Was there any point to you having posted that video?
ECT The Gospel Proper
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
- Status
Was there any point to you having posted that video?
We are discussing Paul's ministry as it relates to water baptism at the moment but, as I alluded to before that's a particular tree that ignores the forest. A discussion about why Paul had an Apostolic ministry in the first place would be more productive. Most Christians who aren't Mid-Acts Dispensationalists believe the Paul's ministry and therefore his gospel was identical to that of Jesus and the Twelve. But, where's the need for Paul to go to Jerusalem to explain to the Twelve "his gospel" if it was identical to theirs?
Where's the need for Paul's ministry to exist in the first place if "his gospel" was identical to that preached by Jesus and the Twelve?
Where was the need for a thirteenth Apostle? What was wrong with the Twelve that God Himself had spent three years personally training? And if God wanted a thirteenth Apostle, why not send him to the Twelve or send the Twelve to him and have him converted in the normal way and have him made an apostle in the normal way? Why convert him in a supernatural way and then later give him the gospel by direct divine revelation?
The fact that the Jerusalem council occurred at all is proof that Paul's gospel was, in fact, distinct from that which had come before, which not only explains why Paul repeatedly calls it "my gospel" and why he didn't confer with the Twelve and why he received "his gospel" by direct divine revelation and why Paul had to get into Peter's face concerning the gospel and why there was all this contention over the issue of circumcision and etc, etc, etc, etc!
I could go on and on but my point is that the question "Why did Paul baptize at all?" can be shortened to, "Why Paul?"
Resting in Him,
Clete
musterion
Well-known member
If Peter already knew what Paul repeatedly says was new info he learned directly from Christ, then Paul lied. There was no previously secret revelation given through Paul if Peter already knew it.
At least 95% of Christendom says Paul lies by virtue of this core doctrine which almost none ever see for what it actually says about the Bible...and by extension, God Himself.
What used to frustrate and even scare me is how so many can see the contradiction but just not care, or say it doesn't matter, or lie and argue that it's really not a contradiction.
But then I realized I'd forgotten almost all of them are unsaved, so what was I expecting them to say?
Now, I defend the truth whenever I can but expect no fruit from it...all in Asia abandoned Paul and most of them presumably understood the mystery.
At least 95% of Christendom says Paul lies by virtue of this core doctrine which almost none ever see for what it actually says about the Bible...and by extension, God Himself.
What used to frustrate and even scare me is how so many can see the contradiction but just not care, or say it doesn't matter, or lie and argue that it's really not a contradiction.
But then I realized I'd forgotten almost all of them are unsaved, so what was I expecting them to say?
Now, I defend the truth whenever I can but expect no fruit from it...all in Asia abandoned Paul and most of them presumably understood the mystery.
Right Divider
Body part
The most common "explanation" is that Paul wanted to "check" to make "sure" that he was preaching the "one true gospel" correctly.
Forget that fact that he waited at least SEVENTEEN YEARS to "validate". :dizzy:
musterion
Well-known member
Their position demands that it would have made much more sense for God to just send Paul to learn from Peter, just as He sent Peter to instruct Cornelius.
They never stop to ask themselves why He didn't do that.
Right Divider
Body part
The only logic in the anti-MAD position is the fallacious kind.
GD brought up a good point - an actual study of the topic, in-depth.
Though, personally, I'd rather post a study on a subject already conducted by someone else, whose study I completely, if not mostly, agree with, as it saves me the time of having to restudy out all I have come to know on said subject over the years, which is a never ending process of "one more detail."
Like that detail in Matthew 3:11's THREE baptisms - the small, seemingly insignificant detail that ALL THREE are connected to one another - water, Spirit, Wrath!
Or the small, seemingly insignificant detail that is verse 15's "all righteousness" - had, at that time, been a reference to The Law.
The obvious is clear - that Israel - Israel - Israel is in focus.
But we are dealing with individuals so blind they can't even see they are.
Just today, northwye once more began a new thread against the same old Acts 2 Dispensationalism he has repeatedly had pointed out to him he is a barking up the wrong tree about, as most Dispys, on here hold a Mid-Acts Dispensationalism, more or less.
Anyway, the following are two good studies on Water Baptism from a Mid-Acts Perspective by Pastor Ricky Kurth, of the Berean Searchlight.
Each article is in an edition of the Searchlight itself, which is the pdf listed.
Enjoy.
1 - The Water That Divides April 2013:
https://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/berean-searchlight-april-2013/
2 - The Future of Water Baptism October 2017
https://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/berean-searchlight-october-2017/
Acts 17: 11, 12
Also forget that it was God who told him to go to Jerusalem and explain his gospel to the Twelve. Galatians 2:1-2
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
No evil intent, take it however you want.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Clearly they had a hard time grasping Paul's Gospel of Grace when they had been discipled to preach obedience to the commandments. Even to the point of having to forgive in order to be forgiven, and Paul's Gospel was "not of ourselves".
Right Divider
Body part
The "clues" are all there... unless you have a preconceived idea that forces you to ignore them. Here's another one:
Gal 2:9 KJV And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
Once AGAIN, Paul singling himself out.
musterion
Well-known member
There's also a sound explanation why Peter (a) was reluctant to go see Cornelius, (b) cited Jewish tradition before stepping inside his house, and (c) was shocked when these Gentiles spoke in tongues. His behavior should raise red flags to anyone who holds to the "great commission" overriding all of the NT and "all gospels are the same gospel," but it doesn't. Best they can do is slander him with "Peter was a racist," "Peter was sinning," etc.
glorydaz
Well-known member
And here.
Ephesians 3:1-4
For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: 3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: 3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
Rosenritter
New member
Acts 10:23-24 KJV
(23) Then called he them in, and lodged them. And on the morrow Peter went away with them, and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied him.
(24) And the morrow after they entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius waited for them, and had called together his kinsmen and near friends.
Why do you think that Peter was reluctant to see Cornelius? He went straight away and there isn't any indication of his being reluctant. Compare with Jonah, for example, to see someone who was reluctant to see the Gentiles.
Acts 10:27-28 KJV
(27) And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together.
(28) And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
It looks like Peter went in without hesitating. Did you mean that Peter cited Jewish tradition after entering?
Acts 10:34-35 KJV
(34) Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
(35) But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
I could understand how a lifetime of Jewish upbringing might foster a "clean vs. unclean" mindset but Peter doesn't act racist towards Cornelius. He says that God himself has declared that no man is unclean, and he point to the Holy Spirit as evidence that God is not racist, and that God's revelation overrules Jewish laws.
You missed his point.
Also, the guy never said Peter was being racist.
What he said, describing the ignorance of many on Acts 10 was that the "Best THEY can do is slander him with "Peter was a racist..."
Nehemiah 8:8
musterion
Well-known member
Your questions are dishonest.
Well, I'm not sure that "reluctant" is the right word. It does say that he came without hesitation but your point is well taken. Notice how the other Apostles reacted to the episode when Peter returns home...
Acts 11:11 Now the apostles and brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. 2 And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those of the circumcision contended with him, 3 saying, “You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!”
99% of Christianity doesn't even know that those three verses exist in their bibles. It's like they are invisible. These verses are ignored because there is no way to explain them from within their paradigm. At least not without making ridiculous claims about how the Twelve were just thick headed ans stupid and God had to go through all this trouble just to explain it to them. As though Jesus was an inept teacher and that none of them were indwelt with the Holy Spirit.
If there's one thing TOL will teach you is that people will twist the scripture and themselves into whatever sort of knot is needed in order to maintain their doctrine.
Clete
musterion
Well-known member
Good point. Replace reluctant with uncertain or confused. But as you rightly point out, the point still stands that he got chewed out by the other Jewish believers. Only mid Acts folks can rightly explain why without slandering anyone.
Right Divider
Body part
Why did it take a special vision to sent Peter to Cornelius? Why did it need to be repeated three times?
Cornelius does NOT fit the model for the body of Christ. He was a righteous gentile that supported Israel.
Act 10:2 KJV A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.
"the people" refers to Israel.
Peter was not preaching the gospel of the grace of God per Paul here:
Act 10:35 KJV But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
That is the opposite of what Paul preached:
Tit 3:4-6 KJV But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, (5) Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; (6) Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
Rosenritter
New member
I wasn't responding to any specific point, rather that he seemed to remember the passage a little bit differently, in a way that might influence whatever his point happened to be (red flags?)
- Status