Paedo-Baptism Answers John 13:1-17

[Ed Walsh]

I am leaning towards, it not being. Acts 19 has me a bit stumped

Hi Scott,

Did you at least read my post on Acts 19? I am relatively convinced that I am on to something. I don't remember if you commented.

Verse 5 "when they heard this... The word 'this' was added by the translators. I think it may be a mistake. If you do a Gk word study of 'ἀκούσαντες' (lemma 'ἀκούω') = hear; listen to; you will find that several different words are added in various contexts; e.g., that, this, it, thereof, these words, of it, them, these sayings, and often nothing at all is added. The word 'that' sometimes follows as the real (not added) Gk word 'ὅτι'. It all seems so arbitrary to me.

Anyway, here is my post.
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/johns-baptism-and-the-example-of-Christ.99028/#post-1210686

 

[OPC'n]

I believe that John's baptism wasn't the Christian baptism. Acts 19:1-5 seems to indicate this.

19 "And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. 2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John's baptism.” 4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

I'm not convinced, however, that the disciples weren't baptized. Considering it was/is a sacrament for Christ's church, I feel it would be something the disciples wouldn't want to be excluded from. As far as it being a problem that they all were baptized which would include Judas, I don't see the problem. It serves as a reminder that not all who are a part of the visible church are a part of the invisible church. He also partook of the Lord's Supper.

 

[Ed Walsh]

I believe that John's baptism wasn't the Christian baptism. Acts 19:1-5 seems to indicate this.

I view of the Bible's silence about the many thousands of Jews coming to Christ being rebaptized is that the entire issue stands or falls on Acts 19:1-5

Anyway, here is my post. I would appreciate some input, but as yet I have received none.
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/johns-baptism-and-the-example-of-Christ.99028/#post-1210686

Here's what I wrote to Scott:

Hi Scott,

Did you at least read my post on Acts 19? I am relatively convinced that I am on to something. I don't remember if you commented.

Verse 5 "when they heard this... The word 'this' was added by the translators. I think it may be a mistake. If you do a Gk word study of 'ἀκούσαντες' (lemma 'ἀκούω') = hear; listen to; you will find that several different words are added in various contexts; e.g., that, this, it, thereof, these words, of it, them, these sayings, and often nothing at all is added. The word 'that' sometimes follows as the real (not added) Gk word 'ὅτι'. It all seems so arbitrary to me.

Show me where I have erred. PLEASE!

Ed

 

[Scott Bushey]

I'm not convinced, however, that the disciples weren't baptized. Considering it was/is a sacrament for Christ's church

I believe we may need to make a distinction between the Apostles and a 'disciple'. I don't believe anyone has argued for or against 'disciples' baptism. What we were discussing was if the Apostles were ever baptized. To which, the scriptures are silent x for Paul.

"Christ's church': Another distinction needs to be here; are u speaking about the church age, prior to the commission being given or after? If before, the apostles had the sign already in their flesh-which was the sacrament at that time. If after, the scriptures are silent on the issue x for Paul.

I feel it would be something the disciples wouldn't want to be excluded from.

The above is speculation at best.

As far as it being a problem that they all were baptized which would include Judas, I don't see the problem.

There would be no problem with me x for the fact if I was a Credo baptist, which the opening poster is, it would seem inconsistent as they believe the sign is applied to only God's people.

It serves as a reminder that not all who are apart of the visible church are apart of the invisible church. He also partook of the Lord's Supper.

The camp is split on the if it was the supper or passover meal. As well, many people hold that Judas left prior to the supper.

 

[OPC'n]

I believe we may need to make a distinction between the Apostles and a 'disciple'. I don't believe anyone has argued for or against 'disciples' baptism. What we were discussing was if the Apostles were ever baptized. To which, the scriptures are silent x for Paul.

The original 12 disciples were apart of the group of apostles. Naturally, I would be speaking of them since I believe you were.

"Christ's church': Another distinction needs to be here; are u speaking about the church age, prior to the commission being given or after? If before, the apostles had the sign already in their flesh-which was the sacrament at that time. If after, the scriptures are silent on the issue x for Paul.

Scripture is silent on an infant being baptized, but we know baptism is a sign of the covenant. Scripture leads us to this conclusion. The Apostles would certainly lead the way as an example in this area in the same way they led the example in taking of the Lord's Supper which replaced the Passover and as they led in an example of observing the new Sabbath day. Circumcision is of the old covenant whereas baptism is of the new covenant. Why would the Apostles want to be excluded from the new covenant?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Why would the Apostles want to be excluded from the new covenant?

Again, was this before or after the commission was given? Also, was the sign of circumcision deficient or inferior to the NT sign?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Scripture is silent on an infant being baptized

Well, not really. We know that the sign is for our infant children as per Gen 17, which carries over into the NT; the silence is because of the OT command, which is perpetual.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Why would the Apostles want to be excluded from the new covenant?

They weren't excluded from the NC. The C of G and NC are interchangeable; one needs to understand this in a narrower sense of broader sense.


“The New Covenant is taken either broadly or strictly.

V The New covenant is also taken in a twofold manner either broadly, inasmuch as it stands for the covenant of grace in general made with sinners , which existed under the Old Testament as well before Christ appeared as under the New after he had been manifested; or strictly, for the covenant of grace promulgated after the manifestation of Christ in the flesh, which should continue to the end of the World”

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology Vol 2, pg 234

In essence, the C of G and NC are interchangeable

More here: http://www.semperreformanda.com/201...-of-grace-and-new-covenant-interchangeably-2/

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I think we can say definitively and without question: the disciples of Jesus were baptized. It's a given, all NT believers ought to be baptized as the mark of New Covenant identification. So... they were.

When were they? Either John's baptism sufficed for them with or without some other qualifier such as being called and being with Jesus throughout his earthly ministry from the beginning which was John's baptism (see Act.1:22 or the opening of Mark); alternatively some other moment such as John 20:22 wherein all their former experiences in Jesus are acknowledged as a having the force of baptism.

The other choice is that there was a baptismal situation--whether completely inferred by necessity, or could be hinted at in the text, I don't think it has serious impact on the doctrine or theology of baptism as the church practices it--and we just accept that obscurity. Transition from Old Covenant reality to New involved a degree of administrative fog: is that surprising?

I have a certain view that I see no reason to promulgate here. Instead, I would like to point out how this thread's exploration reveals distinctions in hermeneutical (interpretive) approaches. The whole question of whether and how the disciples had a "Christian baptism," or did not, is a rather extreme tempest in a teapot, in my view. It strikes me as having little to do with how baptisms are conducted, or who are the appropriate recipients in this age, or anything really fundamental to a theology of baptism, its doctrine or practice.

And yet, from a very different starting point and hermeneutical stance, this same question is regarded as vital. The "correct" understanding validates doctrine and practice. And given its significance, it just has to be spelled out in some explicit way in the text, and more precisely from particular passages in the NT that make explicit reference to baptism.

Yet, my basic argument is that from a general regard for the NT teaching and the whole Bible's theology of baptism, one properly understands that the apostles certainly were baptized appropriately, even if we don't have all the details of when and how. It is an argument from the fitness of the matter, given the rest of the details of the NT, even if one doubts of a positive exegetical argument.