Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You say the son is "eternally begotten of the Father", as in "went and got the son" or something like that?
The son was indeed born, died and resurrected before any other thing that existed in the all knowing, omniscient and omnipotent mind of God.
And yet - you don't see the idiocy and sheer faithlessness of this post.
Sounds like you're as CLUELESS about Col 2:9 as you are the rest of Scripture.
Don't need to.
The Bible does not explicitly give us the exact method of baptism, one must look at what was was generally believed and accepted by the universal historic church, evidenced by ancient documents. There no disagreement about baptism until well after the so called reformation. Even Luther and Calvin baptized infants. If pouring or sprinkling is wrong, why didn't anybody notice until 1870?
Now, THAT'S what I call, "Doing your homework."
Per Colossians 2:9, how big do you think Jesus is, bodily?
Yes, The tragedy started when the Roman Catholic Church protested Peter per Acts 2:38. Really sad.
So, is Acts 2:38 about water baptism for the remission of sins or not?The Bible does not explicitly give us the exact method of baptism, one must look at what was was generally believed and accepted by the universal historic church, evidenced by ancient documents. There no disagreement about baptism until well after the so called reformation. Even Luther and Calvin baptized infants. If pouring or sprinkling is wrong, why didn't anybody notice until 1870?
Ezek. 36:25 – Ezekiel prophesies that God “will ‘sprinkle’ clean water on you and you shall be clean.” The word for “sprinkle” is “rhaino” which means what it says, sprinkle (not immersion). (“Kai rhaino eph hymas hydor katharon.”)
2 Kings 5:14 – Namaan went down and dipped himself in the Jordan. The Greek word for “dipped” is “baptizo.” Here, baptizo means immersion. But many Protestant churches argue that “baptizo” and related tenses of the Greek word always mean immersion, and therefore the Catholic baptisms of pouring or sprinkling water over the head are invalid. The Scriptures disprove their claim.
Num. 19:18 – here, the verbs for dipping (“baptisantes”) and sprinkled (“bapsei”) refers to affusion (pouring) and sprinkling (aspersion), not immersion.
Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16 -John the Baptist prophesied that Jesus will baptize (“baptisei”) with the Holy Spirit and fire. In this case, “baptisei” refers to a “pouring” out over the head. This is confirmed by Matt. 3:16 where the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus’ head like a dove and Acts 2:3-4 where the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary and the apostles’ heads in the form of tongues of fire. In each case, in fulfilling John the Baptist’s prophecy, the Lord baptized (“baptizo”) in the form of pouring out His Spirit upon the head, not immersing the person.
Matt. 20:22-23; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50 – Jesus also talks about His baptism (from “baptizo”) of blood, which was shed and sprinkled in His passion. But this baptism does not (and cannot) mean immersion.
Mark 7:3 – the Pharisees do not eat unless they wash (“baptizo” ) their hands. This demonstrates that “baptizo” does not always mean immersion. It can mean pouring water over something (in this case, over their hands).
Mark 7:4 – we see that the Jews washed (“bapto” from baptizo) cups, pitchers and vessels, but this does not mean that they actually immersed these items. Also, some manuscripts say the Jews also washed (bapto) couches, yet they did not immerse the couches, they only sprinkled them.
Luke 11:38 – Jesus had not washed (“ebaptisthe”) His hands before dinner. Here, the derivative of “baptizo” just means washing up, not immersing.
Acts 2:41 – at Peter’s first sermon, 3,000 were baptized. There is archeological proof that immersion would have been impossible in this area. Instead, these 3,000 people had to be sprinkled in water baptism.
Acts 8:38 – because the verse says they “went down into the water,” many Protestants say this is proof that baptism must be done by immersion. But the verb to describe Phillip and the eunuch going down into the water is the same verb (“katabaino”) used in Acts 8:26 to describe the angel’s instruction to Phillip to stop his chariot and go down to Gaza. The word has nothing to do with immersing oneself in water.
Acts 8:39 – because the verse says “they came up out of the water,” many Protestants also use this verse to prove that baptism must be done by immersion. However, the Greek word for “coming up out of the water” is “anebesan” which is plural. The verse is describing that both Phillip and the eunuch ascended out of the water, but does not prove that they were both immersed in the water. In fact, Phillip could not have baptized the eunuch if Phillip was also immersed. Finally, even if this was a baptism by immersion, the verse does not say that baptism by immersion is the only way to baptize.
Acts 9:18; 22:16 – Paul is baptized while standing up in the house of Judas. There is no hot tub or swimming pool for immersion. This demonstrates that Paul was sprinkled.
Acts 10:47-48 – Peter baptized in the house of Cornelius, even though hot tubs and swimming pools were not part of homes. Those in the house had to be sprinkled.
This is overwhelming biblical proof text that immersion (an acceptable method of baptism) is not normative, but still acceptable. Imagine the impracticality of total immersion for Eskimos.
This insane rigid adherence to immersion only would prove deadly for many people in colder climates. Faith and reason are compatible in Catholicism, the well-meaning people this picture are not reasonable.
pick one
This is another idiotic ans Biblically-bankrupt claim.
Good question, but as usual, you will never get a thoughtful answer. If the Catholic Church protested any verse in the Bible, it would have been a major historical event, with everyone writing about it. But no one has. And why this obsession with one verse? We think the decisions reached by the Apostles and elders in Acts 15 was an infallible because the Holy Spirit was there, as explicitly stated in verse 28. My question is "When did the man made tradition of a non-infallible church begin? When the book of Acts was viewed as merely a historical event? Acts 15 is the template for all future Councils. Truther doesn't believe councils are valid, including the Council of Nicea in 325. That's why he rejects the Nicene Creed. (which is supposed to be an acceptable standard in this board.)
[/QUOTE]
When they made the Nicene council decree per 325 AD.
That's NOT what the verse says, Einstein
