Right Divider
Body part
It's called rightly dividing the word of truth ... per Scripture
You should learn about it..
ECT Why Was Paul Baptized With Water?
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
You should learn about it..
Saying it doesn't make it so, and it is most definitely not so.
The reason I asked the question was to determine if you knew that, as RD quoted from Hebrews, there were multiple baptisms required in the Mosaic law, and that for the Jews, following and keeping the Mosaic Law, including all of those baptisms, were salvific.
Your answer proved that you had no idea that they existed, let alone that they were necessary for salvation.
No. The topic of this thread was this:
And the question YOU had asked which I responded to was:
Permit me to ask you one further question:
What does Scripture record Paul as saying about baptism?
What you did was take verses out of context to support your personal belief.
I have rejected nothing.
Again, I ask you, if you didn't answer it above, what does SCRIPTURE record Paul saying about baptism?
That's not my assertion.
My assertion is this:
That water baptism is not necessary for salvation, but rather it is an OUTWARD SYMBOL of being baptised by the Holy Spirit when one becomes a Christian.
Yup.
Did I not just quote that verse?
*checks*
Yes, yes I did.
And I used it to point out to you that there was more than one baptism in the bible, not just of water, which is salvific in nature.
Oh? So what are they metaphors of?
Agreed. There is currently only one baptism, and that is the baptism of the Holy Spirit AFTER one is saved, not the cause of one's salvation.
Sorry, but no.
Spirit and water was only for Israel. Did you not ever wonder why no one questioned why John was baptising people with water? Do you think that what he was doing was something new? or was it something that was regularly practiced by those under the Mosaic law?
Not according to Paul:
Spoiler
Right Divider
Body part
I disagree. Water baptism is NOT symbolic of anything for the body of Christ and it causes nothing but chaos and confusion when attempted to be "worked into" body doctrine.
Tis symbolic of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.
Right Divider
Body part
That's what Churchianity says, but you cannot find that in the Bible.
Try Romans 6:3-4
Romans 6:3-4 English Standard Version (ESV)
3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
Right Divider
Body part
I guess it is as you see it.
Fisherofmen
Member
I certainly is so. The other baptisms are metaphors. They are not part of the one true baptism that washes away sins. That baptism is of both the water AND the Spirit as Scripture clearly states. Not just the Spirit alone.
Sorry, there is only one true Baptism of water AND the Spirit in the New Covenant era that washes away sins. The old covenant has ceased.
The baptism that applies in the New Covenant era is of water and the Spirit (as Jesus said). Old Covenant "baptisms" do not apply.
I know what your assertion is and IT'S WRONG. Water is not just a symbol. It's necessary to be born again (as Jesus said). (John 3:5).
I could care less about any other baptism other than that of the water and the Spirit, since that is the only one in the New Covenant era that washes away sins.
They are metaphors. IT DOESN'T matter. They DO NOT wash away sins. Are you dense?
You must be born of water AND the Spirit (as Jesus said). I'll take His word over yours.
Spoiler
Right Divider
Body part
Please try to convince me that it is water baptism.
It is you that is seeing what you want and what is not there.
Right Divider
Body part
- The twelve were not God's first apostles.
- The twelve apostles will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. What don't you get about the number TWELVE?
- Paul is a different apostle with a different calling.
- God send Paul NOT to baptize, but to preach the gospel (i.e., the gospel of the grace of God).
Please fix your formatting.
Fisherofmen
Member
I never said "the twelve". Eleven were sent to Baptize and teach. (Matt 28:16-19) They were the first Apostles of Christ. Learn the true Gospel and please don't put words in my mouth.
I never said "twelve". It's obvious that you wish to keep evading your heresies, however.
That's what I said.
Right Divider
Body part
You said "first Apostles"... Who was I supposed to guess that you meant?
Perhaps YOU should be more clear.
You're so emotional that you can't even make sense.
False accusation.
Last edited:
turbosixx
New member
Help me to understand it from your viewpoint. When I read what the bible says, it says " be baptized and wash away your sins ".
It sounds like from your viewpoint, you believe he is already saved before being baptized and therfore would have no sins. Help me to understand why he should not delay to be baptized to wash away his sins if he has no sins?
Right Divider
Body part
Sorry, I quoted his post with his broken quotes. Fixed.
I'm going to jump in right smack in the middle of a conversation that I've not read (I have to go to work in a few minutes and so don't have the time to catch up but want to throw in something here this morning.) Hopefully, this won't be too redundant.
Also, I'm just going to answer this from my own Mid-Acts Dispensational point of view which, if you aren't familiar with it, will probably not sound right to your hearing.
You have to remember that both Paul and Ananias were Jews at the time of the incident which Paul is describing in Acts 22. All either of them knew was being baptized to wash away sin. The Jews baptized everything all the time, so it should come as no surprise that their first instinct, once Paul believed Jesus was the Christ, was for him to get baptized. It would have come as naturally to them as prayer.
Paul had been converted on the Damascus road and because of other passages I think that it's clearly true that Paul was indeed saved there by grace through faith alone apart from works and that he was the first person that was ever true of, but it seems clear that he was not yet given the details of the doctrines of grace at that time. Also, Ananias, being a Jew, would not have understood any refusal of such a baptism on Paul's part and so even if Paul had been given the Grace Gospel, he likely would have submitted to the rite for Ananias' sake as was the case in Acts 21 when he performed cleansing rituals. The thing to keep in mind is that the callings of God are irrevocable (Rom. 11:29). And so, once you come to Christ under one dispensational framework, you remain under that dispensation. In other words, believing Jews who accepted Jesus as their Messiah still followed the bulk of the Mosaic Law (including baptisms) and continued to do so after Paul's conversion and the beginning of the Dispensation of Grace. This is why, when Paul went to the Jews, he went as a Jew so as not to needlessly offend and to win more converts (I Cor. 9:19-20).
So, the bottom line here is that the incident recalled by Paul in Acts 22 is consistent with what one would expect for a pair of Jews to do within the context of what was happening at that time. To use this passage as a proof text for modern day water baptismal cleansing of sin is to ignore the context as well as the whole of Paul's writings and message.
Resting in Him,
Clete
turbosixx
New member
Thanks for your comments.
I’m curious if you believe that a Jewish baptism actually washed away sins. If you do, what was the first baptism that could wash away sins? If not, why not?
I’m curious if you believe that a Jewish baptism actually washed away sins. If you do, what was the first baptism that could wash away sins? If not, why not?
Last edited: