RT, you picked up on my phrase 'believing into the spirit of John's baptism'. I used this because of being practical with the information available. Acts 19:1b 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. The writer of the article we read before answering this thread, assumed that the men at Ephesus were all Jews who had been to Jordan for baptism. Please could anyone confirm this as fact, from any other scripture or study you have done?That's why I used the phrase 'believing into the spirit of John's baptism'. We know that John had disciples, because Andrew and John left following him to follow Jesus in John 1. We know that John the Baptist was baptising in Jordan. Do we know where Jesus disciples were baptising? (John 4:1) Presumably they were also baptising for the remission of sins, as a sign of repentance.Therefore, my premise is that either all the men now at Ephesus had been to Jordan, or, they had been baptised nearer Ephesus by one of John's disciples. Do we know? For sure, they had not been baptised unto Jesus's Name, as those in John 4:1 were being before the crucifixion.The clear meaning of John's baptism was 'the remission of sins'. Peter uses this phrase too. He is speaking to a Jewish gathering who were familiar with the concept.roadsign notedHere is a quote from the Revell Bible Dictionary:"Like many ancient peoples, Jewish people practiced ceremonial washings. Non-Jews who were converted to Judaism would immerse themselves in water (a once-for-all ceremonial washing), probably under the supervision of a religious expert. …Repenting or turning from a wrong way of living to a right way of living …when a non-Jew decided to obey the teachings of Israel's God.interpreting itIn those days, the only ones who were required to be baptized where the pagans who converted to Judaism. When John the Baptist told the Jews that they needed to repent and be baptized, he was essentially treating them as pagans. He was challenging their entire view of salvation. That would have been very offensive to them. I would suggest instead, that John the Baptist was refining the Jewish understanding of God's heart. Sin was no longer something that need wait a year to be ceremonially cleansed; here was a way it could simply and individually be washed away. Incidentally, they would know that priests had to be washed before performing their offices to God. This also informs them about an aspect of their relationship with God which may be changing.John the Baptist was being recognised as a prophet with a new word from God by the people of his generation. It had been a LONG time since the prophet before him. People were responsive. Also, they recognised and understood the picture language of 'washing'. They were being encouraged to take action to rid themselves of their own sin, without the help of a priest. This was new. No wonder the religious leaders were unhappy, even though their role was not being directly challenged. Worse, John the Baptist was spreading word about One mightier than him who would follow. WOW! I'd be interested!So, when Peter said the famous words Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. in true Peter fashion, he was offering the linear route with which he had been acquainted, which only an hour or two before, had been crowned with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.He was still struggling with this new thing that had happened to him when he had the vision at Joppa in Acts 10, and then the Holy Spirit fell on the entire household of Cornelius, giving him yet more food for thought. As Cornelius was a Gentile, in the light of the extract from Revell's dictionary, it would not have crossed Peter's mind not to baptise them. He was still very Jewish in outlook.God was not rushing him. Slowly, he was receiving a greater and greater revelation of God's heart. It was not until the discussion about circumcision, that the line was drawn at what a Gentile needed to accommodate of Jewish pre-Pentecostal behaviour, to be deemed to have complied adequately with the requirements of salvation.It took Paul's gifts and knowledge of scripture, to link up the concepts with the practice but at no time does there appear any good reason to stop baptising in water, the people who have believed unto salvation and received the Holy Spirit. Jesus commanded baptism for believers too (Mark 16:16).Lastly, as Lahry mentionedToo many people read the new testament, in my humble opinion, and everywhere it mentions "baptize" or "baptism", they think in their minds "immersed in water". I'd like to add that the 'water of purification' in Numbers 19 was sprinkled on the person with a branch hyssop, (even though they had also had to wash themselves in water. Surely, this gives us liberty to sprinkle the water of baptism on believers, where water is scarce, as its ceremonial significance is what counts?So, in Peter's lifetime, there had been baptism to John, he himself had (probably) baptised disciples to Jesus, now that the Holy Spirit had come to empower the lives of those who had already repented, there was and is no reason not baptise those who have cut straight to the quick of baptism in the Holy Spirit, who have, while hearing the word preached, become suddenly repentant and believing.
