Before we move into Acts 19, let’s ask a question about Acts 18. David Rogers has suggested that in Acts 19 the different meanings of the baptisms were the factors that necessitated the baptism of the twelve. If he is correct, then we must conclude that Apollos needed to be baptized in Acts 18 just as much as the twelve needed to be baptized in Acts 19, for both had received precisely the same baptism, the baptism of John. If I will assert that the twelve needed to be baptized because they had not been baptized under the auspices of a church, then I as well am going to need to assert the same thing about Apollos. Now that we are in the same boat, how are we going to resolve this question?

1. We can presume that Apollos was indeed baptized in Acts 18, and that the passage simply fails to mention this fact. It’s plausible, but quite unsatisfying.

2. We can remind ourselves that we are dealing with narrative rather than didactic passages here, and we can take refuge in the possibility that Aquila and Priscilla did not do the perfect thing here, and that they failed to baptize Apollos when they should have done so.

3. We can abandon our positions that church connection (in my case) or theology of baptism (in both our cases) impinge upon baptismal validity at all.

I presume that we’ll both avoid #3, because Acts 19 is going to pose problems for that route. Neither of the other two are particularly palatable (nor are any of the options that I deemed unworthy of mention), but the first option is my preferred position.

…join us next time, when Bart says…

Just kidding. But I do appreciate everyone’s patience with me. I’m thankful for dead threads that permit us more leisurely conversation. If I could just leave the live ones alone and prioritize my time!

The pericope actually begins in Acts 18:24. Apollos, the eloquent Alexandrian Jew, is described in Acts 18 in the following manner:

1. He was a Jew.
2. He was from Alexandria.
3. He went to Ephesus.
4. He was highly educated regarding the BIble.
5. He had been instructed with regard to Christianity.
6. He was a passionate speaker.
7. With regard to his Christology, he taught accurately.
8. The only defect cited with regard to Apollos was his baptism.
9. He knew only the baptism of John.

I believe that Apollos was already a Christian believer before Priscilla and Aquila ever encountered him. This passage goes out of its way to identify Apollos’s accurate understanding of who Jesus is as well as Apollos’s accurate defense of Christ against unbelievers.

But he did have a problem with his baptism. Priscilla and Aquila addressed this problem. All we’re told is that “they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.” If they baptized Apollos, we’re not told about it here.

…I’m out of time again. I shall return. Since I thought that this thread was pretty much dead, I hadn’t been in that much of a hurry. Trustee meetings at SWBTS begin tomorrow. We’ll see how much time I have to respond.

I’m sorry if I offended you. Perhaps it is best just to leave it for now, and agree to disagree on this.

I came back here because Bart e-mailed me, and told me he was going to respond to my earlier inquiries regarding “ex opere operantis ecclesiae.” I am still interested in hearing out Bart’s entire argument, and may respond to him, if he chooses to continue to post on this. But, I am sensing it is probably best to desist from arguing this point with you further. I hope this doesn’t come between us. I recognize I have been a bit overly insistent on this, and it is not worth driving a wedge between us.

Also, thanks for the warning about the virus. I just went to the Impact site, and didn’t encounter any problem. But, I will keep that in mind, just in case. Perhaps it was something temporary that has been fixed already.

For you to come in here and tell me “To say the Bible teaches something, or to point to a large number of people who believe the Bible teaches something, without, at the same time, being able to show how and where the Bible teaches something, is of little value, in my opinion” is either A)ignorance on your part; B)deceptive maneuvering to win an arguement on your part; or C)you have severe memory loss. We’ve had this debate many, many, many times. And, I, and many others, have shown you, from the Bible, why we believe the way we do. And, not only that, but apparently many, many SB’s of the past believed that the Bible taught this as well, with it being included in the BFM2K. David, are all of these people ignorant? Are all of these people unenlightened? Are all of these people unable to see what the Bible teaches?

Also, David, when I went to SBC Impact, my virus protection blocked me from going; stating that yall have a severe virus and going to SBC Impact would result in getting a virus that would go after all of your personal and financial info. Just thought you’d like to know.

David

To say the Bible teaches something, or to point to a large number of people who believe the Bible teaches something, without, at the same time, being able to show how and where the Bible teaches something, is of little value, in my opinion.

I agree that pastors, deacons, and church discipline are all a part of what goes into making up the good health of a local congregation. However, I don’t see where the Bible links baptism with pastors, deacons, and/or church discipline. The only possible link I can think of is that, before partaking of the Lord’s Supper, we are admonished by Paul to examine ourselves. If we have not been obedient to the Lord’s command to be baptized, this examination of our heart before God should ideally point us to our need to be baptized. So, there is some link to church discipline.

However, the Bible never teaches that baptism must be supervised or administered by a local church. In fact, practically all, if not all, of the references to actual baptisms in the NT, say nothing at all about local church involvement. The only possible exception is Acts 2 where it says those who were baptized were “added unto them.”

The burden of proof is on those who claim the Bible teaches local church supervision and administration of baptism as a requirement for its validity.

I believe what the Bible teaches about baptism. That settles it for me. The BFM2K just states what the vast, vast majority of us SB’s believe the Bible clearly teaches in this matter, and SB’s have believed it for years and years and years.

And, as for the universal church, where’s it’s Pastor? Deacons? How do you conduct Church discipline in the universal church?

David

I believe baptism was given as a command (i.e. the command to baptize) to the disciples (i.e. the Universal Church). It is also given as a command (i.e. the command to be baptized) to anyone who wants to become a disciple. This does not preclude local churches as a valid expression of the Universal Church. For me, the crux of the matter is what Scripture teaches. I believe that.

It’s what the Church believes. It’s what their doctrine is. It is what it is.

If I go to a Methodist Church, then I know that they sprinkle, and they’re Arminian. Most of them are as liberal as they can be.

If I go to a Presbyterian Church, then I know that they practice infant baptism and hold to a more Calvinistic view of salvation, unless they’re liberal…like so many Presbyterians are. Then, it’s worse.

If I go to a Southern Baptist Church, guess what they are?

Also, I talked to a man coming out of a church that wanted to join our church. I asked him about the beliefs of that church on certain matters. He had no problem telling me what they were.

But, David, the crux of the matter, as always, is do you believe that baptism was given to individuals, or to the Church. Of course, I do believe that the BFM2K says that it’s an ordinance of the Church, just like the Lord’s Supper is. I believe that.

David