# The Baptism of John



## Skyler (Jun 30, 2011)

Why was it necessary for those who had been baptized with the baptism of John to be rebaptized, and yet not necessary for those who have been baptized in a false church or under false pretences?

Acts 19 - Passage Lookup - English Standard Version - BibleGateway.com


----------



## Afterthought (Jun 30, 2011)

If you accept that they were re-baptized, it was because they weren't Trinitarians (according to Francis Nigel Lee).


----------



## Matthew Tringali (Jun 30, 2011)

Coincidentally, I just happened to be reading A.A. Hodge's commentary on the WCF Q. 28 on baptism only but a few hours ago and he raises this exact issue. Here is what he says:



> John, the forerunner of Jesus, came baptizing also. But this was not Christian Baptism, because -- (1.) John was the last Old Testament prophet, and not a New Testament apostle (Luke i. 17); (2.) He did not baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; (3.) His baptism was unto repentance, not into the faith of Christ; (4.) He did not by baptism introduce men into the fellowship of the Christian Church, as the apostles did at Pentecost (Acts ii. 41, 47); (5.) Those baptized by John were baptized over again by the apostles when they were admitted to the Christian Church (Acts xviii. 24 -- 28; xix. 1 -- 5). For analogous reasons we believe that the baptism performed by his disciples previous to the crucifixion of the Lord (John iii. 22; iv. 1, 2) was not the permanent Christian sacrament of Baptism, binding its subjects to the faith and obedience of the Trinity, and initiating them into the Christian Church; but that, on the contrary, like the baptism of John, it was a purifying rite, binding to repentance, and preparing the way for the coming kingdom.


----------



## Jack K (Jul 1, 2011)

Acts 19:4-5 — 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." On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Their first baptism was never a Christian baptism because it wasn't about Christ, in the name of Christ, tied to faith in Christ. You see, it isn't about who administers the baptism, or the goodness of the church they belong to, or even the purity of the mindset of the recipient. It's about Christ, and a baptism done in his name is valid based on his faithfulness and no one else's. That's the Presbyterian response.


----------



## Skyler (Jul 3, 2011)

Jack K said:


> Acts 19:4-5 — 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." On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
> 
> Their first baptism was never a Christian baptism because it wasn't about Christ, in the name of Christ, tied to faith in Christ. You see, it isn't about who administers the baptism, or the goodness of the church they belong to, or even the purity of the mindset of the recipient. It's about Christ, and a baptism done in his name is valid based on his faithfulness and no one else's. That's the Presbyterian response.



But the passage you just quoted said that it _was_ about Christ. John told them to believe on Jesus. How is that not tied to faith in Christ?


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 3, 2011)

There was something wrong with their baptism. 

The baptism of John wasn't usually augmented by another baptism. We don't read of the apostles being baptised again after the Great Commission.


----------



## Skyler (Jul 3, 2011)

Richard Tallach said:


> There was something wrong with their baptism.



Was it, perhaps, that they hadn't believed on Jesus?

---------- Post added at 05:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:17 PM ----------

If not, I'm open to other suggestions. =)


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 3, 2011)

Rev Winzer has an interesting take on it in this thread which I'll have to study again sometime:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/calvin-vs-murray-baptism-54183/


----------



## Skyler (Jul 3, 2011)

For reference, Rev. Winzer suggested that the passage should read as follows:

"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. On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.' And when Paul had laid hands," etc.

Flipping through BibleGateway, I'm not coming up with any recent English translations that would support that idea. (The older ones only seem to support it insofar as they lack quotation marks, and even then it feels unnatural to read it that way.) I don't read Greek, but basing my conclusions on the weight of scholars who have studied Greek and translated the Scriptures, I'd be hesitant to accept that rendering without first establishing some serious need.


----------



## Skyler (Jul 3, 2011)

If I understand correctly, a lot of non-rebaptizers would admit the "modern" rendering of the text which indicates their rebaptism, right?

Starting with that assumption:

What was it about the baptism of John (or their particular baptism by John) that rendered it unacceptable?

If some of the baptisms of John were acceptable and others weren't, doesn't that imply that the state of the person being baptized had an impact on whether or not the baptism "registered" as valid?

If all of John's baptisms required a re-baptism afterwards, why was that?


----------



## Jack K (Jul 3, 2011)

Skyler said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > Acts 19:4-5 — 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." On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
> ...



I've always read it with the idea that the phrase "telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him" indicates that John said there was more to come, that his baptism of repentance was only a preview of the main event. The vast majority of those baptized by John could not have done so having any kind of an informed faith in Christ, since Jesus had not yet begun his ministry during most of that period. This is why as John baptized he also told the people to follow up their baptism by believing in Jesus when the time came.

We have no indication that of the 3,000 converts on Pentecost, some were not baptized because they'd already had John's baptism. On the contrary, the text in Acts 2 ("those who received his word were baptized") suggests there were no exceptions. The Christian baptism was something new, using the new formula Christ prescibed at the end of Matthew—baptism into the name of the Godhead itself.


----------



## Jack K (Jul 3, 2011)

Back to your original questioin about baptisms in false churches or under false pretenses...

I and many other Reformed paedobaptists would agree that some baptisms are not valid for these reasons. Some "churches" are so far from the truth (like cults denying even the historic creeds) that they simply cannot be called Christian in any way and therefore don't practice Christian baptisms, no matter what words they might use. The trick is deciding where to draw the line. What about Catholics or Orthodox? And what about baptisms done privately, without any church's authority? These are sometimes tough calls.

The issue of false pretenses is also a valid question. What if a person is forced to be baptized against their will? Or baptized as a joke? I don't believe that counts.

Yet even as we recognize there must be some level of good intent and recognized authority to speak as a church, we also realize this: If the validity of a baptism depends on the purity of the church performing it or on the devoutness of the recipient, no baptism at all would ever be valid. All churches and all believers are less faithful than they should be. The promises of baptism are trustworthy only because Christ is trustworthy. So when a person has been baptized in the name of the Triune God, our usual response is to say it is valid.


----------



## Kevin (Jul 4, 2011)

The issue is that John was baptizing people with one of the (several) OT Hebrew Baptisms. Once Christ had come & offered himself those baptisms ended. Most if not all of the early Hebrew converts would have been "baptized" with one of these baptisms. And all of them, including those baptized by the Baptizer himself, still needed a Christian Baptism.

Christian baptism not only replaces all of the Hebrew baptisms, it replaced circumcision as well.

Those that have received a cultic or sectarian baptism still require Christian baptism. Just as much a man that has been circumcised still requires baptism.


----------



## rookie (Jul 4, 2011)

I had a sermon I wrote on the new testament baptism.

When I find it, I will post it online, and link it here. The baptism after Christ death (based on what I was reading and studying) was nothing like John's baptism.


----------



## jwithnell (Jul 4, 2011)

I think a careful re-reading of the quote from A.A. Hodge above will answer most of the questions raised in this thread. It is what I understand to be the orthodox teaching on John's baptism and Christian baptism. The Acts 19:4-5 clearly speaks of a second, now Christian, baptism.


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 4, 2011)

Jack K said:


> Acts 19:4-5 — 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." On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
> 
> Their first baptism was never a Christian baptism because it wasn't about Christ, in the name of Christ, tied to faith in Christ. You see, it isn't about who administers the baptism, or the goodness of the church they belong to, or even the purity of the mindset of the recipient. It's about Christ, and a baptism done in his name is valid based on his faithfulness and no one else's. That's the Presbyterian response.



If it was for people who professed to believe in Jesus who John pointed to and spoke about, then it was Christian. Our own baptism is a baptism of repentance.

There also seems to be an assumption that the baptismal formula before the Great Commission wasn't Trinitarian or its equivalent, yet John taught about Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Are those who say that John's baptism always had to be supplemented by another baptism, also saying that the baptism by the disciples of Jesus during His ministry also had to be supplemented by another baptism?

---------- Post added at 09:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:10 PM ----------




Skyler said:


> For reference, Rev. Winzer suggested that the passage should read as follows:
> 
> "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. On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.' And when Paul had laid hands," etc.
> 
> Flipping through BibleGateway, I'm not coming up with any recent English translations that would support that idea. (The older ones only seem to support it insofar as they lack quotation marks, and even then it feels unnatural to read it that way.) I don't read Greek, but basing my conclusions on the weight of scholars who have studied Greek and translated the Scriptures, I'd be hesitant to accept that rendering without first establishing some serious need.



There is also Matthew Henry's take on it. 

John's baptism was from Heaven and anticipated the baptism with the Spirit, as does our baptism if we're baptised in water before we're baptised with the Spirit. Otherwise our water baptism points to what has already happened.


----------



## rookie (Jul 4, 2011)

Our baptism had a much bigger significance in the time of Jesus and Paul than it does now in a sense.

Here's an article I preached quickly on it a couple of years ago at my previous church. This was historically researched as well. 

MEET THY GOD | prepare to meet thy God…- Amos 4:12


----------



## Skyler (Jul 4, 2011)

Richard Tallach said:


> There also seems to be an assumption that the baptismal formula before the Great Commission wasn't Trinitarian or its equivalent, yet John taught about Jesus and the Holy Spirit.



Apparently not very thoroughly, if these converts hadn't heard that there was a Holy Spirit.

---------- Post added at 10:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:53 PM ----------




Jack K said:


> I've always read it with the idea that the phrase "telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him" indicates that John said there was more to come, that his baptism of repentance was only a preview of the main event. The vast majority of those baptized by John could not have done so having any kind of an informed faith in Christ, since Jesus had not yet begun his ministry during most of that period. This is why as John baptized he also told the people to follow up their baptism by believing in Jesus when the time came.



Can we conclude from that understanding that a baptism which is not predicated upon an informed faith in Christ requires a rebaptism upon receiving that faith?

---------- Post added at 10:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:55 PM ----------




Jack K said:


> Yet even as we recognize there must be some level of good intent and recognized authority to speak as a church, we also realize this: If the validity of a baptism depends on the purity of the church performing it or on the devoutness of the recipient, no baptism at all would ever be valid. All churches and all believers are less faithful than they should be. The promises of baptism are trustworthy only because Christ is trustworthy. So when a person has been baptized in the name of the Triune God, our usual response is to say it is valid.



I don't think that's entirely true. We don't base our assessment of the validity of a church or an individual's profession of faith upon their absolute purity, do we? Why should we use a different standard for baptism?

---------- Post added at 11:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:58 PM ----------




Richard Tallach said:


> John's baptism was from Heaven and anticipated the baptism with the Spirit, as does our baptism if we're baptised in water before we're baptised with the Spirit. Otherwise our water baptism points to what has already happened.



That would seem to lead naturally into a position of rebaptism upon true faith, would it not?

---------- Post added at 11:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:01 PM ----------

For the record, I am not trying to advocate rebaptism. I don't have an opinion on the matter one way or the other, yet.


----------



## Jack K (Jul 5, 2011)

Skyler said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > I've always read it with the idea that the phrase "telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him" indicates that John said there was more to come, that his baptism of repentance was only a preview of the main event. The vast majority of those baptized by John could not have done so having any kind of an informed faith in Christ, since Jesus had not yet begun his ministry during most of that period. This is why as John baptized he also told the people to follow up their baptism by believing in Jesus when the time came.
> ...



We might conclude that. Many have. But we also might conclude that John's baptism was pre-Christ, a baptism of repentance preparing the people for the coming of Christ. Christian baptism, on the other hand, is post-Christ. It's a baptism joining the recipient with Christ now that Christ has come and made atonement for sin. Such a view looks beyond the faith of the recipient to see the work of Christ as the primary thing baptism speaks to, although the presence of faith remains important.



Skyler said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > Yet even as we recognize there must be some level of good intent and recognized authority to speak as a church, we also realize this: If the validity of a baptism depends on the purity of the church performing it or on the devoutness of the recipient, no baptism at all would ever be valid. All churches and all believers are less faithful than they should be. The promises of baptism are trustworthy only because Christ is trustworthy. So when a person has been baptized in the name of the Triune God, our usual response is to say it is valid.
> ...



It is dangerous to start thinking it's our job to look into the heart and determine the validity of a profession of faith. That is God's job, not ours. When pastors think they need to dig into the past lives of believers or those believers' parents, and determine at what point a baptism was valid because the faith expressed was true faith, then those pastors are putting themselves in a position for which they simply are not qualified. This is one reason why a baptism done in the name of the Triune God is generally considered valid based on Christ's faithfulness.


----------



## rookie (Jul 5, 2011)

And as I wrote in my article a couple of years ago, and as Jack mentioned, we can't see the heart of a man/woman that has been converted. But in the days of the apostles, someone that went to the waters of baptism, had much to lose. Their family, jobs, rights in the synagogue, reputation and more.

So anyone could claim salvation, but as soon as they made it public, (and with 3000 baptized in one day, would definately be public), it was sealing the deal that they were saved, so to speak.

It was the outward demonstration of the faith they had inwardly of Christ. And also the association they were now making with Him.

Don't forget, in those days, it was an embarrassement to be linked to Christ, as He was seen as a lunatic by most. But the Savior of sinners to the newly converted.


----------



## Skyler (Jul 5, 2011)

Jack K said:


> It is dangerous to start thinking it's our job to look into the heart and determine the validity of a profession of faith. That is God's job, not ours. When pastors think they need to dig into the past lives of believers or those believers' parents, and determine at what point a baptism was valid because the faith expressed was true faith, then those pastors are putting themselves in a position for which they simply are not qualified. This is one reason why a baptism done in the name of the Triune God is generally considered valid based on Christ's faithfulness.



This is true. Thank you for clarifying. =)

On the other hand, though, it _is_ our job, is it not, to look into _our own_ heart and determine the validity of _our own_ profession of faith?


----------



## Jack K (Jul 6, 2011)

Skyler said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > It is dangerous to start thinking it's our job to look into the heart and determine the validity of a profession of faith. That is God's job, not ours. When pastors think they need to dig into the past lives of believers or those believers' parents, and determine at what point a baptism was valid because the faith expressed was true faith, then those pastors are putting themselves in a position for which they simply are not qualified. This is one reason why a baptism done in the name of the Triune God is generally considered valid based on Christ's faithfulness.
> ...



Yeah, I agree it's good to examine our profession of faith. It's even appropriate for a pastor to help with this. We all know it's possible for a person to think they are a true believer but later in life come to a point where they see they really aren't, or weren't until that later time. Sometimes this will happen several times in a believer's lifetime.

But does each new realization of this sort require a new baptism? And if one was deceived the first time into thinking he was a true believer, how can he know that this time he really is one? Given this, even most credobaptists don't require a repeat baptism under such circmstances. Am I right?

I also think it's possible to get obsessive over the "am I truly converted?" question so that one's own Christian acheivement and perceived sincerity become the focus and, due to lingering sin, assurance becomes impossible. It seems healthier for a believer struggling with sin, rather than asking himself if this makes his baptism invalid, to instead draw on his valid baptism for assurance of Christ's claim on his life and encouragement to live as befits a baptized person.


----------



## LeeD (Jul 6, 2011)

From The Institutes of the Christian Religion:



> _(The baptism of John not different from that of the apostles: its meaning symbolized to the Israelites in the exodus, 7-9)
> 
> _7._ John's baptism and Christian baptism
> 
> ...




Just adding Calvin's view to the discussion.


----------



## Skyler (Jul 7, 2011)

Thanks Lee! =)


----------

