1. 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!

Apostles baptized?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by C.S. Murphy, May 20, 2003.

Top Posters
Page 1 of 4
  1. C.S. Murphy

    C.S. Murphy New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am doing research on baptism and I have a question. Were the apostles baptized other than the baptism of John? I am not saying yes or no just that I am wondering, does anyone have a scripture reference either way.
    Murph
     
    #1 C.S. Murphy, May 20, 2003
  2. Frogman

    Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know of a scriptural reference either way, but I would think that if this were the case it would have been shown. John 3 does show that the Jews attempted to make a point of contention between the Baptism of John and that of Christ (the desciples).

    God Bless.
    Bro. Dallas Eaton [​IMG]
     
    #2 Frogman, May 20, 2003
  3. C.S. Murphy

    C.S. Murphy New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    Another thought I had concerned the fact of when they were converted. For instance John believed as he saw the empty tomb so his baptism would have had to occur after that point. Right?
     
    #3 C.S. Murphy, May 20, 2003
  4. donnA

    donnA Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think it all starts with the much debated question, when were the disciples actually saved.
     
    #4 donnA, May 20, 2003
  5. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,371
    Likes Received:
    2,405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    First let me say, we are dealing here with Category 3 Truth (Informed/Uninformed Opinion). As far as Scripture speaks to the question, all I can find is the requirements of Acts 1:22-23. There, Peter speaks only of John's baptism. Other than this reference, the Bible is silent as to any other baptism of the disciples/Apostles. And I am loath to take any doctrinal stand (systematic or practical) based on silence.
     
    #5 Squire Robertsson, May 20, 2003
  6. C.S. Murphy

    C.S. Murphy New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    Silence is indeed golden so we will not be able to say for certain but perhaps the apostles were also baptized with the large number of others on Pentacoust. Any thoughts?
    Murph
     
    #6 C.S. Murphy, May 20, 2003
  7. Frogman

    Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    To say they were baptized on Pentecost would be saying that Christ changed the Baptism of John, this says that baptism was not Christian and then says that Christ, the head of the Church did not have a Christian baptism, while he possessed the baptism of John, all church members possess a different baptism, this would put Christ out of the church. Because of this I would reject the notion that the Apostles were ever 'rebaptized'.

    God Bless.
    Bro. Dallas Eaton [​IMG]
     
    #7 Frogman, May 20, 2003
  8. C.S. Murphy

    C.S. Murphy New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    Frogman John baptised for the remission of sins and since Jesus was sinless then His was a special baptism. All others baptized by John should then receive baptism again after receiving Christ. Apollos was called aside by Priscilla and Aquilla because he knew only of the baptism of John. Johns baptism was important but incomplete. I do feel that the 11 may have been baptized on pentecaust but I have no proof nor do I feel it matters. I hope we agree that baptism must occur after salvation.
    Murph
     
    #8 C.S. Murphy, May 21, 2003
  9. Frogman

    Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, we agree as to that, yet I believe that Matt. 3.11 is showing Christ identifying with the church. I do not believe that John's baptism was incomplete. Or if it was I believe there would have been made particular mention of it.

    They who received John's Baptism (except Christ) did so by bringing forth fruit of repentance. Today it is baptism alone that identifies believers with the church. I take this to show that Christ identified with that body which he has called out.

    Bro. Dallas Eaton
     
    #9 Frogman, May 21, 2003
  10. C.S. Murphy

    C.S. Murphy New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
    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.
    6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
    7 And all the men were about twelve.
    Acts 19:1-7 (KJV)

    I think Paul thought it incomplete.
    Murph
     
    #10 C.S. Murphy, May 21, 2003
  11. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,371
    Likes Received:
    2,405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    My question on these verses is
    I don't mind dealing with "snack shop" theology. We must remember not to anathamatize those who disagree with us on the number of fleas on the tail of the red horse in Revelation.

    [ May 21, 2003, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Squire Robertsson ]
     
    #11 Squire Robertsson, May 21, 2003
  12. Frogman

    Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    While I would not be dogmatic on it, I am convinced personally that these scripture taken together show that those disciples Paul rebaptized were not because John's baptism was inadequate, but was found in the error of the teaching of Apollos.

    JMHO.

    Bro. Dallas Eaton
     
    #12 Frogman, May 21, 2003
  13. C.S. Murphy

    C.S. Murphy New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    While I would not be dogmatic on it, I am convinced personally that these scripture taken together show that those disciples Paul rebaptized were not because John's baptism was inadequate, but was found in the error of the teaching of Apollos.

    JMHO.

    Bro. Dallas Eaton     </font>[/QUOTE]19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
    Matt 28:19

    I feel Jesus declares that John's baptism was incomplete. This is why Paul specified to those who were taught by Apollos what Johns baptism was and also why he felt the need to rebaptize.
    Murph
     
    #13 C.S. Murphy, May 21, 2003
  14. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Water baptism is water baptism is water baptism. Or so some believe.

    I see distinctions in purpose, if not in method:</font>
    • The baptism of the jews for ceremonial cleansing</font>
    • The baptism of John for repentance</font>
    • The baptism of believers at Pentecost</font>
    • Modern believer's baptism</font>
    Even today, our church next door (Disciples of Christ) baptize as a part of salvation. IF a person from that group actually DOES get saved (it happens, you know), then we would NOT recognize his baptism as valid and require him to be baptized again.

    Yet they say and do the exact same thing (method) of immersing, but the purpose is different.
     
    #14 Dr. Bob, May 22, 2003
  15. Frogman

    Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    How can we explain the Baptism of Christ? If John's baptism is not sufficient, then is the baptism of Christ valid?

    We know his was not because of repentance nor for regeneration. We simply know he submitted to the baptism of John to identify with the ones he would call out.

    I believe Paul 're-baptized' those disciples because they had received baptism in error.

    Just wondering?

    God Bless.
    Bro. Dallas Eaton
     
    #15 Frogman, May 22, 2003
  16. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dallas, John's baptism was not insufficient for Christ at all. That does not have anything to do with whether or not he baptism of the disciples is sufficient. The New Covenant did not begin until Christ died on the cross.

    One must believe that the church started before the N.C. to believe that such a baptism would be valid.

    I realize that Landmarkers and primitives might believe this, but think about it. You would have the church under the authority of the Law. You would have the church operating under a system that Christ was about to eradicate.

    John's baptism had a purpose. It was to prepare a people from the nation of Israel to receive her King. It was not to start the church.

    Christ started the church exactly when he said he would, on the day of Pentecost.
     
    #16 Daniel David, May 22, 2003
  17. Frogman

    Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Think of this, if the Apostles were not already saved prior to the institution of the Lord's Supper, then Christ brought each of them to the Table, and if we practice even communion open to believers, but not the unsaved, we are yet in error.

    I respectfully disagree, if John's baptism is invalid then I know of no valid baptism.

    Scripture plainly teaches that Christ did not baptize (John 4), though I know you know where it is found.

    Paul only rebaptized because of the error in the doctrine of Apollos, the Scripture shows this in context, though separated by ch. divisions by man.

    How are we to answer the dilemma of the unsaved being brought to the table? How do we deny the error that the Supper is efficacious?

    There is but one baptism and it is the baptism that John administered. Scripture does not support the idea of changing it.

    If you can reconcile the unsaved being brought to the Table, then the Apostles being 're-baptized' after receiving salvation, then requiring that only the saved and baptized believer's only being permitted to the Table, then you may convince me. Otherwise, I do not see how my view is error.

    If the church was not founded until Pentecost, then the above is not a commission given to the church, as it was not yet in existence.
    Bro. Dallas Eaton
     
    #17 Frogman, May 22, 2003
  18. C.S. Murphy

    C.S. Murphy New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the church was not founded until Pentecost, then the above is not a commission given to the church, as it was not yet in existence.
    Bro. Dallas Eaton     </font>[/QUOTE]Brother Eaton I would ask that we stick to the baptism question before moving to the Lords Supper. I do hope that you will reconsider matt 28:19 and not dismiss it so quickly. I also hope that your statement above about the commission not being given to the church is tongue in cheek.
    Murph
     
    #18 C.S. Murphy, May 22, 2003
  19. C.S. Murphy

    C.S. Murphy New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr. Bob, Daniel David and Murph all seem to agree on an issue can teh end be far off. [​IMG]

    Glad to have you back PTW
     
    #19 C.S. Murphy, May 22, 2003
  20. Frogman

    Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok, I will stick to the baptism question for the sake of this thread. Sorry to have meandered. But I do believe the Lord's Supper question is valid.

    I don't really know what you mean tongue in cheek, I honestly believe if the church was not founded until Pentecost,then it was not able to receive a commission in Matt. 28.19. honestly, if not already est. how did they receive this commission? It would have been given only to those present, the Apostles.

    The baptism question raises too many other questions. But as you wish we will stick to the baptism question.

    When were the Apostles baptized?
    When they brought to John their fruits meet for repentance on the banks of the Jordan River.

    Bro. Dallas Eaton
     
    #20 Frogman, May 22, 2003
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 4
Loading...