Recent content by Clete

No it isn't! Everyone knew what baptism was and knew it involved water. If Paul had meant something else, he would have said so. No water baptism was entirely knew and no one would have just intuitively understood him to be talking about something other than normal water baptism. Symbolically...

There is no evidence that they were anything else. They received the Holy Spirit via Paul laying hands on them. That and the fact that this occurs years after the Jerusalem council (long after Israel was cut off and the previous dispensation had ended) is proof positive that these men were...

Saying it doesn't make it so. Romans 6:4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. Saying it doesn't make it so.

The thing that is unusual about it is that no one would read it that way unless they had an reason to do so that was not communicated by the text itself. Yeah, well that's the case for this passage but you read "no water" into other passages that challenge your doctrine on other grounds. It's...

You know as well as I do that there's a difference. Quoting a passage and just letting the naked verse mean what it seems to say is different than reading it to mean "no water" or whatever is needed because of your doctrine are not the same. Yes it does. That's the natural reading of the text...

No sir! I am purely and only and explicitly QUOTING the verse! It says what it says! You have to interpret it to say something that agrees with your doctrine. Further, and perhaps more importantly, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you're right! Why is my question begging less valid...

I see! The bridge too far comment was, in my mind, in reference to those who might take my previous comments and use them to make the argument that they were saved. :cool:

That's your doctrine talking. Do you remember when I said something about how it seems like almost all of the arguments supporting your side of this debate are question begging? I wasn't kidding. I've noticed it for years. Claims do not an argument make. You need them to be assumptions...

That sounds like the first sentence of an argument! By itself it's merely a claim. Can you establish that claim? I just quoted you yesterday where he very definitely did do so. Acts 19:1 And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to...

Maybe they were. I rather doubt it. They were all hippy leftists communists. Nothing about what they were doing or how they lived bears any resemblance to a life lived trusting in God's grace for their salvation. They murdered their own children. Extremely unlikely. He murdered 909 people as an...

I am quoting scripture. Do you deny that Paul baptized people as late as Acts 18 and 19? That is your doctrinal position. You don't get to declare arguments that appose your doctrine "irrelevant" on the basis of that very doctrine. That is NOT the question! That question is question begging...

It is directly relevant! It's relevancy is explicitly stated in the question itself. I specifically quoted YOUR OWN WORDS to give the question is explicit context. If "Any other baptism is a distraction that diverts attention away from the one of real significance for a member of the body of...

Why won't you answer my question?

My comments in post 3 are a bit of hyperbole, by the way. It isn't actually REGARDLESS of how confused the rest of one's doctrine gets. If your doctrine is such that you talk people into killing themselves and their children (e.g. Jim Jones) then that's probably a few bridges too far. My point...

Repeating your position does not count as a response to the argument. If "Any other baptism is a distraction that diverts attention away from the one of real significance for a member of the body of Christ and creates confusion among the body." then why did Paul repeatedly do it well into the...