[Stubborn]

That is your private interpretation of that scripture, the Catholic interpretation of that particular scripture from the Haydock Bible says:

not to baptize That is, the first and principle intent in my vocation to the apostleship, was to preach the gospel before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel (see Acts 9:15). To baptize is common to all, but to

preach is peculiarly the function of an apostle.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

How do you interpret Acts 10: 44-48:

While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

These Gentiles obviously received the HS BEFORE baptism.

Becky

[PetroniusMaximus]

It is clear from the context...

"I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)

... that Paul wasn't too concerned terribly about baptism.

This is exceedingly difficult to reconcile with your believe that baptism IS salvation.


The water of baptism isn't magical. Baptism is not salvation. It is the outward sign of a repentance and turning from sin that has taken place IN THE HEART. If that hasn't happened, then no salvation has happened - no matter how much water you put on your head.


Would you believe it if Peter himself told you?