Christian Forums

The audience of Acts 2 is the Jews and it is not directly applicable to us, including what is said in verse 38.

Discuss.   

Another thing, baptism is by immersion and not by sprinkling.   

Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ was not only for the Jews it was to the Jews first then to the gentiles.

I have stated in this forum that the command to baptize in Matt 28 was NOT given to the new believer but to the evangelist preaching the gospel.

I was wrong, and have to correct that.  Our new pastor who has a degree in Koine Greek noted that in the great commission of Matt 28, there is ONLY one command: Make disciples.  Not to go, and not to baptize.

The tenses of the verbs to go and to baptize should be rendered "As you go ..." and " as you baptize in the Name ..."  This reflects the wording of the Shema in Deut 6.7:  You shall teach them diligently to your children AS YOU walk along the way, AS you lie down and AS you rise up. 

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Wed Nov 29, 2023 - 10:41:47The audience of Acts 2 is the Jews and it is not directly applicable to us, including what is said in verse 38.

Discuss. 

Another thing, baptism is by immersion and not by sprinkling. 

As to the immersion thing, lets not muddy these waters with that.

You are correct in that was the Jews that were being talked to in Acts 2:38. Not the Gentiles.

Do you find it at all odd that these Jews in Acts 2:38 were required to repent, and be baptized in water for the forgiveness of sins at which time they would receive the Holy Spirit but the Gentiles in Acts 10:43-47 were NOT required to be baptized in water before their sins were forgiven or before they received the Holy Spirit?

They, the gentiles,  were baptized in water AFTER they received the Holy Spirit. The opposite of the Jews in Acts 2:38.

So Acts 2:38 could not apply to the Gentiles. And Acts 2:38 was not addressed to all people.

QuoteActs 10: 43-47

43 Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins."

44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the [a]message.

45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.

46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered,

47 "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?"

Now, I am not going to belabor what this specifically says, that all can read with their own eyes, but seemingly Gentiles were not required to be
baptised for the forgiveness of their sins....

What I want to know is why?

That certainly should translate down to us today.

Ergo: Since Acts 2:38 was not addressed to all people... It seemingly is obvious that the Jews and Gentiles were treated separately.

Quote from: DaveW on Wed Nov 29, 2023 - 12:45:52I have stated in this forum that the command to baptize in Matt 28 was NOT given to the new believer but to the evangelist preaching the gospel.

I was wrong, and have to correct that.  Our new pastor who has a degree in Koine Greek noted that in the great commission of Matt 28, there is ONLY one command: Make disciples.  Not to go, and not to baptize.

The tenses of the verbs to go and to baptize should be rendered "As you go ..." and " as you baptize in the Name ..."  This reflects the wording of the Shema in Deut 6.7:  You shall teach them diligently to your children AS YOU walk along the way, AS you lie down and AS you rise up. 

Your new pastor is sort of correct.  Actually, "baptizing" and "teaching" are participles modifying the verb "make".  They describe the process whereby disciples are made. They do not describe what you do to disciples; rather they describe how you are to go about making disciples.

The grammatical construction is similar to my telling the roofer, "I want you to repair the roof on my house, taking off the old shingles, replacing any wood underneath that is bad and installing new shingles. The words "taking", "replacing" and "installing" are participles modifying the verb "repair", describing the process to repair the roof.

Quote from: Rella on Wed Nov 29, 2023 - 13:34:26As to the immersion thing, lets not muddy these waters with that.

You are correct in that was the Jews that were being talked to in Acts 2:38. Not the Gentiles.

Do you find it at all odd that these Jews in Acts 2:38 were required to repent, and be baptized in water for the forgiveness of sins at which time they would receive the Holy Spirit but the Gentiles in Acts 10:43-47 were NOT required to be baptized in water before their sins were forgiven or before they received the Holy Spirit?

They, the gentiles,  were baptized in water AFTER they received the Holy Spirit. The opposite of the Jews in Acts 2:38.

So Acts 2:38 could not apply to the Gentiles. And Acts 2:38 was not addressed to all people.
Now, I am not going to belabor what this specifically says, that all can read with their own eyes, but seemingly Gentiles were not required to be
baptised for the forgiveness of their sins....

What I want to know is why?

That certainly should translate down to us today.

Ergo: Since Acts 2:38 was not addressed to all people... It seemingly is obvious that the Jews and Gentiles were treated separately.

Acts 10:47 is not describing the indwelling Holy Spirit, but rather the empowering Holy Spirit. It is the indwelling Holy Spirit which all new converts receive upon being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.  The empowering Holy Spirit was not so received by all but was given to a few selected individuals.  We know that about verse 47 because they received the power for speaking in tongues.

Added note:  The empowering Holy Spirit is not tied to nor related to salvation.

Quote from: 4WD on Wed Nov 29, 2023 - 14:46:46Acts 10:47 is not describing the indwelling Holy Spirit, but rather the empowering Holy Spirit. It is the indwelling Holy Spirit which all new converts receive upon being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.  The empowering Holy Spirit was not so received by all but was given to a few selected individuals.  We know that about verse 47 because they received the power for speaking in tongues.

Added note:  The empowering Holy Spirit is not tied to nor related to salvation.

Ok,  disregarding the last where they are commanded to be baptised, if they all had not been would the empowering Holy Spirit still work in people even if they are not baptised?

You say "The empowering Holy Spirit is not tied to nor related to salvation." Does that mean that if all did not get baptised those who believed, and received the empowering of the Holy Spirit were not saved?

I am a little fuzzy on this.

It is obvious that the gentiles were NOT required to be baptized in water before their sins were forgiven...

43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Wed Nov 29, 2023 - 10:41:47Another thing, baptism is by immersion and not by sprinkling. 

It would appear that the early church was not so dogmatic about this as you...

From The Didache, chapter 7:
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice 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 whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Thu Nov 30, 2023 - 11:37:34It would appear that the early church was not so dogmatic about this as you...

From The Didache, chapter 7:
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice 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 whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

 

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Thu Nov 30, 2023 - 11:37:34It would appear that the early church was not so dogmatic about this as you...

From The Didache, chapter 7:
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice 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 whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

I don't particularly find the Didache to be authoritative in any way.

So no popcorn needed.

I have to agree with TC on that

Quote from: yogi bear on Thu Nov 30, 2023 - 14:28:04I have to agree with TC on that

I really do not know much about the  Didache.

And you and TC need not worry about it cause you have both been immersed


But here is a question. When did a church switch from immersion to some other form in what they considered baptism.

No, I am not asking you but seeking other opinions.

#1.https://www.timothypauljones.com/church-history-when-did-churches-stop-baptizing-by-immersion/  (We know you will not heed anything here, which will be obvious when you start to read.)

CHURCH HISTORY: WHEN DID CHURCHES STOP BAPTIZING BY IMMERSION?

As part of my research for the chapter on baptism in a book written by the faculty of Southern Seminary, one of the questions I wanted to answer was, "When did churches leave behind the New Testament practice of immersion?" The answer is, "Far later than you probably think."

Most of the students I teach seem to assume that the practice of immersion was already long-forgotten by the time of the Reformation—but this assumption doesn't fit the historical facts. The facts are considerably more complex, but this much is clear: baptism by immersion was far from forgotten in the Western church in the era of the Reformation.

An ancient document known as the Didache provides us with the earliest surviving baptismal instructions outside the New Testament. According to this text, believers were to be plunged in flowing water after a period of instruction and fasting. The Didache did make a concession that allowed water to be poured over the head three times—but only if immersion was impossible (Didache 7:1). This concession may have been made for the purpose of allowing for the possibility of deathbed baptisms.


https://www.catholicdoors.com/misc/apologetics/baptismsprinkling.htm

turn To The Main Page

Return To Catholic Apologetics



CATHOLIC TEACHINGS
REGARDING
BAPTISM: IMMERSION, POURING OR SPRINKLING?
The Catholics Church and most Christian religions teach that water is essential to the administration of the Sacrament of Baptism. But when it comes to the manner in which the water should be used, there is controversy. Should it be done by immersion, pouring or sprinkling?

In the Roman Catholic Church, most believers are baptized by pouring (also known as infusion). At the same time, Catholics know that immersion (also known as dunking) and sprinkling are valid ways of baptizing. Some Protestant and Evangelical Churches reject all form of baptism other than immersion. They claim that most Catholics are not validly baptized. Do they have a good argument?

According to these Protestant and Evangelical Churches, the rite of baptism was always by immersion until the Council of Ravenna in A.D. 1311, when the Catholic Church proclaimed "Baptism is to be administered by tribe immersion or aspersion." ("Aspersion" means "sprinkling.")

Was the rite of baptism always by immersion prior to A.D. 1311? To find the answer to this question, we turn to the Didache, a Syrian liturgical manual that was written around A.D. 70 and widely circulated among the churches in the first few centuries of Christianity. These are perhaps the earliest Christian writings outside of the New Testament. Although these writings are not considered inspired, they still bear witness to the sacramental practice of the Christians in the apostolic age.

In Chapter 7 of the Didache, we read, "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

The Roman Catholic church admits baptism by immersion was practiced till 1311 AD:
 
https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1978/07/how-the-doctrine-of-baptism-changed

BASIC RELIGIOUS INFLUENCES
In the postapostolic age of the second century, an apostasy began that touched most Christian doctrines, leaving hardly a single Biblical truth free of Jewish or pagan ingredients.

Many factors aided this process. One major influence was superstition, which associated itself with the numerous pagan mystery cults, where sacred rites performed by an initiated priesthood with a mystic efficacy conveyed "spiritual" cleansing. As a materialistic concept of the baptismal water entered the church, the significance of the scriptural teaching of repentance in the life of the recipient was reduced. The growing belief in the mechanical efficacy of baptism went hand in hand with a failure to understand the New Testament concept of salvation by grace alone.

Christian parents who believed in the mystical, magical power of baptism administered the "sanctifying" water as early as possible in the lives of their children. On the other hand, the same concept made some parents postpone the act of baptism in fear of postbaptismal sin. For this reason the emperor Constantine was first baptized on his deathbed, because he believed that his soul would be purified of whatever errors he had committed as a mortal man through the efficacy of the mystical words and the salutary waters of baptism. However, the practice of infant baptism gradually became more firmly established, especially after the church father Augustine (died A.D. 430) undergirded the mystical efficacy of infant baptism with the doctrine of original sin.

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), the foremost Roman Catholic theologian, asserted in his Summa Theologiae that "baptism may be given not only by immersion, but also by affusion of water, or sprinkling with it. But it is the safer way to baptize by immersion, because that is the most common custom" (III. 66.7).

_______________________
The Westminster Confession of Faith (28.3), the official confession of faith of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, says, "Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person."

Off interest it is the RCC that went the way of sprinkling before the reformation.

So I wonder if that is why that little font was put inside the bigger one? Archaeologists Discover Ancient Baptismal Font Hidden Inside Jesus' Traditional Birthplace

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Thu Nov 30, 2023 - 14:10:53I don't particularly find the Didache to be authoritative in any way.

It's not meant to be authoritative.  It's just meant to demonstrate what the early church did.  This is what they did.

Do you know better than the early church?  Are they 100% wrong?

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Fri Dec 01, 2023 - 12:14:54It's not meant to be authoritative.  It's just meant to demonstrate what the early church did.  This is what they did.

Do you know better than the early church?  Are they 100% wrong?

Since they are not doing what my 100% right church does, they are 100% wrong.

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Fri Dec 01, 2023 - 13:20:14Since they are not doing what my 100% right church does, they are 100% wrong.

Since they are wrong, and I am wrong, and my church is wrong as are other members and represented churches here.... what does that mean for all us doing wrong?

That is a really good question rella. I guess being TC is the only one 100% right we will have to wait for his great wisdom to answer that for us.

Quote from: Rella on Fri Dec 01, 2023 - 13:48:50Since they are wrong, and I am wrong, and my church is wrong as are other members and represented churches here.... what does that mean for all us doing wrong?

That you should agree with me, for I agree with God.   

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Sat Dec 02, 2023 - 11:30:50That you should agree with me, for I agree with God.   

Well, as everything I post right now disappears... Ill reply to this later if it does not post.

But by not agreeing with you... well, I'll take it under advisement

Quote from: yogi bear on Wed Nov 29, 2023 - 10:55:38Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ was not only for the Jews it was to the Jews first then to the gentiles.

I  known  from  John 1:31  and  I  knew  him  NOT //  OV is   a   DISJUNCATIVE  PARTICLE   NEGATIVE and  in  the   Greek  ,  means I  NEVERRRRRRRRRR   KNEW  Him ,  john  meads   never   knew,  means Jesus ,  but   that   He   should   be   made   manifest  TO    ISRAEL ,  therefore am  I  come   BAPTIZING  with   Water .

Can   anyone  quote   a   verse that  says that  water  baptism  as   ever   given  to   Gentiles

or  to  the   BODY  of   CHRIST ??

dan p

At the end of Acts chapter 10, Peter commanded Cornelius and his family to be baptized in Christ's name.

Quote47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Also the Great Commission given in Matthew 29:19-20 was to make disciples of ALL NATIONS.  The Greek word for nations typically means a foreign (non-Jewish) or Gentile nation.

Quote from: dan p on Fri Mar 01, 2024 - 17:59:18Can  anyone  quote  a  verse that  says that  water  baptism  as  ever  given  to  Gentiles or  to  the  BODY  of  CHRIST ??

To baptize is the command for one person to do to another person.  If it is not baptism in water, then in what other medium would you suggest that the baptizer use?

Quote from: 4WD on Sat Mar 02, 2024 - 04:22:44Also the Great Commission given in Matthew 29:19-20 was to make disciples of ALL NATIONS.  The Greek word for nations typically means a foreign (non-Jewish) or Gentile nation.

In  John 11:48 it  reads , and the   Romans shall   come and  take  away bothn are  place and NATION //  ETHNOS .

And  in  John  11:50 and  that  the   Whole   NATION // ETHNOS  perish  NOT // ME  is  a   DISJUNCATIVE   PARTICLE  NEGATIVE  and   means it  will   NEVER  PERISHHHHHHHHHH   EVER .

I   sat  that   Matt  28:19  is   speaking  to  all  the  Jews  scattered   abroad  as written  in  James  1:1

dan p

The nation and all nations clearly mean two different things.

Quote from: yogi bear on Wed Nov 29, 2023 - 10:55:38Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ was not only for the Jews it was to the Jews first then to the gentiles.

I   have   yet  to  see a  Greek   word called   IMMERSION ?

And   have yet   seen  a  verse  where   baptism  was   given  to  Gentiles   BUT   I   have   seen in  John 1:31   where   John   says   that  water   BAPTISM  was   given  to   Israel .

If   anyone   believes   in  water   baptism ,  will   anyone   explai   1 Cor 10:2 "

They  were   baptized  unto  Moses in  the   CLOUD and  in  the   Sea ?

How   were  they   baptized unto  Moses  and   baptized   unto  the   CLOUD and   

water   baptized in  the   SEA ?

And   what   is  the   significance  of   the   CLOUD  and  the   SEA ??

dan p

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Wed Nov 29, 2023 - 10:41:47The audience of Acts 2 is the Jews and it is not directly applicable to us, including what is said in verse 38.

Discuss.   

Another thing, baptism is by immersion and not by sprinkling.   

I  have   yuet  to  find  the   Greek  word   IMMERSION , and  if  you  know  a  verse  ,  please   write   it   down  for   me ,

# 1  there   is Washing  by  SPRINKLING

#2  There   is  a  Greek   BAPTISMA  that  is   used 22 n  Times   from   Matthew ,  though  1 Peter  3:21 .

#3  There   is   BAPTO ,   meaning  to   DIP  ,

#4  There  is   BAPTISM //  BAPTISO  , meaning   PLACED   INTO , Rom  6:3

#5  There  is   BAPTISM  //  BAPTISO , means   IDENIFICATION into , 1  Cor  10:2

# 6  BAPTIZED //  BAPTISO  ,  INTO  DEATH ,  1 Cor  15:29 .

#7  LEAVING   BEHIND the Doctrine of   BAPTISMS //  BAPTISMOS  and  it  WASHING   

cup , beds ,  hands ,  before   eating

dan p