turbosixx
New member
I would suggest doing a little more research. That is baptized WITH the HS, not baptized BY the HS.
ECT Why Was Paul Baptized With Water?
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
I would suggest doing a little more research. That is baptized WITH the HS, not baptized BY the HS.
You were answered already.
turbosixx
New member
I wanted to be sure you agreed with it.
turbosixx
New member
I'm trying to understand from your viewpoint but that raises a question for me. If one receives the Holy Spirit the moment they believe, could you please explain why Paul asked this question?
Acts 19:2 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.
Last edited:
You answer my question first.
"Look at your last sentence and tell me how many baptisms are referenced in that sentence and then when you get to any number bigger than one, tell me how it doesn't contradict itself (not to mention Eph 4:4). How can anyone even mention the existence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit while trying to defend the idea that water baptism is the "one baptism" of Eph. 4:4?"
How would that help your position?
There is ONE baptism as has been conceded by you. You say its water baptizm but dont' deny the existence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. So, whether one baptized in, with or by the Holy Spirit it doesn't matter because one plus one still equals two and there are not two baptizms but only one.
turbosixx
New member
Sorry it's long.
I wasn't sure what sentence you were referring to with your question but I think I see it now. With all due respect, coming from your viewpoint this will be hard for you to see. I hope that you will really try to see it from my viewpoint. If you can and I'm missing something, maybe you can point out where I have gone off track.
I have always maintained that there are many different water baptisms. I tried to point out before that they are not all the same and that John's baptism was not from the Law. It was different and new. With no book, chapter and verse from the OT, no one was able to prove John's baptism was from the OT.
The gospel of Christ began with water baptism for ALL Jews who wanted to please God and it was for repentance for the forgiveness of sins. It could not forgive sins because it didn't have the power of Jesus' blood to forgive sins but that was coming. Jesus said he would build His church, future. When we read of those baptized by John's baptism, I'm not aware of us being told "they were added" or they were "saved". John's baptism was looking forward (preparing) to baptism in the name of Jesus.
Before Jesus ascended He tells the apostles that repentance for the forgiveness of sins would first be proclaimed in Jerusalem, Lk. 24:47. He commanded the apostles to make disciples baptizing them in the name of the father, son and HS, Matt. 28:19-20. Baptism in the name of Jesus adds someone to the church, which has now been bought with Jesus' blood, Acts 20:28.
Acts 2:41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
Being added to the church, they have gained access to the blood of Christ having their sins forgiven and are saved.
Acts 2:47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.
That is why Ananias, sent by Christ, said And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’ Calling on the authority of Jesus, Matt. 28:19, calling on His name by being baptized in His name.
As for the ONE baptism. There is ONE baptism to get into Christ and John's baptism is not it. The men in Acts 19 were accurately taught Jesus with ONE exception, baptism, Acts 18:25. Getting wet and going through the motions of symbolizing Jesus’ DBR is not enough. All baptisms have a specific purpose, are for specific people and must be done at the right time. Baptism in the name of Jesus is for ALL people who believe.
If you will notice, when Paul finds out they haven't received the HS, he asks them, “Into what then were you baptized?”. I will suggest to you that water and Spirit go together.
Jn. 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Looking forward.
Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 10:47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
If you will notice, Paul doesn't lay hands on them until they have been baptized in the name of Jesus.
Acts 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.
Just like we see before Paul's conversion.
Acts 8:16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.
:up:
Forming doctrine on the basis of an argument from silence is not a good idea.
In addition to that, you have Jesus Christ Himself affirming John's baptism and His need to submit to it. An affirmative point (i.e. not an argument from silence) that you have ignored up to this point.
Another argument from silence. I fear that they're going to start reproducing like rabbits.
Ananias' actions were understandable and consistent with what he had always practiced as a Jew, as were Christ's. In fact, nothing happened that was outside of the prophesied program for Israel until Acts 9 when Christ cut Israel off and turned instead to the Gentiles which was began with the conversion of Saul, a Jew of the highest order and the chief sinner who both persecuted the church and destroyed it.
The verses you cite here are the reason I never judge anyone in regards to what they believe on this baptism issue. If one does not rightly divide the word of truth it is impossible not to be convinced that getting wet has something to do with getting saved and I know from experience that it is not possible to convince ANYONE away from the doctrine unless and until they are brought to see the the Body of Christ and Israel are two entirely separate bodies of believers and that Paul is the ONE and only apostle to the Body of Christ (i.e. the modern church). Until that foundational premise is seen and understood and accepted, it is simply impossible for anyone to see that these two groups of believers existed side by side during the Acts period and that there was a complex and lengthy transition from the Kingdom Gospel which Jesus and the Twelve preached to Paul's Gospel of Grace.
I, for one, am fully persuaded that water baptism is no longer an active sacrament just as speaking in tongues and prophesying aren't, and for the same reasons. I could say to you that based on your premises, anyone who has not spoken in tongues and prophesying has not been saved and you couldn't open your mouth to refute it without undermining your doctrine of salvific water baptism. Indeed, there are millions of Christians all over the world that believe exactly that and end so up confused and upside down that they send their life's savings to a flimflam man on T.V. in exchange for a miracle that never comes.
You might be wondering what the one has to do with the other. Not much more than everything. The two errors are Siamese twins. They aren't even two different sides of the same coin. They're more like different details on the same side of a coin. But you can't see it and no amount of mixing metaphores will cause you to see it. You are utterly blind to it even though it's right in front of you. I wish I had a switch I could throw and cause the light bulb to come on over your head but I don't. (Okay, I'll stop with the metaphores!)
So, the bottom line is that you remove the contradiction by intentionally conflating water baptism with the baptism of the Holy Spirit, simply declaring them to be the same thing even though the bible repeatedly makes a clear distinction between the two. You then are forced to say that John's baptism was different than every other water baptism anyone in the bible performed (both before and after John) and use what the bible DOESN'T say as your primary support for this position. I just cannot understand how this could ever be compelling to anyone who didn't already hold to this belief. This is simply not how right doctrine is formulated, established or taught.
Respectfully,
Clete
turbosixx
New member
I don't see it as silence. How else can I prove it's new if baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins didn't exist before John? OT washings are described in detail. All you have to do to prove John's baptism is not new is provide book, chapter and verse/s in the OT which you have not done.
Didn't mean to ignore this point. Just trying to keep it simple. The baptism of John was from God and it's shadow in the old law was the cleansing of priest for service. Jesus obeyed God in being baptized by John and was cleansed for service as our high priest. After being baptized He began His ministry.
I don't see how I simply declared them to be the same since I provided scripture. If I came to the wrong conclusion from those scriptures, please show me.
I see your opinion that they are not the same but I would like to discuss the scriptures you're basing these claims on.
Respectfully,
Tom
Last edited:
turbosixx
New member
I feel the same way about you.
Viewing scriptures through your Paul filter prevents you from seeing the truth.
For example, are these baptisms the same?
Acts 10:48 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.
Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
It's right in front of you. They're worded exactly the same but you can't see them as the same because of your Paul filter.
Respectfully,
Tom
Last edited:
If someone in the bible, say like John the Baptist or Jesus, were to affirmatively say anything along the lines of "this baptism isn't like the baptisms of old, it's new and here's why I want you to do it." then you'd have an iron clad affirmative biblical case. As it is, you are relying on what the bible does not say and are inferring your doctrine from that silence.
Which is not to say, by the way, that making such an argument is an entirely wrong thing to do but merely that you cannot start there. The bible's silence on a particular issue may stand as supportive evidence but it is extremely dangerous to use such silence as a beginning point or even to use it as a major argument, never mind the primary argument. It just isn't good hermeneutical practice. There's all sorts of heretical things one could pull out of the bible's silence on things.
And, once again, the fact that Jesus Christ affirmed the validity of John's baptism and His need to submit to it in order to "fulfill all righteousness" is an affirmative point that can't be overstated. Not one word came out of Jesus' mouth at the time about the ritual being new or different or anything like that. It seems like it would have been an important thing to point out, don't you think?
Okay so what's so new? Where's the evidence that the baptism that everyone else was performing was any different? It was a cleansing ritual just as it is to this day and is symbolic of the removal of sin, which is why John didn't see the need, nor did he want to perform it on Jesus. But Jesus submitted Himself to being baptized just as He submitted himself to those who sat in Moses' seat and He taught others to do the same.
Incidentally, Jesus' baptism had exactly nothing to do with Him being High Priest. He was not High Priest during His Earthly ministry and in fact submitted Himself to the High Priest and taught other to do the same. Caiaphas was High Priest and Jesus did not become High Priest until the veil at the Holy of Holies was ripped in two during His crucifixion at the earliest and likely not until after He arose from the Dead and ascended to the Father. But that's an entirely different topic that belongs on a different thread.
The scriptures show a distinction between the two, they don't equate them as being the same thing. If they were the same thing then how could one ever occur without the other?
Clete
Of course you do!
It's called a paradigm.
Have you ever done any work at all on trying to figure out whether your paradigm is superior than another?
If so, how? What criteria would you use to evaluate and compare one paradigm against another and by what standard would you declare one superior?
I think both verses mean PRECISELY what they seem to mean. I see no evidence that they weren't both water baptisms.
The reasons why it doesn't alter my doctrine is what you are truly and utterly blind too. It can't even register as possible in your mind that I even just said that they are both water baptisms and yet I remain steadfastly convinced that no such baptism is necessary nor required today.
Clete
turbosixx
New member
I agree with you up to a point. I’m not aware of anything being described as new. It’s clear that baptism in the name of Jesus was new and replaced John’s baptism but we are never told its new and not like the old. Did Paul say “his” gospel was new and not like the old?
That is not what Paul says about John's baptism to those in Acts 19.
One doesn’t occur without the other.
41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
Baptized and Spirit added them. Baptized into Christ because the Spirit added those who were baptized.
Last edited:
turbosixx
New member
You are right, we all see through paradigms. I do my very best to read scripture without a filter. Like with the baptisms in Acts 10 & 19. The wording is exactly the same so to see them as different would be to read something into it that's not there. I honestly want to understand the truth, lying to myself could mean the destruction of my soul and those I have influence over.
If I understand your position correctly, shouldn't that cause a problem? If Paul is preaching a different gospel than the 12, where's the difference? He's baptizing believers just as Jesus commanded and just as the 12 did to those who believe Jesus is the Christ. Paul even baptized a Gentile, the jailer, who believed.
It makes no sense that Paul would add something to the gospel of Christ that he didn't receive from Christ.
I would like to discuss the passages that convince you water baptism isn't necessary.
Respectfully,
Tom
Last edited:
Hi and the answer is simple for me !!
#1 , In verse 13 Has Christ BEEN SEPARATED into parts , was Paul crucified for you , Or , were you baptized for the name of Paul ??
#2 , Yes Christ has BEEN SEPARATED and why separated , Between Jews and Gentiles , as one is EARTHLY PEOPLE and the other a HEAVENLY PEOPLE !!
#3 Paul could never BAPTIZE , LEST anyone should say that I HAD BAPTIZED FOR MY NAME !!
Baptize by the FATHER , SON and HOLY SPIRIT , or in the NAME OF THE Lord Jesus !!
#4 And in Acts 18:5 was preaching to Jews and Greeks and in verse 6 said they were RESISTING and speaking evil things , Paul pronounced judgement ri GO TO GENTILES !!
And in verse 7 we see CRISPUS the ruler of the synagogue , that Paul left the SYNAGOGUE AND WENT TO A HOUSE NEXT DOOR to Justus house as the synagogue was next door and those with Crispus believed and were being BAPTIZED and Paul was NEXT DOOR and did not water baptize NO ONE !!
dan p
turbosixx
New member
Hi and God did not separate Christ. Those in Corinth were quarreling and separating themselves by who baptized them. Paul said there should be no divisions. 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
Why does he ask sarcastically Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? What does he mean by "were you baptized in the name of"?
I agree Paul went next door but how can you say Paul baptized no one? Paul said himself that he baptized Crispus, 1 Cor. 1:14.
Of course he did!
This cannot even be a real question.
This is getting on my nerves.
Read your own proof texts! Acts 8:4; 19:1-6, etc
You should stop trying. It is utterly impossible. And I mean fundamentally, foundationally, rationally impossible to "read scripture without a filter."
The effort should be put toward figuring out the justification for whatever filter you have and whether it's the best available.
Destruction of your soul?
The bible isn't so complicated that you are going to go to Hell if you fail to get your doctrine on baptism correct.
And the standard of "the wording is exactly the same therefore they are the same" is only a peak into your paradigm and not good doctrine nor even good reasoning.
By way of example, that standard would get you tied in knots when looking at Romans 4 vs James 2. The wording isn't the issue so much as is the context.
Only if my doctrine is based on proof-texting.
And he eventually stopped doing so. His converts spoke in tongues and prophesied for a time. The Acts period was a transitional period.
I can't even respond to this. You don't know what you're talking about (not your fault). Paul didn't ever add anything to the gospel of Christ.
That would be fruitless. My doctrine is not based on proof texts. Whatever passage I might cite, you'd read and understand from within your paradigm and explain to me how it doesn't mean what I think it means. I could then do the same in the other direction and neither of us would be convinced. Proof texting is a 100% waste of time.
Clete
turbosixx
New member
Fair enough. I guess we've done all we can do. I do appreciate your time.
I would like to leave you with one thought from my perspective hoping you will consider it. I believe Satan has deceived many using God's own word by changing it ever so slightly just as he did with Eve. God tells us baptism in the name of Jesus is how Christians are made, Matt. 28:19-20 and how our sins are washed away, Acts 22:16, and how we are added to the church, Acts 2:41. Satan is doing his very best to convince us that's not true.
God Bless
Hi and in Acts 19:2 Paul meets , since having believed did yo receive HOLY SPIRIT and this is the BAPTISM WITH [POWER AT PENTECOST in Acts 2 !!
They were not at Pentecost and to there knowledge , what is and one the BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT !!
Then in verse 3 Paul say , then for what reason then were you BAPTIZED / BAPTIZO and the ones said . into the BAPTISM / BAPTISMA , and Baptisma means by John the BAPTIZER !!
And in verse 6 , Paul LAID HANDS UPON THEM , THE HOLY SPIRIT came upon them and these 12 disciples spake in TONGUES and were PROPHESYING , just like those in Acts 2 !!
There was NO WATER in Acts 19:1-7 !!
dan p