A couple of questions have been posed on another site that I would like to try and answer – were the apostles ever baptized (in water)? Were the apostles re-baptized after Pentecost?
We must start off by acknowledging the obvious – there is no explicit statement within the New Testament to answer either of these questions. While there are many who base their whole theology upon something never explicitly stated in scripture (namely that one is saved by faith only/alone), the fact that the two questions we’re dealing with aren’t clearly answered will always be a source of contention. However, for those who are willing to honestly deal with the evidence that we have, I think these questions can be sufficiently answered.
Let us begin with the first, and in my opinion, the easiest question – were the apostles ever baptized with water? Let us look at the evidence:
In John 1: 40 we see that Andrew was a disciple of John the Baptizer. To assert that someone was a follower of John the Baptist without submitting to the ordinance that was key to John’s ministry would be foolish. We can reasonably conclude by this alone that Andrew had been baptized with water.
In John 4:1 the Pharisees acknowledge that Jesus’ disciples were baptizing more than even John the Baptist. Are we to conclude that those who were administering staggering numbers of immersions had never submitted to it themselves? That would be a foolish conclusion.
Lastly, and perhaps more importantly, the Lord Himself submitted to John’s baptism to “fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15). If the One who had no sins to be forgiven thought it important enough to be baptized, how much more so those who followed Him who definitely did have sins that needed to be remitted.
We can logically conclude, without any explicit statement, that the apostles were indeed baptized with water.
The second question may not seem as simple, and I am sure that I have brethren that would disagree with my conclusion, but I will attempt to explain how I’ve reached my conclusion.
I think all of the controversy regarding whether or not the apostles (and everyone baptized with John’s baptism) were re-baptized centers on the Ephesians of Acts 19. If it weren’t for that one passage, I think there would be little dispute.
Before we deal with the apostles, there is another category of people that is worth considering – the faithful Jews who had died prior to the birth of the Christ. While they never had the opportunity to believe in the gospel or obey it, I know of few who would deny that Jesus’ sacrifice covered those godly individuals. Jesus did for those individuals what the law could not do (Romans 8: 3) – provide actual, permanent forgiveness of sins. We conclude that Jesus giving His life “made good” their law-keeping.
I believe that Jesus’ sacrifice did the same for those who were baptized with John’s baptism (and this would include the apostles). I am convinced that John’s baptism was “made good” by Jesus’ death. Keep in mind that Hebrews 9: 22 tells us that there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood. The keeping of the Law (prior to the death, burial & resurrection) and the baptism of John were “forward-looking”. The baptism that Jesus instituted after the DBR is “backward-looking”. In other words, those Jews who died prior to Jesus and those who were baptized with John’s baptism prior to the DBR were being obedient, looking to something that was yet to happen. Those who are obedient in faith, repentance, confession and baptism today are looking to something that has already happened. If Jesus sacrifice could validate the law-keeping of those who died before Him, it could certainly validate those baptized with John’s baptism while He lived.
I would hope that it is a given we understand that the Law of Moses is of no effect today. Jesus has fulfilled that Law and replaced it with a better law. This brings us to John’s baptism and the Ephesians of Acts 19. If we understand that John’s baptism was preparatory to the coming of the Christ, we can understand why the baptism of the Ephesian men of Acts 19 was not valid – because they were baptized in anticipation of the coming Messiah, not knowing that He had already came and accomplished His mission.
Logic must be applied here – In Acts 18 we see Apollos correctly teaching concerning Jesus, but he is teaching incorrectly about baptism (teaching John’s baptism – Acts 18:25). Aquilla & Priscilla take him aside and teach him fully. However, we have no record of Apollos being re-baptized. Why? Does it not seem logical that Apollos had been baptized with John’s baptism prior to the DBR? I can see no other valid explanation.
Then, in the next chapter, we are introduced to the Ephesians who were re-immersed by Paul. Why? Again, it seems that logic would dictate that these men were baptized with John’s baptism after the DBR. These men didn’t even know about the Holy Spirit being given. Paul tells these men that John’s baptism was to prepare the people for the one who would come after him (Acts 19:4). Since the one who John was preparing the people for had already come, John’s baptism had been rendered obsolete. Regardless of your conclusion of why these men were baptized twice, this is a powerful lesson on the importance of knowledge as it relates to baptism.
So, given the scriptural evidence that is available to us, I must conclude that the apostles (and all baptized with John’s baptism prior to the DBR) were NOT required to be re-baptized. Just like the faithful Jews who died prior to Christ, I am confident that Jesus’ giving of Himself validated those baptisms. There is only one example of individuals baptized with John’s baptism being re-immersed, and the reason for it seems clear (at least to me).
In the end, it really boils down to this – there is only ONE baptism today (Ephesians 4:5), and that is the baptism instituted by Christ (Matthew 28:19) and preached by Peter in Acts 2:38 (for the remission of sins). It is this baptism that Paul would tell us that puts us “into” Christ (Romans 6:3, Galatians 3:27). There should be no confusion as to which baptism applies to us today (although I know there is).
Addendum: I would like to offer some thoughts on John’s baptism that I think relates to this discussion. First, I see a difference between the purpose of John’s baptism and the baptism Peter commanded in Acts 2:38. Look:
Mark 1:4
John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Luke 3:3
And he came into all the district around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins;
Those passages describe John’s baptism for us. Now look at what Peter said in Acts 2:38:
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
I see an important difference here, be it ever-so-slight. John’s baptism was “of” repentance – to visibly demonstrate that one was repenting in preparation for the coming Savior. When we see Peter preach the baptism the Lord issued, repentance and baptism are separated. While both actions are tied to the remission of sins (by the word “and”), they are not tied together with “of” as in John’s baptism. This is important today as many will say that baptism is for a sign of repentance – this is not true (at least directly). Repentance is repentance. Baptism is baptism. These actions are not tied together as they were with John’s baptism.
That said, both John’s baptism and the Lord’s baptism have the same goal – forgiveness (or remission) of sins. However, as I discussed earlier, there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood*, so those who submitted to John’s baptism wouldn’t have had their sins remitted until Jesus shed His blood for them (and us). Consider this – if John’s baptism could provide remission of sins then there would be no need of Jesus’ sacrifice. Individuals then – and even throughout the coming ages – could submit to John’s baptism and have their sins forgiven. I am convinced that John’s baptism couldn’t enable anyone to have remission of sins without the shed blood of the Christ, just as a baptism today would have no power without the blood of Jesus.
Properly stated, John’s baptism was “unto” the remission of sins – bringing the individual near to the remission of sins. Likewise, today baptism is “unto” the remission of sins, yet it is also that which places us “into” (actually within) Christ, allowing the sins to be taken away forever.
I would not bind my conclusions on John’s baptism on anyone, and I am willing to consider evidence to the contrary. I would not bind these conclusions because, in the end, they have no bearing on my salvation or the salvation of anyone else living today. John the Baptizer has been long dead and the overlapping of his baptism and the Lord’s is not an issue (or shouldn’t be) for anyone now alive.
*We must acknowledge that the Lord directly forgave sins while He walked upon the Earth, but as Lord, only He had that right and ability. It could be argued that He could do so knowing of His impending sacrifice (so technically blood would be shed for those individuals forgiveness).
52 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 23, 2009 at 12:19 am
lee
Mat 3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
Mat 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
if jesus our example was baptized in johns baptism,
even though he didnt need it, why didnt the disciples
of jesus get baptized in his baptism.
wouldnt that have fulfilled all righteousness if it is necessary for us?
shouldnt they have followed their masters example?
lee
May 23, 2009 at 6:21 am
ProdigalKnot
Corey,
I like and agree with your logic here. John’s baptism being forward looking to the DBR and baptism today looking back to that time. Your conclusions about why the Ephesians needed to be re-baptized makes sense, too; except for one small thing: John died before the DBR. So any “baptism of John” that occured before the DBR would have the same validation as the disciples’ and Jesus’, wouldn’t you think?
And, if any baptisms were done by one of John’s disciples after the DBR then these are no longer valid, correct? It just makes me wonder why, when Jesus’ disciples began baptizing, Jesus didn’t instruct the disciples of John to cease and desist?
All we know for sure is that the New Covenant was penned in Christ’s blood and everything before that shedding of blood pointed to it.
May 26, 2009 at 12:56 pm
coreydavis
why didnt the disciples
of jesus get baptized in his baptism.
I’d say that they did, going by the evidence I posted.
And, if any baptisms were done by one of John’s disciples after the DBR then these are no longer valid, correct? It just makes me wonder why, when Jesus’ disciples began baptizing, Jesus didn’t instruct the disciples of John to cease and desist?
It is my opinion, based on what we’re giving, that they were indeed baptized by a disciple of John after the DBR. It is supposed by some that it was Apollos that had baptized these individuals (going back to Acts 18), but it seems to me that if that were true, they would have known of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps they were baptized by someone taught by Apollos?
I think that John’s disciples weren’t told to cease & desist because they were still preparing people for the kingdom which wouldn’t come into existence until after the DBR.
May 26, 2009 at 3:15 pm
lee
did you answer me. im not sure at all
lee
May 26, 2009 at 5:39 pm
coreydavis
if jesus our example was baptized in johns baptism,
even though he didnt need it, why didnt the disciples
of jesus get baptized in his baptism.
Let me try again – I’ve already shown that Andrew was logically baptized with John’s baptism. I’ve already shown that Jesus’ disciples were baptizing more than John while both Jesus & John lived, meaning that they would have submitted to it themselves. How else can I answer this question?
wouldnt that have fulfilled all righteousness if it is necessary for us?
What is the “that” you refer to? I don’t understand this question.
shouldnt they have followed their masters example?
As I said, I’m sure they did follow their master’s example. However, we can see from the exchange between John the Baptist and Jesus that the reason for the immersions would have differed.
May 26, 2009 at 5:53 pm
lee
what i am saying is if jesus submitted to johns baptism
to fulfill all righteousness even though he didn’t need it.
why did not the apostles except for paul submit to the
baptism of jesus after his death since it was supposed to be the final
piece of salvation. as far as i can tell it never happened. yet it is supposed to be vital to the process. how can they ask of others what they did not do themselves? it would have at least been a good example.
lee
May 26, 2009 at 7:08 pm
coreydavis
Well, that is really the whole point of my post – to show that John’s baptism (which the disciples of Jesus who followed Him while He lived would have submitted to) was validated by the DBR.
I’m glad you mentioned Paul – he would be the only apostle who would have to submit to the baptism Jesus instituted prior to His ascension (and that began being preached in Acts 2).
If John’s baptism wasn’t made good by Jesus’ sacrifice, then it seems pointless for God to institute it (and He did – Matthew 21:25) since it would have no effect.
May 26, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Randy
Corey. I think you have made this very clear on many levels. Not only did you make this clear, but you also made clear the importance of baptism and the importance of the work of Jesus on the cross. Great post !!!
Randy
May 26, 2009 at 7:40 pm
coreydavis
Thanks, Randy. Sorry to see you deleted your blog, but I can understand why you would.
May 26, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Randy
This does open the doors for some questions regarding the timing of the Apostles baptism. I mean, how much did they really understand about Jesus work on the cross at the time they were baptized in water?
Seems they had struggles with this part of the gospel. Even Thomas doubting to the point that he wouldn’t believe it till he seen and touched the Lord. I believe they were, in fact, baptized under Johns baptism, but they lacked much of the knowledge of the cross and the work of Christ for their sins, but yet their baptism was still valid.
Now, the big question: If God accepted their baptism, would He not do the same for those today who fail to grasp what all baptism is about?
They were baptized for the remission of sins under Johns baptism, but did they really grasp that Jesus would die and rise from the grave? Did they really understand this, or did they run and hide? Simon even denied Jesus prior to Jesus work on the cross, but he most likely was baptized already.
I think this post demonstrates much more than you realize – it demonstrates Gods love for sinners. So much so, that He still forgave the Apostles who didn’t connect baptism and the cross at the time of their baptism and it was revealed in the Old Testament that Jesus would come and die and rise again. They had the scriptures but lacked the proper understanding, but still their baptism was valid. We, today have both the Old and New Testaments – maybe God will grant to us the same grace He did to those who failed to grasp fully the work of the cross and the role of baptism.
May 27, 2009 at 3:23 am
lee
Mat 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
Mat 3:6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.
so you also have to say that all these didnt need to be baptized later.
is this correct?
lee
May 27, 2009 at 10:34 am
Randy
I think Lee raises a good point here. I still believe they were all covered even though they lacked full knowledge of the work of the cross and lacked the connection of baptism with the blood of Jesus.
They were baptized for the remission of sins as the verse would indicate “baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins” but their understanding was far from perfect. As you noted, they were looking ahead, but were they looking ahead and making the connection that baptism is where they contact the blood? I dont think anyone at that time understood this, nor do I think they even understood that Jesus would be paying for their sins on the cross and rising three days later.
But, their faith moved them to act upon what knowledge they did understand ( which was very little ) and they obeyed by faith through baptism. Now, we look back and we have far more understanding of what Jesus was planning and have a far better understanding of the purpose of the cross, but I bet we still are missing some things in our study. And, I would hope we all who put faith in Jesus are accepted on those terms. They didnt understand everything prior to the cross, but yet their baptism was valid – may God grant to us that same mercy.
May 27, 2009 at 12:50 pm
coreydavis
Lee,
Based on the evidence we have, yes, that is my opinion.
Randy,
You are right that few, if any, truly understood what Jesus was going to do. What they could understand is that they were submitting to a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
The same is basically true today – you may not understand everything recorded in scripture, but we ought to be able to understand that we are being baptized for the remission of sins. The only reason there is confusion is because the teachings of men has crept in, trying to alter the purpose of baptism. Remove those teachings and all you’re left with is the biblical purpose.
May 27, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Randy
I agree. They were baptized for remission of sins – before and after the cross.
May 27, 2009 at 1:48 pm
ProdigalKnot
What a wondeful discussion Corey! Thank you for your willingness to consider other impressions and comments.
I believe Randy is correct that this has clarified not only the necessity of baptism, but also expands on the mercy of God toward those who seek to please Him, even if they do so in ignorance of all the facts.
It is man, not God or the scripture, who has confused the purpose and meaning of baptism.
Thanks again for this article.
May 27, 2009 at 3:12 pm
liftingiron
I do think that remission of sins was most likely in the minds of those prior to the cross, before and at their baptism. But, John seemed to make “repentance of sin“ the reason one entered into the water. They knew nothing of “contacting the blood” at baptism, nor did they know that remission of sins was thru Jesus Christ shed blood. But, God accepted their baptisms, even though they lacked proper understanding what occurs at baptism.
If God accepted them with an improper understanding of baptism, then logic follows that He also will accept others who lack a proper understanding of baptism.
Will God send someone to hell who has truly repented of sin, and turned to His son for salvation?
Will God look at how properly they understood baptism or will God reckon them faithful, because they placed their hope in Christ?
I don’t wish to water-down the importance of baptism – I just think sometimes we get so tied up in theological gymnastics, that we lose sight of the cross and the work of Jesus.
Again, I agree – the Apostles were most likely baptized prior to the cross and they were baptized not knowing much at all about baptism being connected to Jesus and His work. I am sure they put this together after Jesus rose from the dead as evidenced by their teaching, but…..their baptisms were still accepted with improper understanding…
May 27, 2009 at 3:13 pm
liftingiron
Meant to put my name on there Corey….Randy again.
May 27, 2009 at 3:31 pm
coreydavis
Randy,
They weren’t told anything about the blood of Christ. How can we say they had an imperfect understanding? All they knew was that the Messiah was at hand, they were to be baptized to demonstrate their repentance to prepare, and that the result of their obedience would be the forgiveness of sins.
Did the Jews who died before Christ know that the Messiah would shed his blood for them, to redeem them? I see nothing to show that they did. They kept the Law because that is what God told them they must do.
There is no lack of knowledge on the part of either group – they simply followed what they were instructed from Heaven. They can’t be accountable for not understanding that which wasn’t revealed.
May 27, 2009 at 4:02 pm
liftingiron
I really see your point, but disagree that they lacked knowledge. Maybe they didn’t read the Old Testament scripture or maybe they failed to understand their meaning, but I think God presented the Jews with enough scripture to put it together.
He will be despised and rejected (Isa. 53:3).
He will die for our sin (Isa. 53:6).
He will be “cut off” before the destruction of Jerusalem and her temple (Dan. 9:24-27).
He will live after dying (Isa. 53:10).
He will justify many (Isa. 53:11).
He will be a light to the Gentiles (Isa. 49:6).
From a Jewish perspective, the Messiah would be a deliverer greater than Moses, a priest greater than Aaron, a king greater than David, a prophet greater than Elijah, and a servant more faithful than Israel.
Once Jesus’ followers concluded that the carpenter from Nazareth was this Messiah, they had a basis for seeing Jesus reflected everywhere in the Old Testament. But none, far as we know was re-baptized after having figured this out.
Once they became witnesses of His resurrection, they believed they had a basis for seeing Him as the embodiment of the spirit of the law (Mt. 5:17; Lk. 24:44). They saw Him as the One who gave meaning to the sacrificial ritual, the One who provided a salvation from sin that extended without distinction to Jew or Gentile, male or female, rich or poor.
May 27, 2009 at 5:56 pm
coreydavis
Randy,
Keep in mind the Isaiah & Daniel are books of prophecy written some time after the giving of the Law. Many would have been born & died between those times. Not to say that there wasn’t divine instruction included within those books of prophecy, but the instructions were mostly directed at a specific generation.
This is not to say that they hadn’t been aware of a coming Messiah since the days of Moses, but that was a promise – not instruction that had bearing on their law keeping.
May 27, 2009 at 7:04 pm
liftingiron
I agree.
I think many were confused or at least didnt understand the pupose of Jesus coming. Even the Apostles seem to be thinking Jesus would be setting up his Kingdom as some man-leader. I think they failed to grasp the real purpose until after He rose from the dead. Again, I think you are right with this post. I will step aside for now so others can comment.
May 27, 2009 at 7:47 pm
coreydavis
I think they failed to grasp the real purpose until after He rose from the dead
Actually, not even then:
Acts 1:6 So when they met together, they asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”
I would say that things didn’t become perfectly clear for quite some time. That said, today we have the benefit of hindsight.
May 27, 2009 at 8:00 pm
liftingiron
ok…we both agree that the Apostles were most likely baptized prior to the cross and we both agree that their baptism was valid. Okay, this leads me to ask you about the 3000 that were baptized – are you saying these 3000 never were baptized of John? I would have to think that these 3000 are new converts and not those whom John baptized to maintain this position.
I don’t mean to comment so much, just wondering your position on this.
May 27, 2009 at 8:10 pm
coreydavis
Randy,
Don’t worry about commenting too much – post away. I enjoy our discussions.
That is an interesting idea to consider. I would think this comes into consideration:
Acts 2: 8And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?9Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,10Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,11Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
These individuals were assembled from all over. John’s ministry was mostly confined to the area around Judea (I think). Many of these individuals had probably never had the opportunity to hear John or submit to his baptism.
That is something to think about though. I know that one of the elders at my congregation thinks that everyone baptized with John’s baptism had to be re-baptized. There are differing views, and neither is completely validated by scripture.
May 28, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Truth
Why wasn’t the disciples water baptisms recorded in the Bible? Being as you say is the event all people are forgiven, and it would be of significance and importance to record the disciples water baptism.
May 28, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Randy
Truth,
Why would Jesus commission baptism?
Why tell them something for others to do, that they haven’t done themselves?
Why would Peter tell those at Pentecost something he hasn’t done himself?
How does one even “obey the gospel?”
1 Corinthians 15:1-4 says, “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel….BY WHICH also you are saved
In 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 we read that, “When the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Here we see that vengeance will be taken on those who obey not the gospel of Christ.
How do we obey the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord so that vengeance will not be taken on us?
Romans 6:3-5 says, “Or do you not know, that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death: that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection.”
May 28, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Truth
Reply: The Bible says when a person believes that Jesus came in the flesh, died, and rose again they are obeying the gospel.
Randy you didn’t answer my question. Please answer it. Here it is again.
Why wasn’t the disciples water baptisms recorded in the Bible? Being as you say is the event all people are forgiven, and it would be of significance and importance to record the disciples water baptism.
May 28, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Randy
I answered it best I could, TRUTH.
Luke didn’t record when they all repented either and he didn’t record every person that was baptized…not sure how that supposedly destroys the necessity of baptism.
Lets say the Apostles weren’t baptized, does this mean that they were not to follow the commission of Jesus and baptize those who believe? Did not Peter obey Jesus after preacher Jesus to those at Pentecost?
Even if they were not baptized, Jesus chose them prior to the cross and gave them specific instructions and my guess is Peter done as Christ told him.
But, I still believe they were baptized under Johns baptism – for the remission of sins.
May 28, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Truth
Randy, I’m not saying they weren’t baptized. As you say baptism is the event all people are forgiven why wasn’t it important and significant to record the event of the disciples own baptisms.
May 28, 2009 at 6:46 pm
coreydavis
It was significant enough to record for every detailed conversion in the book of Acts.
Obviously some people will never be satisfied, regardless of the amount of scriptural evidence.
May 28, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Randy
TRUTH,
I don’t recall saying baptism was the “event” but do recall saying that baptism is the point one is forgiven, just as the Leper was healed at the point of dipping 7 times. I am not at all implying baptism earns forgiveness, but stating that it is an act of faith.
When Peter preached the Gospel at Pentecost, they OBEYED the gospel by following the commands of Peter “repent and be baptized” – the didn’t earn forgiveness by repenting, right? And, they didn’t earn forgiveness by being baptized. Their repenting and being baptized was faith at work…towards forgiveness.
May 28, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Truth
Randy, you still haven’t answered the question and I will rephrase it for you. As you say baptism is the point all people are forgiven why wasn’t it important and significant to record the event of the disciples own baptisms?
May 28, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Truth
And Randy there are Scriptures that show Jesus who reavealed God’s nature giving mercy to people upon their faith believing who He is.
Luke 18:35-43
“Then it happened, as He was coming near Jericho, that a certain blind man sat by the road begging. And hearing a multitude passing by, he asked what it meant. So they told him that Jesus of Nazareth was passing by. And he cried out, saying, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” Then those who went before warned him that he should be quiet; but he cried out all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” So Jesus stood still and commanded him to be brought to Him. And when he had come near, He asked him, saying, “What do you want Me to do for you?” He said, “Lord, that I may receive my sight.” Then Jesus said to him, “Receive your sight; your faith has made you well.” And immediately he received his sight, and followed Him, glorifying God. And all the people, when they saw it, gave praise to God.”
This man asked Jesus to have mercy on Him, Jesus said he had faith and gave Him mercy.
May 28, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Truth
I misspelled two words in my last comment, they should have been spelled as:
Jesus who revealed God’s nature
Jesus said he had faith and gave him mercy.
May 28, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Truth
I misspelled three word:
This man asked Jesus to have mercy on him.
May 28, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Randy
Truth.
I don’t know why Luke didn’t pen it it wasn’t recorded in the other gospels. This still doesn’t take away from the fact that Jesus commanded baptism to be preached along with the gospel.
Can God act outside of this – He is God, He can do as He pleases. Who am I to say He cant. But, why present a plan of salvation if it really is no plan of salvation? Why didn’t they just repent in Acts 2:38 and tell Peter that all they need to do is repent ? They seen both “repentance and baptism” as acts of faith……..that’s why.
May 28, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Randy
Truth,
God wants all men to be saved from their sins, and Jesus died for that purpose, but salvation is attained by complying with God’s will, NOT doing something one feels is more preferable, or trusting that God will “understand. Fellowship with Him can only be achieved on His terms – obeying from the heart that form of doctrine.
God instituted a means by which those who genuinely love and appreciate Him could come to Him and enjoy His blessed fellowship.
The way I understand this, is that the plan of salvation involves 1) faith in God and in Jesus as His Son, 2) repentance of sins, 3) confession of Jesus’ Deity, and 4) burial with Christ in baptism for the forgiveness of sins. The blood of Christ thereupon washes sins away (Acts 22:16, Rev. 1:5), and the old man is a new creation, a Christian, who now (due to the purity of his soul) has entered into fellowship with the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. [The Christian at this point has the responsibility to grow (1 Pet. 2:2) and to go “on unto perfection” (Heb. 6:1).
May 28, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Truth
I believe it is a person’s repentance that God saves them, not their baptism. Acts 10:48 God saved Cornelius and his house giving them the Holy Spirit upon their repentance turning to Jesus when they believed. And I encorage anyone who is saved to be baptized. And I believe someone who has been saved will confess their belief to someone.
1 Peter 3:9 “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.”
No mention of baptism.
May 28, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Truth
2 Peter 3:9,“The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.”
Typing too fast.
May 28, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Randy
Truth,
There is much that could be said about your statement above. For starters, Peter never said he “encouraged” baptism as you said you do – Peter commanded it along with repentance. You are saying one is saved when he repents and you then encourage baptism, when Peter said do both unto the forgiveness of sins.
Even if Cornelius is the exception, he isn’t the rule. As I have told you before..I am not 100% convinced either way on Cornelius. I think Johnny made a real good case this past Sunday and I think Corey has something on here about this too.
May 28, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Truth
Randy, When I said I would encourage someone I meant that I would tell them.
And please provide the BCV that states “Cornelius was only an exception”??
And you know I have read what Corey wrote and know I very much disagree with his theory and Johnny’s theory.
May 28, 2009 at 8:26 pm
coreydavis
The comments are getting further and further off topic. This topic is not for discussion on the necessity of baptism. If you want to discuss that, please post your remarks on the “Off Topic Discussion” page (at the top).
May 28, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Truth
Sorry about that Corey, just trying to reply to Randy.
May 28, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Randy
Sorry bout that, Corey
May 28, 2009 at 8:37 pm
coreydavis
No worries. I just don’t want someone viewing this article for the first time to get mired down reading comments that don’t really apply to the post.
That is why I created the Off Topic page – so the discussions can continue without distracting from the articles.
June 1, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Randy
Although I think the Apostles were baptized under John…I dont see a case for their being baptized into Jesus. If it happened, when did it happen?
Did it happen after the ascension and before Pentecost? Which would be before they received baptism of the Spirit. And who did the baptizing? And the angel told them to wait, not to head to go get baptized.
The evidence seems compelling that they were not baptized into Jesus. Sure, they most likely were baptized of John, but not baptized into Jesus as we tell others they must do “since the cross”
October 15, 2009 at 5:06 pm
walkinginlove
Hi Corey I hope it’s ok for me to post into an older topic but I wanted to say a couple things or give an alternative to your thoughts.
Could it be that Apollos was not rebaptized also because he already had the Gift of the Holly Spirit? Logic shows that he was preaching powerfully about Jesus and thus was operating in the gift of the Holy Spirit, that in his case came from faith, if he was not baptized in Jesus Name and was baptized in John’s Baptism then he also had the Holly Spirit fall on him not even knowing about the Baptism of Jesus.
How can a man have the Holly Spirit with out baptism in Jesus name? Or how can the man preach without the Holy Spirit being in him except he do it in his own strength?
So I believe that the reason that he was not rebaptized is because he already was given the Holy Spirit and thus since Paul rebaptized others to gain that gift it was not needed.
Just my two cents.
October 15, 2009 at 6:39 pm
coreydavis
I’m having a little trouble following your line of thought. Perhaps it is my fault since I don’t have much time.
You said:
How can a man have the Holly Spirit with out baptism in Jesus name?
We’re told that John the Baptizer was full of the Holy Spirit, yet he was a forerunner of the Christ who died before the institution of Christian baptism in the Great Commission. John’s baptism would’ve technically been “in Jesus’ name” in the sense that it was with divine authority, but it isn’t the same that is now administered by the authority of Jesus (Matthew 28:18-19).
We must also recognize the countless men of the Old Testament who had the Holy Spirit without being immersed in the name of Jesus.
Or how can the man preach without the Holy Spirit being in him except he do it in his own strength?
In Philippians 1:15-18 we see some who preached the gospel out of pretense – to somehow add to Paul’s affliction. Even if you argued these were Christians, they were the poorest sort. Certainly I don’t think you’d argue that the Holy Spirit would empower them to preach with the intention of harming an apostle.
To me, this proves that even the non-Christian could powerfully and truthfully proclaim the gospel, even without being saved themselves.
I hope that answers your questions in some way.
October 16, 2009 at 2:48 am
ProdigalKnot
I agree completely with your conclusions, Corey! I believe Paul had the right attitude about people preaching. As long as it is sound and lifts up Jesus, it will have it’s effect. I’m reminded of the fellow who was a diligent churchman, who got sent to China as a missionary, and soon discovered after arriving there, that he was unconverted. He suffered a good bit of persecution for claiming he went unsaved, but I believe it bears well with your point.
October 16, 2009 at 12:22 pm
walkinginlove
Corey Paul argued with Barnabas should I take that to prove they were without the Holy Spirit since they were in the flesh at the time? I am saying that Apollos had a gift of preaching about Jesus, and he had a humble heart since he was able to learn from others that he could have seen as his rivals or even considered them false teachers since they were saying things he had not been taught.
So again I assert that he was filled with the Spirit and thus he was not re-baptized because of that as much as he was baptized in John’s baptism. Paul re-baptized not because they
Acts 19:2He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”
3And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.”
Paul CLEARLY Paul realizes there is something wrong with them and asks if they had received the Holy Spirit when you believed? When they answered no, then he knew there was something wrong with how someone had brought them into the family, thus to him it was critical that they receive the Spirit since in his words it was the seal of our salvation.
If they had answered yes to the first question, he would not have asked the second, thus I conclude that Apollos did not need to be re-baptized because there was already a sign he was saved because of the seal of the Holy Spirit in him. Why God used men to correct him, perhaps it was a test to see if he was truly humble.
So my point is to just say he was baptized under John’s baptism before Jesus death is missing some elements of his story that are there if you look for them. His gift of preaching was strong, so strong that some considered themselves to be his disciples and a rival of Paul’s as we see when Paul is correcting others about their focus on baptism and who did the baptism.
October 16, 2009 at 1:19 pm
coreydavis
Corey Paul argued with Barnabas should I take that to prove they were without the Holy Spirit since they were in the flesh at the time?
Arguing over a matter of expediency, such as whether or not to allow John Mark to continue with them, is not the same as trying to persecute one another. As Romans 14 shows us, in such matters there can be disagreement without contentiousness. This is not at all the same as those Paul described in Philippians 1.
As to Apollos, I simply must disagree with your conclusions. This does not have to be a contentious matter though. Can we agree that this confusion of what I would call overlapping baptisms was unique to that time? In other words, since John the baptizer’s ministry has long since ended, there is no longer any confusion over whose baptism we must submit to (we must submit to the baptism instituted by Christ and taught by His apostles).
As to this:
If they had answered yes to the first question, he would not have asked the second,
I agree, although perhaps based on a different line of thought. I think the first question was Paul’s way of asking if they were immersed by an apostle who would’ve laid their hands upon them, imparting miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit. Since they answered that they hadn’t even heard of the Holy Spirit (and how can you be immersed by the authority of the Holy Spirit without even knowing there is a Holy Spirit), Paul asked the second question. This led to the Ephesians being immersed for the proper reasons and Paul laying his hands upon them to impart the miraculous measure.
…we see when Paul is correcting others about their focus on baptism and who did the baptism.
I am so glad to see you correctly proclaiming the emphasis of 1 Corinthians 1 (that Paul wasn’t arguing against baptism, but against identifying wrongly with the one who performed the immersion). Many misunderstand and twist 1 Cor. 1: 17, but it is good that you have not.
October 16, 2009 at 5:39 pm
walkinginlove
Sorry I am not trying to say those preaching against Paul were of God at all, yes people can do things in their own strength or with the enemies help surely that can happen.
I was simply looking at Apollos and trying to draw attention to the real possibility that he was already indwelling with the Holy Spirit since it appears that scripture shows his ministry being fruitful.
I hope I cleared that up and my apologies for posting in such a manor to give you that thought! Surely those preaching against Paul to cause him harm were not likely to be in God’s family, I was only pointing out the disagreements to show that even those with the Holy Spirit still worked in the flesh at times. The major difference is that Apollos was willing to be taught and was not so fixed on his doctrine that he could not learn from others who had parts that he lacked.
God Bless!