ECT Why Was Paul Baptized With Water?

Right Divider

Body part
Your question is irrelevant. The topic was whether or not baptism with water was salvific. I answered that question in the affirmative with multiple Scripture verses. You proceeded to reject those on the basis of something St. Paul supposedly taught.
It's called rightly dividing the word of truth ... per Scripture

You should learn about it..
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Your question is irrelevant.

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.

The topic was whether or not baptism with water was salvific.

No. The topic of this thread was this:

Ananias told Saul (Paul)"why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16).

What was the purpose of this baptism?

Was it not for the remission of sins?

And the question YOU had asked which I responded to was:

Also, if baptism is not administered with water according to St. Paul, then please tell me what it is and where it's found in Scripture. I need a good laugh.

Permit me to ask you one further question:

What does Scripture record Paul as saying about baptism?

I answered that question in the affirmative with multiple Scripture verses.

What you did was take verses out of context to support your personal belief.

You proceeded to reject those

I have rejected nothing.

on the basis of something St. Paul supposedly taught.

Again, I ask you, if you didn't answer it above, what does SCRIPTURE record Paul saying about baptism?

Again, are you trying to back up your assertion that St. Paul taught that water baptism was not salvific.

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.

If so, you failed again. Jesus also mentioned, that he had a "baptism" to undergo. (Luke 12:50)

Yup.

The Israelites were "baptized" in the cloud and the sea. (1 Cor. 10:2).

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.

These types of "baptisms" are METAPHORS.

Oh? So what are they metaphors of?

There is only ONE LORD, ONE FAITH AND ONE BAPTISM. (Eph 4:5).

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.

That One Baptism is of water AND the Spirit. (John 3:5)

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 one OR the other. BOTH are needed. Neither are symbolic.

Not according to Paul:

Spoiler
For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, “The man who does those things shall live by them.”But the righteousness of faith speaks in this way, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ down from above )or, “ ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach):that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” - Romans 10:5-13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans10:5-13&version=NKJV
Spoiler


As Peter said, "Baptism now SAVES you" it is of the "like form" of the water that saved Noe and his family.

I'm not finding that phrase, Fish.

Here is the verse you seem to be referencing:

There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, - 1 Peter 3:21 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Peter3:21&version=NKJV

The Holy Spirit came upon Cornelius before baptism WHICH HE STILL NEEDED. Your argument fails as expected.

Sorry, but aside from this being the fallacy of begging the question, Cornelius was saved after Israel was cut off and their 'program' put on hold. Which means that even though he was baptized in water, such a baptism wasn't salvific, only symbolic of the Holy Spirit, he was saved after the pattern of Paul, who was saved on the road to Damascus.

So, did you answer the question I asked twice in this post?

Here it is again, and I'll even answer it for you, just in case:

Q: What does SCRIPTURE record Paul saying about baptism?
A: I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name.Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other.For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. - 1 Corinthians 1:14-17 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians1:14-17&version=NKJV
 

Right Divider

Body part
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.
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.
 

Bright Raven

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
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
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.
That does NOT refer to water baptism.

We are not drowned into Christ.
 
Saying it doesn't make it so, and it is most definitely not so.

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.


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.

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.

Your answer proved that you had no idea that they existed, let alone that they were necessary for salvation.

The baptism that applies in the New Covenant era is of water and the Spirit (as Jesus said). Old Covenant "baptisms" do not apply.


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.

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).



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.

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.

Oh? So what are they metaphors of?

They are metaphors. IT DOESN'T matter. They DO NOT wash away sins. Are you dense?


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.

You must be born of water AND the Spirit (as Jesus said). I'll take His word over yours.

Not according to Paul:

Spoiler
For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, “The man who does those things shall live by them.”But the righteousness of faith speaks in this way, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ down from above )or, “ ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach):that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” - Romans 10:5-13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans10:5-13&version=NKJV
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler


Another silly quote which is irrelevant. I don't believe in OSAS.


I'm not finding that phrase, Fish.

Here is the verse you seem to be referencing:

There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, - 1 Peter 3:21 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Peter3:21&version=NKJV

The antitype which saves us is water Baptism. It's right in the verse you posted. I don't know how much clearer it could be. The water that saved Noe and his family foreshadowed the water that saves us in baptism.



Sorry, but aside from this being the fallacy of begging the question, Cornelius was saved after Israel was cut off and their 'program' put on hold. Which means that even though he was baptized in water, such a baptism wasn't salvific, only symbolic of the Holy Spirit, he was saved after the pattern of Paul, who was saved on the road to Damascus.


Paul needed his sins washed away in Baptism (Acts 22:16) as did Cornelius. Thanks for proving my point.


So, did you answer the question I asked twice in this post?

Here it is again, and I'll even answer it for you, just in case:

Q: What does SCRIPTURE record Paul saying about baptism?
A: I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name.Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other.For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. - 1 Corinthians 1:14-17 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians1:14-17&version=NKJV

Christ sent the first Apostles to Baptize. Not everyone in the body of Christ has the same exact function. Your argument is pointless (as usual).
 

Right Divider

Body part
Christ sent the first Apostles to Baptize. Not everyone in the body of Christ has the same function. Your argument is pointless (as usual).
  • 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).
Your water baptism is NOT part of the gospel of the grace of God.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber


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.



Another silly quote which is irrelevant. I don't believe in OSAS.




The antitype which saves us is Baptism. It's right in the verse you posted. I don't know how much clearer it could be. The water that saved Noe and is family foreshadowed the water that saves us in baptism. That's what an antitype is (a foreshadowing).






Paul needed his sins washed away in Baptism (Acts 22:16) as did Cornelius. Thanks for proving my point.




Christ sent the first Apostles to Baptize. Not everyone in the body of Christ has the same function. Your argument is pointless (as usual).
Please fix your formatting.
 
  • The twelve were not God's first apostles.


  • 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.

    • The twelve apostles will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. What don't you get about the number TWELVE?
 

Right Divider

Body part
I never said "the twelve". Please don't put words in my mouth.
You said "first Apostles"... Who was I supposed to guess that you meant?

Perhaps YOU should be more clear.

I never said "twelve". It's obvious that you wish to keep evading your heresies, however.
You're so emotional that you can't even make sense.

That's what I said.

  • God send Paul NOT to baptize, but to preach the gospel (i.e., the gospel of the grace of God).


  • And??? So what???

    No it's not part of YOUR false Gospel. Big difference.

  • False accusation.
 
Last edited:

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
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.

  • God send Paul NOT to baptize, but to preach the gospel (i.e., the gospel of the grace of God).[/QUOTE}

    And??? So what???




    No, it's not part of YOUR false Gospel. Big difference.
 

turbosixx

New member
Submitting to the rite of water baptism was in regard to "service" and not "salvation."

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?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
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.



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.

Please fix your formatting.
[MENTION=15338]Right Divider[/MENTION] [MENTION=9378]Fisherofmen[/MENTION]

You BOTH need to fix your formatting in your posts.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
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 therefore 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?
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.

All either of them knew was being baptized to wash away sin.

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:
Top