Were the apostles ever baptized in Jesus' name?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

IMO they were certainly baptized by John unto repentance, and "grand fathered in" for the lack of a better term. Because of their unique position, I'm not sure it matters.

I don't know how unique the position of the apostles and their baptism may have been. There were others who apparently had the same experience but were not apostles (Acts 1:20-23).

One question that appears to be left unanswered, were Joseph Barsabas and Matthias the only two who fit the needed qualifications, or were they simply the "final two" that a list was pared down to?

It may be that Joseph Barsabas was the only one who fit the qualifications who never ultimately become one of the Twelve.

[mizpeh]

To be a disciple of Christ, you have to be baptized in his name. That would include the apostles.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Brother David

I don't know how unique the position of the apostles and their baptism may have been. There were others who apparently had the same experience but were not apostles (Acts 1:20-23).

One question that appears to be left unanswered, were Joseph Barsabas and Matthias the only two who fit the needed qualifications, or were they simply the "final two" that a list was pared down to?

It may be that Joseph Barsabas was the only one who fit the qualifications who never ultimately become one of the Twelve.

I meant unique position in that the were followers of Christ while he was yet on earth, and then recieved the direction to baptize in His name (at the great comission, if they did it before we don't have record of it--though I understand it IS possible that when the apostles baptized DURING Jesus ministry they could have used his name. A discussion I would be interested in having).

As for Barsabas and Matthias being the only two, I think there were more by my reading of it, but I haven't studied that passage, just my two cents.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

To be a disciple of Christ, you have to be baptized in his name. That would include the apostles.

I think we today have placed more emphasis on the ritual of baptism emphasizing doing it "correctly" than they did back there in the first century.

[jfrog]

So pretty much all we have is theorys of how they might could have been baptized? I guess it might also be possible that they weren't baptized in Jesus' name?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by jfrog

So pretty much all we have is theorys of how they might could have been baptized? I guess it might also be possible that they weren't baptized in Jesus' name?

sure but we dare not admit that

[Jason B]

what sam said

[shag]

Or...I know...it got lost in tranlation by those cottin pickin catholics...







It has been stated, disciples of John were baptised by John, and disciples of Jesus had been baptised by Jesus, so.....

This passage comes to mind, checkout Pauls lango here concerning baptism.

1 Cor. 1:13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so no one can say that you were baptized into my name.




So, if Jesus baptised the apostles, then, according to what Paul said here, then they had to have been baptised "in the name of Jesus", right or nay?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by shag

Or...I know...it got lost in tranlation by those cottin pickin catholics...







It has been stated, disciples of John were baptised by John, and disciples of Jesus had been baptised by Jesus, so.....

This passage comes to mind, checkout Pauls lango here concerning baptism.

1 Cor. 1:13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so no one can say that you were baptized into my name.

If Jesus baptised the apostles, then, according to what Paul said here, then they had to be baptised in Jesus name, right?

ummmm, I thought it was obvious that if Jesus baptized the apostles then they would have been baptized in his authority... so i have no idea where ur going with this, but sure, if jesus baptized the apostles then they were baptized in his name.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Aquila

If your question was in regards to the Apostles being baptized, washing away their sins, calling on the name of the Lord, I'd answer yes. Most likely they were baptized by John via the baptism of repentance.

If your question was in regards to the Apostles being baptizsed with a Jesus name "formula" spoken over them by another, I'd answer probably not.

Water baptism has become of great contention between those who argue for a Jesus name "formula" and those who argue for a Trinitarian "formula". The problem is... both positions are in error. Water baptism was never "formulized". Water baptism was when converts were expected to wash away their sins calling upon the name of the Lord (Acts 22:16). No formula was necessary, the issue was the believer's calling on the name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of their sins. Both we and the Trinitarians have ceremonialized it into a "formulized" sacrament. Frankly, a believer can be water baptized by a person who doesn't utter a word and if that believer is believing on the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins, their sins are remitted. This means that 100 Trinitarians can be shouting the Trinity formula over a person, but if the believer is believing on the Lord Jesus for the remission of their sins, their sins are remitted. This also means that 100 Apostolic preachers could be shouting the Jesus name formula over a believer, but if that believer isn't believing on the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins the baptism is ineffectual.

Also, while many might disagree, an individual can water baptize themselves while believing upon the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and their sins will be remitted.

The key is the disposition of the individual being water baptized.... not the "formula" spoken over them, be it Jesus name or Trinitarian.

I digress.

I would say that it makes sense for the baptizee to call upon the name of the Lord, AND IF they are doing so, I don't believe a trinitarian "formula" will render their baptism ineffectual. However, why would anyone want to do such a thing, when they can easily have someone else baptize them in Jesus' name, if they are so convicted of its importance?

The terminology used throughout Acts implies that the act of being baptized is being done TO a person, rather than them baptizing themselves. "They were baptized", "John baptized [them]", etc. That said, if there's no one available to assist, I would certainly think that a person could call on the name of Jesus and baptize themselves.

Of the accounts of people being baptized and receiving the Holy Ghost in Acts, it seems that the apostles were heavily involved in the process, baptizing people and laying on of hands, after which the Holy Ghost would fall on them. Obviously, a minister is not needed in order for a person to receive the Holy Ghost, but it seems that the apostles were definitely "hands on" in the NT. Also, I think it's dangerous to encourage people to be completely autonomous in their salvation experience because community with other believers is one of the most wonderful tenets of the NT church. If a person is alone in the desert with one little oasis of water and a Bible, and they baptize themselves and the Holy Ghost falls on them--wonderful! But I believe we are a church body, and we are meant to function together.

As far as jfrog's question goes--I think it would be silly to suggest that the apostles weren't baptized in the name of Jesus. How could they preach it otherwise? Why would Paul rebaptize John's disciples if he didn't already recognize the importance of being baptized again, since John's baptism was only to repentance?

And even Jesus had someone else baptize Him--John. That's a pretty strong example.