Water Baptism - Is It Really Necessary?

winsome said:

To which heymikey80 replied



to which you replied


Again you are trying to duck the point.

Click to expand...

It was not condemnatory. It was just stating fact.

You asked for an example of a passage that condems animal sacrife and you got it.

Click to expand...

It was not condemning it. Just speaking of the new reality.

Just like both John the Baptist and Jesus did not condemn water baptism. They simply stated truth concerning the coming change.


John the Baptist


Jesus Christ

There was nothing in Scripture condemning water baptism. No more than directions on a map telling you to take a right turn, was condemning taking a left.

Just follow the directions and you will get to your destination.

In the mean time... water baptisms are still performed. They simply do not read what it is saying correctly. Its easy to do. That is. Until its clarified and explained to you.

Then what?

Well, we have been taking a left turn for over 2000 years! You are saying we are wrong????

(just read the map, sir!)

...................................Grace and truth, GeneZ

As you've verbosely left intact, there is a verse that says explicitly, sacrifices are taken away. There is no such verse regarding Christian water baptism.

The counterpoint of baptism in water with baptism in the Spirit doesn't deprive either one of commanded application. Peter demonstrated this by his reasoned statements at Cornelius' household. He "remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'" Acts 11:17 Yet what was Peter's response to this remembrance? "Then Peter answered [those who came with him], 'Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?' And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ." Acts 10:46-48 Peter didn't see what you claim is in his memory. He didn't see the end to water baptism.

I think it's safe to assert that the conclusion you draw from Peter's comment in Acts 11:17 wasn't even shared by Peter himself. Peter knows what he remembered and he knows what he commanded as a result. It's recorded, even, and defended twice in Acts. So I'm more inclined to embrace the view of an Apostle shortly after direct experience of Jesus' ministry (which itself didn't avoid water baptism, either), than a view opposed to it.

heymikey80 said:

As you've verbosely left intact, there is a verse that says explicitly, sacrifices are taken away. There is no such verse regarding Christian water baptism.

Click to expand...

I am sorry to hear you can not read the way I write. For I did make it pretty clear for most people.

The counterpoint of baptism in water with baptism in the Spirit doesn't deprive either one of commanded application. Peter demonstrated this by his reasoned statements at Cornelius' household. He "remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'"

Click to expand...

That would have been fine if you had stopped right there. For when you continue on? You are determined to obfuscate what Peter said, and then quickly turn around and pick up momentum right back to where you want it to be.

Like I have been telling everyone here. Before Peter recalled the words of the Lord about Spirit baptism? Water mentioned in conjunction with baptism was recorded in many passages in Acts. But? After Peter recalls the words about the Lord's baptism replacing John's? Can you show us anywhere in Acts from that point on, where 'water and baptism' are mentioned together?

Odd how we stop seeing that after Peter recalled the words spoken earlier to him by the LORD...

I think it's safe to assert that the conclusion you draw from Peter's comment in Acts 11:17 wasn't even shared by Peter himself. Peter knows what he remembered and he knows what he commanded as a result.

Click to expand...

and some more....


Then? It should be easy for you to show us in Acts where anyone else who was baptized, that it was in water after the time Peter mentions recalling the words of the Lord. It should be quite simple for you to do. Since it was mentioned quite often before he had the recall and easy to find.

Grace and truth, GeneZ

genez said:

Then? It should be easy for you to show us in Acts where anyone else who was baptized, that it was in water after the time Peter mentions recalling the words of the Lord. It should be quite simple for you to do. Since it was mentioned quite often before he had the recall and easy to find.

Grace and truth, GeneZ

Click to expand...

Genez,
I did exactly that in post #279, but you chose to ignore it. I have spent a lot of time on this thread but I have come to the conclusion that you simply do not want to engage in a real debate.

You use three tactics to avoid this:

1. You fail to respond to the main point of an argument, but pick out a small point and respond to that. For example, after being challenged by you and to show where scripture shows that animal sacrifices are condemned, I and heymikey80, did just that.
I then finished two posts:
Now you show me where scripture says that baptism in water is no longer necessary.
But you didn't. You just ducked it by focussing on the word condemn. You are just playing with words and not engaging the issues.

2. You just ignore arguments.

3. You just recylce old argument. You make a point to which I or someone else responds, showing it is false. You make no reply, but 20,20 or 40 posts later you just recycle your old argument as though a response had never been made.

I have therefore concluded I am wasting my time trying to proceed any further and will leave you to continue down your blind alley.

God bless & peace
winsome

winsome said:

Genez,
I did exactly that in post #279, but you chose to ignore it. I have spent a lot of time on this thread but I have come to the conclusion that you simply do not want to engage in a real debate.

Click to expand...

OK... let's look at 279.


In Christ, GeneZ

winsome said:

It says Peter remembered what Jesus said about being baptised with the Holy Spirit. It doesn't say Peter remembered that Jesus told them not to baptise with water. Peter's remembering has nothing to do with baptism with water. That is your invention.

Click to expand...

I see.... By telling him that one will be replacing another? That is not telling him not to? Now I can see why I tried to ignore your post.

Ignore that? How many baptisms did they finally figure out there is to be in the Church Age?

Before Jesus even told Peter that water baptism was to be replaced by Holy Spirit? We found John the Baptist clearing the way, as well.

I figured, why not ignore you? After all, you ignore the Word of God. Have passages like that ever entered you mind as to what was being said? Or, do you just look at the traditions of men to be your guide on what is to be established as being the truth? I see the problem here as being one of long held tradition versus what the Word of God reveals to those who read it carefully.

Want to see more that you keep ignoring?

Did Jesus, and John, say?

Was that said?

Jesus told Peter these following words after his resurrection.

Jesus in the Gospels said things that were not until later, understood. He just worked that way. The Holy Spirit was to give the Apostles recall down the road.

You think they understood all they were told from the beginning? That they heard it? And, then knew what it meant? They simply did not understand everything they were told until later on. Much of what Jesus said was not understood until after what he spoke about came to be.

You'd be suprised to see how many times the word "remembered" appears in the Gospels! They remembered his words after something finally happened. It defined the moment for them. It was simply the way the Lord had had plan unfold. They were coming out of the old wineskins and learning to take on the new.

Peter was remembering for the brethren, reminding them. Peter had seen the Spirit fall on people before when he and John went to Samaria. to lay hands on the people Philip had already baptised.

"Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. The two went down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit (for as yet the Spirit had not come£ upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus). Then Peter and John laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit" (Acts 8:14-17).

Click to expand...

I spoke on this, too, in another post. Ignored by you?


Samarians had not been previously water baptized! Peter was just getting used to the idea of water baptizing others who were not Jews! Water baptism had been something exclusively for the Jews! Samarians were not water baptized. That is why Peter asked if the Gentiles could be denied water baptism after he saw they were saved and filled with the Spirit. It was still an error. But I believe God allowed for the ignorance to continue so the Jews who were highly biased against the Goyim would adjust to this revolutionary new way of thinking. Romans 8:28! God worked Peter's mistake for the good!

It says something in that passage you quote from that you have also ignored.

It does not say, they were water baptized! Up until then only Jews had been water baptized! It says, they accepted the Word of God!

They were baptized in the name of Jesus! Meaning?
They were heard about the death, burial and resurrection! They were being *immersed* in the truth about Jesus being LORD!

That would be baptizing them in the name of Jesus! Causing them to be baptized into the truth about the now risen Jesus!

Read the following carefully, please.

It was when they heard these words that they became baptized into the name of the LORD Jesus (that he is LORD). They were immersed into this truth, and the Holy Spirit caused them to identify with what they heard. While Paul yet spoke, they were baptized. No water baptism was going on while he was speaking! It does not say, "after they heard this, they were baptized." While he spoke!

Just like when Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit baptized the Gentiles! before peter could even mention anything about water. Peter was still blind to what was going on. It was a new truth that needed to be put into new wineskins. Peter kept pouring everything into the old way of doing things.

The problem has been all along. Some here only see baptism to mean immersed in water. Back then? It was a word used for other things as well.

Why do you think John said that he baptized with water? Not simply that he baptized?

The word we read in the Bible, 'baptized', is not a translation of the word's meaning. It was simply transliterated to sound like the Greek word!

Apparently, even the translators had some difficulty in understanding the word, and simply spelled it out like it sounded to them. It became tradition to translate it that way since no one questioned what was going on.

Do you understand that? Does that mean they were dunked into Moses? Is that how you see it?

Or, can you admit you need to understand better how the term "baptize" was utilized in their thinking back then?

If someone keeps ignoring the Word of God? I feel I should ignore them. Since the Word of God is more important than they are........ Much more important. Its just a "tradition" I have created for myself over the years. Sorry if you think I was ignoring just you. It was principle at work. That's all.

Now, prove me wrong? Don't ignore what the Word says, and act like there is no confusion in many churches over what constitutes the "One Baptism" we are to have for today. They way you have it, you have TWO. That's not what the Word tells us!

genez said:

Then? It should be easy for you to show us in Acts where anyone else who was baptized, that it was in water after the time Peter mentions recalling the words of the Lord. It should be quite simple for you to do. Since it was mentioned quite often before he had the recall and easy to find.

Click to expand...

Of course it can be done. For instance, Paul baptized people in Corinth (see 1 Cor 1:14), in Acts 18:8:
Either Paul's ministry was a desert of the Spirit's work (which is utterly contradicted by the Church at Corinth), or Paul's speaking of water baptism. And therefore so is Luke in Acts 18. The same grammatical form for Crispus' household is present in the Philippian jailer's belief and baptism as well.

But even if you reject the grammatical format Luke uses consistently for the Philippian jailer, you're down to Philippi and Ephesus as the only places left where Acts talks about baptism. You haven't shown that it wasn't water baptism, and there's quite a good reason to expect it is water baptism. That's two references unmistakably not water, 21 references unmistakably water, and three that're ambiguous (to you) but incline toward water baptism (in parallel with other practices cited close by in the context).

heymikey80 said:

Of course it can be done. For instance, Paul baptized people in Corinth (see 1 Cor 1:14), in Acts 18:8:

Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.

I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius 1 Cor 1:14

​

Click to expand...

If Paul only baptized a few? How was it that many of the Corinthians were baptized? It only says, "they heard and believed." And, if Paul still thought water baptism was essential? Why did he make small of the practice by being thankful he did not baptize many? And, that he was not sent to baptize?

Either Paul's ministry was a desert of the Spirit's work (which is utterly contradicted by the Church at Corinth), or Paul's speaking of water baptism.

Click to expand...

Again..... no mention of water is to be found.

The Greek speaks of them being immediately baptized.

In unison.

Paul was now, Super Baptizer?

Faster than lightning?

Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words

1. Immediately

parachrema lit., "with the matter (or business) itself" (para, "with," chrema, "a business," or "event"), and so, "immediately," Matt_21:19 (AV, "presently"), Matt. 20; Luke_1:64; Luke_4:39; Luke_5:25; Luke_8:44,47,55; Luke_13:13; Luke_18:43; Luke_19:11; Luke_22:60; Acts_3:7; Acts_5:10; Acts_12:23; Acts_13:11; Acts_16:26,33; it is thus used by Luke only, save for the two instances in Matthew. See FORTHWITH. It is also rendered "presently," soon," "straightway." ​

Click to expand...

Here's one example of "parachrema."

And, one more....

That family was IMMEDIATELY baptized.

Again? Was Paul, 'Super Baptizer?' Faster than lightning?


Another point.....

Acts was not written chronologically.

And therefore so is Luke in Acts 18. The same grammatical form for Crispus' household is present in the Philippian jailer's belief and baptism as well.

Click to expand...

What year was that done? Do you know? What year did Peter have his revelation of truth?

But even if you reject the grammatical format Luke uses consistently for the Philippian jailer, you're down to Philippi and Ephesus as the only places left where Acts talks about baptism. You haven't shown that it wasn't water baptism, and there's quite a good reason to expect it is water baptism.

Click to expand...

Like I have been telling you.... You all of a sudden can not find water and baptism found in the same sentence. Before Peter recalled the words of the Lord? We find water and baptism many times together!

....... Must be a good reason for this!

That's two references unmistakably not water, 21 references unmistakably water, and three that're ambiguous (to you) but incline toward water baptism (in parallel with other practices cited close by in the context).

Click to expand...

I would like to know that these incidents were dated. Acts is not always in chronological order. Because it broke up between Peter and Paul's ministries which ran parallel to one another.

But, one thing we can know. After Paul had baptized Gaius and Crispus? Paul did not see water baptism as being anything important! That's what we can know.

And? You still must contend with the following...

You keep having two baptisms on your hands.

I think God has provided enough truth to finally figure it all out, by having His grace being with us.

genez said:

If Paul only baptized a few?

Click to expand...

genez,

If instead of ducking the issues and avoiding answering the direct questions people ask ,you would address them forthrightly I think you would have a better chance of people believing that you have valid points.


Grace and blessings to you.

Your brother in Christ.

Theophorus said:

So, Christ and Paul and the rest of the apostles and disciples were confused and did not understand the truth.

Click to expand...

Absolutely!

We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; 2Cor.4:8

This is why it is so encouraging for even men who "walked and talked" face to face with the Lord had to go through the processes of learning.

Indeed the whole of scripture confronts us with the reality of man's ineptitude, weaknesses, stupidity, failings etc and yet so utterly faithful and merciful is our God that none of these things can defeat us. When I think upon the lives of Abraham, Moses, David, Peter, Paul, (there are so many of them) and see what the Lord has done for each and every one of them, how He overcame and lifted them above all they could ever dream of, my heart is filled with so much hope, the certainty of what stands before us, that I can barely contain myself.

If I could turn myself into a shooting star I would beeline straight for home and throw my arms around the Lord Jesus Christ and never let go.

I am so excited! (Be still my beating heart.)

peace

Carlos Vigil said:

I think it does at first.
But if one considers that The Eternal Word is always a person
who became flesh,
Who SPEAKS and makes himself known to individuals
Who commissions some to write,
Who is not limitted to what has been written...
Then we see that WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN, is not exactly the same as, HE WHO COMMANDED, that it be written
for instance, see John 5: 39,40

What he SAID and DID for the Apostles, they in turn also SAID and DID for others, without anything being written.
That is the Living Word of God. (Saying & Doing), Is it not ?
Later,
The Bible, (The New Testament) was put together. which becomes "the written Word of God."
So we see a vast difference between THE LIVING WORD OF GOD and the written Word of God.
Anyone can read & speak what is written...but not all who read and speak have THAT LIFE that Jesus had and the Apostles had. Am I right ?
So as we "read , hear, & speak it, we must also SEEK for "THE DIVINE LIFE "as well.
and not assume that we "automatically have it" just because we read it or speak it.... Am I right ?

Click to expand...

I appreciate what you are saying and I can't say I disagree exactly. I don't truly comprehend the how's or why's, I can only speak of what I know and that is, despite what others may say about the "differences" between the Living Word and the Written Word, I have never encountered writing that has the effect upon me as the scriptures do. It has the ability to cut me open and leave me bare. It can lift me up beyond what I am able to imagine. It fills me with an assurance that is unshakeable. I have read a reasonable amount of writing during my life, some has inspired me to great heights, but the scriptures hold a power that owns me. Even as an unbeliever I recognised this. There is an authority in the written word that no other writing holds.

I know there are some who would accuse me of worshipping "the book", but it is the recognition of the authority behind the book that holds my life in it's hands and because I have come to learn that this authority belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ I am not about to trifle with it.

That is beautiful.
I have come to believe that ALL TRUTH LOVES ALWAYS.
Sometimes it is hard to receive it but regardless of our condition or attitude, if we humbly receive Truth...
It always bears GOOD FRUIT.
Maybe I am repeating what you have already said

Click to expand...

Repeating Truth can never go astray.

Is Wisdom like this abound all over Australia, or just in your neighborhood ?...

Click to expand...

I would have wisdom abound over all the universe for Christ is our wisdom. Sadly, at this present moment, it is not so but we wait patiently for the day when it will be just as the Lord has promised.

I thought it was "THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH ... which safe guards and us in HAPPINESS !
sort of like
"It is what the dog pursues, that makes his tail wag."

Click to expand...

In a perfect world where men knew no sin nor desired it? The pursuit of Truth and the resultant happiness would be a given. But this is not a perfect world and men are not born into Truth but are born at enmity with the Truth. It might be a presumption on my part for I do not know American history that well but I imagine the American forefathers understood this and therefore recognised that men would always end in unhappiness (on their own merit). By establishing the principle of pursuing happiness they would lay a course that can only lead to the One who can give happiness in its true and meaningful sense.

The dog may well wag his tail as he pursues his quarry but will he continue to wag it once he has caught it?

peace

heymikey80 said:

Well, there's a serious misrepresentation being made by your teachers. Mark 7 uses the Greek word, and it's a common word in Greek for washing, covering with water, dipping, and immersing. Alexander's army was baptized -- and not a one was a Christian.

The strong association of the word "baptize" with "water" is actually demanded by Greek use. It's also demanded etymologically, the word analyzes as "a system of bathing".

You wouldn't have the connection between "baptize" and "identification". That'd mean all these references to "baptize" in Scripture (e.g. Rom 6) would demand a connection to water baptism. As they did hundreds of years before Christians associated baptism with identity. As it meant when Paul wrote Romans 6:

Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Rom 6:3
​

You now see the basic problem. Baptism only means "identification" because of what Peter, Paul and the Gospels wrote about it.

So the word alone doesn't mean "identification with Jesus' death" to native Greek hearers. It means a system of bathing.

Like I said, it's a cruel irony against your argument. Baptism wouldn't mean "identification" hundreds of years hence. So when the word appears in Scripture such "identification" arguments wouldn't be available to explain away the actual meaning of the word at the time. Peter and Paul and Philip baptized on seeing the Spirit of God at work, and on expecting the Spirit of God to work. The "identification" aspect was concluded centuries later, based on their actions early on in the church. Yet omit this meaning (as in the first century), and baptism vividly appears in Scripture as what it is -- a visible rite consequent of or expecting God's action.

Click to expand...

I'm not a Greek scholar and therefore cannot argue whether my teachers have misrepresented the word or not. However I do have to ask the question, if what you say is true and it had such a narrow meaning, why was it transliterated and not translated?

I hope you will forgive me but I do not hold Church practice over and above what is written in the word no matter how often or how long it has been done. I only have to look at certain practices today to know that Church practice does not make it absolutely true and/or necessary. (ie the wearing of special clothing)

I guess it's a double irony for it only meant a "rite of washing" one has to wonder how someone like Paul could develop his theology to the conclusion that baptism enabled one to be identified in Christ's death and life. Afterall, I have never heard of anyone actually dying or coming back to life at their baptism in water.

peace

winsome said:

As I said in an earlier post
Now you show me where scripture says that baptism in water is no longer necessary.

Click to expand...

For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." Acts 1:5

If that doesn't tell you water is no longer necessary I don't know what will. Why would anyone think water, which is symbolic of the new life, is needed as well as the Spirit who is the new life.

peace

heymikey80 said:

I think it's safe to assert that the conclusion you draw from Peter's comment in Acts 11:17 wasn't even shared by Peter himself. Peter knows what he remembered and he knows what he commanded as a result. It's recorded, even, and defended twice in Acts. So I'm more inclined to embrace the view of an Apostle shortly after direct experience of Jesus' ministry (which itself didn't avoid water baptism, either), than a view opposed to it.

Click to expand...

You are putting the cart before the horse. Peter did not draw his conclusion and command water baptism because of what he remembered. He baptised in water because that is what he had always done. As far as Peter was concerned, if one was to enter the Kingdom of God, one had to be baptised in water. But the Lord screamed to him (so to speak) "not so Pete". Trouble was Peter never heard the message until after he had done his normal ritual. It wasn't until he was recounting what happened and he finally remembered what the Lord had said to him before His ascension that it finally hit him ... "don't need water anymore because the Spirit Himself is the one to immerse the believer."

I can almost see Peter going ... .... once he remembered.

peace

sawdust said:

For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." Acts 1:5

If that doesn't tell you water is no longer necessary I don't know what will.

Click to expand...

And yet later still, Philip and the rest are still baptizing with water.

Act 8:36 And as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What is to prevent my being baptized?"
Act 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.



Grace and peace be with you.

Your brother in Christ.

IgnatiusOfAntioch said:

And yet later still, Philip and the rest are still baptizing with water.

Act 8:36 And as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What is to prevent my being baptized?"
Act 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.



Grace and peace be with you.

Your brother in Christ.

Click to expand...

So what are we to say? That what men do is to take precedence over "rightly dividing the Word of God"?

David stripped off and danced before the Ark of the Covenant. If I came to your Church one Sunday and stripped off and danced with all my might before the altar, will it make it acceptable before the Lord?

LOL (Whatever you do, please don't think about a 50 y.o. woman dancing naked in Church. Attendance might already be down. )

I appreciate what you are intending to show but we both know one verse does not make the whole story. Christ is our incomparable treasure and His story is written. We must continue to dig, piecing it together bit by bit. No generation can rest in the faith of the preceeding generation and no individual can rest in the faith of another. We each must continue to work out our own salvation with trembling.

peace

IgnatiusOfAntioch said:

genez,

If instead of ducking the issues and avoiding answering the direct questions people ask ,you would address them forthrightly I think you would have a better chance of people believing that you have valid points.


Grace and blessings to you.

Your brother in Christ.

Click to expand...

Nice move. Sort of... You tried to make it like I am one to duck issues.


Since you do not duck issues?


See that?

Understand what it says?

Now, don't duck my question...

Which is the one for the Church age?

genez said:

Nice move. Sort of... You tried to make it like I am one to duck issues.


Since you do not duck issues?

Ephesians 4:5 niv
"One Lord, one faith, one baptism."


​

Acts 1:5 niv
For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."


​

Which is the one for the Church age?

Ephesians 4:5 niv
"One Lord, one faith, one baptism."


Grace and truth, GeneZ



​

Click to expand...

Well, I tried.
Thas is exactly what I was talking about, instead of answering the questions, you duck the question. No one is going to believe what you say with this approach.


Via con Dio my friend.

sawdust said:

So what are we to say? That what men do is to take precedence over "rightly dividing the Word of God"?

David stripped off and danced before the Ark of the Covenant. If I came to your Church one Sunday and stripped off and danced with all my might before the altar, will it make it acceptable before the Lord?

LOL (Whatever you do, please don't think about a 50 y.o. woman dancing naked in Church. Attendance might already be down. )

I appreciate what you are intending to show but we both know one verse does not make the whole story. Christ is our incomparable treasure and His story is written. We must continue to dig, piecing it together bit by bit. No generation can rest in the faith of the preceeding generation and no individual can rest in the faith of another. We each must continue to work out our own salvation with trembling.

peace

Click to expand...

Your kidding me right? Phillip was zapped over there by God, and you are going to say they were in error.

Theophorus said:

Your kidding me right? Phillip was zapped over there by God, and you are going to say they were in error.

Click to expand...

Water baptism was incidential.... You miss the real reason for Phillip being translated....

Acts 8:29-31 (New International Version)

That was why Phillip was sent. To witness the truth about Christ to be found in Isaiah!

God knew that the other stuff was superficial, and in time, it would take care of itself.

That was the reason Phillip was sent!

God at that time had to overlook certain (understandable) errors concerning giving up the ritualism of the Law, because God knew in time the Jews he was sending out would understand the new baptism for the Church age.


Phillip was sent to tell the eunuch about Christ.

It was the Eunuch who inroduced the idea of baptism, not Phillip telling him to be baptized!

It was an understandable error at that time. For they were all strongly pre-conditioned by the age that just came to pass abruptly.

They were not yet aware of it having changed from old to new. Because this new age came in invisibly and suddenly.......

It's really that simple.

What causes today confusion for some over this issue is how the tradition to use water was carried on for so long without someone to introduce the truth on the matter. Not that some did not try..... It just was that in the past the Church was more like a dictatorial central government, not allowing much room for the freedom to discover the truth for yourself.

I believe the founding of America in the 1700's, with its Constitution guaranteeing religious freedom, was a spearhead in bringing about this change which effected the whole world.

Before that, in the 1500's ...... The Reformers broke new ground that led to what would lead to what we now find in the American Constitution. Over the years, there has been a gradual and progressive gaining of freedom in worship as one chooses.

Of course, it was the LORD who caused all this to come about. The Reformers and the writers of the Constitution were inspired men to do God's will.

For Jesus Christ controls history!

How many? Just one... Not, two!