Did Paul Rebaptize?

[canadyjd]

I do not believe they were already saved prior to their encounter with Paul. I believe Paul led them to the Lord, which would include that inward work of the Spirit, and then they were water-baptized, before he laid his hands on them.

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Perhaps Luke included this encounter to demonstrate the authority of Paul, which superceded that of Apollos and that of John the Baptist.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.

There's a difference in what I believe and what the Pentecostals believe.... Each member of the body of Christ has been baptized by the Spirit (1 Cor 12:13).... But I believe that we too are empowered by the Spirit for ministry and this is not the idea of speaking in tongues like the Pentecostals....

I was focusing on this statement of yours:

(TC said) I believe that at the moment of their faith in Christ they would have received the Spirit. But as evidence of their true inclusion in the body of Christ, Paul laid his hands for them to receive that baptism of the Spirit as evidence of the inner work of grace, and so they began speaking in tongues.

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:

 

[TCGreek]

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.

1. The term "disciples" doesn't necessarily means that a person is a follower of Jesus. Even the Pharisees had their own disciples (Matt 22:15, 16).

2. They seemed to have been made disciples according to John's baptism after the cross. If that is the case, their baptism was invalide.

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.

3. Paul's question seems to imply that at the moment of faith in Christ they should have received the Spirit of adoption, being sealed by him (Eph 1:13; Gal 3:2).

4. So when they didn't hear about the Spirit this side of the cross, something was wrong.

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.

5. I grant that it is different than these other accounts in some details.

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

6. Now that is a good question to ask.

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.

7. Good point. Because every time a person needed the Spirit, Paul or someone of his rank must lay his hands.

8. Whatever we make of this text, Paul would later say to the Ephesians that when a person believes that person is sealed with the Spirit of adoption (1:13). These 12 disciples were Ephesians. Maybe that is why Paul asked them if they received the Spirit when they believed.

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:

9. If you divorce my comments from Acts 19, then I see how you can get that. But keep my comments confined to Acts 19 and maybe that will not give you the impression of Pentecostalism.

 

[canadyjd]

The term "disciples" doesn't necessarily means that a person is a follower of Jesus. Even the Pharisees had their own disciples (Matt 22:15, 16).

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

Paul's question seems to imply that at the moment of faith in Christ they should have received the Spirit of adoption, being sealed by him (Eph 1:13; Gal 3:2).... So when they didn't hear about the Spirit this side of the cross, something was wrong.

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?

I grant that it is different than these other accounts in some details.

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

Whatever we make of this text, Paul would later say to the Ephesians that when a person believes that person is sealed with the Spirit of adoption (1:13). These 12 disciples were Ephesians. Maybe that is why Paul asked them if they received the Spirit when they believed.

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.

If you divorce my comments from Acts 19, then I see how you can get that. But keep my comments confined to Acts 19 and maybe that will not give you the impression of Pentecostalism.

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:

 

[TCGreek]

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

1. They said they were baptized into John's baptism. Then Paul told them what John's baptism was all about, pointing to Jesus. This is what they would have heard. I do not believe they were followers of Jesus for that mere fact.

2. John's baptism was an arrow.

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

3. I believe you have misquoted me here. Can you kindly show me what post you got this from?

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.

4. I do not believe I went too far. The Spirit upon them by the laying on of Paul's hands is proof that they are genuine believers and are part of the body of Christ.

5. You must demonstrate to me from Scripture why this is not a valid conclusion.

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

peace to youraying:

6. Again, if you are looking for Pentecostalism in my comments, then you are going to find it.

7. Do you believe that the apostles on Pentecost had the indwelling of the Spirit before the Spirit came with power on them?

a. I believe they did, for no one can belong to Christ is he does not have the Spirit (Rom 8:9).

b. Luke says that "you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you" (Acts 1:8). That is what happened in Acts 2:1ff.

 

[canadyjd]

1. They said they were baptized into John's baptism. Then Paul told them what John's baptism was all about, pointing to Jesus. This is what they would have heard. I do not believe they were followers of Jesus for that mere fact.

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.

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

TC said: I believe you have misquoted me here. Can you kindly show me what post you got this from?

TC said: Page#1, post#10: Each member of the body of Christ has been baptized by the Spirit (1 Cor 12:13).... But I believe that we too are empowered by the Spirit for ministry and this is not the idea of speaking in tongues like the Pentecostals.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were trying to say here.

I do not believe I went too far. The Spirit upon them by the laying on of Paul's hands is proof that they are genuine believers and are part of the body of Christ...You must demonstrate to me from Scripture why this is not a valid conclusion.

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.

Again, if you are looking for Pentecostalism in my comments, then you are going to find it.

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?

Do you believe that the apostles on Pentecost had the indwelling of the Spirit before the Spirit came with power on them?

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

That is what happened in Acts 2:1ff.

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:

 

[TCGreek]

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.

1. I will grant that this certainly is a possibility.

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?

2. I do not think that you will find in anything that I have posted that I believe speaking in tongues is a sign TODAY for the indwelling of the Spirit.

3. With the laying of the apostle's hand came the Spirit, signifying acceptance and an inclusion, as in the case of Cornelius, which was evidenced by speaking in tongues.

4. Must we receive a second Spirit-baptism to be truly accepted in the family of God TODAY? No. But we are empowered by the Spirit for ministry.

[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:

5. It began with a quote from Calvin's Institutes and exactly happened in Acts 19.

6. Were the disciples rebaptized in water or were they baptized with the Spirit when Paul laid hands on them (Calvin's view)?

 

[mima]

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.

 

[skypair]

1. I'm not convinced that the two baptisms are the same either, but my mind is not made up yet.

2. In TC's OP, point #6, he flatly says that he disagrees with Calvin.

3. When I said that I think Calvin "has a point", I said that in support of Calvins exegisis of Act 19, which I find viable, but again, I don't think I actually agree that water baptism was not involved, but I'm not convinced either way.

4. Covenant Theology has no bearing on Calvin's exegisis of Acts 19. It has much more to do with Calvin's pneumatology. I introduced the question of Calvin's view of CT as only as it relates to his view that the two baptisms were "the same"./quote] So far, I am with you. I don't think Paul's baptism in Acts 19 needed to be water but probably was whereupon he laid on hands to confirm their ministries (which for Baptists signifies endorsement, I believe).

5. Refering to John Calvin's views as "sophomoric" reveals something about yourself.

You're right -- pride. I was listening to Adrian Rogers the other day and caught myself in every one of his indictments. Can I say his "not fully thought out" theory?

6. I don't see how he could have "denied" dispensationalism, since NNE ever heard of it till the mid 19th century.

True -- which means he didn't deal with the issue of timing issues found in scriptures -- including that OT saints were not indwelt and won't be until the MK.

7. Can you name for me ANY covenant that John Calvin denies?

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

 

[skypair]

But consider the sociopolitical milieu at the time, particularly as it regards the anabaptists. Calvin would be entrapping himself if he were to admit that Paul actually rebaptized them based on their belief!

EXACTLY! And as you go on, watch this:

The best way to describe this was a "pactio" or covenant in which God agreed to give man eternal life if he were to fulfill the obligations in the agreement - no matter how one-sided they were. This same ability of God to do whatever He wanted allowed Him to declare us all guilty in Adam (federal headship) even if we did not sin yet. As such the picture of God's redemptive plan is seen more and more as a "covenant" as we move from the early thinkers like Zwingli and Calvin to later ones like Turretin.

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

 

[skypair]

Jarthur001,

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

Am I missing something? This speaks nothing toward dispensationa ages. This is a statement about the Sabbath.

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

 

[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.

2. They seemed to have been made disciples according to John's baptism after the cross. If that is the case, their baptism was invalide.

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.

4. So when they didn't hear about the Spirit this side of the cross, something was wrong.

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

skypair

 

[skypair]

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.

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

 

[EdSutton]

TCGreek, canadyjd,

The explanation for Acts 19 (if I may enlighten you) is to show the transition from one saving gospel to the next

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??

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

skypair

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

 

[EdSutton]

To my fellow Baptist, from a Baptist who has received the gift of tongues. This is a wonderful subject and one that truly needs to be discussed, but be careful you might yourself might get baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire. Of course it is very obvious to a poor street preacher that there are two baptisms to be received. A confession of faith brings about salvation. Then the water baptism, to be followed after salvation is an indemnifying with Christ event in the life of the believer.
Now as to the baptism of the Holy Ghost and fire, while it is not absolutely necessarily accompanied by the gift of tongues (do all speak with tongues) the baptism of Holy Ghost and fire is usually accompanied by this gift. But as Mr. Rankin said, I'll have to resign since I have a prayer language also. Oh that more Baptist preachers had a prayer language. Every one wants more power, to be a witness, to be a soulwinner, to be a prayer warrior but the vast majority deny the power of the Holy Spirit where the power to be a witness a soulwinner and a prayer warrior comes from.
I have prayed for many Baptist preachers to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues, to my knowledge only one of them has, And when last I saw him his word to me was, if it had not happened to me I would never have believed it to be true.

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.

8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me[a] in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1:8 - NKJV)
2 he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” (Acts 129:2 - NKJV)
In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, (Eph. 1:13 - NKJV)

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

4 There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.5 There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. 7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: 8 for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same[b] Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills. (I Cor. 12:4-11 - NKJV)
29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. (Rom. 11:29 - NKJV)

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.

16 John answered, saying to all, “I indeed baptize you with water; but One mightier than I is coming, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 17 His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather the wheat into His barn; but the chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire.” (Lk. 3:16-17 - NKJV)
43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell (Gehenna - ES) , into the fire that shall never be quenched— 44 where
‘ Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.’[a] (Mk. 9:43-44 - NKJV)
41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: (Matt. 25:41 - NKJV)
7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. (Jude 7 - NKJV)

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

 

[Aaron]

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:

3. Paul enquired how they came to be baptized, if they knew nothing of the Holy Ghost; for, if they were baptized by any of Christ's ministers, they were instructed concerning the Holy Ghost, and were baptized in his name. "Know you not that Jesus being glorified, consequently the Holy Ghost is given? unto what then were you baptized? This is strange and unaccountable. What! baptized, and yet know nothing of the Holy Ghost? Surely your baptism was a nullity, if you know nothing of the Holy Ghost; for it is the receiving of the Holy Ghost that is signified and sealed by that washing of regeneration. Ignorance of the Holy Ghost is as inconsistent with a sincere profession of Christianity as ignorance of Christ is." Applying it to ourselves, it intimates that those are baptized to no purpose, and have received the grace of God therein in vain, that do not receive and submit to the Holy Ghost. It is also an enquiry we should often make, not only to whose honour we were born, but into whose service we were baptized, that we may study to answer the ends both of our birth and of our baptism. Let us often consider unto what we were baptized, that we may live up to our baptism.
4. They own that they were baptized unto John's baptism—eis to Ioannou baptisma that is, as I take it, they were baptized in the name of John, not by John himself (he was far enough from any such thought), but by some weak, well-meaning disciple of his, that ignorantly kept up his name as the head of a party, retaining the spirit and notion of those disciples of his that were jealous of the growth of Christ's interest, and complained to him of it, John iii. 26. Some one or more of these, that found themselves much edified by John's baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, not thinking that the kingdom of heaven, which he spoke of as at hand, was so very near as it proved, ran away with that notion, rested in what they had, and thought they could not do better than to persuade others to do so too; and so, ignorantly, in a blind zeal for John's doctrine, they baptized here and there one in John's name, or, as it is here expressed, unto John's baptism, looking no further themselves, nor directing those that they baptized any further.
5. Paul explains to them the true intent and meaning of John's baptism, as principally referring to Jesus Christ, and so rectifies the mistake of those who had baptized them into the baptism of John, and had not directed them to look any further, but to rest in that.

 

[EdSutton]

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.

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.

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

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"??

I think Matthew Henry best described the situation:

5. Paul explains to them the true intent and meaning of John's baptism, as principally referring to Jesus Christ, and so rectifies the mistake of those who had baptized them into the baptism of John, and had not directed them to look any further, but to rest in that.

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

 

[Bob Alkire]

This is the only explicit reference to re-baptism in the New Testament that I know of.http://www.baptistboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1055792#_ftn1 http://www.baptistboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1055792#_ftnref1

 

[Aaron]

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.

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.

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"??

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.

 

[TCGreek]

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

1. This thread began with a reflecton on a quote from Calvin's Institutes.

2. No one is claiming any definitive position.

3. This is a difficult passage and I do not claim to have the answers. I am glad to be in a discussion in trying to understand what Calvin was saying, while at the same time remain true to Scripture.

 

[TCGreek]

***Edited. Wrong thread. Sorry.