The 10 year gap between Pentecost and the conversion of Cornelius is your assumption. I think it is far more likely that period was 3.5 years, corresponding with the end of Daniels' prophesied 70th week in which the new covenant was to be established with Israel. Then God sent the head apostle, Peter, to open the door to the gentiles. The wall had already been broken down at the cross, but God was faithful to his promise to Israel to establish the new covenant with Israel first. But even then, before Peter's vision that God had made gentiles clean, Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, who couldn't have been a part of Israel because it was against the law.
One with crushed testicles, nor being cut off, shall not enter into the assembly of the LORD. Deuteronomy 23:1
After the cross it was unlawful for Peter to associate with gentiles only in his mind.
Paul could say that, and he told you why he said that. He said that he did not want to do the baptizing because, he was fearful that they would say they were baptized in Paul's name, but he was not crucified for you, it was Christ that was crucified for you, therefore you are to be baptized in the name of Christ. His reason wasn't because baptism wasn't part of his gospel, it was because they were bickering over who they were of. Please read the text, it is clear why Paul did not want to baptize people, he told you plain as day the reason.
10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
See Paul tells you please listen to the text. No where does he say that baptism is not part of his gospel he just did not want to do the dipping for the reason he told you above. It is you rejecting his reasoning that causes you to come up with such foolishness.
Yes Paul did baptize a few so he accepts the teaching of baptism in the name of Christ. Paul said his own baptism was to wash away his sins. Paul has no sermon recorded in scriptures that I can recall at the moment but does mention it many times in his letters to the churches. Paul goes into great detail explaining how it is the new birth in Romans 6 .
It is you that are having trouble understanding Paul for you missed the clear reason he said he was not sent to baptize it is clear he teaches it and even baptized a few but doesn't do it often for the reason he gave. Please open your eyes to what he said in the passage you take out of context and try to build a doctrine on. It is wrong to do such with scripture.
It is you that really can't understand clear scripture teaching or just refusing to accept it and believe the words God had recorded but I will go over this with you again slowly so you can see. I will give the benefit of doubt no It doesn't say Paul did the baptizing but it is clear that Paul had it done. Paul preached the baptism of Acts 2:38 and scripture makes that clear there is no way around it by the recorded text. Then you want to say that when Paul laid hands on them that was when they received the promised indwelling spirit. Again that is you not understanding scripture the laying on of hands was not to give the indwelling spirit it gave the power of witness so they could grow the freshly planted church.
This is just someone trying there best to find a loop hole where there is none. No one has ever said to be baptized with out faith in the gospel. You must believe the gospel before you can submit to its call.. There is no need to say "He that is not baptized will be condemned" for the rejection of the gospel has already condemned you. This is plain as the nose on your face and tells you are not seeking the truth but trying to make the truth fit your bias. It is when people try to use this reasoning that you know you have hit a brick wall that they no longer are seeking truth but looking for loop holes.
Well, You keep repeating your interpretation, but you're not dealing with the actual text. I'll walk through this slowly & biblically.
Paul's reason for not baptizing does NOT change what he said. You keep saying:
That's fine, but, it doesn’t erase the actual statement: Christ sent me NOT to baptize but to preach the gospel. (1 Cor 1:17)
If baptism were the essential act that causes salvation, Paul could never say: Christ did NOT send me to baptize. I thank God I baptized none of you. I don’t remember baptizing anyone else.
Your explanation doesn't fix the problem, it makes it worse.
If baptism = salvation, then Paul is saying: Christ didn’t send me to save people. Really? This is the same guy that endured:
Acts 9:29 Jews attempt to put him to death, 13:50 Jews expelled Paul & Barnabas out of their coasts, 14:5 Jews stone him, 16:22-23 beaten with many stripes, 18:12 Jews haul him into court, 20:23 bondage awaits in Jerusalem, 21:31 & 22:22 life threatened, 23:3 beaten, 2 Cor 11:24 Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. 25 Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, 26 in perils by mine own countrymen, perils among false brethren. & this: (Acts 9:29, 13:50, 14:5, 16:22-23, 18:12, 20:23, 21:31, 22:22, 23:3, 2 Cor 11:24, 25, 26)
Your theology forces Paul to contradict Christ & that's absurd.
You claim: Paul's reason for not baptizing PROVES baptism is not the gospel. He didn’t want people saying they were baptized in Paul’s name.
If baptism were the moment sins are washed away & the Spirit is received, then Paul refusing to baptize people would be: refusing to help with getting them saved, refusing to help in getting their sins removed, refusing to help them receive the Spirit & refusing to obey Christ.
Your interpretation makes Paul irresponsible, disobedient, negligent & again is absurd. Mine makes Paul consistent with his own Christ given gospel: Grace > Faith > Spirit reception.
You keep claiming Paul preached Acts 2:38, but, Paul never says that. Not once in any of Paul's epistles does he: command baptism "in Jesus' name", tie baptism to forgiveness, tie baptism to receiving the Spirit, preach water as part of the gospel.
Instead he says: Did you receive the Spirit by works or by the hearing of faith? (Gal 3:2). Having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13). We are justified by faith apart from works (Rom 3:28).
Your system requires Paul to preach Peter’s sermon. Scripture confirms he didn't.
Acts 19 destroys your argument, not mine. You keep insisting Paul baptized the Ephesians. The text says: Paul's only instruction: Believe on Christ Jesus (v.4). Luke narrates what they did in v.5. The Spirit comes in v.6 by laying on of hands, not water. If water = Spirit, would Paul ask: Did you receive the Spirit when you believed? (v.2). But he doesn't. Because he doesn't preach your formula.
Your claim about laying on of hands is invented. You said: Laying on of hands wasn't for the indwelling Spirit. Acts 8 says the opposite, Acts 19 says the opposite, Acts 10 shows the Spirit falling before water. You're rewriting the text to protect your corrupt formula.
Mark 16:16 actually destroys your position. You said: He that believes and is baptized will be saved. But you ignored the second 1/2: He that does NOT believe will be condemned. Condemnation is tied to unbelief, not lack of baptism. If water baptism war the Holy Grail leading to salvation, Jesus would have said: He that is not baptized will be condemned. He didn't.
Your argument collapses because you keep assuming what you need to prove. You assume: water baptism = salvation, water baptism = Spirit reception, water baptism = new birth, laying on of hands = only transfers power, not Spirit, - Luke's narration = doctrine, Paul's statements don't mean what they say. None of that is in the text. You're reading your doctrine into Scripture, not out of it.
If baptism were the essential act that causes salvation, Paul could never say: Christ sent me NOT to baptize. I thank God I baptized none of you. Did you receive the Spirit when you believed? Having believed, you were sealed with the Spirit. “We are justified by faith apart from works. Your system forces Paul to contradict Paul. Mine lets Paul speak for himself.
