Why don't Baptists believe Acts 2:38 literally?

I don't know it seems pretty clear

 

Here is another clear proof that the "Father's" are the records of apostasy. The Greek has a term for "pour" (epicheo) and it is used quite often in the New Testament but NOT ONCE in regard to the ordinance of baptism.

Jesus NEVER quoted oral traditions as his source of authority because the problem with all ORAL traditions is that they quickly corrupt into false and misleading ideas. Those false and misleading ideas were then written down and the consquence is the cult of catholicism.

 

The BIG problem reagrding oral traditions for Rome is that while even conservastiive Baptists would see that God would preserve parts of the Bible in the form of what was "handed down" as a tradition, such as what was held
to be historical accounts by the jewish people...

Those were JUST historical facts getting passed on down , NOT doctrinal, and ALL of it is guided over and preserved from any errors/mistake by the Holy Spirit, something RCC cannot calim!

 

Yep, to me as well.

 

First support them and when you disagree with them throw them under the bus!!!! too funny. :laugh:

 

That is only in refersense to the pouring though isn't it? Why the sudden additional explanation of what to do when pouring if this was for all modes presented I wonder? :D

 

Because if you read the passage if for instance you didn't have access to something then you would apply something else. However, its clear from the passage that Pouring is just as valid in the absence of being dunked.

 

I don't support them in the least any more than I support the teaching aides of the Watchtower Society. However, I study their aides and use them to expose their false doctrine and that is precisely why I study the Apostate Nicene Fathers.

 

So you admit then that you treat the anti-nicene fathers like you do the scripture as a smorgishboard?

 

Ha! No, I treat the "Father's" as apostate trash wherein some truths can be rarely found if one searches thoroughly. I treat the Scripture as final authority for faith and practice as the inspired Word of God.

 

FYI for anyone interested: I have decided to only comment on one thread. I am on the "Baptism Debate" thread if you have any interest in listening to my comments."

Wittenberger
www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com

 

That is not an answer to the question I asked though is it! I am not disputing what the didache says is an acceptable mode of baptism. I am asking why the didache seperates one mode (the least favoured) and emphasises that this mode only requires three goes? It seems to me to imply that immerseion was just once and if you disagree the onus rest with you to make the case against the simple reading of the texts in question :D

 

Well that is one way to avoid having to answer the question and admit that you are wrong I suppose. However I will not drag a thread off topic just to make my point again it is here for all to read and consider and it clearly establishes that, contrary to your assertions, in the early church baptism by immersion upon profession of certain creedal statements was a recognised practice. :D

 

Yes..we know, and that's your problem.

WM

 

God can do anything he wishes. However, had Jesus completed his sacrifice at that point? No.

WM