canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Please show me from scripture that “all if the 12...were of John’s baptism”? I can think of two.
peace to you
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Trail of Blood
- Thread starter sag38
- Start date
peace to you
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
I am the foremost, living, proponent, I know of, of The Trail of Blood and it's recorded legacy of actual History, of The Church that Jesus Built.
You will not get a denial from me of The Church that Jesus Built, The Doctrinal Teachings of The Perpetuity of The Lord's churches, IN THE BIBLE, or the existence of those who meet the Marks of a New Testament that exist today.
I would love to speak with this VERY BLESSED soul.
It may not lay your lot to continue in The Faith Once Delivered to The Saints, however, Jesus Has Always Had His churches.
The Scriptural Nature of Baptism by Authority is the only significant connecting factor; not History, their 'name', or acceptance of the profane world, or counterfeit religious societies.
Put that man on here, please.
If there is no convincing of a soul that is not 'double-elected', to know the Truths of The Lord's Churches, in addition to Salvation, then why waste my time?
I will have to write and compile others writtings, to begin to Teach what, "a church", is in The Bible and what it Never is. Never.
If you don't care and aren't seeking, or knocking, then you will drop out, right there.
With most of the population of 'baptists', 'Christians', and all.
The only ones that I have seen be Blessed with the extraordinary Teachings of Church Truth, were of a mind and Spirit to ask God about it, not come to a Bible-Hostile forum to find how to combat one of God's Biggest Blessing in this life.
Behold.
Last edited:
37818
Well-Known Member
Ok. So did those two baptized the others? Note John 4:1-2.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
There is no record in scripture, that I know of, identifying any of the 12 disciples being Baptized in water, beyond those two assumed to be baptized by John prior to following Jesus.
The John 4 passage doesn’t say the disciples were baptized, though you might assume that.
They were baptized by Holy Spirit at Pentecost and Paul was baptized.
John’s baptism is not the same as Christian baptism.
peace to you
37818
Well-Known Member
We do not agree. The two who we know explicitly were baptized by John before being picked by Jesus are in evidence.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
At least two apostles had been close disciples of John. But being such a disciple of John and being baptized by him were not at all the same. Those looking for the Messiah took his words to heart, accepted him as a prophet, and were baptized by John. Eventually, even the Messiah himself, who was from Galilee, was baptized by John.
There seems no good reason to think the apostles had not all been baptized by John. And consider Acts 1:21f:
“Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
The passages in Acts 18 and 19 clearly show the baptism of John is not Christian baptism, but we can disagree.
peace to you
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
The reference to “John’s baptism” in Acs 1 is the baptism of Jesus by John, which is considered the beginning of His ministry.
One good reason to not think all of the disciples were baptized by John is that scripture doesn’t say they were.
That is an assumption, not found in scripture, that some are using to develop a doctrine of supremacy in church founding by Baptists.
peace to you
37818
Well-Known Member
An argument from silence is a fallacy.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Agreed. The argument from silence is to assume all the disciples were baptized by John with no biblical support. That’s how an argument from silence works.
peace to you
37818
Well-Known Member
Acts of the Apostles 1:22, ". . . Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. . . ." It is a valid Binlical interpretation that the 12 were baptized by John the Baptist.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
The 12 were eye witnesses of the ministry of Jesus from His baptism by John to and including His resurrection. This is not biblical support the disciples were baptized by John.
We can disagree, but your position is an argument from silence.
peace to you
37818
Well-Known Member
Not explicit. You are interperting the 10 were not baptized by John. An argument from silence on your part. An affirmation versus denial,
Last edited:
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
I’m not “interpreting” anything. I’m trying to follow what scripture says.
If someone wants to assume, absent biblical confirmation, that all the disciples were baptized by John, I will simply disagree but grant there is that possibility.
If, on the other hand, someone wants to base a doctrine of church foundation supremacy on that “possibility” not explicitly stated in scripture, then I’ll disagree and add they have assumed way too much.
peace to you
37818
Well-Known Member
The Bible is not explicit that John the Baptist baptized the 12 apostles, yet there is more reason to believe that he did than to believe he did not. The reason to believe that he did not is because of silence (i.e., we cannot find a passage in the Bible that explicitly says “John baptized X”). The reasons to believe that he did are from putting together the implications of scripture.
John was a prophet sent from God (John 1:6; Luke 7:28). John was not operating in a priestly role under the Jewish law, but came with a new message authorized by God. John came to make ready a people prepared for the Lord (Luke 1:16-18). He preached the kingdom of God and baptized disciples. Those who obeyed John’s message received John’s baptism. He was the voice of one crying in the wilderness (Isaiah 40:3-6; Matthew 3:1-6; Mark 1:1-5; Luke 3:3-4, 21) and those who received his message were baptized. Apparently, the apostles and other early disciples of Jesus received John’s message. The other option would be that they rejected John’s message, yet followed Jesus anyway (which is not very plausible).
John’s baptism was from heaven (Mark 11:29-31). Submitting to John’s baptism “justified God” – probably meaning here that they acknowledged God’s truth by submitting to the baptism of the man God sent. John Gill says, “they expressed their sentiments by their obedience.” They declared God was right by receiving baptism. Luke 7:29-30 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him. It seems true that (1) the disciples were there among those that heard him, and (2) that those whom Jesus called to follow him had not rejected the counsel of God against themselves!
Two of John’s disciples followed Jesus after John identified Jesus as the Lamb of God. One of these was Andrew, an apostle. John 1:35-37, 40 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; and looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God! And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus…One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. Though there is not a passage that explicitly says, “John the Baptist baptized Andrew,” obviously this is the conclusion we make unless for some reason we want Andrew to be an unbaptized disciple of John.
An apostle to replace Judas was chosen from those who had been with them from the time of John’s baptism. Acts 1:21-23 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. The phrase “baptism of John” (βάπτισμα Ἰωάννου) is never used to refer only to the baptism of Jesus by John, but to the baptizing that John did (Matthew 21:25; Mark 11:30; Luke 7:29; Luke 20:4; Acts 18:25).
John baptized his disciples, and John’s disciples followed Christ. To me it seems difficult to reject this as the scriptural conclusion of the matter.
John was a prophet sent from God (John 1:6; Luke 7:28). John was not operating in a priestly role under the Jewish law, but came with a new message authorized by God. John came to make ready a people prepared for the Lord (Luke 1:16-18). He preached the kingdom of God and baptized disciples. Those who obeyed John’s message received John’s baptism. He was the voice of one crying in the wilderness (Isaiah 40:3-6; Matthew 3:1-6; Mark 1:1-5; Luke 3:3-4, 21) and those who received his message were baptized. Apparently, the apostles and other early disciples of Jesus received John’s message. The other option would be that they rejected John’s message, yet followed Jesus anyway (which is not very plausible).
John’s baptism was from heaven (Mark 11:29-31). Submitting to John’s baptism “justified God” – probably meaning here that they acknowledged God’s truth by submitting to the baptism of the man God sent. John Gill says, “they expressed their sentiments by their obedience.” They declared God was right by receiving baptism. Luke 7:29-30 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him. It seems true that (1) the disciples were there among those that heard him, and (2) that those whom Jesus called to follow him had not rejected the counsel of God against themselves!
Two of John’s disciples followed Jesus after John identified Jesus as the Lamb of God. One of these was Andrew, an apostle. John 1:35-37, 40 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; and looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God! And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus…One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. Though there is not a passage that explicitly says, “John the Baptist baptized Andrew,” obviously this is the conclusion we make unless for some reason we want Andrew to be an unbaptized disciple of John.
An apostle to replace Judas was chosen from those who had been with them from the time of John’s baptism. Acts 1:21-23 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. The phrase “baptism of John” (βάπτισμα Ἰωάννου) is never used to refer only to the baptism of Jesus by John, but to the baptizing that John did (Matthew 21:25; Mark 11:30; Luke 7:29; Luke 20:4; Acts 18:25).
John baptized his disciples, and John’s disciples followed Christ. To me it seems difficult to reject this as the scriptural conclusion of the matter.
Last edited:
I look at it this way - if it were important to know that John baptized ALL the apostles - Scripture would have recorded it.
So:
1) John and or Jesus did baptized all the apostles
or
2) John and or Jesus did not baptized all the apostles
or
3) It is NOT important as to who does the baptizing
So:
1) John and or Jesus did baptized all the apostles
or
2) John and or Jesus did not baptized all the apostles
or
3) It is NOT important as to who does the baptizing
Last edited:
Do you mean for one of the above (i.e., either number 1 or number 2) to have "did" instead of "did not"?
Do you believe the apostles were unbaptized?