dirtfarmer here

[Walpole]

This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and being enthusiastic in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things about Jesus, although he knew only the baptism of John.​

Acts 18:25 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Acts 18:25&version=LEB

Evidently a man who is “enthusiastic in Spirit” can be instructed accurately in the way of the Lord (Jesus, Christ, Messiah) without ever even hearing of charismatic ways or for that matter Christian traditions much less running into their hands.

Being "enthusiastic in spirit" = being a spirited person

It does not state he was enthusiastic in THE Spirit (as in the Holy Spirit.)

You seem to have missed my point, which is that baptism and the laying on of hands are two separate and distinct rites.

The Spirit of God does as He wills to certain men. Always has, always will. Jew or Gentile, with a name like Cornelius or Apollos. With or without a ‘proper’ water bath.

And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained the way of God to him more accurately.​

Acts 18:26 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Acts 18:26&version=LEB

And furthermore, speaking boldly about the Way of the Lord is proper, even in public (synagogue).

And furthermore still, correction/accuracy IS the Christian way.

If I personally, for one participating here on CFNet anyway, thought and stated that there was only one type of baptism (John’s wilderness/river baptism for example) or that the Holy Spirit was no longer in the business of performing baptisms (unless your name is Cornelius), or that certain men’s hands are required, I’d appreciate some brotherly (or sisterly BTW) correction. But that’s just me.

Once again, baptism and the laying on of hands are two separate and distinct rites. This has been the case since the beginning of Christianity, as the Scriptures testify. It is the regula fide.

 

[Walpole]

Yes. In the eastern Church, it is referred to as baptism and chrismation.
The western Church does confirmation.

By the laying on of hands, the person who was just baptized in water (illuminated) received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The Eastern Church does one right after the other.

What does it say that the only two Churches (Eastern and Western) which have a pedigree going all the way back to Jesus have a separate and distinct rite for baptism and confirmation / chrismation? What does it say has been the regula fidei from the beginning?

 

[chessman]

Being "enthusiastic in spirit" = being a spirited person

Actually that’s incorrect (provably so). In the Text, the word “spirit” is a noun whereas in your sentence, you use it as an adjective.

Now a certain Jew— Apollos by name, an Alexandrian by nationality, an eloquent man— came to Ephesus, being powerful in the Scriptures.​

Acts 18:24 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Acts 18:24&version=DLNT

Additionally, it’s a parallel construction with the previous verse whereby this certain man was powerful “in the Scriptures”. Capital S:

All Scripture is God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for rebuking , for correcting , for training in righteousness, in order that the person of God may be complete, having been equipped for every good work.​

2 Timothy 3:16-17 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=2 Timothy 3:16-17&version=DLNT

God equips whom He wills. Always has, always will. No human hands needed.

It does not state he was enthusiastic in THE Spirit (as in the Holy Spirit.)

Again, grammatically, the word is literally a noun, not an adjective modifying a noun.

You seem to have missed my point, which is that baptism and the laying on of hands are two separate and distinct rites.

Not really. I got your point.

Once again, baptism and the laying on of hands are two separate and distinct rites. This has been the case since the beginning of Christianity,

Even before Christianity, laying on of hands has been distinct from baptism. I got that one.

 

[Jim Parker]

this word Chrismation its not even in the Bible .

Neither is "trinity" or, for that matter, "submarine." But we both know what Trinity and Submarine means.
Chrismation is an English word that means anointing. It is from the Greek word Christos (CHrist) which means, "anointed one."

What you correctly point out as a problem is exactly why I go to the earliest teachings on those issues I can find to see what the apostles taught the early Church.

 

[Jim Parker]

What does it say that the only two Churches (Eastern and Western) which have a pedigree going all the way back to Jesus have a separate and distinct rite for baptism and confirmation / chrismation?

The Oriental Orthodox Church also goes back to the beginning of Christianity.
What it says is that the way churches practice their faith developed according to their cultural environment.
All three churches baptize in the names of the Trinity by immersion or pouring as described in the 1st century manual, the Didache.
I believe confirmation is a western development. The eastern churches do not "confirm."

 

[ezra]

I can find to see what the apostles taught the early Church.

that is fine but regardless they are subject to error also . there is no perfect church assembly .if you find one it wont be after you /me get there . doctrinal differences has created more division than any thing . listening the radio a news cast came out on southern baptist being divided by calvinism . which calvinism is a controversy in it self . see over the years man has tried improve the Bible

 

[WIP]

that is fine but regardless they are subject to error also . there is no perfect church assembly .if you find one it wont be after you /me get there . doctrinal differences has created more division than any thing . listening the radio a news cast came out on southern baptist being divided by calvinism . which calvinism is a controversy in it self . see over the years man has tried improve the Bible

You are correct that the early churches were also subject to error however, the more things are passed down, the more likely error evolves.

I remember from my younger years playing a game in school where the teacher would whisper a phrase into the ear of one student and that student would pass it along to the next and so on. By the time it got to the last person, what they reported was something completely different from the original phrase.

Based on this, which is more reliable - what people teach today or what the earlier church taught 2000 years ago shortly after the events unfolded?

 

[Jim Parker]

that is fine but regardless they are subject to error also . there is no perfect church assembly .if you find one it wont be after you /me get there . doctrinal differences has created more division than any thing . listening the radio a news cast came out on southern baptist being divided by calvinism . which calvinism is a controversy in it self . see over the years man has tried improve the Bible

 

[Jim Parker]

You are correct that the early churches were also subject to error however, the more things are passed down, the more likely error evolves.

The early church dealt directly with the errors that arose by calling all the bishops together to hash out the truth vs the falsehood. That's why the Church is Trinitarian and not Arian or Monophysite, Docetist, Nestorian, or any of the other heresies.

I remember from my younger years playing a game in school where the teacher would whisper a phrase into the ear of one student and that student would pass it along to the next and so on. By the time it got to the last person, what they reported was something completely different from the original phrase.

That has absolutely nothing in common with the transmission of doctrine in the church. Every decision was written down after it was endorsed by the bishops attending the councils. Those documents are available to be read today. They are all on line.

Based on this, which is more reliable - what people teach today or what the earlier church taught 2000 years ago shortly after the events unfolded?

You cannot base anything on the child's game since it has nothing in common with the transmission of doctrines in the Church.
The issue is not whether the early church departed from the original teaching of the apostles. In fact, they were very adamant in adhering to and preserving those doctrines.
The ignored elephant herd in the room are 30 to 50 thousand Protestant denominations all of which have some degree of variation from the original doctrines of the church.

That is in line with your comment that "the more things are passed down, the more likely error evolves."

 

[ezra]

You are correct that the early churches were also subject to error however, the more things are passed down, the more likely error evolves.

I remember from my younger years playing a game in school where the teacher would whisper a phrase into the ear of one student and that student would pass it along to the next and so on. By the time it got to the last person, what they reported was something completely different from the original phrase.

Based on this, which is more reliable - what people teach today or what the earlier church taught 2000 years ago shortly after the events unfolded?

i go by the Bible what does it say? before church buildings they went from house to house meeting ...do we do that now ? i am well aware how things happens like your game you had in school . honestly if we stuck with the Bible instead of man made up ideas . lets see you must be of our denomination to preach in our church.... you must be a member to have communion .. to join our church you must be baptized into our church .. i been active in the church for over 20 years 19 as a minister 5 years just a church member . so yes i am well aware of error . i had a man at work tell me the Pentecostal was fuller of God than a baptist. so i asked him if were so full of the spirit do we have room for anything else? if were so full then why does the works of the flesh come in at? i am not saying the early church was wrong .but there are some new ways . we have big fancy church houses big paychecks to write to the pastor the assailant pastor the worship leader piano player . where did southern baptist come in at missionary/ independent general ASOG .we have Lutheranism
Calvinism vs. Arminianism
we are a group of imperfect people trying to fulfill a perfect Savior teaching and were failing

 

[JLB]

Exactly how many baptisms are there?

Three.

Is there anywhere in Scripture where another form is given for properly administering one of these other baptisms you think there are?

Paul teaches the Church through the understanding of shadows and types.



If we are to fully understand and apply these kingdom truths to our lives then we must reconcile all the scriptures that pertain to Baptisms.



Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. 1 Corinthians 10:1-4

all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea​

Moses: A type of Christ.

The cloud: A type of the Holy Spirit

The sea: A type of water baptism



Baptized into Christ –


For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:12-13


When we are born again through believing the Gospel, we are baptized into Christ by the Spirit, and are one spirit with Christ.



But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him. 1 Corinthians 6:17


The Holy Spirit baptizes us into Christ

Man baptizes with water.

Jesus baptizes us with the Holy Spirit.






JLB

 

[WIP]

The ignored elephant herd in the room are 30 to 50 thousand Protestant denominations all of which have some degree of variation from the original doctrines of the church.

This is pretty much what I was trying to convey. Today's plethora of doctrines, which are found in more than just the Protestant churches, are certain deviation from the first congregations we read about in Acts.

 

[Jim Parker]

This is pretty much what I was trying to convey. Today's plethora of doctrines, which are found in more than just the Protestant churches, are certain deviation from the first congregations we read about in Acts.

Only the protestant churches have reached divisions numbering in the tens of thousands.
I believe that we should be reading further than Acts for the practices of the early Church. There is extensive, written documentation from the first centuries as to Christian practice.
To limit out search for the practice of the early Church to the contents of the New Testament is, in fact, contrary to the teaching of the NT.
Phl 4:9 The things which you learned and received and heard and saw in me, these do, and the God of peace will be with you.
2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

 

[jasonc]

sheesh, im hardly catholic or orthodox.

but just locally within 90 years.

first Baptist church of vero:

birthed and these split:
king's Baptist.
freewill Baptist church
tabernacle Baptist church
northlake Baptist church(defunct and not a Baptist church now)
pioneer Baptist church, a split from tabernacle and these two are not far apart and in the same branch of Baptist and don't have anything do with each other

I can also go into the Anglican one, that was within a decade.

 

[chessman]

The things which you learned and received and heard and saw in me, these do

The “in me”, that’s Paul you know, not any one or any group other than Paul.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

Protestants have Paul’s traditions, teachings, epistles and sermons (same as you do) which are recorded for all to hold fast. We ARE following his advice in those verse by hold THEM fast.

And by the way:

Protestant means: any of the Western Christian churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church and follow the principles of the Reformation, including the Baptist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran churches. Protestant includes all these denominations and more.