Apostles baptized?

I agree with you Bro. Richard, and no-one here would laugh because of your belief, they will sound off with what they disagree with, but I do not know of any who would laugh in sincerity. Sometimes the smilies are used, but none are of such that they would do this in derision.

As I said above, I am in agreement with you, but others cannot see these things.

Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

Bro. Dallas,

Maybe we can continue this topic between ourselves as I have alot of thoughts and questions on this subject.

Will post more later.

Richard

 

Thanks for your O brother, you do realize that I have also asked for scriptural proof that John did not baptize under the authority of the Godhead, being ordained by the Father, honored by the Son and witnessed by the Spirit.

Further, if John knew nothing of the Holy Spirit, why did he teach that Christ would baptize with the Spirit?

Further, if John's baptism was not an oddity why would the pharisees send to him to learn if he was the Messiah, and if not, why then did he baptize?

But of course John never once preached the Gospel of Christ, did he?

I believe he did.

[above I have added italics and bold type]

I am fairly certain this will not serve to convince you either, but it is overwhelmingly evident to me that the learned among the nation of Israel expected the Messiah to come 'baptizing', when John appeared, they would then have thought he was this 'messiah'. John correctly pointed them to one coming after him, the Lamb of God; why do you suppose the act of John baptizing in the Jordan was so conspicuous if baptism was commonplace prior to him?

Brother Murphy, I believe these things, that you do not does not bother me. I would wish that you and I were in agreement on these matters, but I, nor you, can either deny what we believe until and unless the Holy Spirit would teach me my error if it is so, or teach to you your error if it is so.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

Bro. Murphy,

I do know what I said and I have even re-read each post. I know that the position I take is not the popular one. As a man that does bother me, I do so wish to fit in, but having grieved the Spirit for so long in my life I would rather be pleasing to Him than even to myself.

To say that John's Baptism was not changed does provide an opening to infer that I have a scripture I am privy to. Well, you know and I know that is not true. But I do see it recorded in Scripture that the disciples baptized in the presence of Jesus prior to Matt. 28.18-20.

I agree, you are right, I do not have a passage of Scripture that unequivocally teaches that John Baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. I do see however that Scripture also does not teach that the disciples were 're-baptized' prior to the scriptures recorded at John 3 & 4. I also do see that the disciples were saved prior to the command in Matt. 28. I do see that were they not they then performed baptism as unsaved men. I do see that Christ did not forbid them to baptize having only the baptism of John. I do not see John's baptism being changed. I believe the fact that the disciples baptized in the presence of Jesus having only the baptism of John is satisfactory to me that Jesus honored John's baptism.

I have shown previously that John's preaching included what is preached today as Gospel. I have dealt with Acts 19 and Paul's rebaptism of the men in Ephesus was due to error in teaching, which btw is warrant enough for ourselves to re-baptize. I cannot say that I agree with you, I am sorry for this, but I find I must at the least remain honest.

Your question in this post concerns the baptism of the Apostles. I have dealt with that to the best of my ability, this is not satisfactory to you, that is ok. Your position is not satisfactory to me.

If you don't want to accept what I believe that is ok with me. Regardless of who accepts it and who does not this is what I believe. I answered your posts to the best of my ability and understanding all I can say now is that if I am in error may the Lord have mercy on me when I am judged.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

My question is this if there was a new baptism why did God record in Acts that the one to take Judas place had to have the baptism of John?

Acts 1:20-22 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
KJV

Thanks
Richard

 

I see this as the only baptism that the disciple have ever pointed to and no where does the Bible teach a new "Christian" baptism. Yes, Jesus gave the church the the commission in Matthew and said to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," but nowhere do I see any change for John's baptism to someother baptism.

Also, you are right it does not say openly that the person was baptized by John, but to me it strongly suggest it.

Richard

 

Bible Student, John himself said that he came to baptize with water, but one would come who would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

Jesus quoted John in Acts 1.

Baptism is for identification.

John's baptism was to identify with his message of repentance and the coming of the Lord.

The baptism Christ sent the Apostles out to perform was to specifically identify with him.

 

Would some one please show me the scripture that said it is so.

Richard

 

To all of what you just said, I believe you have made great assumptions but no scriptural support.

Where you can assume, I cannot.

Richard

 

You asked for Scripture. You were shown Scripture. The problem is your understanding, not a lack of Scripture on our part.

It is an assumption on your part that the baptism of John is the same as the one Christ commissioned. The Scriptures say otherwise.

 

No solid Biblical proof has ben given. A few scriptures does not make a doctrine.

But now I will leave you with the last word.

Richard

[ May 28, 2003, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: Bible Student ]

 

John obviously believed it, he could not have said that the one coming after him would baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost.

Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

Amazingly enough, above is listed the scripture from John 1 from which I believe that John knew the Trinity of God and which I believe supports my faith that John did baptize by the authority of the Trinity.

God Bless
Bro. Dallas Eaton