One Baptism

[charity]

I am not denying that because I said so myself. The word in Acts means to be fully wet. No more and no less. What other verses mean is not relevant to this scripture.

'Then Peter said unto them,
" Repent, and be baptized every one of you
in the name of Jesus Christ
for the remission of sins,
and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. ..."'
(Acts 2:38)

Hello there, @marksman,

I believe that the verse above is the verse you were referring to, yes? I agree that water baptism is what is being referred to in this verse. However, as with all verses of Scripture, context is a vital element in regard to application: taking into account to whom the words were addressed, and at what time etc.,

In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Truther]

you are now replying faster than i am even posting, wadr, i edited there.
anyway, dunno about any dust baptisms, sorry
best of luck to you ok, i honestly hope the Death More Abundantly thing works out for you
it would tickle me no end if Jesus Returned and Took You Away with Him to Heaven, but wadr i now seriously doubt a holistic view of Scripture supports that

Since there is no water baptism. Then we just think ourselves baptized by the dusty wind.

 

[Truther]

'Then Peter said unto them,
" Repent, and be baptized every one of you
in the name of Jesus Christ
for the remission of sins,
and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. ..."'
(Acts 2:38)

Hello there, @marksman,

I believe that the verse above is the verse you were referring to, yes? I agree that water baptism is what is being referred to in this verse. However, as with all verses of Scripture, context is a vital element in regard to application: taking into account to whom the words were addressed, and at what time etc.,

In Christ Jesus
Chris

The beginning of the Church we are part of, right?

 

[bbyrd009]

Since there is no water baptism. Then we just think ourselves baptized by the dusty wind.

this is wadr just more logical, "all or nothing" thinking, that we have been trained into, and can be trained out of too, ok? I never meant to say that there is no water baptism, as i think you well know, but that water is symbolic for something, possibly, and for sure if you and i went to the site of ancient Aenon you would guffaw at the Jordan river there, and the possibility of immersing anyone in it.

Anyway for the first part up there you might want to explore Logical and Dialectical Reasoning in Scripture or bam seek other sources, with the understanding hopefully that this is a hard study for someone who has been trained from the cradle to think logically, ok; Orientals playing baseball games to a deliberate tie just does not compute to our brains, yeh? Quote from the link,
"Western Logic Versus Eastern Dialecticism
Aristotle placed at the foundations of logical thought the following three propositions.
1. Identity: A = A. Whatever is, is. A is itself and not some other thing.
2. Noncontradiction: A and not A can't both be the case. Nothing can both be and not be. A proposition and its opposite can't both be true.
3. Excluded middle: Everything must either be or not be. A or not A can be true but not something in between.

Modern Westerners accept these propositions (but Easterners do not)...
...three principles underlie Eastern dialecticism. Notice I didn't say "propositions..." the term "proposition" has much too formal a ring for what is a generalized stance toward the world rather than a set of ironclad rules.

1. Principle of change:
Reality is a process of change.
What is currently true will shortly be false.
2. Principle of contradiction:
Contradiction is the dynamic underlying change.
Because change is constant, contradiction is constant.
3. Principle of relationships (or holism):
The whole is more than the sum of its parts.
Parts are meaningful only in relation to the whole...

These principles are intimately linked...
The principles also imply another important tenet of Eastern thought, which is the insistence on finding the "middle way" between extreme propositions...
...and Talmudic scholars developed it over the next two millennia and more.

"Mindware" Richard E. Nisbett, pp. 224-5

 

[Truther]

this is wadr just more logical, "all or nothing" thinking, that we have been trained into, and can be trained out of too, ok? I never meant to say that there is no water baptism, as i think you well know, but that water is symbolic for something, possibly, and for sure if you and i went to the site of ancient Aenon you would guffaw at the Jordan river there, and the possibility of immersing anyone in it.

Anyway for the first part up there you might want to explore Logical and Dialectical Reasoning in Scripture or bam seek other sources, with the understanding hopefully that this is a hard study for someone who has been trained from the cradle to think logically, ok; Orientals playing baseball games to a deliberate tie just does not compute to our brains, yeh? Quote from the link,
"Western Logic Versus Eastern Dialecticism
Aristotle placed at the foundations of logical thought the following three propositions.
1. Identity: A = A. Whatever is, is. A is itself and not some other thing.
2. Noncontradiction: A and not A can't both be the case. Nothing can both be and not be. A proposition and its opposite can't both be true.
3. Excluded middle: Everything must either be or not be. A or not A can be true but not something in between.

Modern Westerners accept these propositions (but Easterners do not)...
...three principles underlie Eastern dialecticism. Notice I didn't say "propositions..." the term "proposition" has much too formal a ring for what is a generalized stance toward the world rather than a set of ironclad rules.

1. Principle of change:
Reality is a process of change.
What is currently true will shortly be false.
2. Principle of contradiction:
Contradiction is the dynamic underlying change.
Because change is constant, contradiction is constant.
3. Principle of relationships (or holism):
The whole is more than the sum of its parts.
Parts are meaningful only in relation to the whole...

These principles are intimately linked...
The principles also imply another important tenet of Eastern thought, which is the insistence on finding the "middle way" between extreme propositions...
...and Talmudic scholars developed it over the next two millennia and more.

"Mindware" Richard E. Nisbett, pp. 224-5

Ancient logic prescribed water baptism. The modernist ideology created dust baptism

 

[mjrhealth]

John baptized in what?
Jesus was baptized in what?
The eunuch was baptized in what?

What is Biblical baptism?

3 guesses.....

#1....dust.

#2.....mental baptism.

#3...water.

Pick one.

Just to add this one more time.

Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Mar 1:6 And John was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey;
Mar 1:7 And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.
Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

and Jesus reiterated

Act 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
Act 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Act_11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

So you see, it is not a requirement but you can argue over it till the cows come home, not going to change anything.

 

[bbyrd009]

"water" is maybe a good analogy for "other ppl," or maybe our interactions with them or something, the Scriptural "sea" (generally acknowledged to mean something like "those you came from" or something similar) prolly comes into play too, i dunno, but anyway cast your bread upon the waters might be our best lead-in to a valid Scriptural definition of "water"

Ancient logic prescribed water baptism. The modernist ideology created dust baptism

ancient logic also prescribed feeding your children to Molech, and im still unfam with this dust baptism thing, sorry, and imo both of these are virtually as irrelevant to my post as could possibly be, wadr, why did you even quote me if you will not address the quote?

I mean, see how i have addressed both central points in your post, regardless of whether i agree or not, i at least acknowledged them? Now granted they were both irrelevant and impertinent but "are you stupid?" or "are you unable to read?" or "...to communicate, have an actual conversation, rather than cluelessly lecturing at everyone you speak to" certainly would not have been acceptable, now would it?

So then why, oh why, is your complete ignorance of my post deemed acceptable? Could you pls just call me stupid, i would much prefer that ok, to your uninformed lecture that is completely inappropriate as a response to my post, that you quoted, iow to get me here again, for what reason i cannot fathom now, sorry

 

[bbyrd009]

Ancient logic prescribed water baptism. The modernist ideology created dust baptism

the air in a cylinder surrounding the Eiffel Tower weighs more than the steel tower itself

and note that this you can verify as truth, whereas what you have said is strictly opinion, as ancient logicians abounded who decried any form of literal water baptism as pagan, even then, and "modernist ideology" is strictly subjective, and can mean basically whatever one wants it to mean, right? would you like quotes, no, of course you would not. HNY btw ok

 

[bbyrd009]

yikes, im such a jerk lol, sorry ok

 

[bbyrd009]

Ghost

arg

and with fire:

yeh, how bout that fire one huh?

 

[mjrhealth]

arg
yeh, how bout that fire one huh?

Yep His Holy Spirit, cool isnt it, well fire isnt cool its hot though is its cool.. when barbecuing.

 

[Truther]

the air in a cylinder surrounding the Eiffel Tower weighs more than the steel tower itself

and note that this you can verify as truth, whereas what you have said is strictly opinion, as ancient logicians abounded who decried any form of literal water baptism as pagan, even then, and "modernist ideology" is strictly subjective, and can mean basically whatever one wants it to mean, right? would you like quotes, no, of course you would not. HNY btw ok

The RCC was the first ancient group to tamper with water baptism.
The reformers were freaked out about infant baptism so they tossed out the baby with the baptism water.
A chill pill and getting back to immersions would have fixed it.
The reformers needed reform

 

[Truther]

"water" is maybe a good analogy for "other ppl," or maybe our interactions with them or something, the Scriptural "sea" (generally acknowledged to mean something like "those you came from" or something similar) prolly comes into play too, i dunno, but anyway cast your bread upon the waters might be our best lead-in to a valid Scriptural definition of "water"

ancient logic also prescribed feeding your children to Molech, and im still unfam with this dust baptism thing, sorry, and imo both of these are virtually as irrelevant to my post as could possibly be, wadr, why did you even quote me if you will not address the quote?

I mean, see how i have addressed both central points in your post, regardless of whether i agree or not, i at least acknowledged them? Now granted they were both irrelevant and impertinent but "are you stupid?" or "are you unable to read?" or "...to communicate, have an actual conversation, rather than cluelessly lecturing at everyone you speak to" certainly would not have been acceptable, now would it?

So then why, oh why, is your complete ignorance of my post deemed acceptable? Could you pls just call me stupid, i would much prefer that ok, to your uninformed lecture that is completely inappropriate as a response to my post, that you quoted, iow to get me here again, for what reason i cannot fathom now, sorry

Who’s lecturing who?

 

[Truther]

Just to add this one more time.

Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Mar 1:6 And John was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey;
Mar 1:7 And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.
Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

and Jesus reiterated

Act 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
Act 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Act_11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

So you see, it is not a requirement but you can argue over it till the cows come home, not going to change anything.

Why was the eunuch in Acts 8 baptized in water?

 

[mjrhealth]

Why was the eunuch in Acts 8 baptized in water?

because Christ wasnt resurrected yet, you didnt read that post did you.

He who comes after me not before...

 

[Truther]

because Christ wasnt resurrected yet, you didnt read that post did you.

He who comes after me not before...

Christ wasn’t resurrected before Acts 8?

 

[charity]

The beginning of the Church we are part of, right?

'Then Peter said unto them,
Repent, and be baptized every one of you
in the name of Jesus Christ
for the remission of sins,
and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
For the promise is unto you,
and to your children,
and to all that are afar off,
even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
And with many other words did he testify and exhort,
saying, "Save yourselves from this untoward generation".
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized:
and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.'
(Acts 2:38-41)

Hi @Truther,

In reply #341, I inferred that care should be taken in applying the Word of God to ourselves, any part of it, without taking into consideration the context of the passage being considered.

For example, @marksman referred to verse 38, of the quotation above (highlighted), and this was spoken by Peter, in response to a question asked by people of 'the House of Israel' (Acts 2:36), or, 'men of Israel' (Acts 2:22) who were 'pricked in their hearts' by what he had been saying to them. He urges them to save themselves from 'this untoward generation'. These were men of Israel, who were at Jerusalem for the feast of Passover, some native to Jerusalem and others who were there from the countries of the dispersion (i.e., 'all that are afar off'), 'as many as our Lord shall call' - who would comprise the believing remnant of Israel whom God was calling out. There would not have been a gentile there, unless he were a proselyte (maybe).

In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Truther]

'Then Peter said unto them,
Repent, and be baptized every one of you
in the name of Jesus Christ
for the remission of sins,
and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
For the promise is unto you,
and to your children,
and to all that are afar off,
even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
And with many other words did he testify and exhort,
saying, "Save yourselves from this untoward generation".
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized:
and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.'
(Acts 2:38-41)

Hi @Truther,

In reply #341, I inferred that care should be taken in applying the Word of God to ourselves, any part of it, without taking into consideration the context of the passage being considered.

For example, @marksman referred to verse 38, of the quotation above (highlighted), and this was spoken by Peter, in response to a question asked by people of 'the House of Israel' (Acts 2:36), or, 'men of Israel' (Acts 2:22) who were 'pricked in their hearts' by what he had been saying to them. He urges them to save themselves from 'this untoward generation'. These were men of Israel, who were at Jerusalem for the feast of Passover, some native to Jerusalem and others who were there from the countries of the dispersion (i.e., 'all that are afar off'), 'as many as our Lord shall call' - who would comprise the believing remnant of Israel whom God was calling out. There would not have been a gentile there, unless he were a proselyte.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

Notice the Gentiles in Acts 10 getting the same message.
If is good enough for them it’s good enough for us

 

[mjrhealth]

Christ wasn’t resurrected before Acts 8?

Look if you want to get baptized, well and good, it has no part in salvation, it is by grace ware are saved through faith, it is a gift from God, not and baptism. Of course if you choose to add that, thats your issue not ours, nor Gods for that matter. All you seek to do as so many do is justify your position and what you understand, that why these forums are so much fun...Not.

 

[charity]

Notice the Gentiles in Acts 10 getting the same message.
If is good enough for them it’s good enough for us

'Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized,
which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.
Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.'
(Acts 10:47-48)

Hi @Truther

Let's put away any combative spirit here please, for I am not trying to gain an advantage over you in any way in regard to water baptism. I believe, as I told @marksman, that water baptism was what Acts 2:38 referred to.

Yes, in Acts 10, approximately 10 years later, Peter instructed that the gentiles who were to be grafted into the Olive Tree of Israel should be baptized in the name of the Lord. I find it interesting that they received the Holy Ghost before they were baptised with water though, don't you? Whereas in Acts 2:38, it was after baptism in water .

Yes, baptism in water was a requirement at Acts 10, I agree. Yet the Church which is the Body of Christ was still unknown at that time (Ephesians 3:9): it was not revealed to Paul until after Acts 28; when blindness finally fell upon Israel, and they went away into unbelief. In the epistles written by Paul following that revelation, water baptism is not referred to (in Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus and Philemon), for the believer is made COMPLETE in Christ (Colossians 2:10).

Praise God!

In Christ Jesus
Chris