ECT If MAD is False Why Did Paul Make the Distinction in Romans 4:16?

[turbosixx]

What Paul meant is very plain in the text. There is no deeper meaning than the face value meaning. Baptism was not what he was sent to do; he was sent to preach the gospel. But based on the context clues: i.e. the fact that he baptized people, and so did some of his converts who wee also preaching the gospel he preached, we also know that baptism was not forbidden in his message [if it were he wouldn't have done it and he would have let it be known that it was forbidden].

So, we can safely assume that baptism is not salvific but is yet a perfectly acceptable act of proclamation of one's acceptance of Christ. And that no one should be forbidden from baptizing or being baptized.

Furthermore, if baptism were something the Lord wanted Paul to do Paul would not have been thankful that he only baptized those few.

Thanks for your take on it but I would suggest that's not keeping with the context. Based on the context Paul is dealing with division. 10 Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
The cause of the division is baptism. Not baptism itself but people placing too much importance on WHO baptized them.
12 Now this I mean, that each one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
Notice the last one is Christ which is the right answer. Although a man does the physical act, it's Christ who's name we are calling upon for salvation.
So he challenges them with some questions showing how ridiculous it is because Christ is the one who died for us and Christ is the one who's name we call upon.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized into the name of Paul?
Then he says he's thankful that he only baptized a few.
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, save Crispus and Gaius;
Then the next verse he tells us why he's thankful he baptized just a few and it's not the same reason you gave.
15 lest any man should say that ye were baptized into my name.

So now we come to the famous verse.
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel:
So how does this verse fit in with people being followers of certain men who baptized them?
If baptism wasn’t part of the conversion of a Christian, this would be the perfect time to set the record straight. Baptism is causing divisions and confusion but Paul points out the important part of his commission. Preach the gospel because anyone can baptize the believers because it’s not important WHO does the baptizing. For example, if Paul preached to 1,000 people and 500 believe, he doesn’t have to be the one to baptize all 500, anyone can do the baptizing.

Baptism is how we call upon the Lords name when we are baptized “in the name of” Jesus. That’s why Paul in Acts 19 baptized these men again even though they had already been water baptized. He baptized them “in the name of” the Lord Jesus, then he lays hands on.

Looking at Paul's conversion, after all he had done Ananias asks him, why do you delay? What else did he have to do? Ananias tells him 16 now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name. Before baptism he still has his sins because baptism is how we call on Jesus' name and are added to the body where we receive forgiveness of sins by his blood.

Baptism is how we die with Christ, Rom.6:5 and it’s how we are put into Christ, Gal. 3:27.

 

[Lighthouse]

Thanks for your take on it but I would suggest that's not keeping with the context. Based on the context Paul is dealing with division. 10 Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
The cause of the division is baptism. Not baptism itself but people placing too much importance on WHO baptized them.
12 Now this I mean, that each one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
Notice the last one is Christ which is the right answer. Although a man does the physical act, it's Christ who's name we are calling upon for salvation.
So he challenges them with some questions showing how ridiculous it is because Christ is the one who died for us and Christ is the one who's name we call upon.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized into the name of Paul?
Then he says he's thankful that he only baptized a few.
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, save Crispus and Gaius;
Then the next verse he tells us why he's thankful he baptized just a few and it's not the same reason you gave.
15 lest any man should say that ye were baptized into my name.

So now we come to the famous verse.
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel:
So how does this verse fit in with people being followers of certain men who baptized them?
If baptism wasn’t part of the conversion of a Christian, this would be the perfect time to set the record straight. Baptism is causing divisions and confusion but Paul points out the important part of his commission. Preach the gospel because anyone can baptize the believers because it’s not important WHO does the baptizing. For example, if Paul preached to 1,000 people and 500 believe, he doesn’t have to be the one to baptize all 500, anyone can do the baptizing.

Baptism is how we call upon the Lords name when we are baptized “in the name of” Jesus. That’s why Paul in Acts 19 baptized these men again even though they had already been water baptized. He baptized them “in the name of” the Lord Jesus, then he lays hands on.

Looking at Paul's conversion, after all he had done Ananias asks him, why do you delay? What else did he have to do? Ananias tells him 16 now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name. Before baptism he still has his sins because baptism is how we call on Jesus' name and are added to the body where we receive forgiveness of sins by his blood.

Baptism is how we die with Christ, Rom.6:5 and it’s how we are put into Christ, Gal. 3:27.

The division is irrelevant to the fact that baptism is not what he was sent to do. It is merely the catalyst to him pointing that out.

And I never gave a reason why he was thankful.

There was no reason to "set the record straight" either, as baptism is a perfectly acceptable part of conversion or a rite of passage. And yet no one is going to Hell if they convert and aren't baptized.

The kicker to this whole thing is, something you're ignoring, the 12 were sent to baptize. It was part of their commission. This differentiates them from Paul, as it is clear that it was not part of his commission. Paul didn't have to baptize; the 12 did. Why? That is the issue.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

The division is irrelevant to the fact that baptism is not what he was sent to do. It is merely the catalyst to him pointing that out.

And I never gave a reason why he was thankful.

There was no reason to "set the record straight" either, as baptism is a perfectly acceptable part of conversion or a rite of passage. And yet no one is going to Hell if they convert and aren't baptized.

The kicker to this whole thing is, something you're ignoring, the 12 were sent to baptize. It was part of their commission. This differentiates them from Paul, as it is clear that it was not part of his commission. Paul didn't have to baptize; the 12 did. Why? That is the issue.

When the 12 disciples of Ephesis had not received the Holy Spirit, Paul had baptized them in the name of Christ in order that they would receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of his hands.

Shall we also dispense of the laying on of hands as well, and say it makes no difference one way or the other?

Let us not say that believing is the receiving of the Holy Spirit.

Act 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Act 8:13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
Act 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
Act 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
Act 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Act 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.



LA

 

[Lighthouse]

This message is hidden because Lazy afternoon is on your ignore list.

 

[Lighthouse]

While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
-Acts 10:44-47

 

[turbosixx]

Paul didn't have to baptize; the 12 did. Why? That is the issue.

If he didn't then why were these men baptized again when they had already been baptized?
Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Your claim isn't matching up with his actions. His actions agree with what I understand v17 to say.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Can you show where spiritual Israel is mentioned in the NT

Sure.

Is the tree of Romans ch 11, a physical one or a spiritual one.

LA

 

[Interplanner]

Sure.

Is the tree of Romans ch 11, a physical one or a spiritual one.

LA

Sure, or Rom 9:6's paragraph. It's the ones who have faith, and in 9:24 they are "us" both Jew and Gentile.

 

[Danoh]

Sure, or Rom 9:6's paragraph. It's the ones who have faith, and in 9:24 they are "us" both Jew and Gentile.

You remain willfully clueless about who Romans 9:6 is referring to.

And your just as willfull merging of it with Romans 9:24 is just you, waxing worse.

 

[Lighthouse]

If he didn't then why were these men baptized again when they had already been baptized?
Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Your claim isn't matching up with his actions. His actions agree with what I understand v17 to say.

If it were part of his commission he would have baptized more people than he did. And he wouldn't have said, “Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other.” If baptism were part of his commission he would have remembered baptizing other people because he would have baptized a lot of people. He may not remember all of their names, bu he would have remembered baptizing many, rather than only having baptized a few and not recalling baptizing any others.

And those guys in Acts 19 weren't baptized in Jesus' name prior to this so it doesn't matter if they were already baptized, so why does that matter to you? Why are you making it an issue?

Have you ever noticed that Paul only baptized early on in his ministry and eventually stopped? And how few people he baptized?

Anyway, Paul baptized those men because baptism was a part of the conversion experience at that time. It's what they did.

I noticed I still haven't gotten an answer as to what would happen if someone converted and never got baptized.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

You remain willfully clueless about who Romans 9:6 is referring to.

And your just as willfull merging of it with Romans 9:24 is just you, waxing worse.

Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Simple.

The elect Israel was enlarged by the addition of the gentiles who believed through their preaching.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Anyway, Paul baptized those men because baptism was a part of the conversion experience at that time. It's what they did.

I noticed I still haven't gotten an answer as to what would happen if someone converted and never got baptized.
[/FONT][/FONT]

It never changed, and no scripture says it did.

Paul was baptized and he baptized others.

Jesus said--

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

LA

My theology is that the elect of Israel became the scattered church among the nations, and when filled up with the full number of gentiles who believe to become one with them, then Christ will return and gather them, and God will then pour out His wrath on the unbelievers of both Jew and Gentile.

 

[turbosixx]

If it were part of his commission he would have baptized more people than he did. And he wouldn't have said, Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other.” If baptism were part of his commission he would have remembered baptizing other people because he would have baptized a lot of people.

I believe the reason he doesn't remember who he baptized is because he focused on the preaching and had other people do the baptizing because he isn't under obligation to baptize. In Acts 18:8 many were baptized but Paul only remembers a few. Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.

And those guys in Acts 19 weren't baptized in Jesus' name prior to this so it doesn't matter if they were already baptized, so why does that matter to you? Why are you making it an issue?

That's the point. Being baptized "in the name of Jesus" is how we are made disciples as Jesus said, Matt. 28:19.

Have you ever noticed that Paul only baptized early on in his ministry and eventually stopped? And how few people he baptized?

I believe Acts 19 is on his third journey and I don't believe he really preached outside of confinement after this.

Anyway, Paul baptized those men because baptism was a part of the conversion experience at that time. It's what they did.

Yes, it's what they did and there is a reason for it, Jesus commanded it. Baptism has a purpose.

I noticed I still haven't gotten an answer as to what would happen if someone converted and never got baptized.

Let's look at the words of Jesus and you tell me.

Mk16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Hear the gospel - No, ???
Yes
Believe - No, condemned
Yes
Baptized - No, ???
Yes
Saved

 

[themuzicman]

"Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all"
-Romans 4:16

If all were under the same dispensation why did Paul mention those who were of the law and also those who were of the faith of Abraham as though two distinct groups of people?

Because Paul is dealing with a division between Jews and Gentiles in Rome, mainly that Jews think they are somehow superior because they are Jews. Look at Romans 2-3. Paul deals with those without the law (2:14-16) and then those under the law (2:17-3:22), but the concludes that there is no difference because "all have sinned (Jews and Gentiles) have fallen short of the glory of God." Romans 4, then, is a continuation of this theme, as both Jews and Gentiles, being in the same condition of falling short, are saved by faith. Paul's point (to the Jews) is that even Abraham was credited righteousness because of his faith.

So, Paul is trying to remove the differences that MAD is desperately trying to retain.

 

[Lighthouse]

I believe the reason he doesn't remember who he baptized is because he focused on the preaching and had other people do the baptizing because he isn't under obligation to baptize. In Acts 18:8 many were baptized but Paul only remembers a few. Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.

Bingo!

That's the point. Being baptized "in the name of Jesus" is how we are made disciples as Jesus said, Matt. 28:19.

And who did He tell to do this? Did He tell Paul to do this?

I believe Acts 19 is on his third journey and I don't believe he really preached outside of confinement after this.

Ten chapters later and he's already on his third journey? Was he an ancestor of Barry Allen?

Yes, it's what they did and there is a reason for it, Jesus commanded it. Baptism has a purpose.

Did Jesus command Paul to baptize?

Where is the passage with Jesus commanding anyone to be baptized?

Let's look at the words of Jesus and you tell me.

Mk16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Hear the gospel - No, ???
Yes
Believe - No, condemned
Yes
Baptized - No, ???
Yes
Saved

Is this English?

Because Paul is dealing with a division between Jews and Gentiles in Rome, mainly that Jews think they are somehow superior because they are Jews. Look at Romans 2-3. Paul deals with those without the law (2:14-16) and then those under the law (2:17-3:22), but the concludes that there is no difference because "all have sinned (Jews and Gentiles) have fallen short of the glory of God." Romans 4, then, is a continuation of this theme, as both Jews and Gentiles, being in the same condition of falling short, are saved by faith. Paul's point (to the Jews) is that even Abraham was credited righteousness because of his faith.

So, Paul is trying to remove the differences that MAD is desperately trying to retain.

James point is that Abraham was justified by works, and not by faith alone. So why the difference?

And MAD has never said those under the Law weren't saved by faith.

And you're missing the blatantly obvious as Paul states there are those who are children of Abraham through the Law and those who are his children through faith. Two different sets of people.

 

[turbosixx]

And you're missing the blatantly obvious as Paul states there are those who are children of Abraham through the Law and those who are his children through faith. Two different sets of people.

Two different sets in Christ or out of Christ? I agree two sets before becoming a Christian but not two different IN Christ.

 

[Lighthouse]

Two different sets in Christ or out of Christ? I agree two sets before becoming a Christian but not two different IN Christ.

There was Israel of the New Covenant [of the Law] and the Body of Christ [of faith] when the BoC was new and they were transitioning. Both in Christ. There is now the BoC only, and all are one in the Body. The NC came before the BoC and didn't end immediately when the BoC began.

 

[turbosixx]

There was Israel of the New Covenant [of the Law] and the Body of Christ [of faith] when the BoC was new and they were transitioning. Both in Christ. There is now the BoC only, and all are one in the Body. The NC came before the BoC and didn't end immediately when the BoC began.

Ok, that helps a little. What do you consider Israel? What do you call Israel of the NC? Kingdom, Church?

 

[john w]

Jesus said--............

"Jesus said" to sell all you have, scammer, as you try to deceitfully assert that all of the scripture is written to everyone, specifically, for their obedience.

Do it.


I thought so-fraud, poser, scammer.

And show some respect-it is the Lord Jesus Christ, not "Jesus." Only his enemies, while He was on earth, addressed him as "Jesus." Oh, yes-you are His enemy.

 

[Danoh]

There was Israel of the New Covenant [of the Law] and the Body of Christ [of faith] when the BoC was new and they were transitioning. Both in Christ. There is now the BoC only, and all are one in the Body. The NC came before the BoC and didn't end immediately when the BoC began.

Clear me up on this bro...

It appears you are saying that the Believing remnant of Israel (who had believed and were sealed before Paul was saved; commissioned; etc.) ended up in the Body.

Also, that an unsealed Believing remnant still out there after Paul, who needed to hear Paul's preaching, then ended up in the Body.

I ask because what I see is that the Believing remnant of Israel believed and were then sealed as the true Israel of God before Paul was saved, at the same time that the rest of Israel was concluded having continued "not Israel" and in unbelief before Paul was saved.

And that after Paul was saved, God then began offering salvation to both said Unbelieving Israelites and Gentiles without distinction.

For circumcision profiteth IF thou keep the Law; otherwise circumcision is made uncircumcision, Rom. 2 - which is exactly what the Spirit through a member of the lsrael of God: Stephen, accused Unbelieving Israel of, Acts 7 - of their having failed to keep the Law.

What I see is that the sealed, Believing remnant of Israel (saved and sealed before God concluded the rest in Uncircumcision) were not in God's New Creature: the Body of Christ.

And that those Unbelieving Israelites who later believed after Paul was saved, were saved into God's New Creature: the Body of Christ.

The Israel of God and the rest in Unbelief is described in...

Romans 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

In contrast, after the salvation of Paul; the rest in Unbelief were allowed the same Uncircumcision salvation that Paul himself was saved under...

Romans 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: 11:14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. 11:15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

11:30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: 11:31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Sort of like how the writer of Hebrews is also addressing an issue of Two, Equally Valid gospels - though, in THEIR case, the issue is that of THEIR Former Truth, in contrast to THEIR Present one, as in Hebrews 6, etc.