charligirl
Senior Veteran
Interesting discussion. Who said it does not involve water? He could just as easily have meant there is one baptism, and that is in water in Jesus' name. It doesn't specify, I don't think you can base a NON baptisic doctrine on that one verse.orthotomeo said:My point is: because of the transitional nature of the Acts period, we can't build baptisic doctrine and practice on the mere fact that Paul did baptize during a time when sign gifts were in force - especially when he later said in his letters that NOW there is "one baptism," and that baptism does not involve water.
o.
The book of Acts is still the word of God and there is still example and instruction to be taken from it, whether they were in a transitional period or not. That's like looking at vast tracts of the bible and saying " ah well they were at war, we all know that changes society we can't base our walk on that bit then"
With regard to the other stuff Paul did, yes working miracles and speaking in tongues apply today... this is a charasmatic thread, it goes without saying I believe that. Circumcision and jewish vows were his personal choice and appropriate for that time and custom. That would be like a missionary in india wearing a sari.
I am at work so I don't have time now to look into this more at the moment... sorry.
Upvote
0