Quote:
Originally Posted by Praxeas
Exactly
They baptized right away Jews, Samaritans, Disciples of John and Gentiles.
|
Does not the biblical content represent a synopsis of things (and a very brief one), thus requiring the reader to locate, and take into consideration, as many passages as possible wherein a particular thing, event, or commandment is mentioned, prior to arriving at a definitive conclusion about that matter?
Albeit not explicitly stated in every instance where water baptism took place in the New Testament writings, should we not infer that the baptismal candidate was FIRST made ready, or prepared for baptism by insuring that they understood the "Oneness of God," that is, the true identity of Christ Jesus?
When one takes into consideration the written record of ALL such baptisms, I am persuaded that the one doing the baptizing FIRST insured that the baptismal candidate understood this important factor!
Did not Peter explain the "Oneness of God" to the Jews in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost when the "gift" of the Holy Ghost was first given to the 120 disciples of Jesus Christ? (see
Acts 2:36)
What must one infer from the statement of
Acts 8:5 which states that "Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them," if it be not that he taught them about the "Oneness of God," that is, the true identity of Christ Jesus?
Did not Peter explain the "Oneness of God" to Cornelius and his household prior to immersing them in water baptism "in the name of The Lord"? Isn't this what one must infer from the words of
Acts 10:38?
It's possible to recite the written record of others who were instructed in the "Oneness of God" PRIOR to being immersed in the waters of baptism (e.g., Paul & Barnabas at Antioch -
Acts 13; Paul & Silas delivering the gospel to the Philippian jailer -
Acts 16) but these should suffice to make this point:
Your statement is indicative of "painting with a broad brush" for it doesn't relate the whole account of that which a candidate for water baptism "in the name of The Lord" MUST understand PRIOR to being immersed, namely, the "Oneness of God," that is, the true identity of Christ Jesus.
Pause and think on this: How does one that has been immersed in the waters of baptism "in the name of The Lord," go about explaining to another who has not yet done so, why this is necessary, yea, essential, when the other party's position is that it makes no difference whether one is baptized "in the name of The Lord" or "in the name of the Father, and the name of the Son, and the name of the Holy Ghost"?
This is why I consider the record of Philip's response to the Ethiopian eunuch's question, "What doth hinder me to be baptized"? of such extreme importance. Although none of the other written records of water baptism in the book of Acts contains this factor, nevertheless I hold to the belief that it can be inferred in each instance.
Just saying.