# Acts 19



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 1, 2005)

Larry Hughes and I were discussing rebaptism some time ago. He explained hypothetical situations that just confused him and plain seemed perplexing at best. Some situations were just stupid even though they truy happen. We were discussing credible baptisms and what constituted a credible baptism in light of those who seem to get rebaptized. I was just wanting to know what you all make of Acts19

(Act 19:1) And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples.
(Act 19:2) And he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
(Act 19:3) And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" They said, "Into John's baptism."
(Act 19:4) And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus."
(Act 19:5) On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
(Act 19:6) And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.
(Act 19:7) There were about twelve men in all.

What do you all think of this? Were they rebaptized in water? Calvin believes they were not.

John Calvin...Commentary on Acts 19
I do not subscribe to this opinion, and yet deny that the baptism of water was repeated, because the words of Luke import no other thing, save only that they were baptized with the Spirit.


----------



## cultureshock (Mar 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> What do you all think of this? Were they rebaptized in water? Calvin believes they were not.
> 
> John Calvin...Commentary on Acts 19
> I do not subscribe to this opinion, and yet deny that the baptism of water was repeated, because the words of Luke import no other thing, save only that they were baptized with the Spirit.



I'm a bit confused about your position. You say that the words of the verse do not indicate water baptism. Then what is the meaning of 19:5 when it says, "On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus"?

They were not rebaptized with Christian baptism since their first baptism was not Christian baptism, but the baptism of John.

Brian


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 3, 2005)

It is John Calvins position that these guys were not rebaptized in water. He believes they were baptized only in the Spirit after Paul laid his hands on them. I quoted John Calvin under his name.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 3, 2005)

I guess I should clarify my question. Were the 12 who had been baptized under Johns baptism of repentance rebaptized under a new understanding of Christ, regeneration, and atonement?

(Act 19:4) And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus."
(Act 19:5) On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
(Act 19:6) And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.


[Edited on 3-3-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Mrs.SolaFide (Mar 3, 2005)

In my opinion, yes. John was the last OT prophet, and his baptism of repentence was lacking the full message of the gospel. That is why they needed to be baptized in the name of Christ Jesus. Personally, I don't see the need in present times for re-baptism. This was a special circumstance in the "transition" between the OT and NT.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 3, 2005)

Another perplexing question I have is why would these guys need rebaptism and not the disciples. I don't believe they were rebaptized. Why couldn't they have been taught the fulfillment of Christ? Wouldn't that have made their original baptism of repentance (looking forward to Christ as taught in verse 4) good enough just as Andrews baptism would have been? Because I don't see him being rebaptized either.


----------



## Mrs.SolaFide (Mar 3, 2005)

Matthew 28:18-21

'And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.'

Christ says to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - which John was not doing. As I said before, he was an OT prophet who was proclaiming the coming of the Lord.

I think it's also important to keep in mind that our sacraments are directly instituted by God. Baptism, to me (and I am but an unstudied social worker  ), was not a sacrament until it was instituted by Christ, which was AFTER John had begun baptizing but BEFORE Andrew was baptized. So, technically, the 12 in Acts were baptized but not sacramentally. That's why I think it had to be done again. I think it was the timing in history that made it better for them to be baptized again. Of course, nowadays, if you were baptized 30 years before you were regenerated, it wouldn't matter. Your baptism is still "valid". I'm not finished reading Calvin on this - I may change my mind after some study


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 3, 2005)

I think you need to look more at the implication of baptism rather than the act itself. These men had not been incorporated in to the body of Christ yet by the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which water baptism signifies. They only had the sign. Not the reality. Paul gave them the reality which even John explained their sign was to point to, the baptism of the Spirit. Re-baptising was not necessary. The apostles were not rebaptised with water by Christ after John's baptism. Jesus clearly linked John's baptism to His own, which really isn't that difficult to comprehend since John was especially chosen to prepare the people for the coming of Christ and the gift of the Spirit He would dispense.

[Edited on 3-3-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Mar 7, 2005)

It would seem either way no case is made for Christian rebaptism. Either it was as Calvin supposes or as Brian says, "They were not rebaptized with Christian baptism since their first baptism was not Christian baptism, but the baptism of John." There simply is no support for "rebaptism". And that is huge. 

I think I agree with Patrick when he says, "I think you need to look more at the implication of baptism rather than the act itself", or I would state it look to the reality to which the sign points and don't become fixed upon the sign itself as if it is itself the reality.

The only way "rebaptism" gains "credibility" is when the 'pointing of the sign' is artificially changed and it becomes something that it is not, namely that it points to itself or another reality such as point to "my faith". True saving faith never sees itself but is fixed on Christ and neither do the signs point to faith itself because we do not and are not to rest in "our faith" but Christ. This resting in Christ IS true saving faith, thus the signs ultimately point.

Thus, any "Christian rebaptism" ultimately becomes a works for salvation in the conscience. 

Larry


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 28, 2005)

There is no grounds for Christian re-baptizing, whatsoever. To do so makes baptism into some form of works righteousness, when it is a symbol of God's work, not man's faith.

*he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit
Titus 3:5*


----------



## Larry Hughes (Mar 31, 2005)

Gabriel,

That is exactly where it went for me when I struggled with the issue of doing it again. It became a Law and works righteousness in my conscience and man I cannot tell you how long I wrestled with and was troubled by it. It was a viscious cyclone. No rest at all. It was a tremendous spiritual battle for me.

I now see why God sent me through it because it ultimately forced me deeper and deeper into Christ and seek out what I would not have left to my own natural sloth.

That's one advantage with circumcision - when men wrongly used/applied/taught it at least you didn't have to wrestle with "doing it again". I say that a little tongue and cheek!

ldh


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 31, 2005)

Good point.


----------



## pastorway (Mar 31, 2005)

I agree that there should be no such thing as rebaptism. Biblical baptism happens once. 

That is why Baptists make it clear that a baby who was sprinkled has not been Biblically baptized. So we are not rebaptizing anyone, just baptizing them Biblically for the first time.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 31, 2005)

And thereby making baptism into a work of righteousness.

[Edited on 4-1-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## pastorway (Mar 31, 2005)

an act of obedience and love for Christ.......


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 31, 2005)




----------



## Larry Hughes (Mar 31, 2005)

"I agree that there should be no such thing as rebaptism. Biblical baptism happens once. "

Agreed whole heartedly. But what happens when it is an adult struggling with the "when of rebirth". These are very real situations and cannot be simply ignored or punted into some unknown answer zone. These are real struggles with real Christians.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> "I agree that there should be no such thing as rebaptism. Biblical baptism happens once. "
> 
> Agreed whole heartedly. But what happens when it is an adult struggling with the "when of rebirth". These are very real situations and cannot be simply ignored or punted into some unknown answer zone. These are real struggles with real Christians.



Either it started from a mustard seed size and is growing or it isn't.


----------

