We’ve used a number of different teaching and preaching styles thus far in our studies in Acts.
We’ve had three-point gospel sermons and five-point sermons on various aspects on Christian living
We’ve had Biblical expositions.
We’ve had historical and geographical lectures.
And we’ve had Bible lessons that were neither expositions nor sermons.
This afternoon, we’re going to employ something different once again.
This will be a modified version of the technique we’ve been using in our Sunday School lessons: questions and answers.
My understanding of this scripture has evolved down through the years.
Of course, I have a lot of principles and doctrines which are uncompromisable.
And there are Baptist doctrines such as immersion and believers baptism.
Then there are hermeneutical principles such as taking a literal approach to the scriptures.
Obviously, some of these apply to this passage and some do not.
because I wasn’t smart enough to come up with an interpretation of my own,
and I was too proud to say that I didn’t know enough.
Today I find it easier to say that there are a lot of things that I don’t know.
And the truth of the matter is: if people would wipe their mental slate clean and start from scratch when it comes to Acts 19, there would be a lot of Baptists who’d get along better.
I can’t say that we’ll all come to the same conclusions when I get finished this afternoon,
but I hope that we’ll all expand our minds and our opinions just a little bit.
And I also hope that we’ll leave a little room for the next guy to disagree with us.
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.
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.
And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him.”
Was Apollos a genuine Christian?
Was it his baptism which made him a child of God?
That is one of my uncompromisables:
It is not baptism which washes away sin, or which makes a person a Christian.
Was Apollos baptized by John the Baptist?
That was highly unlikely.
In addition to the years laying between John the Baptist and Apollos, there were many miles as well.
Apparently, someone who had been under the ministry of John had gone to Alexandria.
That person had taught others about Christ, who in turn had taught and baptized Apollos.
What is the rule of hermeneutics that applies to things which are NOT specifically said in the scriptures?
“Don’t try to build doctrine based upon the silence of the scriptures.”
Do we have any proof that Apollos was ever rebaptized?
Do we have any scriptural hints that Apollos was baptized again?
Is there any circumstantial evidence that Apollos was rebaptized?
Aquilla taught Apollos the way of God more perfectly, but did he tell Apollos that he needed baptism?
When Aquilla and the other brethren wrote to the church in Corinth recommending that they receive Apollos, did they also remind the church that this man needed to be scripturally baptized?
If Apollos was NOT rebaptized, what does this teach us about John’s baptism?
But what was the Holy Spirit’s intention when He told us that Apollos knew only the baptism of John?
I can’t honestly tell you that I know.
John Gill says that this means that Apollos knew nothing about Christ, but except what John knew.
Gill believed that this reference to the baptism of John pointed to John’s entire ministry.
Had there been one of the churches of the Lord Jesus Christ established in Ephesus?
It was possible, but if there was, we are not told.
It is unlikely that there was anyone in Ephesus with scriptural authority to start a church.
and Silas had probably returned to his home in Jerusalem with Paul.
Even if Timothy and Luke had remained in Ephesus, there is no proof that they had authority from either Corinth or Antioch to organize a church there.
These twelve men in Ephesus are called “disciples;” but whose disciples were they?
This is one of the key questions, and one which is not clearly answered.
They appear to have claimed to be disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, because we aren’t told anything to the contrary.
Were these men Gentiles or Jews? It doesn’t really matter.
Were these men converts of Apollos? We are not told and shouldn’t assume that to be the case.
Did these twelve men come under the teaching of the brethren in Ephesus; men like Aquilla or Timothy?
They appear to have been discovered by the Apostle Paul on his return to the city.
What might explain the fact that they apparently hadn’t met Aquilla or the other Christians in Ephesus?
They could have arrived in Ephesus at just about the time that Paul did, from somewhere like Alexandria,
Did Paul ask them if they were Christians?
If he didn’t ask them if they were Christians, should we assume that he thought that they were?
Did Paul ask them on Whom it was that they believed, since they were believers?
Since he didn’t ask about the object of their faith, on whom should we assume that they had believed?
Assuming that they had properly believed on Christ, should we conclude that they were Christians?
Many commentators say that Paul asked: “Did you receive the Holy Ghost when you believed.”
Is that what the translators of our King James Bibles thought Paul meant?
Was Paul asking about something that took place when these men believed or subsequent to their believing on Christ?
So did Paul mean to ask them whether or not they had been indwelt by the Holy Spirit, or if they had been empowered by the Holy Spirit?
If verse 6 can be used to interpret Paul’s question, what was his intention?
How did the men answer Paul’s question?
Does that mean that they hadn’t received miraculous power?
Does that mean that they were totally ignorant when it came to the Holy Spirit?
Had these men been baptized by John the Baptist? It is highly unlikely.
Were they disciples of John?
This is one of the key questions to this passage
Some say that their baptism proves that they were disciples of John and not true disciples of Christ.
Others say that their baptism didn’t change the fact that their faith was in Christ, and that they were just ignorant or untaught.
Did John preach any sort of heresy about Christ?
Was John, himself, a believer on the Lord Jesus Christ?
Was John a saint of God? Yes.
Was John a Christian? Some people say that he was an Old Testament saint and not a Christian.
What did John demand of those who came to him for baptism? Repentance.
Who is the author of genuine repentance? The Lord.
Were those who received John’s teachings about Christ, and who believed on Christ, Christians?
Is there any evidence that any of those who were directly baptized by John were ever rebaptized?
If Christ and His disciples were baptized by John and were never rebaptized, would it be wrong to say that John’s baptism was Christian baptism?
What is the meaning of the words in Acts 19: “they were baptized unto John’s baptism?”
Does it mean that these twelve men had never displayed the fruits of repentance?
They had believed on Christ, but they were baptized in the name of the Baptist rather than in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
If this was the case, then they had received three-quarter baptism:
But they were being baptized upon the authority of John.
that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
What did Paul mean when he said that John “baptized with the baptism of repentance?”
That John baptized only people who displayed repentance in their lives.
Is Christian baptism today any different in this area?
Did John demand anything else from his candidates for baptism?
Yes, they had to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Does our church demand anything less than this today?
What do these things say about the relationship between our baptism and John’s baptism?
What does verse 5 SPECIFICALLY say about the rebaptism of these twelve men?
“They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
Many think that verse 5 suggests these men had not learned what Paul said about John’s ministry.
They say that these men were baptized because they had not been saved prior to this time.
I have made that argument myself.
Isn’t there other evidence that these men really were true disciples of Christ,
and that they still needed to be scripturally baptized?
Do these verses say that those men FINALLY understood, and that they FINALLY believed on Christ?
Do these verses conclusively prove that these men were not Christians before their meeting with Paul?
Were these twelve men Christians when Paul laid his hands upon them?
What evidence is there of that?
So why does the Holy Spirit bring this little bit of history to our attention?