Did Paul Rebaptize?

This is a really good subject, TCGreek. Keep at it. I believe there will be a lot to learn.

 

My pastor tried to rebaptize me again and again, but much to his dismay, I kept bobbing back up.

 

Were you playing "bobbing for Christians"?

:laugh: :laugh:

Not able to comment on the OP right now without some study. Good question though.

 

You were probably inhaling too much air before going in.

 

First observation. The reference to "baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus" always refers to water baptism (in MHO). "Baptism of Holy Spirit" usually is referenced with those very words or with "the Spirit came upon them" or some similar language.

Second. The Bible does not say that Paul was the one to baptized them at all, {but rather "they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus"(v.5)} unless you hold (as Calvin did) that v.6 ("And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them...") actually further explains v. 5.

Third observation. Regardless, it is clear the coming of Holy Spirit upon them is after their water baptism (either the baptism of John or just prior to Paul laying hands on them). So...

Can a person be a true believer and not have Holy Spirit indwelling? Granted, they are called "disciples". Is there a difference between these "disciples" and a "true believer"?

Were they true believers when they were baptized prior to receiving Holy Spirit?

If you can't be a true believer without Holy Spirit indwelling, were these disciples "scripturally baptized", as we baptists like to say, since they received water baptism prior to receiving Holy Spirit?

peace to youraying:

 

I agree.

Luke does not say they were disciples of John, merely that they were "disciples". They may have been disciples of Apollos (Acts 18:24+) who "had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John." Since this encounter of Paul's occurs so soon (in the text) with the passage concerning Apollos, it seems more likely they were disciples of Apollos. If so, they would have been instructed accurately concerning the things of Jesus.

So, they were saved, had already received Holy Spirit, and had been baptized, before Holy Spirit came upon them?

Hummmmmmm....A second baptism of Holy Spirit that is "evidence" of their "true inclusion in the body of Christ". Does that mean if we don't have that "second Baptism" we don't have "evidence" of "true inclusion" in the body of Christ?

The Pentecostals believe something similar, I think.

peace to youraying:

 

There was a scene in an old Shirly Temple movie "The Little Colonel". She and her friends are in the creek after having seen a church baptismal service in the same creek. Of course, Shirley is the minister doing the dunking. She dunks her little friend, and when he come up she asks him "Are you saved yet?"
Him: "No"
Her: "Back in you go then"
She dunks him a second time, this time holding him down a little longer than the first.
He rises from the water, gasping for air.
Her: "Are you saved NOW?"
Him: "YES!"

 

Seriously though, I think Calvin has a point there, and it would not overthrow believer's baptism to accept it. What throws me off is that Calvin would find John's baptism acceptable as a sign of the new covenant - very important in the reformers' view of the covenant. But then, I know very little about Calvin's personal theology, contrary to some accusations.

 

:laugh: That reminds me of the first time I was "baptized" (by a Pentecostal church) in a fast moving creek. I lost my balance coming up out of the water and got swept downstream. I bobbed several times before making it across.

peace to youraying:

 

Yes and yes. An OT true beleiver had no "name of Christ" to be baptized into. Theirs was a different gospel so, yes, they were baptized for the remission of sins as John the B. said but those sins would be "remitted" at some future time -- that is, when Christ died for them.

And so, yes, it was possible to be a "true beleiver" and not have the indwelling Spirit. These disciples of John the Baptist PROVE it!

As to difference between "disciples" and "true believers" in this passage, the difference is between whose disciples the WERE and Whose disciples the BECAME!

Yes, I beleive so. But they beleived in God, not Christ. Do you see the distinction? There was no Christ and, therefore, there was no sanctifying Spirit indwelling them nor were there sins yet forgiven (recall, they went to "sheol" below and not heaven above when they died).

They were scripturally baptized according to the OT meaning of the ordinance.


skypair

 

Calvin (IMO) was confused about dispensations and about Spirit "indwelling" vs. "filling." He would have seen Christ in to OT as clearly as in the NT and made salvation in the OT identical to in the NT.

See, Reformer's view of "covenant" is the "Covenant of Grace" made before creation (but nowhere spoken of in scripture) by which Christ agreed to die for the elect whom God would choose from throughout the course of time. That covenant being made before creation meant that there was only 1 covenant people and salvation. We call that doctrine "Covenant Theology" and it is false.

skypair

 

Wow, a new subject. Thanks TC!

i need to rush off but I hope this is till going this evening.

John's baptism was one of repentance. We are baptized in to the death of our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus. So the discussion would be regarding John's words, "Mk 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." because we know it's not the physicall act of baptizing (the desired outcome), it is the baptising of the holy spirit (the desired outcome)

This makes these the key verses in the narritive;
Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

These men had not received the Holy Spirit so were only Baptized with the baptism of repentance. John's baptism wich in and of itselft is not bad, it was just not the desired outcome. This was by their own admission. So Paul is saying let's give it another shot and this time I will even lay hands on you because I want to do all I can to help you receive the spirit.

My own take is Paul witnessed their preaching/teaching and felt the key element (the spirit) was lacking. Maybe he looked at their lives or walk and felt something was lacking. What ever it was made him wisper in their ears, "were you baptized"? I think this is something we need to do today in the Church. Bad doctirine or no dictorine at all. No love, peace or patience. Acceptance of alternative lifestyles. There is a lot going on in the Church which is not actions of Christ or the holy spirit. We need to start the correcting process (2 Tim 3:16) somewhere so I see no harm in asking, "were you baptized". No, I mean were you really baptized? I don't mean did you get wet, I'm asking were you filled with the holy spirit?

Now a days we accept getting wet as a baptism which is why demons and satan runs loose in our Churches. Being baptized with the holy spirit would solve the rest of our discussions like OSAS and can a saved man sin because once satan and his evil spirits are purged, and the holy spirit enters your heart there is no place for those evil spirits to return.

 

This passage also seems to indicate a more spiritual purpose for baptism than we would normally assign to it. Paul's question about how they were immersed could mean that he associated baptism in the name of Jesus with the giving of the Spirit, as Peter does in Acts 2.

Les

 

Your words, indeed, make sense. :thumbs: I had always thought that Paul baptized with water those in Acts 19 but actually, Paul "boasted" to the Corinthians that he didn't baptize --- that his mission was preaching the gospel to those who had not been reached. So to me, this NEW baptism of the Spirit was what Acts 19 is about! Good on ya, mate!

Interesting perspective. Lots of people today think they were somehow saved by their baptism, don't they.

skypair

 

1. Calvin believed that water baptism is a sign of the new covenant.
2. You said "Calvin believes that the baptism of John and the Christian baptism are the same".
3. Therefore, I logically concluded that Calvin must find John's Baptism sufficient as a sign of the new covenant.