Thread: John's Baptism?

Was John's Baptism Christian Baptism?

Originally Posted by WDG

Was John's Baptism Christian Baptism?

No. It was a baptism of repentance, but it was not Trinitarian or even in Christ.

Originally Posted by Herald

Originally Posted by WDG

Was John's Baptism Christian Baptism?

No. It was a baptism of repentance, but it was not Trinitarian or even in Christ.

What he said.

Acts 18:25-26
25 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.
NKJV

This is a much deeper question than might first appear. John Calvin felt that John's baptism was nothing less than Christian baptism. While I incline to the view that the two are definitely distinct (which puts me at odds with the master--one of only a few times I've disagreed with Calvin), it is plain that the earlier serves as a strong bridge from the OT to the NT. John the Baptist and His Baptism are together the transition element between the Testaments.

Follow-up question.

Whom did John baptize?

Baptists insist that John baptized "disciples" (i.e., confessors) only (Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:5). They say that it would be strange for the apostles to have known and practiced "disciples" baptism only (John 4:1f) and then go back to including professing adults, and their children (apart from a profession of faith) in the administration of the New Covenant sign of baptism as was done in the OT through circumcision.

Note that this argument doesn't convince me. I believe that John's baptism is not Christian baptism. They served different purposes. I also don't believe Baptists can adequately explain why Peter would extend the promise of the Spirit to his hearers and their children (and to all who are far off), why Scripture recorded family baptisms at all (which account for virtually half of all the actual examples of Christian baptisms) and the many other supporting evidences from both testaments. Paedo-baptism iin my opinion is more consistent with the entire Biblical doctrine of the covenants.

Moreover, baptism has OT precedents (Heb. 9:10ff). If the emphasis of these diverse washings was purification (vs. 13, ESV), if they were administered to families (as the original OT references of vss. 13, 19 and 21 indicate), and if John's baptism apparently incorporated with it the idea of purification (John 3:22ff especially vs. 25), is there reasonable evidence that John baptized families as well? Considering that God's covenant people in both testaments thought of themselves in terms of family (and tribal) units, is it plausible that when John proclaimed his message of repentance, those who came to be baptized brought their families with them to be washed also?

Any thoughts? Thanks.

I am not real dogmatic on this but it strikes me that John was calling covenant people to repent in general. Not the Same as Peter who called them to repent of not believing in the Messiah.
John's was the OT prophet calling the people to come back to the faith, the Day of the Messiah is really coming and they had better come back to faith they had all but left after the exiles. He knew the Phaisaical religion was not the heart religion of God and preached against their being false shepherd and calling them to repent.
So I see it only slightly transitional and different than Jonah, Jeremy, and other prophets calling people to repentance. And that, in that he was THAT VOICE, preparing the way of the Messiah.

[

Well they got straightened out it is not enough and now there is more
Acts 18:25-26
though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.
NKJV

Were the twelve apostles baptised with anything other than John's baptism?

J

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Were the twelve apostles baptised with anything other than John's baptism?

An excellent question. I do not believe there is any evidence from Scripture that they were.

However, there were at least a couple of differences between the Twelve and the disciples in Acts 19. The latter had never heard of the Holy Spirit; furthermore, they seem to be largely unfamiliar with Jesus and His ministry subsequent to John's preaching. Do these play some role into the somewhat unique situation of the Ephesian disciples?

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Were the twelve apostles baptised with anything other than John's baptism?

yes Acts 1:5
5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.
NKJV

Does someone have to understand everything about salvation and Christianity for a Baptism to be valid? .....Not according to the CoF.

Originally Posted by WDG

Does someone have to understand everything about salvation and Christianity for a Baptism to be valid? .....Not according to the CoF.

In that case they would have to be baptized by a minister adhering to the C of F

Obviously a child baptized into the covenant doesn't know too much.

Originally Posted by PeaceMaker

Originally Posted by WDG

Does someone have to understand everything about salvation and Christianity for a Baptism to be valid? .....Not according to the CoF.

In that case they would have to be baptized by a minister adhering to the C of F

Obviously a child baptized into the covenant doesn't know too much.

We are also talking about an adult baptism in this case. And the WCF has in view a Christian baptism.

Calvin believed that John's Baptism was Christian.

Originally Posted by WDG

Calvin believed that John's Baptism was Christian. Most adults that are baptized know very little about Christianity. I know that was true in my case, of my three Baptisms (as a Baptist). Two were when I was an adult, and I knew next to nothing of Christianity.

I understand what you are saying, and I am aware of what Calvin said (it was also mentioned in a post above). But I think you are mixing apples and oranges too. The Ephesian disciples received an adult (non-Trinitarian) baptism of repentance from John and do not appear to be aware that the One of whom John spoke had even come.

The question was asked as to the baptism received by the Twelve. I was simply pointing out that their historical circumstances were different from that of the Ephesian disciples.

Tim, how do you know that it was non-Trinitarian?

They did not seem to know that Jesus was the Christ and they certainly did not know about the Holy Spirit (according to 19:2). It seems unlikely that it would have been Trinitarian.

Paul asks them into what were they baptized, and they respond by saying, "Into John's baptism." There is no baptism into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; there is no baptism into Christ (until v. 5 -- it is only then that they are baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus).

0

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Were the twelve apostles baptised with anything other than John's baptism?

I have asked this question a few times on the board.

[edit] sorry, but that thread continued and I had to retract. See below for links to a revised, more tentative commitment. C-M.

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Now, here's an alternative translation of this verse, mine: Joh 4:2 (Gk) καιτοιγε ιησους αυτος ουκ εβαπτιζεν αλλ οι μαθηται αυτου. (Eng) although Jesus himself was not baptizing except for his disciples.

This is not possible grammatically. Sorry.

I had to back off my premise in the thread Martin quoted. So, I'm editing Martin's post to remove that reference to my earlier comments. Here are my revised thoughts, from later in that same thread:

The Baptism of John retraction
The Baptism of John revision

-

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

This is a much deeper question than might first appear. John Calvin felt that John's baptism was nothing less than Christian baptism. While I incline to the view that the two are definitely distinct (which puts me at odds with the master--one of only a few times I've disagreed with Calvin), it is plain that the earlier serves as a strong bridge from the OT to the NT. John the Baptist and His Baptism are together the transition element between the Testaments.

Thank you for disagreeing with Calvin. Whether I follow your logic or his, I very much appreciate that you'll side with your studied understanding of the Word and not simply accept Calvin as inviolate gospel.

Theognome

-----Added 4/2/2009 at 12:23:20 EST-----

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

They did not seem to know that Jesus was the Christ and they certainly did not know about the Holy Spirit (according to 19:2). It seems unlikely that it would have been Trinitarian.

Paul asks them into what were they baptized, and they respond by saying, "Into John's baptism." There is no baptism into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; there is no baptism into Christ (until v. 5 -- it is only then that they are baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus).

How do you figure that they wouldn't have been Trinitarian? Were not the Father, Son and Holy Spirit found in the OT as well as the New? Just because they didn't know of Christ's coming in living history doesn't mean they didn't expect it at some point based on the scriptures they had at hand.

Theognome

The PB ate half of my old post! I edited (added to) what I had originally written, and then when I came back, I found most of it was gone!

No matter. Let me say what I meant succinctly. Acts 19:2 says that the Ephesians had not even heard there was a Holy Spirit. And Acts 19:5 says that they were then baptized into the name of Jesus. If they were ignorant of the Holy Spirit and of Jesus, I still fail to see how this could be Trinitarian.

I ran across these words this morning from Richard Longenecker in his commentary on Acts and thought they were interesting:

"Doubtless in Paul's mind they were not rebaptized but baptized once and for all. When baptism by John the Baptist was seen as pointing beyond itself to Jesus (as with Apollos), it was apparently taken as a Christian baptism and was not repeated on learning and experiencing more of the faith. But when John's baptism was understood as rivaling commitment to Jesus, then on profession of faith in him, Christian baptism 'into the name of the Lord Jesus' was administered."

Thanks Tim.

That quote was very interesting I had not heard that before.

I was really hoping to get a few responses from those of you who don't believe that John's Baptism is Christian. I am not looking to debate just curious as to what you believe.

Could I get some of you to respond to the following which I posted earlier.

What is a Baptism of repentance?

Does not repentance require a work of the Spirit?

How can a Church member/Disciple receive a Baptism of repentance and not know anything about the Spirit?
****I am not asking if they knew anything of the special gift of the Spirit.****


John 1:1 tells us that John's ministry started after the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I just assumed that John's ministry was a part of the Gospel. His ministry IMO was to prepare the people for the coming Messiah, call the faithful to repent (aided by the work of the Holy spirit) and receive the new sign of the NC. I also assumed that the OT faithful knew about the work of the Spirit.
Yesterday 02:28 AM

Originally Posted by WDG

T
I was really hoping to get a few responses from those of you who don't believe that John's Baptism is Christian. I am not looking to debate just curious as to what you believe.

Could I get some of you to respond to the following which I posted earlier.

What is a Baptism of repentance?

Does not repentance require a work of the Spirit?

How can a Church member/Disciple receive a Baptism of repentance and not know anything about the Spirit?

John 1:1 tells us that John's ministry started after the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I just assumed that John's ministry was a part of the Gospel. His ministry IMO was to prepare the people for the coming Messiah, call the faithful to repent (aided by the work of the Holy spirit) and receive the new sign of the NC. I also assumed that the OT faithful knew about the work of the Spirit.
Yesterday 02:28 AM

Not everyone who gets water baptized has anything to do with the Spirit

But as my early post said, He was calling Jews back to faithful Judaism from apostate Judaism. To be prepared for the coming Messiah. It was still Jewish and repentance for forsaking obedience to God and the laws. They still had to sacrifice, there was no Atonement yet to believe in differently. There was no accepting Christ as Messiah or Savior He hadn't come yet and done His work.
I think Christian Baptism was about these things, just as they could not have celebrated the Supper there with John as it hadn't been instituted yet. There was nothing to remember. So as we are baptized into Christs death burial and resurrection, ( Spiritually speaking, not literally stuck under water,) this had not happened yet.
So it was a transitional ritual, another OT washing or sprinkling or cleansing themselves like before the day of Atonement.
They had to be ritually clean. This was not the new sign of the NT, but a common OT cleansing. Note running water was used not a dirty pool that would signify unclean.
Lev 14:51 and he shall take the cedar wood, the hyssop, the scarlet, and the living bird, and dip them in the blood of the slain bird and in the running water, and sprinkle the house seven times. 52 And he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird and the running water and the living bird, with the cedar wood, the hyssop, and the scarlet.
NKJV

Num 8: 6 "Take the Levites from among the children of Israel and cleanse them ceremonially. 7 Thus you shall do to them to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purification on them, NKJV

This is what John did, he sprinkled water from the shallow much running water place he was at where they would both go down into the water for him to get some to sprinkle. The water would never be in a pot or pool. Water had to be sprinkled, running or being poured to be ceremonially clean

John was doing the final ceremonial cleanse before The True Day of Atonement.

Originally Posted by WDG

Was John's Baptism Christian Baptism?

The Pharisees sent the Priests and Levites to ask John the Baptist if he was the Christ.

They asked him, "Why then are you baptizing, if you are not the Christ...?" Jn 1:25

Was the baptism that Christ received of John, Christian baptism?

B

Originally Posted by Turtle

Originally Posted by WDG

Was John's Baptism Christian Baptism?

The Pharisees sent the Priests and Levites to ask John the Baptist if he was the Christ.

They asked him, "Why then are you baptizing, if you are not the Christ...?" Jn 1:25

Was the baptism that Christ received of John, Christian baptism?

Not in my opinion

it was a call for the Jews to repent and cleanse themselves in preparation for the coming of the Messiah
like they cleansed themselves in repentance many times before.

Num 8:6 "Take the Levites from among the children of Israel and cleanse them ceremonially. 7 Thus you shall do to them to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purification on them, and let them shave all their body, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean. NKJV

2 Chron 29:15 And they gathered their brethren, sanctified themselves, and went according to the commandment of the king, at the words of the LORD, to cleanse the house of the LORD NKJV

Lev 14:7 And he shall sprinkle it seven times on him who is to be cleansed from the leprosy, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose in the open field. 8 He who is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, shave off all his hair, and wash himself in water, that he may be clean.
NKJV

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Were the twelve apostles baptised with anything other than John's baptism?

An interesting point is that the 12 apostles are not recorded as having been baptized at all. They are recorded as baptizing people, but there is no explicit record of them being baptized.

I would not say they were not baptized; for the same reason that I would not say that children were not baptized in Acts 16:33 and following.

But I would certainly state that the baptism of John is not Christian baptism if for no other reason than the passage from Acts 18:23 to Acts 19:7. It seems clear that the passage is making a distinction between the two baptisms, one being a baptism of repentance, the other being something else (see verse 19:4). Paul does not relate there what the baptism in Christ is, but it is certain that it is not a baptism of repentance. There is precious little in the Bible that speaks what baptism is (apart from John's, which is contrasted with Christian baptism). Paul does put a parallel in Col 2:11,12 which equates Christian baptism with circumcision

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. (ESV)

The grammar is a little dense, but taking the main phrases and putting them side by side "In him you were circumcised ... having been buried with him in baptism ...."

The rest is critical for full understanding, but is by no means the main structure of what is being said.

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

The Ephesian disciples received an adult (non-Trinitarian) baptism of repentance from John and do not appear to be aware that the One of whom John spoke had even come.

Apollos obviously was not fully instructed ... he only knew of John's baptism, a baptism of repentance, not Christian baptism, but verse 25 reads:

He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.

From what I can see, knew the way of the Lord, and accurately taught about Jesus. The author appears to be going to great lengths to establish that Apollos was a Christian, but had a lack of knowledge of Christian baptism. The "way of the Lord" would clearly imply that Apollos was Christian (even more pointed than Acts 9:2 a "generic" reference to "the way" but clearly implying Christians).

If anything, the passage is showing how the church dealt with error in the teaching of baptism as it went forth from the beginning. The error was thinking that Christian baptism was a baptism of repentance, just as John's baptism was. Teaching of baptism to those that are already Christians is very rare in the Bible. The vast majority of instances of baptism being to those that are being converted from pagan backgrounds; i.e., they do not already believe, and so are instructed to both believe and be baptized. This is not those in the church now and raised within her. To them the instruction is very rare indeed ... and then mostly dealing with other problems, not instruction on baptism itself. We see those few places as baptism is: 1) being dead to sin (Romans 6); 2) being into Christ (1 Cor 1); 2a) is the whole church (including those past) 1 Cor 10 and continued into chap 12; 3) is clothing oneself with Christ (Gal 3:27) 4) is indicative of unity (Eph 4:5); is equivalent of OT circumcision (Col 2:11,12); and 5) is our identification with Jesus (1 Peter 3:13-22). (I don't include 1 Cor 15:29, as I take this to be Paul using a particular practice that he does not endorse to show that the Corinthians did not hold consistent with what they were saying.)

That Apollos knew "the way" is fairly clearly stated, but he did not know Christian baptism. The same appears to be true of the 12 mentioned in chapter 19 ... Paul did not relate the gospel, but upon telling them there was a difference between John's baptism, and Christian baptism, he baptized them into the name of Jesus and they received the Holy Spirit. There was no need to tell them to repent and believe, they already did believe, but had not been baptized. This is in contrast to what we see in Acts 16, where the message had to be told first, then when the response was evident, the converts were baptized. The same model is evident in Acts 18:1-11 (as well as earlier times within the spread of the gospel). Acts 18:24 - 19:8 is the first time Paul (or anyone else for that matter) came upon people that already believed in Jesus, yet had not been baptized into anything other than John's baptism. So what did the church do? It made them aware that there was not only a baptism for pre-Christian era repentance to prepare the way for Jesus, but also a baptism that was into Christ, i.e., an identification with the visible church and Christ. I am convinced these men would have been Christians, they knew the way; they had just not been instructed as to the need for baptism as a sign and seal of the gospel.