ECT Acts realism vs MAD theoretics: Acts 16:3

SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
the difficulty STP is that 'from above' (anothen) is a little tricky to translate. 3:28 shows that it's got to mean from heaven. That seems so obvious until we realize that Nic immediately went to human birth to respond to what was being said. As a Pharisee he must have aggressively believed that birth determined all; is that why 1:13 is so pointed, so quickly in the account? If so, then lineage from Israel is completely decimated, isn't it?

We know he began talking here as spiritually dead. But notice where his Judaism takes him to solve this problem. MOST OF THE NT IS WRITTEN TO DEAL WITH JUDAISM, TO CLARIFY CHRISTIAN TRUTH VS. JUDAISM.

Ie, it is spiritually dead to say that lineage or ancestry has anything to do with being a Christian, which is why I fight 2P2P, which insists that God operates both ways, bipolarly.
Click to expand...

Huh?
 
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Interplanner said:
I don't believe it was because of a doctrine that Paul believed. I think it was strategic: to get him the audience with Roman officials through controversy with Judaism. And you have to pick your fights.
Click to expand...
So ironic.
  1. Titus wasn't.
  2. Your argument can be used in regard to why certain people were baptized.

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.
-1 Corinthians 9:19-23

These are reasons why you don't generate doctrine from unfolding historic records like Acts, unless it is clearly supported in the doctrinal part of a letter.
Click to expand...
Like Paul and baptism?

Right Divider said:
:eek: Matthew 20:22-23 :cigar:
Click to expand...
That's better.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Lighthouse said:
So ironic.
  1. Titus wasn't.
  2. Your argument can be used in regard to why certain people were baptized.

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.
-1 Corinthians 9:19-23


Like Paul and baptism?


That's better.
Click to expand...



Titus wasn't what?

It's the doctrine Paul taught not his practice in Acts that endures as NT doctrine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top