|
John’s Baptism
John's baptism was for the remission of sin.
Did those who obeyed John's baptism have to be rebaptized on the day of
Pentecost? Thank you so much. I enjoy the good web-site you have. ~ Mack
Bennett
As the questioner correctly notes, "John's baptism was for
the remission of sin." Mack Bennett poses a valid and interesting question
("Did those who obeyed John's baptism have to be rebaptized on the day
of Pentecost?"), though, a question of merely academic significance, since
everyone now living has always and only been subject to the baptism of
the Great Commission. Below is an excerpt from my book, The Church
Divine, which addresses the question before us.
In the closing days of the Jewish dispensation,
a prophet of God initiated what became known as "the baptism of John" (Acts
18:25) or "John’s baptism" (Acts 19:3). This water baptism was practiced
by John the Baptist, his disciples and the disciples of Jesus. Everything
John the Baptist did, including the baptism he administered, prepared the
way for the Messiah and his kingdom (Matt. 3:1-6). John the Baptist urged
his auditors to: (1) repent and be baptized for the remission of sins (Mark
1:4) and (2) believe on the Christ who would come after him (Acts 19:4).
However, this baptism was preparatory and temporary; it was valid only
if practiced before the establishment of the church (Acts 19:1-6). John’s
baptism was for the remission of sins in prospect of the death-burial-resurrection
of Christ, much the way people formerly living under Patriarchy (e.g.,
Adam, Noah and Abraham) and those for whom atonement was made under Judaism
were saved in prospect of redemption made possible through Jesus
Christ (Heb. 10:4; 9:15).
Persons receiving John’s baptism before the Pentecost
of Acts Two received the remission of sins and membership in the Lord’s
church conditional upon the establishment of the church.
They were not re-baptized in the baptism of the Great Commission. Water
baptism practiced from Acts Two forward was the baptism of the Great Commission,
with the lone exception of Acts 19:1-6 where some disciples were incorrectly
baptized in John’s baptism and later re-baptized in the baptism of the
Great Commission.
There is no Scriptural indication that any of the 120 disciples
of Christ mentioned in Acts 1, the twelve apostles (including Matthias)
or any of the hundreds of disciples (1 Cor. 15:6) were re-baptized in the
baptism of the Great Commission following the establishment of the church.
Further, the 3,000 converts in Acts Two were added to a body of believers
already present, expressed in the KJV as "to the church" and the ASV as
"to them" (Acts 2:37).
Bible Translation Controversy
I am researching the Bible translation controversy
involving the King James Version of the Bible Vs the new translations.
The New King James, NIV, NASB, etc. Do you have any articles or debates
that you could send me regarding this issue? Do you have an opinion
on which Bible is the best to use and whether the new translations should
be used? I would sure appreciate any help you could give me in this
regard.
All Bible translations have some weaknesses and most translations
have some strengths. The weaknesses of many Bible translations are
significant either because (1) they adversely affect Bible doctrine or
(2) the weaknesses are so numerous. In my opinion, three Bible translations
whose weaknesses are far overshadowed by their strengths, and which do
not contain doctrinal error, are the: King James Version, American Standard
Version and the New King James Version. Most of the rest of the Bible
translations have varying degrees of weaknesses that: (1) make them unreliable
as translations, (2) compromise Bible doctrine in favor of denominational
dogma, (3) are not really translations at all, (4) are actually vulgar,
and/or (5) are the products of translators who do not esteem verbal inspiration
and consequently have little compulsion to preserve the actual message
through the translating process.
The sheer number of new Bible translations in modern time
is itself suspicious. Our language does not undergo dramatic changes
as often as new English translations are marched off the assembly lines
of the publishers. Hence, a motive other than providing an accurate
and reliable English translation must drive much of the production of recent
Bible translations. Is it profit? Is it doctrine? At
best, the multiplicity of modern English translations engenders confusion.
At worst, unreliable Bible translations may adversely and eternally affect
souls. It is no plus to more easily understand error and false doctrine
(even if it appears between the covers of a volume marked "Holy Bible").
A number of articles and books have been penned over the
past few decades that address several Bible translations. Some of
the books include: "A Review of the New Versions" by Foy E. Wallace, Jr.;
"An Evaluation of the New International Version" by Foy E. Wallace, Jr.;
"Challenging Dangers of Modern Versions" by Robert R. Taylor, Jr.; "Easy-to-Read
Version" by Goebel Music.
Sufficient archaeological evidence relative to the books
of the Bible exist to confirm that we have available to us today in the
original languages the biblical message. Variations hardly ever (if
ever) affect a point of doctrine. All that remains is for reliable
and accurate translating to occur. Reliable translation to English
exists in at least the King James, American Standard and New King James
versions.
Selection And
Installation of Elders
Hello. I would appreciate it if you would
read the following and get back to me on your thoughts about it.
I am a member of the Church of Christ and I am very concerned
over the status of the church in which I attend. You see a few months
ago, we had Elders (2 in number). One of those Elders felt that he,
due to his age and recent sickness was no longer able to serve as an Elder.
The other Elder was also the preacher. The Eldership of the Church
was dissolved because Brother Bell resigned as Elder. There are still
no Elders today. Yet there are men qualified, who desire the office.
Is it right for the Church to go on without Elders. The preacher
(who was one of the Elders) preached many sermons on the Eldership and
Deaconship (which was dissolved due to this also). He preached that
there should be a committee of 2 men to be over the appointment of Elders.
At first he taught that the faithful Christian men of the Congregation
would okay 2 men and then it would be brought before the Congregation for
2 weeks, then Elders would be appointed. Is committees right and
is the Church right for having gone on this long without Elders?
Should Elders have been selected before the Eldership was dissolved?
I would appreciate your thoughts on this subject, because I am very concerned
about the Church in which I attend. Thank you and I hope to hear
from you soon. God bless.
Enough information appears in the New Testament to clearly
indicate that every congregation should have a plurality of elders (Acts
14:23; Titus 1:5; Acts 20:17). Yet, obviously before the appointment
of elders in any existing congregation, the congregation operated with
apparent Divine approval without elders for that interim. Further,
the qualifications of elders (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:6-11; Hebrews 13:17)
and the very terms used to designated them (i.e., pastors, Ephesians 4:11;
overseers, Acts 20:28; shepherds, 1 Peter 5:1-4) indicate the function
of elders.
Almost everything else regarding elders has been left
by God in the realm of expediency. We do not have any biblical information
regarding the selection and installation process. These details are
not stipulated and are, therefore, not a matter of doctrine. Hence,
neither are they a matter warranting undue alarm nor disagreement.
Whether additional elders should have been installed before
the resignation of an elder whereby the eldership was dissolved, then,
is a matter of opinion and expediency. In the absence of elders,
the Christian men of a congregation are responsible for the affairs of
the church, until such time as the congregation again has elders.
The congregation has the responsibility to appoint qualified men to serve
as elders. It would be biblically incorrect for a congregation to
go without elders indefinitely if qualified men are present in the congregation.
It would also be anti-biblical for a congregation to opt for a form of
government, namely a committee (or a single person, etc.), instead of the
biblical prescription of elders (or in the absence of qualified men to
serve as elders, the male members of the congregation).
However, one or more persons or a committee (without authority
to rule the congregation) is not necessarily in conflict with the biblical
principles. Representing the congregation, individuals or groups
of individuals, whether or not the congregation has elders, routinely function
on behalf of the congregation. For instance, one or more persons
or a committee may gather information regarding the purchase and installation
of a new heating system in the meeting house. The congregation (through
its elders if it has elders) is ultimately responsible for the decision
regarding the purchase and installation of that heating system.
A person or persons or a committee may serve the needs
of a congregation, but the congregation through its faithful Christian
men (in the absence of elders) or elders (if elders are in place) are responsible
for the decisions for the congregation. Obviously, I am neither in
a position to know the details of the local circumstances there, nor biblically
authorized to make decisions affecting any congregation. That bailiwick
belongs to the elders or Christian men in any local congregation.
However, I hope these observations prove useful.
|
