Apostle's Baptism???

kclee4jc · #1 03-01-2011, 08:34 PM

Before i state my question i want to make a disclaimor..i believe water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ to be absolutely essential to salvation. It is not my intent here to debate this.

I was reading today and going over some of the basic salvation scriptures such as Luke 24 that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name. Also read over Acts 1 and how Jesus commanded his disciples to wait for the promise of the Father. He told them that John had baptized with water but that they would be baptized with the Holy Ghost in a few days. Then it occured to me, he told them to wait for the Holy Ghost but not to be rebaptized! He commanded them to go and baptize but not to be rebaptized themselves. Now, it is not scriptural to say that John's baptism was enough for those living in this day because Paul rebaptized John's disciples in Jesus name in Acts 19. Is it possible that even though it is commanded for us to be baptized in Jesus name, it was not required of the Apostles? Or do you suppose that they may have been rebaptized and it was just not recorded?

Opinions anyone???

Praxeas · #2 03-01-2011, 08:39 PM

In all likelihood the Apostles were baptized by Jesus who in turn baptized others in Jesus name, yes even before the cross

kclee4jc · #3 03-01-2011, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

In all likelihood the Apostles were baptized by Jesus who in turn baptized others in Jesus name, yes even before the cross

So you think water baptism would be valid for remission of sins even before the death, burial, and resurrection?

Praxeas · #4 03-01-2011, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kclee4jc

So you think water baptism would be valid for remission of sins even before the death, burial, and resurrection?

Baptism is in part an initiation into discipleship. John's disciples were baptized by John. This is why Paul made a big deal out of saying he was glad he did not baptize some of the Corinthians because of their sectarianism.

Think about this, if a person repents before the death, burial and resurrection, does he have to repent all over again?

Or if someone already believes in Jesus does he have to believe all over again? Why wouldn't it be valid?

kclee4jc · #5 03-01-2011, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Baptism is in part an initiation into discipleship. John's disciples were baptized by John. This is why Paul made a big deal out of saying he was glad he did not baptize some of the Corinthians because of their sectarianism.

Think about this, if a person repents before the death, burial and resurrection, does he have to repent all over again?

Or if someone already believes in Jesus does he have to believe all over again? Why wouldn't it be valid?

yes that makes sense. and the more i think about it...Jesus had power to forgive sin while he was on earth (obviosly, he was/is God). And he is not limited by space or time so if he baptized them he could do so washing away there sins with the blood that was soon to be shed on calvary. Them being baptized by Jesus would then give them the authority to go and baptize in the Name of Jesus.
Something that i have seen is that in every dispensation, the basis of mankind's salvation is always the blood of Jesus, even before it was shed. All of the ordinances of the law pointed to the cross.

pelathais · #6 03-01-2011, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

In all likelihood the Apostles were baptized by Jesus who in turn baptized others in Jesus name, yes even before the cross

Quote:

Originally Posted by kclee4jc

So you think water baptism would be valid for remission of sins even before the death, burial, and resurrection?

I agree with Prax's summation. John 3:22, John 3:26, and John 4:1-2. Jesus baptized disciples, though by the time of John 4, He was having his disciples (the apostles) do the baptizing. We don't find a mention of anyone who was baptized by Christ or his disciples ever being "rebaptized."

And, the baptism of John was "for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4; Luke 1:77; Luke 3:3). We find the identical wording in Mark 1:4 as we do in Acts 2:38. Whatever "for the remission of sins" means, it means the same thing in both passages.

The disciples of John who were baptized again in Acts 19, were almost certainly baptized for a number of reasons, however, "for the remission of sins" is not stated as being that reason. The overly Dispensational idea that all baptisms that were performed before Calvary had to be "redone" is pretty much cast aside by kclee4jc's observations concerning the apostle's baptism as well.

The disciples of John that Paul met in Ephesus had moved away from Judea before the ministry of Jesus Christ. Everything Jesus and his apostles had done had been entirely missed by this group - including John's admonitions to his own disciples that they follow Jesus. Paul brings them up to speed on this (Acts 19:4). The disciples of John in Ephesus needed to be joined with the Christian community and identified with Christ (Romans 6:4, etc) in order that they might "rise to the newness of life" and receive the Holy Ghost. But concerning "the remission of sins" - they had that from their repentance under John's ministry.

SeekingOne · #7 03-01-2011, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kclee4jc

So you think water baptism would be valid for remission of sins even before the death, burial, and resurrection?

Ummm, being baptized in Jesus, means trusting in Him, right? Does Jesus remit sins or the water? (I am hoping you will say Jesus)

Remember there were no instructions for what should be said when someone received Jesus' baptism, as opposed to John's or whatever cult of the day. They were just saying they were following Jesus.

kclee4jc · #8 03-02-2011, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeekingOne

Ummm, being baptized in Jesus, means trusting in Him, right? Does Jesus remit sins or the water? (I am hoping you will say Jesus)

Remember there were no instructions for what should be said when someone received Jesus' baptism, as opposed to John's or whatever cult of the day. They were just saying they were following Jesus.

Of course Jesus remits sins! Repentance and water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is "for the remission of sins". Not one over the other or, or either alone. Jesus does the washin away....not the water!

Apprehended · #9 03-02-2011, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

In all likelihood the Apostles were baptized by Jesus who in turn baptized others in Jesus name, yes even before the cross

Sam · #10 03-01-2011, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kclee4jc

Before i state my question i want to make a disclaimor..i believe water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ to be absolutely essential to salvation. It is not my intent here to debate this.

I was reading today and going over some of the basic salvation scriptures such as Luke 24 that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name. Also read over Acts 1 and how Jesus commanded his disciples to wait for the promise of the Father. He told them that John had baptized with water but that they would be baptized with the Holy Ghost in a few days. Then it occured to me, he told them to wait for the Holy Ghost but not to be rebaptized! He commanded them to go and baptize but not to be rebaptized themselves. Now, it is not scriptural to say that John's baptism was enough for those living in this day because Paul rebaptized John's disciples in Jesus name in Acts 19. Is it possible that even though it is commanded for us to be baptized in Jesus name, it was not required of the Apostles? Or do you suppose that they may have been rebaptized and it was just not recorded?

Opinions anyone???

As far as I can tell, the Bible doesn't tell us when or if the Apostles were baptized and by whom.

In John chapter 1, John the Baptist pointed two of his disciples to Jesus and they became disciples of Jesus. John 1:35-51. One of these was Andrew. I think the other was John (the author of the Gospel of John). If they were disciples of John the Baptist we assume they had been baptized by him. The Scriptures are silent as to whether they were rebaptized when they joined up with Jesus. Andrew then brought his brother Peter. Jesus then called Philip who brought Nathanael. Again, no word of whether they were baptized or not. Perhaps since Jesus had been baptized by John the Baptist, the baptisms of Andrew and John (the Gospel writer) were considered OK also. We assume Peter, Philip, and Nathanael were baptized when they came to Jesus but we can't say for sure.

We know that Jesus did baptize but not personally --His disciples did it for Him. Ref John 3:22-27 and John 4:1-2.

In Acts 19:1-7 some who had only received the baptism of John the Baptist were rebaptized in Jesus' name. That would have been in October AD 53, twenty years after the resurrection of Christ. Around this same time, Apollos, who knew only the baptism of John the Baptist was instructed in the way of the Lord more completely by a husband and wife team named Priscilla and Aquilla. Nothing is said as to whether he got rebaptized in Jesus' name or not.

I have heard that there are some Oneness preachers that preach that the Apostles and the rest of the 120 got water baptized on the day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2.