Why were John's disciples re-baptized?

Water Baptism of Jesus’ Followers. John’s baptism was due to be replaced by the baptism commanded by Jesus: “Make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit.” (Mt 28:19) This was the only water baptism having God’s approval from Pentecost, 33 C.E., forward. Some years after 33 C.E., Apollos, a zealous man, was teaching correctly about Jesus, but he had an understanding of only John’s baptism. On this matter he had to be corrected, as did the disciples whom Paul met at Ephesus. These men in Ephesus had undergone John’s baptism, but evidently after its valid performance had ended, since Paul’s visit to Ephesus was about 20 years after the termination of the Law covenant. They were then baptized correctly in the name of Jesus and received holy spirit.—Ac 18:24-26; 19:1-7.

In all ways but one, Christian baptism and John's baptism of repentance were exactly the same.

1) They were both in water (John 3:23; Acts 10:47).

2) They were both by immersion (Matthew 3:16; Acts 22:16).

3) They were both "for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38).

The only thing different about the two would have been the spoken formula used. Paul re-baptized the disciples at Ephesus, because they needed to be baptized properly, "in the name of Jesus Christ."

Apostolic Believer in One God, JESUS

John the Baptist baptized ''unto repentance,'' and a sign and pledge of repentance [Matt. 3:11]

The case of the disciples at Ephesus [Acts 19:1-7] clearly shows the difference between John's

baptism and Christian baptism.

First of all, who told you that baptism is a believers outward sign to the world? Second, who told you that baptism means you have to act like you are being buried? Third, you are not to lay physical baptism alongside the baptism of the Holy Spirit and compare the two, as if one can be thrown aside. In my point of view, the Bible does show a baptism by Jesus, but you have to look at it from the right angle. If you believe baptism is just some show and tell ceremony, it would not make sense to you anyway. If you were baptized as a baby, you were baptized into a covenant that marks out the visible Church. It was your sign and seal of being called God's property. Good that you didn't walk away from it, although I believe your current views on baptism need a little help. There are many arguments against the practice of immersion as the only way to be baptized. "BAPTIZW" does not have to carry a locked-down meaning of immersion. Doctors "practice" medicine today, does that mean they are trying to get it right? So to answer your questions: -if you were baptized as a baby, you should not be rebaptized. If you do this anyway, I hope you have enough kahunas to bring your parents so you can tell them how much they wasted their time doing this when you are an infant. - Sprinkling is probably the most biblically accurate mode of baptism. Pouring and immersion, though, are just as valid. I wouldn't want to see a baby immersed, obviously. - it was urgent, and it was taken care of already by your parents. - what does God look at? He looks at your heart of course. This doesn't give any Christian a reason to look at baptism as optional. Your parents did the right thing, and you need to be thanking them, not sticking your middle finger up at them.

John baptized unto repentance and the disciples baptized in the Name of Jesus unto salvation.

Jerry

Apostolic Pentecostal

Mandaeism is a religion that is based on the teachings of John the Baptist. It predates the Christian religion by about a decade. Before the ministry of Jesus, it had become quite popular and not all of the followers of John went on to become followers of Jesus. Even after the resurrection of Jesus. Mandaeism continued to florish for a time.

It appears that the disciples that Paul meet here in Ephesus where Jews who have learned of the ministry of John and been baptized as his followers. But they had not heard about Jesus and his ministry which followed John's. Remember that this is before the Internet, TV, radio, newspapers, high speed travels and others means of instant communication. That a major event in one country might not be know a few countries away for several years (or decades) was common.

So Paul reminded them that the purpose of John's baptism was to get people to repent - to turn around their lives - so that they would be right to follow (believe in) the one who came after him. Paul then told them about that person - Jesus.

When they heard about Jesus, they wanted to follow him as John had told them to do. So they decided to go through a second baptism, this time as a Christian ritual, to show their decision to become followers of Christ.

The first baptism was a promise to prepare themselves to follow "the Messiah" when he arrived. The second was an acknowledgment that Jesus was the Messiah and they would follow him.

Mandaeism still exist as a religion today with about 60-70,000 members. Most where located in Iraq before the Gulf Wars there. Today only about 5,000 remain in Iraq, with the majority of the rest scattered in other middle eastern countries (mostly Syria and Jordan).

They reject Jesus, believing that he was a false prophet who perverted the teachings of John. They look as John as the main prophet in a long line that includes Adam, Seth, Enoch, and Noah. But they reject Abraham, Moses and Mohammad.

They teach a "dualism" of God, that there is both a God the Father and God the Mother, that there is a left and right side to God, a good and bad side to God and a light and dark side to God. Their scriptures are divided into a "left" and "right" section. They believe that stars and planets influence a person's life (astrology) and determine that fate in the afterlife. They believe that each person is guided by a "savior spirit" who leads them through life - they have no one "savior". They place a high importance on moral purity, procreation, and family life. They are considered to be "gnostic" in their believes, placing personal revelation of God over that of an organized theology. They see the world as prison through which man passes on his way to a higher life. Though they do not see it as an evil place, unlike most other gnostic groups.

So the disciples at Ephesus, when they underwent that second baptism, where showing that they were leaving this gnostic belief to become Christians instead. This is the main reason this story was included in the book of Acts, to show that Paul did not consider Mandaeism and other gnostic beliefs to be Christianity, and that they needed to turn from those beliefs to new ones.

John the Baptist, whom God sent to prepare the way of the Lord, preached and administered the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1:2-4; Luke 3:3-4). He came baptizing in order to manifest Christ to Israel (John 1:31). His baptism was a transitory one designed to prepare the Jewish people for Christ's message and Christian baptism. John made no attempt to abolish the Jewish law, but he supplemented it, expecting his converts to live a repented, moral life as defined by the law and to wait for the One who would baptize them with the Holy Ghost. John's baptism was pre-Christian, for the New Testament church was not yet founded. In fact, John's disciples were rebaptized in Jesus' name after the Day of Pentecost (Acts 19:1-5).

John's baptism was for, of, or unto repentance. Apparently he used no baptismal formula, but he told the people, "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance" (Matthew 3:11). His baptism both motivated and displayed repentance; his converts repented and confessed their sins at baptism (Matthew 3:6; Mark 1:5).

Since John's baptism was "for the remission of sins," did it confer remission? It could NOT confer absolute remission of sins, nor could it deal with future sins, for before Christ's atoning death all remission was conditioned upon that future event. Some people contend that John's baptism did confer conditional remission, but conditional remission was already available through the sacrificial system, which John made no attempt to replace. It seems that his baptism simply pointed to future remission that would come through Christ and Christian baptism. It was "unto" remission, a valid translation of the Greek word eis, which is usually rendered "for." Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible concurs in this view.

They were not rebaptized with water. They were baptized with the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 3:11

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire

Acts 1:5

For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

John - baptize with water

Jesus - baptize with Holy Ghost/ fire

The Baptism of Water to repentence (John's Baptism)

And the Baptism of the Holy Spirit are two different things

One is physical, one is spiritual

Baptismo...the greek word means to be immersed. Baptism in the Holy Spirit is an immersion into the Holy Spirit akin to what happened to the Disciples in Acts 2 and the Gentiles at Cornelius' house in Acts 10

Yes, in Jesus name.