The 12 Apostles and rebaptism

[Pergamum]

At what point were the Twelve (or at least 11 of them) regenerate?

They were baptized early in the Gospels, and yet later they seemed to go from a dawning awareness of Messiah to belief.

So it appears that

The twelve - at least some -were maybe unregenerate disciples at the time of baptism. Later, they came to true belief. BUT, they were not rebaptized.

How would paedos and credos answer this?

Also, how does Acts 19 come into play also regarding this issue of rebaptism?

Finally, just at what point should we view the disciples as having true faith?

 

[au5t1n]

At what point were the Twelve (or at least 11 of them) regenerate?

They were baptized early in the Gospels, and yet later they seemed to go from a dawning awareness of Messiah to belief.

So it appears that

The twelve - at least some -were maybe unregenerate disciples at the time of baptism. Later, they came to true belief. BUT, they were not rebaptized.

Why could they not have been regenerate prior to knowing Jesus was the Messiah and really understanding that fact? Aren't they living in the tail end of the old covenant at this point, since Christ has not yet died and risen? Obviously I am excepting Matthew.

-----Added 11/3/2009 at 08:36:22 EST-----

Another possibility is that they were regenerated when they first heard Christ's message and believed him. I don't think we need assume one way or another, since there were many regenerate OT saints.

 

[NRB]

I think they were regenerate when they first heard Him. They were just like any new christian of today, and were started off with some milk accordingly.
That's my opinion, and I could be wrong.

 

[Iconoclast]

In Acts 19, these OLD Covenant believers had already identified by public baptism with John's message.
Upon hearing the New Covenant message they identified with that message by the ordinance of believers baptism.

I was baptized as a roman catholic infant. I lived an ungodly life.God saved me from my sins. I openly confessed that by believers baptism.
My infant baptism did nothing to or for me despite what others vowed they would do on my behalf.[ god parents,family]
Desiring to obey Jesus command to believe and be baptized I never considered as a rebaptism,as i had never repented and believed previously.

In Acts 19 God confirmed the Spiritual reality with sign gifts.

 

[MW]

1 Peter 1:3, regeneration proper is effected in the history of salvation by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

 

[MW]

In Acts 19, these OLD Covenant believers had already identified by public baptism with John's message.
Upon hearing the New Covenant message they identified with that message by the ordinance of believers baptism.

In Acts 19:5 Paul's says to the disciples of John that those baptised by John were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus.

 

[Iconoclast]

In Acts 19, these OLD Covenant believers had already identified by public baptism with John's message.
Upon hearing the New Covenant message they identified with that message by the ordinance of believers baptism.

In Acts 19:5 Paul's says to the disciples of John that those baptised by John were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Yes, before the cross they looked forward to Him that was to come.John the baptist identifies Jesus as that one who has now come.

15John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

16And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

17For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

18No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

19And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?

20And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.

21And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.

22Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?

23He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.

24And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.

25And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?

26John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;

27He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose

Yet this baptism[Johns] happened before the work of the cross. Those disciples in acts 19 had believed John and his message.Now after the accomplishment of redemption, they believe in the NT.gospel.
Am I not seeing something here? It was a transitional time.
Jews who were believers in the first century,who had already been circumcised before the cross, they were baptized when they believed right?
If they had the sign of the covenant already, then Jesus goes to the cross, then Pentecost takes place. Why would they identify publically with baptism if it was not different in some way?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

In Acts 19, these OLD Covenant believers had already identified by public baptism with John's message.
Upon hearing the New Covenant message they identified with that message by the ordinance of believers baptism.

In Acts 19:5 Paul's says to the disciples of John that those baptised by John were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus.

?

I know there are those who believe this was a second baptism which might not be Christian rebaptism, and those who hold that John's baptism was Christian Baptism.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/johns-baptism-46197/

 

[MW]

Why would they identify publically with baptism if it was not different in some way?

Please read Acts 19:5 again, not as the narrator's words, but as Paul's words, and it will be seen that no baptism took place at that time. I recommend Gill's comments in loc.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Gill loses me sometimes and I like Calvin better. Sometimes I like neither. But that would even draw my contentions under more scrutiny, and it should. Read Calvin on this and you will be even more confused maybe.

Gill.

they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; not the disciples that Paul found at Ephesus, but the hearers of John; for these are the words of the Apostle Paul, giving an account of John's baptism, and of the success of his ministry, showing, that his baptism was administered in the name of the Lord Jesus; and not the words of Luke the Evangelist, recording what followed upon his account of John's baptism; for then he would have made mention of the apostle's name, as he does in the next verse; and have said, when they heard this account, they were baptized by Paul in the name of the Lord Jesus: the historian reports two things, first what Paul said, which lies in Act_19:4 then what he did, Act_19:6 where he repeats his name, as was necessary; as that he laid his hands upon them, which was all that was needful to their receiving the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, having been already baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus: which sense is the more confirmed by the particles μεν and δε, which answer to one another in verses 4 and 5, and show the words to be a continuation of the apostle's speech, and not the words of the historian, which begin in the next verse. Beza's ancient copy adds, "for the remission of sins".

 

[Iconoclast]

Matthew,
I will look up Gill on this,although at first glance I am wondering why Paul would have to explain to them what happened when John baptized them at the first.... what i asked about the first century believers who had received the sign of the covenant already,why would they get baptized if it was just a replacement sign? {not just these men here in acts 19, but other believing Israelites who had already had the covenant sign on the 8th day of their life]
I will look up Gill now, and I have not finished re-reading Dagg yet .When i do I will try to give a better response to your question on the other thread

-----Added 11/12/2009 at 11:36:11 EST-----

Here is Gill,

Ver. 3. And he said unto them, unto what then were ye baptized?.... The apostle takes it for granted that they were baptized, since they were not only believers, but disciples; such as not only believed with the heart, but had made a profession of their faith, and were followers of Christ; but asks unto what they were baptized; either in whose name they were baptized, since Christian baptism was administered in the name of the Spirit, as well as in the name of the Father and of the Son; or what attended or followed their baptism, seeing sometimes the Holy Ghost fell upon persons, either before baptism, or at it, or after it:

and they said, unto John's baptism; some think they had never been baptized at all with water baptism, only had received the doctrine preached by John, concerning repentance and remission of sins, and so were baptized unto him, professing the same doctrine he did, just as the Israelites were baptized into Moses; others think they were baptized, but very wrongly, being baptized in the name of John, and not in the name of Jesus Christ; and so, as it was not Christian baptism they had submitted to, it was right to baptize them again: but neither of these are probable, for it is not likely that they should receive John's doctrine, and not his baptism; that they should be his disciples and followers, and not attend to the more distinguishing branch of his ministry; and it is still more unlikely that they should be baptized in his name, who preached Jesus Christ to his followers, and pointed out to them the Lamb of God, and declared him to be greater than he; it seems rather that they were baptized, and that they were baptized in the name of Christ, as John's disciples were, as the apostle affirms in the following words.


Acts 19:4

Ver. 4. Then said Paul,.... In reply to their answer, understanding them that they were baptized by John, he takes it up, and gives an account of John's baptism: showing how agreeable it was, and that it was the same baptism with the baptism of Christ, being administered in his name:

John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance; which required repentance antecedent to it, and was a fruit and effect, and so an evidence of it:

saying unto the people; the people of the Jews, the common people, the multitude that attended on his ministry:

that they should believe on him, which should come after him, that is, on Jesus Christ; so that he preached faith in Christ, as well as repentance towards God; and made the one as well as the other a necessary prerequisite unto baptism; which shows, that his baptism and Christian baptism are the same.


Acts 19:5

Ver. 5. When they heard this,.... That is, the people to whom John preached, his hearers; when they heard of the Messiah, and that Jesus was he, and that it became them to believe in him:

they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; not the disciples that Paul found at Ephesus, but the hearers of John; for these are the words of the Apostle Paul, giving an account of John's baptism, and of the success of his ministry, showing, that his baptism was administered in the name of the Lord Jesus; and not the words of Luke the Evangelist, recording what followed upon his account of John's baptism; for then he would have made mention of the apostle's name, as he does in the next verse; and have said, when they heard this account, they were baptized by Paul in the name of the Lord Jesus: the historian reports two things, first what Paul said, which lies in Ac 19:4 then what he did, Ac 19:6 where he repeats his name, as was necessary; as that he laid his hands upon them, which was all that was needful to their receiving the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, having been already baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus: which sense is the more confirmed by the particles men and de, which answer to one another in verses 4 and 5, and show the words to be a continuation of the apostle's speech, and not the words of the historian, which begin in the next verse. Beza's ancient copy adds, "for the remission of sins".

Although I like many things that Gill has written, I am not sure he is on the mark here when he says this

some think they had never been baptized at all with water baptism, only had received the doctrine preached by John, concerning repentance and remission of sins, and so were baptized unto him, professing the same doctrine he did, just as the Israelites were baptized into Moses;

It just seems like speculation on his part.[or the "some" he is speaking of] They identified with his doctrine, but not by baptism? will have to consider this more, no wonder i cannot get back to reading Dagg. Looks like I will be up late tonight
Matthew, I have no idea how you recall all these things, but i am thankful to God for your faithful laboring in the word,as well as many of the brothers here

 

[Peairtach]

Here's a couple of related threads

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/johns-baptism-46197/


http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/calvin-vs-murray-baptism-54183/

For more go here:-

http://www.puritanboard.com/searchr...000000;GFNT:0000FF;GIMP:0000FF;FORID:11&hl=en

I believe that when the Scriptures talk about John's baptism being a baptism of repentance unto remission of sins, they are not contrasting John's baptism with any later Christian baptism, whether before or after the resurrection, but with Jewish baptisms.

Christian baptism is always "a baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins", because this is an aspect of what occurs at regeneration/washing in the blood by the application of the Spirit/baptism with or by the Spirit by Christ into Christ's body, which is what baptism signifies.