There was no prohibition against it.Why did Paul ever bother water baptizing anyone then?
If you're going to make claims back them up.:dead: Bad theology, bad exegesis.
There was no prohibition against it.Why did Paul ever bother water baptizing anyone then?
If you're going to make claims back them up.:dead: Bad theology, bad exegesis.
Maybe I'm the only one who acknowledges the can of worms that opens up. I know it's a commonly held notion...but the whole thing is ridiculous considering that there are no original manuscripts.
Do you also question the works included in the canon, or are sixty-six books the right number?
There was no prohibition against it.
That there is no prohibition against doing something is not a reason to do it.
You are going to see his normal argument more often. His normal argument is that it doesn't mean what it says. Then he will not say what it (Paul) really means.
Israel had a commission. Paul was called into service, but in a different direction. Not all was revealed from the beginning.
Acts 26:16
16 But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you.
Acts 26:16 is simply part of Paul's retelling to Governor Felix of the account of his conversion in Acts 9. Of course, it goes without saying that much was revealed to Paul in the years after his conversion.
Paul was baptized himself, and Paul baptized others. Where in the book of Acts or in any of Paul's epistles is it stated that water baptism has been abolished?
Paul clearly baptized, was baptized, supported baptism. The one proof text MAD uses simply shows that Paul did not personally baptize all of his converts (left it to others to do like Billy Graham does). The verse proves baptismal regeneration is false, not that the practice of identifying publicly with Christ and His Church no longer applies. Too many were exalting and following Paul, so he was wise to not let them create factions over the great Paul baptizing them, but not the other guy (context of I Cor. 1).
MAD relies on flimsy proof texting out of context. The above is one of many e.g. (e.g. Gal. 2:7 demarcation of ministry vs two gospels; I Tim. chief hyperbolic sinner, not first in Body of Christ, etc.; Acts 15 Paul and Jerusalem church standing against false Judaizers, not a new gospel supplanting another true one).
There you go again failing to recognize that two gospels were preached one to the Jew, one to the Gentile.
One gospel was preached to Jews, Gentiles (Africans, Muslims, Chinese, Europeans, South and North Americans, etc.) post-cross. This one gospel is the power of God and the one that makes Jew/Gentile one in Christ based on the ONE cross, one God, ONE Christ, one gospel, one shed blood, etc.
Your caste system with a faith+works gospel to Jews cannot be a true gospel nor a true dispensational view. You confuse issues with national, eschatological Israel and individual, personal soteriological issues (gospel is grace/faith, not works, person and work of Christ alone).
You have a wrong paradigm, a wrong disp view, a defective theology with proof texting out of context.
Go back to your roots. You have fallen for a fad.:deadhorse:
There you go again failing to recognize that two gospels were preached one to the Jew, one to the Gentile.
We have examples of Paul's preaching the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles throughout the book of Acts. Direct quotes. How did Paul's preaching of the gospel to the Jews differ from his preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles?
Not to get off point but is your Open View a fad? Answer the question and we'll get back on point.
We have examples of Paul's preaching the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles throughout the book of Acts. Direct quotes. How did Paul's preaching of the gospel to the Jews differ from his preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles?
I think you probably have to look at it according to Galatians 2:7. Can you see the difference from Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 15?
We have examples of Paul's preaching the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles throughout the book of Acts. Direct quotes. How did Paul's preaching of the gospel to the Jews differ from his preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles?
I think you probably have to look at it according to Galatians 2:7. Can you see the difference from Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 15?
We have examples of Paul's preaching the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles throughout the book of Acts. Direct quotes. How did Paul's preaching of the gospel to the Jews differ from his preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles?
One gospel was preached to Jews, Gentiles (Africans, Muslims, Chinese, Europeans, South and North Americans, etc.) post-cross. This one gospel is the power of God and the one that makes Jew/Gentile one in Christ based on the ONE cross, one God, ONE Christ, one gospel, one shed blood, etc.
Your caste system with a faith+works gospel to Jews cannot be a true gospel nor a true dispensational view. You confuse issues with national, eschatological Israel and individual, personal soteriological issues (gospel is grace/faith, not works, person and work of Christ alone).
You have a wrong paradigm, a wrong disp view, a defective theology with proof texting out of context.
Go back to your roots. You have fallen for a fad.:deadhorse:
Hi , and why beat around the bush , JUST where in Acts 2 is the beginning of Acts 2 dispensationism ??
How can you connect it to Paul ??
I do not see the word OKIONOMIA /DISPENSATION in Acts 2 , so where is it ??
dan p
dan p