Thank you. None of us do. That is an outside accusation. That doesn't come from us.
I hope you read my post on why you believe baptism is a very important step of obedience. You can't tell me you've ever read it in the Bible.
It is not contrary to any written text in the Bible. It is contrary to...
We don't believe in baptismal regeneration. That's a term you guys come up with. Baptismal regeneration says that it is baptism itself that regenerates, where instead it is God who regenerates, when He sees the expected response for what He has done for us.
It doesn't matter if we believe it or...
DNB,
In one of those, the one with Cornelius, Peter established that baptism in Jesus's name is in water Acts 10:47-48. So, Acts 2:38-39 baptism in Jesus's name, also taught by Peter, is in water. Which means baptism in Matthew 28:19 and in its counterpart Mark 16:16 is in water. Baptism in Acts...
InChrist,
Terrible exegesis.
I cut out of this post the things I already covered above. No need to repeat.
No it's not. It's a negative label used by the naysayers. It's not an official or accurate term.
"Illustrates", "identification", "pictures", all terms used by the commentator, not by Paul...
What do you mean baptism was a response for them?
Not so. Some tried to get the gentiles to obey the law of Moses, but it was discovered and struck down in Acts 15.
They were baptized into Christ and into a saved state. Acts 2:38-39.
That would be based on what the Bible says about it. Jesus did expect baptism in Matthew 28:19 & Mark 16:16. Would he says this about something he didn't care about?
If they have been taught. I have heard of people who allegedly placed their faith in Jesus Christ without any concept of sin or remorse. And both John the Baptist & Jesus started their ministry with teaching repent and believe the good news and were very specific with repentance. It doesn't just...
Unless, as he said, he didn't want people saying they were baptized in his name, which is just like he said. And the "few" comment referred only to these Corinthians. But does it matter? He said they were baptized so he still considered it important.
Of course, if someone is only looking for...
Would he have to? Why would somebody go looking for another way after he has stated how? And didn't he say this is for everybody from now on?
Acts 2:38-39 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...
I believe there are many reasons, but that the biggest reason, is history. Justin Martyr as early as 130 A.D believed in baptism for the remission of sins formerly committed, just like it says in the Bible. It went from that to infant baptism & pouring and sprinkling, St. Augustine's original...
He doesn't just say to do these things, he says "why" to do these things, for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
The monstrance, the pontificus maximus (pontiff), and the catholic church structure are all carry overs from the Roman Empire and the Roman Pagan religion. Infant baptism is not Biblical, it's historical. Acts 2:38 makes repentance a prerequisite to being baptized, which infants cannot do and...
To find this answer, one looks in the Bible
"I see baptism as a means of accepting that Jesus died for my sins so that I may be forgiven"
There are verses for that statement.
Acts 2:38-39 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of...
They were written to inspire contemplation, and discussion.
It is meant also as history and fact. And it is not only for a specific culture about their specific and unique god-concept.
There are many passages, especially in the New Testament such John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that...
Not themselves. Peter said they handed Jesus over to be killed. And they asled Barabbas to be released to them and demanded for Jesus to be crucified. So although they did not perform the crucifixion, they can't just say they had nothing to do with it.