Baptism....

[thessalonian]

Fit? Because a Catholic points out the obvious division after division, contradiction after contradiction, blown about by every wind of doctrine it is a fit? Your sounding kind of anti-catholic here. I know you don't like to be lumped in with them but you base your theologies on the same false premise they do. I am sorry you don't like my direct words. Telling it like it is.

"Now, this doesn't mean Briguy's Bible study has any weight. In fact it is riddled with the worst kinds of holes"

[jswranch]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1095975' date='Oct 19 2006, 02:31 PM']
Fit? Because a Catholic points out the obvious division after division, contradiction after contradiction, blown about by every wind of doctrine it is a fit? Your sounding kind of anti-catholic here. I know you don't like to be lumped in with them but you base your theologies on the same false premise they do. I am sorry you don't like my direct words. Telling it like it is.

"Now, this doesn't mean Briguy's Bible study has any weight. In fact it is riddled with the worst kinds of holes"


[/quote]
Well, he has his opinion. He is also kindly wishing to discuss this very important issue. Lets make sure he knows he is welcomed.

[Jesuspaidtheprice]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1095975' date='Oct 19 2006, 04:31 PM']
Fit? Because a Catholic points out the obvious division after division, contradiction after contradiction, blown about by every wind of doctrine it is a fit? Your sounding kind of anti-catholic here. I know you don't like to be lumped in with them but you base your theologies on the same false premise they do. I am sorry you don't like my direct words. Telling it like it is.

"Now, this doesn't mean Briguy's Bible study has any weight. In fact it is riddled with the worst kinds of holes"


[/quote]

You're attitude is really no better than Budge or Eut, and is a poor example as a representative of the Catholic Church. You don't "tell it like it is", you simply, like Budge and Eut, come off as self righteous. This board has got to be one of the worst examples of Protestant and Catholic dialogue today. I've long since given up attempting any level of scholarly dialogue as the intellect doesn't exist here, but even the apologetics are poor as people seem personally wounded everytime a varying opinion is voiced. It seems the only Protestants this board can engage anymore, for any period of time, are those who will cater to the "attack the person, don't discuss the issue" form of "Internet Debate". I expect this out of most Protestant boards, I have however come to expect a better level of engagement at Catholic boards based on those I attend to now. This board however, unfortunately fails that standard, it seems, for popularity. This atmosphere unfortunately eventually effects everyone, even those who are very well meaning. I'm sure you, and other Catholics and even Protestants here are perfectly wonderful, loving people but it seems that this type of board just brings out the worst in people. As an example, where in any of my posts have I attempted to advance a doctrine that is opposed to Catholic teaching? I have indeed, over and over again attempted to help Catholics approach non-Catholics with their theology in a way non-Catholics can understand it.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Jesuspaidtheprice' post='1095959' date='Oct 19 2006, 04:10 PM']
Don't drag me into your little fit on this thread. I never claimed to be a Protestant, nor have I said I belonged to a Protestant Church. The Catholic Church through the 'development' of doctrine" has taken the individual thought of the early fathers, theologians, doctors of the Church, to modern scholars today [as well as the thought of clergy] and has discerned from their own thought what they believed to be truth and eventually define it as doctrine and dogma. I don't see any need to attack Brian's scripture study as if he is claiming to be a Magisterium, as I don't see him claiming to be infallible or claiming that you have to take his word for it. It seems he is presenting material on a debate board to be debated. If you have debated him in the past, and are sick of debating him, I would think the best thing to do would be to ignore him.

Now, this doesn't mean Briguy's Bible study has any weight. In fact it is riddled with the worst kinds of holes. He is simply making conjectures based on a casual observance of his English text as to the meaning of the text. To state that the function of baptism according to Acts is to be a sign after repentance terribly strains the plain meaning of the text. It ignores the Jewish understanding of Hebrew scriptures, especially the prophetic texts that tell us a remnant of Israel will be "cut to the heart", that is their circumcision would not merely be of the flesh, but their whole lives would be transformed in the New Covenant and they would become a "new creation". Luke was very careful in his choice of words in Acts. The argument of the demonstration of believers being baptized after repentance as a condemnation of infant baptism, or more importantly, the covenantal role of baptism, is extremely weak to the point that I would call it error given the organic unity of scripture tells us otherwise about baptism. It is fine that Brian does his own Bible study, just as it if fine that Catholics do so, but the study of scriptures cannot be done in a vacuum.
[/quote]
Please continue with this discussion

[quote name='jswranch' post='1095788' date='Oct 19 2006, 01:15 PM']
Ok, fair enough. Let us slow down, wipe the slate clean, and start again. I understand if you are suffering from a bit of information overload. For you, let us stick to one topic concerning baptism. Baptism is a very complicated thing from our perspective. It is has many implications and properties about it. Discussions such as (1) infant baptism and whether (2)baptism into Christ can occur by only water or may occur by blood or desire are both good discussions, but let us first figure out the norm of the plan God has given us before we discuss the exceptions.

A bit of what the Catholic Church teaches on the subject is in accord with doctrines held by protestants other than yourself. So, if you were to agree with us on some element of baptism, you would only be switching doctrines to a different protestant one.

Let us stick with this item of discussion (resolution):

[u]Nowhere in the bible does it say baptism is a function of showing repentence.[/u]

Do you support or oppose this resolution?
How do you defend your position about the resolution using scripture alone?
Let us seek the truth together.
[/quote]

please continue with your points.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Jesuspaidtheprice' post='1096716' date='Oct 20 2006, 09:35 AM']
You're attitude is really no better than Budge or Eut, and is a poor example as a representative of the Catholic Church. You don't "tell it like it is", you simply, like Budge and Eut, come off as self righteous. This board has got to be one of the worst examples of Protestant and Catholic dialogue today. I've long since given up attempting any level of scholarly dialogue as the intellect doesn't exist here, but even the apologetics are poor as people seem personally wounded everytime a varying opinion is voiced. It seems the only Protestants this board can engage anymore, for any period of time, are those who will cater to the "attack the person, don't discuss the issue" form of "Internet Debate". I expect this out of most Protestant boards, I have however come to expect a better level of engagement at Catholic boards based on those I attend to now. This board however, unfortunately fails that standard, it seems, for popularity. This atmosphere unfortunately eventually effects everyone, even those who are very well meaning. I'm sure you, and other Catholics and even Protestants here are perfectly wonderful, loving people but it seems that this type of board just brings out the worst in people. As an example, where in any of my posts have I attempted to advance a doctrine that is opposed to Catholic teaching? I have indeed, over and over again attempted to help Catholics approach non-Catholics with their theology in a way non-Catholics can understand it.
[/quote]
Oye vey.

There is no such thing as worthwhile discussion on the internet because people can't type with a beer in their hand.

But seriously. The tone is always "I have this degree, or go to that school, or I've studied some arcane theological subject, so you should listen to me unless you are a hater, or a sin lover, or are arrogant, or are stupid..."
Just because someone isn't Catholic doesn't make them all like Budge or Eutychus. In the 6+ years I've been posting on the various iterations of phatmass, it's been very rare that non-Catholic Christians have been regularly welcomed and dialogued with. Very rare. Even Bro.Adam was chased off a number of times. Sure there are a few who have consistently been welcoming though challenging, those people are in the minority.
Catholics are the FIRST to scream and rant when non-Catholic Christians accuse them of not being Christians. But the Catholics do the Same Thing time and time again.

Now will follow all the posters who will defend their bad behavior and the posters who will take offense from what I said because 'they' didn't behave that way. No, not all the posters here are spiritual bullies, but an awful lot are here. I've debated religion on the 'net for more than 10 years and it's not usually pleasant or constructive. I think I've come to the conclusion that no 'net based discussion can stay constructive. There are just too many people with too many voices for the anonimity of the internet to control, temper, or encourage discussion. They always devolve into an unproductive argument.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1096745' date='Oct 20 2006, 12:22 PM']
Oye vey.

There is no such thing as worthwhile discussion on the internet because people can't type with a beer in their hand.

But seriously. The tone is always "I have this degree, or go to that school, or I've studied some arcane theological subject, so you should listen to me unless you are a hater, or a sin lover, or are arrogant, or are stupid..."
Just because someone isn't Catholic doesn't make them all like Budge or Eutychus. In the 6+ years I've been posting on the various iterations of phatmass, it's been very rare that non-Catholic Christians have been regularly welcomed and dialogued with. Very rare. Even Bro.Adam was chased off a number of times. Sure there are a few who have consistently been welcoming though challenging, those people are in the minority.
Catholics are the FIRST to scream and rant when non-Catholic Christians accuse them of not being Christians. But the Catholics do the Same Thing time and time again.

Now will follow all the posters who will defend their bad behavior and the posters who will take offense from what I said because 'they' didn't behave that way. No, not all the posters here are spiritual bullies, but an awful lot are here. I've debated religion on the 'net for more than 10 years and it's not usually pleasant or constructive. I think I've come to the conclusion that no 'net based discussion can stay constructive. There are just too many people with too many voices for the anonimity of the internet to control, temper, or encourage discussion. They always devolve into an unproductive argument.
[/quote]
There are excellent boards out there, but you will find trolls are immediately banned and good conversations then ensue.

[thessalonian]

JPTP.

I see your posts toward me as nothing but personal attacks. Perhaps you need to look in a mirror. I'm having fits? I'm personally offended? No it is you that is personally offended and apparently having fits. Insult and inuendo is what you are about. You really don't know me at all. We could have had respectful dialogue as I have had with many prots and with Brian in the past. But it is you that chose to go on the attack against me. I merely pointed out the contradictory views of a group of Protestants who use the same basis for their viewpoints and speak them as if they are the gospel truth. You took offense to that. I am sorry that you did but you missed my point. By the way I could really care less about popularity. When have I accused you of promoting doctrines against Catholic teaching? Thus far our discussion has not been on that level. If I had expanded my arguement lumping you in with Euty and Budge I would have put you in the teddy bear Catholics are Christians too, even though they bow down before a wafer and some wine (which is called idolatry in the OT, that is if it really isn't Christ), category non-anti-catholic. It's not my fault you don't like being lumped in with budge and euty, of course it seems like your retaliation is to do the same with me. I guess my doing it justifies you somehow.

Blessings however.

Edited October 23, 2006 by thessalonian

[cmotherofpirl]

now that the tantrums are over, please get back to the topic....

[thessalonian]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1099030' date='Oct 23 2006, 11:56 AM']
now that the tantrums are over, please get back to the topic....
[/quote]


-> ->

[jswranch]

Anomaly,
Could you answer the questions of the post?

[Briguy]

I made this response before I knew that there was this many bad feelings going on. Actually, I did get a very nice PM asking me to come back. The fear was that the unkindness that was happening had chased me away. It hadn't, just business had. Thess. and I go way back and he has always had a "direct" way of addressing things. He does not always show an abundnace of "charity" but he has a passion for what he believes and that is a good thing. I think it is that deep passion that drives us to care so much. Anyway, I have not been offened and I hope I have not done any offending. Now back to the SHOW

Luke 3 NASB
3And he came into all (F)the district around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins;
4as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet,
"(G)THE VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS,
'MAKE READY THE WAY OF THE LORD,
MAKE HIS PATHS STRAIGHT.
5'(H)EVERY RAVINE WILL BE FILLED,
AND EVERY MOUNTAIN AND HILL WILL BE BROUGHT LOW;
THE CROOKED WILL BECOME STRAIGHT,
AND THE ROUGH ROADS SMOOTH;
6(I)AND ALL FLESH WILL (J)SEE THE SALVATION OF GOD.'"
7So he began saying to the crowds who were going out to be baptized by him, "(K)You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8"Therefore bear fruits in keeping with repentance, and (L)do not begin to say to yourselves, '(M)We have Abraham for our father,' for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham.

Acts 19 NASB
3And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, "(G)Into John's baptism."
4Paul said, "(H)John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people (I)to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus."

Acts 13 NASB
23"(BF)From the descendants of this man, (BG)according to promise, God has brought to Israel (BH)a Savior, Jesus,
24after (BI)John had proclaimed before His coming a (BJ)baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.

Acts 2 NASB
22"Men of Israel, listen to these words: (W)Jesus the Nazarene, (X)a man attested to you by God with miracles and (Y)wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know

34"For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says:
'(AT)THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD,
"SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,
35UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET."'
36"Therefore let all the (AU)house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both (AV)Lord and Christ--this Jesus (AW)whom you crucified."

37Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, (AX)what shall we do?"
38Peter said to them, "(AY)Repent, and each of you be (AZ)baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

19"Therefore (AD)repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that (AE)times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;
20and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you,

1 Cor. 1 NASB
22For indeed (AU)Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom;


Hi all, sorry about my delay in a response. In regards to the resolution I believe it is false. I do not support the resolution, which I better say since I have already boasted what I feel Peter was saying in Acts 2:38.
To say that the Act of baptism is the proof that the repentance is real is not easy to prove with a direct scripture that actually says those words. If there was we would not be having this debate as it would be obvious. No, we must look at the subject at hand to fully see what I am saying. John the Baptist preached a baptism of repentance, see Luke 3:3. Picture if you will a crowd of people standing around the Jordan River watching many go down to the water to be baptized. Who would be the ones who truly repented? The watchers or the ones in the water? OK, that was easy, right? We know the ones that went down to the water were the ones who were repenting. Was the water magic? Did the water make the person repent? Was the repentance in the heart of the person or in the water? Well, we know that repentance is in the heart of the person, not floating in the water. The act of getting in the water was the proof to those around that the repentance was real. The person knew and God knew, without the water but "others" knew "by" the water. When Peter made his statement in Acts 2:38 he was speaking to an Isreal that had not repented of the great sin of putting Jesus to death (Acts 2: 34-38. Now John's Baptism was fresh on their mind. Believer Baptism had not really begun yet. That would come later. Baptism was basically for the house of Isreal. Peter was not thinking of later Baptism obviously. What he had watched and been involved with was John's Baptism, which was unto repentance. So Peter naturally told those of Isreal, who had asked what they should do about the fact they killed Jesus, to Repent. Now, the outward "sign" of repentance was baptism, as instituted by John. Think back to Ninevah. The people put on sack cloth and ashes as a "sign" of repenting. Read 1 Cor. 1:22, Isreal asks for "signs". It was a cultural/religious thing of that time. Look at verses 19 and 20 above (from Acts 3, I think). The repentance Peter spoke of did not lead to salvation for the people. He said "that times of refreshing MAY come" Peter purposely did not say "will". This repentance was in preparation for faith in Christ. Jesus would be sent to the faithful.

OK, since there is a lot here, I will stop and let you all respond. Sorry about all the scripture but I wanted it presented up front. We can detail it more if needed, as we go on. What I wrote corresponds to the listed scripture, even though I didn't reference each step of the way.

In Christ,
Brian

Edited October 24, 2006 by Briguy

[thessalonian]

False teaching by those who have had plenty of opportunity to come to the truth does not require niceties. It is charitable to be harsh at times as Jesus did with the scribes and pharasees, calling them a brood of vipers, false teaches, blind guides among other things. You say I am uncharitable. It is your perogative to think so, but it is not charitable to allow someone to lead people in to a ditch. That was the very reason Jesus was harsh with the scribes and pharasees. If I didn't care about you brian (I do, but I also care for those whom you lead with your errors and twistings of scripture), I would try the Rodney King approach that Jesuspaidtheprice and everyone else wants me to try. It has it's place at times but not at this time. You have been stubornly persistent in your error.

Those of you who accuse me of uncharity accuse Jesus of the same. His words here were much sharper than mine:

11: He who is greatest among you shall be your servant;

12: whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

13: "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in.

15: Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.

16: "Woe to you, blind guides, who say, `If any one swears by the temple, it is nothing; but if any one swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.'

17: You blind geniuses! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred?

18: And you say, `If any one swears by the altar, it is nothing; but if any one swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.'

19: You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred?

20: So he who swears by the altar, swears by it and by everything on it;

21: and he who swears by the temple, swears by it and by him who dwells in it;

22: and he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it.

23: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

24: You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!

25: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you cleanse the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of extortion and rapacity.

26: You blind Pharisee! first cleanse the inside of the cup and of the plate, that the outside also may be clean.

27: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.

28: So you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

29: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,

30: saying, `If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.'

31: Thus you witness against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.

Blessings

Edited October 24, 2006 by thessalonian

[Briguy]

Gerald, you don't need to defend yourself. I need to say this though:
Listen, there is a difference between myself and a Pharisee. I accept the fact that God sent his son, Jesus, to pay the price for my sins. You see, the Scribes and Pharisee's did not accept that Jesus was who He said He was. I love Jesus, they hated Jesus. I give Him the glory, they seeked glory for themselves. I could go on and on. It may be easy for you to apply verses from 2000 years ago and try to make me out to be a false teacher but I really don't fit the bill at all. I live a humble life and point people to Christ when I can, by my actions and words. The people in your verses were not pointing people towards Jesus, they were steering people away from Jesus, on purpose. Gearld, I always thought you believed I was a Christian brother but that I was out of fellowship with the "Church". I guess I did not realize that I was a Scribe and/or Pharisee to you. I appreciate your honesty. I am guessing some of your Catholic Church brethern may not agree with you on this one. I don't think less oy you for this. I said before that you are direct and passionate and those are fine qualities.

Any reply to the substance of my last post?

In Christian Love,
Brian

[Franimus]

Baptism is obviously not required if you just look at the repentant theif on the cross with Jesus.
But, it is an open door into plenty of grace and such. Why would you NOT want more grace?

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Briguy' post='1100007' date='Oct 24 2006, 01:15 PM']
Gerald, you don't need to defend yourself. I need to say this though:
Listen, there is a difference between myself and a Pharisee. I accept the fact that God sent his son, Jesus, to pay the price for my sins. You see, the Scribes and Pharisee's did not accept that Jesus was who He said He was. I love Jesus, they hated Jesus. I give Him the glory, they seeked glory for themselves. I could go on and on. It may be easy for you to apply verses from 2000 years ago and try to make me out to be a false teacher but I really don't fit the bill at all. I live a humble life and point people to Christ when I can, by my actions and words. The people in your verses were not pointing people towards Jesus, they were steering people away from Jesus, on purpose. Gearld, I always thought you believed I was a Christian brother but that I was out of fellowship with the "Church". I guess I did not realize that I was a Scribe and/or Pharisee to you. I appreciate your honesty. I am guessing some of your Catholic Church brethern may not agree with you on this one. I don't think less oy you for this. I said before that you are direct and passionate and those are fine qualities.

Any reply to the substance of my last post?

In Christian Love,
Brian
[/quote]

Brian my good man, I am not defending myself per se, just attempting to clarify the notion of what is charity on the board is all. I am not judging you either. I think you are a Christian and hope you do what you do in ignorance rather than malice, though I stuggle with this some because as you said we have known eachother since way back in the days of baptist board and you are more entrenched in your false teachings. It still needs to be rebuked. As for your being a scribe or pharasee I wouldn't go that far and will not try to discern your motivation regarding your stubborn persistence in steering people away from the most holy sacrament of Baptism, but in steering them away from what Christ taught you are in fact similar to the scribes and pharasees. You steer men toward your personal Jesus and teach falsely what is required of salvation per your own personal views. This CANNOT be without consequence even if you are a Christian and deserves rebuke if you persist in it, which you have. There is one road to salvation for Christians and it includes baptism.

By the way it is not scribes and pharasees that Paul rebukes in Galatians either but men who believe in Christ but have corrupted the Gospel. Same for the Judaizers in Jude of whom he says "They must be silenced".

Blessings

Edited October 24, 2006 by thessalonian

[Jesuspaidtheprice]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1099024' date='Oct 23 2006, 12:49 PM']
JPTP.

I see your posts toward me as nothing but personal attacks. Perhaps you need to look in a mirror. I'm having fits? I'm personally offended? No it is you that is personally offended and apparently having fits. Insult and inuendo is what you are about. You really don't know me at all. We could have had respectful dialogue as I have had with many prots and with Brian in the past. But it is you that chose to go on the attack against me. I merely pointed out the contradictory views of a group of Protestants who use the same basis for their viewpoints and speak them as if they are the gospel truth. You took offense to that. I am sorry that you did but you missed my point. By the way I could really care less about popularity. When have I accused you of promoting doctrines against Catholic teaching? Thus far our discussion has not been on that level. If I had expanded my arguement lumping you in with Euty and Budge I would have put you in the teddy bear Catholics are Christians too, even though they bow down before a wafer and some wine (which is called idolatry in the OT, that is if it really isn't Christ), category non-anti-catholic. It's not my fault you don't like being lumped in with budge and euty, of course it seems like your retaliation is to do the same with me. I guess my doing it justifies you somehow.

Blessings however.
[/quote]

Truly, no more has to be said on my part.

[jswranch]

Brian,

I have noticed one huge difference between our views in baptism: the difference between the Baptism of John and the Trinitarian baptism. I view these as separate. I believe you see these as the same. We need to back up and sort this one out before proceeding.

I say they are different and the effects are completly separate. One can be baptized in the baptism of John, but still need the baptism of Jesus. I think you have made your decisions of baptism based on the baptism of John. That baptism was symbolic as you have described. When I mention Baptism, I mean the baptism of jesus.

For example, you did well to mention Acts 19:2-4. What you discribed is the baptism of John. However the next verses, verse 5-6, is critical in understanding that more is needed than the baptism of John: the baptism of Jesus.

On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.

Do you not see these two are different? One is a symbol as you have stated, and one confers the spirit?


[quote name='Franimus' post='1100039' date='Oct 24 2006, 12:57 PM']
Baptism is obviously not required if you just look at the repentant theif on the cross with Jesus.
But, it is an open door into plenty of grace and such. Why would you NOT want more grace?
[/quote]


Careful, you can get anathemized for this belief.


What you have missed is the baptism of blood and baptism of desire, not just baptism of water.

[Briguy]

Gearald, just wanted to clarify something. In my post above when I mentioned you and charity, I said that you don't always show an abundance of charity. I think you took that as saying you were not nice or that you were mean. I really only meant that your posts don't ooze with charity You do however show charity on a fairly regular basis. I am guessing that in real life you are a very decent guy.

jswranch, thanks for the post. Maybe we do need to clarify a little. We have been basically talking about the Baptism that occured in Acts 2 and so I have been basically looking at that type of Water Baptism. There is certainly a baptism of repentance and a believer water Baptism that are different, in a way. My argument says that what we see in Acts 2:38 is more on the lines with John'a Baptism then with the water baptisms that occurred later in Acts as the church grew and expanded to the Gentiles. My "proof" above was showing how the water was important as a "sign" that the repentance was real, for those Baptized by John and for those Peter talked about in Acts 2. Remember a couple things. Water Baptism as a process did not change. The fact that people got dunked in water as a "sign" was the same for John's Baptism and later baptisms. Water Baptism that is. In fact, to clarify, I am only dealing with water Baptism. There is a Baptism done by the Holy Spirit that is not a water Baptism. We may need to address that soon, but not now. Water baptism was the same in process but what the "sign" was showing by it, did change. It has always been a way to show the washing away of sins in a tangible way. The water baptisms are different yet hold a commonness as well. The Baptism in Acts 2 was unto repentance which is why Peter said Repent. Even by the time the Ethiopian is baptized in Chapt. 8 he is told he can quailfy for water baptism by believing. There was a shift as to what water baptism showed because there was not a Holy Spirit driven "church" when John the Baptist was around but there was as Acts progressed.

Clear as mud, right? Please ask more questions as I am not sure what I wrote will help you see what I am saying.

In Christ,
Brian

[thessalonian]

Once again brian, your definition of charity is skewed.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Briguy' post='1100701' date='Oct 25 2006, 09:50 AM']There is certainly a baptism of repentance and a believer water Baptism that are different, in a way. My argument says that what we see in Acts 2:38 is more on the lines with John'a Baptism then with the water baptisms that occurred later in Acts as the church grew and expanded to the Gentiles. My "proof" above was showing how the water was important as a "sign" that the repentance was real, for those Baptized by John and for those Peter talked about in Acts 2. Remember a couple things. Water Baptism as a process did not change. The fact that people got dunked in water as a "sign" was the same for John's Baptism and later baptisms. Water Baptism that is. In fact, to clarify, I am only dealing with water Baptism. There is a Baptism done by the Holy Spirit that is not a water Baptism.[/quote]I would disagree with this idea of a separate water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism. If there were two baptisms, Ephesians 4:5 ([url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/ephesians/ephesians4.htm#v5"]link[/url]) doesn't make a lot of sense.

We Christians are not called to the baptism of John, just like we're not called to ritual OT washing.

Some more interesting discussion in this link to the Summa Theologica:
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/406600.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/summa/406600.htm[/url]