

A person can be baptized with the Holy Spirit before water baptism, during water baptism, or after water baptism.

Jesus does the baptizing with the Holy Spirit. Jesus gives to those the Holy Spirit when he accepts them, Acts 15:8.

Where in the Bible does God say that baptism is OUR public profession of faith. Please answer the question.

 

[Wittenberger]

Yes, that's true.

Yes, it is true!

God uses physical means (objects) for spiritual purposes. God uses the waters of baptism to demonstate an internal spiritual cleansing but it occurs at the time the water is flowing over the sinner. In baptism, it is not the water that saves, it is God. God just uses the water as a means of grace, a means of spiritual cleansing.

The rags mentioned above by WM were not magical rags. But God used them to perform physical healing! The rags conferred the healing just as the waters of baptsim confer the spiritual healing.

You are now beginning to see the light, my brother!

 

[Moriah]

Where in the Bible does God say that baptism is OUR public profession of faith. Please answer the question.

I never said baptism is a public profession of faith. Of course, it can be, if done in public. However, a person can be baptized with just themselves and the baptizer in a private place.
Water baptism is a promise, a pledge to God.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, it is true!

God uses physical means (objects) for spiritual purposes. God uses the waters of baptism to demonstate an internal spiritual cleansing but it occurs at the time the water is flowing over the sinner. In baptism, it is not the water that saves, it is God. God just uses the water as a means of grace, a means of spiritual cleansing.

The rags mentioned above by WM were not magical rags. But God used them to perform physical healing! The rags conferred the healing just as the waters of baptsim confer the spiritual healing.

You are now beginning to see the light, my brother!

there is NO biblical text that states that god provides effectual grace towards us in the act of an ordinance!

 

[Yeshua1]

I never said baptism is a public profession of faith. Of course, it can be, if done in public. However, a person can be baptized with just themselves and the baptizer in a private place.
Water baptism is a promise, a pledge to God.

water baptism was also used by local churches as being the entry way to church membership....

Publical identification with yeshua as Messiah!

Outward sign of an already done inward fact, salvation!

 

[DHK]

Lutherans refuse to baptize only by immersion, so as not to give into legalists who demand that baptism is only valid by immersion.

Study further.
Perhaps Paul's definition of a legalist and your definition are different. If so, then you are still on the wrong side of the fence Biblically.

The mode of baptism is not what matters. It is what God does in baptism that matters.

The mode of baptism matters greatly. As I have pointed out the EOC still immerses. They have no choice. They understand what the word "baptidzo" means. It means to immerse, not sprinkle or immerse. It has only that one definition. The NT was written in Greek. Why would a Greek speaking church still immerse? Because that is what the word means. Every time they read that word they read "immerse," and thus they do. They don't have any other choice but to obey. You can't substitute sprinkle and pour for immerse. It doesn't work.

It didn't work for Adoniram Judson either. He was America's first foreign missionary, but could read Greek fluently. Supported by the Congregational Church of America he set out with plans to help William Carey. While crossing the Atlantic he was reading his NT in the Greek. He could not get away from this fact and teaching that baptism is by immersion for that is what the word means. He became convicted, wrote back to the Congregational Church, and told him he must change his convictions on the matter of baptism. He ended in India with no support. Ultimately he ended being the first missionary to Burma.

The argument has been put forth that baptism is a pledge. I don't buy into that. Baptism is symbolic. It is purely symbolic. What does baptism do for a person? It gets them wet. Those particles of hydrogen and oxygen are not supernaturally going to make you more holy, give you more grace, regenerate you, or any of the such. Those who believe those things are superstitious, as superstitious as the Hindus in India who believe that washing in "the holy waters of the Inudus River" will wash away their sins. The RCC teaching is no different. It is just as superstitious. It teaches the same thing.

Jeremiah 2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.
--Scrub harder Jeremiah mocks; maybe you will be able to wash away your sin. No. Frankly he says your sin is marked before me! and "baptism" even with soap cannot wash it away. What a mockery!

Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
--Paul was writing to believers. He was writing to those who had put their faith and trust in Christ. Then those same ones, after salvation were baptized.
Verse four says: We are buried by baptism into death. Christ died. We (in picture must die). We die to our old life of sin. Christ was buried. We go under the water completely as Christ was completely buried. When the preacher holds you under the water he doesn't leave you there. You don't drown.
"Like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father even so we also should walk in newness of life."
Coming out of the water symbolizes our newness of life in Christ. It is a new life. Old things have passed away behold all things are become new.

Only baptism by immersion can fulfill this picture.
Only baptism by immersion can also give the symbolic picture of the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Here is the true meaning of baptism. It is not simply a pledge or public profession. If it were, who was the Ethiopian Eunuch publicly proclaiming his faith to?
No, it was the first step of obedience in the Christian life that symbolized the Christians death to his old life and a walk in newness of life in Christ.
We do it because we are commanded to by Christ.
What does it do "for" us? It makes us wet.

 

[Moriah]

water baptism was also used by local churches as being the entry way to church membership....

Publical identification with yeshua as Messiah!

Outward sign of an already done inward fact, salvation!

Some people might be water baptized and not yet have the Holy Spirit.

What churches do for membership is not really important to me.

 

[Wittenberger]

there is NO biblical text that states that god provides effectual grace towards us in the act of an ordinance!

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"

"Baptism doth now save you"

"Repent and be baptized...for the forgiveness of sins."

We can continue going round and round on the true interpretation of these verses, but I can give testimony from early Christians who support the orthodox Christian view on baptismal regeneration, you cannot give any testimony from early Christians that baptism was a public profession or just a pretty picture of our salvation.

 

[Wittenberger]

Study further.
Perhaps Paul's definition of a legalist and your definition are different. If so, then you are still on the wrong side of the fence Biblically.

The mode of baptism matters greatly. As I have pointed out the EOC still immerses. They have no choice. They understand what the word "baptidzo" means. It means to immerse, not sprinkle or immerse. It has only that one definition. The NT was written in Greek. Why would a Greek speaking church still immerse? Because that is what the word means. Every time they read that word they read "immerse," and thus they do. They don't have any other choice but to obey. You can't substitute sprinkle and pour for immerse. It doesn't work.

It didn't work for Adoniram Judson either. He was America's first foreign missionary, but could read Greek fluently. Supported by the Congregational Church of America he set out with plans to help William Carey. While crossing the Atlantic he was reading his NT in the Greek. He could not get away from this fact and teaching that baptism is by immersion for that is what the word means. He became convicted, wrote back to the Congregational Church, and told him he must change his convictions on the matter of baptism. He ended in India with no support. Ultimately he ended being the first missionary to Burma.

The argument has been put forth that baptism is a pledge. I don't buy into that. Baptism is symbolic. It is purely symbolic. What does baptism do for a person? It gets them wet. Those particles of hydrogen and oxygen are not supernaturally going to make you more holy, give you more grace, regenerate you, or any of the such. Those who believe those things are superstitious, as superstitious as the Hindus in India who believe that washing in "the holy waters of the Inudus River" will wash away their sins. The RCC teaching is no different. It is just as superstitious. It teaches the same thing.

Jeremiah 2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.
--Scrub harder Jeremiah mocks; maybe you will be able to wash away your sin. No. Frankly he says your sin is marked before me! and "baptism" even with soap cannot wash it away. What a mockery!

Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
--Paul was writing to believers. He was writing to those who had put their faith and trust in Christ. Then those same ones, after salvation were baptized.
Verse four says: We are buried by baptism into death. Christ died. We (in picture must die). We die to our old life of sin. Christ was buried. We go under the water completely as Christ was completely buried. When the preacher holds you under the water he doesn't leave you there. You don't drown.
"Like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father even so we also should walk in newness of life."
Coming out of the water symbolizes our newness of life in Christ. It is a new life. Old things have passed away behold all things are become new.

Only baptism by immersion can fulfill this picture.
Only baptism by immersion can also give the symbolic picture of the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Here is the true meaning of baptism. It is not simply a pledge or public profession. If it were, who was the Ethiopian Eunuch publicly proclaiming his faith to?
No, it was the first step of obedience in the Christian life that symbolized the Christians death to his old life and a walk in newness of life in Christ.
We do it because we are commanded to by Christ.
What does it do "for" us? It makes us wet.

Please find a quote of any of the church fathers who state about baptism what you have just stated.

If you can prove to me that the early Christians in the first three centuries after Christ believed this, I will convert today!