attn: Josh: Acts 2:38

One more separate thread to keep the other 2 (acts 8 and romans 10, and Mark 16:16) distinct.

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, 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.

You stated that the use of the word "for" here was analogous to "take 2 aspirin FOR (as a result of) a headache."

Now, I would suggest that if you want to interpret "eis" (for) to mean "as a result of" which it can be, you've created a bit of a theological quandry. Why? Again because of that key word "kai" which joins the 2 thoughts of "repent" AND (KAI) be baptized..."

I won't redefine Kai as I did in Mark 16:16 but if you go back to that thread Kai means "even, both, also, and" and makes those 2 COMMANDS, one. The word "and" has that same power. It means, in addition to, also, plus etc. Now the key phrase here is "for the remission of sins". If you want to translate "eis" to mean, "as a result of" here's what you get:

As a result of the remission of sins, REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED EVERYONE OF YOU IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST...

So now the dilemna. Is someones sins remitted PRIOR to repentance?!!? Absolutely not, not individually in terms of receiving personal salvation.

Now you might contend that "as a result of the remission of sins" (because of the work of the cross) is an all inclusive condition for all men prior to them doing anything because of the cross. Ok, I can buy that. However, it doesn't change the fact that Peter is then saying in response to their conviction and specific request as "what to do" (to cleanse them from killing Messiah) Peter still responded: "as a result of the remission of sins available to all men because of the cross, REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST..."

You see Josh, repentance and baptism in Jesus name are viewed as one. They are joined together so intimately (copulated) by the word "kai". So after Peter razes over 3,000 (that was the total that heeded him, I'm sure there were more there) for killing Messiah, they ask him a specific and pointed question. WHAT SHALL WE DO. This was a result of being "pricked in their hearts" (convicted). He did not quote Romans 10, he did not tell them just to believe and they ARE (as opposed to "shall be" future tense) SAVED. He COMMANDED THEM to repent AND be baptized and received the Spirit.

So my contention is that "eis" is either translated to mean as to receive "remission of sins" (in which case baptism is a necessity) or if you insist on translating "eis" to mean "as a result of or because" then the only way that remission of sins could preceed both baptism AND repentance would be in some universal sense. In that case, the application of universal remission of sins remains unchanged: repent AND be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ AND receive the Holy Spirit.

The beauty of this plan is that it completely identifies the believer with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus! God, every demon, every believer, every non believer, sees a disciple (what does that word mean?) someone who goes wherever their master goes. In this case to the cross, to the tomb and to be renewed by the Spirit.

I await your thoughts and pray for OUR understanding.

Josh, if I don't get back right away, I don't want to be fired! :-) I will have to work!

Rooster,

You essentially understand how I view this passage. and again, I am not arguing with you about that, but I believe that acts 2:38 is addressing 2 separate kinds of baptism here.

Question for you, how many different kinds of baptism do you think there are? Would you agree that baptism in the holy spirit and baptism with water are 2 separate things?

One baptism, two mediums (Spirit and Water re: John 3:3)

Whenever baptism is by the Spirit, the bible indicates that. When it is by water, it is not identified as such.

Also, when baptism is identified with death/burial, it's talking about water baptism. When it's talking about life, it's talking about Spirit baptism.

I'm interested in your thoughts on this passage. Josh, this is not personal and I admire and respect you. I think you mentioned that you are only 24, and I'm thrilled you even care about this at your age! When I was 24 I was just becoming a Christian and it was tough!

Well first let me show you that the scriptures are talking about more than one kind of baptism.....

First, the Jews of Jesus' day considered the water baptism of John to be a part of the category of ritual purification. Since ritual purification was a part of Old Testament practice, the Jews of Jesus' day, therefore, considered water baptism to be a part of Old Testament practice.

Second, the first New Testament revelation regarding baptism came from John the Baptist and is recorded in all four of the Gospels. In this teaching, John clearly distinguished between two types of baptism, one with water and one with the Holy Spirit. This exact same statement was repeated by Jesus after his resurrection and by Peter as later as Acts 13. And by this teaching, John clearly built into the Jewish people the expectation that the Messiah would administer a baptism in the Holy Spirit. Conversely, there was no teaching that would have prompted people to understand that the Messiah would administer a water baptism.

Third, given the fact that John the Baptist was baptizing three years before any one was baptized in the Holy Spirit, it would have been inherent to the understanding of that time that water baptism and baptism in the Holy Spirit did not occur simultaneously. Since the Messiah had not yet emerged when John spoke these words, it would have been impossible for the people of that day to think that water baptism and baptism in the Holy Spirit occurred at the same time.

Fourth, given the examples of Andrew, Acts 8:12-17, and Acts 10:44-48, we can clearly see that the continued experience of the early Church would have maintained this understanding that water baptism and baptism in the Holy Spirit did not automatically occur simultaneously.

What is so significant about the fact that the Jewish people and the early Church would have understood that the two baptisms did not automatically simultaneously occur is that it strongly indicates that the Bible does not teach the Holy Spirit is received automatically upon water baptism.

The fact that John the Baptist, Jesus, and Peter all maintained that one form of baptism was the baptism of John and the other was to be the baptism of Jesus Christ, automatically indicates that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was superior to water baptism. For having established starting from the preaching of John that John baptized with water but that the Christ would baptize with the Holy Spirit of God, absolutely no one who had heard that teaching would have thought that baptism with water took precedent over baptism in the Holy Spirit. Certainly you would want to receive baptism by the Messiah in the Holy Spirit of God himself over baptism in the material substance of water in accordance with Old Testament ritual purification requirements.

This stuff comes from a study that I find really helpful in truly understanding baptism, its very complete and answers most of the objections that you have quite easily, however, its long and time consuming, but if your willing to read it, I think it would help to clear up my position for you....if you agree or not is another issue, but it will help you see why I believe what I am telling you to be scriptural.

http://www.geocities.com/biblestudying/baptism.html

I was looking over some sites last night, and going over my old baptism research that I did, and I really think that this will help to clear up our understanding of the issue here. Most of the issue's I had originally wondered about were addressed, plus many of the objections you have to my position.

You guys might want to do some basic readings on the ancient Mikvah (as opposed to the modern one) as well as the Shechina.

MS

MS, thanks!

Josh, are you saying that 1) there is no real water baptism or 2) it's just an inferior initiation rite?

I don't have time to read your link (sorry) especially because I don't want to debate your link per se. If you have a particular piece w/in that articulates a counter point to Acts 2:38 that would be great. Cut and paste it and we'll have a look see. Are you proposing that Acts 2:38 is Spirit baptism?

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, 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.

1) there is real water baptism, it just doesn't do what you think it does...its John's baptism. its not the same thing as a baptism with the holy spirit.

2) yes. Any human rite is by far inferior to any work of the spirit of the almighty. You cannot even be convinved of your own sinfulness except for the work of the holy spirit acting in you to bring you to repentance. It should be obvious to you, I don't know why you can't see what scripture so clearly lays out.

In Acts 2:38, two types of baptism are spoken about. One, water baptism, 2, baptism with the holy spirit.

Let me show you how there are multiple kinds of baptisms. I think that part of your confusion is you see them as one in the same, and that simply is not the case.

The same word is used to describe both the baptism of John, and the Baptism with the holy spirit, by Jesus, Peter, and Paul.....but they are not the same thing.



In fact, not only did John the Baptist use the same Greek word for both forms of baptism from the onset of his ministry, but Jesus Christ and Peter likewise copied John's equal application of that Greek word to both forms of baptism. (Acts 1 below records the words of Jesus Christ. Acts 11 records the words of Peter.)

1 Corinthians 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 13 For by [1722] one Spirit are we all baptized [907] into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit

What is so interesting about this statement by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12 is that the Greek word translated "by" is "en" (Strong's No. 1722.) This Greek word "en" is the same word used in all four of the Gospels in the passages we've already discussed.

Matthew 3:11 he shall baptize [907] you with [1722] the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Mark 1:8 he shall baptize [907] you with [1722] the Holy Ghost.

Luke 3:16 he shall baptize [907] you with [1722] the Holy Ghost and with fire:

John 1:26 he which baptizeth [907] with [1722] the Holy Ghost.

Then, in 1 Corinthians 12, Paul says, "For by [1722] one Spirit are we all baptized [907] into one body." Because the word "en" is the same word in these four Gospel passages as it is in 1 Corinthians 12, we can see that Paul is saying that we are baptized "en" [1722] the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ. Paul is clearly referring back to and repeating the original teaching of John the Baptist regarding baptism, teaching that was also upheld by both Jesus and Peter.

When we read the word "baptize" in the New Testament we cannot simply assume that it refers to water baptism. Likewise, we cannot simply assume it refers to baptism in the Holy Spirit. Instead, we have to look to the immediate context and, if necessary, to the scriptural precedent to determine which form of baptism is being indicated.

in Acts 1, we find that Jesus is instructing the apostles that they would soon receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit. He also tells them that after the Holy Spirit comes upon them, they will also receive power. Of course, this statement by Jesus was fulfilled in the opening passages of the very next chapter. But before we move on to Acts 2, we should take note that in verse 8, Jesus uses the phrase "the Holy Spirit is come upon you" as a synonym for baptism in the Holy Spirit, which he has just mentioned in verse 5.

In Acts 2, we see the apostles being filled with the Holy Spirit, just as Jesus had instructed them in the previous chapter. And, just as Jesus had said, they also received miraculous power at that time as well as signified by their speaking in tongues. However, he in Acts 2, we also find our second synonymous phrase for baptism in the Holy Spirit. Remember from the first section of this series that the Greek word "baptizo" means "immerse." So, its not surprising that in verse 4, the phrase "filled with the Holy Spirit" is synonymous with being baptized (or "immersed") in the Holy Spirit.

In Acts 2:17, Peter refers back to the prophet Joel. Peter is appealing to Joel as an explanation of the fact that he and the other apostles had just received the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Yet, Joel does not use the phrase "baptize in the Holy Spirit." Instead, he uses the phrase "pour out my Spirit upon." From this we can see that "pour out my Spirit" was considered by Peter to be a synonym for baptism in the Holy Spirit.

In Acts 2:38, Peter refers to baptism in the Holy Spirit using the synonymous phrase "receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

In Acts 4:31 we see that again the place where the apostles and disciples are is shaken and they are filled with the Holy Spirit, which further indicates that "filled with the Holy Spirit" is a synonym for baptism in the Holy Spirit, which also originally occurred in Acts 2 along with the shaking of the house they were in at that time.




In Acts 10 , you can see many of these synonyms used in the very same passage.

In this chapter we see the first Gentile converts receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit just as the apostles had in chapter 2. Verse 46 further demonstrates this where it tells us that these first Gentile converts began to "speak with tongues," just as the apostles in Acts 2. And here in Acts 10, we see baptism in the Holy Spirit being referred to using the synonymous phrases "Holy Spirit fell on them," "poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit," and "received the Holy Spirit."

Later, in Acts 11, Peter retells this same event.

What is significant about how Peter retells this story here in Acts 11 is that he directly equates it with the Lord's words in Acts 1:5, 8 wherein the Lord quoted John the Baptist's original teaching about the two forms of baptism. Peter also says, "the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning." In doing so, Peter equates the Holy Spirit falling on the Gentiles with the experience of the apostles on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2.

By relating these experiences from Acts 2 and Acts 10 back to the words of Jesus in Acts 1:5, 8 (which were a quote of John the Baptist), Peter demonstrates three things. First, he demonstrates that those events were baptisms in the Holy Spirit and so the phrase "Holy Spirit fell on" becomes a synonym for baptism in the Holy Spirit. Second, since Peter also refers to this as "the same gift," (a phrase he also used in Acts 10:54), he is also reinforcing that the phrase "the same gift" or "gift of the Holy Spirit" is another synonym for baptism in the Holy Spirit. And third, Peter affirms that he viewed these events as a fulfillment of the teaching and expectation first asserted by John the Baptist regarding baptism.

Lastly, we can relate this teaching about the baptism in the Holy Spirit with a previous teaching given by Jesus in John 7., which will further establish other synonymous phrases for baptism in the Holy Spirit.

In John 7 we see Jesus teaching about the baptism in the Holy Spirit. We know he is teaching about the Baptism in the Holy Spirit because the John takes the time to make note of that specifically for us in verse 39 where he tells us that the Holy Spirit had not yet been given because Jesus had not yet been crucified and resurrected in his glorified body. This pinpoints the time when the Holy Spirit is first given to a period after the crucifixion and resurrection, which of course was the day of Pentecost recorded in Acts 2. Yet here in John 7 we see the phrases "drink," "rivers of living water," "receiving the Holy Spirit," and "giving the Holy Spirit" all functioning as synonyms for baptism in the Holy Spirit.

The early church did practice water baptism, and thats an important thing that we should consider.

1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Because of the grammatical structure of this verse, we should not conclude that it was only the justifying that was done in Jesus' name and by the Holy Spirit. Rather, Paul is listing all three of these events ("washed," "sanctified," and "justified") and stating that all three of these things were done "in the name of the Lord Jesus" and "by the Spirit of God." And, it is important to note that the word "by" in this verse is the Greek word "en" (Strong's 1722.) This phrase "en" the Holy Spirit is the same phrase that occurs in all of the following passages as spoken by John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter, and Paul.

Acts 18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. 25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. 26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

we have no mention of Apollos ever being water baptized in the name of Jesus. Just like the apostles and the rest of the 120 in the upper room, the only evidence of Apollos ever being water baptized, is the baptism of John. That means that for all these cases, the apostles, the 120, and Apollos, the water baptism of John was considered by the early Church to be "accredited." Or in other words, the water baptism of John counted and it was not necessary for them to be water baptized a second time, this time in the name of Jesus.

So, as you can see, I dont think there is any difference between the water baptism John the baptist gave, and the one Jesus Gave. Period, they are the exact same thing.

Hebrews 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

From this passage in Hebrews 6, there are two things worth noting for this study. First, doctrine of baptisms is considered fundamental teaching that according to the writer of Hebrews, was something his audience should have already understood by that time. Second, the author speaks of the doctrine of "baptisms" plural.

Second, if "baptisms" here is plural, then what baptisms is he talking about? Well, we have already demonstrated that there were only two: baptism with water and baptism with the Holy Spirit.. So, the rendering of this word "baptism" as a plural in this passage further demonstrates that the early Christians held that water baptism and baptism in the Holy Spirit were distinctly different events and experiences. But does the mention of "baptisms" plural indicate that both were considered essential to the life of every believer? No. It simply means that there was teaching regarding both forms of baptism probably including how each should be practiced and their respective level of significance in the life of the believer.

The reason that Hebrews 6 cannot be indicating both forms of baptism were equally significant to the Church or that they were both essential to the Church, can be found in Ephesians 4.

Ephesians 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

In Ephesians 4 we have a list of singular items that are essential to Christianity. There is one hope of our calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father of all. The significance of placing "one baptism" (singular) in the midst of these other items makes an unequivocal statement of the importance of one of these two forms of baptism, not both. Only one of the two forms of baptism was considered essential enough to Christianity to be listed side by side with one Lord and one faith. The questions is, of course, which one? Which was peter talking about in 1st Peter 3? There are clearly two baptisms, yet only one is being talked about.

JoshuaB

EXCELLENT POSTS!

I have a question though; You said:

"Which was peter talking about in 1st Peter 3? There are clearly two baptisms, yet only one is being talked about."

What biblical reference are you talking about here? I couldn't find any talk of baptism in 1 Peter 3. I assume you're talking about another verse. I want to study all that you stated in your post for myself so I appreciate any clarification in regards to scripture reference.

Thanks!

1st peter 3:18-22

For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand--with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

Which of the two baptism is this?

Josh: 1) there is real water baptism, it just doesn't do what you think it does...its John's baptism. its not the same thing as a baptism with the holy spirit.

me: Josh, are you seriously suggesting that there is not a Christian Baptism initiated after John? What about when Phillip baptized the Eunuch or Peter baptized Cornelius.

Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death:

The Spirit brings life, not death! Baptism in water is a burial unto death...

2Cr 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life

Josh: In Acts 2:38, two types of baptism are spoken about. One, water baptism, 2, baptism with the holy spirit.

Let me show you how there are multiple kinds of baptisms. I think that part of your confusion is you see them as one in the same, and that simply is not the case.

me: Josh, I do understand that there are multiple baptisms (I said that above). The word "baptism" means "immersion". There is immersion in water and immersion in the Spirit.

Josh: When we read the word "baptize" in the New Testament we cannot simply assume that it refers to water baptism. Likewise, we cannot simply assume it refers to baptism in the Holy Spirit. Instead, we have to look to the immediate context and, if necessary, to the scriptural precedent to determine which form of baptism is being indicated.

me: Agreed

Josh: In Acts 2:38, Peter refers to baptism in the Holy Spirit using the synonymous phrase "receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

me: Whoa Josh, you skipped part of what he said. He said, "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you shall receive the promise of the Holy Spirit." Are you suggesting that the baptism Peter is referring to is just Spirit baptism. I don't know a bible commentary that would agree with you on that my friend. He clearly references 1) repent 2) be baptized 3)receive the Spirit. You'll note that he certainly repeats this message to Cornelius and he goes to Samaria and prays for the believers to receive the Spirit who already have been water baptized in the name of the Lord. Peter was handed the "keys" to the kingdom and as such preached the same plan to the Jews, Gentiles and Samarians which represent all of mankind.

I note that again, you mention the Spirit baptism of Acts 10 but no mention of the command AFTER that to be baptized in water. You are building an argument to show the essentiality of Spirit baptism and I agree. However, you are ignoring the clear evidence and commands for water baptism.

more...

I think a crucial point your missing in Acts 10 that doesn't support this view of JUST a Spirit baptism:

Act 10:4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.

Act 10:5 And now send men to Joppa, and call for [one] Simon, whose surname is Peter:

Act 10:6 He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell thee what THOU OUGHTEST TO DO.

You'll note that Cornelius believes on the Lord, calls on the name of the Lord (ver 4) has prayed and given so much it's a memorial before God. If anyone should be saved, it's Cornelius. However, he is told to send for Peter AND HE WILL TELL YOU WHAT TO DO.

AFTER Cornelius and his household receive the infilling of the Spirit (AFTER*)Peter tells them what the OUGHT TO DO:

Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Here we can see that Peter asks if anyone can FORBID WATER, that these should not be BAPTIZED (water baptism, not John's but a unique Christian baptism) who have ALREADY received the baptism of the Holy Ghost just like they did...and then he tells them WHAT THEY OUGHT TO DO:

Act 10:48 And he COMMANDED (not suggested, not asked as an after thought, not said "if you want") them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Josh: 1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Because of the grammatical structure of this verse, we should not conclude that it was only the justifying that was done in Jesus' name and by the Holy Spirit.

Me: Josh, if you go back to Acts you will see that they were justified "in the name of the Lord Jesus" as they were both baptized in WATER (in Jesus Name re: Acts 2:38, 8, 19, 22) and receiving the Spirit of Christ. Again, all reitering John 3:3's command to be BORN AGAIN OF WATER AND SPIRIT.

Josh, I don't think Rooster believes that both baptisms happen simoultaneously. I think he's saying that "born of the water and spirit" in John 3:5 is indicating a new birth experience that includes both water baptism and spirit baptism. Though they are distinct events, they're still part of the new birth. But, I'm not speaking for rooster, so he can clarify.

Also, what about Acts 19:1-5 when Paul rebaptized several of John's disciples and then they received the Holy Ghost baptism? And in Acts 10 with Cornelius (Gentiles) Peter still seems to convey an importance of water baptism. And in 1 Corinthians, a simple reading of the first chapter leads us to believe that Paul alludes to baptism in the name of the one who was crucified for them. Not his own name or the name of any other.

In addition, everytime the word baptism is used in the NT doesn't necessarily correspond to either water or spirit baptism. Clearly Jesus, speaking to James and John, uses "baptism" to denote a future suffering/persecution/self-denial that must take place. Here, IMHO "baptism" is used to figuratively describe the suffering that was before Christ and also before James and John.


Josh: we have no mention of Apollos ever being water baptized in the name of Jesus. Just like the apostles and the rest of the 120 in the upper room, the only evidence of Apollos ever being water baptized, is the baptism of John. That means that for all these cases, the apostles, the 120, and Apollos, the water baptism of John was considered by the early Church to be "accredited." Or in other words, the water baptism of John counted and it was not necessary for them to be water baptized a second time, this time in the name of Jesus.

Me :1) ommission (non mention of Apollos being baptized) does not mean it did not happen. It doesn't mention Apollos repenting but we assume he did. 2) the Apostles were not baptized unto John

Jhn 4:1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,

Jhn 4:2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

Jesus already instituted HIS water baptism to which the disciples were baptized. Finally Acts 19 shows that John the Baptist, as great as he was, was not sufficient for baptizing.

Act 19:1 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,

Act 19:2 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.

Act 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

Act 19:4 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.

Act 19:5 When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Act 19:7 And all the men were about twelve.

Paul REBAPTIZES 12 disciples of John IN JESUS NAME and then lays hands on them and they receive a separate baptism in water.

josh: So, as you can see, I dont think there is any difference between the water baptism John the baptist gave, and the one Jesus Gave. Period, they are the exact same thing.

me: absolutely not. John was a baptism of repentance looking forward to Messiah. Jesus was a baptism into his death, a burial for the burying of sins. John was a forerunner, initiating a transition time between the Law and the New Covenant. Jesus IS THE NEW COVENANT.

Josh: Ephesians 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

me: Josh, there is ONE baptism unto new life. Just as a babies birth is not quartered into distinctives neither is a "new babe". A baby isn't considered "alive" after crying but prior to that and throughout the ESSENTIAL birth process. It's all considered ONE birth. Our born again experience is ONE new birth that consists of a death, a burial and a breath of new life. You cannot distinguish which baptism is being spoken of here but you are assuming.

Josh: In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ