[agape]

itsjustdave,

What you presented concerning water baptism is totally off God's Word. You just gave "man"s" opinion or this is what so and so said of which the Word of God does not agree with at all.

John's water baptism went out when Christ's spirit baptism was made available for all who believe in him.

I'll take God's Word over anyone else's word and I don't care who they are or who they are claimed to be.

Acts 1:5:
For John truly baptised with water, BUT YE SHALL BE BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY GHOST NOT MANY DAYS HENCE."

Jesus Christ himself contrasted the baptism in the spirit with John the Baptist’s baptism with water.

Even John understood this:

Mark 1:2-8
As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

And John was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey;

And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.

I indeed have baptized you with water: b]BUT he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.[/b]

John knew his baptism was only temporary and preparatory in nature. John was sent before Christ, to prepare the way before Christ and he taught of the one that would come who would be mightier than he and would baptize them with a greater baptism than water.

John 1:19-34:
And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? (20) And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. (21) And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. (22) Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? (23) He said, I [am] the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. (24) And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. (25) And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? (26) John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: BUT there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; (27) He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose. (28) These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. (29) The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. (30) This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. (31) And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. (32) And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. (33) And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, UPON WHOM THOU SHALT SEE THE SPIRIT DESCENDING AND REMAINING ON HIM, THE SAME IS HE WHICH BAPTIZEDTH WITH THE HOLY GHOST. (34) And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

John prepared men’s hearts for the coming of the redeemer, Jesus Christ. By preaching and baptizing a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, he prepared and pointed the way towards the one, Jesus Christ, who would truly, completely and fully accomplish salvation from sin.

John’s baptism with water was not the perfect and final baptism. People were not saved by John's water baptism during the gospel period. If that were possible, there would have been no need for Jesus Christ to have shed his blood and died on the cross and no need for any other baptism. Both Jesus Christ and John spoke of a greater baptism to come which would be the baptism in the spirit; therefore, the temporary and preparatory baptism of water became unnecessary and obsolete.

The "so-called" religious, man-made quotations from the early church fathers which others say they said, and of which of course there are contradictions among them, means nothing to me, especially when they contradict the truth of God's Word altogether. I choose to believe what Jesus taught, which is stated above over what "man" says he taught.

Jesus Christ taught: "For John truly baptized with water, BUT YE SHALL BE BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY GHOST..." .

[c.moore]

Quote Agape
Give it a rest Kevin, you are just making yourself look more and more ridiculous every time.

I guess it's just too spiritual for you to understand so it just keeps going over your head.


Quote c.moore

Your right Agape.
1Co:2:14: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Gopd bless you

[Evangelion]

HopeOfGlory -

More perversion, Christ never commanded the apostles to "water" baptize.

Really? Kevin has already mentioned the Great Commission. What do you believe Christ meant by it?

Here's B. W. Johnson (The People's New Testament), on the passage in question:

• Baptizing them.
  The rite by which those who believe upon him should be formally enlisted and enrolled in the school of Christ is baptism. It is not a baptism of the Spirit that he means, because it is one that those whom he addresses are commanded to administer. He alone baptized with the Spirit; his apostles and disciples baptized in water, and it is to this rite that he refers. Hence, when we turn to the preaching of the apostles under this commission, we find that all converts were at once baptized (Act_2:38-41; Act_8:12-18). 5.
  
  The end or result of baptism is also given. Converts were to be baptized into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. It is a positive affirmation of the Old Testament that where the name of the Lord is recorded there will he meet his disciples, or there will be his presence. See Exo_20:24. The Lord declares that the three names, that of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, are recorded in baptism. In this rite, then, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit meet the believer; the Father to receive him as a child, the Son to welcome him as a brother, and to cover him with the mantle of his own purity; the Holy Spirit to endow him with that Spirit by which he can say, "Abba, Father." "Into the name of" is equivalent to "into the presence of," or "into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Spirit."

[agape]

Originally posted by Kevin
Agape,
Yup, the same thing (miraculous abilities) happened to the people in Numbers too.

Big difference from OT to NT. To receive the spirit upon them temporarily can't be compared to the receiving God's Spirit permanently, to be saved, born again and have eternal life.

That didn't put them into Christ. The fact is, if the falling of the HS, which gave the Gentiles the ability to speak in tongues, is what put them into Christ, then there would be no need for Peter to command baptism in the name of the Lord after already being baptized by the Spirit, but he DID.

No he DID NOT. They never touched water. They were born again as Peter was teaching them the Christ, the Messiah, their Lord and Savior. When Peter heard them speak in tongues, he remembered what Christ taught: Acts 1:5, "For John truly baptized with water, BUT YE SHALL BE BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY GHOST...." There was absolutely no need for them to be baptized in water and Peter knew this.

Acts 10:47-48
Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have recieved the Holy Spirit just as we have?

It is not speaking of water baptism. The subject never even came up. Peter replied to those Judean believers who were with him who were amazed that the Gentiles should receive the gift of holy spirit and spoke with tongues. Peter said can any man forbid water. Where's water baptism even mentioned. In Acts 11, Peter relates the incident to those in Jerusalem and states the following:

Acts 11:15-17:
And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as [he did] unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

There is not even a hint of water baptism mentioned in Paul's relating the events that took place with the Gentiles in any of the verses. Paul stated who was I to withstand God's will and purpose for the Gentiles. He had commanded or arranged for them to be baptized in the holy spirit, the baptism God had shown him they were to be baptized with..."BUT YE SHALL BE BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY GHOST..."

Are you ever going to answer my point about MAN not having the ability to baptize people with spirit baptism? MAN was commanded to preach and baptize, and the only baptism that MAN can perform is water baptism. It is GOD who baptizes with the HS at His choosing, not MAN, therefore HS baptism cannot be the baptism commanded in the Great Commission (the ONE baptism), because MAN was told to do it, not God.

Peter preached the Word to Cornelius and his household and while he preached, they were baptized with the holy spirit and spoke with tongues. When are you going to get over the fact that "in the name of the Lord" DOES NOT MEAN WATER!

Jesus' last words to the Apostles before he ascended to His Father were: "For John truly baptized with water, BUT YE SHALL BE BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY GHOST NOT MANY DAYS HENCE." He did not tell them to baptize with John's baptism. SPIRIT BAPTISM is the ONE BAPTISM...the only TRUE BAPTISM. The only great commission is to preached the gospel of the good news of SALVATION and in doing so, those who believe, are baptized with the HOLY SPIRIT....are saved, born again and have eternal life which water baptism CAN NOT do for mankind. Water is water and spirit is spirit. For anyone to enter into the Kingdom of God he MUST BE BORN OF THE SPIRIT. HE MUST BE BORN AGAIN...HE MUST BE BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT.

If you are going to argue that the falling of the HS is what put them into Christ in Acts 10:44, then, to be consistent, you must also say that it put the people in Numbers into Christ, which is impossible.

Exactly my point...impossible because in Numbers, they were not born again...they were NOT BAPTIZED IN THE HOLY SPIRIT AT ALL. And since when is the NT suppose to be consistent with the OT?? There is no comparison to be made with what occurred in Numbers with what occurred in Acts. Keep Numbers where it belongs...in the OT.

The same thing happened by the same spirit to both parties.

Only in the false "written word by Kevin." What occured in Numbers is not the same thing that occurred with Cornelius and his household...so again, leave Numbers, OT, out altogether because it does not tie in with the new birth at all.

The baptism which puts us into Christ is the one commanded at the Great Commission

To be found only in Kevin's newly written bible.

Man can however, baptize people in water in the name of the Lord, and then God give the gift of the HS (Acts 2:38).

Quoted from Kevin's newly written bible which is made up to fit his erroneous beliefs. The true Word of God never states that water baptism is the great commission and nor does it state that man baptizes with water and then God gives the gift. They are all lies.

Jesus is simply saying that we need to be reborn in the Spirit in order to make into the kingdom of God.

Jesus is simply saying that one must be born again of the Spirit in order to enter into the kingdom of God. He DID NOT SAY one must be water baptized. The water is referring to first natural birth...the physical human birth. Born again means to be born from above, a spiritual birth. Jesus Christ is not talking about being born of water baptism...how ridiculous. No one can be "born" of water baptism...only born of water from the mother's womb.

Jesus explains HOW on is born of the Spirit in verse 5, with WATER and the Spirit, which is what is practiced in the NT (eunuch baptism for example).

LOL...I can't help but laugh when one can obviously see how you make things up as you go along. That which is born of the flesh is flesh..born the first birth from the mother's womb...and that which is born of the spirit is spirit...born of the Spirit. Born AGAIN...means to be born a second time with a new spiritual nature.

Regarding the eunuch:

God sent Philip to the eunuch. Philip, a born again Christian preached Christ to the eunuch. The eunuch believed and therefore baptized with the holy spirit. I don't think God is one to waste His time and the time of those who work for Him. He knew the eunuch would believe and therefore sent Philip to him. It was the eunuch's idea alone to be water baptized as they came across water. It does not say they were looking for water and nor does it say Philip told the eunuch he must be water baptized. It was not the water that saved him because he had already believed on Christ and was already save, born again and had eternal life. It's faith in Christ that gets one born again. The new birth occurs without one doing any works on his own such as it is with water baptism. We are saved by grace...not of works lest any man should boast. It's a free gift. The new birth automatically and instantaneously occurs when one truly believes that Christ died for the remission of their sins, was raised from the dead and brought unto them eternal life.

Kevin, water baptism remains with John the baptist of the OC who is now dead. Spirit baptism by Christ is an always present and living reality because through the new birth of the Spirit, Christ lives in us...it is Christ in us the hope of glory!

[Evangelion]

This last post of Agape's was very interesting. It gives us a special insight into the mind of the "Spirit baptism" believer. Watch closely...

First Agape cites the follow passage of Scripture:

• Acts 10:47-48.
  Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?

Then Agape writes this:

It is not speaking of water baptism. The subject never even came up.

So when Peter wrote this...

• Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized

...he didn't mean "water baptism"? The subject never came up?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

[itsjustdave1988]

Unfortunately, I am not an eyewitness to Christ's ministry. Therefore, I must rely upon apostolic teaching to know what Christ taught and what being Christian means. These apostles were men. So, relying upon what men said is a necessity.

What these apostles said about Christ was passed on by word of mouth, then finally came to be written down. There were many various gospels and epistles used by the Christian Church in the first four centuries. Some, but not all of these were canonized.

Here's a web site showing a table of what was understood as "scripture" by theologians of the first four centuries:

http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml

As you can see, the canon of scripture was less than a unanimous agreement. The point being, the canon of scripture was not decided upon authoritatively until the Catholic Church declared the canon at the end of the fourth century. It is these and only these canonized books which are believed to be inspired by God.

However, that does not discount the other writings of the first three centuries as an authentic & faithful record of what our early Church Fathers actually believed. Think of it as an ancient Bible Commentary. Certainly you've read a Bible Commentary or two. Except these Bible Commentaries are written by men who more fully understood the ancient language in which the Bible was written, as well as the historical context.

After all, many of these men were given the fullness of gospel truth directly from eyewitnesses to Christ's ministry. So, can I easily disregard the teachings of the apostolic fathers? These men are the successors to the apostles. They too wrote about Christian doctrine in the 1st century, 2nd century, 3rd century ... the canon of scripture was not even decided until the end of the 4th century.

The Bible is our sacred and first source of apostolic teaching. However, I admittedly do not find the Bible to be self-interpreting. It is an ancient collection of documents written in many ancient languages. The fact that there are thousands of Protestant denominations, each teaching its own interpretation of the Bible is an indication that there can be many interpretations. Also, quite obviously, we believe differently about baptism based upon the same scripture. So, what can good Christians use as a tie breaker when it comes to rightly interpreting the Word of God? Can we close our eyes to the preponderance of ancient documents of the early Church? What then is Gospel Truth? It certainly can't be based upon who makes the better argument or majority vote. Truth is afterall truth, no matter how well it is understood or framed in an argument, and Truth, especially Divinely Revealed Truth is certainly not subject to majority vote.

So which authority do you adhere to? I, like many others need help ... teachers... people having some authority...the early Father's of the Church for example. I cannot easily disregard their interpretation of the Bible in favor of Protestant reformers whose commentaries appeared over a thousand years later, or any so-called scholar which may appear on this forum.

After all, Ignatius was a disciple of the apostle John. He knew him personally. He did not merely need to interpret John's gospel like you and I. He learned Christian doctrine from an eyewitness to Christ's ministry. His teaching should carry much weight. What did he write about the early Church and it's beliefs. He was a first century Bishop of Antioch, chosen to lead one of the most honored Christian communities of the first century. He was appointed Bishop after Evodius, who was himself appointed by the apostle Peter. Ignatius was martyred for his belief in Christ. Are you so confident that your interpretation is more authoritative than the teachings of Ignatius? How about Clement? Justin Martyr? You don't truly believe that your argument is the only unique perspective which is valid interpretation? Perhaps, in our own vain glory, we forget that these theological issues have been thoroughly addressed in the span of the last 2000 years.

Here's a site which lists many Father's of the Church and their writings:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/

Now to the original question ... Do I believe I should be baptised in water? Yes. Why? Scripture ... Acts 10:47-48. "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" This was apostolic teaching from the very first century. And if I choose to be Christian, I choose, like the earliest Christians, to "devote myself to the apostles' instruction" (Acts 3,42) I am not, however, free to re-interpret scripture into an apostolic teaching that never was.

Now the real kicker ... how do I know what apostolic teaching is? My prayerful understanding of scripture, in context with other ancient Christian documents of the first 3 centuries, and because I'm Catholic, I am always disposed to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Might I be wrong? Certainly. Many theologians more learned than I have grappled with this and many doctrinal matters. However, on this matter of baptism, the early Father's of the Church are unanimous. Furthermore, the doctrine on this teaching appears to be unchallenged until the Protestant Reformers in the middle ages.

Surely, if my personal understanding of baptism was a novel interpretation having no linkage to true apostolic teaching, there would be many ancient documents which prove my interpretation incorrect in the context of apostolic teaching. I've looked. I find none. If you look. You will find many.

Here's just one ... The Didache. The Didache was a first century document (c. 100 AD) which was likely used to teach Christian doctrine to new converts to Christianity. Clement of Alexandria (150-215) second known leader of the catechetical school of Alexandria; and Didymus (313-398), head of the catechetical school at Alexandria included the Didache in their list of sacred scripture. It was not, ultimately canonized, however at least two heads of the catechetical school in Alexandria believed it to be authentic Christian teaching.

Here is what the Didache says about baptism: (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm)

"And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit."

Dave
http://www.geocities.com/dave_n_heidi/

[Evangelion]

Dave -

The point being, the canon of scripture was not decided upon authoritatively until the Catholic Church declared the canon at the end of the fourth century.

If this is true (and I don't believe it for a minute), then why did the Catholic Church "decide the canon authoritatively" all over again, in 1545?

[itsjustdave1988]

1 Pet 3:20-21 ... in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ"

Why would Peter need to explain that baptism does not remove dirt from the body? This would make no sense if it was understood to mean baptism without water!

Dave

[OldShepherd]

Originally posted by Evangelion
Dave -

If this is true (and I don't believe it for a minute), then why did the Catholic Church "decide the canon authoritatively" all over again, in 1545?

Source? Context?

[Evangelion]

Council of Trent, 1545.

[Evangelion]

Details of the C.O.T. available here, here, and here.

[itsjustdave1988]

[b]I said...[B/]

The point being, the canon of scripture was not decided upon authoritatively until the Catholic Church declared the canon at the end of the fourth century.

[b]Evangelion asked:[B/]

If this is true (and I don't believe it for a minute), then why did the Catholic Church "decide the canon authoritatively" all over again, in 1545?


[b]A couple of reasons ...[B/]

1) If you read through each of the documents of the Ecumenical Councils, you will find a pattern of re-affirming what previous councils had decided. Especially in light of a new heresy.

2) What was the new heresy? Luther and others took liberties with his Canon, omitting 7 books of the OT and these NT books he considered non-canonical: Epistle of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelations. After about 100 years, Lutherans came to accept all the same NT books as canonical, however the OT deuterocanonical books (they call them Apocraphyl) are still omitted from most Protestant bibles.

(see http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lut...erwitness.html )

3) Also, the Council of Rome (AD 382) and the Council of Hippo (AD 393) and the others were not Ecumenical Councils but local Councils. Florence in 1441 is the first Ecumenical Council which lists the canon. Why so late? Nobody questioned the canon until then.

As Protestant church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books" (Early Christian Doctrines, 53), which are rejected by Protestants.

Here's a quick synopsis (see http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap030700.htm )

Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon.

Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today's canon.

The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus' Decree.

Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.

The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.

Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.

The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time

All Christians now agree as to what books constitute the New Testament Books. However, the same canons listed the Old Testament Books which include the 7 books rejected by Luther and most other Protestants. Jerome himself (gave us the Latin Vulgate) had been accused of doubting the inspiration of the 7 OT deuterocanonicals, however, they were included in his Bible translation. Take a look at his defense of his early statements of doubt about the 7 deutorocanonical books (see below). (ref. C:\My Documents\Religion\Apologetics\02 Scripture & Tradition\The Old Testament Canon.htm)

[b]Council of Rome [B/]

"Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books" (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).

[b]Council of Hippo [B/]

"[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . ." (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).

[b]Council of Carthage III [B/]

"[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . ." (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).


[b]Augustine [B/]

"The whole canon of the scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon . . . . [T]here are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras . . . . Then there are the prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon. . . . But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called ‘of Solomon’ because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them" (Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [A.D. 397]).

"We read in the books of the Maccabees [2 Macc. 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at his altar the commendation of the dead has its place" (The Care to be Had for the Dead 1:3 [A.D. 421]).

[b]Jerome [B/]

"What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29–68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’" (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).

[b]Pope Innocent I [B/]

"A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the things of which you desired to be informed verbally: of Moses, five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Joshua, of Judges, one book, of Kings, four books, and also Ruth, of the prophets, sixteen books, of Solomon, five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job, one book, of Tobit, one book, Esther, one, Judith, one, of the Maccabees, two, of Esdras, two, Paralipomenon, two books . . ." (Letters 7 [A.D. 408]).


Dave

[Evangelion]

I'm terribly sorry, but none of this actually answers my question.

[Apollos]

agape -

In reference to Acts 10:47-48 -"Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have recieved the Holy Spirit just as we have?" you insulted mankind with...

It is not speaking of water baptism. The subject never even came up. Peter replied to those Judean believers who were with him who were amazed that the Gentiles should receive the gift of holy spirit and spoke with tongues. Peter said can any man forbid water.

LOL !!!! WHAT?? WHAT?? WHAT did Peter mean, what was Peter saying when he said "Can any man forbid water?" Forbid water for WHAT??

LOL !!

You must be studying out of the Moe/Larry/Curly Lexicon.

Too funny! Thanks for the laugh!!

[agape]

Originally posted by Evangelion
This last post of Agape's was very interesting. It gives us a special insight into the mind of the "Spirit baptism" believer. Watch closely...

First Agape cites the follow passage of Scripture:

• Acts 10:47-48.
  Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?

Then Agape writes this:
So when Peter wrote this...

• Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized

...he didn't mean "water baptism"? The subject never came up?

Hey thanks. I thought it was very interesting too! It does give very special insight into spirit baptism. It's a good thing too that Peter remembered the words of Jesus Christ. "For John truly baptized with water BUT YE SHALL BE BAPTIZED "WITH THE HOLY GHOST...". Wow...I can imagine how excited he must have been. The new birth!...to the Gentiles...dogs...of all people! What a day that must have been. But let's overlook all that and get back to the redundant water baptism.

But Peter had it all figured out. Duh...hey guess what no more water. Jesus said we are to be baptized with the HOLY SPIRIT. Nah...he was only kidding...let's dunk them in water anyways...it can't hurt them. YEAH...Right...way to go Evangelion.