Our Lutheran dogmaticians (Chemnitz, Gerhard, Aegidius Hunnius, etc.) have always identified the baptism of John with that of the Christian Church so far as its purpose and efficacy are concerned. Modern theologians have censured this “essential and complete identification” of the two (Thomasius, Dogmatik, IY, 10). However, our older dogmaticians based their teaching on firm Scriptural ground; for according to Scripture John’s Baptism was a true means of grace, possessing both the vis dativa and vis effeciva of Christian baptism.
The holy evangelists tell us expressly that John preached the “Baptism of repentance for the remission of sins,” Mark 1, 4; Luke 3, 3, just as St. Peter on Pentecost, following the instructions of our Lord, preached Baptism “for the remission of sins,” Acts 2, 38. For this reason John’s baptism must be regarded as identical with that which Christ instituted at a later time, as our older dogmaticians rightly affirmed.
Since John the Baptist was the way-preparer for Christ and appeared in the name of the Lord, Luke 1, 76—79, his baptism was no less by divine command than was his preaching, John 1, 32—36; 5, 33—35. Hence also John’s baptism was “water comprehended in God’s command and connected with God’s word” and as such a true means of grace.
To-day the question is, of course, of no practical importance, since the baptism of John is no longer in use. But the early Christian Church had to reckon with it, and Scripture records an instance where “certain disciples” who had been baptized “unto John’s baptism” were at St. Paul’s instigation ‘^baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,” Acts 19,1—6. The reason why this was done is quite evident. While the baptism of John was a true Sacrament, it was valid only during the time of preparation, until Christ should appear and finish His work. After Pentecost therefore the baptism of John no longer had any value, just as the Old Testament Sacrament of Circumcision, though still practised by the Jewish Christians, became a mere ceremony. (Kretzmann, Popular Commentary, Vol. 1, 630.)
Moreover, we may not be wrong in assuming that the "certain disciples” at Ephesus had not been baptized by John himself, but by some of his followers, who discarded their master’s command to join Jesus as "the Lamb of God,” John 1, 35—37; Matt. 9,14.15; Luke 5,33. The "disciples of John,” refusing to accept Jesus as the promised Savior, had therefore degenerated to a Judaistic sect, so that their baptism, properly speaking, was no longer "the baptism of John,” but a godless "opposition baptism.” (Acts 19,2: "We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost”; cp. with John 1,33: "The same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.”) John’s witness of Christ evidently was no longer known to them.
There is yet another way of interpreting this passage, according to which Paul did not baptize these "certain disciples” at all, but merely laid his hands on them, whereupon they received the Holy Ghost. According to this interpretation, v. 5 gives the words of Paul, and not those of Luke, so that Paul here relates what the people did when they heard John the Baptist urging them to believe on Christ Jesus. In other words, when the people heard the preaching of John the Baptist concerning Christ, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, a fact which Paul here quotes to confirm the baptism of John. This simple interpretation has much in its favor, though it is quite commonly rejected by modern exegetes.
For the sake of completeness we may add that our older dogmaticians carefully distinguish the baptismus fiuminis, or the "water baptism,” which Christ instituted for the remission of sins. Matt. 28,19; Mark 16,15.16, from the baptismus flaminis, or the outpouring of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, Acts 1, 5, and from the baptismus sanguinis, or martyrdom. Matt. 20, 22. It is understood, of course, that only the first is a true Sacrament and that in all other cases the term baptism is employed in a wider, or figurative, sense.