Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1 Apr 12, 2012
Acts 18:24 Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. 25 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; 26 and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. 27 And when he wanted to go across to Achaia, the brethren encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him; and when he had arrived, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace, 28 for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.

Apollos did not have "complete truth" yet he was never baptized again during the correction process.

Yet the Church of Christ force re-baptism even though clearly this is not needed. And here is why.

Apollos was baptized with John's baptism, he was baptized during the time John was alive, thus John's authority to baptize was still in existence. Thus he did not need re-baptism because the authority of the baptism was in place. Secondly his boldness seems to be a sign that the Holy Spirit was with him. Yet this is not completely clear!

Contrast this to the disciples Paul re-baptized because they had been baptized under the wrong authority, John was dead, thus his authority was gone, and they had not received the Holy Spirit.

Conclusion is perfectly clear, as long as the authority of the one granting is in place, the baptism is valid even if you fail in understanding some parts of the New Testament message, in Apollos case he was ignorant of Jesus baptism.

Under Churches of Christ denominational practices Apollos should have been re-baptized, yet he was clearly not!!

Re-baptism of someone who does not completely understand the authority is clearly wrong per the examples in scripture of Apollos and Acts 19's disciples, unless the Churches of Christ are going to claim they are forcing re-baptism in order for them to receive the Holy Spirit. Something they themselves no longer believe can even happen.

Hebrews 6 clearly shows you can not re-crucify Christ to yourself and to attempt to do so brings Christ to open shame!

- walkinginlove

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#2 Apr 13, 2012
There is no Scripture that conclusively states Apollos was baptized in the name of the Lord but there are two indications that he was. The "certain disciples" in Ephesus who knew only the baptism of John were likely ones taught by or associated with Apollos, when he was there, before he was shown the way of God more perfectly by Aquila and Priscilla. That being the case, it is difficult to suppose that the teacher did not also need to be re-baptized, even as the disciples who learned from him.

A second subtle clue occurs in the book of Hebrews and depends, for its validity, on the supposition that Apollos was the author of the book. In Hebrews 6:2, the writer speaks of first principles: "Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment." Although Paul testifies in Ephesians 4:5 that there is "one baptism," the writer to the Hebrews speaks of the doctrine of "baptisms" in the plural. Given that the book of Hebrews was written to Jewish believers, for whom the baptism of John was originally designed, this reference to "baptisms" in the plural appears to include both the baptism of John, as a transitional arrangement, and baptism into the name of the Lord Jesus, as a permanent and final arrangement given by God. By identifying both baptisms as "first principles," it would have been necessary that Apollos submit to the baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus.

- Borrowed
Barnsweb

Copperopolis, CA

#3 Apr 13, 2012
And don't forget that 'baptism' was practiced by the priests before they could serve in the temple, which was a figure of Christian baptism and the priesthood of believers.

As for authority of the baptizer, the baptism of John preparing the way for Master YHWH, I haven't seen evidence of that in the record. John's father was a hight priest, and he was in that lineage, but the authority now resides in belief of the Messiah Y'shua, His command and the promise of God to Abraham with the promise of foregiveness of sin and the Comfortor.

LDS make quite a deal that they alone have the restored authority to baptize. Each LDS member has a certificate that their baptizers authority goes all the way back to when they believe Joseph Smith Jr. and his followers were visited by John the Baptist and others to restore the 'priesthood authority' to baptize, and that if you are not baptized by someone with the restored authoritiy, your baptism is not valid - in spite of the promise of God.

Where do we find any record in the NT that the authority of the baptizer is what makes the baptism valid? And if it is required, then why don't we all get ahold of the Mormons and get baptized by the correct authority?:-)
Barnsweb

Copperopolis, CA

#4 Apr 13, 2012
Isn't Christian baptism also to 'put on Christ'?

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#5 Apr 13, 2012
Barnsweb wrote:
Isn't Christian baptism also to 'put on Christ'?
Per Gal. 3:26-27, I’d agree.
Barnsweb

Copperopolis, CA

#6 Apr 13, 2012
Any comments of Scripture regarding authority of the baptizer?

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#7 Apr 13, 2012
testing the spirits wrote:
Acts 18:24 Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. 25 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; 26 and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. 27 And when he wanted to go across to Achaia, the brethren encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him; and when he had arrived, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace, 28 for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.
Apollos did not have "complete truth" yet he was never baptized again during the correction process.
Yet the Church of Christ force re-baptism even though clearly this is not needed. And here is why.
Apollos was baptized with John's baptism, he was baptized during the time John was alive, thus John's authority to baptize was still in existence. Thus he did not need re-baptism because the authority of the baptism was in place. Secondly his boldness seems to be a sign that the Holy Spirit was with him. Yet this is not completely clear!
Contrast this to the disciples Paul re-baptized because they had been baptized under the wrong authority, John was dead, thus his authority was gone, and they had not received the Holy Spirit.
Conclusion is perfectly clear, as long as the authority of the one granting is in place, the baptism is valid even if you fail in understanding some parts of the New Testament message, in Apollos case he was ignorant of Jesus baptism.
Under Churches of Christ denominational practices Apollos should have been re-baptized, yet he was clearly not!!
Re-baptism of someone who does not completely understand the authority is clearly wrong per the examples in scripture of Apollos and Acts 19's disciples, unless the Churches of Christ are going to claim they are forcing re-baptism in order for them to receive the Holy Spirit. Something they themselves no longer believe can even happen.
Hebrews 6 clearly shows you can not re-crucify Christ to yourself and to attempt to do so brings Christ to open shame!
- walkinginlove
At first reading, your points seems to have some basis, but in light of other Scriptures, I am still persuaded that one is baptized with purpose i.e., remission of sins. When Apollos was shown the way of God more perfectly by Aquila and Priscilla, it is difficult to suppose that he did not also need to be rebaptized. I’m sure after being shown the way of God more perfectly by Aquila and Priscilla, he preached baptism just as Peter and others. Surely, he would follow his own teaching.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#8 Apr 13, 2012
Barnsweb wrote:
Any comments of Scripture regarding authority of the baptizer?
Personally, I believe all of the authority we need is from Jesus. He commanded baptism to make disciples. At Pentecost, Peter preached the gospel and for some reason he tied baptism equally with repentance as if he had been taught to do so. Surely, Peter got his orders from Jesus and directed sinners the correct way to obtain remission of sins. The very purpose Peter commands baptism is for the same purpose he commanded repentance – FOR REMISSION OF SINS. Peter didn’t make this up from his own mind, he received his marching order directly from Jesus Christ. If a sinners prayer could put one IN CHRIST, Peter sure didn’t know anything about it. Today, the mass majority of professing Christians believe they were saved by a prayer they made during a Church service. Where is the “authority” for this? Regarding your question:“Any comments of Scripture regarding authority of the baptizer?” I believe the baptizer should be a Christian per the examples we have in Scripture.
Bfrank

Martinsville, VA

#9 Apr 13, 2012
Didn't John the Baptist baptize "for the remission of sins"?...
**John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Mark 1:4

Was John the Baptist the only one doing baptisms?...
**The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples John 4:1-2
This begs the question?...

Was being baptized by John the Baptist different or the same as being baptized by a disciple of Jesus?

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#10 Apr 13, 2012
Bfrank wrote:
Didn't John the Baptist baptize "for the remission of sins"?...
**John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Mark 1:4
Was John the Baptist the only one doing baptisms?...
**The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples John 4:1-2
This begs the question?...
Was being baptized by John the Baptist different or the same as being baptized by a disciple of Jesus?
Johns baptism looked towards the coming of the Christ. The baptism Jesus commissioned looks backwards to His work on the cross – THE GOSPEL. You make a good point for today’s baptism having to have proper understand and purpose. Thanks.
walkinginlove

Danville, VA

#11 Apr 13, 2012
testing the spirits wrote:
There is no Scripture that conclusively states Apollos was baptized in the name of the Lord but there are two indications that he was.


That is all assumption. You can make them but there is no clear proof.
testing the spirits wrote:
The "certain disciples" in Ephesus who knew only the baptism of John were likely ones taught by or associated with Apollos, when he was there, before he was shown the way of God more perfectly by Aquila and Priscilla. That being the case, it is difficult to suppose that the teacher did not also need to be re-baptized, even as the disciples who learned from him.
You are making a total assumption based on your beliefs and there is nothing in the scripture that backs up your assumptions!

Acts 18:24 Now a Jew named Apollos....
MrT wrote:
John's baptism was of the Jews and came before Christ's death for our sins.
testing the spirits wrote:
Good points and totally agree.
Apollos was a Jew, the Apostles were Jews, Jesus was baptized by John, the Apostles were most likely baptized by John also since Jesus did not baptize anyone.

The Apostles were never re-baptized because John's authority from God was in place and was valid, Apollos was never re-baptized because he also was baptized under the authority of God through John's hands. Otherwise they would bring shame to God, who gave the authority to John to baptize!
testing the spirits wrote:
A second subtle clue occurs in the book of Hebrews and depends, for its validity, on the supposition that Apollos was the author of the book. In Hebrews 6:2, the writer speaks of first principles: "Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment." Although Paul testifies in Ephesians 4:5 that there is "one baptism," the writer to the Hebrews speaks of the doctrine of "baptisms" in the plural. Given that the book of Hebrews was written to Jewish believers, for whom the baptism of John was originally designed, this reference to "baptisms" in the plural appears to include both the baptism of John, as a transitional arrangement, and baptism into the name of the Lord Jesus, as a permanent and final arrangement given by God. By identifying both baptisms as "first principles," it would have been necessary that Apollos submit to the baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus.
- Borrowed
Baptismos is plural, however look at how it is used. Hebrews 9:10 They served only for matters of food and drink and various WASHINGS...

Mark 7:4 And when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they WASH...

So the question you have to ask, was it plural because of John's Baptism, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, in Jesus name or was it plural because there were many people being baptized or washed?

Secondly this is followed up by the passages on not being able to crucify Christ for themselves a second time. Again a plural of people not the process of baptism.

There is clearly a pattern, the Apostles were never re-baptized in Jesus name and we know that Jesus did not baptize. Apollos was a Jew who was baptized in John's baptism, since there is nothing to show he was ever re-baptized in Jesus name, we can conclude that he was baptized during the time that John was alive and carried the authority from God to baptize.

So where is the pattern of re-baptism of those who have been baptized under proper authority a second time?

There is none and ANY denomination, Church of Christ or baptist or pick your flavor of the month who re-quire re-baptism to join their group is wrong and goes directly against Hebrews teachings on crucifying Christ to yourself a second time.

Apollos defeats the false teaching of using Acts 19 to claim re-baptism for lack of knowledge!

Church of Christ it is time for you to lay down your false practice!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Martinsville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Catholics (Feb '14) Jul 22 William 3,351
Christians Murder American Indians (Jan '12) Jun '16 Kevo8263 32
Sarah Smith nude ! (Jul '12) Jun '16 sarasmith 2
The Bible teaches that the Earth will never end (Apr '15) May '16 Anonymous 38
thomas jefferson edwards Apr '16 nuks67 2
Norm Fields – FORMER employee of Johnny Robertson (Feb '12) Apr '16 GunFighter 29
Stop erasing my comments! Apr '16 Truth teller 1

Martinsville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Martinsville Mortgages