Baptized twice

[Casper]

Baptized twice

Does anyone know why the disciples of Ephesus in Acts chapter 19 were baptized again by Paul after being baptized by John the Baptist.

Acts 19:1-7

1 ¶ AND it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

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.

5 When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6 And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

7 And all the men were about twelve.

[Spartan117]

Baptism by water, baptism by fire. He gave them the gift of the Holy Ghost.

[Snow]

Bible Commentary

[rameumptom]

See my comments here:

http://www.lds.net/forums/new-testament/41120-new-testament-gospel-doctrine-lesson-32-live-spirit-acts-18-20-galatians.html

[Spartan117]

John had not baptized these disciples. Had he done so he would have sent them to Christ and the apostles to be baptized "with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." (Matt. 3:11.) But, as the Prophet expressed it, "some sectarian Jew had been baptizing like John" (Teachings, p. 263), that is, some self-appointed minister had come along, as modern divines do, and assumed the prerogative to imitate the legal administrations of the past. Hence these receptive believers were baptized over again by a legal administrator other than Paul (1 Cor. 1:12-16), who, however, then conferred upon them the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 19 6 6. Tongues and prophecy compared] See 1 Cor. 14:6-28.

McConkie, Bruce R. (2009-08-18). Doctrinal New Testament Commentary Vol. 2

[spamlds]

The answer is right there in the scripture you posted.

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.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Somebody came along, who had taken upon himself to baptize without authority. The lack of authority is revealed in the message that these believers had been taught. They were baptized in some other name than the name of Jesus and they were told it was "John's baptism." They did not receive the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. Those who were baptized by John the Baptist were expressly taught to look out for the one who would come after him. The true disciples of John the Baptist anticipated the receipt of the Holy Ghost--these people had never heard of the doctrine.

When it was clear that these people had been baptized after being taught a part of the gospel message, without authority, it was necessary for them to hear and believe the fullness of the gospel, and for them to submit to baptism by proper authority. By doing so they were able to receive the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

This scripture explains precisely why Christians from other faiths must receive proper baptism by authority when they accept the fullness of the gospel today, even if they were previously baptized in other denominations.

[Seminarysnoozer]

The answer is right there in the scripture you posted.

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.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Somebody came along, who had taken upon himself to baptize without authority. The lack of authority is revealed in the message that these believers had been taught. They were baptized in some other name than the name of Jesus and they were told it was "John's baptism." They did not receive the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. Those who were baptized by John the Baptist were expressly taught to look out for the one who would come after him. The true disciples of John the Baptist anticipated the receipt of the Holy Ghost--these people had never heard of the doctrine.

When it was clear that these people had been baptized after being taught a part of the gospel message, without authority, it was necessary for them to hear and believe the fullness of the gospel, and for them to submit to baptism by proper authority. By doing so they were able to receive the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

This scripture explains precisely why Christians from other faiths must receive proper baptism by authority when they accept the fullness of the gospel today, even if they were previously baptized in other denominations.

I agree, this is what I have been taught as well.

Despite this, there are some on this forum that believe that God still runs other religions with authority, as if the covenants of the lesser law such as (their) baptism, circumcision etc. are still valid or at least meaningful to God eternally and will hold as a covenant in the next life. I think this shows that that previous set of covenants and associated law is fulfilled and no longer active as an individual entity or religion in the Lords eyes.

How many of those that received that baptism from this one without authority said to themselves, 'I have no need for another baptism'? If it is of Christ then it doesn't lead away from Christ or make a person stop before accepting the fullness when it is available.

[beefche]

Despite this, there are some on this forum that believe that God still runs other religions with authority, as if the covenants of the lesser law such as (their) baptism, circumcision etc. are still valid or at least meaningful to God eternally and will hold as a covenant in the next life. I think this shows that that previous set of covenants and associated law is fulfilled and no longer active as an individual entity or religion in the Lords eyes.

Are you talking about volgadon and his explanation of Jews and their beliefs of circumcision, the law of Moses, etc?

[volgadon]

Are you talking about volgadon and his explanation of Jews and their beliefs of circumcision, the law of Moses, etc?

I was wondering the same thing. At this point I suspect that the number of people holding that position is equal to the number of these

[apexviper13]

It sounds like it was a believing issue. The disciples did say they were baptized unto John's baptism but like Paul said, John baptized unto repentance. It sounds like when the disciples were baptized by John they didn't didn't believe, they just did it.