----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 2:41
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Question
Regarding Covenants & Salvation
The fact that they had
not even heard of the Holy Ghost told Paul that something was wrong here.
He knew already that they had been baptized, and apparently he had assumed
that they had been baptized in the name of Jesus.
DAVEH: Yes indeed.....Paul knew that something was extremely
wrong. Had they been baptized by John, they would have known about the
HG......
[2] He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost
since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard
whether there be any Holy Ghost.
[3] And he said unto them, Unto
what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
[4]
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying
unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him,
that is, on Christ Jesus.
.........so it seems apparent that
John's baptism had nothing to do with their baptism, otherwise they would have
known about him which should come after him, that is, on Christ
Jesus. IOW....They weren't properly baptized. Unlike
Jesus, these guys had been baptized by a counterfeit John. Hence the
need for Paul to baptize them again.
I have problems with your line of thinking
here, Dave. John's baptism did not involve faith in Jesus Christ and
receiving the Holy Spirit. John indeed had testified about one who was
coming that would baptize them with the Holy Ghost, but his baptism did not
lead them to hope to receiving the Holy Spirit. It only made them ready
to believe upon Messiah by causing them to repent of their sins.
Baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ
and John's baptism are two different things. John's baptism was a
baptism of repentance with a hope that Messiah would soon come. Christ's
baptism was a baptism of repentance and also a placing of the person into the
body of Christ, with a hope of receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. I
think that all those baptized by John, were later rebaptized by the apostles
of Christ, as they came to believe upon him as their Messiah.
DaveH wrote:
FWIW.....Jesus was baptized by John, and did
not need
rebaptism.
I'm not sure what this rebaptism statement is suppose
to mean. What's the
point?
DAVEH: I believe John had the proper authority to
baptize (witness Jesus' baptism), yet those who Paul baptized thought they had
been baptized unto John's baptism, but the fact that they had really NOT been
baptized unto John's baptism meant that their first baptism was
ineffective....unlike Jesus' baptism which was proper and effective.
Does that make sense?
I think that I understand what you are saying,
but I'm not in agreement with it. There was nobody else that I am aware
of who ministered baptism like John and the apostles of Jesus Christ.
The baptisms in Judaism were more ritualistic like that found in Islam.
There was no call for repentance followed by baptism.
I assume that Paul was probably first
approached by these Ephesians. They probably discussed
with Paul the concept of John's gospel message and the baptism that
it entailed. Paul evidentally came to understand that these were
baptized disciples waiting for Messiah's return. John the Baptist's
message and baptism is very similar to that of Christ's. When he asked
them if they had received the promise of the Holy Ghost, and they said they
had not heard of the Holy Ghost, then he realized that their baptism was not
unto Christ, so he asked, what then were you baptized unto? They said,
"unto John's baptism." Paul never questioned that, but rather it told
him what he needed to know. They had not yet heard the full
gospel. So Paul explained to them that John had foretold that they
should believe on him that would come after him. Well, that person who
came after hime was Jesus Christ. The Messiah they were waiting for had
come already. Now these disciples were baptized in the name of the
Lord Jesus.
So I can't see where these Ephesians had not
been baptized by John the Baptist. Is there some extra-biblical
revelation in Mormonism that teaches this?
David Miller.
David Miller wrote:
DaveH wrote:
It seems obvious (to me) that whoever baptized them
did not have the proper authority. If faith were the
pivotal factor, why would they need to be rebaptized?
Because their faith was not in Jesus Christ when they were baptized. The
problem was not authority. The problem was that their covenant was with the
Father through the baptism of repentance. Now they were hearing the gospel
to which their previous covenant had pointed them. Once they heard about
Jesus Christ and the promise of the Holy Spirit, they were baptized in the
name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now faith could operate. Before, faith
could not operate because they had never heard of Jesus Christ or of the
Holy Spirit.
Notice that nowhere in the passage does Paul say, "who baptized you." The
question was, "have you received the Holy Ghost." The fact that they had
not even heard of the Holy Ghost told Paul that something was wrong here.
He knew already that they had been baptized, and apparently he had assumed
that they had been baptized in the name of Jesus. Then he baptized them in
the name of the Lord Jesus, because they had never received that kind of
baptism. Their faith previously was in what John preached. Now their faith
was in the person of Jesus Christ.
DaveH wrote:
These 12 had the faith, but not the
proper baptism, IMO.
They did not have faith in Jesus Christ. They had faith that God was
bringing the kingdom of God to them and so they were baptized unto
repentance.
DaveH wrote:
After their proper baptism, then Paul laid his
hands upon them and conferred the Holy Ghost.
FWIW.....Jesus was baptized by John, and did
not need rebaptism.
I'm not sure what this rebaptism statement is suppose to mean. What's the
point?
David Miller
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
