ECT Ism Shism
- Thread starter Danoh
- Start date
"HisServant
New member
He is half right.... water baptism is not needed today... but is primary usage back then was no necessarily for identification purposes.
The meaning of baptizo is to change the very structure, essence of something into another thing.
In the sense that when a cucumber is baptized in vinegar it is no longer a cucumber but a pickle. And when a blacksmith baptizes hot iron in oil or water to quench it, the very fundamental structure of the iron is changed.
In much the same way, when the Holy Spirit baptizes us, he fundamentally changes us.... something that a simple washing with water can never do.
turbosixx
New member
I don't believe you're looking at the context. I assume you believe when a person believes the gospel at that moment they're baptized by the Holy Spirit. Is that correct??
If so, then that doesn't agree with the context. Let's take a look.
Acts 19:1 It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples.
Paul then asks these disciples if they received the HS when they believed. Why would he ask this question if the HS is given at the moment of belief??
2 He said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit."
Now he could be talking about spiritual gifts, which I believe are given through the apostles hands. So for arguments sake, let's say that's what he is talking about here.
When he finds out they did even know about the HS, what does he question?? What they believed?? IF the believed?? The gospel they were taught??
NO, he questions their baptism. Now why would Paul question their baptism if he knows the HS does the baptizing ????
3 And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, "Into John's baptism."
Last edited:
turbosixx
New member
Not sure where you're getting your definition. I have heard that before but I believe it's based on the process of dying material. The material is changed by the dye but not the dipping. Material can be dipped in water without dye and it doesn't change.
Here is Strongs.
baptizó: to dip, sink
Original Word: βαπτίζω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: baptizó
Phonetic Spelling: (bap-tid'-zo)
Short Definition: I dip, submerge, baptize
Definition: lit: I dip, submerge, but specifically of ceremonial dipping; I baptize.
Why do you say it's not needed today? It's what Jesus instructed, it's what he apostles taught and it's what the people did in response to the gospel.
Last edited:
turbosixx
New member
It is water and is Jesus' instructions on how to make people Christians, baptize them in his name.
Matt. 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
It was done at Pentecost in accordance to the words of my Lord and Savior.
Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Paul agrees with and practiced people being "baptized in the name of"
1 Cor. 1:13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name.
When Cornelius really was baptized by the HS, was that being baptized in the name of Jesus? NO.
Acts 10:48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.
You say verse 5 is Holy Spirit baptism. If so then why did Paul have to lay hands on them in verse 6??
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.
The Holy Spirit needs Paul's hands?? Do we need Paul's hands today in order to be baptized by the Holy Spirit?
NO, verse 5 is the same as we see in Matt. 28, Acts 2 and 10.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Again you're adding words. They were baptized in verse 5 not 6. If we need Paul's hands we're in trouble.
Last edited:
turbosixx
New member
If you look at ch. 18 you will see what these people were taught. They were taught Jesus accurately with ONE exception, baptism.
If water baptism isn't part of the gospel and the HS does the baptizing once someone believes the gospel, why would it matter they were baptized in John's baptism???
Acts 18:24 Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. 25 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John;
HisServant
New member
I would disagree with Strongs definition here based on the usage of the word in chronological consistent texts outside of scripture which use the same word and it has a different meaning.
Does one dip a cucumber into vinegar to make it a pickle for ceremonial reasons?... the same with quenching hot iron
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I concur. He baptized until he was sent not to baptize.
Right Divider
Body part
In numerous posts, you have claimed that you are open to learning. But every attempt to teach you falls on deaf ears.
You need to learn that God has revealed His will progressively and NOT all at once.
Read it with an understanding of WHO and WHAT was going on here:
Act 18:24-28 KJV And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. (25) This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. (26) And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. (27) And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace: (28) For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.
That Jesus was Christ is a simple fact that unbelieving Israel rejected.
The Book of the Acts of the apostles is a detailed description of the FALL of Israel and NOT the "beginning of the church".
This is even clearly should right up to the END of the book:
Act 28:23-31 KJV And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening. (24) And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not. (25) And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, (26) Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: (27) For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. (28) Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it. (29) And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves. (30) And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, (31) Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
All Paul is saying here is that Gentiles will hear the salvation of God.
It does not say, never again did a Jew come to his house.
This in no wise proves a date for the beginning of a time dispensation.
Paul was under house arrest he wasn't sent to anyone from there.
The unbelieving Jews balked just like Dispies balk at the idea that Gentiles were fellow citizens of God's Israel.
Right Divider
Body part
I didn't say that it said that.
I didn't say that it did.
Is there a point to this statement? or this whole post?
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Delete
Last edited:
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
turbosixx
New member
Last edited:
Words derive their intended sense by how they are used, where they are found being used.
Because this is the case, often, the same subject and or principle discussed elsewhere though absent of the word in question can nevertheless greatly help in solving for the intended sense of the particular word one is attempting to get at the intended sense of.
Note, for example, John's mention of three different baptisms - do all three refer to the same kind of action?
Further, note John's perception of all three is having to do with Identification, by how he bring out what he does about the third baptism, of the three he mentions there.
Note the issue of separation; which is exactly that; the issue of separating, or identifying, the wheat from the chaff...
Luke 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: 3:17 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.
Another passage..
Num 19:7 Then the priest shall wash his clothes, and he shall bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he shall come into the camp, and the priest shall be unclean until the even. 19:8 And he that burneth her shall wash his clothes in water, and bathe his flesh in water, and shall be unclean until the even. 19:9 And a man that is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and lay them up without the camp in a clean place, and it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water of separation: it is a purification for sin.
How words are being used, where they are being used, in relation to what is being addressed, together with their shared relationship in meaning with other words where a similar issue is being addressed - all that together - helps bring out the intended sense of most any word in Scripture.
Without Strong's; Vine's, Green, or whomever.
How?
Its very simple, really - "not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual" 1 Cor. 2:13.
Because this is the case, often, the same subject and or principle discussed elsewhere though absent of the word in question can nevertheless greatly help in solving for the intended sense of the particular word one is attempting to get at the intended sense of.
Note, for example, John's mention of three different baptisms - do all three refer to the same kind of action?
Further, note John's perception of all three is having to do with Identification, by how he bring out what he does about the third baptism, of the three he mentions there.
Note the issue of separation; which is exactly that; the issue of separating, or identifying, the wheat from the chaff...
Luke 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: 3:17 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.
Another passage..
Num 19:7 Then the priest shall wash his clothes, and he shall bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he shall come into the camp, and the priest shall be unclean until the even. 19:8 And he that burneth her shall wash his clothes in water, and bathe his flesh in water, and shall be unclean until the even. 19:9 And a man that is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and lay them up without the camp in a clean place, and it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water of separation: it is a purification for sin.
How words are being used, where they are being used, in relation to what is being addressed, together with their shared relationship in meaning with other words where a similar issue is being addressed - all that together - helps bring out the intended sense of most any word in Scripture.
Without Strong's; Vine's, Green, or whomever.
How?
Its very simple, really - "not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual" 1 Cor. 2:13.
turbosixx
New member
I am trying to understand but until I can resolve the problems I see in the reasoning, I will appear to be deaf to you.
This is one of the problems. I'm told Paul was the first and the pattern. Then I'm told we can't look at his practice of baptizing believers because he didn't get the truth of the gospel all at once. Acts 19 is on his LAST missionary journey. When did he learn baptism isn't necessary? After he had finished traveling the known world teaching a gospel that included baptizing believers? The evidence isn't backing up the claim.
I do understand. Apollos taught souls Jesus, NKJV says accurately taught Jesus. Is Jesus not the gospel? He taught Jesus except for one detail, baptism.
(25) This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
If baptism isn't part of the gospel, why did Paul baptize them again "in the name of Jesus"?
BINGO, unbelieving. It doesn't matter Jew or Greek, only the believers are true Israel. 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.
God didn't reject the Jews.
Rom. 11:1 I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew...... 5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice.
They rejected salvation.
Acts 13:46 Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, "It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.
Again, those in Christ are true Israel, not Israel of the flesh.
Phil. 3:2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; 3 for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh,
Yes, Paul continued to work with Jews. Did he preach something different to them than he did the Gentiles?
Look what he says to them.
Act 28:23-31 KJV And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.
Paul continued to preach the kingdom and he uses kingdom interchangeably with the church just as Jesus did.
Acts 20:25 "And now, behold, I know that all of you, among whom I went about preaching the kingdom, will no longer see my face.....28 Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
Matt. 16:18 I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven;
Right Divider
Body part
Your best post to date.
turbosixx
New member
I agree we need to look at how it's used to get a better understanding of the meaning of the word. I don't see how we can say that baptism changes. In Acts 19 these disciples were baptized after believing Jesus but it didn't change them. Paul had to baptize them again.
As far as baptism changing, I like to use Namaan as an example. He was told to "dip" in the Jordon seven times. The dipping didn't cleanse his leprosy but his obedience did. He could have dipped six times but that wouldn't have changed him.
Again, your heart seems right, its how you are looking at things, on contrast to how others are, that is resulting in a difference.
Its the same not only within any belief system, but within any school within any belief system - Newton and Einstein would have rung each other's neck, lol
In this, I have to commend you for your patience in the face of being talked down to so often by one expert in one shade or another in the gospel of, get this - grace.
Hang in there.
In the immortal words of Speed Racer "you'll see it through..." lol