T
tabcom
Guest
**How could Paul be referring to the OT laws when Jesus says the laws were not done away with? (Matt 5:18)
Doesn’t God write the laws on the fleshy stone of our hearts? (2 Cor. 3:3)**
- Status
Doesn’t God write the laws on the fleshy stone of our hearts? (2 Cor. 3:3)**
T
Todd_Easton
Guest
St. Paul and the “ritual” of water Baptism: 1 Corinthians 1:14, 16; Ephesians 5:26. If you accept that Paul authored Hebrews, then also Hebrews 6:2 (ablutions) and 10:22.
St. Paul and “ritual” of Communion: 1 Corinthians 5:7-8; 10:16-21; 11:27-30.
St. Paul and the “ritual” of laying on of hands for the reception of the Holy Spirit (Confirmation), for the Ordination of men to Church offices, and for the healing of the sick (Anointing of the Sick): Acts 13:3; 19:6; 28:8; 1 Timothy 4:14, 5:22; 2 Timothy 1:6. If you accept that Paul authored Hebrews, then also Hebrews 6:2.
St. Paul and the “rituals” of excommunication and of reconciliation: 1 Corinthians 5:1-5; 2 Corinthians 2:6-10.
T
Todd_Easton
Guest
Acts 18:8 should be added to the list of Scripture verses for St. Paul and the “ritual” of water Baptism.
If you accept that Paul authored Hebrews, then Hebrews 6:4 is also worthy of mention though less explicit than the other verses mentioned above:
For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened , who have tasted the heavenly gift , and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit ,
If you accept that Paul authored Hebrews, then Hebrews 6:4 is also worthy of mention though less explicit than the other verses mentioned above:
For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened , who have tasted the heavenly gift , and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit ,
T
tabcom
Guest
Abolishing the Sacraments? I don’t understand why you are substituting ‘sacraments’ for ‘rituals’. But I do see your point. Doing sacraments often times becomes ritualistic.
**No.
Mal 3:6 -
"For I, the LORD, do not change; **
Abolish the priesthood? Are you suggesting the priesthood has become rituralistic?
W
water
Guest
Who said Tradition is Dead?
At least I know I am not dead yet.
At least I know I am not dead yet.
M
MariaG
Guest
You liken baptism, confession and communion to rituals. We call Baptism, confession and communion sacraments. We believe that Jesus instituted them and respectfully, if Paul taught that baptism is a ritual that should be done away with, that would be a false gospel since other scripture clearly contradicts that baptism should be done away with or is anyway a man made tradition.
However, since we can be confident that Paul’s words are not in fact, a false gospel, we can confidently conclude that the error lies in your possible or proposed interpretation/question of Paul and what Paul would say/do today.
Or if it were a question, one which you did not already believe you have the answer to, I would answer the following.
No, Paul would not do away with baptism or all the rest since that is not the context Paul was talking about. Empty rituals and the sacraments, like baptism in which God makes His miracles visable to us, are vastly different.
Respectfully,
Maria
T
tabcom
Guest
**
- He had a direct revelation from Christ.
- He is credited to writing nearly half of the New Testement. **
**How about the ritual of becoming circumcised inorder to be saved?
Paul clearly stood opposed to that ritual.
Acts 15:1
Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”
15:2
And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.
Also, isn’t Heb 10:1 a condemnation of rituals?
For the Law, since it has {only} a shadow of the good things to come {and} not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. **
B
Bishopite
Guest
Of course Paul had a direct revelation from Christ and as I said prior, the Bible can’t be split into Paul or Jesus or Peter but IS one cohesive whole. All of scripture is inspired 2 Tim 3:15.
Paul opposed the ritual of circumcision because it was the “works of law” Paul writes to the Judiasers about in Romans and part of the cerimonial works that were part of the Mosaic law as were dietary restrictions on pork, cosher meals etc. Paul opposes incorrect rituals as does Jesus but also accepts correct rituals as 1 Cor 10 and 11:23-34 where Paul shows Jesus elivating the bread and wine up to heaven (a ritual) and performing a ritual. Don’t be fooled into thinking that all rituals are bad. Many people on this forum think that all Tradition is bad even though scripture clearly points out that only the Traditions of men are wrong; the same goes with rituals, if they have there inception from Apostolic origins then they are from God.
Right, this is called the council of Jerusalem where the Apostles determine that circumcision is no longer needed and is replaced by baptism, see Col 2:11-13
**
**For the Law, since it has {only} a shadow of the good things to come {and} not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. **
No that’s not at all a condemnation of rituals. Hebrews is saying the Mosaic law could never do what the cross of Jesus would forever do, take away sin; so no amount of animal sacrifices nor could do what the once for all sacrifice of the cross has done. It is addressed to Hebrews who thought they still had to perform their sacrifices as Jews and also be Christians but Hebrews says otherwise.
Now how do you answer Jesus ritual practice in 1 Cor 11:23-34**
T
tabcom
Guest
**Did he dip them in water? I should say not. Water baptism was a jewish ritual that Paul declared was done away with. Besides that, there is something else going on . . .
What does Paul say in verse 17?
1 Corinthians 1:17
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel**
** This is idiomatic language. It does not mean dipping the church in water. It is talking about husbands love your wife as Christ loved His Church.**
Please . . . read verse 1.
The author is saying leave the basics behind; grow-up in your faith.
M
MariaG
Guest
Let me get this straight before this goes any farther, you believe that the verse, 1Cor 1:17 means that Paul declared baptism was done away with?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Are you suggesting that Paul did not baptize?
S
SPH1
Guest
You’re playing games.
B
Bishopite
Guest
I really haven’t figured out where you are going here. You are mixing issues that aren’t really applicable together.
You ask would Paul preach water baptism? Do you mean would he teach or preform water baptism? Well he did both…
“I am thankful that not one of you did I baptize except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone might say that in my name you were baptized. Now I did baptize also the Stephanas household. Besides, I know not if any other I did baptize. 1 Corinthians 1:14-16”
Notice that Paul baptized “the household” of Stephanas with which if one takes into account that many couples had big families since contraception wasn’t acceptable in that time by Jews nor Christians, and therefore it is implicitly deduced that a family has young children who would also have been baptized by Paul therefore he didn’t just preach baptism but practiced padeobaptism by this implication in 1 Cor 1:14-16.
And asking whether Paul would celebrate Christmas is a bit silly since he celebrated one heck of a Christmas meeting Jesus Himself in Acts 9 after falling off his horse on the way to Damascus. I think your questions need more clarity and form.
T
tabcom
Guest
**No.
1 Corinthians 1:17
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel
**
T
tabcom
Guest
My usage of blue text is a personal choice to assist me in scanning through posts and locating what I’ve previously stated. I do apologize if you find it annoying. However, it is of great benefit to me.
T
tabcom
Guest
**
RETRACTION
I violated my rule ‘do not reply to posts out of numerical sequence.’
I’ll return to this point after I catch up with previous post.**
T
Todd_Easton
Guest
Christian baptisms were done with water. See Acts 8:38. Paul admits baptizing numerous believers. Therefore, your argument against water baptism is refuted.
Paul is saying that he was primarily sent to preach the gospel. Though he baptized a few people, it was not his primary mission. Paul is not saying that baptism is unimportant or superfluous but only that he preached and left most of the baptizing to others. As he says elsewhere, “…as the Lord assigned to each. I planted [preached] and Apollos watered [baptized with water].” (1 Cor 3:5-8)
The author is saying that the first principles (Heb 5:12), the elemental, and foundational doctrines of the Christian faith are: repentance from dead works, faith in God, water baptism, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. The rest of the Christian faith is built upon these foundational doctrines. When the author of Hebrews says, “… let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity,” he simply desires to turn his readers’ attention to other more sublime doctrines of the Christian faith. In no way does he declare these foundational things unnecessary. What is a house without its foundation? In the same way, a Math teacher might say, “let us leave addition and subtraction and go on to multiplication and division.” The teacher is not saying that addition and subtraction are now no longer valid, useful or important but that there is more to Mathematics than addition and subtraction, and the mature Math student needs to learn the more advanced stuff as well.
M
MariaG
Guest
Okay, so Paul’s primary mission was to preach the word, but he also baptized.
So your original question, would Paul baptize today, seems to be answered by scripture itself.
I would imagine that Paul would do today just as he did then. Baptize sometimes when called to but preach the gospel as Christ sent him to do.
Then why did you ask the question in the first place? If Paul did not get rid of Baptism, if Paul in fact baptized himself, why would you think that today Paul would change the message he gave the first time around?
Or more important, why do you seem to think that baptism is an empty ritual instead of a miracle of God?
T
tabcom
Guest
My absence has been due to my desire to study the question possed within this thread in more detail. I wish to resume the thread now . . .
**Bishopite . . . IMHO, your assumption that Paul preformed water baptism is not explicitly documented anywhere.
I would like to specifically discuss that water baptism was done away with – a tradition that Paul said was ‘nailed to the cross’ (Col. 2:14) AND that the new baptism is spiritual.
That is, if anyone is interested in discussing it.
To answer my hypothetical question, No, I do not think Paul would preach water baptism if he were alive today.
**
**Bishopite . . . IMHO, your assumption that Paul preformed water baptism is not explicitly documented anywhere.
I would like to specifically discuss that water baptism was done away with – a tradition that Paul said was ‘nailed to the cross’ (Col. 2:14) AND that the new baptism is spiritual.
That is, if anyone is interested in discussing it.
To answer my hypothetical question, No, I do not think Paul would preach water baptism if he were alive today.
**
B
Blake2
Guest
hello
- Status