The ultimate thread about baptism (?)

[tribesman]

Unusally enough, this is a christian forum where the issue of baptism (in water) has not been much discussed. Might then be time for it. As all know, it is a fundamental christian doctrine and has also become a matter of not a little dispute in christianity.

What is your take on it? How do you view the biblical teaching of it? Who is to be baptized, how and why?

Infant baptism is OK? Or only baptism of persons who have made some form of audible confession?

Do you believe that every individual (women, children and servants included) in the ancient jewish households in NT times was being asked "do you want to be baptised, or not?". Or, did they just follow dad, the head of the house, the patriarch? (As they did in every major decision.)

Apart from the biblical accounts, do you find many references in church history that the church always practised water baptism the same way as baptists practise it today ("believers baptism" by immersion)? Or has the church always accepted "infant baptism"?

Would you say that "infant baptism" was a roman invention some centuries AD? If so, isn't it strange that church history has a quite consistent and long standing testimony for this mode of baptism and that the big disputes over the mode of baptism are relatively late in history?

[SantoSubito]

Originally Posted by tribesman

Unusally enough, this is a christian forum where the issue of baptism (in water) has not been much discussed. Might then be time for it. As all know, it is a fundamental christian doctrine and has also become a matter of not a little dispute in christianity.

A long time ago we had a thread that went to about 120 pages about this very issue. But it was a while ago so it may be time to revisit it.

What is your take on it? How do you view the biblical teaching of it? Who is to be baptized, how and why?

As you can probably tell by my avatar and flag, I'm a Catholic. So I hold that Baptism is for the remission of sins, open to all people regardless of age or mental capacity, and is to be performed in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

Infant baptism is OK? Or only baptism of persons who have made some form of audible confession?

Infant baptism is OK. The grace provided in the Sacrament by God is not conditional on something we say or do.

Do you believe that every individual (women, children and servants included) in the ancient jewish households in NT times was being asked "do you want to be baptised, or not?". Or, did they just follow dad, the head of the house, the patriarch? (As they did in every major decision.)

The family followed the father with all in the household being baptized (infants included).

Apart from the biblical accounts, do you find many references in church history that the church always practised water baptism the same way as baptists practise it today ("believers baptism" by immersion)? Or has the church always accepted "infant baptism"?

The Didache written sometime in the late first century AD as a pastoral manual tells us this:

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 no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

Here we have two modes for Baptism, pouring and immersion.

Would you say that "infant baptism" was a roman invention some centuries AD? If so, isn't it strange that church history has a quite consistent and long standing testimony for this mode of baptism and that the big disputes over the mode of baptism are relatively late in history?

It was from all the earliest accounts from the Early Church Fathers, always the practice of the Church to baptize infants.

[eternally-gratefull]

What about the baptism which counts? The baptism of the HS, where we are placed into Christ. Hid Body and our sins are cleansed through the washing and renewal of the HS. The spiritual circumcision accomplished through the baptism of God, who as Paul said, raised him (Christ) from the dead

[See_KING_Truth]

John 3
4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.


Ephesians 4
4There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.


The one true baptism is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In John 3, Jesus explains to Nicodemus that a man must be born of water (the womb) and of Spirit (Holy Spirit) to enter the kingdom of God. We know this is what Jesus meant by his following words: That which is born of flesh (a woman's womb) is flesh, and that which is born of Spirit (Holy Spirit) is spirit.

[Abiding]

For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.Acts 1:5

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.1 cor 1:17

There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.eph 4:4

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;Titus 3:5

[tribesman]

Originally Posted by SantoSubito

A long time ago we had a thread that went to about 120 pages about this very issue. But it was a while ago so it may be time to revisit it.

Oh, didn't see that. Wasn't a CC member then. This thread should be seen as water baptism revisited then.

Originally Posted by SantoSubito

As you can probably tell by my avatar and flag, I'm a Catholic. So I hold that Baptism is for the remission of sins, open to all people regardless of age or mental capacity, and is to be performed in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

OK. Would you say that at least one of the parents have to be christian?

Originally Posted by SantoSubito

Infant baptism is OK. The grace provided in the Sacrament by God is not conditional on something we say or do.

Would you say it is linked to personal faith or do you believe in ex opere operato ?

Originally Posted by SantoSubito

The family followed the father with all in the household being baptized (infants included).

I would agree here.

Originally Posted by SantoSubito

The Didache written sometime in the late first century AD as a pastoral manual tells us this:

Some say that Didache is an argument for "believers baptism"; what is your response to that?

Originally Posted by SantoSubito

Here we have two modes for Baptism, pouring and immersion. It was from all the earliest accounts from the Early Church Fathers, always the practice of the Church to baptize infants.

Yes, indeed here is an early source for pouring as valid method. And, as you say, we have plenty of sources that infant baptism was practiced in christianity from an early age.

How do you believe the jews practiced their baptisms for proselytes? Were infants baptized as well? Did John the Baptist practice infant baptism?

[tribesman]

Originally Posted by eternally-gratefull

What about the baptism which counts? The baptism of the HS, where we are placed into Christ. Hid Body and our sins are cleansed through the washing and renewal of the HS. The spiritual circumcision accomplished through the baptism of God, who as Paul said, raised him (Christ) from the dead

We are discussing water baptism here. Although Spirit baptism is an extremely important issue it might well suit to be discussed in its own thread. Now, may I ask what you mean with "the baptism that counts"? Are you saying that water baptism isn't something that "counts"?

Acts.2

[38] 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.
[39] 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.

[tribesman]

Originally Posted by See_KING_Truth

...John 3:3-6, Eph.4:4-6 ... The one true baptism is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In John 3, Jesus explains to Nicodemus that a man must be born of water (the womb) and of Spirit (Holy Spirit) to enter the kingdom of God. We know this is what Jesus meant by his following words: That which is born of flesh (a woman's womb) is flesh, and that which is born of Spirit (Holy Spirit) is spirit.

Originally Posted by Abiding

For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.Acts 1:5

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.1 cor 1:17

There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.eph 4:4

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;Titus 3:5

You talk about Spirit baptism. This thread is about water baptism (though it could be argued Eph.4:5 and Tit. 3:5 refers to that). Shall I interpret you guys that you think water baptism is actually not necessary? How do you view water baptism?

[Minich]

I do not believe in infant baptism but have not found anywhere in the bible that says to do or not to do it so I believe it is a personal family choice.

I also believe that baptism is not necessary for salvation but is more a step of obidience that should be performed for all professing believers and that it must be done by full immersion.

[SantoSubito]

Originally Posted by tribesman

OK. Would you say that at least one of the parents have to be christian?

Normally yes this is the case, and if a child is in no danger of dieing soon the baptism will be pushed back until the parents are received into the Church at which time the baby will receive baptism with his or hers parents. But if the baby is in danger of dieing baptism can be administered right away regardless of whether or not the parents are Christian as long as they wish to have their baby baptized. In fact in cases like this it is perfectly valid for any Christian to administer baptism if their is not a priest available.

Would you say it is linked to personal faith or do you believe in ex opere operato ?

The Sacraments are "ex opere operato" as you say.

Some say that Didache is an argument for "believers baptism"; what is your response to that?

I see nothing of the sort and the manual is primarily concerned with converts (who were adults).

Yes, indeed here is an early source for pouring as valid method. And, as you say, we have plenty of sources that infant baptism was practiced in christianity from an early age.

Yep, and pouring is the primary method used by Catholics even though immersion is making a come back since after Vatican II new churches started to have rather large Baptistries that can acomadate full immersion. Although even in these churches pouring is still often used as a matter of tradition.

How do you believe the jews practiced their baptisms for proselytes? Were infants baptized as well? Did John the Baptist practice infant baptism?

Not quite sure as I don't believe we have any substantial record for how the Jews performed this practice. But I see circumcision as a better prefigurement of Christian baptism than Jewish baptism.

[superdave5221]

Originally Posted by eternally-gratefull

What about the baptism which counts? The baptism of the HS, where we are placed into Christ. Hid Body and our sins are cleansed through the washing and renewal of the HS. The spiritual circumcision accomplished through the baptism of God, who as Paul said, raised him (Christ) from the dead

Acts 2: 38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins ; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." 40 And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation !" 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized ; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.

Peter seems to think that being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, which we know is water baptism, kind of counts for something. It precedes the receiving of the "gift of Holy Spirit". That is a gift worth receiving. And it would appear from verse 41 that the water baptism is the event which signifies that one is "added to Christ's church".

Now we know that water baptism was believed by the early church fathers and apologists to be necessary for salvation. These are those people who either knew the apostles, or knew someone who knew the apostles.

I can't imagine how those church fathers, who were closest to the apostles, and who were responsible for recognizing the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, could have gotten it wrong.

I would think that they knew more about this subject then did Zwingli 1500 years later.

By the way, in the name of Jesus Christ, means that Jesus Christ is responsible for the forgiving of sins, not the person administering the baptism, nor the water itself.

[eternally-gratefull]

Originally Posted by tribesman

We are discussing water baptism here. Although Spirit baptism is an extremely important issue it might well suit to be discussed in its own thread. Now, may I ask what you mean with "the baptism that counts"? Are you saying that water baptism isn't something that "counts"?

As far as salvation. no, no one will be saved because they were baptized in water. one must be saved before baptism in water or it means absolutely nothing.

As far as obeying God and allowing blessing, yes. If one can't obay God on his first command after one is saved through baptism of the Holy Spirit through faith in Christ. how can one expect God to bless him?

Acts 2 needs to be interpreted by the greek. the english text can mislead one into thinking baptism washes sin, or grants remission. it does not say this in the greek

as far as water baptism, if it was just a thread on infant baptism I would have responded to that. but this is a thread on baptism. HS baptism is a baptism so we should discuss it also.

[eternally-gratefull]

Originally Posted by superdave5221

Acts 2: 38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins ; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." 40 And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation !" 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized ; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.

Peter seems to think that being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, which we know is water baptism, kind of counts for something. It precedes the receiving of the "gift of Holy Spirit". That is a gift worth receiving. And it would appear from verse 41 that the water baptism is the event which signifies that one is "added to Christ's church".

Now we know that water baptism was believed by the early church fathers and apologists to be necessary for salvation. These are those people who either knew the apostles, or knew someone who knew the apostles.

I can't imagine how those church fathers, who were closest to the apostles, and who were responsible for recognizing the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, could have gotten it wrong.

I would think that they knew more about this subject then did Zwingli 1500 years later.

By the way, in the name of Jesus Christ, means that Jesus Christ is responsible for the forgiving of sins, not the person administering the baptism, nor the water itself.

Thanks for your response. But Peter did not think any such thing. The interpretors who interpreted his words just got the wording mixed up.

Repent is 2rd person plural. It is a command given to everyone who he is speaking to. Gift of the HS is also 2nd person plural. It is what everyone who repents will recieve for repenting.

Baptize is a 3rd person singular. Meaning Peter is no longer talking to everyone who is listening to him. But only certain people individually (A third person command is general to everyone, a 2nd person command is an individual command given to certain listeners. not all) to find out who he is talking to, we must find the third person command is we look for the third person singular command. It just happens to be "baptize", in other words he is only telling specific people, not all, to be baptized. Now to find out who? What is the "thing" which is 3rd person singular? Remission of sin is third person singular.

In other words. Peter is telling them all to repent, and if they repent, they will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Then he continues by telling those who have received remission of sin because of their repentance to be baptized.

Remember in Acts 10: 43 the same author writes this;

Acts 10:43
To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”

If baptism was essential to receive remission. and not just faith. then Peter would have said so here in acts 10. But he does not, beczause he understands it is not a requirement, but happens after, proven by his next words.

Peter then continues by saying this,

47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

so we see, the gift comes first. Remission comes through faith and repentance. then comes water baptism.

[StMichaelTheArchangel]

So to those who do not believe in water baptism for salvation: Are you guys so lazy that you don't want to believe any works at all, not even water baptism? I mean, how hard is it to get baptized? This is more of a "Faith" act than a "Works" act, for it truly is "By grace" that you are saved and not by your own works, for baptism is a work of Christ and His Church, all you have to do is believe in it and enact it.

Well, then I guess this is the Jesus you worship then, since you are so lazy that you don't want move your butt and get in some water to be saved (I just found this pic lol, no offence)

[superdave5221]

Originally Posted by eternally-gratefull

Thanks for your response. But Peter did not think any such thing. The interpretors who interpreted his words just got the wording mixed up.

Repent is 2rd person plural. It is a command given to everyone who he is speaking to. Gift of the HS is also 2nd person plural. It is what everyone who repents will recieve for repenting.

Baptize is a 3rd person singular. Meaning Peter is no longer talking to everyone who is listening to him. But only certain people individually (A third person command is general to everyone, a 2nd person command is an individual command given to certain listeners. not all) to find out who he is talking to, we must find the third person command is we look for the third person singular command. It just happens to be "baptize", in other words he is only telling specific people, not all, to be baptized. Now to find out who? What is the "thing" which is 3rd person singular? Remission of sin is third person singular.

In other words. Peter is telling them all to repent, and if they repent, they will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Then he continues by telling those who have received remission of sin because of their repentance to be baptized.

Remember in Acts 10: 43 the same author writes this;

Acts 10:43
To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”

If baptism was essential to receive remission. and not just faith. then Peter would have said so here in acts 10. But he does not, beczause he understands it is not a requirement, but happens after, proven by his next words.

Peter then continues by saying this,

47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

so we see, the gift comes first. Remission comes through faith and repentance. then comes water baptism.

The omission in Acts 10 does not cancel the inclusion in Acts 2. If you tell your 16 year old son on three straight saturdays that you want him home by 1:00 am but on the fourth saturday you omit to tell him that, does that give him license to stay out all night?

Many of the authors in the bible stress certain aspects of doctrine that they feel that certain people have need of. This does not mean that those things that they do not mention all of a sudden are unimportant.

My question, and the one that you are unable to answer, is why the church fathers and apologists who knew the apostles personally interpret the scriptures differently than you do?

These are the same ones who recognized and tested the various documents and writings that the church was using at the time to determine which ones were inspired and which ones were not. One would hope, and I believe, that these men were inspired by Holy Spirit in this capacity. And yet, according to you, they got the baptism issue wrong.

Please explain.

[AnandaHya]

I want my 16 year old to be home by 9 pm.... 1 am and I'm sending out the uncles to hunt him down.

[SantoSubito]

Originally Posted by eternally-gratefull

Thanks for your response. But Peter did not think any such thing. The interpretors who interpreted his words just got the wording mixed up.

Repent is 2rd person plural. It is a command given to everyone who he is speaking to. Gift of the HS is also 2nd person plural. It is what everyone who repents will recieve for repenting.

Baptize is a 3rd person singular. Meaning Peter is no longer talking to everyone who is listening to him. But only certain people individually (A third person command is general to everyone, a 2nd person command is an individual command given to certain listeners. not all) to find out who he is talking to, we must find the third person command is we look for the third person singular command. It just happens to be "baptize", in other words he is only telling specific people, not all, to be baptized. Now to find out who? What is the "thing" which is 3rd person singular? Remission of sin is third person singular.

In other words. Peter is telling them all to repent, and if they repent, they will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Then he continues by telling those who have received remission of sin because of their repentance to be baptized.

Remember in Acts 10: 43 the same author writes this;

Acts 10:43
To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”

If baptism was essential to receive remission. and not just faith. then Peter would have said so here in acts 10. But he does not, beczause he understands it is not a requirement, but happens after, proven by his next words.

Peter then continues by saying this,

47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

so we see, the gift comes first. Remission comes through faith and repentance. then comes water baptism.

Interesting to say the least. But I feel you ran off the tracks, Latin for example has almost identical grammar to Greek (and does not differ in the forms you mentioned), but it has the passage translated (not so much translated as Jerome spoke Greek and Latin practically from birth) as:

Vulgate: Acts Chapter 2

[38] Petrus vero ad illos paenitentiam inquit agite et baptizetur (3rd person subjunctive) unusquisque vestrum in nomine Iesu Christi in remissionem peccatorum vestrorum et accipietis (2nd person plural future) donum Sancti Spiritus.

Normally Latin would use a 3rd person plural form of "baptizo" instead of a 3rd person singular subjunctive form but since "unusquisque" is used (speaking to each person individually) it makes the change necessary. Additionally while the command to "be baptized" is in the present while the verb "to receive (the Holy Spirit)" is in 2nd person (speaking to only some people) future tense; Simply put he's saying to all of them "Repent and be baptized" and then to the ones that will repent and be baptized "and then you will receive the Holy Spirit", hence the change from 3rd person to 2nd person.

In fact you contradicted yourself in this sentence by saying because baptize is in the 3rd person Peter is not speaking to everyone, and then you said that a 3rd person command is speaking to everyone. As you said:

Baptize is a 3rd person singular. Meaning Peter is no longer talking to everyone who is listening to him. But only certain people individually (A third person command is general to everyone

Now if you plan to ask why "to baptize" is in the singular form in Greek it's because the verb has to agree grammatically with who or what is being commanded. In this case the who is "each of you" or "hekastos humon" which is singular, therefore "to baptize" has to agree with it. Honestly I don't know where you got this but it goes to great lengths to twist verb constructs into saying something they're not, and it doesn't appear to have too solid a grasp on grammar.

The passage is translated perfectly well into English with the tenses maintained perfectly as I just showed above. With receiving the Holy Spirit in the future and repenting and being baptized in the present.

[mpaper345]

20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ(1 Peter 3:20-21).


This is definitely talking about water,in which it says baptism does save us,and Jesus said you must be born of water and the Spirit,showing they are separate baptisms,water and Spirit.Jesus would not mention 2 baptisms of the Spirit,if water were meant to be Spirit.Jesus said all who are baptized shall be saved.


It would seem like the reasoning for baptism to save us,is that we have to identify with the man Christ Jesus,when He died,was buried,and rose from the grave,by repenting of sins,being baptized in water,and receiving the Holy Spirit,which the Bible says we are a living sacrifice unto God.


Jesus sacrificed His life,and we are a living sacrifice unto God,so we would have to identify with the man Christ Jesus,and since we are a living sacrifice,and do not die physically,we identify with the man Christ Jesus by doing it by dying out to sin,and being baptized in water.

[eternally-gratefull]

Originally Posted by superdave5221

The omission in Acts 10 does not cancel the inclusion in Acts 2. If you tell your 16 year old son on three straight saturdays that you want him home by 1:00 am but on the fourth saturday you omit to tell him that, does that give him license to stay out all night?

But as I showed you. there is no inclusion in acts 2. Language does not allow it. Acts 2 was not written in English it was written in Greek. We must take the greek at face value.

Peter did not tell everyone be repent and be baptized. He told everyone to repent. and those who repent will get the gift of the spirit. Those all fit the 2nd person plural language, and also fits with Acts 10 perfectly.

As for the rest. Your telling me, because I made a mistake and forgot to tell my son 1:00 on the last week. this is like Peter made a mistake and committed something in acts 10? Are you serious??

Did Peter tell them to be baptized in Acts ten to recieve the spirit. or because they HAD received the spirit? Did Peter in Acts ten say we recieve remmision because we believe and are baptized or just believe? Peter di dnot leave anything out, or forget. Scripture tells us, they recieved the spirit BEFORE they were baptized.

Many of the authors in the bible stress certain aspects of doctrine that they feel that certain people have need of. This does not mean that those things that they do not mention all of a sudden are unimportant.

How many Gospels are there? So the people in Acts 2 are required to be baptized before they are saved (even though it really does not say that) and the people in acts ten get a pass, and are saved before baptism? I thought Scripture said there was ONE gospel?

Peter did not leave anything out. again, read in the greek. It does not say be baptized and you will get the spirit. Baptize is third singular. Gift of the HS is second plural. they do not fit in grammar. thus are not associated with each other.

My question, and the one that you are unable to answer, is why the church fathers and apologists who knew the apostles personally interpret the scriptures differently than you do?

What Church fathers? Am I going to listen to someone who came after scripture or listen to scripture alone? Who is more important. what Peter said, or what some man after peter said?

These are the same ones who recognized and tested the various documents and writings that the church was using at the time to determine which ones were inspired and which ones were not. One would hope, and I believe, that these men were inspired by Holy Spirit in this capacity. And yet, according to you, they got the baptism issue wrong.

Please explain.

The ONLY men who are inspired are the ones who wrote scripture. Anything after is mans personal interpretation.

I follow the word of God. NOT MEN.

Are you going to deny what the GREEK of acts 2 says? or are you going to totally destroy the laws of language to make your belief come true so you can follow what men teach?

[superdave5221]

Originally Posted by eternally-gratefull

But as I showed you. there is no inclusion in acts 2. Language does not allow it. Acts 2 was not written in English it was written in Greek. We must take the greek at face value.

Peter did not tell everyone be repent and be baptized. He told everyone to repent. and those who repent will get the gift of the spirit. Those all fit the 2nd person plural language, and also fits with Acts 10 perfectly.

As for the rest. Your telling me, because I made a mistake and forgot to tell my son 1:00 on the last week. this is like Peter made a mistake and committed something in acts 10? Are you serious??

Did Peter tell them to be baptized in Acts ten to recieve the spirit. or because they HAD received the spirit? Did Peter in Acts ten say we recieve remmision because we believe and are baptized or just believe? Peter di dnot leave anything out, or forget. Scripture tells us, they recieved the spirit BEFORE they were baptized.

How many Gospels are there? So the people in Acts 2 are required to be baptized before they are saved (even though it really does not say that) and the people in acts ten get a pass, and are saved before baptism? I thought Scripture said there was ONE gospel?

Peter did not leave anything out. again, read in the greek. It does not say be baptized and you will get the spirit. Baptize is third singular. Gift of the HS is second plural. they do not fit in grammar. thus are not associated with each other.

What Church fathers? Am I going to listen to someone who came after scripture or listen to scripture alone? Who is more important. what Peter said, or what some man after peter said?

The ONLY men who are inspired are the ones who wrote scripture. Anything after is mans personal interpretation.

I follow the word of God. NOT MEN.

Are you going to deny what the GREEK of acts 2 says? or are you going to totally destroy the laws of language to make your belief come true so you can follow what men teach?

The early church elders and the body of Christ as a whole believed that water baptism was necessary, and all of the nonheretical churches practiced it. This belief and practice was a traditional belief from the very beginnings of the church, including when the apostles were still living. Your interpretation of scripture contradicts known history.

As to the Holy Scriptures, many works were being circulated in the early church. These included pseudopigraphic and apocryphal works. The church body had to decide which works were inspired and which ones were not. I would like to believe that Holy Spirit inspired the membership in making those decisions. If you wish to think that it was all human effort, then you're welcome to that opinion.

The same church body, (made up of the various congregations), that decided which works were inspired and which later became the biblical canon, was the same church body that believed in the need for water baptism.