ECT Dispensation of Grace

[turbosixx]

Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanus. He couldn't remember if there were others. But if water baptism was/is required for salvation, why would Paul thank God he baptized only so few? And why follow up his recounting of it by saying he wasn't sent to baptize in the first place?

Here's the problems with that.

If what he means by saying by 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, is that baptism is not part of being saved by grace, then why did he do it? Is that evidence for only one (HS) baptism as I am being told?

Paul was thankful for only a few because they recognized themselves as followers of the men doing the baptizing which is not right.
13Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

 

[turbosixx]

see post 19

So Paul is going against Christ and baptizing people anyway?

 

[turbosixx]

NO NO NO. You are completely missing the meaning of NT theology if you think it comes down to a 'practice' like baptism!!!

Look at the throw away line in 1 Cor 15: "I don't know if I baptized any others." don't you get it? it doesn't matter and it's OK that it doesn't matter.

Then why did he do it if it doesn't matter?

 

[Interplanner]

It doesn't matter! Christ's work plus nothing is what saves people, not a 'practice.'

 

[musterion]

Here's the problems with that.

If what he means by saying by 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, is that baptism is not part of being saved by grace, then why did he do it? Is that evidence for only one (HS) baptism as I am being told?

Paul was thankful for only a few because they recognized themselves as followers of the men doing the baptizing which is not right.
13Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

Read the article BR just gave you.

Also keep in mind that, unless my memory fails me, only Jews or proselytes are seen being water baptized, not dog Gentiles.

 

[Interplanner]

It was a symbol of repentance in 1st century Judaism. That's fine. It does not mean you are not repentant if you don't do it. Jews seek signs; Greeks seek wisdom. There are different ways of expressing repentance. What matters is that you honor Christ for his works. Not 'do' the right 'practice.'

 

[turbosixx]

In his early ministry he did. However in the later years he came to say I did not come to baptize but to preach the Gospel. See the following article. It may clarify some issues for you.

http://graceambassadors.com/tradition/baptism/why-did-paul-baptize

This makes no sense. If he was given the DoG and baptism isn't required then Paul would have never baptized anyone becasue of the truth of the gospel.

How late? On his third trip he baptized people again that had already been baptized because it was the wrong one.

 

[musterion]

This makes no sense. If he was given the DoG and baptism isn't required then Paul would have never baptized anyone becasue of the truth of the gospel.

How late? On his third trip he baptized people again that had already been baptized because it was the wrong one.

The article he gave you covers it.

And there was no second water baptism of John's disciples.

 

[Interplanner]

This makes no sense. If he was given the DoG and baptism isn't required then Paul would have never baptized anyone becasue of the truth of the gospel.

How late? On his third trip he baptized people again that had already been baptized because it was the wrong one.

Basis for the last line? I've never heard this in 40 years of study, inc. master's level in NT backgrounds.

 

[turbosixx]

Read the article BR just gave you.

Also keep in mind that, unless my memory fails me, only Jews or proselytes are seen being water baptized, not dog Gentiles.

So Paul taught two different things? Here is a Gentile being baptized by Paul.

Acts 16:32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.

The evidence doesn't support the claim.


I'd rather not read something written by a man I can't converse with. People on here should be able to prove what they preach. It's good for all of us.

 

[Interplanner]

They are after a minute of i.net fame, I guess.

 

[turbosixx]

Basis for the last line? I've never heard this in 40 years of study, inc. master's level in NT backgrounds.

If I understand the claims correctly, don't we receive the HS upon belief? Why would he ask this?
Acts 19:2 He said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"

When he finds out they hadn't, what does he question? What they were taught? What they beleived? No, baptism.

And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit." 3 And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?"

When he corrects them what is the fix, baptism in the name of Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.


Same thing Jesus said to do.
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

 

[musterion]

So Paul taught two different things? Here is a Gentile being baptized by Paul.

Acts 16:32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.

The evidence doesn't support the claim.

In every single case of water baptism in the Four Gospels and Acts there is connected
with that ceremony some other Jewish ceremony, feast day, or some sign or miracle or tongues
or sign-gift. Signs, tongues, miracles, visions and sign-gifts are inseparably connected with water
baptism; and any sound, Scriptural exegesis that will eliminate one will likewise eliminate the
other.

I'd rather not read something written by a man I can't converse with. People on here should be able to prove what they preach. It's good for all of us.

Instead you dote about questions.

 

[turbosixx]

Instead you dote about questions.

A man can twist scripture to make it say whatever he wants. If Paul preached grace and one baptism as I'm lead to believe then why does scripture show him baptizing believers?

I only believe what I read in scripture, not what I'm told by man.

 

[musterion]

A man can twist scripture to make it say whatever he wants.

You refuse to read the article Bright Raven gave to you, so you don't know that's what the man does. You're the one being dishonest. Again.

 

[turbosixx]

And there was no second water baptism of John's disciples.

It's clear the only thing Paul questions is baptism. When he finds they weren't baptized into Christ's name, he does it.

Acts 19:2 He said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit." 3 And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, "Into John's baptism." 4 Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

 

[turbosixx]

You refuse to read the article Bright Raven gave to you, so you don't know that's what the man does. You're the one being dishonest. Again.

I've read things written by men before it's always the same. Cruciform uses the same tactic. "Read HERE"

I don't want to read here, I want to be pointed to scripture and read the context to understand.

Eph. 3:4 By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ,

 

[patrick jane]

It's clear the only thing Paul questions is baptism. When he finds they weren't baptized into Christ's name, he does it.

Acts 19:2 He said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit." 3 And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, "Into John's baptism." 4 Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

wHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW IS THAT WATER BAPTISM - sorry caps stuck - water baptism is symbolic; not required since this current dispensation to Paul from God. there, done

 

[jamie]

And there was no second water baptism of John's disciples.

Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.”

When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 19:4-5 NKJV)​

 

[turbosixx]

wHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW IS THAT WATER BAPTISM - sorry caps stuck - water baptism is symbolic; not required since this current dispensation to Paul from God. there, done

That's a claim, please show me evidence. I'm told there is one baptism, so when people read this:
27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. they believe it to be HS baptism. I see it as water because Paul baptized believers. He even uses an example of a type of water baptism in the OT to show Christians an example that would look the same as them.

1 Cor. 10:1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; 2and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

Whenever Paul talks about baptism, it's water.