Water Baptism passed away in this dispensation

Pettrix

BANNED
Banned
Gal 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Gal 1:20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.

Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Gal 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Gal 1:20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.

Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

So? Paul was taught the gospel directly by the Lord apart from the Jerusalem church. It does not mean that it is a different gospel.

Paul opposed Peter on some legalistic things, not in rejecting your imaginary circ. vs uncirc. gospel. You are proof texting again. These verses do not prove a two NT gospel theory after the cross. They are about Paul's unique experience with the risen Christ. The experience was different than the others, but the gospel was not. Paul certainly clarified and expanded on things, but he was not the originator of the gospel of Christ (Jesus and the Spirit were before Paul and the other leaders were already growing in their understanding parallel with Paul's maturation before being released into missions).
 

thelaqachisnext

BANNED
Banned
Paul's revelation of Jesus Christ quite blinded him, and the risen LORD who revealed Himself to Paul as "Jesus, whom you persecute" told Saul to go into Damascus and there it would be told him what to do -when Saul asked.

Jesus "sent" [the "apostle" word] Ananais to Saul to tell him what he was appointed to do for the name of Jesus.

Saul preached Jesus, only, and the Churches had rest from the persecution.

Then Barnabas, one of the 70 appointed disciples of the LORD -who was commissioned by the LORD to go make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in water in the name of Jesus, went to get Saul and brought him to Antioch, to fellowship among the mostly Gentile converts there, for some time.


With the Judaizing attempts of the Gentiles, by Messianic Jews, the Antiochian Church commissioned Barnabas and Saul to go to Jerusalem to get the matter settled before the Elders and Apostles there.
Acts 15 shows the freedom the born again in Spirit Gentiles have to be members of the One Church with the born again in Spirit Jews, decided by the Church council using Apostlic authority, with the Holy Spirit's communion to them on the subject.

Saul spoke thereafter with the authority of that decision of the Apostles of the Foundation of the One church.

Barnabas was Saul's elected by the LORD companion, and also "Apostled" at the same time Saul was sent by the Antiochian Church to the Gentiles to whom the Holy Spirit had called them.
When Barnabas and Paul split because of Paul's hissy fit over taking John Mark with them, Saul had the disciple Silas, a chief one among the Jerusalem Church Elders to go with him....

At not one single time did Paul depart the One Faith, Once Delivered to the Saints....and at no time was Paul without companions who were close to the LORD Jesus in His days of "Flesh", for Paul knew nothing but what they reported of the details of Jesus' life and commands, and was obedient to the One Faith, and taught obedience to the One Faith among the Gentiles -with Barnabas, Silas, and others -even with Timothy [the Jew whom he circumcised withe his own hands after the Jerusalem Church council settling of the issue of Gentiles being circumcised or not and coming under Moses or not].


Paul only preached the Hebrew Gospel, the Salvation which is "of the Jews" to the Gentiles. All his Greek words translate back to the Hebrew words of the One Work of the Person of the LORD Jesus Christ, as oracled in the Law, fulfilled in Christ Jesus.

MAD is without understanding of the Gospel in the OT as revealed in the NT, but Paul the Apostle understood and preached only the Atonement =Reconciliation, of all Gentiles, as the OT teaches, in the blood of sprinkling on the Mercy Seat body of the "New Man, as the Kinsman to Adam and the Head of the second human being Man creation.
 

Servo

Formerly Shimei!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Any one of us could get up and call the gospel of Christ 'my gospel'. If Billy Graham heralds that 'my gospel will set you free' do you assume he has invented a new gospel exclusive to himself? Why make a big doctrine based on a personal pronoun? I can also tell people that my gospel is the truth and will lead to eternal life. Does that mean my gospel is different than Paul's gospel?

Very weak argument. A real stretch.

I am not impressed with the proof testing to support your minority view.
Ok. So what?

Also, since when has the majority been correct?

Paul preached Christ crucified, risen from the dead, salvation by grace through faith. Guess what? This is what Peter, James, and John preached after the resurrection. Take off your blinders.

I did. Plus I can read and comprehend. You are the one wearing the blinders. And your arrogance is getting a little boring.

Paul had a unique ministry, not a foreign gospel. Just because some apostles had baggage or an imperfect understanding does not mean there are two NT gospels for a limited people and a limited time after the cross.

You have no argument here. There are hundreds of seemly contradictory verses that you will have to make up some excuse for. Wouldn’t it be easier to just take the verses for what they say?
 

Servo

Formerly Shimei!
LIFETIME MEMBER
But, the answer to your question is that the “mainly Gentile” Antiochian Fellowship “commissioned Barnabas and Saul” by the “laying on of hands and sending them forth”, as the Holy Spirit gave them the unction to do, and sent them both as “apostles” “to the Work which He had called both of them“, together.
-And Paul only preached the One Gospel of Jesus Christ, not some new secret different strange thing which had no foundation in Scripture, which MAD falsely claims.

Really. What are you talking about? A new secret different strange thing?
You really make no sense and you have never directly answered one of my questions.
 

Servo

Formerly Shimei!
LIFETIME MEMBER
There is a difference between Jewish ritual baptisms and NT Church Age believer's baptism. It was the command of Christ and the practice of the early church in Acts. It is a public witness and identification with the Church. God often used symbols with His people in the OT. A point of obedience in the NT is an expression of faith. Since Jesus, Peter, Paul and others taught and practiced it, why are you rationalizing it away?

Paul was not that concerned with it. Just the water baptism fanatics are.

1 Corinthians 1:17
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.
 

thelaqachisnext

BANNED
Banned
Really. What are you talking about? A new secret different strange thing?
You really make no sense and you have never directly answered one of my questions.

If you do not read Scripture for yourself then the Scripture is strange to you.
I urge you to put down the MAD doctrine handbooks and begin to read the whole Word of God and obey the LORD Jesus Christ, who sent Barnabas together with Saul, as Apostles" "to the Gentiles.
Barnabas was one of the 70, and was called to "go make disciples of all Gentiles, commanding them to be water baptized in the Name of the One Faith, Once delivered to the Saints. Jesus sent Barnabas and Saul as called "Apostles" to the Gentiles -but MAD hasn't a clue to that Bible truth in their false doctrine.

I already posted the Scriptures showing that fact http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1415940&postcount=477, but you have blinders on and will not believe the Truth of the Word of God.
Mad is false doctrine not found in Scripture, and Scripture contradicts Mad at every turn and twist of the wrestings of Paul's writings by MAD handbooks, which you parrot.



Act 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
Act 13:2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
```
Act 13:43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
Act 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
Act 14:14 [Which] when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard [of], they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,



 

Servo

Formerly Shimei!
LIFETIME MEMBER
If you do not read Scripture for yourself then the Scripture is strange to you.
I urge you to put down the MAD doctrine handbooks and begin to read the whole Word of God and obey the LORD Jesus Christ, who sent Barnabas together with Saul, as Apostles" "to the Gentiles.

How on Earth would you know what I have done and what I have read?

What exactly are you trying to say about Barnabas? I urge you to start having a point.

BTW, again, who commissioned Paul to be the apostle to the gentiles? Answer a simple question for once.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
I did. Plus I can read and comprehend. You are the one wearing the blinders. And your arrogance is getting a little boring.



You have no argument here. There are hundreds of seemly contradictory verses that you will have to make up some excuse for. Wouldn’t it be easier to just take the verses for what they say?


If I come across with conviction and love for truth and disdain for heresy, so be it. I really do not want to be arrogant though.

I took a college level course on alleged problem texts years ago. We wrote papers on these texts. Apologists have resolved all of these apparent contradictions WITHOUT Mid-Acts theology.

I do not find contradictions when I read the Bible from an Acts 2 perspective. You are making a straw man mountain out of a molehill. The problem is sloppy exegesis, not failing to have the Mid-Acts key.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Paul was not that concerned with it. Just the water baptism fanatics are.

1 Corinthians 1:17
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.


I use this same verse as an argument against baptismal regeneration. Water baptism is not a condition of salvation in any dispensation. The gospel of the person and work of Christ is not water-centered. It is blood-centered. Paul believed in baptism, but did not believe it was a condition of salvation. You wrongly proof text this verse to try to make Paul anti-baptism. At best, all it is saying is that he did not baptize but left it to others to do (even as most evangelists do today who preach the gospel and teach converts to be baptized).

Mormons and UPC proof text some verses as teaching baptismal regeneration. You use them to suggest that only circ. needed to be baptized. You are both wrong.

Paul was NOT opposed to baptism, but neither did he believe it was a condition of salvation. Paul was baptized by water (Acts 9:18; 22:16) and he taught the significance and importance of it (Rom. 6:3, 4; Col. 2:12). He even admits, in this passage, to baptizing several people (I Cor. 1:14-16 cf. jailer in Acts 16:31-33).

Paul believed baptism was a symbol of salvation, but not a part of the gospel essential to salvation. It was the normative practice of the early church, including under Paul, so great detail is not given in letters that were issue oriented (not rehashing things that were widely accepted).

See...proper exegesis in light of all the Bible negates the need for false Mid-Acts assumptions based on proof texts isolated from all the NT).

If Paul was baptized and baptized others in obedience to the Lord's command, who are you to try to dispensationalize it away based on a misunderstanding of this verse?
 

bling

Member
This seems to be going back and forth with the same “proof texts”. How do you explain the Samaritans and Jesus sermon to them for two days? Samaritans were definitely not Jews and did not consider themselves Jews. The Jew’s thought of Samaritans as being less then Gentiles since they were half breeds at best. They were most likely circumcised and used the Old Testament as their scripture, but they did not follow any of the temple practices. Christ went to the Samaritans preaching John 4: …a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

The Samaritan worship was not the Jewish worship, but a time was coming… When did that time come?
What were the Samaritans taught about temple worship by Christians before Paul came along?
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
John's gospel is directed at believers and is written so that unbelievers would believe in the Son of God. It does NOT teach the necessity of baptism for salvation. It does contrast belief vs unbelief.
Jn. 1:12; 3:16, 36; I Jn. 5:11-13, etc. are fully consistent with Pauline thought and contrary to Mid-Acts assumptions about circ. vs uncirc. John and Paul based their gospel (after the cross) on the teachings of the Master. Paul was not given a gospel different from what the Jerusalem church preached after Pentecost. There is one gospel (Jude 3), not two gospels in the NT after the resurrection and birth of the Body of Christ at Pentecost (not Paul's conversion).

This may not make me popular with many on TOL, but I must stand by biblical convictions. Try not to tar and feather me because of this. I am an Open Theist, after all (on your side on this issue). For the record, most published, prominent OT would reject Mid-Acts outright (e.g. John Sanders, in The God who risks, walks through Acts and gives a coherent OT perspective on the transition from Old to New without any hint of Mid-Acts assumptions).
 

thelaqachisnext

BANNED
Banned
How on Earth would you know what I have done and what I have read?

What exactly are you trying to say about Barnabas? I urge you to start having a point.

BTW, again, who commissioned Paul to be the apostle to the gentiles? Answer a simple question for once.
I answered you three times, and with Scripture -which you are not reading!
: the Antiochian Chrurch commissioned Barnabas and Saul as Apostles and sent them out to obey the call the Holy Spirit had called them for.
Read the passages and see that Barnabas is equally called with Saul, sir. Both were called "Apostles" only after that commission by the Antiochian Church.
 

thelaqachisnext

BANNED
Banned
This seems to be going back and forth with the same “proof texts”. How do you explain the Samaritans and Jesus sermon to them for two days? Samaritans were definitely not Jews and did not consider themselves Jews. The Jew’s thought of Samaritans as being less then Gentiles since they were half breeds at best. They were most likely circumcised and used the Old Testament as their scripture, but they did not follow any of the temple practices. Christ went to the Samaritans preaching John 4: …a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

The Samaritan worship was not the Jewish worship, but a time was coming… When did that time come?
What were the Samaritans taught about temple worship by Christians before Paul came along?
you are correct in pointing out that the Samaritans were not Jews, and they were Gentiles, and called Gentiles in the Septuagint.
Jesus did come to the Gentiles, as Isaiah 53 and Isaiah 49 specifically say.

Paul preached none other than the Jewish "completed", finished, Atonement/reconciliation for all nations by the final accepted blood of sprinkling by the True Christ [whom the High Priest served as, in place of, in the Living Oracles] on the True Mercy Seat which is His New Man body.
Paul's Greek words of the NT are the Hebrew words of the OT about the promised, finished work of the One who was to come, from the beginning.
But MAD has wrested the Greek words into a strange alien, separated from the One Faith, alien, doctrine.
 

Zeke

Well-known member
John's gospel is directed at believers and is written so that unbelievers would believe in the Son of God. It does NOT teach the necessity of baptism for salvation. It does contrast belief vs unbelief.
Jn. 1:12; 3:16, 36; I Jn. 5:11-13, etc. are fully consistent with Pauline thought and contrary to Mid-Acts assumptions about circ. vs uncirc. John and Paul based their gospel (after the cross) on the teachings of the Master. Paul was not given a gospel different from what the Jerusalem church preached after Pentecost. There is one gospel (Jude 3), not two gospels in the NT after the resurrection and birth of the Body of Christ at Pentecost (not Paul's conversion).

This may not make me popular with many on TOL, but I must stand by biblical convictions. Try not to tar and feather me because of this. I am an Open Theist, after all (on your side on this issue). For the record, most published, prominent OT would reject Mid-Acts outright (e.g. John Sanders, in The God who risks, walks through Acts and gives a coherent OT perspective on the transition from Old to New without any hint of Mid-Acts assumptions).

What gospel was mentioned in Matthew 24:14? and what was it void of when Christ made this statement, one of many proofs that the message was not allways the same, though I am not mid acts which was still within none other than what the prophets and Moses said should come, to say the message was allways the same is not so, clearly lines were crossed that changed things that were doctrinal standerds till set aside, salvation was of Jews that changed, it was Jew first that changed, it was Abrahamic earthly promises that changed, it was to the circumcision only that changed, law of seperation that changed, dietary law changed, keeping of days and sabbaths changed,ect. there was no transition of old to new it was probation which resulted in rejection to Judgement, and postponed.

New revealation never before known afterward yes!

Zeke.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
There are Jews/Israel/Old Covenant and Christians (Jew and Gentile one in Christ)/Church/New Covenant.

There is not a circumcision gospel after the cross and uncircumcision gospel after Paul.
 

thelaqachisnext

BANNED
Banned
Jesus did come to the Gentiles, as Isaiah 53 and Isaiah 49 specifically say, as the Once for all, "Acceptable Sacrifice" of the Final Atonement, which Reconciles us to God -If we will Believe and Receive His Finished Work and call on His name for that Salvation from our own dead works to enter into His Sabbath Rest of Finished Works.

Paul preached none other than the Jewish "completed", finished, Atonement/reconciliation for all nations by the final accepted blood of sprinkling by the True Christ [whom the High Priest served as, in place of, in the Living Oracles] on the True Mercy Seat which is His New Man body.
Paul's Greek words of the NT are the Hebrew words of the OT about the promised, finished work of the One who was to come, from the beginning.
But MAD has wrested the Greek words into a strange alien, separated from the One Faith, alien, doctrine.


The Once for all delivered to the Saints One Faith is none other than the Final Atonement=reconciliation, which was to come, which the High Priest of Israel, only, serving as Christ the Messiah who was to come, dressed in the Garments of Salvation in type, and entered into the type and pattern of the heavenly Temple and offerred that type and shadow of the Atonement to come, once, yearly, as a "rehearsal" to teach of Christ's Acceptable Sacrifice which was to come and make an end of sin -of the sins of the whole world, so that whosoever will may enter into the Presence of His Glory in "perfection" of Spirit and offer "acceptable sacrifices" in the Name of the Beloved Son, by adoption in His One Living spirit.


Hbr 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

Hbr 9:7 But into the second [went] the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and [for] the errors of the people:
Hbr 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?


Hbr 7:19For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope [did]; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
Hbr 7:20¶And inasmuch as not without an oath [he was made priest]:
Hbr 7:21(For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)
Hbr 7:22By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
Hbr 7:23And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
Hbr 7:24But this [man], because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
Hbr 7:25Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

Hbr 7:26For such an high priest became us, [who is] holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

Hbr 7:27Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
Hbr 7:28For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, [maketh] the Son, who is consecrated for evermore


Eph 5:1¶Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;
Eph 5:2And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given [paradidomi ]himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

paradidomi

1) to give into the hands (of another)
2) to give over into (one's) power or use
a) to deliver to one something to keep, use, take care of, manage
b) to deliver up one to custody, to be judged, condemned, punished, scourged, tormented, put to death
c) to deliver up treacherously
1) by betrayal to cause one to be taken
2) to deliver one to be taught, moulded
3) to commit, to commend
4) to deliver verbally
a) commands, rites
b) to deliver by narrating, to report
5) to permit allow
a) when the fruit will allow that is when its ripeness permits
b) gives itself up, presents itself

Jud 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort [you] that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once [final and finished, not to be added to or discarded] delivered [paradidomi]unto the saints.


1Cr 15:3For I delivered [paradidomi] unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;


1Cr 11:2 keep the ordinances which I delivered to you: -water baptism, celebration of Christ our Passover.
2Th 2:15 hold the traditions which you have been taught
hold, in this sense is to not discard the ordinances of water baptism and the celebration of Christ, our Passover
krateo
: 3) to hold
a) to hold in the hand
b) to hold fast, i.e. not discard or let go
1) to keep carefully and faithfully
 

Pettrix

BANNED
Banned
Jesus did come to the Gentiles,

His death for the sins of mankind was for ALL, but His ministry on earth WAS NOT to the Gentiles, but to the JEWS ONLY. When the Gentile begged, pleaded, and had awesome faith, only then did Christ turn to them.

Mat 15:24-28 But He answered and said, I am not sent except to the lost sheep of house of Israel. Then she came and worshiped Him, saying, Lord, help me! But He answered and said, It is not good to take the children's bread and to throw it to dogs. And she said, True, O Lord; but even the little dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' tables. Then Jesus answered and said to her, O woman, great is your faith! So be it to you even as you wish. And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

1Cr 11:2 keep the ordinances which I delivered to you: -water baptism, celebration of Christ our Passover.
2Th 2:15 hold the traditions which you have been taught
hold, in this sense is to not discard the ordinances of water baptism and the celebration of Christ, our Passover
krateo
: 3) to hold
a) to hold in the hand
b) to hold fast, i.e. not discard or let go
1) to keep carefully and faithfully

That is a total manipulation and twisting of Scripture. You see, by your doing, many other false beliefs and denominations do the same. You took the word "traditions" and built a doctrinal thesis on it by attributing water baptism (which was NEVER a tradition but a commandment and a mandatory practice). By twisting, shifting and manipulation, you are making a claim that the "traditions" Paul spoke of is showing that water baptism is for today. :dizzy: That is truly a far-stretched and far-fetched attempt.

The baptism by both John & the Twelve is called a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. It was not optional but mandatory. It is dogmatically affirmed that in Paul’s major references to baptism in his epistles is not referenced whatsoever to ceremonial water baptism as seen during the ‘millennial kingdom at hand’ era. Paul’s reference is to the baptizing work of the Holy Spirit.

Paul was saved under the administration of the Kingdom commission and he was told to be baptized, washing away his sins. However, the records in the book of Acts of Paul’s conversion & commissioning, as well as references in Paul’s epistles, there is not a word of instruction given to Paul concerning the practice of water baptism.

Paul states that Christ sent him not to baptize. Paul did baptize some but he placed so little importance upon it that he could not even remember who he baptized besides the three he mentions.
There was a dispensational change the occurred. Paul was saved under the Kingdom commission with its command to baptize in effect. The change of program was not immediate. So that is why Paul baptized in the beginning but then no longer did. Paul’s revelation from Christ was progressive. Once the “mystery” was completely revealed and Israel was set aside, all the ‘sign’ gifts and practices ceased. Water baptism was part of Israel’s Kingdom gospel, and ended in the full establishment of the dispensation of the Mystery. Water baptism was just one of the many practices which passed with Israel’s complete setting aside.
 

Pettrix

BANNED
Banned
Not one of Paul’s epistles does Paul give one word of instruction to his churches, pastors, or evangelists to baptize. Not one word of instruction to members of the Body of Christ to practice this ceremony is given by Paul.

The purpose of baptism under Kingdom commission is not compatible with Paul’s gospel of the Grace of God. Water baptism was very closely associated with other accompaniments of the Kingdom gospel, such as miraculous healings, tongues, etc., and that these things were carried over into what would be the Transition Period. Remember Paul also practiced other things that Christians do not practice today, such as talking vows and circumcising Jewish believers.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
There is no evidence that these things ceased on no exegetical reason to think they did (baptism, gifts, etc.). They are not mentioned over and over because they were not issues for the early church. They were normative practices that did not cease. The reason Paul did teach about the use and misuse of gifts in Corinthians is because they had an issue of pride and misuse of the gifts. This cannot be read as a diatribe that they were soon to cease.

Paul also did not give detailed instructions about church leadership and administration (Eph. 4, etc.). Does this mean the leaders sat around and were useless for centuries or that the office gifts ceased because he does not repeatedly instruct on their necessity and roles?

Arguments from silence are weak.
 
Top