1. Recently I was reading Calvin's Institutes, where he denies that Paul rebaptized the 12 disciples from Ephesus in water (Acts 19:1-7).
2. In another place, Calvin believes that the baptism of John and the Christian baptism are the same, with one exception, John baptized pointing to Jesus, while Christian baptism is in the name of Jesus (4.15.7).
3. Rather he believes that in Acts 19:1-7, the disciples were baptized with the baptism of the Spirit when Paul laid his hands on them:
"But I deny that they were rebaptised (see Calv. Instruct. adv. Anabapt.). What then is meant by the words, “They were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus”? Some interpret that they were only instructed in sound doctrine by Paul; but I would rather interpret more simply, that the baptism of the Holy Spirit, in other words, the visible gifts of the Holy Spirit, were given by the laying on of hands. These are sometimes designated under the name of baptism. Thus, on the day of Pentecost, the apostles are said to have remembered the words of the Lord concerning the baptism of the Spirit and of fire. And Peter relates that the same words occurred to him when he saw these gifts poured out on Cornelius and his family and kindred. There is nothing repugnant to this interpretation in its being afterwards added, “When Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them” (Acts 19:6)." —Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.15.18 (Emphasis mine).
4. Calvin further observes,
"For Luke does not narrate two different things, but follows the form of narrative common to the Hebrews, who first give the substance, and then explain more fully. This any one may perceive from the mere context. For he says, “When they heard this they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them.” In this last sentence is described what the nature of the baptism was."—Institutes of the Christian Religion
5. So Acts 19:5, 6 do not relate two different acts but rather one. V. 5 is a summary and v. 6 is the explanation, so says Calvin.
6. But several commentators would disagree with him. I am also hard-pressed to see what Calvin saw. They very Greek construction of vv.5, 6 and a similar situation in chp. 8:12-17 would not allow me to agree with Calvin at this point.
Did Paul Rebaptize?
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by TCGreek, Jul 26, 2007.
Page 1 of 5
-
pinoybaptist Active MemberSite Supporter
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.
-
-
:laugh: :laugh:
Not able to comment on the OP right now without some study. Good question though. -
pinoybaptist Active MemberSite Supporter
-
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 you:praying: -
5. I think we need to distinguish between being baptized by the Spirit (1 Cor 12:13) and baptism of the Spirit. They are not the same. -
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 you:praying: -
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.
-
J.D. said: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!"Click to expand...
peace to you:praying: -
canadyjd said: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"?Click to expand...
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!
Were they true believers when they were baptized prior to receiving Holy Spirit?Click to expand...
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?Click to expand...
skypair -
J.D. said: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.Click to expand...
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 -
LeBuick said: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)Click to expand...
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?Click to expand...
skypair -
J.D. said: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.Click to expand...
2. You will have to demonstrate to me how you got that view. Let me provide Calvin's on John's Baptism and maybe you can demonstrate the covenant idea:
"This makes it perfectly certain that the ministry of John was the very same as that which was afterwards delegated to the apostles. For the different hands by which baptism is administered do not make it a different baptism, but sameness of doctrine proves it to be the same. John and the apostles agreed in one doctrine. Both baptised unto repentance, both for remission of sins, both in the name of Christ, from whom repentance and remission of sins proceed. John pointed to him as the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world (John 1:29), thus describing him as the victim accepted of the Father, the propitiation of righteousness, and the author of salvation. What could the apostles add to this confession?
Wherefore, let no one be perplexed because ancient writers labour to distinguish the one from the other. Their views ought not to be in such esteem with us as to shake the certainty of Scripture. For who would listen to Chrysostom denying that remission of sins was included in the baptism of John (Hom. in Mt 1:14), rather than to Luke asserting, on the contrary, that John preached “the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins?” (Luke 3:3). Nor can we admit Augustine’s subtlety, that by the baptism of John sins were forgiven in hope, but by the baptism of Christ are forgiven in reality. For seeing the Evangelist clearly declares that John in his baptism promised the remission of sins, why detract from this eulogium when no necessity compels it?
Should any one ask what difference the word of God makes, he will find it to be nothing more than that John baptised in the name of him who was to come, the apostles in the name of him who was already manifested (Luke 3:16; Acts 19:4).—Institutes of the Christian Religion (4.15.7).Click to expand... -
TCGreek said:1. Calvin in his Institutes has a section on John's Baptism and Christian Baptism, and he mentions nothing about John's Baptism being a sign of the convenant.
2. You will have to demonstrate to me how you got that view. Let me provide Calvin's on John's Baptism and maybe you can demonstrate the covenant idea:
3. Please, kindly justify your assertion, for this Calvin's discussion on John's Baptism and its affinity to Christian Baptism.Click to expand...
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.
Page 1 of 5