Two Questions on Baptism

[FivePointSpurgeonist]

I have a couple of questions and I'm interested to see answers from both sides..

If someone has been baptised after making a profession but later on in life is truly saved, should they be "rebaptized"?
The 1689 confession states "Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance." Would the first baptism not be considered legitimate since the person did actually profess repentance etc.?

Also, would it be wrong for said person, if not fully convinced of the need to be baptized again, to get baptized again in order to gain membership in a Baptist church?

Edited: For clarity

 

[jwright82]

I have a couple of questions and I'm interested to see answers from both sides..

If someone has been baptised after making a profession but falls away from the faith and later on in life is truly saved, should they be "rebaptized"?
The 1689 confession states "Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance." Would the first baptism not be considered legitimate since the person did actually profess repentance etc.?

Also, would it be wrong for said person, if not fully convinced of the need to be baptized again, to get baptized again in order to gain membership in a Baptist church?

I don't completely know but there's a lot of hypotheticals in your question. How does one truly know they fell from the faith? That's seems like a very Arminian type question to ask not necessarily a Reformed question to ask. We can't fall from the faith but someone can get wrapped up in grievous sin and come back but they were never lost.
If the person, very hypothetical here, was convinced that they were not saved before but now saved then their baptism is still valid so again I don't know. But I used to go to an Arminian baptist church and people got re baptized sometimes but the leadership would get uncomfortable after a couple of times and want an indepth meeting with the person.
All in all they took it very seriously.

 

[Ploutos]

the leadership would get uncomfortable after a couple of times and want an indepth meeting with the person.

I can't help but chuckle at this - I'm envisioning a Sunday morning announcement about a 2-baptism limit, with subsequent baptisms requiring unanimous approval of the elders.

 

[mpinckard]

I have a couple of questions and I'm interested to see answers from both sides..

If someone has been baptised after making a profession but later on in life is truly saved, should they be "rebaptized"?
The 1689 confession states "Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance." Would the first baptism not be considered legitimate since the person did actually profess repentance etc.?

Also, would it be wrong for said person, if not fully convinced of the need to be baptized again, to get baptized again in order to gain membership in a Baptist church?

Edited: For clarity

What do you mean when you say you're interested in answers from "both sides"? My assumption would be that you're looking for answers from both credobaptist and paedobaptist perspectives, especially since this isn't in the credobaptist section, but from a paedobaptist perspective, the questions themselves have a faulty premise. Those questions only arise if you start with that statement you quoted from the 1689 confession, but that's a line that paedobaptists necessarily disagree with.

But then, as I read that statement, I think that even from a 1689 perspective, the answer would be that a person ought not be rebaptized. Notice that it ties reception of baptism, not to the reality of repetance and faith and obedience, but to a profession of such.

So that leaves you with an answer to the question very similar to the paedobaptist answer. The paedobaptist and 1689 credobaptist both would say that, if you were legitimately baptized, then you ought not ever be rebaptized. The only disagreement, as far as I can tell, is whether or not a baptism of a covenant child that precedes a credible profession of faith should be considered legitimate. Well, I suppose that and whether or not a baptism done by sprinkling/pouring is legitimate.

 

[jwright82]

I can't help but chuckle at this - I'm envisioning a Sunday morning announcement about a 2-baptism limit, with subsequent baptisms requiring unanimous approval of the elders.

Right, times were tough and water doesn't pay for itself. No it was more like "is this just a show for you or are you even serious, how do we know you're actually saved?" I knew this was going on because the pastor and I talked theology and he would discuss it with me.
The leadership never talked about it publicly but they took it seriously. It wasn't a revival type church or charismatic in any way, so they wanted to make sure it was for real before allowing it. In essence they wanted one time per person and not multiple times per person.

 

[DanSSwing]

I think it would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis, but I would generally advocate rebaptism only if the person insists he was not sincere the first time--perhaps he thought the water itself would save him but was consciously grasping to some unconfessed sin.

 

[jwright82]

I think it would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis, but I would generally advocate rebaptism only if the person insists he was not sincere the first time--perhaps he thought the water itself would save him but was consciously grasping to some unconfessed sin.

Right and I think it was only an issue when someone kept getting rebaptized but didn't start living differently. That's when leadership met with that person more one on one intensely to ascertain what was going on. They said they would not rebaptize again until they were convinced it was for real and the person agreed to discipleship under an elder.
The person left the church because of it. I'm not trying to bad mouth that church and I agree with how they handled it. It was just a little baptist church that only sang old-fashioned baptist hymns and all. But they did take church business very seriously.

 

[Ed Walsh]

I have a couple of questions and I'm interested to see answers from both sides..

If someone has been baptised after making a profession but later on in life is truly saved, should they be "rebaptized"?

No!
Anymore than an Old Testament Israelite would need to be recircumcised.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Greetings,

Following is the text of a post I made on the PB about a year ago. I copied this here as food for thought on this subject of rebaptism. It is tentative and I am open-minded about the interpretation I favor:
~~~~~~~

Rebaptism and the Word “this” in Acts 19:5​

Note: This post is rated "G" and is suitable for all baptismal persuasions.

This question arose upon reading the Fisher Catechism questions below:

Westminster Shorter Catechism - QUESTION 94. What is baptism?
Fisher’s Catechism sub-questions 6 and 9. (Particularly question 9)

Q. 6. Was there any difference between the baptism of John, and the baptism dispensed by the apostles after Christ’s ascension?
A. There was no essential difference between them; for both of them had the same visible sign, and the same blessings signified by it. The difference was only circumstantial, in respect of time, and the objects of administration.

Q. 9. Did not Paul rebaptise some disciples at Ephesus who had been before baptised by John?
A. No; he only declares, that they who had heard John preach the doctrine of repentance and faith in Christ, were by John baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus, and so needed not to be rebaptised by any other.

Fisher claims, in the Answer above, that the 12± Ephesian disciples were NOT rebaptized as Acts 19:5 “seems” to state: (And I think Calvin agrees)

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

In the KJV the word “this” is italicized. I think indicating that there is no Greek word in the original text, but that the word “this” was added by the translators.

A partial paraphrase of verse 4 through 6 agreeing with Fisher:

4 Paul said that John’s baptism was unto repentance and included faith in Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard that the disciples were already baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,
6 Paul laid his hands on them and they were baptized by the Holy Spirit and gave evidence by speaking in tongues and prophesying.

Questions:
1. Do you think Fisher is right, and almost everybody else is wrong, that these Ephesian Christians were not rebaptized?

2. If they were rebaptized, do you think that ALL the people John baptized (including the Apostles) were also rebaptized?

Note: There is no evidence (that I could think of) that the Apostles or anyone else was ever rebaptized.

Unless I am mistaken, Calvin agrees with Fisher:

On verse 4 Calvin says John’s baptism and ours are the same thing:
“And even by this also are we taught that the baptism of John was a token of repentance and remission of sins and that our baptism at this day doth not differ any thing from it, save only that Christ is already revealed, and in his death and resurrection our salvation is made perfect:”

On verse 5 Calvin seems to say that they were rebaptized again but that they were very wrong. Later he seems to deny that they were rebaptized with water at all. (Sometimes I have trouble with Calvin’s wording)

“When they heard these things. Because the men of old had conceived an opinion that the baptism of John and of Christ were diverse, it was no inconvenient [absurd] thing for them to be baptized again, who were only prepared with the baptism of John. But that that diversity was falsely and wickedly by them believed, it appeareth by this, in that it was a pledge and token of the same adoption, and of the same newness of life, which we have at this day in our baptism; and, therefore, we do not read that Christ did baptize those again who came from John unto him. Moreover, Christ received baptism in his own flesh, that he might couple himself with us by that visible sign, (Matthew 3:15) but if that reigned diversity be admitted, this singular benefit shall fall away and perish, that baptism is common to the Son of God and to us, or that we have all one baptism with him. But this opinion needeth no long refutation, because to the end they may persuade that these two baptisms be diverse, they must needs show first wherein the one differeth from the other; but a most excellent likelihood answereth on both parts, and also the agreement and conformity of the parts, [357] which causeth us to confess that it is all one baptism.”
[357] Atqui utrumque respondet optima similitudo et partiurn omnium symmetria et conformitas.

Calvin continues and seems to deny that baptism with water was repeated (see bold text):

“Other some deny that baptism was repeated; because they were baptized amiss by some foolish enemy [rival] of John. But because their conjecture hath no color; yea, the words of Paul do rather import that they were the true and natural disciples of John, and Luke doth honorably call them disciples of Christ; 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. First, it is no new thing for the name of baptism to be translated unto the gifts of the Spirit, as we saw in the first and in the eleventh chapters, (Acts 1:5, and Acts 11:6) where Luke said, that when Christ promised to his apostles to send the Spirit visible, he called it baptism.”

 

[jwright82]

Also the issue of rebaptism was answered by Augustine centuries ago, in many volumes if memory serves.

 

[Ploutos]

No!
Anymore than an Old Testament Israelite would need to be recircumcised.

Now there is a vivid thought!

 

[KMK]

If someone has been baptised after making a profession but later on in life is truly saved, should they be "rebaptized"?

You are equating two very different things: a profession of faith and some kind of "true" salvation experience. As the 1689 says, we baptize upon a sound profession of faith (as do Paedos). We don't baptize upon an event called "salvation." Therefore, if the person made a credible profession of faith and was baptized, no new experience can change the fact that his first profession was credible.

 

[paranymph]

You are equating two very different things: a profession of faith and some kind of "true" salvation experience. As the 1689 says, we baptize upon a sound profession of faith (as do Paedos). We don't baptize upon an event called "salvation." Therefore, if the person made a credible profession of faith and was baptized, no new experience can change the fact that his first profession was credible.

I would answer this somewhat differently. I agree with you that we baptize upon a "sound" profession of faith—I prefer the term "credible profession."
So, the question is not simply whether faith was professed at baptism. Was it a credible profession?
In other words, the way I go about it is, if someone is not sure if they were saved or not, I generally discourage a "re-baptism." But if someone is very sure that they were not saved, and that their profession was not at all credible or sound, then I encourage "re-baptism." We would have to handle it this way, wouldn't we? The Baptist argument is that baptism is a sign of union with Christ that has already taken place. You might wonder how someone would get baptized without a credible profession, but it happens often in churches that are not discerning.

 

[No Other Name]

You are equating two very different things: a profession of faith and some kind of "true" salvation experience. As the 1689 says, we baptize upon a sound profession of faith (as do Paedos). We don't baptize upon an event called "salvation." Therefore, if the person made a credible profession of faith and was baptized, no new experience can change the fact that his first profession was credible.

I agree completely with this.

But if someone is very sure that they were not saved, and that their profession was not at all credible or sound, then I encourage "re-baptism." We would have to handle it this way, wouldn't we?

How could one be sure they were not saved, yet now are sure? This confuses me. If they happened to get baptized in a church that is not discerning, yet they are sure they are regenerate at this time on this day, would that not follow that the baptism in the non-discerning church was in fact real and we now have present-day evidence that it produced the effectual means of salvation?

I do not believe in re-baptism at all. They either have never been baptized at all or they have been so-called "baptized" but it was never a baptism since it failed Biblical criteria (such as in the case of infant baptism, or under a non-Trinitarian formula like Oneness Pentecostals etc.)

 

[paranymph]

How could one be sure they were not saved, yet now are sure? This confuses me.

It happens often. A person grows up in a little Baptist church where everyone is expected to get baptized once they hit around 6 years old. At the summer VBS the leader asks kids to raise their hands if they want to accept Jesus into their heart, and a group of kids raises theirs. These names are then given to the pastor and the pastor sets up a baptism for them and they get dunked. However, no regeneration has occurred and there is no real, credible evidence of salvation. Let's say, then, that one of these people lives the typical worldly life and then is clearly converted at 25. He is absolutely sure that he was not regenerate at 6, and now he is at 25, so he wants to be baptized.

If they happened to get baptized in a church that is not discerning, yet they are sure they are regenerate at this time on this day, would that not follow that the baptism in the non-discerning church was in fact real and we now have present-day evidence that it produced the effectual means of salvation?

The confusion here is that the Baptists & paedobaptists view the meaning of baptism differently. For us, "baptism is real" because it signifies that one has already been buried with Christ in union with him by faith. Baptists agree that baptism is "an effectual means of salvation" (BapCat #96). But this salvation is speaking of the regenerate person's future in persevering to the end, not as applying to an unbeliever who in the future may become regenerate.

I do not believe in re-baptism at all. They either have never been baptized at all or they have been so-called "baptized" but it was never a baptism since it failed Biblical criteria (such as in the case of infant baptism, or under a non-Trinitarian formula like Oneness Pentecostals etc.)

I used "re-baptism" in quotation marks to signify it's not my preferred term. But it's the term used coloquially to speak of someone getting properly dipped after a church has dipped/sprinkled them in the past.

 

[No Other Name]

He is absolutely sure that he was not regenerate at 6, and now he is at 25, so he wants to be baptized.

My question would be how he is absolutely sure he was not regenerate at 6. There are two levels to the question. Yes, the church he attended may have committed the error of claiming a "Yes" answer at that age constitutes a credible profession, but there is also the personal level of himself and his own profession. He may claim he was only answering "Yes" because he thought it was the right answer, but is his memory absolutely trustworthy here?

What happened later that confirmed a new profession that reveals the old profession to be unreal or non-existent? This is what confuses me, and I am not sure there can be an answer without specific details that may or may not even be possible to go into.

 

[dsanch1120]

How could one be sure they were not saved, yet now are sure? This confuses me.

As someone who was baptized at 5 and then was “rebaptized” a decade later i can give some more context.
In the broader evangelical (non-reformed) world there is no sense whatsoever of baptism being God’s work. I only ever heard it described as being “my way of showing the world that I’m choosing to follow Christ.” Add in a little Lordship Salvation theology that makes you focus on specific sins committed and consider them bad fruit of a bad tree (I wasn’t living as if Jesus was my Lord), it’s not too much of a stretch to request a double-dip.
Not saying this about 1689s, but within the broader baptistic evangelical world, there is such a weak and diminished theology of baptism that doing it two or three times is perfectly normal.

 

[Santos]

I can't help but chuckle at this - I'm envisioning a Sunday morning announcement about a 2-baptism limit, with subsequent baptisms requiring unanimous approval of the elders.

Baptist would never say this in a Sunday morning announcement. We would hold a special business meeting and bring in an over paid consultant to talk about the growth prospects for the church if rebaptizing is permitted with a power point presentation and the latest Lifeway polls/statistics.

 

[Phil D.]

Baptist would never say this in a Sunday morning announcement. We would hold a special business meeting and bring in an over paid consultant to talk about the growth prospects for the church if rebaptizing is permitted with a power point presentation and the latest Lifeway polls/statistics.

All over a pot-luck meal with plenty of covered dishes...

 

[Santos]

All over a pot-luck meal with plenty of covered dishes...

If we don't eat, we don't meet!

 

[paranymph]

My question would be how he is absolutely sure he was not regenerate at 6. There are two levels to the question. Yes, the church he attended may have committed the error of claiming a "Yes" answer at that age constitutes a credible profession, but there is also the personal level of himself and his own profession. He may claim he was only answering "Yes" because he thought it was the right answer, but is his memory absolutely trustworthy here?

What happened later that confirmed a new profession that reveals the old profession to be unreal or non-existent? This is what confuses me, and I am not sure there can be an answer without specific details that may or may not even be possible to go into.

Right, and this is where the elders come in discussing the situation on a case-by-case basis. Like I said, I tend towards the charitable stance that there's chance a person was regenerate. But, to answer your question, "what happened later" is a lot of bad fruit and evidence that a person was unregenerate. If, on top of that, he does remember why he raised his hand or wanted baptism and is quite confident that it was illegitimate, then the case seems pretty clear. This is quite common. I have heard many times "I only got baptized because my parents told me to/my brother did it/I didn't want to get left out of the VBS group, etc."

 

[No Other Name]

Right, and this is where the elders come in discussing the situation on a case-by-case basis. Like I said, I tend towards the charitable stance that there's chance a person was regenerate. But, to answer your question, "what happened later" is a lot of bad fruit and evidence that a person was unregenerate. If, on top of that, he does remember why he raised his hand or wanted baptism and is quite confident that it was illegitimate, then the case seems pretty clear. This is quite common. I have heard many times "I only got baptized because my parents told me to/my brother did it/I didn't want to get left out of the VBS group, etc."

Interesting, and if you say this is common, then I will completely take your word for it and trust you in the cases you deal with on a regular basis.

May God bless you and keep you as you minister in his name and for his glory.

 

[KMK]

In other words, the way I go about it is, if someone is not sure if they were saved or not,

there's chance a person was regenerate.

Are you using the words "saved" and "regenerate" as synonyms of a subjective experience within the heart of the believer? Again, the Reformed confessions link baptism to a credible profession of faith, whether that profession occurred at six or sixty. The profession of faith might or might not be linked to a subjective experience of one's salvation, or regeneration, or assurance, or joy.

If someone has proof that they were baptized without a credible profession of faith (baptized as an infant, for example) then there would be a case for rebaptism. But then 'rebaptism' might not be the best word because their previous baptism is invalid.

 

[No Other Name]

Are you using the words "saved" and "regenerate" as synonyms of a subjective experience within the heart of the believer? Again, the Reformed confessions link baptism to a credible profession of faith, whether that profession occurred at six or sixty. The profession of faith might or might not be linked to a subjective experience of one's salvation, or regeneration, or assurance, or joy.

If someone has proof that they were baptized without a credible profession of faith (baptized as an infant, for example) then there would be a case for rebaptism. But then 'rebaptism' might not be the best word because their previous baptism is invalid.

For clarity as to why I liked this post, what is the seminal difference between a false profession and a sincere profession followed by a long period of backsliding?

It is one thing if a congregant admits to crossing his fingers as he is immersed at a young age; quite another if the profession of faith was understood and sincerely believed and then - after a long period of lack of fruit - the effectual means of the work of the Christ in the seal of the Holy Spirit is also evidenced.

Without any specific details on any one individual's journey, I am saying that while the subjective experience of anyone should not be discounted, it cannot be the only - or even primary - consideration, right?

 

[JvMill]

Without any specific details on any one individual's journey, I am saying that while the subjective experience of anyone should not be discounted, it cannot be the only - or even primary - consideration, right?

A lack of clear teaching on this difference is why I was baptized twice, and now regret it.

 

[No Other Name]

@John The Baptist I clicked the heart since my heart went out to you and your situation.

I was almost "re-baptized" and I thank God for his grace that I discovered Reformed theology and paused. Interestingly, I discovered WCF first and had no idea what the 1689 was. I just loved the WCF - except infant baptism and I thought that was the only difference between us, but I was naive as to the depths of covenant theology hahaha

 

[paranymph]

Are you using the words "saved" and "regenerate" as synonyms of a subjective experience within the heart of the believer? Again, the Reformed confessions link baptism to a credible profession of faith, whether that profession occurred at six or sixty. The profession of faith might or might not be linked to a subjective experience of one's salvation, or regeneration, or assurance, or joy.

If someone has proof that they were baptized without a credible profession of faith (baptized as an infant, for example) then there would be a case for rebaptism. But then 'rebaptism' might not be the best word because their previous baptism is invalid.

You're right that I used two different words, and that is confusing. In neither case am I referring to a subjective experience. I am referring to the objective fact of regeneration. Of course, not everyone has knowledge of such, nor is it required at all.

I think we are basically in agreement. I'm not saying the burden of proof has to be that one has to prove they were regenerate (and knew it) at the time of baptism. I am saying that, if someone is convinced of the opposite, that they were not regenerate, it is appropriate to be "re-" baptized.

 

[KMK]

You're right that I used two different words, and that is confusing. In neither case am I referring to a subjective experience. I am referring to the objective fact of regeneration. Of course, not everyone has knowledge of such, nor is it required at all.

I think we are basically in agreement. I'm not saying the burden of proof has to be that one has to prove they were regenerate (and knew it) at the time of baptism. I am saying that, if someone is convinced of the opposite, that they were not regenerate, it is appropriate to be "re-" baptized.

Who is the 'someone'? The baptizee? If so, then the baptism is tied to some subjective experience, not an objective profession of faith. Is there a limit to how many times this individual can request to be rebaptized because they subjectively determine they weren't regenerate before?

 

[Purisomniapura]

Greetings,

Following is the text of a post I made on the PB about a year ago. I copied this here as food for thought on this subject of rebaptism. It is tentative and I am open-minded about the interpretation I favor:
~~~~~~~

Rebaptism and the Word “this” in Acts 19:5​

Note: This post is rated "G" and is suitable for all baptismal persuasions.

This question arose upon reading the Fisher Catechism questions below:

Westminster Shorter Catechism - QUESTION 94. What is baptism?
Fisher’s Catechism sub-questions 6 and 9. (Particularly question 9)

Q. 6. Was there any difference between the baptism of John, and the baptism dispensed by the apostles after Christ’s ascension?
A. There was no essential difference between them; for both of them had the same visible sign, and the same blessings signified by it. The difference was only circumstantial, in respect of time, and the objects of administration.

Q. 9. Did not Paul rebaptise some disciples at Ephesus who had been before baptised by John?
A. No; he only declares, that they who had heard John preach the doctrine of repentance and faith in Christ, were by John baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus, and so needed not to be rebaptised by any other.

Fisher claims, in the Answer above, that the 12± Ephesian disciples were NOT rebaptized as Acts 19:5 “seems” to state: (And I think Calvin agrees)

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

In the KJV the word “this” is italicized. I think indicating that there is no Greek word in the original text, but that the word “this” was added by the translators.

A partial paraphrase of verse 4 through 6 agreeing with Fisher:

4 Paul said that John’s baptism was unto repentance and included faith in Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard that the disciples were already baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,
6 Paul laid his hands on them and they were baptized by the Holy Spirit and gave evidence by speaking in tongues and prophesying.

Questions:
1. Do you think Fisher is right, and almost everybody else is wrong, that these Ephesian Christians were not rebaptized?

2. If they were rebaptized, do you think that ALL the people John baptized (including the Apostles) were also rebaptized?

Note: There is no evidence (that I could think of) that the Apostles or anyone else was ever rebaptized.

Unless I am mistaken, Calvin agrees with Fisher:

On verse 4 Calvin says John’s baptism and ours are the same thing:
“And even by this also are we taught that the baptism of John was a token of repentance and remission of sins and that our baptism at this day doth not differ any thing from it, save only that Christ is already revealed, and in his death and resurrection our salvation is made perfect:”

On verse 5 Calvin seems to say that they were rebaptized again but that they were very wrong. Later he seems to deny that they were rebaptized with water at all. (Sometimes I have trouble with Calvin’s wording)

“When they heard these things. Because the men of old had conceived an opinion that the baptism of John and of Christ were diverse, it was no inconvenient [absurd] thing for them to be baptized again, who were only prepared with the baptism of John. But that that diversity was falsely and wickedly by them believed, it appeareth by this, in that it was a pledge and token of the same adoption, and of the same newness of life, which we have at this day in our baptism; and, therefore, we do not read that Christ did baptize those again who came from John unto him. Moreover, Christ received baptism in his own flesh, that he might couple himself with us by that visible sign, (Matthew 3:15) but if that reigned diversity be admitted, this singular benefit shall fall away and perish, that baptism is common to the Son of God and to us, or that we have all one baptism with him. But this opinion needeth no long refutation, because to the end they may persuade that these two baptisms be diverse, they must needs show first wherein the one differeth from the other; but a most excellent likelihood answereth on both parts, and also the agreement and conformity of the parts, [357] which causeth us to confess that it is all one baptism.”
[357] Atqui utrumque respondet optima similitudo et partiurn omnium symmetria et conformitas.

Calvin continues and seems to deny that baptism with water was repeated (see bold text):

“Other some deny that baptism was repeated; because they were baptized amiss by some foolish enemy [rival] of John. But because their conjecture hath no color; yea, the words of Paul do rather import that they were the true and natural disciples of John, and Luke doth honorably call them disciples of Christ; 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. First, it is no new thing for the name of baptism to be translated unto the gifts of the Spirit, as we saw in the first and in the eleventh chapters, (Acts 1:5, and Acts 11:6) where Luke said, that when Christ promised to his apostles to send the Spirit visible, he called it baptism.”

I'm confused???
If John's baptism under the call to (repentance) involved baptizing Jews who didn't necessarily follow Jesus how is John's baptism the same?
Also, Christ hadn't died yet so how can men be buried with Christ & raised to new life (symbolized in baptism) while it had not yet happened?