Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BrownFlush" data-source="post: 6081323" data-attributes="member: 65823">Again?It&#039;s a moot point. It has no bearing about what is written or the importance of baptism.Peter and Andrew were disciples of John the Baptist (Jn. 1:35). As such, they had been baptized in water. Jesus also made and baptized disciples (Jn. 4:1,2). The apostles were disciples. &quot;He called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles&quot; (Lk. 6:13). Those who refused John&#039;s baptism &quot;rejected God&#039;s purpose for themselves&quot; (Lk. 7:30). So the inference or necessary conclusion here is the apostles. were baptized in water.Were the apostles baptized in the name of Jesus Christ&quot; (Lk. 24:47; Acts 2:38)? One of them was. Paul was told to, &quot;Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord&quot; (Acts 22:16). &quot;And he . . . arose, and was baptized&quot; (Acts 9:18). Looks like Paul, &quot;born out of due season&quot;, his &quot;season&quot; was recorded and the HS chose not to record the &quot;season&quot; of the others.Integrity denies what is written because he chooses not to believe it. You deny what is written because something is not written or written how you think it should be.&quot;My view&quot; is what&#039;s written. You deny what&#039;s written because &quot;If they would have been&quot; ..You know they weren&#039;t ? How? You think it should have been written so to affirm the obvious teaching that is revealed? I can only discuss and be accountable for what&#039;s wrote down. I&#039;ll go with the HS decision that what he decided to give us was plenty enough to know what to and what it&nbsp; was for.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BrownFlush, post: 6081323, member: 65823"] Again? It's a moot point. It has no bearing about what is written or the importance of baptism. Peter and Andrew were disciples of John the Baptist (Jn. 1:35). As such, they had been baptized in water. Jesus also made and baptized disciples (Jn. 4:1,2). The apostles were disciples. "He called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles" (Lk. 6:13). Those who refused John's baptism "rejected God's purpose for themselves" (Lk. 7:30). So the inference or necessary conclusion here is the apostles. were baptized in water. Were the apostles baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" (Lk. 24:47; Acts 2:38)? One of them was. Paul was told to, "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16). "And he . . . arose, and was baptized" (Acts 9:18). Looks like Paul, "born out of due season", his "season" was recorded and the HS chose not to record the "season" of the others. Integrity denies what is written because he chooses not to believe it. You deny what is written because something is not written or written how you think it should be. "My view" is what's written. You deny what's written because "If they would have been" ..You know they weren't ? How? You think it should have been written so to affirm the obvious teaching that is revealed? I can only discuss and be accountable for what's wrote down. I'll go with the HS decision that what he decided to give us was plenty enough to know what to and what it was for. [/QUOTE]

Verification