Baptism

[neo-x]

Plus the 12 disciples were never baptized in water, only Paul the apostle was.

[Byblos]

Plus the 12 disciples were never baptized in water, only Paul the apostle was.

How exactly do you know that?

[PaulSacramento]

Plus the 12 disciples were never baptized in water, only Paul the apostle was.

I would think that, at least those that had followed John before would have been.
The Baptism of John and what the disciples themselves did afterwards, was a baptism for the remission of sins, a "washing away" of sins and a declaring of repentance.
The Baptism that came after the HS was a Baptism into Christ, a baptism of "fire" as it were ( fire = spirit).
I think that we can say that one superseded the other BUT didn't replace it per say.
It may have been that the process of one was done with the other.

[1over137]

Sam, what do you think of John 3:36?

[neo-x]

How exactly do you know that?

I would think that, at least those that had followed John before would have been.

Well, since we are all quoting scriptures, I thought it would be good to point out that there is no mentioning of disciples being baptised at all. So at best you can say they may have been, but anything beyond that is pure speculation. By default, I take it they weren't, since if baptism was as important as people think it is, then I certainly miss the point why none of the gospels mentions baptism of the disciples.

[Byblos]

How exactly do you know that?

I would think that, at least those that had followed John before would have been.

Well, since we are all quoting scriptures, I thought it would be good to point out that there is no mentioning of disciples being baptised at all. So at best you can say they may have been, but anything beyond that is pure speculation. By default, I take it they weren't, since if baptism was as important as people think it is, then I certainly miss the point why none of the gospels mentions baptism of the disciples.

That they were not baptized is pure speculation on your part simply because this fact is not explicitly mentioned. Even though it is not mentioned explicitly, a case can very well be made that they (all of them in fact) were indeed baptized. Look at Acts 1:21-22 when the apostles were deciding on who to replace Judas Iscariot as the 12th apostle. Judas' successor must have been one who was with them ""all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning with the baptism of John". This strongly suggests that not only the new disciple must have been baptized by John but that all of them were as well. Look also at John 1:35-45 where it is stated that a number of the apostles were the disciples of John. Given John's emphasis on baptism, do you really think he would have had unbaptized disciples?

[1over137]

Has someone already mentioned Acts 2?

"37 Now when they heard this, they were [aj]pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “[ak]Brethren, [al]what shall we do?” 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” 40 And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, “[am]Be saved from this perverse generation!” 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand [an]souls. 42 They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and [ao]to prayer."

[RickD]

Has someone already mentioned Acts 2?

"37 Now when they heard this, they were [aj]pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “[ak]Brethren, [al]what shall we do?” 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” 40 And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, “[am]Be saved from this perverse generation!” 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand [an]souls. 42 They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and [ao]to prayer."

Hana, The disagreement lies here:

1)“Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins;
Does this mean water baptism?
Wasn't water baptism supposed to be in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost(Spirit)?

2) and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Is this "gift" of the Holy Spirit, a gift that was given specially to the apostles to perform their duties?

3) So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand [an]souls. Were the "about three thousand souls" added because they had received his word, or because they were baptized in water? And what were these souls added to?

[Sam1995]

Sam, what do you think of John 3:36?

Really good question! I didn't mention it in my last response because I wanted to spend some more time thinking about it, just so I didn't give you a response that wasn't worth reading in the first place!

I sat thinking about it and wasn't getting anywhere, because it really did appear to me on the face of it to mean that we have to obey Biblical commands such as baptism in water, which then seemed contradictory to the fact that we are saved by grace through faith and not by grace AND baptism in water.

So, I resorted to the Greek scripture! Here is the greek of John 3:36 and beneath it is the literal English translation from that Greek.

ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον· ὁ δὲ ἀπειθῶν τῷ υἱῷ οὐκ ὄψεται ζωήν, ἀλλ’ ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ μένει ἐπ’ αὐτόν.

"He that believes on the son has life eternal; he that moreover is not subject to the Son, not will see life, but the wrath - of God abides on him."

Now, this completely turned my mindset upside down on the meaning of this verse, because it now appears that John 3:36 actually refers to whether or not we have given our lives to Jesus rather than merely following Biblical commands, so this verse does not actually contradict anywhere else in scripture. It appears to mean that if we accept Jesus as savior, we shall inherit eternal life, but if we do not accept Jesus (not subject to the Son), then we shall face the wrath of God in His judgement, which makes sense as [Hebrews 10:31 NIV] makes the point that it is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God, the context of that verse referring to those who have not given their lives to God.

SB

[neo-x]

That they were not baptized is pure speculation on your part simply because this fact is not explicitly mentioned. Even though it is not mentioned explicitly, a case can very well be made that they (all of them in fact) were indeed baptized. Look at Acts 1:21-22 when the apostles were deciding on who to replace Judas Iscariot as the 12th apostle. Judas' successor must have been one who was with them ""all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning with the baptism of John". This strongly suggests that not only the new disciple must have been baptized by John but that all of them were as well. Look also at John 1:35-45 where it is stated that a number of the apostles were the disciples of John. Given John's emphasis on baptism, do you really think he would have had unbaptized disciples?

Sorry, I am not speculating, I am being most accurate here. ""all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning with the baptism of John"" And who is to say that the baptism of John in this reference is not pointing towards Christ's water baptism since after that he started his ministry. This certainly doesn't make your case at all, Byb. If some were indeed baptized, I do not see how that support your case at all, since the rest were not baptized, at least I can not find it anywhere in the gospels.

[Sam1995]

Great discussion here friends! Very good for thought!

God bless!

SB

[PaulSacramento]

There is no passage that states explicitly that Jesus's apostles were baptized, yes.
BUT, can someone who is not baptized, baptize?

[neo-x]

There is no passage that states explicitly that Jesus's apostles were baptized, yes.
BUT, can someone who is not baptized, baptize?

Sure. Was John the baptist, baptized?

[PaulSacramento]

There is no passage that states explicitly that Jesus's apostles were baptized, yes.
BUT, can someone who is not baptized, baptize?

Sure. Was John the baptist, baptized?

Hmmm, good question.

[Sam1995]

There is no passage that states explicitly that Jesus's apostles were baptized, yes.
BUT, can someone who is not baptized, baptize?

Sure. Was John the baptist, baptized?

Hmmm, good question.

http://www.thywordistruth.com/questions/qa086.html

What do you think of that?

SB