ECT The Gospel Proper

[turbosixx]

Act 19:3-8 KJV And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. (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. (5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. (7) And all the men were about twelve. (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.​

Verses 4 & 5 were BOTH talking about John and those that hear HIM. The THEY in verse 5 are those that heard JOHN.

If they heard John then they could not be believes because they haven't heard the gospel. In that case, Paul would have to teach them of Jesus, but he doesn't. I suggest to you they were taught Jesus accurately with one exception, baptism. That is why Paul says they believed and ONLY questions their baptism.
18:24 Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.

 

[Right Divider]

If they heard John then they could not be believes because they haven't heard the gospel.

Was king David "not a believer because he hadn't heard the gospel"?

 

[Clete]

This thread is about gospel according to Mads.

My gospel according to what Jesus says.

So is it still ok?

Where was it ever said that its the gospel according to dispensation?

Please read the first several posts so you know what it is I'm after. There are all kinds of details surrounding the gospel that can be debated and disagreed about without rendering one party of the other unsaved. There are perhaps hundreds of details that make up what can rightly be called the gospel of grace that are not being discussed in this thread because they are aspects of the gospel that are true but are not required to get someone saved.

Clete

 

[turbosixx]

TIME.... things happened IN AN ORDER.

Paul was sent NOT to baptize LATER. Paul received REVELATION over MANY YEARS. The LORD continued to appear to Paul MANY TIMES.

But time has run out. Those in Acts 19 are the last detailed conversion we have been given and Paul baptizes them with water in the name of Jesus.

19:2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
If the Holy Spirit does the baptizing, then why did these believes not have it?

When Paul finds out they don't have it, he questions their baptism.
19:3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John's baptism.”

If the Holy Spirit does the baptizing, why would Paul even need to ask this question??


How were these believers baptized "in the name of" Jesus before they have Paul's hands laid on them???
19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.

 

[JudgeRightly]

That's the way I understand it.

I'm familiar with those.

You just took it out of context.

I'm reading the passage in context.

Is Paul's point of this PASSAGE, don't get baptized or baptism does nothing?

Neither.

Then why did he practice it?
Acts 18:8 Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.

Does baptised with the Holy Spirit indicate a water baptism? Or something else?

13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
What is Paul's point in this question?

Paul is asking if they were baptised under Paul's authority or someone else's. That's it.

 

[turbosixx]

Was king David "not a believer because he hadn't heard the gospel"?

Heb. 11:32 And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets—
11:39 And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.

 

[Right Divider]

But time has run out. Those in Acts 19 are the last detailed conversion we have been given and Paul baptizes them with water in the name of Jesus.

19:2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
If the Holy Spirit does the baptizing, then why did these believes not have it?

Those believers were not BOC. Their calling was prior to the BOC. God does NOT change a persons calling.

When Paul finds out they don't have it, he questions their baptism.
19:3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John's baptism.”

If the Holy Spirit does the baptizing, why would Paul even need to ask this question??

Because he is determining under which "house rules" they were saved.

How were these believers baptized "in the name of" Jesus before they have Paul's hands laid on them???
19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.

Do you "speak in tongues" or "prophesy"? No, you don't. They did JUST LIKE those on the day of Pentecost, per their calling.

 

[Right Divider]

Heb. 11:32 And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets—
11:39 And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.

So according to you king David was not a believer?

Was John the B not a believer? Since he also did not "hear the gospel"?

 

[turbosixx]

Does baptised with the Holy Spirit indicate a water baptism? Or something else?

Excellent question! Please, show me a passage that HAS baptism WITH the Holy Spirit so we can discuss it.

Paul is asking if they were baptised under Paul's authority or someone else's. That's it.

So what kind of baptism was it?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Excellent question! Please, show me a passage that HAS baptism WITH the Holy Spirit so we can discuss it.

I've given you several, all of which you have ignored.

So what kind of baptism was it?

:think:

 

[turbosixx]

Those believers were not BOC. Their calling was prior to the BOC. God does NOT change a persons calling.[/quote}
When exactly did the BOC begin?

Because he is determining under which "house rules" they were saved.

So Christ is divided?

Do you "speak in tongues" or "prophesy"? No, you don't. They did JUST LIKE those on the day of Pentecost, per their calling.

That is incorrect. If it just like on Pentecost, Paul would have NO need to lay hands on them.

HOW were these men baptized "in the name of" Jesus before Paul laid hands on them?

 

[turbosixx]

So according to you king David was not a believer?

Was John the B not a believer? Since he also did not "hear the gospel"?

I said nothing, I just posted scripture. Abraham is in that passage too and we know he was a believer. It says "they did not receive what was promised" but we have received what was promised. God has provided something "different" for us. We are saved differently than they. By faith yes, but differently.

 

[Right Divider]

Those believers were not BOC. Their calling was prior to the BOC. God does NOT change a persons calling.

When exactly did the BOC begin?

With the apostle Paul.

So Christ is divided?

Nope, typical confusion from you.

Christ gives different instructions to different people at different times. That does NOT means that "Christ is divided".

That is incorrect. If it just like on Pentecost, Paul would have NO need to lay hands on them.

I did NOT says that the ENTIRE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS was "just like Pentecost". You are an illogical ignoramus.

HOW were these men baptized "in the name of" Jesus before Paul laid hands on them?

Irrelevant. You cannot understand even the simplest of things.

 

[turbosixx]

I've given you several, all of which you have ignored.



:think:

In order for use to move forward with this discussion. We need to have a baptism WITH the Holy Spirit we can agree on. I suggest what you have given is not baptism WITH the Holy Spirit. They are in there. Can you find one?

 

[Right Divider]

I said nothing, I just posted scripture. Abraham is in that passage too and we know he was a believer. It says "they did not receive what was promised" but we have received what was promised.

THEY have still not received their promised kingdom. That is one of the major themes of the book TO THE HEBREWS.

God has provided something "different" for us. We are saved differently than they. By faith yes, but differently.

God promised Israel an earthly kingdom that is yet to be established.

 

[Idolater]

Yeah, okay.

So then why bother restating the opening post if you agree with it?


Oh yeah, of course.

Glad we moved past the Mormons and Branch Davidian cult members are saved meme,

The issue of Old Testament believers has come up itt, and I think it's informative to bolster our 'Gospel Proper' to ensure that all those who we are told truly believed, are 'covered' here.

I added the specific tenet that "God raises the dead," which we know explicitly (He11:19KJV) that Abraham believed. Now King David has entered the conversation, and so I think now that we should consider what it is that he believed. Being the author of so many 'Messianic' Psalms/prophecies, we perhaps ought to include in there how Jesus of Nazareth was the prophesied Christ/Messiah/Anointed One, who would be a King like David, a Prophet like Moses, and a Priest like Melchizedek. But does this bog down the details?

 

[JudgeRightly]

In order for use to move forward with this discussion. We need to have a baptism WITH the Holy Spirit we can agree on. I suggest what you have given is not baptism WITH the Holy Spirit. They are in there. Can you find one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_with_the_Holy_Spirit

"Bible references"

 

[turbosixx]

When Acts says that 'households' are baptized, if there are infants in those 'households,' how can you be sure that they would have been denied baptism until they were older?

fyi, in my estimation, the Catholic Church's sacrament of Confirmation is substantially similar to baptism, for those who believe in 'believers baptism' only, and not infant baptism. Confirmation involves conscious choice, like 'believers baptism.' And, Catholics must be confirmed to be in full communion with the Church.

And I also always thought that---once I thought of it---since circumcision was done in infancy, that baptism in infancy seems permissible at least. And there are lots of Presbyterians and I would guess Lutherans who believe in infant baptism too, not just Catholics.

Think about what you're saying. It's speculation that infants were baptized and no command nor evidence that any ever were.

I suggest to you only believers being baptized is what makes this statement true.
Heb. 8:11
And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor
and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
for they shall all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.

100% of Christians know God because believers are baptized into to Christ.
Gal. 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

I suggest speculation is not sufficient to change scripture.
Acts 14:23 And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

What if one of those churches didn't have a man to appoint as elder? Could a boy or woman be appointed based on that speculation?

 

[turbosixx]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_with_the_Holy_Spirit

"Bible references"

I don't put a lot of stock in mans opinion. Sorry I guess I should have been clearer. What the bible says is baptism WITH the Holy Spirit.

For example:
Acts 1:4 And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

Here the bible clearly states that the apostles will be baptized WITH the Holy Spirit. On Pentecost they were baptized WITH the Holy Spirit. Are you saying everyone is baptized WITH the Holy Spirit like that?

There's another place where the bible says someone was "baptized WITH the Holy Spirit".

Receiving and being baptized WITH the Holy Spirit are not the same thing.

 

[meshak]

Where was it ever said that its the gospel according to dispensation?

Please read the first several posts so you know what it is I'm after. There are all kinds of details surrounding the gospel that can be debated and disagreed about without rendering one party of the other unsaved. There are perhaps hundreds of details that make up what can rightly be called the gospel of grace that are not being discussed in this thread because they are aspects of the gospel that are true but are not required to get someone saved.

Clete

So it is the gospel according to Clete?