Only one baptism and Acts 19:1-7?

[Sovereign Grace]

And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. 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.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John's baptism.” 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 his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. There were about twelve men in all.[Acts 19:1-7]


Let me preface this by saying I do not believe in multiple baptisms, but only one...

This thought came to me the other day in regards to baptism. I do believe in "one Lord, one faith, and one baptism", per Ephesians 4:5. How do I reconcile that with the passage found in Acts 19:1-7? The thought came to me as I was pondering a denomination I was once a member of who would not receive anyone into their fellowship who was not baptized by them. In other words, if you sought membership with them and elders of their denomination had not baptized you, unless you were rebaptized by them, they denied you membership. I find that heretical to the core, but as I thought of how two (or more) baptisms are not taught in all of God's holy writ, how can I reconcile this? Any info would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. 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.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John's baptism.” 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 his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. There were about twelve men in all.[Acts 19:1-7]


Let me preface this by saying I do not believe in multiple baptisms, but only one...

This thought came to me the other day in regards to baptism. I do believe in "one Lord, one faith, and one baptism", per Ephesians 4:5. How do I reconcile that with the passage found in Acts 19:1-7? The thought came to me as I was pondering a denomination I was once a member of who would not receive anyone into their fellowship who was not baptized by them. In other words, if you sought membership with them and elders of their denomination had not baptized you, unless you were rebaptized by them, they denied you membership. I find that heretical to the core, but as I thought of how two (or more) baptisms are not taught in all of God's holy writ, how can I reconcile this? Any info would be greatly appreciated.

I’ve had this question also.

As with any instances of re-baptism (alleged or actual), I believe it is done when the validity or sufficiency of the original baptism is questioned. I’ve always considered John’s baptism an intertestamental anomaly akin to a preparatory ceremonial washing (“of repentance”) compared to the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

That’s my best guess.

 

[Ed Walsh]

I I I’ve had this question also.

As with any instances of re-baptism (alleged or actual), I believe it is done when the validity or sufficiency of the original baptism is questioned. I’ve always considered John’s baptism an intertestamental anomaly akin to a preparatory ceremonial washing (“of repentance”) compared to the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

That’s my best guess.

Let me preface this by saying I do not believe in multiple baptisms, but only one...

I have heard one reasonably simple solution to this rebaptism problem.
The potential solution I will show below is much simpler than building an entire re-baptism doctrine on this one apparent contradiction in Acts 19.

For this, we need to use the King James Bible or a modern translation that maintains the italicization of inserted words not found in the Greek. I quote the whole passage below and insert a comment here or there [easily recognized as mine] in brackets. Sentence and paragraph breaks are mine, also.

Acts 19:1-6 KJV
And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 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." [Now, what do we do???]

And he said unto them, "Unto what then were ye baptized?
And they said, "Unto John's baptism."

Then said Paul, [musing out loud?],
"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."

[It seems Paul is giving his verbal seal of approval to their prior water baptism as legitimate Christian baptism. Paul likely said this to encourage both the baptized and those who were with Paul, and we're puzzled at what their next move should be.]

When they heard this, [The word 'this' is italicized, indicating that there is no word answerable to it in the Greek]

Now, reread the passage without the inserted word this. ... they [all present] were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

The above interpretation is simple and answers all of the problems except one. Me. I do not have the language skills to know if I'm on to something or not. What do you all think? Which is easier to accept? That all of John's baptizes needed to be rebaptized as Christians? Consider even the time when Jesus and John worked side by side, baptizing people. Was that all in vain for John? This would be confusing at best. But smarter people than me will have to evaluate this idea.

 

[Phil D.]

Heinrich Meyer has some interesting things to say on the various interpretations Acts 19:5 has been given, and as is his forte, shows a linguistic consideration that helps shape his own exegesis - his frank disagreement with some famed Reformed expositors notwithstanding.

​

These disciples of John thus received (whether from Paul himself, or from a subordinate assistant, the text leaves undetermined; but see for the latter view 1 Corinthians 1:17; comp. Acts 10:48) Christian baptism, for it had appeared that they had not yet received it.​

​

The Anabaptists have from the first wrongly appealed to this passage; for it simply represents the non-sufficiency of John’s baptism, in point of fact, for Christianity, and that purely in respect of the twelve persons, but does not exhibit the insufficiency of the Christian baptism of infants.​

​

Many, moreover, of the orthodox (comp. Beza, Calixtus, Calovius, Suicer, Glass, Buddeus, Wolf, and several of the older commentators), in a controversial interest,—both against the Roman Catholic doctrine of the distinction between the Johannean and the Christian baptism (Trident. [Trent] Sess. vii. Song of Solomon 1), and also against the Anabaptists,—have wrongly attached Acts 19:5 to the address of the apostle: “but after they had heard it they were baptized (by John), etc.” But against this it may be urged, that John did not baptize in the name of Jesus, and that δέ, Acts 19:5, stands in no logical connection at all with μέν, Acts 19:4.​

​

On the other hand, Calvin and others have maintained, against the Anabaptists, that Acts 19:5 is meant not of the baptism of water, but of the baptism of the Spirit, which Acts 19:6 only more precisely explains; but this shift is just another, quite as utterly unexegetical, error of dogmatic presupposition.​

​

We may add, that it may not be inferred from our passage that the disciples of John who passed over to Christianity were uniformly rebaptized; for, in the case of the apostles who passed over from John to Jesus, this certainly did not take place (John 4:2); and even as regards Apollos, the common opinion that he was baptized by Aquila is purely arbitrary, as in Acts 18:26 his instruction in Christianity, and not his baptism, is narrated. Indeed, in the whole of the N.T., except this passage, there is no example of the rebaptism of a disciple of John.​

​

Hence the baptism of the disciples of John who passed over to Christianity was not considered as absolutely necessary; but it did or did not take place according as in the different cases, and in proportion to the differences of individuals, the desire of the persons concerned and the opinion of the teachers on the matter determined. With those twelve, for example, Paul regarded it as conducive to his object and requisite that they should be baptized, in order to raise them to the elevation of Christian spiritual life; and therefore they were baptized (evidently according to their own wish and inclination, as is implied in ἀκούσαντες δὲ ἐβαπτ.), whilst Apollos, on the other hand, could dispense with rebaptism, seeing that he with his fervid spirit, following the references of John to Christ and the instruction of his teachers, penetrated without any new baptismal consecration into the pneumatic element of life.​

​

It is also striking that, while of course there are no sentence breaks or punctuation in the original Greek, no English Bible translation construes vs. 5 as being a continuation of Paul's verbal address in vs. 4, which aligns with Meyer's grammatical observations.

In terms of how Meyer's view (last two paragraphs) fits into the truth of "one baptism," I do think a recipient's spiritual disposition and conscience play an important and unavoidable role in validating, so to speak, their own baptism into the one Christian faith, i.e. the faith demonstrated by "all those baptized" (cf. 1 Pet. 3:21).

 

[Semper Fidelis]

John was a prophet of the Old Covenant. His Baptism was not into the New Covenant but was a Baptism of Repentance.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

John was a prophet of the Old Covenant. His Baptism was not into the New Covenant but was a Baptism of Repentance.

But wouldn’t this stance mean all of the recipients of John’s baptism would also need rebaptized, too?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

But wouldn’t this stance mean all of the recipients of John’s baptism would also need rebaptized, too?

Yes. Followers of Christ were baptized by His disciples.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

But wouldn’t this stance mean all of the recipients of John’s baptism would also need rebaptized, too?

Perhaps it is simply the case that for some few baptized by John, Christ lets it stand as baptism into Christ without adding anything further. I have my own opinion on Jesus attitude and action in this connection that I will not elaborate; but if he willed to treat those who attached themselves to him before the cross as possessing baptism into himself via John, then as Lord he was free to do so. It is simply a matter of fact that numerous Jews baptized by John around (let us posit) A.D. 29 were subsequently baptized by the disciples on or after Pentecost in A.D. 33 in the name of Jesus.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

It is simply a matter of fact that numerous Jews baptized by John around (let us posit) A.D. 29 were subsequently baptized by the disciples on or after Pentecost in A.D. 33 in the name of Jesus.

Is it really though, a "matter of fact"? Is there a historical record of any who was baptized with the baptism of John who were then later baptized into the name of Jesus:

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Is it really though, a "matter of fact"? Is there a historical record of any who was baptized with the baptism of John who were then later baptized into the name of Jesus:

John 4:1-2

 

[Ed Walsh]

John 4:1-2

Is this your answer? Maybe a bit of explanation would help, if and when you can spare a few minutes.

Thanks,

Ed

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Is it really though, a "matter of fact"? Is there a historical record of any who was baptized with the baptism of John who were then later baptized into the name of Jesus:

Mt. 3:5, Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan were going out to him,
Mk.1:5, And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

I consider the matter beyond any doubt, that on Pentecost and thereafter, those who joined the church were baptized by the apostles. They were not quizzed whether they had previously been baptized already by John (and their petition deferred); there must have been hundreds if not thousands of them. John had baptized the whole nation, i.e. a relevantly significant number of them. Nor is there in the book of Acts a hint that anyone so baptized declined or protested his prior qualification.

The burden of proof seems clearly to fall on anyone who proposes that a significant portion of those "added daily to the church" (Act.2:47), being baptized by John, were recognized as belonging to the church already, and needed no present act or word of confirmation. Such as came devotedly to Jesus were directed to be baptized, period.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Is this your answer? Maybe a bit of explanation would help, if and when you can spare a few minutes.

Thanks,

Ed

Rich is likely referring not only to those vv but to the context, going back to Jn.3:22ff, which seems to indicate that of those who listened first to John and then flocked to Jesus, many were surely baptized by John (or his disciples on his behalf); but then repeated the procedure upon attending Jesus, participating in baptismal exercise here reported in connection to him. The reports may have been exaggerated or misunderstood, per Jn.4:2, but clearly John's own proclamation had the effect of sending his own attendees toward the ministry of Jesus which embraced the ritual of baptism.

 

[Ed Walsh]

I consider the matter beyond any doubt, that on Pentecost and thereafter, those who joined the church were baptized by the apostles. They were not quizzed whether they had previously been baptized already by John (and their petition deferred); there must have been hundreds if not thousands of them. John had baptized the whole nation, i.e. a relevantly significant number of them. Nor is there in the book of Acts a hint that anyone so baptized declined or protested his prior qualification.

This surely must be the way things went down. Thanks.
I agree with your "burden of proof" statement.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I take it as axiomatic that John could not have fulfilled the Apostolic commission of Matthew 28:19. Not every "baptism" in the Scriptures is the baptism that is into the Name. When Paul speaks of "one baptism", he is not arguing for the idea that there has only, historically, been one baptism as all were baptized into Moses in the Red Sea. Paul is referring to the solidarity that all have who are baptized into Christ.

Bruce understood my point in John 4. The disciples of Jesus were baptizing men and women as disciples of Christ. John's announcement was not to be baptized as Christ's disciples but he was preparing the way for Christ.

This is why it was necessary for Apollos to be baptized.

 

[Phil D.]

I take it as axiomatic that John could not have fulfilled the Apostolic commission of Matthew 28:19. Not every "baptism" in the Scriptures is the baptism that is into the Name.

It is interesting that a number of Reformed theologians not only posited that John's baptism was essentially Christian baptism, and thus functionally interchangeable, but also that different verbal invocations were used in the New Testament, depending on the particular situation. For example, John Lightfoot believed John effectively baptized in "the name of the Messiah ready to come,” while the apostles used two different formulas: in the name of “Jesus Christ” for Jewish converts and “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” for Gentile converts. (Works, Vol. 11 p.64). Cyprian of Carthage also posited this notion back in the 3rd Century (Epistles, 72.17–18; ANF 5:383.) In the 13th Century Thomas Aquinas maintained that the apostles had, by the authority of “special revelation,” baptized both Jews and Gentiles in the “name of Christ,” but that all other persons in other ages were to only use the formula given in the Great Commission. (Summa, 3.66.6.) Personally, I think all of these ideas are incongruent with "one baptism."

 

[Phil D.]

As a follow-up note respecting the historical interpretation of Acts 19:5, Gerhard Vossius wrote:

Of that sentence referring to Paul's speech, and hence that he decreed they should be baptized only once, this idea is very novel - indeed, it was born about the same time I was born. For its first author, though a most noble man of rare learning, was Philip Marnix, Lord of St. Aldegonde [Dutch Reformed; 1540-98] …Theodore Beza then followed him, along with a great number of men of distinction. (De baptismo disputationes XX, 1648)​