Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?

Paulos

New member
Hi , and I have to disagree with you that Paul BAPTIZED

Paul was baptized by Ananias (Acts 9:18, Acts 22:16), and Paul clearly stated that he baptized others (1 Corinthians 1:14-16), so yes, Paul did BAPTIZE, although he did not baptize many because preaching was his primary calling (1 Cor 1:17).
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Acts 10:48 shows that Peter did not do the baptizing himself; he instructed the brethren from Joppa (Acts 10:23) to do it.
So?

Do you take this to mean Peter never baptized anyone?

In the early Church, new conversions were happening by the scores. The apostles would not have had time to baptize all these people themselves, so they appointed deacons to baptize for them. That is why Paul says he was not sent to baptize (1 Cor 1:17). But this does not mean that water baptism had no part in Paul's gospel. On the contrary, Paul was water baptized himself (Acts 9:18, Acts 22:16), and Paul clearly taught water baptism:
Acts 16:14-15
And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

Acts 16:28-33
28 Paul called with a loud voice, saying, “Do yourself no harm, for we are all here.” 29 Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.

Acts 18:5, 8
Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ...And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.

Acts 19:4-5
Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.​
Paul did not always perform water baptisms personally, but he clearly taught the practice of water baptism.
:doh:

The 12 apostles were specifically told to baptize, by Jesus. Paul, who was an apostle, was not sent to baptize, even though he was called by Jesus. That's the point. Paul was also not commanded to teach all the things Jesus had taught the 12.

Just because baptism happened doesn't change these facts, and there's also the fact that Paul wrote that there was only one baptism; and most of the time when he wrote of baptism it wasn't by water.
 

Paulos

New member
Just because baptism happened doesn't change these facts, and there's also the fact that Paul wrote that there was only one baptism; and most of the time when he wrote of baptism it wasn't by water.

Why did Paul perform water baptisms if he did not teach water baptism?
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Why did Paul perform water baptisms if he did not teach water baptism?
He didn't teach it as being a necessity as Peter did. Acts 2:38

When Paul spoke of baptism he spoke of being baptized into Christ's death, burial and resurrection. And "baptism" does not necessitate water.

Also, John the Baptist said something very specific regarding baptism that delineated his baptizing with water with what Jesus would do. Do you know what that is?
 

Guyver

BANNED
Banned
You are begging the question and missing the point (be aware that Mark 16 is a problematic ending that likely does not belong).

So you don't think that Mark 16 belongs in the Bible? Does John 3 belong in the Bible? What about 1 John 5?

Just a few posts before you said...

The translators were right to go with nations, not Jews, etc. based on context, etc. Change your view to match the Bible, not the other way around.

Why would anyone want to change their view to match the Bible if it is not to be trusted? If people can add or subtract from the scriptures, thus nullifying 2 Timothy 3:16 then what's the point? It's just another book like any other...filled with men's ideas.

I sure hope you're wrong. Because if you are not, and Mark 16 isn't supposed to be there.....then you may as well just toss the whole lot.

I don't see how anyone could think otherwise. What are you doing....just picking and choosing whatever you feel like believing?
 

DAN P

Well-known member
Why did Paul ever bother water baptizing anyone then?


Hi , and Rom 1:1 explains why Paul was SEPARATED to teach , preach , only the Gospel of God !!

SEPARATED /APHORIZO is in the Greek Perfect Tense and that means that when Saul was saved , in Acts 9:6 and from that point in time ( Acts 9:6 ) Sauls message was a CONTINUING preaching of Grace , for that is why it is in the Perfect Tense , Passive Voice an a Participle .

It should be translated " HAVING BEEN SEPARATED " and having in not just part of the Time , BUT all the time SEPARATED to only preach Grace , and NOT , the Law , Baptism or Repentance nor ever be a Pharisee ever again !!

The Passive Voice means that God did the SEPARATING and not us , not can the Passive Voice be defeated by anyones personal theology !!

dan p
 

Paulos

New member
Hi , and Rom 1:1 explains why Paul was SEPARATED to teach , preach , only the Gospel of God !!

SEPARATED /APHORIZO is in the Greek Perfect Tense and that means that when Saul was saved , in Acts 9:6 and from that point in time ( Acts 9:6 ) Sauls message was a CONTINUING preaching of Grace , for that is why it is in the Perfect Tense , Passive Voice an a Participle .

It should be translated " HAVING BEEN SEPARATED " and having in not just part of the Time , BUT all the time SEPARATED to only preach Grace , and NOT , the Law , Baptism or Repentance nor ever be a Pharisee ever again !!

The Passive Voice means that God did the SEPARATING and not us , not can the Passive Voice be defeated by anyones personal theology !!

dan p

I don't KNOW what any of that means !!

Why do you use TWO EXCLAMATION POINTS at the end of every paragraph ??

Why do you SKIP a space , before putting in a comma ??
 

DAN P

Well-known member
I don't KNOW what any of that means !!

Why do you use TWO EXCLAMATION POINTS at the end of every paragraph ??

Why do you SKIP a space , before putting in a comma ??


Hi , and since you do not KNOW what I have written means , and as I was wtiting , he will not know what it means !!

I do not write so that you will not understand , but that you will check out the Greek text and will see that the Perfect Tense is correct for the Greek word APHORIZO , and you complaint about 2 exclamation points instead ??

Use VINE'S or STRONGS and the internet and check the Greek Text ??

dan p
 

DAN P

Well-known member
No , thats not how its done !! You are SUPPOSED to put a space BETWEEN the last word in the sentence , and the exclamation points , like this !!


Hi , and I really do not care , as long as all will understand , and English was not a strong suit of mind !

Just one exclamation point this time and you will NEVER understand what I write , unless , that person reading is saved !!

1 Cor 2:14 RULES , as to why many do not understand and will never understand , for it seems that is where you fit in !

dan p
 
Last edited:

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
So?

Do you take this to mean Peter never baptized anyone?


:doh:

The 12 apostles were specifically told to baptize, by Jesus. Paul, who was an apostle, was not sent to baptize, even though he was called by Jesus. That's the point. Paul was also not commanded to teach all the things Jesus had taught the 12.

Just because baptism happened doesn't change these facts, and there's also the fact that Paul wrote that there was only one baptism; and most of the time when he wrote of baptism it wasn't by water.

:dead: Bad theology, bad exegesis.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
So you don't think that Mark 16 belongs in the Bible? Does John 3 belong in the Bible? What about 1 John 5?

Just a few posts before you said...



Why would anyone want to change their view to match the Bible if it is not to be trusted? If people can add or subtract from the scriptures, thus nullifying 2 Timothy 3:16 then what's the point? It's just another book like any other...filled with men's ideas.

I sure hope you're wrong. Because if you are not, and Mark 16 isn't supposed to be there.....then you may as well just toss the whole lot.

I don't see how anyone could think otherwise. What are you doing....just picking and choosing whatever you feel like believing?

The end of Mark 16 (vv. 9 ff.), not all of Mark 16 is disputed based on textual criticism. I Jn. 5 is defensible, but not the one verse I Jn. 5:7. Jn. 7-8 is fine, but a portion (woman story) is disputed based on lack of MSS evidence.

I am not denying whole chapters, but rightly questioning a verse or portion that appears to be a spurious scribal addition, not something linked to the original, inspired MSS.
 

Guyver

BANNED
Banned
The end of Mark 16 (vv. 9 ff.), not all of Mark 16 is disputed based on textual criticism. I Jn. 5 is defensible, but not the one verse I Jn. 5:7. Jn. 7-8 is fine, but a portion (woman story) is disputed based on lack of MSS evidence.

I am not denying whole chapters, but rightly questioning a verse or portion that appears to be a spurious scribal addition, not something linked to the original, inspired MSS.

Maybe I'm the only one who acknowledges the can of worms that opens up. I know it's a commonly held notion...but the whole thing is ridiculous considering that there are no original manuscripts.

Do you also question the works included in the canon, or are sixty-six books the right number?
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Maybe I'm the only one who acknowledges the can of worms that opens up. I know it's a commonly held notion...but the whole thing is ridiculous considering that there are no original manuscripts.

Do you also question the works included in the canon, or are sixty-six books the right number?

I do not have a problem with canonicity and reject Apocrypha as non-canonical.

The wealth of MSS evidence allows us to reconstruct the original to over 99% accuracy. If a verse has NO MSS support, then we are safe to assume it is spurious, a later interpolation (I Jn. 5:7).

I agree with the teachings in the disputed passages, but have to be scholastically honest and admit they are likely not in the originals.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Besides which, Mark 16:8 does seem to be a rather abrupt and implausible ending for a gospel.

This objection is noted by the scholars and there are answers for it. The bottom line is a lack of credible MSS support for v. 9 ff. I still read, study, believe, obey it, but recognize the flag translators raise about it.
 
Top