Mid-Acts water baptism

[Clete]

I had Gemini read "The Plot" (2013 edition) and I asked it this question: "Is there water baptism in Romans 6"?

Here's what it said:

According to the provided text, Romans 6 refers to spiritual baptism, not water baptism. The text makes the following points regarding baptism in Romans 6:

• Baptism into Christ's Death: Romans 6:3-4 describes believers being "baptized into Christ" and "buried with Him through baptism into death". The author interprets this as the mechanism by which each believer "dies to the law through the death of Christ" individually.
• Identification with the Body: The text links the baptism in Romans 6 to the baptism by the Spirit into the Body of Christ described in 1 Corinthians 12:13 ("For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body").
• Contrast with Water Baptism: While the Bible presents "various baptisms" (washings) that were symbolic, the author identifies the "baptism by the Spirit into the Body" as the one "most importantly, for Christians today".
• Effect of this Baptism: Through this spiritual baptism, sinners are "delivered from the law". The author argues that this deliverance occurs "only when they die to it... as they are baptized into the Body of Christ (Rom. 6:3-4)".

Alright, your AI experiment is a perfect opportunity that should allow us to land this plane.

I think at this point it should be pretty clear why debates about water baptism never actually get resolved. The problem isn’t that the verses are unclear, and it isn’t that one side is being dishonest. The problem is that the disagreement isn’t really about baptism at all. It’s about the framework being used to interpret the text.

If you start with a sacramental or covenantal paradigm, you are going to see water baptism in passages like Romans 6. If you start with a Mid-Acts framework, you are not. Both sides can point to the same verses, make arguments that sound perfectly reasonable, and accuse the other of question begging. In a sense, both are right to do so, because both are reasoning from prior commitments that the other side does not share.

That’s why appealing to something like The Plot, or even feeding it into an AI and asking for an answer, doesn’t actually prove anything. All that demonstrates is that if you assume a Mid-Acts framework, you will get a Mid-Acts answer. You don’t need AI for that. Anyone who accepts that paradigm will arrive at the same conclusion. The answer is coming from the system, not from the text considered in isolation.

As I've said a few times already. I’m not arguing against the doctrine itself, except by proxy. I personally agree that Romans 6 is speaking about our identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection, and that this is a spiritual reality, not something water can accomplish. What I am pushing back on is the idea that this reading is so obvious that any other view is automatically wrong. It isn’t. The text is capable of being read differently, and the fact that it consistently is, by serious and competent readers, proves that the issue does not find it's center of gravity in the text itself.

This is why trying to debate water baptism directly is a mistake. You can’t win that debate in any meaningful sense, because you are arguing about a conclusion while leaving the premises untouched. As long as two people are operating from different paradigms, they will continue to read the same passages differently, and no amount of back-and-forth over individual verses is going to resolve that.

If someone actually wants to settle the issue, the discussion has to move upstream. It has to deal with the framework itself. How should Scripture be divided? What is the relationship between the ministries of Peter and Paul? What defines the Body of Christ? How does progressive revelation function? Those are the questions that determine how passages like Romans 6 are understood.

Until those questions are addressed, debates about water baptism will continue to go in circles. Not because the participants are careless or irrational, but because they are starting from different first principles. If those first principles go undefined and unstated then they are going to look exactly like question begging because without that underlying framework, that's what they are.

So the real issue is not whether Romans 6 “includes” or “excludes” water baptism. The real issue is which framework best accounts for the totality of Scripture. Until that is established, you’re not actually debating baptism. You’re just watching two different systems produce two different answers from the same text. You simply cannot establish either position with proof-texts. It doesn't work because the texts change meaning based on the paradigm that is in place when those texts are read.

This is what makes The Plot such an incredibly important and profound work of theology. It addresses first principles and over arching principles and then lets the details fall into place within that framework. In my view, all theological debates should be predicated on paradigm level premises. Everything else is mostly a waste of energy.

 

[Right Divider]

Alright, your AI experiment is a perfect opportunity that should allow us to land this plane.

I think at this point it should be pretty clear why debates about water baptism never actually get resolved. The problem isn’t that the verses are unclear, and it isn’t that one side is being dishonest. The problem is that the disagreement isn’t really about baptism at all. It’s about the framework being used to interpret the text.

If you start with a sacramental or covenantal paradigm, you are going to see water baptism in passages like Romans 6. If you start with a Mid-Acts framework, you are not. Both sides can point to the same verses, make arguments that sound perfectly reasonable, and accuse the other of question begging. In a sense, both are right to do so, because both are reasoning from prior commitments that the other side does not share.

That’s why appealing to something like The Plot, or even feeding it into an AI and asking for an answer, doesn’t actually prove anything. All that demonstrates is that if you assume a Mid-Acts framework, you will get a Mid-Acts answer. You don’t need AI for that. Anyone who accepts that paradigm will arrive at the same conclusion. The answer is coming from the system, not from the text considered in isolation.

There is no such thing as "from the text considered in isolation", as you've just pointed out.

So, is it the case that YOU do not use a "Mid-Acts framework"?
Are you using an Act 2 framework? What is YOUR framework?

As I've said a few times already. I’m not arguing against the doctrine itself, except by proxy. I personally agree that Romans 6 is speaking about our identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection, and that this is a spiritual reality, not something water can accomplish.

You sure sounded like you cannot agree that Romans 6 is dry, in previous posts.

What I am pushing back on is the idea that this reading is so obvious that any other view is automatically wrong. It isn’t. The text is capable of being read differently, and the fact that it consistently is, by serious and competent readers, proves that the issue does not find it's center of gravity in the text itself.

That's NOT what you've said many times in this thread.

You've said, multiple times, that the "plain reading" of several texts requires YOUR reading of water baptism.

This is why trying to debate water baptism directly is a mistake. You can’t win that debate in any meaningful sense, because you are arguing about a conclusion while leaving the premises untouched. As long as two people are operating from different paradigms, they will continue to read the same passages differently, and no amount of back-and-forth over individual verses is going to resolve that.

If someone actually wants to settle the issue, the discussion has to move upstream. It has to deal with the framework itself. How should Scripture be divided? What is the relationship between the ministries of Peter and Paul? What defines the Body of Christ? How does progressive revelation function? Those are the questions that determine how passages like Romans 6 are understood.

Until those questions are addressed, debates about water baptism will continue to go in circles. Not because the participants are careless or irrational, but because they are starting from different first principles. If those first principles go undefined and unstated then they are going to look exactly like question begging because without that underlying framework, that's what they are.

So the real issue is not whether Romans 6 “includes” or “excludes” water baptism. The real issue is which framework best accounts for the totality of Scripture.

BINGO!!!

Until that is established, you’re not actually debating baptism. You’re just watching two different systems produce two different answers from the same text. You simply cannot establish either position with proof-texts. It doesn't work because the texts change meaning based on the paradigm that is in place when those texts are read.

This is what makes The Plot such an incredibly important and profound work of theology. It addresses first principles and over arching principles and then lets the details fall into place within that framework. In my view, all theological debates should be predicated on paradigm level premises. Everything else is mostly a waste of energy.

It's funny that this whole conversation started because of your thoughts on this little graphic.

 

[Clete]

There is no such thing as "from the text considered in isolation", as you've just pointed out.

So, is it the case that YOU do not use a "Mid-Acts framework"?
Are you using an Act 2 framework? What is YOUR framework?

Virtually any framework at all other than a Mid-Acts framework will have biblical proof for water baptism all over the place.

You sure sounded like you cannot agree that Romans 6 is dry, in previous posts.

I said it multiple times throughout this thread that I do not actually disagree with your doctrine on this issue.

That's NOT what you've said many times in this thread.

Because I was making the arguments that I've heard all my life and that I've read other make on this website for decades.

You've said, multiple times, that the "plain reading" of several texts requires YOUR reading of water baptism.

A point you could not refute without appealing to your doctrine - which has been my point all along.

BINGO!!!

I'm not sure why this wasn't your reaction from the start. That's surely more my fault than yours.

It's funny that this whole conversation started because of your thoughts on this little graphic.

View attachment 15467

Yes, and when I read it again, I get the same feeling in my gut. The entire bottom row is problematic. It is, at best incomplete because it makes no mention of the Lord's Supper and thereby implies, or at least the way I'm reading it seems to imply, a prohibition against ritual that simply does not exist in the Body of Christ.

 

[JudgeRightly]

There is no evidence that they were anything else.

Aside from all the evidence that I laid out in everything I said after this sentence in my post, sure, no evidence at all.

Did you not notice the list? (That's rhetorical, don't answer that. I know you did.)

Almost every single verse, as well as the context itself, has something that points to them being Jews, or at the very least proselyte Gentiles.

They received the Holy Spirit via Paul laying hands on them.

As I already pointed out, The Holy Spirit came upon them AFTER they were baptized, AFTER Paul laid hands upon them, according to the text.

Members of the Body of Christ are baptized WITH the Holy Spirit. We aren't baptised THEN receive the Holy Spirit.

That and the fact that this occurs years after the Jerusalem council (long after Israel was cut off and the previous dispensation had ended) is proof positive that these men were definitely members of the Body of Christ.

You and I BOTH know that's not as strong of an argument as you are trying to portray it as, since we both acknowledge there was a transitional period after God cut off Israel and turned to the Gentiles.

These men had John’s water baptism, which was a baptism of repentance, and after believing on Christ (i.e. Paul's gospel) they were baptized again in Jesus name.

Yes, and that was a baptism done with water, something the Jews were already known for doing, baptizing things with water. And baptizing people with water had become commonplace for them as well, at least for New Covenant believers.

Baptizing the about twelve men again with water is of course the natural thing to do for Jewish believers.

And Paul, as he stated in 1 Corinthians 9:20, was doing nothing more than the usual.

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.

Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 - New King James Version

Serving All Men - For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without...

www.biblegateway.com

Note that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians right after the events of Acts 19, thus it is directly relevant to this discussion.

Nothing in the text suggests this second baptism is anything other than water. (i.e. In Acts, when no qualifier is given, “baptized” = water, unless clearly stated otherwise.) That is the natural reading of the text.

I agree that Paul baptized them with water.

I strongly reject, based on the context, that they were or became members of the body of Christ as an outcome. Christians, yes. But not BoC.

No one switched their calling. They were already believers. Paul simply brought them an update I'llto their faith.

 

[Right Divider]

I agree that Paul baptized them with water.

So... did all of Israel need to be water baptized TWICE? I don't see that described in scripture anywhere.

 

[Right Divider]

Virtually any framework at all other than a Mid-Acts framework will have biblical proof for water baptism all over the place.

Of course they do. If they look at books other than Paul's epistles.

 

[Derf]

Aside from all the evidence that I laid out in everything I said after this sentence in my post, sure, no evidence at all.

Did you not notice the list? (That's rhetorical, don't answer that. I know you did.)

Almost every single verse, as well as the context itself, has something that points to them being Jews, or at the very least proselyte Gentiles.



As I already pointed out, The Holy Spirit came upon them AFTER they were baptized, AFTER Paul laid hands upon them, according to the text.

Members of the Body of Christ are baptized WITH the Holy Spirit. We aren't baptised THEN receive the Holy Spirit.



You and I BOTH know that's not as strong of an argument as you are trying to portray it as, since we both acknowledge there was a transitional period after God cut off Israel and turned to the Gentiles.



Yes, and that was a baptism done with water, something the Jews were already known for doing, baptizing things with water. And baptizing people with water had become commonplace for them as well, at least for New Covenant believers.

Baptizing the about twelve men again with water is of course the natural thing to do for Jewish believers.

And Paul, as he stated in 1 Corinthians 9:20, was doing nothing more than the usual.

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.

Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 - New King James Version

Serving All Men - For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without...

www.biblegateway.com

Note that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians right after the events of Acts 19, thus it is directly relevant to this discussion.



I agree that Paul baptized them with water.

I strongly reject, based on the context, that they were or became members of the body of Christ as an outcome. Christians, yes. But not BoC.

No one switched their calling. They were already believers. Paul simply brought them an update I'llto their faith.

All of which leads back to Peter and Cornelius. Peter saw that the Holy Spirit was already come on the Gentiles (not proselytes), and in that condition they were acceptable to God, and able to receive baptism (by water, though not explicit, just like most other references).

 

[Clete]

Aside from all the evidence that I laid out in everything I said after this sentence in my post, sure, no evidence at all.

Did you not notice the list? (That's rhetorical, don't answer that. I know you did.)

Almost every single verse, as well as the context itself, has something that points to them being Jews, or at the very least proselyte Gentiles.



As I already pointed out, The Holy Spirit came upon them AFTER they were baptized, AFTER Paul laid hands upon them, according to the text.

Members of the Body of Christ are baptized WITH the Holy Spirit. We aren't baptised THEN receive the Holy Spirit.



You and I BOTH know that's not as strong of an argument as you are trying to portray it as, since we both acknowledge there was a transitional period after God cut off Israel and turned to the Gentiles.



Yes, and that was a baptism done with water, something the Jews were already known for doing, baptizing things with water. And baptizing people with water had become commonplace for them as well, at least for New Covenant believers.

Baptizing the about twelve men again with water is of course the natural thing to do for Jewish believers.

And Paul, as he stated in 1 Corinthians 9:20, was doing nothing more than the usual.

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.

Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 - New King James Version

Serving All Men - For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without...

www.biblegateway.com

Note that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians right after the events of Acts 19, thus it is directly relevant to this discussion.



I agree that Paul baptized them with water.

I strongly reject, based on the context, that they were or became members of the body of Christ as an outcome. Christians, yes. But not BoC.

No one switched their calling. They were already believers. Paul simply brought them an update I'llto their faith.

Do you mean to suggest that the I Cor. 9 passage teaches that Paul was winning Jews in such a way that such converts remained under the law? Surely not!

The men who received the Holy Spirit via Paul's ministry did so years after the Jerusalem council. How could such an episode fit. What would have been the purpose of recording it?

Further, I see no evidence that they were already believers in the gospel. They were Jews in the vain of John the Baptist. Paul corrects their understanding and redirects their faith to Christ, which they except and believe which results in their being baptized and receiving the Holy Spirit. That's looks to me like conversion, not a mere revision. Revision doesn't even make sense precisely because they received the Holy Spirit, which did not continue to occur after Israel was cut off, except for new members of the Body of Christ. If they were already Kingdom believers, then nothing essential changed, and Luke is recording a doctrinally meaningless episode and their receiving the Holy Spirit via Paul is entirely inexplicable.

 

[TrevorL]

Paul was baptised by Ananias:
Acts 9:17–18 (KJV): 17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit. 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

Paul taught the Galatians that the way to be part of the body of Christ is by belief of the Gospel and baptism.
Galatians 3:26–29 (KJV): 26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Paul gave us additional information concerning his baptism by Ananias. After his belief in Jesus it was necessary to be baptised to wash away his sins:
Acts 22:10–16 (KJV): 10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do. 16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Right Divider]

Paul was baptised by Ananias:
Acts 9:17–18 (KJV): 17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit. 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

Note that the text does NOT say "water baptized"... But regardless of that, Paul had NOT learned the mystery of Christ at that time. And Ananias was a law abiding Jew. What would Ananias know about the mystery of Christ... nothing.

Paul taught the Galatians that the way to be part of the body of Christ is by belief of the Gospel and baptism.
Galatians 3:26–29 (KJV): 26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Paul says that there is ONE baptism for the body of Christ. And THAT baptism is NOT water. Paul describes that ONE baptism here:

1Cor 12:13 (AKJV/PCE)​

(12:13) For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.​

Paul gave us additional information concerning his baptism by Ananias. After his belief in Jesus it was necessary to be baptised to wash away his sins:
Acts 22:10–16 (KJV): 10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do. 16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Again, Ananias was a law observant Jew doing what he knew.

Eph 4:5 (AKJV/PCE)​

(4:5) One Lord, one faith, one baptism,​

Ananias knew nothing of the mystery of Christ.

P.S. There is already a very long thread about this topic: https://theologyonline.com/threads/mid-acts-water-baptism.61529/

 

[Derf]

Note that the text does NOT say "water baptized"... But regardless of that, Paul had NOT learned the mystery of Christ at that time. And Ananias was a law abiding Jew. What would Ananias know about the mystery of Christ... nothing.

Paul says that there is ONE baptism for the body of Christ. And THAT baptism is NOT water. Paul describes that ONE baptism here:

1Cor 12:13 (AKJV/PCE)​

(12:13) For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.​

Again, Ananias was a law observant Jew doing what he knew.

Eph 4:5 (AKJV/PCE)​

(4:5) One Lord, one faith, one baptism,​

Ananias knew nothing of the mystery of Christ.

P.S. There is already a very long thread about this topic: https://theologyonline.com/threads/mid-acts-water-baptism.61529/

Was Ananias part of the body of Christ? If not, then baptism appears to be what divides Paul from Ananias, making Paul's message one of division rather than unity. Yet Paul was including the believers in Jerusalem with the believers in 1Cor 12, the followers of Peter with followers of Paul or Apollos, all in one body. Dividing the believers into different camps based on whether they were baptized physically by Peter or spiritually by Paul is EXACTLY what Paul was preaching against in 1Cor 12 and Eph 4.

 

[Right Divider]

Even though I have you on ignore, I do check a post every now and then to see if you're still one of the dumbest posters on TOL. You don't disappoint... still dumber than a box of rocks.

Was Ananias part of the body of Christ?

No, Ananias was part of the REMNANT of ISRAEL... just like the LITTLE FLOCK.

If not, then baptism appears to be what divides Paul from Ananias, making Paul's message one of division rather than unity.

Absolutely a moronic statement.

Yet Paul was including the believers in Jerusalem with the believers in 1Cor 12, the followers of Peter with followers of Paul or Apollos, all in one body.

Nope. They were all IN CHRIST... but the body of Christ was something NEW and unique to Paul's (Jesus') message.

Dividing the believers into different camps based on whether they were baptized physically by Peter or spiritually by Paul is EXACTLY what Paul was preaching against in 1Cor 12 and Eph 4.

Retarded to say the least.

It's funny that you left out the "I AM OF CHRIST" group from 1 Cor there. They were the ones that were the most far behind with God's revelation at that time.

Paul did not believe in unity for the sake of unity, like you do. Paul and Jesus both DIVIDED many things:

Luke 12:51-53 (AKJV/PCE)​

(12:51) Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: (12:52) For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. (12:53) The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.​

​

Paul and Jesus both divided truth from error, believers from unbelievers... the list is long.

Rom 16:17 (AKJV/PCE)​

(16:17) Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. ​

The "doctrine which ye have learned" refers to what Paul was teaching them (given to him by the risen and ascended Lord Jesus Christ).

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Right Divider,

Note that the text does NOT say "water baptized"...

I suggest that it is speaking about water baptism as described in Paul's recollection of these events:
Acts 22:16 (KJV): And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
This is not a description of Paul being baptised with the Holy Spirit. Ananias did not have the authority to pass on the Holy Spirit and for an Apostle, Paul would have received the Holy Spirit directly from Jesus, possibly in private.

But regardless of that, Paul had NOT learned the mystery of Christ at that time. And Ananias was a law abiding Jew. What would Ananias know about the mystery of Christ... nothing.

I believe in the One Gospel from Eden to the present day. There has been additional information to the original teaching found in Genesis chapters 2-4 including the promises to Abraham and David, and then the additional teaching when a better understanding of the death and resurrection of Christ, as preached by Peter for example Acts 2 and 3 and the Apostles, and Philip in Acts 8 and Paul in Acts 13.

Paul says that there is ONE baptism for the body of Christ. And THAT baptism is NOT water.

I suggest that there is One Water Baptism and Paul is describing water baptism to the Galatians in Galatians 3:26-29 where he is giving some detail concerning the Gospel which he preached.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Right Divider]

I believe in the One Gospel from Eden to the present day.

Well that's anti-Biblical, so you should go with what the Bible says instead of your fantasy world.

There has been additional information to the original teaching found in Genesis chapters 2-4 including the promises to Abraham and David, and then the additional teaching when a better understanding of the death and resurrection of Christ, as preached by Peter for example Acts 2 and 3 and the Apostles, and Philip in Acts 8 and Paul in Acts 13.

That's a story. Not a true story... but a story.

Peter did NOT preach the GLORY of the cross in Acts 2.
Peter preached the cross as a MURDER INDICTMENT against his fellow Israelite's.

I suggest that there is One Water Baptism and Paul is describing water baptism to the Galatians in Galatians 3:26-29 where he is giving some detail concerning the Gospel which he preached.

That is purely silly.

Paul preached ONE BAPTISM and NOT "One Water Baptism" (I can always tell when someone is really confused about Bible doctrine when they feel the need to use Capitalization where it is not called for).

Here is Paul's ONE BAPTISM.

1Cor 12:13 (AKJV/PCE)​

(12:13) For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.​

WE, members of the body of Christ, are baptized INTO Christ by the Spirit, per 1 Cor 12:13.

If you want to join us in the body of Christ, THAT is the baptism that is REQUIRED.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Right Divider,

Well that's anti-Biblical, so you should go with what the Bible says instead of your fantasy world.

An interesting introduction, but I will hold on to my perspective until I find some more enlightening view. Let us examine what you have to say to help.

That's a story. Not a true story... but a story.

No advance so far.

Peter did NOT preach the GLORY of the cross in Acts 2.
Peter preached the cross as a MURDER INDICTMENT against his fellow Israelite's.

Both Peter and Paul preached the full implications and lessons concerning the crucifixion, the trials, death and resurrection of Jesus. Your classification or demarcation of "GLORY" and "MURDER INDICTMENT" seem shallow and inappropriate.

That is purely silly.
Paul preached ONE BAPTISM and NOT "One Water Baptism" (I can always tell when someone is really confused about Bible doctrine when they feel the need to use Capitalization where it is not called for).

I consider that Paul preached Water Baptism as the means whereby the believer of the Gospel was motivated to unite in the death and resurrection of Christ and become part of the body of Christ as per Galatians 3:26-29.

Here is Paul's ONE BAPTISM.
1Cor 12:13 (AKJV/PCE)(12:13) For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
WE, members of the body of Christ, are baptized INTO Christ by the Spirit, per 1 Cor 12:13.

Baptism by the Holy Spirit was a separate item to water baptism. 1 Corinthians 12:13 is set in the context of Paul attempting to resolve the errors of the Corinthian believers, especially their party factions and disharmony.

Kind regards
Trevor.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Paul was baptised by Ananias:
Acts 9:17–18 (KJV): 17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit. 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

Paul taught the Galatians that the way to be part of the body of Christ is by belief of the Gospel and baptism.
Galatians 3:26–29 (KJV): 26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Paul gave us additional information concerning his baptism by Ananias. After his belief in Jesus it was necessary to be baptised to wash away his sins:
Acts 22:10–16 (KJV): 10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do. 16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Kind regards
Trevor

P.S. There is already a very long thread about this topic: https://theologyonline.com/threads/mid-acts-water-baptism.61529/

@TrevorL I have merged your thread with an already existing thread on the same topic. Please do not start threads on topics that already have threads discussing said topics.

 

[Right Divider]

Both Peter and Paul preached the full implications and lessons concerning the crucifixion, the trials, death and resurrection of Jesus.

An unsupported claim.

In Acts 2, you cannot find Peter preaching the cross as GOOD NEWS.

Your classification or demarcation of "GLORY" and "MURDER INDICTMENT" seem shallow and inappropriate.

That you think that Biblical details seem "shallow and inappropriate" is a sad indictment of your belief system. Perhaps you do not belong on a Christian discussion/debate website where we discuss and debate like grown adults.

I consider that Paul preached Water Baptism as the means whereby the believer of the Gospel was motivated to unite in the death and resurrection of Christ and become part of the body of Christ as per Galatians 3:26-29.

Paul is NOT talking about WATER baptism. Like most of Churchianity, you have water on the brain regarding baptism. You cannot see a bapt* word without thinking that means water.

Does this refer to water baptism?

Matt 20:22-23 (AKJV/PCE)​

(20:22) But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. (20:23) And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but [it shall be given to them] for whom it is prepared of my Father.​

Baptism by the Holy Spirit was a separate item to water baptism.

Duh, that's why I continue to emphasize Eph 4:5

Eph 4:5 (AKJV/PCE)​

(4:5) One Lord, one faith, one baptism,​

Paul says that there is ONE baptism for the body of Christ... not two, or more.

That ONE baptism is NOT water. It is clearly SPIRIT baptism:

1Cor 12:13 (AKJV/PCE)​

(12:13) For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.​

1 Corinthians 12:13 is set in the context of Paul attempting to resolve the errors of the Corinthian believers, especially their party factions and disharmony.

That does NOT change what it MEANS.

For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.

Israel had many water baptisms, the body of Christ has NONE.