Mid-Acts water baptism

[Clete]

Ephesians was written after Acts 18 (i.e., it's God's more recent instruction).

That sounds like the first sentence of an argument! By itself it's merely a claim.

Can you establish that claim?

Paul baptized nobody in Acts 19

I just quoted you yesterday where he very definitely did do so.

Acts 19:1 And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples 2 he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”
3 And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?”
So they said, “Into John’s baptism.”
4 Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.”
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. 7 Now the men were about twelve in all.

(even if he had, it would be irrelevant because Ephesians was written after Acts 19).

Again, claims do not an argument make. Can you establish that this is so?

The timeline matters.

Then I would ask that you establish that timeline.

 

[Right Divider]

I just quoted you yesterday where he very definitely did do so.

Acts 19:1 And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples 2 he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”
3 And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?”
So they said, “Into John’s baptism.”
4 Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.”
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. 7 Now the men were about twelve in all.

As I said before, "When they heard" is still talking about JOHN and not Paul.
The quotes in that translation are assumptions and not facts.

Acts 19:1-7 (AKJV/PCE)​

(19:1) And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, (19:2) He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. (19:3) And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. (19:4) Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (19:5) When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (19:6) And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. (19:7) And all the men were about twelve.​

Do you really think that those "about 12 disciples" needed a SECOND water baptism?

Did the twelve apostles need a SECOND water baptism besides John's (JtB)?

Did all of Israel need a SECOND water baptism as well?

 

[Clete]

As I said before, "When they heard" is still talking about JOHN and not Paul.

That's your doctrine talking.

Do you remember when I said something about how it seems like almost all of the arguments supporting your side of this debate are question begging? I wasn't kidding. I've noticed it for years.

The quotes in that translation are assumptions and not facts.

Acts 19:1-7 (AKJV/PCE)​

(19:1) And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, (19:2) He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. (19:3) And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. (19:4) Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (19:5) When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (19:6) And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. (19:7) And all the men were about twelve.​

Claims do not an argument make. You need them to be assumptions. Indeed, the ONLY reason you think they're assumptions is because the passage creates a problem for your doctrine otherwise.

Do you really think that those "about 12 disciples" needed a SECOND water baptism?

Did the twelve apostles need a SECOND water baptism besides John's (JtB)?

Did all of Israel need a SECOND water baptism as well?

All of these question presuppose the validity of your doctrine. Answering them as asked would concede ground you have not earned.

Now, I need to keep repeating the following point so as not to give the wrong impression....

I am not here advocating water baptism. What I am doing is demonstrating that it is REASONABLE for someone to do so and that the arguments for that side of the debate aren't so easy to refute. In fact, I have yet to see anyone refute them decisively. The position that water baptism doesn't fit into the Body of Christ is a position based not on biblical proof but on a preponderance of the evidence and, from what I've seen, only just barely that. In effect, the position makes good intuitive sense and has sufficient biblical evidence to tip the scales in favor of no water baptism. People who are dogmatic about it aren't exactly on the firmest of ground.

 

[Right Divider]

That's your doctrine talking.

Do you remember when I said something about how it seems like almost all of the arguments supporting your side of this debate are question begging? I wasn't kidding. I've noticed it for years.

That's funny. If I'm begging the question, then so are you. Acts 19:1-7 does not explicitly declare a "second water baptism". Therefore, you are also assuming your position without explicit evidence to confirm it. Plus, you must believe in this bizarre "second water baptism" which has no support anywhere in scripture. At least my position is consistent with the "one baptism", which is clearly in scripture.

Also, what would any of that have to do with the church which is His body? Do you think that the "about 12" were members of the body of Christ? I would say clearly not.

Claims do not an argument make. You need them to be assumptions. Indeed, the ONLY reason you think they're assumptions is because the passage creates a problem for your doctrine otherwise.

Back at you on Acts 19:1-7. You seem to think that the "one baptism" that Paul declares in Eph 4:5 was then ignored by Paul himself.

I will not try to write a PhD thesis for you on the timeline of the books of the Bible, but the commonly believed timeline puts Ephesians in the Acts 28 (or later) time-frame. But, even if it was before Acts 18/19, that would make Paul someone who didn't "practice what he preached".

Now, I need to keep repeating the following point so as not to give the wrong impression....

I am not here advocating water baptism. What I am doing is demonstrating that it is REASONABLE for someone to do so and that the arguments for that side of the debate aren't so easy to refute. In fact, I have yet to see anyone refute them decisively. The position that water baptism doesn't fit into the Body of Christ is a position based not on biblical proof but on a preponderance of the evidence and, from what I've seen, only just barely that. In effect, the position makes good intuitive sense and has sufficient biblical evidence to tip the scales in favor of no water baptism. People who are dogmatic about it aren't exactly on the firmest of ground.

One baptism could not possibly be more clear.

But I will also repeat that I don't say that water baptism is impermissible, only that it is senseless and confused and therefore should not be encouraged.

P.S.
Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon (c. AD 60–63): Known collectively as the "Prison Epistles." While some alternative theories suggest they could have been written during an unrecorded imprisonment in Ephesus (Acts 19) or his two-year Caesarean imprisonment (Acts 24), the traditional and most widely supported view is that Paul wrote them while under house arrest in Rome. This corresponds to the final verses of the book of Acts, specifically Acts 28:16–31.