i had already destroyed the theory that Acts 10 taught the HolY Spirit regenerated BEFORE BAPTISM.
Neither Acts 10 nor 11 teaches any such doctrine and no one believed this heresy before the 16th century.
BB made a statement that i took almost word for word and asked for the “sola scriptura” backup for them.
NONE HAVE BEEN FORTHCOMING, JUST AS NONE WERE PROVIDED IN OUR PREVIOUS GO ROUND THAT YOU ENDED WHEN I PRESSED THE ISSUE.
SO IT IS PAINFULLY OBVIOUS THAT THE “BAPTIST” DOCTRINE ON BAPTISM IS A 16TH CENTURY TRADITION OF MAN.
Daniel and BB are still free to show me where :
1. baptism is called a symbol
2. where the Bible calls baptism “water baptism”
3. where anyone was told baptism is a testimony to others
4. where anyone was told baptism is a first act of obedience.
CUE THE CRICKETS...................
now, opposing this 16th century invention is the Biblical, historical, orthodox teaching of the Church taught and believed for 2,000 years that baptism :
1. is for the remission of sins
2. is for receiving the Holy Spirit
3. places one “into Christ”
rather than follow the tradition of men, why not following the Body of Christ and it’s authoritative teaching?
isn’t it amazing how the Catholic Faith is called “romanism”? LOL!
You “destroyed” the theory that contradicted your own??? Sorry, if you hear any crickets, they are in your own delusional head.
Your rabid delusion is manifest for all to see, with no other RC here even helping you on this, and your lonely denial impugns even the strained efforts of others.
Until you concede your error any further responses will be considered spam. Warning.