I was curious about all of your thoughts on the idea of "Believer's Baptism" found in the Early Church. For those who don't know, "Believer's Baptism" is the view that people who have put their faith in Christ are allowed to be baptized I was curious if anyone on this platform can show me Early Church evidence to support this claim. I am aware of Tertullian had his own take on this belief, but not at the exact match as the main purpose of this idea. So, I was wondering if anyone can show Early Church proof of "Beliver's Baptism."

In Acts 19:1–7, Paul meets some disciples in Ephesus who had received only the baptism of John. After explaining the gospel more fully, he baptizes them in the name of the Lord Jesus. However, it’s only after Paul lays hands on them that the Holy Spirit comes upon them: >“When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.” (Acts 19:5–6, KJV) Given that in many parts of the New Testament (e.g., Acts 2:38, Romans 8:9), the Holy Spirit is associated with baptism and repentance, why didn’t the Spirit come upon these disciples immediately upon their Christian baptism? What theological reasons might explain this sequence — baptism first, and then the coming of the Spirit only after the laying on of hands?

How would [Southern] Baptist (SBC) churches explain Acts 8:14–17 in the giving of the Holy Spirit after initial conversion or belief? It had always been my understanding that the argument was the Holy Spirit was given to each believer at the moment of faith. Are we indwelt by the Spirit when we believe and if so why were the apostles needing to pray for them to receive Him? >Acts 8:14–17
14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. ESV, © 2001

I live in a place where I can't find anyone to baptize me. Can I become a Christian on my own?

Was John 13:9 ("Simon Peter saith to him: Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.") ever used to justify baptism by effusion on other body parts than the head?

The title is pretty self explanatory. I have made some vows during psychotic episodes from when I was an emotionally charged and immature protestant many years ago. I was recently just now received into the Holy Russian Orthodox Church. Does virtue of baptism grant me dispensation from my previous vows? (Note: Never married/divorced.)

>Though I speak with the tongues of men *and of angels*, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. (1st Corinthians 13:1 KJV) Is there a Greek or Hebrew root wording to signify that the "tongues of angels" are the tongues heard spoken by Pentecostals, Oneness Apostolics, and other types of similar Christians?

I’ve been trying to see how “federal vision” is different than traditional defenses of paedobaptism. It seems pretty unclear to me, but multiple Presbyterian denominations have rejected “federal vision,” so there must be something questionable about it.

> As in the case of Baptism and Confirmation this share in Christ's office is granted once for all. the sacrament of Holy Orders, like the other two, confers an indelible spiritual character and cannot be repeated or conferred temporarily (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1582) A 1954 Time magazine article citing Rev. Daniel A. Poling estimated that, in the decade prior, as many as 4 million Catholics converted to Protestantism. This is from a 2015 Pew research article on "faith switching": > One-in-five people who were raised Catholic now say they have no religious affiliation, while 10% identify with evangelical denominations, 5% with mainline denominations and smaller numbers with other faiths. My question is: What is the Catholic view of those very many (multiple millions) of Baptized and Confirmed Roman Catholics who have later (in adult life) had the experience of being saved in the evangelical sense? ________________________________________________________________________ Definition: Evangelicals believe that salvation is a personal and transformative experience that involves a "born-again" encounter with Jesus Christ. This experience is considered a passage from spiritual death to spiritual life. It encompasses all the abiding and immediate effects (albeit some of the language is different) that are supposed to have been conferred in Catholic Baptism and Confirmation, especially the immediate results (copied from this question ), such as: Abiding Effects Baptism: Incorporates us into Christ and his Church Baptism: Capacity to receive other sacraments Baptism: God's life, the life of the Holy Spirit Confirmation: Configuration to Christ's priesthood Confirmation: seals our souls like armor so that we can be knights in combat for Christ Immediate Results Baptism: Forgiveness of sin Baptism: Bestowal of Sanctifying Grace Baptism: Infusion of the Supernatural Virtues Baptism: Infusion of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit Baptism: Conferral of Actual Graces Confirmation: Grace of mature, Christian witness Confirmation: Grace of spiritual soldiery

If a person wasn't repentant (sorry for their sins and living sinfully still) when they got baptized/confirmed/received the Eucharist in a cathedral but later on they repent (feel sorry for their sins) do all they have to do now is go to confession? Are they a valid catholic? Can you cite some sources too if you can please. Thanks.

John the Baptist is a central figure in Christianity. Sent by God as shown by the prophets, he prepared the way of the Lord, the way of Jesus Christ (Malachi 3:1, Mt 3:3, 11:10). John was of the priestly Levitical tribe in the order of Abijah, being born of Zechariah and Elizabeth, both of whom were of Levi (1 Ch 24:10, Luke 1:5). When John was preaching and baptizing, it is important to note for this question, he did so apart and away from the temple in Jerusalem. He preached in the wilderness. He baptized in the Jordan. (See Mt. 3:1, Mar 1:4.) The point is he did this without reference to the Levitical system of confession of sin and sacrifice. (See Lev 4, 23, etc.) With these things in mind, from a Trinitarian position, what exactly was John the Baptist preaching apart from the temple system when he said repent? Repent means change your mind. Metanoeo, Strong's G3340, to think differently, to reconsider. How would this change prepare the way of the Lord? How would it make straight His paths?

John the Baptist said to those who came to him to be baptised that he baptised with water for repentance: “But after me comes one who is more powerful than I. . . . He will baptise you with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Matthew 3:11). John the Baptist distinguished his baptism (with water) from the Lord’s baptism (with the Holy Spirit). John 1:35-40 mentions two of John the Baptist's disciples, Andrew (Simon Peter's brother) and the other, almost certainly the writer of the Gospel of John. They would have been baptised in water by John the Baptist (a baptism of repentance). A[ \[CSE question\]][1] exists which asks if there is any Church Tradition to show that Jesus baptised his apostles. Here is part of the answer: "St Thomas in his Summa theologiae III, q. 72, a. 6, ad. 2 quotes St. Augustine and affirms that the Apostles were baptized. As Augustine says (Ep. cclxv), from our Lord's words, "'He that is washed, needeth not but to wash his feet' (John 13:10), we gather that Peter and Christ's other disciples had been baptized, either with John's Baptism, as some think; or with Christ's, which is more credible. For He did not refuse to administer Baptism, so as to have servants by whom to baptize others." There is nothing in the Scriptures that describes the apostles having been baptized by Jesus — but in John 3:22, we read that, “after this, Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them baptizing.” However, John 4:21 informs us that “Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptising more disciples than John [the Baptist], ***although in fact it was not Jesus who baptised, but his disciples.***” The argument from Church Tradition does not appear to be in harmony with John 4:21. The disciples were baptising in water by the direction of Jesus and under His authority. Apart from knowing that Andrew and John were baptised by John the Baptist, does the New Testament say if any other of Jesus' apostles were ever baptised in water, and if any of the apostles were baptised by Jesus? Also what have biblical scholars said said about this? In response to a comment about this question, please note I have asked a different question about Christian baptism on CSE: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/103572/how-do-jehovah-s-witnesses-interpret-john-35-7-where-jesus-says-to-enter-the-ki

[This article]( https://www.gotquestions.org/born-of-water.html) presents a view that to be “born of water and the Spirit” refers to spiritual cleansing. The re-birth, or the new birth, which means to be “born again”, is a spiritual rebirth. Whereas people once-born have physical life, a person twice-born has eternal life (John 3:15–18, 36; 17:3; 1 Peter 1:23). I know that Jehovah’s Witnesses promote full immersion in water for adults who understand the implications of baptism and what it signifies. From your New World Translation, John 3:5 and 7 says this: >Unless anyone is born from water and spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God… You people must be born again. It is worth noting that whereas Matthew and Luke refer to "the kingdom of God", Matthew uses the expression "the kingdom of heaven" 33 times. The kingdom of God is central to Jesus' teaching. From a Protestant perspective, we understand the two expressions to mean the same thing. Are Jehovah’s Witnesses who have submitted to water baptism deemed to have also been born from the Spirit, that they have been born again, or born from above, and are therefore confident of entering into the kingdom of heaven? Or is being “born again” restricted only to those members of the 144,000 who say they have been anointed and have a heavenly hope?

When talking to my generally reformed friends on the topic of pedo-baptism they often say that baptism is the new circumcision, circumcision was done on babies to bring them into the Old Covenant, therefore we baptize babies to bring them into the New Covenant. I have a hard time with this because before infant circumcision was not based on the faith of the child but on the parents and their adherents to God's command to do so. But in the New Covenant, this same theological truth does not apply. I can not come into the covenant unintentionally or outside of my will. I am sure Reformed Theology has an answer to this and I just have not seen it yet, so how would Reformed Theology answer this?

Marriages and baptisms certainly generate certificates that the church needs to store somewhere. Catholic schools such as the Marist Brothers and La Salle Brothers, with hundreds of thousands of students worldwide, also most probably report information back to the Catholic Church. I was wondering how the church handles all this information. Are they stored locally, regionally, nationally or does the Vatican receive everything back? Can someone in the Vatican in higher positions inside the church easily look up if a certain someone born in another continent was baptised or got married? Or maybe if someone studied in a Catholic school? And how much of the church's bureaucracy is digital nowadays?

We know the story about Jesus being baptised: >13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” 15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented. (Matthew 3:13-15) Why was it necessary for Jesus to be baptized by John the Baptist in order to "fulfill all righteousness", according to any well known Protestant theologians?

We see Jesus telling Nicodemus in Jn 3: 5: > Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. - John 3:5 We also read at Jn 4: 1-2: > Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John (although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples). One wonders why Jesus did not personally baptize anyone in spite of his having emphasized the importance of Baptism. My question therefore is: **Why, according to Catholic Church, did not Jesus personally baptize anyone?**

Acts 8:14-17: >“Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. These two went down and prayed for them so that they would receive the Holy Spirit. (For the Spirit had not yet come upon any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then Peter and John placed their hands on the Samaritans, and they received the Holy Spirit.” For someone who claims that baptism fills us with the Holy Spirit (baptismal regeneration), how is this reconciled with this verse, which seems to indicate that baptism did not do anything?

I have been told that I possess a very definitive view of faith in regards to baptism. So far as I believe faith in Jesus as personal Lord and Savior must be present at the time of baptism. Hence my adherence to the doctrine of credo baptism. I would just like to know how you would categorize this view? Is it Lutheran or Calvinistic? What part of Christian theology would comprise such a view? I have started to think critically of my views because for the first time in my life settling down and starting a family is a real possibility and I would like to know how to explain this to a potential mother of my children?

I just noticed that while we are told that the great commission applies to all believers in the sense that we are to share the gospel, we don't normally baptize those we help believe. Instead, we bring them to church to be baptized by our clergy. Is there any basis for this practice? Note: If your denomination allows your laity to baptize other people as a normative/regular thing, this question is likely not relevant to you. I would love to hear answers from denominations where clergy would normally administer the sacraments.