Mid-Acts water baptism

[Clete]

Ephesians was written after Acts 18 (i.e., it's God's more recent instruction).

That sounds like the first sentence of an argument! By itself it's merely a claim.

Can you establish that claim?

Paul baptized nobody in Acts 19

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 Ephesus. And finding some disciples 2 he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”
3 And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?”
So they said, “Into John’s baptism.”
4 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.”
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. 7 Now the men were about twelve in all.

(even if he had, it would be irrelevant because Ephesians was written after Acts 19).

Again, claims do not an argument make. Can you establish that this is so?

The timeline matters.

Then I would ask that you establish that timeline.

 

[Right Divider]

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 Ephesus. And finding some disciples 2 he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”
3 And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?”
So they said, “Into John’s baptism.”
4 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.”
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. 7 Now the men were about twelve in all.

As I said before, "When they heard" is still talking about JOHN and not Paul.
The quotes in that translation are assumptions and not facts.

Acts 19:1-7 (AKJV/PCE)​

(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.​

Do you really think that those "about 12 disciples" needed a SECOND water baptism?

Did the twelve apostles need a SECOND water baptism besides John's (JtB)?

Did all of Israel need a SECOND water baptism as well?

 

[Clete]

As I said before, "When they heard" is still talking about JOHN and not Paul.

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.

The quotes in that translation are assumptions and not facts.

Acts 19:1-7 (AKJV/PCE)​

(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.​

Claims do not an argument make. You need them to be assumptions. Indeed, the ONLY reason you think they're assumptions is because the passage creates a problem for your doctrine otherwise.

Do you really think that those "about 12 disciples" needed a SECOND water baptism?

Did the twelve apostles need a SECOND water baptism besides John's (JtB)?

Did all of Israel need a SECOND water baptism as well?

All of these question presuppose the validity of your doctrine. Answering them as asked would concede ground you have not earned.

Now, I need to keep repeating the following point so as not to give the wrong impression....

I am not here advocating water baptism. What I am doing is demonstrating that it is REASONABLE for someone to do so and that the arguments for that side of the debate aren't so easy to refute. In fact, I have yet to see anyone refute them decisively. The position that water baptism doesn't fit into the Body of Christ is a position based not on biblical proof but on a preponderance of the evidence and, from what I've seen, only just barely that. In effect, the position makes good intuitive sense and has sufficient biblical evidence to tip the scales in favor of no water baptism. People who are dogmatic about it aren't exactly on the firmest of ground.

 

[Right Divider]

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.

That's funny. If I'm begging the question, then so are you. Acts 19:1-7 does not explicitly declare a "second water baptism". Therefore, you are also assuming your position without explicit evidence to confirm it. Plus, you must believe in this bizarre "second water baptism" which has no support anywhere in scripture. At least my position is consistent with the "one baptism", which is clearly in scripture.

Also, what would any of that have to do with the church which is His body? Do you think that the "about 12" were members of the body of Christ? I would say clearly not.

Claims do not an argument make. You need them to be assumptions. Indeed, the ONLY reason you think they're assumptions is because the passage creates a problem for your doctrine otherwise.

Back at you on Acts 19:1-7. You seem to think that the "one baptism" that Paul declares in Eph 4:5 was then ignored by Paul himself.

I will not try to write a PhD thesis for you on the timeline of the books of the Bible, but the commonly believed timeline puts Ephesians in the Acts 28 (or later) time-frame. But, even if it was before Acts 18/19, that would make Paul someone who didn't "practice what he preached".

Now, I need to keep repeating the following point so as not to give the wrong impression....

I am not here advocating water baptism. What I am doing is demonstrating that it is REASONABLE for someone to do so and that the arguments for that side of the debate aren't so easy to refute. In fact, I have yet to see anyone refute them decisively. The position that water baptism doesn't fit into the Body of Christ is a position based not on biblical proof but on a preponderance of the evidence and, from what I've seen, only just barely that. In effect, the position makes good intuitive sense and has sufficient biblical evidence to tip the scales in favor of no water baptism. People who are dogmatic about it aren't exactly on the firmest of ground.

One baptism could not possibly be more clear.

But I will also repeat that I don't say that water baptism is impermissible, only that it is senseless and confused and therefore should not be encouraged.

P.S.
Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon (c. AD 60–63): Known collectively as the "Prison Epistles." While some alternative theories suggest they could have been written during an unrecorded imprisonment in Ephesus (Acts 19) or his two-year Caesarean imprisonment (Acts 24), the traditional and most widely supported view is that Paul wrote them while under house arrest in Rome. This corresponds to the final verses of the book of Acts, specifically Acts 28:16–31.

 

[Clete]

That's funny. If I'm begging the question, then so are you. Acts 19:1-7 does not explicitly declare a "second water baptism". Therefore, you are also assuming your position without explicit evidence to confirm it.

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 than yours?

There is NO ANSWER to that question, other than that it isn't! Two wrongs don't make a right, RD. If you're question begging then your argument is fallacious, whether mine is or not.

Plus, you must believe in this bizarre "second water baptism" which has no support anywhere in scripture. At least my position is consistent with the "one baptism", which is clearly in scripture.

This makes no sense. There is no "second water baptism", there is simply being baptized in water or not doing so. There is no way to even argue that people were not being baptized IN WATER as late as Acts 19, either by or with the full knowledge of Paul and without rebuke from him.

Also, what would any of that have to do with the church which is His body? Do you think that the "about 12" were members of the body of Christ? I would say clearly not.

Clearly not? By what standard of "clarity"?

At best you're speculating and doing so, once again, because of your doctrine not because there is a stitch of context in the passage that supports such a theory. In fact, quite the contrary.

What would have been the point of Paul, the apostle to the uncircumcision, laying his hands on a Jew so that they can be baptized into the Holy Spirit? Talk about not having anything to do with the church which is His body! We're talking about an episode that happened long (years) after the cutting off of Israel and the beginning of the dispensation of grace. If anything, the context could only support that these were members of the body of Christ, not Israel.

Back at you on Acts 19:1-7. You seem to think that the "one baptism" that Paul declares in Eph 4:5 was then ignored by Paul himself.

No, not ignored, simply not taken so woodenly as to be a mental prison which disallows the use of symbolism in religious practice.

There is one Lord, one Christ whose body was broken on the cross and whose blood was shed for the remission of sins and yet...

I Corinthians 11:23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”​

​

26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.​

​

27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.​

I will not try to write a PhD thesis for you on the timeline of the books of the Bible, but the commonly believed timeline puts Ephesians in the Acts 28 (or later) time-frame. But, even if it was before Acts 18/19, that would make Paul someone who didn't "practice what he preached".

This objection requires yet another assumption on your part, which I don't believe can be biblically established and which people who practice water baptism certainly would not be persuaded by. That assumption being that Paul's gospel was given to him piecemeal. I've never really tried to think that specific issue through so I'm not going to try to be dogmatic here but I'm pretty sure that I don't believe in the piecemeal delivery of the gospel to Paul. Paul states that he was not taught his gospel. That alone seems to negate a gradual, incomplete revelation.

It is possible that Paul’s early practice of baptism reflects a transitional period as the implications of the gospel of grace were being fully worked out. However, the text does not say, or even imply, that Paul lacked the full revelation of his gospel when he was performing these baptisms. A simpler explanation is that baptism continued as a known and accepted practice, even though Paul did not treat it as essential to the gospel. That explains why he both practiced it and minimized its importance.

One baptism could not possibly be more clear.

It certainly could be a lot less legalistic, however.

But I will also repeat that I don't say that water baptism is impermissible, only that it is senseless and confused and therefore should not be encouraged.

The same logic applies to the Lord's supper. It's only confusing if you make it so by getting stuck on one single version of scripture to the exclusion of all else. Isn't it simpler and more in keeping with Paul's example to both practice it (if one so chooses) and clearly articulate its importance (or lack thereof)? People partake of the Lord's Supper all the time and no one I have ever met or even heard of suggests that it is savlific in nature. There are some who partake of it every single time the church has a service. There are lots of people who keep a portable set up with them so that they can partake of that ritual every single Sunday whether they can be at church or not. I mean, there are people who are REALLY into the Lord's Supper in a major way! I grew up in a such a church. I knew dozens, probably hundreds of such people. None of them - not a single solitary one - would tell you that it has anything at all to do with their salvation and they aren't confused in the slightest manner between the ritual and the reality which it pictures.

P.S.
Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon (c. AD 60–63): Known collectively as the "Prison Epistles." While some alternative theories suggest they could have been written during an unrecorded imprisonment in Ephesus (Acts 19) or his two-year Caesarean imprisonment (Acts 24), the traditional and most widely supported view is that Paul wrote them while under house arrest in Rome. This corresponds to the final verses of the book of Acts, specifically Acts 28:16–31.

The precise date is not the point. The point is simply that it's well into Paul's ministry and, without a doubt, after the Jerusalem council where Paul's gospel has to have been sufficiently complete to require it to be explained to Peter, James and John.

 

[Right Divider]

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.

You say that it says what you want it to say. My interpretation is just as valid.

It does NOT say that Paul water baptized some disciples with water for a second (or more) time!

Further, and perhaps more importantly, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you're right! Why is my question begging less valid than yours?

What I'm saying is that my interpretation is more consistent with the rest of scripture and that a "second water baptism" is not. My earlier question were perfectly valid, if these "about 12" needed a "second water baptism", did all of Israel also need this? If so, where is this need for a "second water baptism" described in scripture?

There is NO ANSWER to that question, other than that it isn't! Two wrongs don't make a right, RD. If you're question begging then your argument is fallacious, whether mine is or not.

It's simply two different ways of viewing the text, neither of which is explicit in Acts 19. But, again, my view is better supported by the remainder of scripture. The SWB view is not.

This makes no sense. There is no "second water baptism", there is simply being baptized in water or not doing so.

The "about twelve" had ALREADY been baptized with John's water baptism.

Acts 19:3 (AKJV/PCE)​

(19:3) And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.​

Why would they need ANOTHER (at least their second) water baptism?

There is no question, no way to even argue, that people were not being baptized IN WATER as late as Acts 19, either by or with the full knowledge of Paul and without rebuke from him.

Why does this timing mean anything to you? Paul says that there is ONE baptism for the body of Christ. That means something for TODAY.

Clearly not? By what standard or "clarity"?

At best you're speculating and doing so, once again, because of your doctrine not because there is a stitch of context in the passage that supports such a theory.

So you think that these "about twelve" disciple were members of the body of Christ? Care to support that idea?

In fact, quite the contrary. What would have been the point of Paul, the apostle to the uncircumcision, laying his hands on a Jew so that they can be baptized into the Holy Spirit?

What does "baptized into the Holy Spirit" mean? I cannot find that in scripture.

Talk about not having anything to do with the church which is His body! We're talking about an episode that happen long (years) after the cutting off of Israel and the beginning of the dispensation of grace. If anything, the context could only support that these were members of the body of Christ, not Israel.

Certain disciples that were water baptized by John... you are making them part of the body of Christ. Again, I'd like to see some support for that idea.

Also, just because Israel had already been "cut off" does NOT mean that there was an instant "switch" to the body of Christ. You know very well that there was some sort of transition going on during that period.

No, not ignored, simply not taken so woodenly as to be a mental prison which disallows the use of symbolism in religious practice.

The "symbolism of water baptism" is always in the context of Israel and their cleansing for service. Again I ask, were does Paul describe the "symbolism of water baptism" as it relates to the body of Christ.

I know that Churchianity has developed quite a "story" trying to connect the "symbolism of water baptism" with the church for today (i.e., the body of Christ). But it's all tradition.

There is one Lord, one Christ whose body of broken on the cross and whose blood was shed for the remission of sins and yet...

I Corinthians 11:23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”​

​

26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.​

​

27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.​

None of that has anything to do with water baptism.

This objection requires yet another assumption on your part, which I don't believe can be biblically established and which people who practice water baptism certainly would not be persuaded by. That assumption being that Paul's gospel was given to him piecemeal.

It's no assumption. Do you think that Paul received ALL of the information for his dispensation at one time? If so, that would be an assumption. Scripture certainly seems to say otherwise:

Acts 26:16 (AKJV/PCE)​

(26:16) But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; ​

​

2Cor 12:7 (AKJV/PCE)​

(12:7) And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.​

I've never really tried to think that specific issue through so I'm not going to try to be dogmatic here but I'm pretty sure that I don't believe in the piecemeal delivery of the gospel to Paul. Paul states that he was not taught his gospel. That alone seems to negate a gradual, incomplete revelation.

I think that you need to rethink your position on that topic. Start with those scriptures above.

I think that Paul's point is that he was not taught by men but by direct revelation from Jesus Christ.

Gal 1:12 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:12) For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.​

​

I don't think that we can stretch that to mean that he was given all knowledge in one instant.

It is possible that Paul’s early practice of baptism reflects a transitional period as the implications of the gospel of grace were being fully worked out. However, the text does not say, or even imply, that Paul lacked the full revelation of his gospel when he was performing these baptisms.

Perhaps, but scripture does show that he received an abundance of revelations. It's unlikely that this was all at the same time. Much like how Christ taught the 11/12 about the kingdom for forty days.

A simpler explanation is that baptism continued as a known and accepted practice, even though Paul did not treat it as essential to the gospel. That explains why he both practiced it and minimized its importance.

That's one theory.

It certainly could be a lot less legalistic, however.

Who's being legalistic?

The same logic applies to the Lord's supper. It's only confusing if you make it so by getting stuck on one single version of scripture to the exclusion of all else. Isn't it simpler and more in keeping with Paul's example to both practice it (if one so chooses) and clearly articulate its importance (or lack thereof)? People partake of the Lord's Supper all the time and no one I have ever met or even heard of suggests that it is savlific in nature. There are some who partake of it every single time the church has a service. There are lots of people who keep a portable set up with them so that they can partake of that ritual every single Sunday whether they can be at church or not. I mean, there are people who are REALLY into the Lord's Supper in a major way! I grew up in a such a church. I knew dozens, probably hundreds of such people. None of them - not a single solitary one - would tell you that it has anything at all to do with their salvation and they aren't confused in the slightest manner between the ritual and the reality which it pictures.

At least Paul describes the symbolism of the "Lord's supper", not so with the water ceremony.

Also, this is the only time that scripture records Paul using that term:

1Cor 11:20 (AKJV/PCE)​

(11:20) When ye come together therefore into one place, [this] is not to eat the Lord's supper.​

Nobody seems to take that one seriously.

The precise date is not the point. The point is simply that it's well into Paul's ministry and, without a doubt, after the Jerusalem council where Paul's gospel has to have been sufficiently complete to require it to be explained to Peter, James and John.

The date does mean something. Just like when Paul says that he was "sent not to baptize". I don't think that message was given to him on the road to Damascus.

If the date is late, it could mean that Paul was given more information. If the date is earlier, it means that Paul speaks but does not follow his own message.