Does anyone see the obvious differences between the gospels preached by Peter vs Paul

[His4shur]

With Peter preaching a gospel of "repent and be (water) baptized", does anyone see an obvious DRASTIC change of program when Pauls Gospel is revealed?

[John Reece]

Today @ 05:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99420#post99420)
His4shur:

With Peter preaching a gospel of "repent and be (water) baptized", does anyone see an obvious DRASTIC change of program when Pauls Gospel is revealed?

Not me.

"Repent and be (water) baptized" was not the gospel Peter preached; it was merely the alter call.

Blessings,

John

[DUB_E_U]

Today @ 10:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99436#post99436)
John Reece:



Not me.

"Repent and be (water) baptized" was not the gospel Peter preached; it was merely the alter call.

Blessings,

John

One difference is that in the dispensation of grace preached by Paul, no alter call is required. Hmmmmmm!:smile:

[John Reece]

Today @ 07:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99479#post99479)
DUB_E_U:

One difference is that in the dispensation of grace preached by Paul, no alter call is required. Hmmmmmm!:smile:

The absence of an alter call does not change the nature of The Gospel.

[Apollos]

Peter and Paul both practiced the same (water) baptism.

That happened to be baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

So, I see no difference whatsoever in their practices, nevertheless their teachings.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 10:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99420#post99420)
His4shur:

With Peter preaching a gospel of "repent and be (water) baptized", does anyone see an obvious DRASTIC change of program when Pauls Gospel is revealed?

You bet!

[doogieduff]

Today @ 01:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99557#post99557)
Apollos:

Peter and Paul both practiced the same (water) baptism.

That happened to be baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

So, I see no difference whatsoever in their practices, nevertheless their teachings.

What do you mean by practice? First of all, this thread is not about what they practiced, rather what they preached. Paul preached that belief in Jesus' death, burial and resurrection for salvation. The majority of christians hold to this for salvation. Don't you find it interesting that no one biblically ever preached this message of salvation EXCEPT Paul? That's right, Peter NEVER preaches this. In fact, Paul thanked God that he did not baptize.

1 Corinthians 1:14-17
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name.
16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other.
17 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.

Why would Paul say this if he was preaching the same gospel?
Were Noah and Abraham saved by believing in the death, burial, and resurection of Jesus Christ? (please back up answer biblically!)

[doogieduff]

Today @ 11:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99436#post99436)
John Reece:



Not me.

"Repent and be (water) baptized" was not the gospel Peter preached; it was merely the alter call.

Blessings,

John


Where is it biblically that it was merely an "alter call"?

[Hitch]

No its all in your mind.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 04:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99723#post99723)
Hitch:

No its all in your mind.

Yet another very intelligent response from Hitch!
Thank you soooooo much!
Not even sure who you were talking to. Must not of been me considering I quoted scripture, which makes my beliefs biblical.
You must have been talking about John's "alter call"! Hmmmm......cuz it seems to be "all in his mind" as I don't see it in scriptures...

[DUB_E_U]

Water Baptism

This is probably one of the most confusing issues in the Christian religion today. Some profess they must baptize babies, others only baptize adults. Some baptize in the name of the Father, Son,and Holy Spirit, while others baptize in the name of Jesus Christ. Some sprinkle, some dunk, some pour. It would seem like God would have given us some clear instruction for the practice of baptism that would dismiss all the confusion. Thankfully, in the dispensation of grace, He has!

First, Eph 4:4-6, instructs that in this present dispensation there is only one baptism for the body of Christ. The question: what is the nature of this one baptism? It's elementerary to mention that the word baptize literally means. But . . . take it from the Greeks:


[font=courier]
Strong:

baptizo bap-tid'-zo
from a derivative of 911; to immerse, submerge; to make whelmed (i.e. fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism:--Baptist, baptize, wash

bapto bap'-to
a primary verb; to whelm, i.e. cover wholly with a fluid; in the New Testament only in a qualified or special sense, i.e. (literally) to moisten (a part of one's person), or (by implication) to stain (as with dye):--dip.
[/font=courier]


With the above said, it is important to realize what the person being baptized is being baptize into. John the Baptist talked about baptism with water*, the Holy Spirit and fire (Mat 3:11). Paul spoke of a baptism, or immersion, into Christ and into his death.
/ot ( *Note that water is not mentioned anywhere in the following passage.)
Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death ?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
It is this baptism into death which assures a believer of the resurrection from the dead.
1 Cor 12: 13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free,. and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
This baptism is performed by the Holy Spirit where in which the believer is immersed, not into water, but into the one body of Christ -- at salvation when the believer becomes a member of that body. 1 Corinthians 12 declares there is only one baptism in this dispensation: the baptism of Romans 6.
Some will say, "But Paul baptized with water!" This is quite correct. In his early ministry at Corinth, for instance, Paul baptized a few believers. Here are Paul's comments concerning
these water baptisms:
1 Cor 1; 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius,.
1 Cor 1;15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
1 Cor 1; 16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas; besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
1 Cor 1; 17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel; not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
Yes, Paul did baptize in his early ministry; but, as he received more of the revelation from Christ teaching him a clearer understanding of the mystery which was to become part of Paul's my gospel, he soon abandoned the practice. Does it necessarily follow then that Paul had a different gospel?

One Gospel or Many Gospels?

What does Paul have to say concerning this issue.
Gal 2; 7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter,.
In this verse, Paul clearly states that one gospel was committed to him, the gospel of the uncircumcision (or the Gentiles), and another gospel was committed to Peter, the gospel of the circumcision (or the Jews). Some claim that this verse is talking about a singular gospel, but different audiences, or in other words, that Peter took the gospel to the circumcision, and Paul to the uncircumcision. (Not so, both Peter and Paul went to both Jew and Gentile.)

Was the gospel that Paul taught the same that was taught of Peter? Scripture records that Peter claimed to preach the same thing as the prophets (Acts 2:16, 3:18,21,24), and Paul claimed to preach a mystery which was not revealed to the prophets (Eph 3:3-5), then it would be necessary to conclude that Paul's gospel was a new gospel.
Eph 6: 19 And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,
This verse refers to the "mystery of the gospel." When Paul uses the word "mystery" he is referring to that new revelation he received which was kept secret from the beginning of the
world until it was revealed to him. So we see that the gospel is, indeed, identified as a part of the mystery . It is for this reason that Paul refers to "his gospel" in such exclusive terms. For instance, he calls the gospel of grace "my gospel" (Rom 2:16, 16:25; 2 Tim 2:8), "the gospel which I preached" (1 Cor 15:1; Gal 2:2), "our gospel" (2 Cor 4:3; 1 Thes 1:5; 2 Thes 2:14), the gospel "which we have preached" (Gal 1:8), and "the gospel which was preached of me" (Gal1:11). Paul refers to his early ministry as "the beginning of the gospel." (Phil 4:15) He says the
gospel was committed to his trust. (1 Cor 9:17; 1 Tim 1:11). Furthermore, we are instructed to follow Paul as a pattern in the dispensation of grace. (1 Cor 4:16; 1 Cor 11:1; Phil 3:17; 1
Tim 1:16).
All of these things lead us to conclude that the gospel which Paul preached, the gospel of the grace of God, is a separate gospel from that preached by Peter and the Twelve, namely, the
gospel of the circumcision, or the gospel of the kingdom.

I hope this post's format came through alright . . . just learning to get the hang of things here . . . BTW: some material for this post contains excerpts from Quick Witness Guide for Sharing Grace Doctrine Pastor Richard Church, Berean Bible Church (Edgewater, FL)

[yxboom]

Fantastic post Dub E U :thumb:

[doogieduff]

Today @ 07:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99974#post99974)
yxboom:

Fantastic post Dub E U :thumb:

I agree, very good post. Although, it's not as easy as that. Yes, I agree with what you said, but "they" have answers for everything, and this debate may never end...

[His4shur]

Having NOT seen a difference due to NOT honestly comparing what the two taught, I can understand the responses given by both sides here. I challenge those who SEE no distinction to PUT ASIDE their preconceived notions and "traditions of MEN" just long enuff to consider dub e u's excellent post replete with substantiating scriptures instead of "heresay, merely repeated."

Your LIFE will be substantially changed AND.....your study of the scriptures will take on what can only be described as an ACTIVE JOY In studying, while resting in the "simplicity that is IN Christ."

Why do folks assume we are making this UP, when it is so clearly REVEALED (right there in the scriptures) to those who HAVE eyes and ears to see and hear??? I, for one, Thank God for the "preaching of Jesus Christ ACCORDING TO the revelation of the MYSTERY." THAT gospel is the ONLY one by which we ALL will be judged.

I find it sad that most professing christians, including myself up until two years ago (and after having known the Lord as my savior for over twenty eight years) DON'T even know what the MYSTERY is....when we should be the ones showing it to others!:shrug: :shrug:

[doogieduff]

Today @ 01:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100603#post100603)
His4shur:

Having NOT seen a difference due to NOT honestly comparing what the two taught, I can understand the responses given by both sides here. I challenge those who SEE no distinction to PUT ASIDE their preconceived notions and "traditions of MEN" just long enuff to consider dub e u's excellent post replete with substantiating scriptures instead of "heresay, merely repeated."

Your LIFE will be substantially changed AND.....your study of the scriptures will take on what can only be described as an ACTIVE JOY In studying, while resting in the "simplicity that is IN Christ."

Why do folks assume we are making this UP, when it is so clearly REVEALED (right there in the scriptures) to those who HAVE eyes and ears to see and hear??? I, for one, Thank God for the "preaching of Jesus Christ ACCORDING TO the revelation of the MYSTERY." THAT gospel is the ONLY one by which we ALL will be judged.

I find it sad that most professing christians, including myself up until two years ago (and after having known the Lord as my savior for over twenty eight years) DON'T even know what the MYSTERY is....when we should be the ones showing it to others!:shrug: :shrug:

AMEN!

[Warcraft3]

In fact, Paul thanked God that he did not baptize.

1 Corinthians 1:14-17
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name.
16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other.
17 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.

Why would Paul say this if he was preaching the same gospel?
Were Noah and Abraham saved by believing in the death, burial, and resurection of Jesus Christ? (please back up answer biblically!)

You are taking this out of context. Paul is not supporting your viewpoint by his statements. He states very clearly why he thanked God that he only baptized a few people. His reason for saying this was not in support of your view.


Russ

[John Reece]

Today @ 07:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100898#post100898)
steadele:

You are taking this out of context. Paul is not supporting your viewpoint by his statements. He states very clearly why he thanked God that he only baptized a few people. His reason for saying this was not in support of your view.

Russ

Russ comes through again with a very insightful comment.

:thumb:

[Sher]

05-17-2003 @ 04:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99607#post99607)
doogieduff:

In fact, Paul thanked God that he did not baptize.

1 Corinthians 1:14-17
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name.
16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other.
17 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.

{emphasis added by SherBear}

Hi doogieduff,

You do realize why Paul was thanking God that he baptized none ... save those he mentioned (and any he may have forgotten), don't you? You left out verse 13 which answers this question:

13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?


Now look at verse 15 in context ...

15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name.

Paul was thanking God that he only baptized the church leaders and household so that he could get the point across that the leaders ... who should have been following in his footsteps ... were baptizing as he did ... in the name of Christ ... not in the name of Paul. Paul was not the focus in the baptism ... and if he had baptized others in the church ... they could claim "celeb" status over the other ... Ooo, I was baptized by Paul ... and you weren't
Paul doesn't negate baptism here ... nor suggest that he doesn't believe in it ... he is trying to stop division in the church ... and return the focus to where it belonged ... on Jesus Christ.


EDIT: I typed this out ... then read on in the thread :shrug: sorry ... but feel free to critique what I said

[Warcraft3]

Some will say, "But Paul baptized with water!" This is quite correct. In his early ministry at Corinth, for instance, Paul baptized a few believers. Here are Paul's comments concerning
these water baptisms:
1 Cor 1; 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius,.
1 Cor 1;15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
1 Cor 1; 16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas; besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
1 Cor 1; 17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel; not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
Yes, Paul did baptize in his early ministry; but, as he received more of the revelation from Christ teaching him a clearer understanding of the mystery which was to become part of Paul's my gospel, he soon abandoned the practice.
He soon abandoned the practice? Where are you getting this from? What was the date when Paul made this supposed change? Where did he write about this very signifigant change?





One Gospel or Many Gospels?

What does Paul have to say concerning this issue.
Gal 2; 7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter,.
In this verse, Paul clearly states that one gospel was committed to him, the gospel of the uncircumcision (or the Gentiles), and another gospel was committed to Peter, the gospel of the circumcision (or the Jews). Some claim that this verse is talking about a singular gospel, but different audiences, or in other words, that Peter took the gospel to the circumcision, and Paul to the uncircumcision. (Not so, both Peter and Paul went to both Jew and Gentile.)
Fine, but who was their main audience? Peter was surprised when the gentiles received the Holy spirit, but why? Because he was preaching a different gospel? Or because his focus was not on the gentiles? Read the rest of the chapter especailly verses 8, 14, 16, and 17. Paul does not imply Peter is preaching a different gospel, but does imply Peter was being a hypocrite and was acting improperly.



Was the gospel that Paul taught the same that was taught of Peter? Scripture records that Peter claimed to preach the same thing as the prophets (Acts 2:16, 3:18,21,24), and Paul claimed to preach a mystery which was not revealed to the prophets (Eph 3:3-5),
Woah woah woah hold it right there...How can you possibly make such a statement? All the verses in Acts are dealing with prophesies about Christ, but Ephesians is dealing with the "mystery" "that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel........." Not only that but even if they were dealing with the exact same topic (which they are not anyway) Paul makes the statement......."as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostales and prophets" which would include Peter anyway.


then it would be necessary to conclude that Paul's gospel was a new gospel.
nothing in the text leads one to make this conclusion.


Its late and i need sleep, so Ill deal with the rest of the post some other time. You are really taking things out of context here and reading some kind of dispensational view point into the text, which simply is not there.

Russ

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 02:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100907#post100907)
SherBear:



Hi doogieduff,

You do realize why Paul was thanking God that he baptized none ... save those he mentioned (and any he may have forgotten), don't you? You left out verse 13 which answers this question:

13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?


Now look at verse 15 in context ...

15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name.

Paul was thanking God that he only baptized the church leaders and household so that he could get the point across that the leaders ... who should have been following in his footsteps ... were baptizing as he did ... in the name of Christ ... not in the name of Paul. Paul was not the focus in the baptism ... and if he had baptized others in the church ... they could claim "celeb" status over the other ... Ooo, I was baptized by Paul ... and you weren't
Paul doesn't negate baptism here ... nor suggest that he doesn't believe in it ... he is trying to stop division in the church ... and return the focus to where it belonged ... on Jesus Christ.


EDIT: I typed this out ... then read on in the thread :shrug: sorry ... but feel free to critique what I said

Yes quite correct of course. Sherbear has correctly read this section in context. Its really quite clear and simply can not be taken any other way. Since Paul stated the reasons for his comments right there in the same section I really do not see any room for any other conclusion than the reasons Paul gave. This one is locked down pretty good.


Russ

[doogieduff]

Today @ 12:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100898#post100898)
steadele:



You are taking this out of context. Paul is not supporting your viewpoint by his statements. He states very clearly why he thanked God that he only baptized a few people. His reason for saying this was not in support of your view.


Russ

Ummm...no. I'm not taking it out of context. I fully understand that part of the reason he thanked God he didn't baptize is so people wouldn't praise him. But that's irrelevent. Everytime Peter preached the gospel, he commanded baptism. Paul thanked God he didn't baptize. Explain why this is if their preaching the same gospel.

Also show me any OT saint who believed in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ for salvation!!!!

[John Reece]

Very cogent, SherBear and Russ. You have explicated the scriptures quite accurately.

:thumb:

[doogieduff]

Today @ 12:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100907#post100907)
SherBear:



Hi doogieduff,

You do realize why Paul was thanking God that he baptized none

Yes.


... save those he mentioned (and any he may have forgotten), don't you? You left out verse 13 which answers this question:

13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?


Now look at verse 15 in context ...

15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name.

Paul was thanking God that he only baptized the church leaders and household so that he could get the point across that the leaders ... who should have been following in his footsteps ... were baptizing as he did ... in the name of Christ ... not in the name of Paul. Paul was not the focus in the baptism ... and if he had baptized others in the church ... they could claim "celeb" status over the other ... Ooo, I was baptized by Paul ... and you weren't

Ok, what's your point? I agree. The point is why did Peter preach baptism for the remission of sins everytime he preached the gospel and Paul never does. AND...WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE SHOW ME SOMEONE IN THE BIBLE WHO EVER PREACHED JESUS DEATH, BURIAL, AND RESURRECTION FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS BESIDES PAUL!!!!!!!!



Paul doesn't negate baptism here

Really? He said Christ did not send him to baptize, and he thanked God that he didn't baptize. Sounds like he's negating it to me. Guess what? If it was part of his gospel, he would preach it regardless of what others might say. Also, whats to make you think that if people will say "Ooo, I was baptized by Paul" that they wouldn't say this to anyone else who baptized them?



... nor suggest that he doesn't believe in it ...

Sounds like he doesn't believe in it to me. Show in the BIBLE where he believes in it for the remission of sins like Peter.



he is trying to stop division in the church ...

Where did you get this in the scriptures?

[doogieduff]

Today @ 01:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100935#post100935)
John Reece:

Very cogent, SherBear and Russ. You have explicated the scriptures quite accurately.

:thumb:

Hey Johnny, maybe you know of somewhere in scriptures where somebody BESIDES PAUL preached the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins!

[Sher]

Today @ 03:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100936#post100936)
doogieduff:

Ok, what's your point? I agree. The point is why did Peter preach baptism for the remission of sins everytime he preached the gospel and Paul never does. AND...WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE SHOW ME SOMEONE IN THE BIBLE WHO EVER PREACHED JESUS DEATH, BURIAL, AND RESURRECTION FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS BESIDES PAUL!!!!!!!!Ow, ow, ow ... please don't yell ... :frown:

You say you agreed ... but then you ask questions that illustrate that you don't understand what you are agreeing with.

What is my point? Well, the context tells why Paul "thanks God that he didn't baptize" others ... not that he didn't baptize at all as it seems you are implying ... because it lists who he did baptize ... people we know to be the leaders of the church.

I thought the topic was "Does anyone see the obvious differences between the gospels preached by Peter vs Paul" ... why are you now asking to drag someone else into it?

To an earlier comment you made:
Ummm...no. I'm not taking it out of context. I fully understand that part of the reason he thanked God he didn't baptize is so people wouldn't praise him. But that's irrelevent. Everytime Peter preached the gospel, he commanded baptism. Paul thanked God he didn't baptize. Explain why this is if their preaching the same gospel.

How can you honestly say that in context this is "irrelevant" ... and how do you draw the conclusion that it is a different gospel based on this section of scripture? You may have a point to make ... but this scripture isn't supporting it.

The only reason Paul thanks God he didn't baptize others (not that he didn't baptize at all) is for the reason I oulined in my previous post. This is not only relevant ... it is the only relevancy ... because it is the only way it can be understood in context.

Paul did baptize ... it is a fact ... and the only reason he says in context that he thanks God ... is because of the circumstances going on in the church ... not because he doesn't believe in baptism. Your conclusion does not follow the premise.


Really? He said Christ did not send him to baptize, and he thanked God that he didn't baptize.

Doogie, it was not Paul's gift to baptize ... remember how he speaks of different spiritual gifts ... how each of us have a place in the body of Christ (1 Cor 12)?

You are pulling out that he said Christ didn't send him to baptize ... but ignoring when he says in the same sentence what the gift he had was:
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 Cor 1:17)
and if you back up to verses 10 - 12 in that same section, followed by 13, in context:
Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe's household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or "I am of Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Cor 1:10-13)
Again ... with the emphasis I give above, can you see that there was divisions in the church ... that people were claiming "celeb" status ... saying they were "of Paul"? Paul was merely thanking God that he wasn't -- by having baptized more than the leaders in the church -- feeding this erroneous mindset.


Sounds like he's negating it to me. Guess what? If it was part of his gospel, he would preach it regardless of what others might say.

Sorry ... but he just isn't negating it. I can't think of a clearer way to show this to you outside of showing you the context in the scriptures.


Also, whats to make you think that if people will say "Ooo, I was baptized by Paul" that they wouldn't say this to anyone else who baptized them?

Because Paul was admonishing the church to take care of the problem and do it correctly. Think of it this way ... a famous speaker comes to town and speaks at a church. The egomaniacs*** in the church later fight ... and cause divisions ... because one was spoken to by the speaker directly ... and the other was not. One can laud his "importance" over the other ... and it would cause hurt feelings. If the speaker didn't actually speak directly to either one ... only to the pastor ... and told that pastor to pass the message on ... the people would be treated "equally" by both being spoken to by the home pastor ... not the guest speaker ... or Paul baptizing in this case. If that speaker later commented that he thanked God that he didn't directely address any of the egomaniacs, does that negate the speach he did give? Of course not. Neither in this case does it negate that Paul baptized ... believing in it ... and thanking God that he didn't feed the egos of the weak in the church of Corinth.


Sounds like he doesn't believe in it to me. Show in the BIBLE where he believes in it for the remission of sins like Peter.

He followed the command of Jesus ... that is proof enough.


(SherBear: "he is trying to stop division in the church ... ")
Where did you get this in the scriptures?

See the verses 10 and 11 ... look where it says: that you all speak the same thing that there be no divisions among you that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment that there are contentions among you.
I just don't think you read the whole context, Doogie. That gives the complete understanding here.

Furthermore, if I may ask, you seem awfully defensive ... is there a context I am missing in this topic ... is it related to another topic that I haven't read? I am trying to answer your questions as I read them to be ... concerning this topic only. If there is another agenda that I am unaware of ... I would appreciate a heads-up so I can understand why it feels like you are targeting me ... instead of answering my points in the same spirit I am presenting them to you ... to address context only ... to clarify a point with a brother.


===========================
*** (oh, come on ... every church has at least one or two ... :lol:)

[Solly]

With Peter preaching a gospel of "repent and be (water) baptized", does anyone see an obvious DRASTIC change of program when Pauls Gospel is revealed?

Short answer, no.


The majority of christians hold to this for salvation. Don't you find it interesting that no one biblically ever preached this message of salvation EXCEPT Paul? That's right, Peter NEVER preaches this.
----
Ummm...no. I'm not taking it out of context. I fully understand that part of the reason he thanked God he didn't baptize is so people wouldn't praise him. But that's irrelevent. Everytime Peter preached the gospel, he commanded baptism.

I have posted relevant verses from 1 & 2 Peter and Acts on another thread that show this was not the case. As John says, Peter is mentioning the altar call. they were already "pricked in their hearts" the work had been done. Now to make an outward demonstration of the fact.


Paul thanked God he didn't baptize.
That is certainly "rightly dividing". He actually said:
I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
1Co 1:15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
1Co 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.


Dub E U
Very clever reasoning, which misses one important point...Paul DID baptise in water 1 Cor 1. So, explain Paul's lapse into Judaism?

Yes, Paul did baptize in his early ministry; but, as he received more of the revelation from Christ teaching him a clearer understanding of the mystery which was to become part of Paul's my gospel, he soon abandoned the practice.
This is laughable. Paul is writing nearly twenty years after his call; his comments would be a bit more to the point if his views had changed. You have not one shred of evidence that Paul "abandoned" his practice - except "rightly dividing" of course.

His4Shur

Why do folks assume we are making this UP, when it is so clearly REVEALED
Because it was made up, in the 19th century by J N Darby and friends. So clearly revealed was it, that it was 1900 years before anyone saw it.

Doogie

WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE SHOW ME SOMEONE IN THE BIBLE WHO EVER PREACHED JESUS DEATH, BURIAL, AND RESURRECTION FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS BESIDES PAUL!!!!!!!!p

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Mat 1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.


Isa 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
Isa 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, [there is] no beauty that we should desire him.
Isa 53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were [our] faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Isa 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
Isa 53:5 But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Isa 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
Isa 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
Isa 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither [was any] deceit in his mouth.
Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him [a portion] with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Job 19:25 For I know [that] my redeemer liveth, and [that] he shall stand at the latter [day] upon the earth:
Job 19:26 And [though] after my skin [worms] destroy this , yet in my flesh shall I see God:
Job 19:27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; [though] my reins be consumed within me.

Gen 22:13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind [him] a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.
Gen 22:14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said [to] this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen or, The LORD shall provide.

2Sa 7:12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
2Sa 7:13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
2Sa 7:14 [b]I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
2Sa 7:15 But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took [it] from Saul, whom I put away before thee.
2Sa 7:16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

Luk 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
Luk 24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
Luk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Perhaps you would like to suggest that though these prophecies came in olden days, no-one believed them, or understood what they were referring to. Then there is the picture language of the temple and its sacrifices.

That's enough to be going on with.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 03:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101020#post101020)
SherBear:

Ow, ow, ow ... please don't yell ... :frown:

You say you agreed ... but then you ask questions that illustrate that you don't understand what you are agreeing with.

What is my point? Well, the context tells why Paul "thanks God that he didn't baptize" others ... not that he didn't baptize at all as it seems you are implying ... because it lists who he did baptize ... people we know to be the leaders of the church.

I thought the topic was "Does anyone see the obvious differences between the gospels preached by Peter vs Paul" ... why are you now asking to drag someone else into it?

I responded to one guy on the first page who said "Peter and Paul both practiced baptism in their teachings." i responded with teh 1 Corinthians verses and people are all over my back as to thinking I am proving my point about the two gospels with these verses. I'm not! It was a direct response to ONE person.



To an earlier comment you made:

How can you honestly say that in context this is "irrelevant" ... and how do you draw the conclusion that it is a different gospel based on this section of scripture? You may have a point to make ... but this scripture isn't supporting it.

Like I just said above...



The only reason Paul thanks God he didn't baptize others (not that he didn't baptize at all) is for the reason I oulined in my previous post. This is not only relevant ... it is the only relevancy ... because it is the only way it can be understood in context.

Paul did baptize ... it is a fact ... and the only reason he says in context that he thanks God ... is because of the circumstances going on in the church ... not because he doesn't believe in baptism. Your conclusion does not follow the premise.

You still have yet to ahow me where Paul DOES encourage or believe in baptism. You keep saying, "this doesn't mean he doesn't believe in it." Well, show me where he does then! Every time Peter preached the gospel, he ALWAYS included baptism. Paul never preaches the gospel with baptism for the remission of sins. Why?



Doogie, it was not Paul's gift to baptize ... remember how he speaks of different spiritual gifts ... how each of us have a place in the body of Christ (1 Cor 12)?

It wasn't his gift, yet he did it anyways? That's odd...



Sorry ... but he just isn't negating it. I can't think of a clearer way to show this to you outside of showing you the context in the scriptures.

A clearer way to show me that Paul believes in baptism is to show me somewhere scripturally.




He followed the command of Jesus ... that is proof enough.

Please elaborate here.




Furthermore, if I may ask, you seem awfully defensive ... is there a context I am missing in this topic ... is it related to another topic that I haven't read? I am trying to answer your questions as I read them to be ... concerning this topic only. If there is another agenda that I am unaware of ... I would appreciate a heads-up so I can understand why it feels like you are targeting me ... instead of answering my points in the same spirit I am presenting them to you ... to address context only ... to clarify a point with a brother.

Sorry, I'm a guy, and we're all jerks. Let me know if this reponse was better. I'm not targeting you, i just try to answer everyone.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 04:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101022#post101022)
Solly:



I have posted relevant verses from 1 & 2 Peter and Acts on another thread that show this was not the case. As John says, Peter is mentioning the altar call. they were already "pricked in their hearts" the work had been done. Now to make an outward demonstration of the fact.

As I previously asked John Reece to show me, which he CONVENIENTLY forgot to. Where is it biblically that baptism is an "alter call"? Every time I read about baptism, it's for the remission of sins. Even back in Numbers 19!!!!!!!



Dub E U
Very clever reasoning, which misses one important point...Paul DID baptise in water 1 Cor 1. So, explain Paul's lapse into Judaism?

He didn't "baptize" in 1 Cor. 1, he's talking about times he did in the past. You have to remember that everyone except Paul knew baptism for salvation, and after Acts 9, this wasn't so. This is a very drastic change. Paul didn't preach baptism everytime he preached the gospel like Peter, AND nobody recieved the indwelling Holy Spirit before baptism until after Acts 9.



This is laughable. Paul is writing nearly twenty years after his call; his comments would be a bit more to the point if his views had changed. You have not one shred of evidence that Paul "abandoned" his practice - except "rightly dividing" of course.

How big do you think Paul's ministry was? He could only remember a few people he had baptized and thanked God that he didn't. He never preached it in his gospel.




Doogie


Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Mat 1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.


Isa 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
Isa 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, [there is] no beauty that we should desire him.
Isa 53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were [our] faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Isa 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
Isa 53:5 But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Isa 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
Isa 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
Isa 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither [was any] deceit in his mouth.
Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him [a portion] with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Job 19:25 For I know [that] my redeemer liveth, and [that] he shall stand at the latter [day] upon the earth:
Job 19:26 And [though] after my skin [worms] destroy this , yet in my flesh shall I see God:
Job 19:27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; [though] my reins be consumed within me.

Gen 22:13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind [him] a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.
Gen 22:14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said [to] this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen or, The LORD shall provide.

2Sa 7:12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
2Sa 7:13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
2Sa 7:14 [b]I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
2Sa 7:15 But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took [it] from Saul, whom I put away before thee.
2Sa 7:16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

Luk 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
Luk 24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
Luk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Perhaps you would like to suggest that though these prophecies came in olden days, no-one believed them, or understood what they were referring to. Then there is the picture language of the temple and its sacrifices.

That's enough to be going on with.

Hmmm....I read all these, and not one says believe on the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ for salvation. THIS is what Paul preached, and THIS is what I asked you to show me elsewhere. Of course there were prophecies about it, but not one OT saint ever believed in Jesus DBR for salvation, not one!

BTW, the first prophecy you showed never came true! It was for Ahaz, and he died before Jesus was born! That's another discussion though...

[Solly]

Today @ 03:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101133#post101133)
doogieduff:
As I previously asked John Reece to show me, which he CONVENIENTLY forgot to. Where is it biblically that baptism is an "alter call"? Every time I read about baptism, it's for the remission of sins. Even back in Numbers 19!!!!!!!

Baptism is the response for those who have realised they are sinners. It is the "good profession before many witnesses"; unless you believe water Baptism actually does or did wash away sins, rather than being the answer of a good conscience toward God. the baptismal rites in the OT where as much pictures of our cleansing as the sacrifices. Was it God who healed the leper in Lev 14, or the water?

He didn't "baptize" in 1 Cor. 1,

I know that, I merely record it as the point where he mentions it. where does he show this new understanding though, and say, Guys I got it wrong, this is the real teaching. it does leave us in the air as to what parts of Paul's teaching is for us and what isn't.

You have to remember that everyone except Paul knew baptism for salvation,
Really?
and after Acts 9, this wasn't so. This is a very drastic change. Paul didn't preach baptism everytime he preached the gospel like Peter, AND nobody recieved the indwelling Holy Spirit before baptism until after Acts 9.
You have evidence of that? You have an account of everytime Paul preached? So Lydia was duped in Acts 16.15 when they were baptised by paul and his party?
How big do you think Paul's ministry was? He could only remember a few people he had baptized and thanked God that he didn't. He never preached it in his gospel.
Such certainty, given how little we have recorded of his preaching, and the fact that in at least one account, the poeple were baptised, and in one of his letters he speaks of baptising, without correcting himself as to its efficacy. he could just have easily said, "You know baptism is nothing now, so forget it."

Hmmm....I read all these, and not one says believe on the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ for salvation.

What do you think they OT saints were trusting too? The blood of bulls and goats. No, but to that which is prefigured in those things. They knew him as the Lord's Anointed, his coming King, his suffering Servent. One of their own even had his name, Joshua. And one of their Prophets had a variation, Isaiah. Unless you are being pedantic and looking for the exact words in the OT, then Christians down through the centuries have seen tht the OT saints believe on that same Mediatorial death of Christ for their sins that we do. Psa 22

BTW, the first prophecy you showed never came true! It was for Ahaz, and he died before Jesus was born!

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel
I think most people would be surprised by your understanding of the Messianic Prophecies of the OT. None more than me though.

[Warcraft3]

doggieduff:

He didn't "baptize" in 1 Cor. 1, he's talking about times he did in the past. You have to remember that everyone except Paul knew baptism for salvation, and after Acts 9, this wasn't so.
Everyone except Paul? After Acts 9? Where in the world are you getting this stuff? It certainly is not in scripture or in the early church writings.


This is a very drastic change.
Yes it is drastic.......and imagined.


Paul didn't preach baptism everytime he preached the gospel like Peter, AND nobody recieved the indwelling Holy Spirit before baptism until after Acts 9.
Read Peters sermon in Acts chapter 3. I do not see batism mentioned there.


How big do you think Paul's ministry was? He could only remember a few people he had baptized
People who the church at Corinth would be familiar with yes.


and thanked God that he didn't. He never preached it in his gospel.
How annoying this argument is getting. Paul explicately stated why he said this. Are you reading the text?
***WARNING AN INSULTING COMMENT FOLLOWS***
I feel like you have climbed to the top of mount stupid while reading this section. He states it right in the text for crying out loud!! Come down from cliff "I cant read the verses in context" and try again
***INSULTING SECTION HAS BEEN CONCLUDED***


Hmmm....I read all these, and not one says believe on the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ for salvation.
:argh: Not...............getting.................through........................




THIS is what Paul preached, and THIS is what I asked you to show me elsewhere.
Wow. I think you need to read Acts and the book of Peter again, but this time with your eyes open.



Of course there were prophecies about it, but not one OT saint ever believed in Jesus DBR for salvation, not one!
:argh: Not...............getting.................through........................



Dude all sarcasm aside..........Are you okay? You really cant see the same gospel preached by Peter and Paul when you read the New Testament? I mean it really is clearly stated.........really, really clear. And you continue to use Pauls statements to the Corinthians as support when they do not support you one bit.

I almost feel like you are just making this stuff up as a joke or something.

Almost.

I fear that you are actually serious about this, and if you are then you are grossly taking the text out of context.



Russ

[DUB_E_U]

Yesterday @ 11:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100898#post100898)
steadele:



You are taking this out of context. Paul is not supporting your viewpoint by his statements. He states very clearly why he thanked God that he only baptized a few people. His reason for saying this was not in support of your view.


Russ

Please clarify Russ . . . I do not understand your query . . . context in what manner, and etc. etc.

You responded with insufficient commentary with which to reply . . . however, I thank you for your having donated to the discussion . ..

[Sher]

Today @ 01:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101250#post101250)
DUB_E_U:

Please clarify Russ . . . I do not understand your query . . . context in what manner, and etc. etc.

You responded with insufficient commentary with which to reply . . . however, I thank you for your having donated to the discussion . ..

Already done ... Here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=100920#post100920) ...

Russ clarified by showing that my lengthy explanation was the exact context to which he was referring

[Sher]

Today @ 10:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101124#post101124)
doogieduff:

I responded to one guy on the first page who said "Peter and Paul both practiced baptism in their teachings." i responded with teh 1 Corinthians verses and people are all over my back as to thinking I am proving my point about the two gospels with these verses. I'm not! It was a direct response to ONE person.

I'm very, very sorry :sad: if it came across as I was all over your back ... I was assuming that you were, even though addressing one person, allowing for others to answer the points you made ...

... and since you said there "In fact, Paul thanked God that he did not baptize" ... and repeated it again in response to my post ... I wanted to show you in context that this was an erroneous statement.


You still have yet to ahow me where Paul DOES encourage or believe in baptism. You keep saying, "this doesn't mean he doesn't believe in it." Well, show me where he does then!

He believes in it because he followed it ... ?? ... am I missing something in this thought process? Paul follows Jesus' command to baptize.


Every time Peter preached the gospel, he ALWAYS included baptism. Paul never preaches the gospel with baptism for the remission of sins. Why?

How do you know that he never did this? He baptized the leaders ... one can only rightly conclude that he preached it as well. There are a lot of things Paul didn't say from what we read in scripture ... does that mean he opposed them? Some skeptics say that because Paul didn't mention Nazareth ... that he didn't believe Jesus was from there ... do you think this is true? Why not, based on this logic?


It wasn't his gift, yet he did it anyways? That's odd... Why is that odd? A preacher ... who's gift is to preach ... may step outside of this calling to teach as need arises ...

Paul ... who came to the church as a "guest speaker" ... baptized the leaders ... expecting them to follow this example he gave ... "teaching them to observe all things" that Jesus had commanded ... and later even gives admonishment when they are obviously not following as he taught them ... allowing divisions in the church because of the egos of the members ... as I illustrated in my other post.


A clearer way to show me that Paul believes in baptism is to show me somewhere scripturally.

As I said above, he baptized ... therefore, he believes in it.


Please elaborate here.

Matt 28:19-20 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

How would the disciples baptize? Paul baptized ... following this command ... learning from being taught "to observe all things that I have commanded you"

Baptism is a command ... and as such ... we are obedient when we follow this command to be baptized.


Sorry, I'm a guy, and we're all jerks. Let me know if this reponse was better. I'm not targeting you, i just try to answer everyone.

Yes :angel: I wasn't trying to be a cry-baby ... just trying to discern if there was some context I was missing in this topic ... sometimes feelings and issue bounce from one topic to another ... and being new to this particular area ... I thought I might be missing "history" ... Please take my answers at face value with no hidden intent of malice, K?

[Hitch]

You know what happens when you feed trolls Bear...

[doogieduff]

Today @ 05:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101559#post101559)
SherBear:



I'm very, very sorry :sad: if it came across as I was all over your back ... I was assuming that you were, even though addressing one person, allowing for others to answer the points you made ...

... and since you said there "In fact, Paul thanked God that he did not baptize" ... and repeated it again in response to my post ... I wanted to show you in context that this was an erroneous statement.



He believes in it because he followed it ... ?? ... am I missing something in this thought process? Paul follows Jesus' command to baptize.



How do you know that he never did this? He baptized the leaders ... one can only rightly conclude that he preached it as well. There are a lot of things Paul didn't say from what we read in scripture ... does that mean he opposed them? Some skeptics say that because Paul didn't mention Nazareth ... that he didn't believe Jesus was from there ... do you think this is true? Why not, based on this logic?

Why is that odd? A preacher ... who's gift is to preach ... may step outside of this calling to teach as need arises ...

Paul ... who came to the church as a "guest speaker" ... baptized the leaders ... expecting them to follow this example he gave ... "teaching them to observe all things" that Jesus had commanded ... and later even gives admonishment when they are obviously not following as he taught them ... allowing divisions in the church because of the egos of the members ... as I illustrated in my other post.



As I said above, he baptized ... therefore, he believes in it.



Matt 28:19-20 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

How would the disciples baptize? Paul baptized ... following this command ... learning from being taught "to observe all things that I have commanded you"

Baptism is a command ... and as such ... we are obedient when we follow this command to be baptized.



Yes :angel: I wasn't trying to be a cry-baby ... just trying to discern if there was some context I was missing in this topic ... sometimes feelings and issue bounce from one topic to another ... and being new to this particular area ... I thought I might be missing "history" ... Please take my answers at face value with no hidden intent of malice, K?

Ok, I see where you are getting hung up. You think the great commission is for us. Well it's not. Let me explain. First off, Jesus Christ' earthly ministry was not for us, it was for the Jews.

Matthew 15:24
24 But He answered and said, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Also in Matthew 10, Jesus commanded his disciples...

Matthew 10:5-8
5 These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans.
6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
7 And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'
8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.

Jesus commanded His disciples to not go to the gentiles. So , I don't think Paul was following Jesus' earthly commands.

Here's MArk's account of the great commission:

Mark 16:15-18
15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues;
18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

Are these the signs that follow, Sherbear, when people repent and are baptized? Jesus has said twice now that is what will happen. Is He wrong, or is there a different gospel now? I prefer the latter.

Peter definitely knew the Great Commission was only for the Jews. After Acts 9, God tried to explain to him that he was done dealing with the nation of Israel, but Peter didn't understand at first, because he was so bent on following Christ's earthly commands. Let's look:

Acts 10:9-18
9 The next day, as they went on their journey and drew near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour.
10 Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance
11 and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth.
12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air.
13 And a voice came to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat."
14 But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean."
15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, "What God has cleansed you must not call common."
16 This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again.
17 Now while Peter wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant, behold, the men who had been sent from Cornelius had made inquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate.

When God was dealing with the nation of Israel, He had dietary laws. Peter obviously followed these restrictions as he refused the food God gave to him. But God let him know that it was ok now to eat those things once prohibited. We press on...

Acts 10:19-20
19 While Peter thought about the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Behold, three men are seeking you.
20 Arise therefore, go down and go with them, doubting nothing; for I have sent them."

As Peter was still questioning this vision, God realized he was still firm on following Jesus' Great Commission, so he sends him and asks him to doubt nothing for He knows he is about to eneter the house of a gentile. We press on..

Acts 10:27-28
27 And as he talked with him, he went in and found many who had come together.
28 Then he said to them, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

You see, even Peter knew it was unlawful for a Jewish man to go to one of another nation.

I hope this has cleared up your misconstrued thoughts about the Great Commission. There are a few more things you need to take into consideration.

Paul calls his gospel "my" gospel. (Romans 2:16, 16:25)
Paul's gospel was "hidden from the ages." (Ephesians 3:9, Colossians 1:26)
Mark 1:1
1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

This seems to be the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Not for all time like people say.

[Sher]

Today @ 12:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101818#post101818)
doogieduff:

First off, Jesus Christ' earthly ministry was not for us, it was for the Jews.

Okay Doogie ... let me just say that I disagree with you, even on this point:

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19 NKJ)But because I feel we are at such opposite poles, I'll leave the conversation for others to continue who are more knowledgable on your positions than I am ... I really only popped in with those points because you were in error on what Paul said based on the context that surrounded it

... I really feel like I am in the middle of a gang war here, anyway, after reading some of the other threads and the responses from both "sides"


P.S. Clarke quoting Dr. Lightfoot: Dr. Lightfoot has some good thoughts on this commission given to the apostles: "Christ commands them to go and baptize the nations: but how much time was past before such a journey was taken! And when the time was now come that this work should be begun, Peter doth not enter upon it without a previous admonition given him from heaven." Note here how Lightfoot even points out that Peter needed a "smack on the head" from heaven before he would follow the Commission?

[Socrates]

Doogie seems to be a follower of someone like Cornelius Stam of the so-called Berean Bible Society, normally regarded as an ultradispensationalist by mainstream dispensationalists such as Charles Ryrie.

Stam's approach is repugnant. Instead of using Scripture to interpret Scripture, Stam desperately tries to interpret parts of the New Testament so that they contradict each other. Then to resolve the ‘contradictions’ of his own making, he asserts that these passages apply to different dispensations within the NT era. And anything which doesn’t fit his scheme is relegated to a ‘transitional period’.

He also teaches more than one way of salvation. But the Bible is clear that people have always been saved by grace through faith — Paul in Rom. 4 cites Gen. 15:6: ‘Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.’

To advance his heterodox theology, Stam also makes much of the textually doubtful Mark 16:16, and commits a logical fallacy that it teaches that baptism is essential for salvation. See the discussion on the thread » Theology Wing » Biblical Exegesis » Mark 16:16...aorist participle? (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=91694#post91694)

And he also botches James' teaching on faith and works by making James conrtadict Paul, then of course using his flaky scheme to resolve the contradictions that exist only in his imagination. See the Tekton article www.tektonics.org/jamesvspaul.html

[Bib Lit Major]

05-17-2003 @ 05:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99420#post99420)
His4shur:

With Peter preaching a gospel of "repent and be (water) baptized", does anyone see an obvious DRASTIC change of program when Pauls Gospel is revealed? (bold emphasis Bib Lit Major's)

I apologize for not reading all the way through this thread but it seems to have gone the way of baptismal disputes. (Perhaps someone hasd already addressed what I am going to address, so if they have I apologize for the redundancy.) However, I'd like to focus on the other side of the question: repantance. Several have mentioned altar calls and such. However, Paul himself testifies that he preached a gospel of repentance:

Acts 20:17-21
17 From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church. 18 When they arrived, he said to them: "You know how I lived the whole time I was with you, from the first day I came into the province of Asia. 19 I served the Lord with great humility and with tears, although I was severely tested by the plots of the Jews. 20 You know that I have not hesitated to preach anything that would be helpful to you but have taught you publicly and from house to house. 21 I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.
NIV

Acts 26:19-23
19 "So then, King Agrippa, I [Paul] was not disobedient to the vision from heaven. 20 First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds. 21 That is why the Jews seized me in the temple courts and tried to kill me. 22 But I have had God's help to this very day, and so I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen- 23 that the Christ would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to his own people and to the Gentiles."
NIV

2 Corinthians 7:8-13
8 Even if I [Paul] caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it. Though I did regret it-I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while- 9 yet now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance. For you became sorrowful as God intended and so were not harmed in any way by us. 10 Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death. 11 See what this godly sorrow has produced in you: what earnestness, what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what alarm, what longing, what concern, what readiness to see justice done. At every point you have proved yourselves to be innocent in this matter. 12 So even though I wrote to you, it was not on account of the one who did the wrong or of the injured party, but rather that before God you could see for yourselves how devoted to us you are. 13 By all this we are encouraged.
NIV

Obviously Paul thought that repentance was necessary for salvation. Perhaps we need to re-evaluate our understanding of Paul's Gospel. I have a real problem with anyone who thinks that they can slim down Paul's preaching to a one-liner when the man wrote over 2/3 of the New Testament! It's not that I don't think there is a central core to Paul's teaching, but when someone merely says their one-liner, it is very easy to zoom in on one particular part of Paul's message that we like or tend to agree with and assume that to be the whole of his preaching.

I don't mean any disrespect to any involved, but I disagree with the idea that Peter and Paul preached different Gospels becuase from what I can tell from the biblical data itself is that their messages were remakably similar.

[DUB_E_U]

As a newbie I hope should this post come in duplicate I shall be forgiven:


Today @ 01:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101250#post101250)
DUB_E_U:

Please clarify Russ . . . I do not understand your query . . . context in what manner, and etc. etc.

You responded with insufficient commentary with which to reply . . . however, I thank you for your having donated to the discussion . ..

Already done ... Here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=100920#post100920) ...

Russ clarified by showing that my lengthy explanation was the exact context to which he was referring



My apology . . . I am new and hope soon to master the nuances of the site . . . in reply:


Those Scriptures in which the Holy Spirit is related to baptism are agreeably classified by most major theologians into two divisions or groups. In the first group, Christ is the baptizing agent - - the Holy Spirit is the blessed influence which characterizes the baptism. In the second group, the Holy Spirit is the baptizing agent with Christ as the Head of His mystical Body as the receiving element which characterizes the baptism. Biblically there is a clear distinction between the Spirit baptism spoken of in the Gospels and Acts, and that spoken of by Paul in 1 Corinthians.

Six passages characterize the first group: Christ as Agent; HS influence. (Pre-Pauline)

M't:3:11: I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
M'r:1:8: I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Lu:3:16: John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
Joh:1:33: And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
Ac:1:5: For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
Ac:11:16: Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

These passages all clearly state that those who are baptized ( with water ) are baptized with the Holy Ghost.

Scriptures identified with the second group: HS as Agent; Christ the Head: (Post-Pauline)

1Co:12:11: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
1Co:12:12: For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
1Co:12:13: For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Ga:3:27: For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Ro:6:1: What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Ro:6:2: God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Ro:6:3: Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Ro:6:4: Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Col:2:9: For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Col:2:10: And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
Col:2:11: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Col:2:12: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
Col:2:13: And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Eph:4:4: There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph:4:5: One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph:4:6: One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

For the casual doctrinal student the former statement may cause them to launch into heated debate; however, for many many decades theologians from major denominations and a majority of assemblies accept the distinction between these two works of baptism in which the Holy Spirit is involved.
So, there are two different synergy's taking place in baptism which theologians agree upon: (1) there is a distinction between Christ's baptizing with the Spirit and (2) the Spirit baptizing into the Body of Christ. And, having read that scriptural accounts of the events happen separately, it may be said the events are not mutually inclusive? ( That they both happen at the same time.)
There is strong theological agreement that when the first baptism takes place it does not necessarily imply the other does also . . . by scripture we know that it is possible the two might have taken place at different times. There is nothing in the context of the passages dealing with the Holy Spirit's baptizing into the Body of Christ which relates to a time element; so, if we are to discover whether this work took place at the traditionally cited Pentecost event or at some subsequent date, we must search further.
A comparison of the Church at Pentecost with the Church the Body of Christ (which is the subject of the special revelation given to the Apostle Paul) would be the first possible place to discover any differences between those two.

Let's briefly go over some contrasts:

We know there was a church already in existence at Pentecost to which Acts 2:41 reports about 3000 souls were added unto them. No mention is made in scripture saying that the believers at Pentecost were formed into A church it says that they were added to THE church. Logic dictates something must first have existed before anything can be added to it!
Let's go up to Acts 2:17 where Peter says, "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams."
Peter's Pentecost message proclaimed that Israel's LAST DAYS* had arrived, he made no proclamation that the FIRST DAYS of the Body of Christ is come. [*Israel's last days does not mean the last days of the existence of the nation of Israel, but those days predicted to usher in the glorious Kingdom.]
The descriptive title, "the Church which is His Body," is not used at Pentecost. This expression was distinctive with Paul. Now, it might be argued that Paul sometimes refers to the Church without using the full expression: ergo, the use of the word "church" in the Pentecost account may in like manner refer to the Body of Christ. I've always believed that common things occur commonly; therefore a common example: If we should be sent to a certain city and be told to go to a hotel which is called the Biltmore, we would take it for granted there were other hotels in the city, otherwise, why specify the Biltmore? When Paul, an educated rabbi, says, "the Church which is His Body ," it is reasonable to accept he implies that there are other churches or another church present which is not "the Church which is His Body."
We all know that Pentecost was one of the annual Jewish feast-days which depict God's redemptive dealings with Israel in the establishment of the Messianic Kingdom. Whatever Pentecost meant, it is evident that it must have had primary, if not exclusive, reference to Israel. Doubtless all will agree that there was a typology connected with the seven annual feasts of Lev. 23. - - - These feasts were given to Israel. It would be unscriptural to say that these feasts of Israel had nothing to do with Israel because God decreed they were: " And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel. ..." ( It makes one go hmmmmmm when some say all of the other six feasts are to Israel, but isolate Pentecost by claiming that this one feast is not!)
Paul's post-Pentecost message teaches that it was because of the casting away of Israel that his message of reconciliation had been sent to the Gentiles. Note: at Pentecost Israel had not yet been cast away. Ro:11:15: "For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?;" Again in Ro:11:32: "For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all." If anything is evident from the record, it is that God had not yet set Israel aside at Pentecost. The fact that Peter's first two sermons are addressed exclusively to Israel should be sufficient proof of this, but there can be no gainsaying of this when Peter plainly declares in Acts 3:26, "Unto you (Israel) first, God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away everyone of you from his iniquities."
Not only was Israel not cast away at Pentecost, but it is here that we find the first real offer of the Kingdom to Israel. It was because of their rejection of the King and the Kingdom that a new dispensation under Paul was ushered in. Many dispensationalists have taught that Christ offered the kingdom to Israel in the Gospels and that they rejected it by crucifying Him. Then, on the day of Pentecost, Israel was set aside and the new Gentile dispensation began. As mentioned above, Israel was still in a covenant dispensation with the Lord at Pentecost.
It is true that the kingdom was preached by Christ as being "at hand" (Matt. 4:17, "From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." and 10:7, "And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand."), but this is not to say that the kingdom could have been offered in the sense that it might have been established before the death of Christ. The prophets testified the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow ( 1 Pet. 1: 11, "Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow."). Christ Himself plainly stated this fact: "But first he must suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation" (Lk. 17:25 cf. Lu:24:26: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?).
And, that the rejection of Christ in His incarnation was not the unpardonable sin is also plainly stated by Christ: "And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him; neither in this world, neither in the world to come" (Matt. 12:32). In fact, that is why Christ prayed for Israel on the Cross: "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do" (Lk. 23:34). And it was because God answered that prayer of His Son that Peter could preach to the very ones who had crucified Jesus the message: "And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled " ( Acts 3: 17 -18 ). And the very next word in the Greek text is "therefore"; (i.e. Acts 3:19-21: Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;:20: And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you::21: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. therefore, because all has been fulfilled regarding His sufferings, if you will repent and be converted, God will send back Jesus Christ.) Here the kingdom is not merely at hand; it is being offered with nothing standing in the way but Israel's continued rejection of Christ. The point is that God's offer to send back Jesus Christ to usher in the times of the restoration of all things would surely have been insincere had He already cast Israel aside and begun a new dispensation.
At Pentecost the believers received water baptism for the remission of sins. There is no record that Paul ever practiced baptism for this purpose. In fact, water baptism was not even apart of his commission: 1Co:1:17: "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect."
At Pentecost there is no indication that the Spirit baptism was forming a new Body. To the contrary it is stated that this baptism resulted in receiving Power from on high (Luke 24:49: "And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high".). This baptism was experiential, resulting in great signs and wonders. The baptism which forms the Body is not experiential. There is no sensation or feeling when the Spirit does this work. At Pentecost Christ was the Baptizer. In 1 Corinthians 12: 13 the Holy Spirit is the Baptizer. (1Co:12:13: For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.) At Pentecost Christ was the Baptizer, baptizing with or in the Holy Spirit. In 1 Corinthians 12: 13 the Holy Spirit is the Baptizer, baptizing into Christ.
Finally, and perhaps the most convincing, is the fact that everything that happened at Pentecost was in direct fulfillment of prophecy. Peter quotes Joel and David in Acts 2, and in Acts 3:24 he says: "Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise forrtold of these days." But Paul says that the truth about the Body of Christ is a "mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but is NOW made manifest to his saints" (Col. 1:24-26). It is very difficult to believe that -- that which every prophet of old predicted is that which had been hidden from ages and generations.
Paul's message and Peter's message were not the same and the baptisms of each were different also. Different enough that Paul in his later ministry came to understand those differences and preached the baptism of the Spirit; not of water.

2Co:1:24: Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.

[Apollos]

Paul was not the only one - Peter DID in fact preach the death, burial, & resurrection of Jesus Christ. This started in Acts 2; begin with verse 22.

Verse 23 tells us Christ was crucified (the death). Verse 24 tells us of His resurrection!! His burial is a given in as much as you cannot be raised up without having been buried, BUT… Verse 27 and verse 31 both tell us His body would not “see corruption” in the grave, indicating that He was indeed buried.

Now Peter’s preaching of the death, burial, & resurrection of Christ may not be in the explicit form that dispensationalists desire, but it cannot be denied that Peter, without question, preached the D/B/&R of the Christ!!! ***Take note that Peter preached the very same thing in Acts 10 to Cornelius !!! To say that only Paul preached the DB&R of Christ shows very shallow research on the topic.
<*>

That Paul DID in fact BAPTIZE (1 Cor. 1) has been more than adequately defended in this thread already ! I regret this has fallen on some deaf ears! Paul and others (*), specifically Apollos and Peter (1:12), were baptizing believers into Christ! While Paul’s primary purpose was to preach (1:17), as there were others who could perform the baptisms, that he was also (water) baptizing cannot be denied with credulity - (1:14,16) ! Paul was glad that he had baptized no more than he had because of the “bragging rights” problem in the church at Corinth (1:13-14).

(* In as much as men were performing these baptisms, we know that HS baptism is not in consideration here.)

Further, as we look in Acts 18:8 (when Paul was actually at Corinth) we see that Crispus & household, as well as many Corinthians were BAPTIZED as a result of Paul’s preaching. The question must be answered – If was Paul not preaching BAPTISM, then why the happenings in verse 8 !!!

But please read forward into Acts 19 with me. Paul goes to Ephesus after leaving Corinth. It is from here that Paul will write 1 Corinthians ~58AD, about 1 year later. We see Paul at Ephesus practicing water baptism by dunking 12 Ephesians in the water.

Paul one year later is still preaching/practicing baptism ”in the name of the Lord Jesus (19:5), which is baptism in WATER (Acts 10:47-48), definitely not HS baptism (Acts 8:16), and the same baptism preached & performed in Acts 2:38!! Does anyone think Paul changed his practice in that last year after leaving Corinth? If so, for what reason??? This WATER baptism is no doubt the reason Paul said that the Corinthians had been “WASHED”, sanctified, and justified in 1 Corinthians 6:11 !

Let’s go further – all the way to jail! In Paul’s prison epistle of Ephesians, Paul continues to affirm up to –5- years later, water baptism as the ONE BAPTISM today. No, not in Ephesians 4:4, but in 5:26. Christ gave Himself for the church, that He might sanctify & cleanse the church, by the WASHING of water, with the word. By the direction of the word (which came from the HS) the church is cleansed by WATER (baptism) !

So when we come to 1 Corinthians 12:13, HS baptism is not even in consideration for what Paul teaches & practices!! It is by the direction of the HS (via the word) that we are (water) baptized into the one body! This is why Paul says that the Corinthians had been “washed” in 1 Cor. 6:11. This interpretation alone is consistent with Paul’s preaching & practice !!!

Baptism “in the name” or by the authority of Christ (cf. Acts 4:7,12) was given in Matthew 28:18f. This baptism only was authorized by the resurrected Savior just before His ascent into heaven. This was the one (water) baptism He authorized for His disciples to preach & practice! There is none other today!

I will have a few words to say about “the mystery”, and then Romans 6, in my next 2 posts.

[John Reece]

Dub_E_U,

Your entire thesis falls apart when the following translation is subjected to exegesis:


1Co:12:13: For by [en - JR] one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

From Alfred Plummer and Archibald Robertson, The First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians (ICC):

13. kai gar en eni Pneumati. The ‘one body’ suggests the ‘one Spirit,’ for it is in a body that the spirit has a field for its operations. ‘For in one Spirit also we all were baptized so as to form one body.’ An additional reason . . . for the oneness of the many. The Spirit is the element in (en) which the baptism takes place, and the one body is the end to (eiV) which the act is directed . . .

The above exegesis is supported by G.G. Findley (The Expositor’s Greek Testament), Gordon Fee (NICNT), Charles J. Ellicott (A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul’s First Epistle), F. F. Bruce (1 & 2 Corinthians), D. A. Carson (Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14), and C. K. Barrett (The First Epistle to the Corinthians [Black’s New Testament Commentary]).

I would be surprised if any reputable Greek exegete supports the interpretation presented in your post # 39 above.

Blessings,

John

Edited to correct punctuation

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 05:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102493#post102493)
John Reece:

Dub_E_U,

Your entire thesis falls apart when the following translation is subjected to exegesis:


1Co:12:13: For by [en - JR] one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

From Alfred Plummer and Archibald Robertson, The First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians (ICC).

13. kai gar en eni Pneumati. The ‘one body’ suggests the ‘one Spirit,’ for it is in a body that the spirit has a field for its operations. ‘For in one Spirit also we all were baptized so as to form one body.’ An additional reason . . . for the oneness of the many. The Spirit is the element in (en) which the baptism takes place, and the one body is the end to (eiV) which the act is directed . . .

The above exegesis is supported by G.G. Findley (The Expositor’s Greek Testament), Gordon Fee (NICNT), Charles J. Ellicott (A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul’s First Epistle), F. F. Bruce (1 &amp; 2 Corinthians), D. A. Carson (Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14), and C. K. Barrett (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, [Black’s New Testament Commentary]).

I would be surprised if any reputable Greek exegete supports the interpretation presented in your post # 39 above.

Blessings,

John

Nice post John. Very to the point and conclusive. That one will be difficult to get around:thumb:


Russ

[John Reece]

Today @ 10:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102508#post102508)
steadele:

Nice post John. Very to the point and conclusive. That one will be difficult to get around:thumb:

Russ

Thanks, Russ.

I predict: my post will not pierce any presuppositions, because they are impervious to facts, logic, and sound exegesis (that's a prediction re which I'd love to be proven wrong :smile: ).

John

[doogieduff]

Yesterday @ 11:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101874#post101874)
Socrates:


He also teaches more than one way of salvation. But the Bible is clear that people have always been saved by grace through faith — Paul in Rom. 4 cites Gen. 15:6: ‘Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.’


We're not teaching more than one way for salvation per se. We believe God asked man to show his faith in different ways. Like you've just shown. Abram was not saved by believeing in Jesus DBR, rather that he trusted in God that his descendants would be like the stars. Noah wasn't saved by believeing in Jesus DBR. Rather, Hebrews 11 tells us that he was saved by building an ark by faith.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 02:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102473#post102473)
Apollos:

Paul was not the only one - Peter DID in fact preach the death, burial, &amp; resurrection of Jesus Christ. This started in Acts 2; begin with verse 22.

He didn't preach the DBR for salvation. That's my point. Read Acts 2:38 to see what Peter DID preach for salvation.



Now Peter’s preaching of the death, burial, &amp; resurrection of Christ may not be in the explicit form that dispensationalists desire, but it cannot be denied that Peter, without question, preached the D/B/&amp;R of the Christ!!!

NOT FOR SALVATION!



***Take note that Peter preached the very same thing in Acts 10 to Cornelius !!! To say that only Paul preached the DB&amp;R of Christ shows very shallow research on the topic.
&lt;*&gt;

Are we reading the same Bible? Peter preached baptism for salvation in Acts 10, just like every other time he taught.

Acts10:34-35
34 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality.
35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.

Is this what you teach, that those who "work righteousness" are accepted by Him? I know I don't, and Paul didn't either.

Acts 10:47-48
47 "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

Hmmmm....commanded them to be baptized. Where did Paul ever COMMAND someone to be baptized?

[Apollos]

Doggie-

Paul was not the only one - Peter DID in fact preach the death, burial, & resurrection of Jesus Christ. This started in Acts 2; begin with verse 22. You said -


He didn't preach the DBR for salvation. That's my point. Read Acts 2:38 to see what Peter DID preach for salvation.

You struggle mightily to attempt to make a distinction where there is no difference. After this preaching, the end result was WHAT SHALL WE DO? (Do to be what?) SAVED!! After this question Peter told them WHAT to DO to be saved. Peter had already preached to them what to BELIEVE!

So YES, it was FOR salvation !!! The same thing happened in Acts 10 !

That you do not recognize how “works” are involved in man’s salvation makes you short-sighted to the truth of God’s will.

Please note that you made no attempt to reconcile your beliefs with the preaching and practice of Paul through his visit to prison! I know you cannot answer the arguments, but I thought you would at least make a futile attempt. Paul DID tell us that there are things that man is required to do to be saved.

Is it recorded in the NT that Paul “commanded” water baptism? No, but then perhaps he was too busy actually performing water baptism (Acts 19 !!!) to get that written down. How convenient for you to overlook Paul’s PRACTICE. (Your disingenuity is showing doogie!!)

Let me know if you want to attempt to reconcile your beliefs with Paul’s preaching & practice. (Sorry to be so brusk with you, but all bad doggies should have their noses rubbed in “it” !)

[Apollos]

JR –

I must take exception to your “exegesis” of 1 Corinthians 12:13. It has too much eisogesis to be acceptable. (Not that I agree with Dub-E-U above in post #39.)


From Plummer/Robertson - The ‘one body’ suggests the ‘one Spirit,’ for it is in a body that the spirit has a field for its operations.

In what way(s) does the “one body” suggest the “one Spirit”? What does this mean? Because this passage is speaking about one outside the body being baptized into the body, the “field” of operation for the Spirit is not limited to just within the “one body”. Do you think P&R ever realized this?

I agree that we are all baptized to form “one body”. There is only one body in which to be baptized into to. I disagree with the element that you think we are baptized with.
The element is water, not the Spirit, although it is BY the Spirit’s direction (via the word) we are water baptized into that one body – cf. Eph. 5:26. (Yes, please see my post #40 above.)

HS baptism was the result of promise & prophecy, and happened only twice in the NT. This was never commanded and it was never for remission of sins!

[doogieduff]

Today @ 09:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103229#post103229)
Apollos:

Doggie-

Paul was not the only one - Peter DID in fact preach the death, burial, &amp; resurrection of Jesus Christ. This started in Acts 2; begin with verse 22. You said -

He didn't preach belief in it for salvation, that's my point. It was common knowledge that Jesus DBR saved, but only those who showed to faith to God in the wau that He asked. He asked them to repent and be baptized!




You struggle mightily to attempt to make a distinction where there is no difference. After this preaching, the end result was WHAT SHALL WE DO? (Do to be what?) SAVED!! After this question Peter told them WHAT to DO to be saved. Peter had already preached to them what to BELIEVE!

So YES, it was FOR salvation !!! The same thing happened in Acts 10 !

That you do not recognize how “works” are involved in man’s salvation makes you short-sighted to the truth of God’s will.

What works must I do to be saved?



Please note that you made no attempt to reconcile your beliefs with the preaching and practice of Paul through his visit to prison! I know you cannot answer the arguments, but I thought you would at least make a futile attempt. Paul DID tell us that there are things that man is required to do to be saved.

Is it recorded in the NT that Paul “commanded” water baptism? No, but then perhaps he was too busy actually performing water baptism (Acts 19 !!!) to get that written down. How convenient for you to overlook Paul’s PRACTICE. (Your disingenuity is showing doogie!!)

Let me know if you want to attempt to reconcile your beliefs with Paul’s preaching &amp; practice. (Sorry to be so brusk with you, but all bad doggies should have their noses rubbed in “it” !)

This is a whole other can of worms, but very much an important part. Paul was the first to recieve the "mystery" which is that Gentiles are now fellow heirs of the same promise in Christ, and that baptism was no longer necessary as an act of faith to God for salvation. Just belief in Jesus DBR. So....it was common knowledge to all what to do to be saved. Just because Paul recieved this new revelation through Jesus Christ (Gal.1) that was hidden from the ages (Eph. 3) didn't mean everybody knew about it right away. In fact, I don't think the 12 ever really got it. Actually, Jesus Christ slowly revealed this "mystery" to Paul. Paul spoke this new gospel in private (Gal. 2:2) because he knew it was so diifferent than that known by everyone else, and preaching something alone would be quite heretical. Once again, baptism was common practice, and people knew it as such, so Paul had no problem baptizing as he knew it was that very culture and an abrupt change would definitely look bad. After Acts 9, people started recieving the indwelling Holy Spirit before baptism and after belief. I leave it up to you to tell me why. Peter was awfully surprised that this happened, yet still commanded "works righteousness" and baptism, because he knew no diifferent.

[Apollos]

doggieduff -

Thanks again for your reply.

Peter in Acts 2 DID preach the D-B-R of Christ (belief in) FOR salvation. If you think he did not, please explain what Peter was preaching for salvation. This is the crux of the sermon he preached that day. These very facts (the D-B-R) brought that assembly to ask him, -What shall we do (to be saved) ??!! For we are responsible for crucifying the son of God, and he is resurrected.-

If you want to say that it was “in the way” Paul asked people to “show their faith” that was different from Peter, you have a lot to explain, especially in light of my post of 05/20/03 - #40. Peter & Paul taught and practiced the same thing – baptism in the name of Christ for the remission of sins! Belief in the D-B-R is a prerequisite to this baptism.


What works must I do to be saved?First ask yourself a question.

Must man do anything/something to be saved? Unless you are a Calvinist that believes someday/somewhere the Spirit will “zap” you and you will be saved irresistably, you had better answer YES!

We know all men will not be saved – Matthew 7:14. So what is the DIFFERENCE between those that will receive salvation from God and those that will not? The answer is: Those men that DO something in respect to their salvation are the ones that will receive salvation. What they must DO is what God tells them to do to receive that salvation!

This is the point where you and I will differ – not before. YOU believe man must DO something to be saved, although I predict you will attempt to continue to deny it through some type of “faith only” diversion.

Would YOU say that man must REPENT (Acts 17:30) ?? Would YOU say that man must CONFESS Jesus as the son of God (Romans 10:10) Must man BELIEVE (John 6:29) ??

So what “works” must one do to be saved doggie ??

I say that man must believe, repent, confess, and then be baptized in water, which is for the remission of sins. It is at this point that man receives salvation from God and not before. Water baptism is the means through which man appropriates the salvation which God offers man through His grace.

Now some others I know want to include prayer in their list of “works” that predicate salvation, but I can find no scriptural warrant for this practice. I find the so-called “sinner’s prayer” particularly objectionable because this creation of man cannot be found in scripture.

Finally, I must object to your last paragraph. I cannot accept that the HS allowed Paul to continue to practice error for the sake of appearances. For you to say that Paul continued to practice water baptism for the remission of sins when such was no longer the truth makes both the HS and Paul the worst of hypocrites!!! And although revelation was progressive, the HS was well aware of all truth at the beginning of revelation and was guiding the apostles into ALL truth as promised. There was no need and no possibility for “error”, nevertheless “appearances”, to play a part in the gospel revelation.


Paul was the first to recieve the "mystery"… Baloney! You cannot prove this!


baptism was no longer necessary as an act of faith to God for salvation. Conjecture!


Just belief in Jesus DBR. The Bible does not teach “faith only” and YOUdo not believe it anyway – see above!


After Acts 9, people started recieving the indwelling Holy Spirit before baptism and after belief. Scripture will not support this thought!


I leave it up to you to tell me why. Peter was awfully surprised that this happened…[HS baptism in Acts 10]
Peter was surprised because HS baptism had occurred only ONCE before, 10 years before in fact – in Acts 2 – see Acts 11:15-16.

This “miracle” was confirmation (all such miraculous occurrences were confirmation) of God’s revelation which began in the first part of Acts 10. This was that the Gentiles ALSO were to be included in God’s plan of salvation – see Acts 11:18. This is the “mystery”, that ALL men, not just the Jews, were to be saved by the D-B-R of Christ!

This is the fact of the only, the one, true gospel of Christ.