ECT How is Paul's message different?

Danoh

New member
Put another way...Jews were baptized by John in expectation of Christ's soon appearance. They repented and were washed in advance of His arrival, like the bride made ready, without spot, awaiting the Groom.

So what possible purpose would Paul water baptizing them serve, since they'd already received John's baptism that fitted them for Christ's arrival?

That's a question I've yet to see answered by people who say these guys were water baptized (twice), the second time by Paul or at Paul's direction.


Either that or Stam simply once more unwittingly departed from one of the core Acts 9 MAD study principles, here and there, that he himself helped re-emerge.

The principle about Paul's at times seemingly odd words and actions when dealing with Jews, that the following sheds light on.

Acts 16:1 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek: 16:2 Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. 16:3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

Why this "because of the Jews..." focus of his?

1 Corinthians 9:16 For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel! 9:17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me. 9:18 What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel. 9:19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

There is also this principle...

Romans 15:20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation: 15:21 But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.

In other words, in Acts 19, he is simply respecting another man's foundation and its members.

Galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Galatians 6:14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. 6:16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

Put it this way, you're Paul.

Those 12 (Israel's number) are not your ministry.

What do you do?

You do what he chewed out Peter per later in Galatians for - for Peter's having failed to behave towards those Grace Believing Gentiles as Paul would have behaved towards them.

In other words, in Acts 18, Paul, aware they are of "another man's foundation" deals with them as Peter would have; as Peter did with Israelites under his jurisdiction in Acts 2.

Note that they were already disciples, v. 1, and that it is he who brings up both the Holy Ghost and water baptism.

And how does he know that they were water baptized? It appears he assumes they have been water baptized, being that they are already disciples.

Acts 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Verse 6 flows from verse 5...

19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. 19:7 And all the men were about twelve. 19:8 And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.

It appears he ran into these people, began to preach that Jesus had been the Christ, they informed him they were already disciples; he asked them if they had received the gift of the Spirit, and so on.

The whole episode smacks of Kingdom Saints.

Obviously, he was dealing with Kingdom saints, accordingly.

Just as the Apostles at Jerusalem sent for Paul in Acts 13, and so on - because it was not their ministry.

It is ever fascinating just how much is there about all these things to dig out into the light of one's understanding.

Rom. 5:6-8.
 
Last edited:

Interplanner

Well-known member
So the children of Israel remain a special people unto the LORD, above all people who are on the face of the earth?

You just don't understand the most simple things found in the Scriptures.




That's a D'ist belief that is not in the NT. It is nowhere in the NT.

why is there not one blasted validation of future activity with a nation of Israel in any doctrinal NT letter about the future: Rom 2, 8, 11, I Cor 15, Heb 9, 2 Pet 3, I Jn 2, Acts 26? It should be perfectly clear in EVERY single one of them.

I will accept nothing less.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Where Paul's?
Acts 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

So Paul is the baptizer who washes away his own sins?

In his commentary on this verse Sir Robert Anderson writes, "The Apostle records the words which Ananias addressed to him (Paul) at his conversion: 'Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord'...His meaning is clear: 'Arise and be baptized, and turn away from your evil courses, calling on His name'" [emphasis mine] (Anderson, The Bible or the Church? [London: Pickering & Inglis, Second Edition], 230-231).

That is the meaning of the words "ye washed yourselves" and "cleanse ourselves" in the following verses:

"And such were some of you: but ye washed yourselves, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God "
(1 Cor.6:11; RV, Marginal Note).​

"Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God"
(2 Cor.7:1).​

I've been through this before with you before and you just pick and choose which verses you will believe and which ones you refuse to believe in order to cling to your views on water baptism. According to your ideas Paul and those with him gave the wrong answer to the following question:

"And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house"
(Acts 16:30-31).​

Who can take you seriously?
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
The proof, aside from simply reading James 2, is that the Twelve did not forsake the Law.

Clete, you need to look at what James wrote in the First chapter if you are really looking for the truth:

"But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed"
(James 1:25).​

Are we to believe that the "law of liberty" spoken of here is the Law, which Peter referred to as a "yoke"?:

"Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?"
(Acts 15:10).​

Paul also referred to the Law as a "yoke of bondage":

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage" (Gal.5:1).​

In fact, Paul contrasted the "yoke of bondage" with the "liberty" which belongs to all who have been set free from the law. So common sense dictates that the "perfect law of liberty" of which James speaks is not the Law of Moses.

Instead, James uses of the phrase "perfect law of liberty" in the same sense which Paul uses the phrase the "law of faith":

"Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law" (Ro.3:27-31).​

James made it plain that the salvation of those he addressed was based on nothing more than faith in the word of truth:

"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures" (James 1:18).​
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
If the D'ists won't show me were the express indication of the future race/nation of Israel is in EACH AND EVERY ONE of those passages listed, they should shut up. There is no sensible way to believe what they believe unless it is clearly and expressly in each and all of them. Any thing less is ridiculous.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
Since the D'ists cannot answer why the express re-emergence of a race/nation is not in each and every one of those NT passages listed, there is nothing better to do than smear opponents over what Acts 19's baptism is about. Go guys!!!
 

whitestone

Well-known member
I'm not aware of the circumcision being told to follow the law. Yes they are from the old law. The things in the letter to the Gentiles are from the Holy Spirit and the apostles. Paul is in full agreement and delivers it himself.

That's bazaar, in that you agree that everything in all these things we have discussed are speaking of the old law and that you agree that whats told to the gentiles is different from the things you see of the Jews and what they are doing. You then say that neither of them are under any of that and that the apostles are doing this all in front of them because they are weak and that the Holy Spirit is also.

Who is the weak if it is not the people who live today? And if it is so that the apostles said exactly what they said in the dialogue we spoke of and did do those things(Acts of the Apostles)we speak of how is it that you see that they were doing things they knew were incorrect and then expect either them or us to see? There is that one thing in what you said it is that you know it said this but you think it says something else thats what I see you saying.
 

whitestone

Well-known member
Since the D'ists cannot answer why the express re-emergence of a race/nation is not in each and every one of those NT passages listed, there is nothing better to do than smear opponents over what Acts 19's baptism is about. Go guys!!!


lol, put the mirror down it's singular not plural...
 

musterion

Well-known member
Either that or Stam simply once more unwittingly departed from one of the core Acts 9 MAD study principles, here and there, that he himself helped re-emerge.

The principle about Paul's at times seemingly odd words and actions when dealing with Jews, that the following sheds light on.

Acts 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. 19:7 And all the men were about twelve. 19:8 And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.

Why this focus on "because of the Jews..."?

1 Corinthians 9:16 For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel! 9:17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me. 9:18 What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel. 9:19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

In Acts 18, he is simply respecting another man's foundation and its members.

Galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Galatians 6:14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. 6:16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

Put it this way, you're Paul.

Those 12 (Israel's number) are not your ministry.

What do you do?

You do what he chewed out Peter per later in Galatians for - for Peter's having failed to behave towards those Grace Believing Gentiles as Paul would have behaved towards them.

In other words, in Acts 18, Paul, aware they are of "another man's foundation" deals with them as Peter would have; as Peter did with Israelites under his jurisdiction in Acts 2.

Note that Paul was the one who brought up the water baptism.

Obviously, he was dealing with Kingdom saints, accordingly.

Just as the Apostles at Jerusalem sent for Paul in Acts 13, and so on - because it was not their ministry.

It is ever fascinating just how much is there about all these things to dig out into the light of one's understanding.

Rom. 5:6-8.

Not impossible but still speculative, more speculative than Stam's reasoning was.
 

Danoh

New member
Not impossible but still speculative, more speculative than Stam's reasoning was.

I rewrote some of it to reflect parts I forgot during my first editing prior to when I first posted it.

Still, your point that my conclusion is "still speculative" is worth seriously considering.

I'll keep your point in mind as I revisit my thinking on this over time; such revisiting being the only way to eventually get to the bottom of such things at some point in time.

Rom. 5:6-8.
 

Danoh

New member
I didn't mean it as an insult, not at all. I just think Stam's theory is satisfactory for all the reasons listed earlier.

Never did take it as an insult.

Jordan and his people also hold Stam's/his people/ your view on that. So, I've heard and explored it with various others before.

I just find it fails to keep in mind the Acts 9 MAD Pauline based principle I pointed out in my prior post as to why Paul does and says the seemingly odd things he at times says and does in Acts and in his writings.

Just one of those moments in Stam's writings where he parts with the Acts 9 MAD principles I mentioned he himself was behind the re-emergence of.

Then again, perhaps not. Time will shed further light.

Anyway, we're exploring these things.

Which is what we should and could be doing.

So, no, no insult taken - not by any stretch.

I'm ever too curious about what another MAD's take on one thing or another might be.

Thus, my questions on here, at times.

Rom. 5: 6-8.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Jordan and his people also hold Stam's/his people/ your view on that.

Richard Jordan still holds Stam's mistaken idea that the Jews who lived under the law could not be saved apart from works. In the book Things that Differ we can find Pastor Stam's basic teaching in regard to his ideas of how a sinner obtained salvation in other dispensations. He writes:

"We have no illusions as to man's utter inability to please God by works as such in any age. Man has always been saved essentially by the grace of God, through faith. There could be no other way to be saved "
[emphasis added] (Stam, Things That Differ, [Berean Literature Foundation, Twelfth Printing, 1985], p.15).​

In other words, according to him the only thing that is "essential" in order to be saved is faith. But then he says:

"Note carefully that while God refuses works for salvation today, He required them under other dispensations" [emphasis added] (Ibid., p.21).​

The word "require" means "to demand as necessary or essential" (Merriam-Webster Online).

Therefore Stam is saying that in other dispensations works were "essential" in order to be saved. That idea directly contradicts what he said earlier, that only "faith" is essential for salvation.

If "works" were essential for salvation during other dispensations then it cannot be said that salvation during those dispensations was "essentially by the grace of God through faith." That is because if "works" were essential then it is not of grace:

"Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt"
(Ro.4:4).​

Stam himself recognized this principle, writing that "Grace is not grace if mingled with works. The two principles are mutually exclusive (Rom. 4:4,5)" (Stam, Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to the Romans, [Berean Literature Foundation, Second Printing, 1984], p.87).

There is no doubt that the Jews of the past dispensation who believed were saved by grace, and if it is of grace then it cannot be of works (Ro.11:5-6). Peter understood that he was saved by grace, the same way that the Gentiles are saved. He said:

"But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are" (Acts 15:11).​

The idea that in other dispensations people could not be saved apart from works is easy to refute but even today those within the Neo-MAD camp still teach that in other dispensations no one could be saved apart from works.

The Neo-MAD camp is loaded with people who can best be described as "sheeple."

What about you, Danoh? Are you just another sheeple who thinks that those who lived under the law could not be saved apart from works?

Do you think that Richard Jordan is correct when he teaches that those who lived under the law could not be saved apart from works?
 
Last edited:

Interplanner

Well-known member
Richard Jordan still holds Stam's mistaken idea that the Jews who lived under the law could not be saved apart from works. In the book Things that Differ we can find Pastor Stam's basic teaching in regard to his ideas of how a sinner obtained salvation in other dispensations. He writes:

"We have no illusions as to man's utter inability to please God by works as such in any age. Man has always been saved essentially by the grace of God, through faith. There could be no other way to be saved "
[emphasis added] (Stam, Things That Differ, [Berean Literature Foundation, Twelfth Printing, 1985], p.15).​

In other words, according to him the only thing that is "essential" in order to be saved is faith. But then he says:

"Note carefully that while God refuses works for salvation today, He required them under other dispensations" [emphasis added] (Ibid., p.21).​

The word "require" means "to demand as necessary or essential" (Merriam-Webster Online).

Therefore Stam is saying that in other dispensations works were "essential" in order to be saved. That idea directly contradicts what he said earlier, that only "faith" is essential for salvation.

If "works" were essential for salvation during other dispensations then it cannot be said that salvation during those dispensations was "essentially by the grace of God through faith." That is because if "works" were essential then it is not of grace:

"Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt"
(Ro.4:4).​

Stam himself recognized this principle, writing that "Grace is not grace if mingled with works. The two principles are mutually exclusive (Rom. 4:4,5)" (Stam, Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to the Romans, [Berean Literature Foundation, Second Printing, 1984], p.87).

There is no doubt that the Jews of the past dispensation who believed were saved by grace, and if it is of grace then it cannot be of works (Ro.11:5-6). Peter understood that he was saved by grace, the same way that the Gentiles are saved. He said:

"But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are" (Acts 15:11).​

The idea that in other dispensations people could not be saved apart from works is easy to refute but even today those within the Neo-MAD camp still teach that in other dispensations no one could be saved apart from works.

The Neo-MAD camp is loaded with people who can best be described as "sheeple."

What about you, Danoh? Are you just another sheeple who thinks that those who lived under the law could not be saved apart from works?

Do you think that Richard Jordan is correct when he teaches that those who lived under the law could not be saved apart from works?





Do you realize that 'mingling with works' in strict Pauline sense is to add circ to Christ? That's why, when they didn't, believers at, for ex., Colossae/Ephesus were called 2nd rate by Judaizers. 2:4. The term there is actually to 'dis-credit', built off of the familiar 'logizo.' 'Christ was fine, but you weren't really a Christian unless you added circ.'
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
Back to 'Lifeisgood's comment yesterday about giving the original D'ists more credit.

The historical problem with this is that they came along 200 years after the Reformation from medieval exegetical method. For 200 years the NT scholars of 1600-1800 had no expression of a future race/nation episode for Israel. All of a sudden a guy comes along who doesn't think the Bible makes sense. How does he solve the 'not make sense' problem?

HE READS THE OT WITHOUT ANY COMMENT OR QUOTES BY THE NT!!! That tells you everything. Down to this day, D'ists are ridiculous at using the OT; they are always in it in total disregard for what the NT is saying, and try to find it 'fulfilled' apart from what the NT is saying. In trying to correct me about my beliefs this week JohnnyW here at TOL wrote out 30 OT quotes about the nation/race. All OT!!! Nothing from the NT about the exact same subject.
 

musterion

Well-known member
Never did take it as an insult.

Jordan and his people also hold Stam's/his people/ your view on that. So, I've heard and explored it with various others before.

I just find it fails to keep in mind the Acts 9 MAD Pauline based principle I pointed out in my prior post as to why Paul does and says the seemingly odd things he at times says and does in Acts and in his writings.

Just one of those moments in Stam's writings where he parts with the Acts 9 MAD principles I mentioned he himself was behind the re-emergence of.

Then again, perhaps not. Time will shed further light.

Anyway, we're exploring these things.

Which is what we should and could be doing.

So, no, no insult taken - not by any stretch.

I'm ever too curious about what another MAD's take on one thing or another might be.

Thus, my questions on here, at times.

Rom. 5: 6-8.

The fact is, Greek has no grammatical structure the way we have. The rendering a page or two back is just as valid as what's in the KJV. Paul could have been describing what John's hearers had done, not Luke relating what Paul did.
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame

The historical problem with this is that they came along 200 years after the Reformation from medieval exegetical method. For 200 years the NT scholars of 1600-1800 had no expression of a future race/nation episode for Israel. All of a sudden a guy comes along who doesn't think the Bible makes sense.


The historical problem with this "the earth is a sphere" is that it came only a few years ago. For thousands of years people had no expression of a "the earth is a sphere." All of a sudden some people come along who do not think "a flat earth" makes sense.

Thus, the earth is flat, as when you discover objective truth, determines whether it is, in fact, objectived truth.

QED...Thus saith Simon Basil Interplanner...


Of course, this is the same "argument" of sophistry Roman Catholics, "Rome," employ(s), to justify they being the "one, true church."

Are you a Roman, Interplanner? You talk like them-they talk like you.


While you are at it, show us where the term "God the Father" is in the OT. Thousands/millions of years, and "all of a sudden" the Lord Jesus Christ walks onto the stage of history, and reveals "God the Father?" Was He not always "God the Father?"


Watch the crafty dismissal, emotional grunts............Watch.
 
Top