PETER AND PAUL ON BAPTISMS AND THE HOLY GHOST

[Doug]

Peter and Paul preached differently on Baptisms and the Holy Ghost.

Baptisms:

The twelve preached salvation upon baptism (Acts 2:38 Mark 16:16)

Paul was not sent to baptize (1 Corinthians 1:17)

The Holy Ghost:

The twelve preached the receiving of the Holy Ghost upon baptism (Acts 2:38).

Paul preached that the Holy Ghost was received upon belief (Ephesians 1:13).

 

[Illuminator]

Peter and Paul preached differently on Baptisms and the Holy Ghost.

Wrong. Both Peter and Paul preached one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Peter messed up with his behavior, and Paul scolded him for it, BUT THEY HAD NO DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES.

Baptisms:

The twelve preached salvation upon baptism (Acts 2:38 Mark 16:16)

Paul was not sent to baptize (1 Corinthians 1:17)

A false dichotomy. How does that prove Paul did NOT baptize??? Of course he did. Preaching was the priority because baptism necessarily followed.

The Holy Ghost:

The twelve preached the receiving of the Holy Ghost upon baptism (Acts 2:38).

38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one 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 Ghost. The soul will receive the Holy Ghost upon baptism, but no time line is given. Manifestations may be immediate, but most of the time it is not.
Acts 8:14-17 – the people of Samaria were baptized in Christ, but did not receive the fullness of the Spirit until they were confirmed by the elders. Confirmation is a sacrament that Jesus Christ instituted within His Catholic Church to further strengthen those who have reached adulthood.

Acts 19:5-6 – the people of Ephesus were baptized in Christ, but Paul laid hands on them to seal them with the Holy Spirit. This sealing refers to the sacrament of confirmation.

Paul preached that the Holy Ghost was received upon belief (Ephesians 1:13).

That is not disputed. Being sealed is not baptism. Making them one and the same at all times is not biblical. Water baptism is NORMATIVE, not absolute. There is baptism of desire, e.i. the Thief on the Cross, and the baptism of blood, those Christians who were martyred before they had time to be baptized. It's still one baptism for the remission of sins. God is not a legalist.

John 3:3,5 – Jesus says, “Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” When Jesus said “water and the Spirit,” He was referring to baptism (which requires the use of water, and the work of the Spirit). Here, Jesus clearly defines "born again". He does not say, "unless he has an emotional/moral upheaval at an altar call, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." As important and valuable as it is, it is not "born again" according to Jesus' clear unconditional definition.

The Greek word for the phrase “born again” is “anothen” which literally means “begotten from above.” See, for example, John 3:31 where “anothen” is so used. Baptism brings about salvation, not just a symbolism of our salvation.

John 3:22 – after teaching on baptism, John says Jesus and the disciples did what? They went into Judea where the disciples baptized. Jesus’ teaching about being reborn by water and the Spirit is in the context of baptism.

John 4:1 – here is another reference to baptism which naturally flows from Jesus’ baptismal teaching in John 3:3-5.

Acts 8:36 – the eunuch recognizes the necessity of water for his baptism. Water and baptism are never separated in the Scriptures.

Isaiah 44:3 – the Lord pours out His water and His Spirit. Water and the Spirit are linked to baptism. The Bible never separates them.

Ezek. 36:25-27 – the Lord promises He will sprinkle us with water to cleanse us from sin and give us a new heart and spirit. Paul refers to this verse in Heb. 10:22. The teaching of Ezekiel foreshadows the salvific nature of Christian baptism instituted by Jesus and taught in John 3:5, Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 3:21 and Acts 22:16.

Peter and Paul did not preach different baptisms.

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

Wrong. Both Peter and Paul preached one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Peter messed up with his behavior, and Paul scolded him for it, BUT THEY HAD NO DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES.

A false dichotomy. How does that prove Paul did NOT baptize??? Of course he did. Preaching was the priority because baptism necessarily followed.

38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one 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 Ghost. The soul will receive the Holy Ghost upon baptism, but no time line is given. Manifestations may be immediate, but most of the time it is not.
Acts 8:14-17 – the people of Samaria were baptized in Christ, but did not receive the fullness of the Spirit until they were confirmed by the elders. Confirmation is a sacrament that Jesus Christ instituted within His Catholic Church to further strengthen those who have reached adulthood.

Acts 19:5-6 – the people of Ephesus were baptized in Christ, but Paul laid hands on them to seal them with the Holy Spirit. This sealing refers to the sacrament of confirmation.

That is not disputed. Being sealed is not baptism. Making them one and the same at all times is not biblical. Water baptism is NORMATIVE, not absolute. There is baptism of desire, e.i. the Thief on the Cross, and the baptism of blood, those Christians who were martyred before they had time to be baptized. It's still one baptism for the remission of sins. God is not a legalist.

John 3:3,5 – Jesus says, “Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” When Jesus said “water and the Spirit,” He was referring to baptism (which requires the use of water, and the work of the Spirit). Here, Jesus clearly defines "born again". He does not say, "unless he has an emotional/moral upheaval at an altar call, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." As important and valuable as it is, it is not "born again" according to Jesus' clear unconditional definition.

The Greek word for the phrase “born again” is “anothen” which literally means “begotten from above.” See, for example, John 3:31 where “anothen” is so used. Baptism brings about salvation, not just a symbolism of our salvation.

John 3:22 – after teaching on baptism, John says Jesus and the disciples did what? They went into Judea where the disciples baptized. Jesus’ teaching about being reborn by water and the Spirit is in the context of baptism.

John 4:1 – here is another reference to baptism which naturally flows from Jesus’ baptismal teaching in John 3:3-5.

Acts 8:36 – the eunuch recognizes the necessity of water for his baptism. Water and baptism are never separated in the Scriptures.

Isaiah 44:3 – the Lord pours out His water and His Spirit. Water and the Spirit are linked to baptism. The Bible never separates them.

Ezek. 36:25-27 – the Lord promises He will sprinkle us with water to cleanse us from sin and give us a new heart and spirit. Paul refers to this verse in Heb. 10:22. The teaching of Ezekiel foreshadows the salvific nature of Christian baptism instituted by Jesus and taught in John 3:5, Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 3:21 and Acts 22:16.

Peter and Paul did not preach different baptisms.

I would not say that Peter messed up at all and Paul did not scold him, it was just that Peter did not have a true handle on what Paul was truly expressing as to the people he was on about. such as can happen anywhere, it's no big deal at all. but some use this to make out that Peter is likened to a dictator type and that Paul is now the Head, such is a typical carnal moron perspective.
People in Christ do not peddle carnal perspectives like that.

 

[Tong2020]

Peter and Paul preached differently on Baptisms and the Holy Ghost.

Baptisms:

The twelve preached salvation upon baptism (Acts 2:38 Mark 16:16)

Paul was not sent to baptize (1 Corinthians 1:17)

The Holy Ghost:

The twelve preached the receiving of the Holy Ghost upon baptism (Acts 2:38).

Paul preached that the Holy Ghost was received upon belief (Ephesians 1:13).

That would be like saying that scriptures contradict scriptures. And that could not be. And with that, needless to say, there is error in such understanding and POV.

What they preached is the gospel of Jesus Christ not of baptism. Baptism is not the gospel.

Tong
R0988

 

[CadyandZoe]

Peter and Paul preached differently on Baptisms and the Holy Ghost.

Baptisms:

The twelve preached salvation upon baptism (Acts 2:38 Mark 16:16)

Paul was not sent to baptize (1 Corinthians 1:17)

The Holy Ghost:

The twelve preached the receiving of the Holy Ghost upon baptism (Acts 2:38).

Paul preached that the Holy Ghost was received upon belief (Ephesians 1:13).

Doug, for these men, baptism and belief were not two different things; they were the same thing because water baptism was a cultural expectation for all those who decided to become disciples of Jesus.

By way of analogy consider marriage. Suppose I said to my son, "The day you commit yourself to a woman and walk down the isle is the day you are married." I'm not saying two things here. According to cultural expectation, walking down the isle in a wedding ceremony is one of many ways to demonstrate commitment to marriage.

Likewise, when Mark speaks about believing and being baptized, these are not two different things; they are one thing because baptism is but one of the many ways a person manifests belief.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Peter and Paul preached differently on Baptisms and the Holy Ghost.

Baptisms:

The twelve preached salvation upon baptism (Acts 2:38 Mark 16:16)

Paul was not sent to baptize (1 Corinthians 1:17)

The Holy Ghost:

The twelve preached the receiving of the Holy Ghost upon baptism (Acts 2:38).

Paul preached that the Holy Ghost was received upon belief (Ephesians 1:13).

One more thing concerning Paul's remarks in his epistle to the Corinthians. I want to show you something that might help you in your studies.

1 Corinthians 12-17
Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.

Take note of the wording that I placed in bold. I don't know if this practice started with John the Baptist, but since the Gospel of John begins there, let's focus on John's ministry. John the Baptist went down to the river to call his own people to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Many joined him there and he baptized them. Those whom John Baptized became John's disciples.

Fast forward to Acts chapter 19. Paul encounters some disciples and he asked them, "Into what were you baptized?" And they answer "John's baptism." In other words, these disciples were John's disciples, teaching them to anticipate the coming of the messiah. Paul came to bring them the good news that the messiah had indeed arrived and he is Jesus the Christ, the Messiah.

When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 19:5

There is that phrase again, "in the name of", which indicates both the teaching and the teacher. The phrase, "In the name of the Lord Jesus," then indicates that these disciples decided to study the teachings of Jesus from that point forward. They were once disciples of John, now they are disciples of Jesus.

Finally, the great commission.

Matthew 28:18-20
And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

What is Jesus saying here? He knows that during the course of their efforts to preach the gospel, the apostles will baptize converts. But rather than baptizing people in their own name, Jesus wants them baptized in his name. That is, the Apostles are NOT to make disciples for themselves as John did. They are to make disciples for Jesus instead. Perhaps Peter baptized some folks in Corinth. These were saying, "I am of Cephus." This was a mistake. They are not Peter's disciples they are Jesus' disciples. Perhaps Apollos baptized some folks. These were saying, "I am of Apollos", which was a mistake also. They are Jesus' disciples. If your local pastor or priest baptizes a man or woman, that individual is not the disciple of the minister, that individual becomes a disciple of Jesus Christ.

Is that helpful?

 

[Doug]

That would be like saying that scriptures contradict scriptures. And that could not be. And with that, needless to say, there is error in such understanding and POV.

What they preached is the gospel of Jesus Christ not of baptism. Baptism is not the gospel.

Tong
R0988

Scripture can seemingly contradict themselves but can be reconciled by rightly dividing.

 

[Doug]

Doug, for these men, baptism and belief were not two different things; they were the same thing because water baptism was a cultural expectation for all those who decided to become disciples of Jesus.

Peter in Acts 2:38 said baptism was for the remission of sins.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Peter in Acts 2:38 said baptism was for the remission of sins.

Not exactly. First of all, one must also repent. Second, one must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and as I pointed out earlier, this means that a person must become a disciple of Jesus Christ. Finally, and more importantly, those whom God is saving will be granted the Holy Spirit.

What is repentance exactly?

 

[Tong2020]

Scripture can seemingly contradict themselves but can be reconciled by rightly dividing.

Perhaps. So, go ahead and rightly divide.

In rightly dividing, do you come up with the understanding that baptism is not the gospel of salvation?

Regarding the apostles, they were chosen to bear witness of Jesus Christ and preach the gospel of salvation concerning Him, and make disciples, teaching them and baptizing them. Preaching the gospel is different from baptizing. They are two different matters. We could more see this in the case of Paul. Paul was sent to preach the gospel of salvation like any of the apostles, but he said he was sent not to baptize. That clearly and strongly implies that baptism is not the power of God to salvation (the gospel of Christ is). Unless you have other reasons in mind as to why Paul was not sent to baptize.

Tong
R0990

 

[Tong2020]

Peter in Acts 2:38 said baptism was for the remission of sins.

To be accurate, here's what Peter said: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins....”

Tong
R0991

 

[Illuminator]

Perhaps. So, go ahead and rightly divide.

In rightly dividing, do you come up with the understanding that baptism is not the gospel of salvation?

Regarding the apostles, they were chosen to bear witness of Jesus Christ and preach the gospel of salvation concerning Him, and make disciples, teaching them and baptizing them. Preaching the gospel is different from baptizing. They are two different matters. We could more see this in the case of Paul. Paul was sent to preach the gospel of salvation like any of the apostles, but he said he was sent not to baptize. That clearly and strongly implies that baptism is not the power of God to salvation (the gospel of Christ is). Unless you have other reasons in mind as to why Paul was not sent to baptize.

Tong
R0990

You take 3 words in scripture and automatically assume that Paul did not baptize. This is stupid and absurd. He was sent to preach as the first priority, that does not mean he didn't baptize. Paul teaches baptism in
Titus 3:5-6
Heb. 10:22
Rom. 6:4
1 Cor. 6:11
Gal. 3:27
Acts 16:15
Acts 16:33
Heb. 10:22
Col. 2:12
and many more.

 

[Tong2020]

You take 3 words in scripture and automatically assume that Paul did not baptize. This is stupid and absurd. He was sent to preach as the first priority, that does not mean he didn't baptize. Paul teaches baptism in
Titus 3:5-6
Heb. 10:22
Rom. 6:4
1 Cor. 6:11
Gal. 3:27
Acts 16:15
Acts 16:33
Heb. 10:22
Col. 2:12
and many more.

Unless you are reading some other post or are reading something not there in my post, I never said nor assumed that Paul did not baptize.

Tong
R0994

 

[Illuminator]

OK, sorry about that.

 

[Doug]

Not exactly. First of all, one must also repent. Second, one must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and as I pointed out earlier, this means that a person must become a disciple of Jesus Christ. Finally, and more importantly, those whom God is saving will be granted the Holy Spirit.

What is repentance exactly?

A change of mind

 

[CadyandZoe]

A change of mind

Sure. But it seems to me that repentance also involves a change in behavior. Yes?

 

[Doug]

Sure. But it seems to me that repentance also involves a change in behavior. Yes?

Right, but it would be based on a change of mind

 

[Tong2020]

Sure. But it seems to me that repentance also involves a change in behavior. Yes?

A change in behavior is not repentance. As had been said, repentance is a change of mind. A change in behavior and a change of mind are not the same thing.

Tong
R1035

 

[CadyandZoe]

A change in behavior is not repentance. As had been said, repentance is a change of mind. A change in behavior and a change of mind are not the same thing.

Tong
R1035

Really? If a person doesn't change their behavior, how can they claim to have changed their mind?

 

[Tong2020]

Really? If a person doesn't change their behavior, how can they claim to have changed their mind?

I never thought that you'd argue against what I said in my post #18.

But yes, really. For one, behavior is not mind nor mind is behavior. So, a change of mind is not the same as a change of behavior. The former is repentance while the latter is not. I could not think of a single word for the latter except this "behavior-change". Change in behavior could be a product of any one of repentance, education, convenience, survival, etc. As such, clearly, change of behavior is not repentance, but could very well be a product of repentance.

Tong
R1038