Quote:
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?
Threaded Mode
