ECT Ism Shism

[Danoh]

The following is a link to a post containing an excellent study by Pastor Ricky Kurth, of the Berean Bible Society, on some of the various forms of baptism described in the Bible.

Its entitled "The Water That Divides."

https://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/berean-searchlight-april-2013/

 

[patrick jane]

The following is a link to a post containing an excellent study by Pastor Ricky Kurth, of the Berean Bible Society, on some of the various forms of baptism described in the Bible.

Its entitled "The Water That Divides."

https://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/berean-searchlight-april-2013/

View attachment 21391

 

[turbosixx]

The following is a link to a post containing an excellent study by Pastor Ricky Kurth, of the Berean Bible Society, on some of the various forms of baptism described in the Bible.

Its entitled "The Water That Divides."

https://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/berean-searchlight-april-2013/

Then why did Paul baptize and continue to if he was sent not to?

That verse in 1 Cor. 1 is taken out of context and used without any proof to back it up that Paul didn't baptize people. Paul was sent to preach the gospel because one has to believe before they can be baptized. Baptism is a response to the gospel and can be perfromed by any believer. That's why it was important for Paul to preach so the believers would want to be baptized.

 

[Danoh]

Then why did Paul baptize and continue to if he was sent not to?

That verse in 1 Cor. 1 is taken out of context and used without any proof to back it up that Paul didn't baptize people. Paul was sent to preach the gospel because one has to believe before they can be baptized. Baptism is a response to the gospel and can be perfromed by any believer. That's why it was important for Paul to preach so the believers would want to be baptized.

Honestly, this going back and forth; first one person's sound byte, followed by the other's, is a waste of time.

Each person is basing their sound byte on a whole slew of ideas that together form the actual basis of their sound byte.

To expect anyone to pierce through all that basis via a sound byte here and there is fool's gold.

I post well aware of that.

There is much more to Paul's intended sense in 1 Cor. 1's "sent me not to baptize" then his own seeming sound byte.

His statements, as with anyone else's, are based on an entire theology; itself comprised of many interconnected doctrines.

Round and round we shall each go, as a result.

It was why I offered you those two pdfs way back when - the hope you might read them in their entirety and by that, actually know where we are coming from.

For, arrogant as this might come off, we do know where other systems are coming from.

Mid-Acts results in said knowing.

Again, I am fully aware that may come off as arrogant. Its not meant to; that's just been our consistent experience.

Apologies if that offends.

 

[turbosixx]

Honestly, this going back and forth; first one person's sound byte, followed by the other's, is a waste of time.

Each person is basing their sound byte on a whole slew of ideas that together form the actual basis of their sound byte.

To expect anyone to pierce through all that basis via a sound byte here and there is fool's gold.

I post well aware of that.

There is much more to Paul's intended sense in 1 Cor. 1's "sent me not to baptize" then his own seeming sound byte.

His statements, as with anyone else's, are based on an entire theology; itself comprised of many interconnected doctrines.

Round and round we shall each go, as a result.

It was why I offered you those two pdfs way back when - the hope you might read them in their entirety and by that, actually know where we are coming from.

For, arrogant as this might come off, we do know where other systems are coming from.

Mid-Acts results in said knowing.

Again, I am fully aware that may come off as arrogant. Its not meant to; that's just been our consistent experience.

Apologies if that offends.

No offense taken. I agree with the round and round. It’s hard in a forum to understand the thoughts of another. I believe it is possible that eventually one sound byte might be enough to plant a seed that leads to better understanding

I started to read them against my better judgment but quickly ran into error. That’s why I don’t like to read things written by men. Did God give us a book that we can’t understand? I think not.

I know of all the doctrines out there everyone feels theirs is based on scripture but we know that can’t be the case. Not everyone can be right. The problem I see, most of them are based on what passages don’t say instead of what the passage does say while keeping it in context.

People use 1 Cor. 1:17 as proof baptism isn’t for today? If that’s true, looking at Paul’s ministry, where is the proof? We can find where he didn’t circumcise for the truth of the gospel, why not refuse to baptize for the truth of the gospel? If he is the pattern for us then why was he baptized and why did he continue to baptize believers? These are fair questions. If you don’t want to go round and round, I totally understand.

 

[Danoh]

No offense taken. I agree with the round and round. It’s hard in a forum to understand the thoughts of another. I believe it is possible that eventually one sound byte might be enough to plant a seed that leads to better understanding

I started to read them against my better judgment but quickly ran into error. That’s why I don’t like to read things written by men. Did God give us a book that we can’t understand? I think not.

I know of all the doctrines out there everyone feels theirs is based on scripture but we know that can’t be the case. Not everyone can be right. The problem I see, most of them are based on what passages don’t say instead of what the passage does say while keeping it in context.

People use 1 Cor. 1:17 as proof baptism isn’t for today? If that’s true, looking at Paul’s ministry, where is the proof? We can find where he didn’t circumcise for the truth of the gospel, why not refuse to baptize for the truth of the gospel? If he is the pattern for us then why was he baptized and why did he continue to baptize believers? These are fair questions. If you don’t want to go round and round, I totally understand.

You might want to reread Acts 16, noting who he is dealing with - Jews.

This although he is carrying a copy of what was concluded in Acts 15 about circumcision and the Law.

And the fact is that the Twelve never could have said "Christ sent me not to baptize..." see Matt. 28:19.

That is significant.

Why does Paul undergo Israelite water rituals in Acts 21 that he might be able to worship at the Temple in Jerusalem?

That too is significant.

 

[turbosixx]

You might want to reread Acts 16, noting who he is dealing with - Jews.

He baptizes a Gentile in ch 16, the jailer.

The fact is that the Twelve never could have said "Christ sent me not to baptize..." see Matt. 28:19.

That is significant.

Looking at the context, why did Paul make that statement?

Why does Paul undergo Israelite water rituals in Acts 21 that he might be able to worship at the Temple in Jerusalem?

That too is significant.

Same reason he circumcised Timothy.

 

[Danoh]

Further, you miss why Paul says "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." v. 17.

Because he is relating what little importance he put on it and why - note verse 16 "besides (those) I know not whether I baptized any other."

Why is it he does not know of any others if it is so important?

Verse 17 - "For Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel..."

Peter, on the other hand, insists that Cornelius and his be water baptized, Acts 10: 47, 48.

And there, the order was reversed on Peter by the Lord!

 

[turbosixx]

Further, you miss why Paul says "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." v. 17.

Because he is relating what little importance he put on it and why - note verse 16 "besides (those) I know not whether I baptized any other."

Why is it he does not know of any others if it is so important?

Verse 17 - "For Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel..."

Peter, on the other hand, insists that Cornelius and his be water baptized, Acts 10: 47, 48.

And there, the order was reversed on Peter by the Lord!

That's not looking at the context. Paul is dealing with people placing too much emphasis on who baptized them which is creating division. Baptism is important but who does it isn’t.

If Paul didn’t think it so important, then why in Acts 19 does he baptize people again who have already been baptized?

 

[Danoh]

That's not looking at the context. Paul is dealing with people placing too much emphasis on who baptized them which is creating division. Baptism is important but who does it isn’t.

If Paul didn’t think it so important, then why in Acts 19 does he baptize people again who have already been baptized?

You're alone on that one - few in Biblical studies assert that Acts 19: 5 is clear as to which baptism it is referring to, John's or a second one by Paul.

While a second one by Paul would be ridiculous.

And you skirted my questions.

We went through this before to no avail. You are dead set in your Peter and Paul preached the same gospel.

 

[turbosixx]

You're alone on that one - few in Biblical studies assert that Acts 19: 5 is clear as to which baptism it is referring to, John's or a second one by Paul.

While a second one by Paul would be ridiculous.

Looking at the context it doesn’t make sense to be anything other than water, which we know he performed in the previous chapter. Look at the first question Paul asks.

2 He said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
Why would he ask this if the HS baptizes us upon belief?

When he finds out they hadn’t, why does he question their baptism if the HS does it upon belief?
3And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, "Into John's baptism."

And you skirted my questions.

Sorry, I felt I address your questions.

We went through this before to no avail. You are dead set in your Peter and Paul preached the same gospel.

If the dividing wall has be torn down throught Christ, why would I think onterwise.

 

[turbosixx]

And there, the order was reversed on Peter by the Lord!

The order was reversed because God was making the mystery known to the Jews. That the Gentiles were fellow heirs.

There is a whole chapter, visions and councils pertaining to this one conversion. It's a special case.

 

[musterion]

I'm still looking for the verse that states the jailor was a Gentile.

 

[turbosixx]

I'm still looking for the verse that states the jailor was a Gentile.

Whether Gentile or Jew, Paul still baptized believers. If he was a Jew, did Paul preach two different gospels?

If Jesus didn't want Paul to baptize, because that's the truth of the gospel, then why did he? Why would he contine to do something contrary to the gospel if that is what that verse really means?

Live long and prosper.

 

[musterion]

I believe Paul water baptised newly believing Jews only for a time, then he was led to stop. Here's a similar take on it.

http://graceambassadors.com/midacts/did-paul-water-baptize

 

[turbosixx]

I believe Paul water baptised newly believing Jews only for a time, then he was led to stop. Here's a similar take on it.

http://graceambassadors.com/midacts/did-paul-water-baptize

It looks to me like the writer isn't looking at the context surrounding 1 Cor. 1:17 and is making some assumptions about the visions. The context is Paul dealing with people who are putting emphasis on WHO baptized them.

12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ." 13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

He then says he’s thankful he didn’t baptize more because:
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name.

It doesn’t matter WHO does the baptizing, that’s why he says he wasn’t sent to baptize but he preach. It all starts with the preaching.
Rom. 10:14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?

Nowhere does he say we are not to be baptized or if you are baptized you have been severed from Christ as he does with circumcision.

Gal. 5:3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace

I believe Paul is the pattern. He was baptized and he baptized believers and is in agreement with the other apostles.
Eph.2:and are of God's household, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets,

 

[DAN P]

Then why did Paul baptize and continue to if he was sent not to?
ed.

Hi and just what verse is the one that says Paul Baptized ?? is not in the Greek text
Notice that is Acts 10:47 Peter commands them to be BAPTIZED in WATER / HYDOR ,BUT is Acts 19:6 Paul BAPTIZED with the Holy Spirit BUT WATER / HYDOR but water is not in the Greek text !!

In 1 Cor 1:14 the Greek text says " I Baptized " is in the AORIST TENSES and means he , Paul only Baptized those mentioned in Acts 1:14 and in verse 16 !!

dan p

 

[turbosixx]

Hi and just what verse is the one that says Paul Baptized ?? is not in the Greek text

Acts 18:8

Notice that is Acts 10:47 Peter commands them to be BAPTIZED in WATER / HYDOR ,BUT is Acts 19:6 Paul BAPTIZED with the Holy Spirit BUT WATER / HYDOR but water is not in the Greek text !!

Is the Holy Spirit in the Greek text?

In 1 Cor 1:14 the Greek text says " I Baptized " is in the AORIST TENSES and means he , Paul only Baptized those mentioned in Acts 1:14 and in verse 16 !!

dan p

Yes, what does baptism mean but "dip, submerge". How does Paul dip or submerge someone in the Holy Spirit? God does that. Paul dips people in water.

You didn't answer the question. You admit Paul baptized people, why did he do it if it's not the truth of the gospel?

 

[DAN P]

Acts 18:8



Is the Holy Spirit in the Greek text?



Yes, what does baptism mean but "dip, submerge". How does Paul dip or submerge someone in the Holy Spirit? God does that. Paul dips people in water.

You didn't answer the question. You admit Paul baptized people, why did he do it if it's not the truth of the gospel?

Hi and Paul never Water Baptized BUT in Acts 19:5 and that BAPTIZO happened by Paul LAYING his hands on the 12 disciples and they RECEIVED the Power of Holy Spirit , verse 6 , and they spoke in TONGUES / LANGUAGES , no Water here at all !!


And in Eph 4:5 , there is ONLY one BAPTISM , But the Greek text does not say BAPTIZO , it says BAPTIMA which means one who BAPTIIZES in other words it speaks that the Holy Spirit DOES ALL THE BAPTIZING TODAY as found in 1 Cor 12:13 !!

dan p

 

[turbosixx]

Hi and Paul never Water Baptized

Just to be clear, in 1 Cor. 1 your saying Paul didn't water baptize these people?

14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name.