Praxeas & Company (Thief Saved?/Baptism Essential)

[pelathais]

My question is this however: since Apollos was apparently baptized according to the baptism of John during the church age (Acts 18:25), and we know also that other disciples in Ephesus were as well (Acts 19) - did they receive the same "remission of sins" that others had received earlier under the ministry of John the Baptist himself?

We can properly compare the two baptisms when we have scriptural accounts of them occurring together "in the church age." Of course non-Dispensationalists would argue that they must be compared regardless.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

My question is this however: since Apollos was apparently baptized according to the baptism of John during the church age (Acts 18:25), and we know also that other disciples in Ephesus were as well (Acts 19) - did they receive the same "remission of sins" that others had received earlier under the ministry of John the Baptist himself?

That's a good question, Pel. We know there is no remission of sins without the shedding of blood and Jesus blood had not been shed when John the Baptist baptized. So how were sins remitted under/by John's baptism?

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by pelathais

My question is this however: since Apollos was apparently baptized according to the baptism of John during the church age (Acts 18:25), and we know also that other disciples in Ephesus were as well (Acts 19) - did they receive the same "remission of sins" that others had received earlier under the ministry of John the Baptist himself?

There's an assumption in your question though -- an assumption that can't really be validated. If the assumption can't be shown to be truly factual, then it kind of makes the whole question moot, I'd say.

Real simply:

Why should we assume that Apollos's baptism took place during the church age? The scriptures dont say or imply that. From all we know, his baptism may well have taken place during the time John was still alive.

Same with the other disciples that were in Ephesus.

We see nothing in scriptures that says that John's baptism continued after his death. His teachings apparently lived on after his death (in Apollos and the disciples in Ephesus), but it doesnt anyway tell us that the baptism of John had continued on.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

That's a good question, Pel. We know there is no remission of sins without the shedding of blood and Jesus blood had not been shed when John the Baptist baptized. So how were sins remitted under/by John's baptism?

By their faith in "He who was to come..." (Acts 19:4 & ff.) The same faith that provides remission of sins for us (1 Peter 3:21).

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

There's an assumption in your question though -- an assumption that can't really be validated. If the assumption can't be shown to be truly factual, then it kind of makes the whole question moot, I'd say.

Real simply:

Why should we assume that Apollos's baptism took place during the church age? The scriptures dont say or imply that. From all we know, his baptism may well have taken place during the time John was still alive.

Same with the other disciples that were in Ephesus.

We see nothing in scriptures that says that John's baptism continued after his death. His teachings apparently lived on after his death (in Apollos and the disciples in Ephesus), but it doesnt anyway tell us that the baptism of John had continued on.

hmmm... John's teaching continued on, Apollos knew "only the baptism of John" as did the disciples in Ephesus (Acts 19). Yet they didn't know that John's teaching involved baptism? And they continued the teachings of John the Baptist but didn't baptize their children or converts? Seems highly unlikely given the importance tha John placed upon baptism.

I think that only an overly rigid reliance upon both Dispensationalism and the so-called "Water & Spirit" teaching would cause someone to say that no one had been baptized under the baptism of John in the 20 some years between his death and Paul's visit to Ephesus in Acts 19; especially given the emphasis that the text itself places upon John's baptism being an important topic of the conversation.

[pelathais]

So my question remains: did those who were baptized under John's baptism receive the same remission of sins as those baptized by the Apostles?

And the question doesn't seek to invalidate Christian baptism as your knee jerk reaction seems to say you fear. The disciples at Ephesus were rebaptized by Paul - for whatever reason Paul had to do so. And that's the part that I said I was "hazy" on. What is accomplished by baptism in Jesus name for those who (like the disciples of John) had already received the remission of sins?

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by pelathais

hmmm... John's teaching continued on, Apollos knew "only the baptism of John" as did the disciples in Ephesus (Acts 19). Yet they didn't know that John's teaching involved baptism? And they continued the teachings of John the Baptist but didn't baptize their children or converts? Seems highly unlikely given the importance tha John placed upon baptism.

I think that only an overly rigid reliance upon both Dispensationalism and the so-called "Water & Spirit" teaching would cause someone to say that no one had been baptized under the baptism of John in the 20 some years between his death and Paul's visit to Ephesus in Acts 19; especially given the emphasis that the text itself places upon John's baptism being an important topic of the conversation.

I still think there are too many assumptions there.

Acts says Apollos knew the baptism of John, but doesn't say when he was baptized.

It said the Ephesian disciples had been disciples of John, but doesn't say when they were baptized. (They may have been baptized by John for all we know).

I can't teach anyone that no-one had been baptized in John 's baptism after his death... .just as you cant show from scripture that they were.

But you seem to be assuming that they were. Why? Could it be because it fits into a mindset and belief that you already have? just wondering/just asking.

I think its usually best to speak when the scripture speaks, and be silent when it scripture is silent.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by pelathais

So my question remains: did those who were baptized under John's baptism receive the same remission of sins as those baptized by the Apostles?

"the same remission of sins?"
Remission of sins is remission of sins.
What different types of remission of sins might there be?

Originally Posted by pelathais

And the question doesn't seek to invalidate Christian baptism as your knee jerk reaction seems to say you fear. The disciples at Ephesus were rebaptized by Paul - for whatever reason Paul had to do so. And that's the part that I said I was "hazy" on. What is accomplished by baptism in Jesus name for those who (like the disciples of John) had already received the remission of sins?

Good grief, Pel.
You're assuming a "knee-jerk" reaction, and some kind of "fear" on my part.
Fear of what?
Nothing you said would serve to "invalidate Christian baptism" so I have no idea what you're really talking about there.

I simply refused to follow your train of thought, which was based on you "filling in the gaps" by using your own logic, instead of following what was shown or not shown to us in scripture.
---

Anyway, dealing with the core issue of your question...

Originally Posted by pelathais

The disciples at Ephesus were rebaptized by Paul - for whatever reason Paul had to do so. And that's the part that I said I was "hazy" on. What is accomplished by baptism in Jesus name for those who (like the disciples of John) had already received the remission of sins?

Well, besides the remission of sins, we know that Paul spoke of baptism as 1...being buried with him (thus identifying with his death, burial, resurrection)...

(Rom 6:3)
Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

and...

2... Paul also referred to baptism as being a New Testament circumcision, (literally, the "circumcision made without hands", "the circumcision of Christ"). This in a sense is a spiritual circumcision under the New Covenant, as opposed to the fleshly circumcision under the Abrahamic/Mosaic covenants (Col 2;11-12)

11In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

Those are 2 key things spoken of about Jesus name baptism that were never spoken of regarding John's baptism.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

I still think there are too many assumptions there.

Acts says Apollos knew the baptism of John, but doesn't say when he was baptized.

It said the Ephesian disciples had been disciples of John, but doesn't say when they were baptized. (They may have been baptized by John for all we know).

I can't teach anyone that no-one had been baptized in John 's baptism after his death... .just as you cant show from scripture that they were.

But you seem to be assuming that they were. Why? Could it be because it fits into a mindset and belief that you already have? just wondering/just asking.

I think its usually best to speak when the scripture speaks, and be silent when it scripture is silent.

The question about my mindset is an important consideration and I don't mind you asking. I was brought up on the "water & spirit" way of thinking with the absolute necessity of baptism in Jesus name. This was my mindset and belief for most of my life. Only relatively recently have I questioned that position.

The issue involving the disciples of John is key because it represents an example of believers who were sincerely following the path that God had laid out for them through His prophets and the Scripture. And yet the disciples didn't quite "measure up" to the full "Water & Spirit" doctrine. And so we can ask, "Where do they stand?" John the Baptist and Paul both very clearly stated that they had "remission of sins." From this I conclude that they were "saved" for all intents and purposes even though they had not yet been baptized in Jesus name nor received the Holy Ghost with evidence of speaking in other tongues.

So, if the were saved - what saved them? And what specifically was then added to their lives by their subsequent baptisms?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

hmmm... John's teaching continued on, Apollos knew "only the baptism of John" as did the disciples in Ephesus (Acts 19). Yet they didn't know that John's teaching involved baptism? And they continued the teachings of John the Baptist but didn't baptize their children or converts? Seems highly unlikely given the importance tha John placed upon baptism.

I think that only an overly rigid reliance upon both Dispensationalism and the so-called "Water & Spirit" teaching would cause someone to say that no one had been baptized under the baptism of John in the 20 some years between his death and Paul's visit to Ephesus in Acts 19; especially given the emphasis that the text itself places upon John's baptism being an important topic of the conversation.

John not only spoke of the one who was to come but God revealed to John that his cousin, Jesus, was the one who was to come. Why didn't the disciples of John make this known?