ECT Why Was Paul Baptized With Water?

[Jerry Shugart]

Hi Jerry and I know that you MISSED verse 5 and will quote , AND having heard ( THIS ) THEY WERE BAPTIZED , SEE IT JERRY , in the NAME OF THE LORD JESUS !!

Get your BLINDERS OFF !!

The Holy Spirit did not come upon them because they were baptized but instead because Paul laid hands on them. You even recognized that truth because that is exactly what you said:

In verse 6 Paul LAID HANDS UPON THEM , THE HOLY SPIRIT came upon them and they spake in Languages and were Prophesying...,

You need to understand that the pronoun "they" in verse 5 can only be referring back to the people who John the Baptist told that they should believe on Jesus Christ:

"He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3. 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" (Acts 9:2-6).​

The antecedent of the pronoun "they" at verse 5 can be none other than the people whom John the Baptist told to believe on the Lord Jesus.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

same reason some thought circumcision was still necessary

Act 15:1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

So Paul was just ignorant of what he was supposed to be doing?

I believe that Paul knew exactly what he was doing and it is you who is ignorant about why he baptized some believers with water.

 

[way 2 go]

So Paul was just ignorant of what he was supposed to be doing?

no , Paul only baptized 2 people & also the household of Stephanas

I believe that Paul knew exactly what he was doing and it is you who is ignorant about why he baptized some believers with water.

prove it.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

no , Paul only baptized 2 people & also the household of Stephanas

But you said that the baptisms Paul performed on those people were unnecessary. So according to you Paul was just plain ignorant concerning his service for the Lord Jesus.

prove it.

Before a person could be baptized with water he had to first believe (Acts 36-37). And those who lived under the law were saved and received everlasting life when they believed, as witnessed by the following words of the Lord Jesus:

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

So those who submitted to the rite of water baptism were saved before a drop of water even touched them. The baptism with water was in regard to "service" and not 'salvation," because with the coming of Christ the Baptist was to "make ready a people prepared for the Lord" so that they "might serve Him...in holiness and righteousness" (Lk.1:17,74,75).

 

[way 2 go]

But you said that the baptisms Paul performed on those people were unnecessary. So according to you Paul was just plain ignorant concerning his service for the Lord Jesus.

Paul performed unnecessary baptisms

no, not from ignorance but from doing what had always been done.

Act 16:3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

Before a person could be baptized with water he had to first believe (Acts 36-37). And those who lived under the law were saved and received everlasting life when they believed, as witnessed by the following words of the Lord Jesus:

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

So those who submitted to the rite of water baptism were saved before a drop of water even touched them. The baptism with water was in regard to "service" and not 'salvation," because with the coming of Christ the Baptist was to "make ready a people prepared for the Lord" so that they "might serve Him...in holiness and righteousness" (Lk.1:17,74,75).

you didn't prove it was necessary for Paul to baptize people and
since he only baptized 2 people & also the household of Stephanas .
what are you trying to prove?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Paul performed unnecessary baptisms

no, not from ignorance but from doing what had always been done.

I told you why it had been done and that is why Paul baptized some believers with water.

But you think that when Paul baptized those believers that baptism wasn't necessary.

Besides that, you also assert that it wasn't necessary when Paul himself was baptized with water.

Do you think that when the other Jews were baptized with water that baptism was necessary? If your answer is "yes" then please tell me in what sense it was necessary.

Do you think that when Cornelius was baptized with water that baptism was necessary? And if your answer is "yes" then tell me in what sense it was necessary.

 

[oatmeal]

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?

One of the challenges of any student of the scriptures is to read only what is written and not to read into scripture or assume that a practice of one man of God carries over to another man of God.

Thus we can ask, "where is water mentioned in that verse?"

Why isn't water mentioned in that verse?

If God wanted water in that verse, why didn't God put the word "water" into that verse?

Did not both John the B and Jesus the C say that John's baptism was for all time and that the baptism that Jesus initiated, the baptism in pneuma hagion and then the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ to be ignored?

No, neither one did.

With the coming of the greater baptism the less was dispensed with.

Water is done with, over, of no purpose.

Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, in all that Jesus Christ represents and accomplished for us, remission of sins, redemption, the gift of salvation/holy spirit/eternal life does way more for us that simply becoming wet

 

[Jerry Shugart]

If God wanted water in that verse, why didn't God put the word "water" into that verse?

The word "wash" in that verse indicates to you that it was being baptized with the Holy Spirit which was in view?:

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

The fact of the matter is that on the Damascus road Paul had been born of God, born of the Spirit, when he realized that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God:

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. 2. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 3. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. 4. For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. 5. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1 Jn.5:1-5).​

Paul was born of God before he washed away his sins.

 

[oatmeal]

The word "wash" in that verse indicates to you that it was being baptized with the Holy Spirit which was in view?:

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

The fact of the matter is that on the Damascus road Paul had been born of God, born of the Spirit, when he realized that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God:

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. 2. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 3. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. 4. For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. 5. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1 Jn.5:1-5).​

Paul was born of God before he washed away his sins.

There is an interesting progression, if that is the best term, that can be delineated by the difference in the meaning of two words, remission and forgiveness

At the moment someone is saved, born again.. their past sins are remitted.

However, this remission does not include sins committed after having received the gift of salvation.

Sin believers do err after they are saved, forgiveness is the process of washing away those errors.

I John 1;5-10

5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:

7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

The blood of Jesus Christ washes away cleanseth us from sin whether by remission or by our confessing them to the Father.

 

[way 2 go]

I told you why it had been done and that is why Paul baptized some believers with water.

I told you it was because he was doing what had always been done.

not some believers ,Paul only baptized 2 people & also the household of Stephanas

But you think that when Paul baptized those believers that baptism wasn't necessary.

correct

Besides that, you also assert that it wasn't necessary when Paul himself was baptized with water.

correct

Do you think that when the other Jews were baptized with water that baptism was necessary? If your answer is "yes" then please tell me in what sense it was necessary.

example please

Do you think that when Cornelius was baptized with water that baptism was necessary? And if your answer is "yes" then tell me in what sense it was necessary.

no

 

[Jerry Shugart]

5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:

7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

The blood of Jesus Christ washes away cleanseth us from sin whether by remission or by our confessing them to the Father.

The words of John were addressed to the believers who had already received eternal life (1 Jn.5:11) so verse 9 has nothing to do with salvation but instead that verse is in regard to staying in "fellowship" with the Lord.

In a Christian's "walk" any sin which he commits defiles Him and breaks his fellowship with the Lord. However, once that sin is confessed then the one who confesses is cleansed from all unrighteousness.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

correct

So you think that Paul baptized some believers for no reason since you say that those baptisms were unnecessary. And you said that he was baptizing those people because he was doing what had always been done.

Here is what had always been done in regard to baptism before Paul:

"John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (Mk.1:4).​

How can you say that Paul's baptism was unnecessary since it resulted in the remission of sins for all those who submitted to the rite?

 

[oatmeal]

The words of John were addressed to the believers who had already received eternal life (1 Jn.5:11) so verse 9 has nothing to do with salvation but instead that verse is in regard to staying in "fellowship" with the Lord.

In a Christian's "walk" any sin which he commits defiles Him and breaks his fellowship with the Lord. However, once that sin is confessed then the one who confesses is cleansed from all unrighteousness.

True

 

[way 2 go]

So you think that Paul baptized some believers for no reason since you say that those baptisms were unnecessary. And you said that he was baptizing those people because he was doing what had always been done.

Here is what had always been done in regard to baptism before Paul:

"John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (Mk.1:4).​

How can you say that Paul's baptism was unnecessary since it resulted in the remission of sins for all those who submitted to the rite?

Paul's shows baptism was unnecessary by only baptizing 2 people & also the household of Stephanas

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Paul's shows baptism was unnecessary by only baptizing 2 people & also the household of Stephanas

But you said that Paul was baptizing because it was done before he was converted. And the only baptism which a person could perform before Paul was converted was the baptism of repentance for THE REMISSION OF SINS.

 

[way 2 go]

But you said that Paul was baptizing because it was done before he was converted.

correct

And the only baptism which a person could perform before Paul was converted was the baptism of repentance for THE REMISSION OF SINS.

Paul's shows baptism was unnecessary by only baptizing 2 people & also the household of Stephanas

are you going to say circumcision was necessary because timothy was?
Act 16:3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Paul's shows baptism was unnecessary by only baptizing 2 people & also the household of Stephanas

If it was unnecessary he wouldn't have baptized anyone.

Paul was saved by believing the same thing that the Jews who lived under the law believed when they were saved. So to begin he was saved under the divine stewardship given to the Twelve and according to that program all those who believed were to be baptized with water.

 

[way 2 go]

If it was unnecessary he wouldn't have baptized anyone.

are you saying circumcision was necessary because timothy was?
Act 16:3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

Paul was saved by believing the same thing that the Jews who lived under the law believed when they were saved. So to begin he was saved under the divine stewardship given to the Twelve and according to that program all those who believed were to be baptized with water.

doing what always been done but unnecessary with Paul

 

[Jerry Shugart]

are you saying circumcision was necessary because timothy was?

Paul rightfully thought it was necessary for Timothy to be circumcized because both would be going to the Jews to preach a gospel and if Timothy wasn't circumcized then the Jews would be highly offended if an uncirumcized person was brought into the synagogues by Paul.

But no one would be offended if Paul didn't baptize the believers that he baptized.

But you think that even though Paul was baptized that baptism was unnecessary even though it was for the remission of sins. And you think that when Paul baptized believers that baptism was unnecessary even though it was for the remission of sins.

Why was Paul's baptism unnecessary while the baptism of other people was necessary?

 

[way 2 go]

Paul rightfully thought it was necessary for Timothy to be circumcized because both would be going to the Jews to preach a gospel and if Timothy wasn't circumcized then the Jews would be highly offended if an uncirumcized person was brought into the synagogues by Paul.

But no one would be offended if Paul didn't baptize the believers that he baptized.

But you think that even though Paul was baptized that baptism was unnecessary even though it was for the remission of sins. And you think that when Paul baptized believers that baptism was unnecessary even though it was for the remission of sins.

Why was Paul's baptism unnecessary while the baptism of other people was necessary?

you answered your own question

"no one would be offended if Paul didn't baptize the believers that he baptized."

are you offended by this:
Paul's shows baptism was unnecessary by only baptizing 2 people & also the household of Stephanas