Your basing your "argument" "around" the fact that you believe the church started at Pentecost. The Word of God does not say this.
1. The Bible isn't the Word of God. The Bible says Jesus is the Word of God (see St. John 1:1). Jesus isn't a book. Jesus is God Incarnate. Suggesting anything else is idolatry because it equates a book with God. That's something Sikhs believe, not Christians.
2. The Bible has always been interpreted, since the 1st century, in a way that says the Church began at Pentecost. Any new interpretation that says contrary to this is not orthodox because it rejects what God the Holy Spirit has already said.
Your declaration of "null and void" is somewhat humorous because you cannot demonstrate from the scripture your premise about the origin of the church. You have tradition dictating that to you.
1. Your implied definition of tradition is laughable as it clearly isn't the same as that of the Early Church. Once again, a new doctrine...of man.
2. Already did in this thread. Look up my previous posts; I'm not going to do it for you.
Clearly Jesus' disciples baptized more than John the Baptist. It is reasonable to assume that Peter might have baptized some as well. To assume that the apostles baptizing would not be Christian it ridiculous.
Straw Man. This doesn't address the points in my post. Address the points given. I said this: "A
gain, there was no Christian baptism before Pentecost. Continuing to bring baptism into the picture by bringing up St. Dismas is null and void."
Whether the Apostles baptized more than St. John the Forerunner is moot because it doesn't address the point that I put in
bold. That is the crux of the issue. Debate that, not what you create for yourself to counter.
When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,(Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee. John 4:1-3 (KJV)
It still isn't a Christian baptism. Christian Holy Baptism has to do with Jesus' death, descent into sheol, and resurrection back to life. That hadn't happened yet.
I will admit I missed that verse, but it still doesn't help your argument because your notion of baptism isn't orthodox.
Not to be argumentative either, but the "sacrament of Holy Baptism" is not in scripture either. Apparently the theology behind this "sacrament" restricts its relevance to the church only after Pentecost. Scriptural baptism by the followers of Jesus precedes Pentecost.
Again, learn what Holy Baptism is and isn't. Christian Baptism couldn't have happened until Jesus was crucified, died, descended, and resurrected since we are baptized in those things: A valid Christian Baptism has water applied three times, not just for each Person in the Holy Trinity, but once in His death, once in His descent, and once in His resurrection. In Holy Baptism, we die in Him, we are buried in Him, and we rise in Him.
What you call "Scriptural" Baptism you equivocate incorrectly with any baptism before Jesus' crucifixion through resurrection. The baptisms before were indeed baptisms of repentance, and these have meaning because they are the most obvious and immediate foreshadowments of Holy Baptism as practiced in the orthodox Christian faith, but they are not to be accepted by any means of being Christian since Christianity was not yet around.
Did they need to go back and be baptized in water simply because they received the baptism of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (and afterward)? Is it possible that it doesn't fit into your theology that they are the same, by "virtue" of the fact that you can receive them separately (as I did).
Except that in ancient Christian belief, Holy Baptism was always combined with Holy Chrismation, which is one's personal Pentecost. These rites are still celebrated as one in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, with the
only exception is for converts, since these churches accept the baptisms done in other churches and denominations so long as they are valid according to the practice and belief of the Apostolic Witnesses (e.g.
Didache). My Anglican Church is moving towards that direction.
In the West, the two rites slowly separated. That is why in some areas of Anglicanism and in the Lutheran and Roman Catholic Church you have Holy Confirmation. It is still to be understood, and is a part of the official theology of these bodies that this is actually still part of the Baptismal theology and Holy Confirmation is often referred to as the "second half" of Baptism in recognition.
If you took the time to study Baptismal theology and practice in the East and West of the Church from the time of the Apostles through today, you'll see that everything I've said above is true.
I said: Many people have been baptized in water (myself included) and had never been baptized in the Holy Spirit, or until later. In some cases, MUCH later.
This is contrary to what was interpreted by the primitive Church of the 1st and 2nd centuries. It has always been believed, until very recent times, that there is no more than one baptism. Indeed, St. Paul made it clear in his Letter to the Christians at Ephesus that there is "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." (and the surrounding verses also point implicitly to Pentecost being the birth of the Church).
Sure it is. It is in the scripture where they would not forbid water baptism after they evidenced the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Writ has various instances when the Holy Spirit began to be involved in a persons life: either right before or right after the baptism.
Involvement of the Holy Spirit however isn't the same as another kind of baptism. We know from St. Paul that there is only one baptism so to suggest another kind of baptism is neither in Holy Scripture nor Holy Tradition...except the tradition of man in modern times.
God the Holy Spirit is everywhere and always at work, calling to all to come to Him. He works through various agencies, including us. you must receive Holy Baptism. Original sin isn't washed away by any other thing.
Realistically, baptism should be a choice made by the person making the choice of believing in the Lordship of Jesus and receiving Him as their personal Lord. It is not a choice made for them by their parents. It is possible to receive the infilling of the Holy Spirit at the same time, but MANY times that is not the case.
This denies original sin and is not an acceptable Christian belief. Furthermore, it implies Gnosticism: comprehension and understanding is not any part of salvation. Faith is born in the soul, not the brain.
How many people have said they've been filled with the Holy Spirit without ANY evidence at all that this is so. How many believers have been filled with the Holy Spirit years after already making the choice for Jesus to be their Lord? So, theology doesn't fit in with reality. We already have scriptural precedent to show that they can be separate experiences.
Again, just because a person is influenced by the Holy Spirit doesn't make them a Christian nor does it mean they are baptized.
It's as historic as the many personal experiences of believers all over the world. You can go decades without receiving the infilling of the Holy Spirit even though you are born again, committed believers. Most people do not even know about this experience and hungrily approach it when God speaks to their heart about it (after being exposed to teaching on it).
It isn't historic because we know what the primitive Church taught and thought.
It's not recent because it is in the scripture.
And you forget that Arius the Archheretic quoted Holy Scripture in his heresy that Jesus was a created Being.
Your interpretation is modern. It is not ancient. Holy Scripture isn't wrong; your interpretation is.
The disciples received the Holy Spirit after the resurrection of Jesus and they were born again. Later, they were baptized in the Holy Spirit with power. Many born again believers lack this power and do not seek it because they believe when the water was poured (many times before they were even a believer!) they got it. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is an experience for believers, not infants.
Not an orthodox Christian belief.
You are apparently making the scripture say something it does not say.
An apostolic church is one where apostles are working signs and wonders. Apostles are church planters moving in all of the gifts of the Spirit. The whole water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism doctrine is not only taught by apostles, but is played out in the lives of Spirit filled believers all over the world.
Not according to the historic belief.
The believer is "baptized into Christ". It's a spiritual work whereby one is made "one" with Christ - one new man in unity with His Spirit. You partake of His death, burial, and resurrection in this baptism.
The water baptism is to fulfill righteousness. All of our other works are to fulfill righteousness. We are made righteous by faith without any works. We have the readiness to do God's will and go about fulfilling righteousness. We are saved without any water and many a dying man or woman has gone to Heaven who simply called on the name of the Lord, believing, and were saved.
Not an acceptable Christian belief. We know what the Apostles taught; this isn't it.
The saving grace of Christ is a spiritual thing.
We obey and become water baptized to fulfill righteousness, not to become righteous. There are many in Heaven right now who have NEVER been water baptized.
1. Again, learn what a sacrament is and isn't. I never said it wasn't spiritual.
2. Again, Straw Man. Read my previous posts about Baptism by Desire and Baptism by Blood.
I place no reliance on church "fathers". It's the Word AND the Holy Spirit, not just "sola scriptura". They agree.
1. Jesus said you need to be baptized by water. Therefore, your interpretation is wrong and against Holy Scripture.
2. The Holy Spirit already taught what Holy Baptism meant. You're belief is contrary to what He already said to those ~2,000 years before you were born. Therefore, you are not in agreement.
One day those who put faith in church "apostolic" leadership will have to make a choice between the antichrist spirit creeping into the leadership of this "church" or be joined to the great deception that is coming. Churches that work together to bring "unity" to the world's religions are blind and lead the sincere flock straight into a pit. Who will stand up for the truth of the Word of God in the face of the deception coming to "apostolic" church leadership.
This does not help your case, nor does it point to the truth of the infallible Word of God, which has always been.
I don't accept Bibliolatry. I worship the true Word of God, not a book. I'm not a Sikh; I'm a Christian. Let Sikhs worship a book and let Christians worship Jesus.
