User Tag List

Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 714151617
Results 241 to 246 of 246

Thread: Why Was Paul Baptized With Water?

  1. #241
    TOL Subscriber turbosixx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,996
    Thanks
    200
    Thanked 339 Times in 301 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    134762
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    This post was almost completely a waste of time both to write and to read. It was unresponsive to the questions asked and basically was a repeat of your position.

    You seem to be either incapable of grasping the argument made by asking such questions as "If Paul is preaching the same thing as everyone else and his writing are so in agreement with that of Peter, James and John then why is he so consistently the dividing line between people on either side of so many issues that divide the Christian church?" (not to mention all the material stated to preface that question) or you are intentionally ignoring it.

    Either way, I'm not a fan of having my time wasted.

    I'm not trying to waste your time and I'm sorry you feel that way. As far as a dividing line between people, I'm not ignoring it. I just don't see it as grounds to justify 2 gospels. You name any subject and there is a dividing line.

    Try seeing from my perspective. When Paul converted the jailer, he did so in a very short time. After speaking the word of the Lord they were baptized.

    Paul's letters help us understand grace. His letters apply to all who have received grace in this dispensation. How did those he wrote to receive grace? Help me to understand what he said/did to this Gentile, in this very short time, that was different than others who were converting Christians?
    Last edited by turbosixx; June 22nd, 2019 at 09:45 PM. Reason: RePhrase
    Wretched man that I am.

  2. #242
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,586
    Thanks
    636
    Thanked 6,782 Times in 3,612 Posts

    Mentioned
    62 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147773
    Quote Originally Posted by turbosixx View Post
    I'm not trying to waste your time and I'm sorry you feel that way. As far as a dividing line between people, I'm not ignoring it. I just don't see it as grounds to justify 2 gospels. You name any subject and there is a dividing line.
    I only cited it as evidence not as proof but you blow it off as though it were meaningless.

    If the divisions that clearly exist within the Christian church were the product of mere ignorance, as you suggest, then you wouldn't expect to find such a pattern. If Paul and Peter were both teaching the same thing and the differences between doctrines were just a matter of effectively random personal opinions then you'd not find the starck dividing line between them on so many diverse doctrines nor would people tend to group these doctrines together based on that same dividing line.

    You'd have just as many people who believe both that there is no pretribulation rapture and that you can lose your salvation as you have people who believe that there is no pretribulation rapture and that you cannot lose your salvation. But you don't see that! The overwhelming majority of people that reject the pretribulation rapture also reject eternal security. And the reason that happens isn't mere hapinstance. The line of demarcation between those two doctrines as well as a whole list of other doctrines that seem equally unrelated to eachother is none other than the Apostle Paul.

    Now, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, that IS powerfully strong evidence that your doctrine (that Pater and Paul taught the same gospel) is false. Evidence that anyone who was more interested in believing the truth than in preserving their doctrine would insist on dealing with and getting a good explanation for beyong effectively blowing it off as a mere coincidence born out of the ignorance of those who happen to disagree with your doctrines.

    Try seeing from my perspective. When Paul converted the jailer, he did so in a very short time. After speaking the word of the Lord they were baptized.
    I don't have to try to see it from your perspective. I used to hold to your perspective! I grew up reading a Scofield Study Bible and went to a church that water baptized everyone and served communion every single Sunday and taught that if you tithe God owes you a ten fold return and on and on and on. I know exactly what it's like to be an Acts 2 (or earlier) Dispensationalist because I was one for decades. I know precisely why I was wrong for all of those years but it's a paradigm level issue and so it is exceedingly difficult to get people to see it, much less accept it.

    Paul's letters help us understand grace. His letters apply to all who have received grace in this dispensation. How did those he wrote to receive grace? Help me to understand what he said/did to this Gentile, in this very short time, that was different than others who were converting Christians?
    There is nothing that I can say. You're still trying to get me to deal with your proof texts as though they present as problem texts for me. Your proof texts do not touch my doctrine. In fact, they argue MY DOCTRINE!. You are trying to get me to show you my paradigm through your paradigmatic filter. It can't be done! It isn't that you're in a dark room and need the light turned on. You can't see it because you are wearing tinted glasses that filter it out quite completely. And the likelihood is that you'll never come to see it. You aren't willing. You don't see any need to see anything other than what you see now and thus find no motivation to remove your legalist colored classes. You're also emotionally invested in your doctrine. You've turned the doctrine of baptism into a religious mission and have invested all kinds of energy and time into being a water baptism apologist. For you to go even one step down a road that might possibly lead you to understand that you had wasted all that time and energy would take a level of intellectual honesty and bravery that not one person in a thousand possess.

    Not that I'm any better than you. I'm just as human as the next guy. This teaching just happen to catch me at a time when I was still in the process of making my faith my own. In fact, I was actively searching for a way to explain why there were three churches within a quarter mile of the church I attended, one of which was literally across the parking lot from my church, and why all four churches taught and practiced different things while all claiming to base those beliefs on the same bible. Why was my doctrine superior to any of theirs? By what authority or on what basis could I declare them wrong without that same premise lopping my own doctrinal legs out from under me?

    I found no answer until I read "The Plot" by Bob Enyart and suddenly it was like the Sun had peaked out from behind a cloud. One single teaching that not only told me why my church taught what it did but why the Catholics believe what they believe and why the Lutherans believe what they believe and why the Seventh Day Adventists believe what they believe and so on and so on. ONE TEACHING that instantly and effortlessly (i.e. intuitively) resolved doctrinal debate after doctrinal debate. Suddenly a whole list of doctrines, including everything from water baptism to the rapture, that previously were complex and difficult, taking weeks or months or even years of study to pin down, were instantly turned into doctrines that were obvious and intuitive. Not only that, but it turned the bible into one giant collection of proof texts with not a problem text to be seen anywhere. It was, without a doubt, the most profound and important paradigm shift that I will ever experience during my physical life.

    And, by the way, what more powerful argument for a doctrinal system could one hope to make? One single biblical teaching that is stated explicitly in the bible that instantly resolves a whole list of seemingly unrelated doctrinal debates that have divided the church for millennia and that leaves you with effectively no problem texts related to those doctrines, allowing you to simply read the bible and take it for what it plainly states. How much more elegant of an argument to establish the validity of a doctrinal system could you possibly ask for?

    I mean, there is a definite answer to the question, "Will the Rapture occur and, if so, will it be before, after or during the Tribulation?" There is absolutely only one right answer to that question. Some people have it right (some in spite of themselves) and everyone who disagrees is wrong. And God, obviously, is in the group that knows the right answer. Do you think God has problem texts? You must!

    I don't!

    Resting in Him,
    Clete
    Last edited by Clete; June 23rd, 2019 at 02:44 PM.

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  3. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (June 23rd, 2019),Right Divider (June 23rd, 2019),way 2 go (June 23rd, 2019)

  4. #243
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    13,705
    Thanks
    1,280
    Thanked 8,725 Times in 5,722 Posts

    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147837
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    Do you think God has problem texts? You must!

    I don't!
    Clete, since there are no problem texts why don't you address the verses which I quote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    In the previous dispensation your salvation could be lost if you did not continue in both faith and good works..
    Clete, the following words of the Lord Jesus seem to contradict your teaching that those who lived in the previous dispensation could lose their salvation:

    "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die" (Jn.11:25-26).

    Would you mind giving us your interpretation of the meaning of the Lord Jesus' words in that verse?

    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    The whole passage where James speaks of faith plus works is 100% about salvation from beginning to end!
    Clete, do you think that the following words of James are speaking about salvation?:

    "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures"
    (Jas.1:18).

    I don't see any mention of "works" in this verse. Do you?

  5. #244
    TOL Subscriber turbosixx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,996
    Thanks
    200
    Thanked 339 Times in 301 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    134762
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    I only cited it as evidence not as proof but you blow it off as though it were meaningless.

    If the divisions that clearly exist within the Christian church were the product of mere ignorance, as you suggest, then you wouldn't expect to find such a pattern. If Paul and Peter were both teaching the same thing and the differences between doctrines were just a matter of effectively random personal opinions then you'd not find the starck dividing line between them on so many diverse doctrines nor would people tend to group these doctrines together based on that same dividing line.

    You'd have just as many people who believe both that there is no pretribulation rapture and that you can lose your salvation as you have people who believe that there is no pretribulation rapture and that you cannot lose your salvation. But you don't see that! The overwhelming majority of people that reject the pretribulation rapture also reject eternal security. And the reason that happens isn't mere hapinstance. The line of demarcation between those two doctrines as well as a whole list of other doctrines that seem equally unrelated to eachother is none other than the Apostle Paul.

    Now, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, that IS powerfully strong evidence that your doctrine (that Pater and Paul taught the same gospel) is false. Evidence that anyone who was more interested in believing the truth than in preserving their doctrine would insist on dealing with and getting a good explanation for beyong effectively blowing it off as a mere coincidence born out of the ignorance of those who happen to disagree with your doctrines.


    I don't have to try to see it from your perspective. I used to hold to your perspective! I grew up reading a Scofield Study Bible and went to a church that water baptized everyone and served communion every single Sunday and taught that if you tithe God owes you a ten fold return and on and on and on. I know exactly what it's like to be an Acts 2 (or earlier) Dispensationalist because I was one for decades. I know precisely why I was wrong for all of those years but it's a paradigm level issue and so it is exceedingly difficult to get people to see it, much less accept it.


    There is nothing that I can say. You're still trying to get me to deal with your proof texts as though they present as problem texts for me. Your proof texts do not touch my doctrine. In fact, they argue MY DOCTRINE!. You are trying to get me to show you my paradigm through your paradigmatic filter. It can't be done! It isn't that you're in a dark room and need the light turned on. You can't see it because you are wearing tinted glasses that filter it out quite completely. And the likelihood is that you'll never come to see it. You aren't willing. You don't see any need to see anything other than what you see now and thus find no motivation to remove your legalist colored classes. You're also emotionally invested in your doctrine. You've turned the doctrine of baptism into a religious mission and have invested all kinds of energy and time into being a water baptism apologist. For you to go even one step down a road that might possibly lead you to understand that you had wasted all that time and energy would take a level of intellectual honesty and bravery that not one person in a thousand possess.

    Not that I'm any better than you. I'm just as human as the next guy. This teaching just happen to catch me at a time when I was still in the process of making my faith my own. In fact, I was actively searching for a way to explain why there were three churches within a quarter mile of the church I attended, one of which was literally across the parking lot from my church, and why all four churches taught and practiced different things while all claiming to base those beliefs on the same bible. Why was my doctrine superior to any of theirs? By what authority or on what basis could I declare them wrong without that same premise lopping my own doctrinal legs out from under me?

    I found no answer until I read "The Plot" by Bob Enyart and suddenly it was like the Sun had peaked out from behind a cloud. One single teaching that not only told me why my church taught what it did but why the Catholics believe what they believe and why the Lutherans believe what they believe and why the Seventh Day Adventists believe what they believe and so on and so on. ONE TEACHING that instantly and effortlessly (i.e. intuitively) resolved doctrinal debate after doctrinal debate. Suddenly a whole list of doctrines, including everything from water baptism to the rapture, that previously were complex and difficult, taking weeks or months or even years of study to pin down, were instantly turned into doctrines that were obvious and intuitive. Not only that, but it turned the bible into one giant collection of proof texts with not a problem text to be seen anywhere. It was, without a doubt, the most profound and important paradigm shift that I will ever experience during my physical life.

    And, by the way, what more powerful argument for a doctrinal system could one hope to make? One single biblical teaching that is stated explicitly in the bible that instantly resolves a whole list of seemingly unrelated doctrinal debates that have divided the church for millennia and that leaves you with effectively no problem texts related to those doctrines, allowing you to simply read the bible and take it for what it plainly states. How much more elegant of an argument to establish the validity of a doctrinal system could you possibly ask for?

    I mean, there is a definite answer to the question, "Will the Rapture occur and, if so, will it be before, after or during the Tribulation?" There is absolutely only one right answer to that question. Some people have it right (some in spite of themselves) and everyone who disagrees is wrong. And God, obviously, is in the group that knows the right answer. Do you think God has problem texts? You must!

    I don't!

    Resting in Him,
    Clete
    God does not have problem text.

    You say you don't have problem text but I see plenty. Several we have discussed and I asked you to explain but you have refused.

    3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ),

    I do appreciate your time and have much enjoyed this discussion.
    Wretched man that I am.

  6. #245
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,586
    Thanks
    636
    Thanked 6,782 Times in 3,612 Posts

    Mentioned
    62 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147773
    Quote Originally Posted by turbosixx View Post
    God does not have problem text.
    I know that. But your paradigm makes that impossible. One or the other is false.

    You say you don't have problem text but I see plenty.
    Yes, of course you do. That's just precisely the entire point!

    Why, oh why is this so hard to get into people's heads?

    You'll see problem texts for every doctrine under the sun! But it isn't because they are actually problem texts but because your paradigm turns them inside out! You really do believe that you take James at face value and are blind, totally and completely blind, to the contrary even when you start your own defense of the idea that James 2 and Romans 4 are saying the same thing with the words, "It looks like they are saying the exact opposite." Your own words don't even persuade you and yet you complain to me that I've refused to explain it. I'd love to know just what you expect me to be able to say.

    The tragic part of this conundrum is that if you ever do come to see the paradigm shift, you won't need much, if any, further explanation. You'll be saying things like, "Oh! I see it! Of course! It's so obvious! Why couldn't I see it before? What in the world was I trying to get you to explain? It's all right there in black and white!"

    And I'm not exaggerating there in the least. It is that big of a light bulb moment and if it ever pops for you, you won't ever again be able to not see it.

    Several we have discussed and I asked you to explain but you have refused.
    I haven't refused. You're blind to the explanation.

    The only thing I've refused to do is to adopt your paradigm in order to make an attempt to persuade you that my paradigm is superior, which, of course, from within your paradigm, is going to feel like a refusal. But I say it again, I haven't refused, you're simply blind to it. A problem that is further exacerbated by the fact that an internet forum is the wrong venue for any presentation that stands much chance of successfully getting someone to make any sort of paradigm shift and especially one of this magnitude. If you really want to have it properly presented where all of the relevant biblical material is gone through quite logically and thoroughly, you need to read "The Plot" by Bob Enyart. It probably will not persuade you but I guarantee you'll come away from that book understanding the New Testament better than you do now and you'll also see that the explanation that you seem to want and think that I've refused to offer is a book sized project and that what I've presented is all that is reasonable to expect in a venue such as this.

    3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ),

    I do appreciate your time and have much enjoyed this discussion.
    It is just completely fascinating to me that you chose one of the strongest verses that you could possibly have chosen to quote in order to refute the idea that Paul's gospel is the same as Peter's in order to close out a discussion where you held the affirmative position on that very topic.

    I mean, WOW! How is that even possible? You don't ever come across that level of irony except at the movies!

    Just stunning. Totally, totally stunning.


    I'll close by giving you high marks for knowing your stuff. Anyone who ever claims that you're a hack is a liar. If I were just another typical believer who simply held that water baptism wasn't necessary for salvation and showed up to this thread with John 3:16 (or whatever other verse(s)) as my proof text(s), you'd have handed me my backside.

    Clete

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  7. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (Yesterday),Right Divider (Yesterday),steko (Yesterday),way 2 go (Yesterday)

  8. #246
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    13,705
    Thanks
    1,280
    Thanked 8,725 Times in 5,722 Posts

    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147837
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    If you really want to have it properly presented where all of the relevant biblical material is gone through quite logically and thoroughly, you need to read "The Plot" by Bob Enyart.
    Clete, what do we read in that book about how the Jews who lived under the law were saved?

    From what I gather from the following words of the Lord Jesus spoken to the Jews who lived under the law they were saved by faith apart from works:

    "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life"
    (Jn.6:47).

    Do we read in "The Plot" that the Jews who lived under the law were saved by faith apart from works?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us