Did Paul Rebaptize?

I just don't see that in the text (Acts 19:1-6), TC. They are called "disciples" and Paul asked them if they received the Holy Spirit "when you believed". They appear to be saved, followers of Jesus Christ.

They were "rebaptized", immersed in the Name of Jesus, and Paul laid hands on them and then, "the Holy Spirit came on them" They were, therefore, baptized prior to receiving Holy Spirit.

This is different from the encounter with Cornelius (Acts 10), where it is clear Peter preaches Jesus Christ and Him crucified, then Holy Spirit (v.44) "fell upon all those who were listening to the message" and then (v.48) Peter "ordered them to be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ".

It is even different from the encounter Phillip had with the Ethiophian (Acts 8) were there is a statement of faith (v.37) "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God", then the baptism (v.38) "And he ordered the chariot to stop.....and he baptized him." but no mention of the coming of Holy Spirit upon him. There is no mention of the coming of Holy Spirit upon the jailor at Philippi (Acts 16:22+), either.

As a matter of fact, is this the only place scripture tells us that Holy Spirit came upon someone when Paul laid his hands upon him?

Maybe we should step back and ask what was Luke's purpose in including this particular encounter in Acts? Perhaps Luke isn't instructing us concerning baptism at all.

Perhaps Luke included this encounter to demonstrate the authority of Paul, which superceded that of Apollos and that of John the Baptist. The evidence of that authority is the coming of Holy Spirit by his hands, which demonstrated God's blessing/power concerning what he was teaching. This is the same type of coming of Holy Spirit experienced at Pentecost with Peter and the other Apostles, and with Cornelius (the gentiles received the gift of Holy Spirit).

This passage of scripture (Acts 19) was given to demonstrate Paul's authority, not to instruct us concerning baptism.

I was focusing on this statement of yours:

You appear to be stating the evidence of the "true inclusion" in the body of Christ and the evidence of the "inner work of Grace" is found in the speaking of tongues. If that is what you meant, then it is very near to Pentecostalism in that respect.

peace to youraying:

 

The context, I think, makes it clear they were disciples of Jesus since he asked them if they received Holy Spirit when they believed.

I agree, they should have. Why didn't they? Was it because they weren't yet saved? Or was it so God could use them to demonstrate the authority He had given to Paul?

You are not being particularly generous in granting to me those facts.:smilewinkgrin:

I guess the point I have come to is that the passage isn't about baptism (before or after receiving Holy Spirit) but about authority. The encounter demonstrated the authority Almighty God had given to Paul for his ministry by pouring out Holy Spirit when he laid on his hands. By trying to make it about baptism, or rebaptism or real salvation or validating one's place in the body of Christ, we are putting too much on the text that it isn't really trying to address.

I understand your comments about God giving Holy Spirit for a specific purpose, as an enabling Grace, to those who are already believers.

I think you went a little bit too far to say the passage in Acts 19 is teaching those believers were given Holy Spirit (as a second, separate coming of Holy Spirit) as validating proof of their inclusion into the body of Christ, as evidence by the speaking in tongues.

That is clearly close cousins, if not identical twins, to Pentecostal thinking.

As I said before, I see the passage as validating Paul's authority, not validating those particular believers as members of the body of Christ.

peace to youraying:

 

Just a few verses prior (chp.18:24-26) Apollos is spoken of in the same way (acquainted only with the Baptism of John) but that he "was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus". It is certainly not too far a stretch to see these disciples as disciples of Jesus, made through the teaching of Apollos.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were trying to say here.

I think what you said was that this was a second coming of the Holy Spirit. That second coming, shown by the speaking in tongues, validated their inclusion in the body of Christ. Perhaps I misunderstood you.

The only thing I am looking for is an understanding of what you are trying to say. Do you believe the point of the passage in Acts 19 is to demonstrate speaking in tongues is evidence of Holy Spirit indwelling a believer? If so, do you believe all believers will have that evidence?

Yes. John 20:22 "And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, 'Received the Holy Spirit.'"

At Pentecost, yes indeed. As proof of the authority of the Apostle's words. And then in Acts 10, when the gospel goes to the Gentiles, as proof God has included the Gentiles in His plan of salvation. And then in Acts 19, as proof of the authority of Paul which is demonstrated by the coming of the Holy Spirit when he laid on hands.

Are we discussing the point of the passage of Acts 19? What exactly are we debating?

Do you not like my pointing out that you sound like a Pentecostal? OK, I take you at your word, your not a Pentecostal, and do not hold to their beliefs.

peace to youraying:

 

There is a great difference between having the indwelling of the Holy Spirit(salvation) and a manifestation of the Holy Spirit (such as speaking in tongues). Failure to understand or even to consider this truth as a possibility is the cause of great error concerning the Holy Spirit.
Without a person experiencing the heat it is impossible to describe the sensation of heat yet many who have never experienced the heat are willing to express great knowledge of the heat.

 

Well, start with Abrahamic. If the church replaces Israel, the people to whom land of Canaan was promised will never receive it. Davidic -- those who are supposed to rule the MK will never rule. New covenant will never be to Israel if the church replaces her. Renals Showers does a good analysis of this and basically, the church is Israel till Omega -- the destruction of the earth.

skypair

 

EXACTLY! And as you go on, watch this:

In other words, both the covenant theology and infant baptism leave man TOTALLY out of the picture in salvation.

The covenant was made between God and Christ (IOW, with Himself) pre-creation with no regard to man's participation.

And if rebaptism was necessary, it would be signifying that man could presume to be party to a covenant that he had no earthly idea whether it included him individually or not (man wasn't there, he didn't read the "list," there was nothing in him that God should choose him, etc.)

It is necessary to distincguish between pre-cross and post-cross in reading the NT. This demands dispensations -- at least 2 -- and a study of, therefore, 2 gospels, 2 salvations (one of JUSTIFICATION only, the other in Acts and the epistles to JUSTIFICATION and SANCITIFICATION simultaneously).

skypair

 

Jarthur001,

It sounds as if you are about to school me. Ah!! The shoe fits -- wear it! :laugh:

Everyone before Calvin believed in dispensationalism -- they believed that Israel was cut out and the church took her place. That is dispensational thinking at its most basic! There was Iseael and now there is the church. Or some, objecting to that saying we are all Israel, necessarily see an old covenant and a new. You can't get around it -- it is there despite being unnamed.

skypair

 

TCGreek, canadyjd,

The explanation for Acts 19 (if I may enlighten you) is to show the transition from one saving gospel to the next -- old covenant to new. It is my belief that God waited until 70 AD to "close the old covenant door" and to save only new covenant believers. Why? Because of Mt 22:7. Those under the old covenant were "bidden" right up till God destroyed their city but, as the parable notes, they wouldn't come anymore. Perhaps the last Mt 22 "servant" of the era was John the Baptist and his disciples, BTW. Acts 19 merely shows the overlapping of the new and old gospel and how that those who saved under the old would respond to the new.

Not sure how you make this assumption. I see disciples in both old and new covenant "camps" spreading their respective gospels until it becomes abundantly clear by the destruction of the temple that the old has been postponed -- unfulfilled but not operative for now.

And that something that was wrong was that the Holy Spirit did not indwell prior to the cross.

skypair

 

mima --- your observations are being overlooked because what you describe is the indwelling of the Spirit at salvation and then the FILLING of the Spirit afterward on various occasions.

The physical manifestations of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and elsewhere ever since are caused by the BELIEVER'S mind, emotions, and will being filled/controlled by the Spirit. I think it is wonderful that people can still be filled with the Spirit (we all ought to be most of the time we worship) so long as it is orderly and edifying.

I even think that we are filled with the Spirit at the moment we believe and that filling causes us to repent and receive Christ. Calvinist claim it is regeneration that causes repentance even before believing. I would say that they too mistake filling for regeneration.

skypair

 

Uh, where does Scripture say anything, any time, anywhere, or any place about multiple "saving gospels"? Somehow I must have missed it, so if you would be so kind as to enlighten me, please??

Why is this somehow assumed to be "wrong", for whatever that is supposed to mean?

Was it "wrong" that God called a particular individual out of the Gentiles for the 'genesis' of a particular people, i.e. Israel?

Was it "wrong" that God called one out of that 'national' line, at a later time to be the Apostle to the Gentiles?

Was it "wrong" that Jesus would announce the sending of the Holy Spirit, in His stead, so to speak, with the resultant indwelling, whereas before this, the Holy Spirit came upon men, but now indwells them? (BTW, prior to the flood and/or the call of Abraham, I do not think it is ever stated that the Holy Spirit even came upon man, but I admit that I could be wrong on this, not having studied it thoroughly.)

There is a great deal of difference in some of these things, but in the overall plan of God, none of them are "wrong", per se, only different 'modes' for different times.

Ed

 

While I have no particular problem for one wanting to pray, with what I admit, I believe is a misguided desire, for another to receive the gift of "languages" (NKJV) or "tongues" (KJV) , I do have a problem with a couple of things you are mentioning, here.

The first is that the indwelling (and sealing) of the Holy Spirit is already given to us when we believe.

Second, the 'spiritual' gifts are given solely at the discretion of the Holy Spirit, and are BTW, 'irrevocable'.

Thirdly, I really do wish you would not pray for me to receive the "baptism of fire", for I do not believe that many understand that passage, in its context, accurately. Let's look at it, briefly, and I'll only quote one reference to the subject, although there are more than one reference to it, in the gospels, but they do not really differ all that much.

The only fire that is spoken of that is everlasting and/or unquenchable, is the fire of eternal judgment/condemanation, i. e. 'Gehenna' or the lake of fire. And I do not want to experience that, (as I will not, FTR) nor do I wish anyone else to receive such. There is a great deal of difference between the 'purifying' fire for the believer, the 'fire' at the Bema, and the "baptism of fire", the 'unquenchable' fire of Gehenna.

I don't mind the first two, but would the last. Consider this carefully, all, and let's not attempt to 'overspiritualize', this, neglecting the literal interpretation in its own context.

Ed

 

I haven't read the whole thread, so if these points were touched upon, I apologize:

1. Christ was baptized by John

2. All the Apostles (except Paul) were baptized by John, and nowhere is there any record of their being rebaptized. Neither is there any record of Apollos being rebaptized.

3. John the Baptist preached the Gospel. His message was

• Repentance from dead works
• Faith toward Christ
• Eternal Judgment
• The Doctrine of Baptisms. (Water, fire and Spirit)

4. The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it, Luk 16:16. And Mark begins the Gospel of Jesus Christ with the preaching John.

Simply put, there is no distinction to be made between the baptism of John and the baptism of the Apostles and their disciples.

I think Matthew Henry best described the situation:

 

With all due respect, this is simply in error. James, the Lord's brother would not have been baptized by John, as John had already been executed prior to the Lord's own crucifixion, and there is no implication that James was ever a believer before the resurrection and appearing of the Lord to him. And the same can be said for some others identified as having the gift of apostle in Scripture, as well, although both Barnabas and Matthias probably had been baptized by John, from what I can ascertain from Scripture. But Epaphroditis and Timothy certainly were not. And yes, these five are identified as 'apostles', as well, in Scripture.

This is likewise, incorrect, at best. John's baptism preceded the cross, and was directed as an identification to and for Israel. The baptism here that Paul 'participated' in and baptised with, (even though he did always not baptize all he was addressing, and was in fact, glad he did not, in some cases), was different, as it was concerning the church, the body of Christ, even though it was likewise an 'identifying mark', for believers, a la Philip and the Ethiopian, and Peter and Cornelius. But the fact that they were "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus", shows there was some difference, else this would not have been 'required'. They had already been baptized "unto John's baptism". Then why another and different "identification"??

With all respect due to the late Matthew Henry, he is here mistaken. There is no such thing as "rectifies" here. The church, the body of Christ wasn't yet revealed prior to Jesus's ascension, even though Jesus 'predicted' it, but without the details. That 'mystery' remained for the NT Apostles (primarily Paul) to yet reveal, via the Holy Spirit, so there was nothing 'rectifying' about it, but rather 'revelation'.

Ed

 

This is the only explicit reference to re-baptism in the New Testament that I know of.

 

My point was, that the Twelve received John's baptism. At the very least their baptism "preceded the cross," and yet there is no record of their rebaptism. Simply put, they weren't rebaptized.

In whose name did John baptize? He baptized in Christ's name, because Christ was the message he was preaching. The disciples in Ephesus obviously didn't get the message.