Recent content by Clete

I am quoting scripture. Do you deny that Paul baptized people as late as Acts 18 and 19? That is your doctrinal position. You don't get to declare arguments that appose your doctrine "irrelevant" on the basis of that very doctrine. That is NOT the question! That question is question begging...

It is directly relevant! It's relevancy is explicitly stated in the question itself. I specifically quoted YOUR OWN WORDS to give the question is explicit context. If "Any other baptism is a distraction that diverts attention away from the one of real significance for a member of the body of...

Why won't you answer my question?

My comments in post 3 are a bit of hyperbole, by the way. It isn't actually REGARDLESS of how confused the rest of one's doctrine gets. If your doctrine is such that you talk people into killing themselves and their children (e.g. Jim Jones) then that's probably a few bridges too far. My point...

Repeating your position does not count as a response to the argument. If "Any other baptism is a distraction that diverts attention away from the one of real significance for a member of the body of Christ and creates confusion among the body." then why did Paul repeatedly do it well into the...

Perhaps, but human beings are very capable of holding multiple contradictory beliefs in their head. If he believes the gospel, as has been laid out in previous threads (I can do so again here if need be), then regardless of how confused the rest of his doctrine is, he will be saved, even if by...

How much later can it be than Acts 19? Just how much past the period of time covered by Acts are you thinking these latest instructions came?

This question came up this morning and so I thought I'd post my thoughts here. It seems to me that most of the confusion surrounding such a question comes from looking in the wrong place for the answer. If someone asked me to prove that I am saved, I would not point to my behavior, my church...

My post didn't stop with Acts 9. Paul was baptizing whole families at once clear into Acts 18. If your argument is valid then Paul should have stopped baptizing people, but he didn't. There can be no argument that Paul didn't have his gospel fully realized by Acts 18. Indeed, Paul didn't even...

Well, of course it makes perfect sense. That's the reason it was the very first thing Paul did once having been filled with the Spirit and received his sight (Acts 9:17-18). By what gospel were the gentiles saved in Acts 10:44-48? Also, Paul in Acts 16, after the Jerusalem council, baptized...

I attended a seminar on "The Plot" where, at the end, Bob opened it up for questions. I asked him to comment about getting baptized. His response was to literally "punt". That is, he actually said that he was going to intentionally "punt on that question" (his words). He commented about the...

Been there, done that. Church membership itself is unbiblical. The pit of disputed details seem to not have a bottom. No. In fact, it seems clear to me that baptism in particular is one of the most divisive things in the entire history of the church. Which is to say that there are more...

One major point I am making is that it seems to me that a lot of Mid-Acts people turn not getting water baptized into a form of legalism. Their attitude towards the practice seem to be over cooked. Also, as I said before, the causing division issue is at best ancillary. People divide over the...

The assumption is that Paul is NOT referring to water baptism, not that he was doing so! The natural reading would be for the original audience to presume that baptism is being discussed in its normal sense. Everyone knew what water baptism was. Spiritual baptism was new and so if a distinction...

So, "not water" is not an argument. It's just a statement of your position. Having said that, my quoting the passages wasn't an argument either. I just posted them to let it be seen how natural it is for someone to read them and get the idea that water baptism is a thing we ought to be doing and...