Rebaptism

[skypair]

I wonder if anyone can explain this to me:

In reading Acts 19, I see where old covenant-believing disciples of John the Baptist (obviously baptized by him) meet Paul, hear about Christ, believe, and are rebaptized in His name.

If the Catholics were wrong, shouldn't Calvin and Luther have been rebaptized?

Instead, it seems they kept the notion of baptizing infants for sin thereby justifying them with God just as the Catholics did. And that seemingly, as understood by Augustine and Catholicism, was when the "elect" became "regenerated," "born again," "spiritual men," "born from above," all of God/none of their own decision.

Obviously this is not carried forward into the Baptist church but it does seem to still exist in the Presby, Reform, Congregational, etc. churches where, unless one asks, one is not rebaptized.

skypair

 

[lbaker]

Based on Acts 18:24-25 they may have been taught and immersed by Apollos.

Anyway, it looks like the reason they were rebaptized was they weren't baptized "into Christ" or in His name.

Seems to me Luther, Calvin, etc. should have been re-baptized as should anyone immersed or sprinkled as an infant.

I think our reaction to the idea of baptism saving infants, sans faith, may be why we have such an issue with adult baptism having anything to do with conversion. Sort of like we threw out the baptismal water with the baby.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Another thought too...is that it's not really a re-baptism. It's biblical baptism for the first time.

 

[lbaker]

Another thought too...is that it's not really a re-baptism. It's biblical baptism for the first time.

Right. Wish I had thought of that.

 

[skypair]

Another thought too...is that it's not really a re-baptism. It's biblical baptism for the first time.

Right on!! But such was a huge issue with the early Reform and Calvinist churches causing them to persecute and exile those who did such.

But do you see this as causing a very large flaw in their sotierology? in their ordo saludis?

skypair

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Right on!! But such was a huge issue with the early Reform and Calvinist churches causing them to persecute and exile those who did such.

But do you see this as causing a very large flaw in their sotierology? in their ordo saludis?

skypair

I am no proponent of infant baptism. But it is, for them, a Covenantal doctrine, not a doctrine of salvation.

RB

 

[ktn4eg]

Even some Baptist churches don't consider as valid a baptism performed by immersion after a person has professed Christ as Savior.

These are primarily churches that hold to the concept of "Landmarkism." Some of these churches will state that if a given church wasn't organized under the "proper authority," i.e., from a "mother church" that had "proper authority"--and so on and so on--presumably on back to the days of Christ when He formed his church while here on earth (not at Pentecost)--that their baptism isn't valid.

Maybe that's kind of a stretch, but apparently that's what at least some of these so-called "Landmarkers" (a/k/a "Chain-Link Successionists" or something similar to that) do believe.

 

[DHK]

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.

Having never even heard of the Holy Spirit, there is some dispute that these "disciples of John" were even saved. Even John knew of the Holy Spirit and saw it (in the form of a dove) as it descended upon Jesus at his baptism. How could one sit faithfully under the ministry of John and still not hear of the Holy Spirit?

 

[lbaker]

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.

Having never even heard of the Holy Spirit, there is some dispute that these "disciples of John" were even saved. Even John knew of the Holy Spirit and saw it (in the form of a dove) as it descended upon Jesus at his baptism. How could one sit faithfully under the ministry of John and still not hear of the Holy Spirit?

They may have been taught by Apollos who had an imperfect understanding of Jesus and baptism before he was enlightened.

 

[Tom Butler]

Even some Baptist churches don't consider as valid a baptism performed by immersion after a person has professed Christ as Savior.

These are primarily churches that hold to the concept of "Landmarkism." Some of these churches will state that if a given church wasn't organized under the "proper authority," i.e., from a "mother church" that had "proper authority"--and so on and so on--presumably on back to the days of Christ when He formed his church while here on earth (not at Pentecost)--that their baptism isn't valid.

Maybe that's kind of a stretch, but apparently that's what at least some of these so-called "Landmarkers" (a/k/a "Chain-Link Successionists" or something similar to that) do believe.

Not all Landmarkers are successionists, but a lot are. But all that I know do hold to the authority of the local church as the commissioned guardian of the ordinances and the integrity of the teaching, preaching and doctrinal ministries.

The Great Commission was given to the only church which existed at the time, with the Eleven as the core group. Each succeeding congregation was given the same commission. It alone may determine the validity of one's baptism and if one meets the qualifications for membership.

 

[skypair]

Having never even heard of the Holy Spirit, there is some dispute that these "disciples of John" were even saved.

They weren't saved in the NT/nc way, at least. But I doubt that they would be disciples who had not a) believed and b) been baptized on account of the forgiveness of sins (JUSTIFIED/RECONCILED with God).

But here we see that OT salvation lacked, not reconciliation with God, but sanctification by the indwelling life of Christ, the Holy Spirit. And we see that the ONLY way to receive the life of the Spirit was by first believing on Christ for salvation.

Even John knew of the Holy Spirit and saw it (in the form of a dove) as it descended upon Jesus at his baptism. How could one sit faithfully under the ministry of John and still not hear of the Holy Spirit?

Again, OT "signs and wonders" were still not the same as what they appear to be in the place of. The Passover lamb was no more Jesus than the man in the moon.

skypair

 

[RustySword]

I found it interesting that in the New Geneva Study Bible (which is a study Bible with a Reformed slant, that Nelson published briefly), the note on Baptism is found at....Genesis 17!

BTW, I was baptised as an infant (Roman Catholic), but dunked later at a Plymouth Brethren chapel, at the age of 21.

 

[Aaron]

How could one sit faithfully under the ministry of John and still not hear of the Holy Spirit?

Or under Apollos, who was mighty in the Scriptures.