Comments on: An Email About Baptism

By: Terry

Terry — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:30:05 +0000

Thanks for the information on followers of John the Baptist, Jay!

By: JdB

JdB — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:14:02 +0000

I chuckled a little when I read that. I think I'm a good preacher in the church of Christ because I always ask, "Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and are you willing to make him the Lord of your life?" How's that for not leaving any stone unturned? lol

By: Doug Young

Doug Young — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 08:44:35 +0000

Thanks Jay. I see it both ways. I have worked under the impression that the close of Acts 18 shows that people like Apollos were teaching others, knowing only the baptism of John. For that reason, Priscilla and Aquila taught him God's better way. Since Apollos had been preaching in Ephesus, it seemed logical to me that maybe the people Paul meets up with in Acts 19 were people who had heard Apollos's preaching of John's baptism. I can't prove it, but it seem logical.

Either way, what you offer as to how Paul gets the conversation going is unequivocally Spirit oriented and Spirit driven!

By: Jay Guin

Jay Guin — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:42:28 +0000

See Introduction to the New Testament, by Goodspeed.

There were still those who regarded John the Baptist as the Messiah, or at least as the new Elijah of Mal. 4:5, like the men Paul found at Ephesus, Acts 19:1-7. Justin mentions Baptists among the Jewish sects, Dialogue lxxx. 4, and in the third century the Clementine Recognitions speaks of people who declare John to be the Messiah.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/goodspeed/. The dating of Recognitions is uncertain and could be as late as the 4th century.

There's a group called the Mandaeans, still in existence, who honor John the Baptist as their greatest prophet. According to the Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, their roots go back at least to the third century. http://books.google.com/books?id=kgRV7QohACcC&amp…

By: Terry

Terry — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:13:38 +0000

Jay,
I'm curious about your statement that some Jews were "practicing John's baptism centuries after Pentecost." I had never heard about it before (except of course for the Jews in Acts 19). I would be interested in learning more about this topic. Could you recomment a book or web site on this topic?

By: Jay Guin

Jay Guin — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:09:26 +0000

Joe,

I quite agree. We do a lousy job of teaching repentance, often not even asking a convert whether he has repented. My preference is to ask whether he is willing to submit to Jesus as his Lord. After all, the confession Paul speaks of in Rom 10:9 is "Jesus is Lord," which we rarely ask of our members, preferring the confession in Acts 8:37 "that Jesus Christ is the Son of God," which isn't even in most modern translations because it's not in the oldest Greek manuscripts.

As a result, we miss an important teaching opportunity — and leave many converts with the idea that Jesus just wants a dunking and regular church attendance. And we wonder why 80% of our members are uninvolved in ministry.

By: Jay Guin

Jay Guin — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:23:09 +0000

Doug,

I don't think so. I focused on the Spirit because Paul did. To be true to the text, you have approach things in Spirit terms. But it's also true that the Ephesians had not been baptized into the name of Jesus.

We don't know for sure whether the Ephesians were baptized before or after Pentecost. We know from history that there were Jews practicing John's baptism for centuries after Pentecost. And given that Act 19 would have happened decades after Pentecost, it seems very likely that at least some of the Ephesians were baptized with John's baptism (for repentance, unto remission of sins) after Pentecost.

Therefore, it's entirely legitimate to observe that John's baptism was inadequate not only because it didn't bring the Spirit's indwelling, but also because it was not in the name of Jesus (or the Trinitarian name), which, of course, is why the Spirit didn't come.

By: Joe Baggett

Joe Baggett — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:14:15 +0000

The only thing required for Baptism is actual faith. You can do the five steps and never really believe. It is not subscription to list of doctrinal positions or adherence of a 5 religious acts or rituals. What if we emphasized repentance as much as the physical act of water immersion? Is it less important? Repentance has been relegated to a onetime thing where we said we were sorry and tried to stop sinning the moment we got out of the water. This repentance many times was only for the really bad sins and not the nice respectable ones. I believe that if we spent more time actually leading people to faith in Jesus and not membership to certain religious group or list of rituals and religious acts the fewer issues of re-baptism we would have. The more we understand and teach actual repentance as immediate and ongoing transformation and not just being sorry or feeling guilty for your sin when you get dunked then we might have less issues with people getting into their quarter life and discovering faith for themselves and wondering if they must be re-baptized to be “right” with God.

By: Doug Young

Doug Young — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:13:23 +0000

Jay,

If it was only about receiving the Spirit, Paul could've just laid hands on them. I've always looked at the re-baptism situation of Acts 19 in light of the fact that John's baptism was a pre-DBR baptism. Acts 2 is new covenant, great commission baptism. The men in Acts 19 had been taught John's baptism, not that of the great commission. I've always contended that such was the basis for their re-baptism.

Am I off base?

By: Robert Baty

Robert Baty — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 08:43:32 +0000

Keith,

Your disposition is so noted.

FWIW, I have recently been involved in disputes about Cornelius and whether his household's "receipt" of the Holy Spirt was the promised "baptism" of the Holy Spirit.

Controversies here, controversies there, controversies everywhere!

Only me and thee know the truth, and sometimes I doubt thee!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty