# Baptism = Immersion?



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 18, 2006)

I heard this claim all of my life, and still hear it from all my local Baptist friends.

However, from what I can tell, "immerse" in Greek is "buthiste" not "baptizo." Am I missing something?


----------



## Croghanite (Aug 18, 2006)

I am also a little bit confused on the subject as far as the Reformed belief goes. We are shown in scripture of people , including Christ, being immersed under the water. We are also told of being buried with Him in baptism and being raised with Him through faith (Col 2: 11&12. It seems through example and analogies, there is scripture support for immersion. 

Can anyone explain why we dont Baptize with immersion?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 18, 2006)

There's a little bit about mode here.

Officially mode is indifferent, but personally sprinkling seems to be the biblical mode.

Nothing in the narrative of Jesus' baptism, taken as written, requires that he was immersed. Ditto for the Ethiopian eunuch.

Baptizo is the Greek verb. There are 4 vols by R W Dale on it and it's still unclear as to whether it means immerse or spring definitively! 

In 1 Cor 10 Paul says that the Israelites were "baptized" into Moses, but they were not immersed. The only ones who were immersed were Pharaoh and his host. Ditto for everybody but Noah. The Israelites went through on dry ground. It was a mostly dry baptism with some spray perhaps.

There are examples (a pattern even) of sprinkling under Moses, e.g., blood was sprinkled on the people. See also Lev 14:51 and 19:18. See the use of Nazah in Ex 29:21. The Bapt* root doesn't occur often in the LXX and at least one use might seem to favor immersion (2 King 5:14; but it isn't entirely clear - he washed but the ESV's "dipped" is a bit tendentious given the context). Isa 21:4 in the LXX is mysterious, but "overwhelmed" might work. 

Sprinkling re-occurs in Heb 9:21 to describe ritual washing. It's used metaphorically in 10:22. 11:28 is interesting in this regard. The root idea of ritual identification with death is embedded here and he speaks of sprinkling. Ditto for 12:24. 1 Peter 1:2 uses the same form of speech. It's hard not to connect those "sprinkling" passages with baptism in some way. 

There are arguments too about rabbinical usage and the ritual cleansing of couches/sofas. It's pretty hard to immerse them and bapt*root verbs are said to have been used in that context.

The sum is that there is genuine biblical evidence for sprinkling as ritual washing and identification with death. Baptism is both of those. 

Certainly the case for immersion is not nearly as strong as some assume. 

rsc





> _Originally posted by LAYMAN JOE_
> I am also a little bit confused on the subject as far as the Reformed belief goes. We are shown in scripture of people , including Christ, being immersed under the water. We are also told of being buried with Him in baptism and being raised with Him through faith (Col 2: 11&12. It seems through example and analogies, there is scripture support for immersion.
> 
> Can anyone explain why we dont Baptize with immersion?


----------



## Kevin (Aug 18, 2006)

Joe, I must have missed that part about Christ being immersed. 

I have a 2 step program for getting back to the Biblical mode of Baptism.

Step 1) Start by reading Heb ch 9. Look up all the OT passages that describe what the (inspired) author of Hebrews called "baptisms". 

Step2) Then find a passage (OT or NT) that changes the mode.

Result; Baptism=immersion.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Aug 18, 2006)

One small starter that´s quick: You could go to the Isaiah reference the in which the eunuch passage in Acts chapter 8, cross reference back to Isaiah (53) in the OT where the eunuch is reading and pan back to chapter 52 and read, "œThus He will SPRINKLE many nations,". Where the eunuch would have gotten the idea for baptism. Rather than "œthey went down and came up" rationalization driving the mode.

Ldh


----------



## bob (Aug 18, 2006)

I am an elder in a Baptist church - so obviously our mode is always to baptize by immersion. If you will promise not to tell any of my Baptist friends, the "mountain" of the debate over mode is not one that I deem necessary to die upon. 

Charles Hodge mention on p 527 that the classic use of the word baptizo is to 1) immerse or submerge 2) To overflow with water 3) To wet thoroughly, to moisten 4)To pour upon or drench. There seems to me to be enough inferences and descriptions in Scripture that I am content that immersion is a lawful and acceptable mode. Are there Presbytereans that would disagree this remark? I would go beyond that, however, in that I am most comfortable with the biblical argument for immersion. I understand the argument for pouring and do not rule it completely out.

Having said that, I am not convinced that I must consider pouring as an unacceptable mode. I would be reluctant to insist that one who was baptized as a believer be rebaptized because they were baptized by way of pouring rather than immersion. 

Just don't tell any of my Baptist friends!


----------



## Croghanite (Aug 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Kevin_
> Joe, I must have missed that part about Christ being immersed. .



Matthew 3:16 "When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold the heavens were opened to Him..."
likewise in Mark 1: 10

I come from a Baptist background and now subject myself to the PCA's teachings. I intend to have my children baptized by sprinkling in two weeks. Just today infact, the thought of Immersion came ito mind. I was taught that Crist was immersed, people went to rivers to be immersed, and the analogy of being burried with Him and risen up conclusion.

How do you interprete Christ "comming up from the water". He is in a river or next to a river, being baptized either by sprinkling or immersion. It seems logical that the people went to a river to be fully immersed.


----------



## Greg (Aug 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by LAYMAN JOE_
> How do you interprete Christ "comming up from the water".





> Matthew 3:16 "When He _had been_ baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water



He could still "come up from the water" even if He stood waist deep without being entirely submersed couldn't He?

If one is baptized in a natural body of water by being sprinkled, poured, or immersed, then when the baptism is finished the last thing that happens is that you "come up from the water" onto the shore from where you entered that body of water.

[Edited on 8-18-2006 by Greg]


----------



## Croghanite (Aug 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Greg_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by LAYMAN JOE_
> ...



It is either exactly as you said it or Christ was immersed and upon His baptism "immediately" comming up from the water, He was filled with the Holy Spirit. 

It seems like more of a stretch to say that Christ stood in the water and John sprinkled (baptized) Him and then walking out of the water the Spirit descended upon Him. I would think immediately after the baptism, the Spirit descended upon Him. That seems more logical considering the analogy of being buried and raised up with Him.

I dont know. I submit myself to the Elders over me. Having recently abandoning Arminianism and accepting the true Gospel, I have to review my stance on everything.

[Edited on 8-19-2006 by LAYMAN JOE]


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 18, 2006)

Our Lord Jesus, John the Baptist, the Apostle Paul were all adherants of Believer's Baptism.


----------



## Ivan (Aug 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> Our Lord Jesus, John the Baptist, the Apostle Paul were all adherants of Believer's Baptism.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 18, 2006)

The text says  baptisqei.j de. o` VIhsou/j euvqu.j avne,bh avpo. tou/ u[datoj  

The aorist passive ptc  baptisqei.j  signals the circumstance in which came away from the water. 

The text never actually says that Jesus was immersed. To conclude that he was immersed, from this text, one would have to draw an inference from the phrase, "came up away from the water." The question is whether such an inference is necessary or intended?

The preposition   avpo.  signals a coming away from a body of water, not the coming _out_ from immersion in water. How else would Matthew say that Jesus moved away from where John was?

Let's assume that John was practicing effusion. In order for effusion to occur, in that cirucmstance (John baptizing) Jesus had to be in proxmity to John and water. Matthew uses the verb   avne,bh  because of the relative geography not to signal immersion.

Given the relative frequency of effusion (often of blood) in the Hebrew Scriptures, why should we assume immersion?

Theologically, the parallel between the water baptism and the anointing of and by the Spirit should not be overlooked. Was Jesus "immersed" in the Spirit or is effusion a better way of thinking of the act of the Spirit? I think the latter is better. The image, of course, is avian. The Spirit was like a bird that "came to rest" upon him   evrco,menon evpV auvto,n\  . Mark and Luke use the verb "to descend." When David was anointed (1 Sam 16:13) was he "immersed" or was oil effused upon him? Clearly the latter and this is the background for the anointing/baptism by the Spirit.

The narrative of Jesus' baptism only implies immersion if one assumes such prior to coming to it. 

rsc


----------



## providenceboard (Aug 19, 2006)

I found this interesting:

http://www.cprf.co.uk/articles/christimmersed.htm

Simply put, Christ was not baptized for the forgiveness of sins, but to "fulfill all rightousness" by being baptised into the priesthood at the beginning of His earthly ministry (according to Numbers 8).

-Jeff


----------



## Croghanite (Aug 19, 2006)

This thread has been very helpfull to me.

Mr. R. Scott Clark, 

Can you elaborate on the parallel between the mode of Baptism and the picture we are given of being buried and raised up through faith in Christ. I think that parallel is one of the main reasons why people subscribe to immersed baptism. I have been told that we are given that picture to describe what is going on in being baptized. Therefore immersion is the way to go. I need clarification on this please.Thanks.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 19, 2006)

If "buried" = immersion, then how could circumcision signify death? Neverthless, circumcision (as opposed to a more radical act!) signified death.

The Israelites "died" to Egypt symbolically but they were not immersed. Noah and his family died to the whole world, but they were not immersed. 

Whenever blood was sprinkled, Israelites died symbolically. Effusion symbolizes death routinely in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Blessings,

rsc




> _Originally posted by LAYMAN JOE_
> This thread has been very helpfull to me.
> 
> Mr. R. Scott Clark,
> ...


----------



## Herald (Aug 19, 2006)

> Romans 6:4 4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.



The imagery of baptism in this passage is unmistakable. Burial was always underneath the earth. This is one of (not the only) reasons I hold to immersion of believers.


----------



## MW (Aug 19, 2006)

Actually, they were laid *on* the earth, not *in* it, being placed inside tombs.

There is no visible resemblance between the sign and the thing signified apart from what baptism actually means, which is a "washing." The word contains no hint of the mode of washing, and its use in the NT will show that the baptising/washing can be accomplished by means of dipping or sprinkling.

Immersionists are inconsistent. They do not sit down to eat a whole meal of bread and wine for the Lord's supper, but are content to accept portions of these elements in place of the whole. The same applies to baptism -- a part stands for the whole: "He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit."


----------



## Larry Hughes (Aug 19, 2006)

> Just don't tell any of my Baptist friends!



Bob,

That's funny. Believe it or not there are many just like you. My closest brother and friend in the faith whom I work with daily is pretty much in your position. He basically sees that forcing it as immersion only (or any other mode only) is making it a law which tends to obscure baptism's Gospel and promise. Although, he has caught the eye of many other baptist friends.

He told me of a time back when he was preaching and baptized a young lady (around 12), during her baptism part of the liturgy/teaching he gave with it and to her was that this was God's promise, faithfulness and Gospel to her and so forth. After the service he was approached by some (including deacons) and they said, "That's not what we believe." I told him, "They said a mouthful didn't they." He agreed.

Ldh

[Edited on 8-20-2006 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Greg_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by LAYMAN JOE_
> ...



As well:

Acts 8:34-40 34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. 39 And when *they* were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea. 

Either they walked together out of the water post baptism or both were baptised; baptizee and baptiser.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Aug 19, 2006)

> How do you interprete Christ "comming up from the water". He is in a river or next to a river, being baptized either by sprinkling or immersion. It seems logical that the people went to a river to be fully immersed.



It´s also quite logical that water runs down hill per the law of gravity. In college two fellow students and myself in a graduate hydrogeology course had a short research project to do and write. With out going into details it involved as part of the data gathering efforts taking stream/river current flow measurements. This is done a lot of ways but our method involved using a current meter in which one transects a straight section of the stream at equilateral distances across. Taking a measurement. It involved the three of us (Nick, James, and myself). I took the measurements, Nick and James stayed on the bank and recorded what I would read and shout out to them (I was the sucker that didn´t mind getting wet). Anyway, we would correctly describe the event in language and writing as such, "œWe went down into the stream/river"¦(after the readings) came up." Yet, neither Nick nor James so much as touched the water and I never submerged once, although I did get neck deep one time which was a little rough. The point is "“ is that due to the physics of flowing water (living water in the Bible), in order for it to be flowing it has a high and low gravitational energy situation to be resolved. This we observe and experience as "œflow down hill". Topographically ALL flowing water (that is not energetically stagnant) in ANY given area is locally the lowest topographical point. ANY topographic map you look at you will find this to be true, not to mention experientially. Thus, it is quite naturally linguistically to speak of "œgoing down into the water or area body of water that is flowing, and coming up out of it." Yet, no one need be immersed to speak this way.

The major point is "“ is that to assume a "œmode" from this is rationalizing it rather than seeing what Scripture speaks of. The best example of this is the account of the Eunuch in which a "œrationalization" drives many persons interpretation of the mode of baptism here, yet if we reference the text the Eunuch is reading we find "œsprinkling" recorded in the Word of God. Even if we rationalize it, the best rationalization doesn't even lean towards immersion but as I've already described.

Having said that I firmly believe mode to ONLY be an incorrect issue when a mode is insisted upon, then it becomes legal and a Law rather that Gospel. Immersion if fine, so is sprinkling, effusion and so forth. If there were sprinklers only, I´d argue against them on that basis.

Ldh

[Edited on 8-19-2006 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## msortwell (Aug 19, 2006)

First, I would like it understood that I am a Baptist. But I hold this view because I see it as the position best substantiated in Holy writ. However, as some have already pointed out, it should not be a position based upon a conclusion that the language requires it. Consider the following . . .

Mark 7:4, And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. KJV

Mark 7:4, kaÃ­ ap agorÃ¡s eÃ¡n-meÃ© baptÃ­soontai ouk esthÃ­ousin KaÃ­ Ã¡lla pollÃ¡ estin hÃ¡ parÃ©labon krateÃ­n baptismoÃºs poteerÃ­oon kaÃ­ xestoÃ³n kaÃ­ chalkÃ­oon kaÃ­ klinoÃ³n 

Am I to understand that my fellow Baptists believe that the Jew had a regular practice of immersing tables? It does not seem so.

To my fellow Baptists . . . is there something about the translation of baptismoÃºs that would differentiate it sufficiently from other forms of baptizo to claim that this verse does not undermine the position that baptism always refers to immersion?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 19, 2006)

Michael,
Were the Israelites whom were baptized in the red sea immersed? As Larry mentioned, If I understand what he is saying, mode is irrelevant.

[Edited on 8-20-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Aug 19, 2006)

That's correct, what I was saying. I was immersed as a Baptist. My children actually had more of a cupping/pouring "anointing" mode if you really want to get technical about the action taking place.

In terms of just flat out explicit text, the one's that started me thinking years ago; there's the Red Sea reference to baptism and "mode" (two in that case), Noah and the flood, the four Gospels referencing the future baptism of the Holy Spirit and in the beginning in Acts, which when it occurs is a pouring out.

On the rationally derived "œproofs" of mode (e.g. the Eunuch), these were first time events themselves. That is to say the Eunuch couldn't reference his own account in the book of Acts to derive a mode because Acts wasn't penned yet. The reason I say that is that sets forth the prominence of the OT for this, that's what they had in hand to read and reference.

Some might then argue that this was unnecessary because someone was there in authority with the Eunuch to tell him what mode was the only mode. You have to keep in mind when you make it an "only mode" you raise the importance of it. And I point that out because if it is an "only this mode" or it is not at all, which would be highly important if true, the Scriptures would not be so "hope you can rationally derive it" from a situation that could be understood a number of ways. In short the Scriptures would not be ambiguous. If it was an "only this mode" or not at all, then one would think this would be very explicitly cleared up. Again, it is when you make it an "only this" item does it rise to a preeminent level needing explicit address or guidance...like justification by grace alone through faith alone (that's why Paul is black and white on that issue and show only "one way, truth and life").

Ldh


----------



## Larry Hughes (Aug 19, 2006)

If one were to derive from the language the mode of baptism, then one must conclude from the weatherman that the geocentric earth model is correct. For every weatherman I know on television, radio or written media speaks of "œSunrise was at ____ this morning and Sunset was at ____ this evening." Of course the sun never rises or sets, the earth revolves around it. And even more to the point the use of the combined language terms "œsunrise" and "œsunset" do not mean in this use what they literally mean in the English language. If one attempted to use their meanings according to exact literalness rather than their real usage, then one would come to an absurd conclusion. This goes back to how "œbaptism" is being used within the Bible even without considering one way or the other the Greek definition of it.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Aug 20, 2006)

When Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, was he immersed in the waters of the Jordan.

For instance, Mark 1:10. "And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:" John the Baptist could have poured water on him and the coming up out of the water could be referring to his walking back toward the shore and up the bank.

I think it's also interesting that Jesus "began to be about 30 years of age" (Luke 3:23) and in the account in Numbers, the minimum age taken for consecration to the priesthood was 30 (Numbers 4:3). Part of that consecration involved sprinkling. And Jesus Christ is our great high Priest.

Note also the connection between this and the cleansing of the Temple. Pharisees ask, "By what authority?" He puts the question back on them about the baptism of John! If they admitted that the baptism of John was of God, they would have had to admit that he had authority to cleanse the temple.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Aug 20, 2006)

Good points also.


Matthew 21:24-26 
24Jesus said to them, "I will also ask you one thing, which if you tell Me, I will also tell you by what authority I do these things. 
25"The baptism of John was from what source, from heaven or from men?" And they began reasoning among themselves, saying, "If we say, 'From heaven,' He will say to us, 'Then why did you not believe him?' 
26"But if we say, 'From men,' we fear the people; for they all regard John as a prophet." 

Jay,

And what is interesting about the Matthew 21 passage is that Jesus asks in light of His authority for doing these things what the SOURCE of the baptism is from heaven or men, note that He does not say the source is the recipient´s faith or repentance for the baptism or that the lack of such would "œnullify it". Rather what any baptism is based upon, not on the part of the recipient but the one issuing it.

When pastor´s today are mandated by the authority of God´s Word in light of their calling to do this, baptize, that is give God´s name to an adult or infant, then it is the same as God doing it, and NOT the work of man. Like a king that sends his servants out to do something, they carry out his mandate just as if he himself were doing it. Only a foolish servant would then say, "œThis is my work and not the kings mandate."

Ldh

[Edited on 8-21-2006 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## providenceboard (Aug 20, 2006)

Along the same lines as Jay (above) are Baptists able to answer these questions:

First, can a Baptist give a reason for Luke's mentioning the age of Christ at his Baptism as Jay was able to give above? 

Secondly, I know that a Baptist would agree that Christ's baptism marked the beginning of his earthly ministry, but does a Baptist see the Lord's baptism as an entrance into the earthly priesthood in obedience to Numbers 4? If His baptism was not an entrance into the preisthood, then why does a Baptist say that Christ was baptised? Certainly a baptist would not see it as a baptism for the forgiveness of sins, or because Christ had just become regenerate and so needed to become baptised. What I mean is that certainly it was not a believer's baptism like many baptisms that would follow. I am just wondering how a Baptist explains these things.

Also, how does a Baptist explain Christ's baptism as "fulfill(ing) all rightousness" as Christ said it would do? If fulfilling rightousness is obeying the Law, then was not Christ obeying the law in being baptised? What law would that be? When He was 30 years old? At the beginning of his ministry? While being baptised by a John, himself a priest? What could the baptism of Christ be other than the official baptism into the priesthood. How does a Baptist explain the baptism as "fulfill(ing) all rightousness"?

Finally if Christ's baptism was not into the priesthood, then as jay asks above, why does he defend his right to cleanse the temple by pointing to his baptism? Q - "œBy what authority doest thou these things?" A - "œI "¦ will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? From heaven, or of men?" How does a Baptist explain Christ's baptism by a priest as giving Him the authority of a priest if Christ's baptism was not into the priesthood?

The point is that if Christ's baptism was according the the Law, and into the priesthood, then He would have been sprinkled:

Numbers 8:6-7 "Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them. And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them "¦"

I used to be a Baptist, but I have never heard a Baptist explanation of these passages. 


Jeff


----------



## MW (Aug 20, 2006)

The line of thinking being pursued concerns me a little, and I am wondering if it is proving too much. Christ is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, hence not in the line of Aaronic successsion. He also never served in the earthly tabernacle; His earthly lineage being derived from Judah, not Levi. Hence it is safer to say that His priesthood is eschatological, and His anointing to it was manifested in the descent of the Spirit at His baptism.

The usual reformed interpretation of "fulfil all righteousness" in the context of a baptism of repentance is that Christ identified with the sinfulness of His people. He came "in the likeness of sinful flesh." Hence "fulfil all righteousness" is to be understood in terms of representing His sinful people. His subsequent temptation was therefore a representative probation as the second Adam/Israel.

Blessings!


----------



## Croghanite (Aug 20, 2006)

enlightening


----------



## providenceboard (Aug 21, 2006)

> Christ is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, hence not in the line of Aaronic successsion. He also never served in the earthly tabernacle; His earthly lineage being derived from Judah, not Levi.



I agree that Christ also was a priest, but not a normal priest, because He, like Melchizedek was not of Arron's line.



> Hence it is safer to say that His priesthood is eschatological, and His anointing to it was manifested in the descent of the Spirit at His baptism.



Well, I could not deny that His priesthood was eschatological, and I would agree that the Spirit decended on him at his baptism.



> The usual reformed interpretation of "fulfil all righteousness" in the context of a baptism of repentance is that Christ identified with the sinfulness of His people



While you are Begging the Question here, you may well be correct that it is the "usual reformed interpretation" I really do not know. To be honest I just read this argument off of the PRC(in America) website just a few weeks ago, and found it very interesting. I guess that I have an easier time understanding all of the above passages that I or Jay mentioned as pointing to Christ's baptism as a priesthood baptism than as you put it, a baptism of repentance. How would you explain what Christ said when cleansing the temple?

Anyway, if it is indeed the "usual reformed interpretation of Christ's baptism, then I will happily crawl back into my corner . Thanks! Jeff


----------



## providenceboard (Aug 21, 2006)

> Anyway, if it is indeed the "usual reformed interpretation of Christ's baptism, then I will happily crawl back into my corner .



Jeff,

I just checked Calvin, and he agrees with Rev. Winzer . Thought you would like to know


----------



## providenceboard (Aug 21, 2006)

Figures. (crawling, crawling)


----------



## MW (Aug 21, 2006)

We are all learning in Christ's school; there is no shame in it. Concerning the authority question, it might best be regarded as an ad hominem, e.g., you are not entitled to ask me about authority, when you do not understand the nature of authority, as is clear from your rejection of the baptism of John.

[Edited on 8-21-2006 by armourbearer]


----------



## jaybird0827 (Aug 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> The line of thinking being pursued concerns me a little, and I am wondering if it is proving too much. Christ is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, hence not in the line of Aaronic successsion. He also never served in the earthly tabernacle; His earthly lineage being derived from Judah, not Levi. Hence it is safer to say that His priesthood is eschatological, and His anointing to it was manifested in the descent of the Spirit at His baptism.
> 
> The usual reformed interpretation of "fulfil all righteousness" in the context of a baptism of repentance is that Christ identified with the sinfulness of His people. He came "in the likeness of sinful flesh." Hence "fulfil all righteousness" is to be understood in terms of representing His sinful people. His subsequent temptation was therefore a representative probation as the second Adam/Israel.
> ...





> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> We are all learning in Christ's school; there is no shame in it. Concerning the authority question, it might best be regarded as an ad hominem, e.g., you are not entitled to ask me about authority, when you do not understand the nature of authority, as is clear from your rejection of the baptism of John.
> 
> [Edited on 8-21-2006 by armourbearer]



Rev. Winzer,

I stand corrected, and thank you for your gentle correction of my misunderstanding on this. I know that you have studied these things diligently and defer to your instruction.

Unfortunately I had picked the ideas I had posted from a sermon I heard some years back from a man who held the teaching office in a reformed and presbyterian congregation and thought it made sense.

Jeff and Larry, I apologize for the confusion I may have caused for said "interesting point". I resolve to be more watchful as far as checking these thing out v. a reliable commentary as the particular thing I posted does not seem to square with historic interpretation.

Have a blessed week, brethren.


----------



## Kevin (Aug 21, 2006)

Rev. Winzer, What then is your explanation of "fulfill all righteousness" and the meaning of Jesus citing of Johns baptism as a justification for his doing the work of a priest in clearing the temple?

Calvin notwithstanding I still find this explanation of the Baptism of Jesus to be the the one that best takes acount of all of the data.


----------



## MW (Aug 21, 2006)

We must remember that our Lord assumed a human nature which, while itself sinless, was nevertheless consecrated a sin offering, and bound to "fulfil all righteousness" by the sacrifice of itself for the sins of God's people. Christ's baptism was a public demonstration of that principle. He also declared that His baptism related to His vicarious sufferings and death, which He alone could undergo. Hence He comes to John to fulfil the OT law of ceremonial washing, as a symbol of His sanctifying Himself in order that He might perfect His people through the sacrifice of Himself.

Concerning the cleansing of the temple, I don't see the connection with Christ's baptism by John. The question of authority seems to have been raised in the context of Christ teaching in the temple. The reference to John's baptism served the purpose of showing the inadequacy of His interlocutors' concept of authority.


----------



## Kevin (Aug 22, 2006)

Thanks, But...I still have a question. You seem to be saying that Christs baptism is an OT "ceremonial cleansing" related to his role as the sacrifice for our sins. Do I understand this right?


----------



## Larry Hughes (Aug 22, 2006)

Jay,

Nothing wrong with asking questions or in the form of a comment or even pressing it hard to the limit to get at the truth. How else do we learn? 

Not that you did this, but similarly if I had a dollar for every time I misunderstood an item, I'd be a millionare as they say, nay, Bill Gates arch rival!

Blessings to you in Christ alone,

Larry


----------



## MW (Aug 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Kevin_
> Thanks, But...I still have a question. You seem to be saying that Christs baptism is an OT "ceremonial cleansing" related to his role as the sacrifice for our sins. Do I understand this right?



Partially. Christ's baptism was unique, as was His death as represented in His baptism. It is the meeting point of Old and New Testament. Hence it fulfilled the OT ceremonial washings, and at the same time consecrated baptism as the NT ordinance which signifies and seals the benefits of the covenant of grace. Blessings.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Aug 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Jay,
> 
> Nothing wrong with asking questions or in the form of a comment or even pressing it hard to the limit to get at the truth. How else do we learn?
> ...



Thank you for your kind words, brother. Obviously you read between the lines. I have been trying to get at the truth for years. I especially appreciated Rev. Winzer's response because he not only made it clear but he did so in a shepherding way. I am glad that you are on this message board as well, as I have found your messages to be one of my sources of encouragement here. God bless.

Cheers ~~ _Jay_


----------



## dannyhyde (Aug 24, 2006)

Shameless plug time: I have an entire chapter in my forthcoming book book, due out Oct. 1, on the mode of baptism. I deal with all the relevant texts and arguments.

One question I have for the Baptists among us is this: if the mode of baptism is necessary to its administration, then why is the mode of the Lord's Supper not a necessary element to its administration? Why is not necessary to be in an upper room, reclining around a table, using a common cup, etc.?

Here is a link to the book preview: http://dannyhyde.squarespace.com/Jesus-loves-the-little-childre/


----------



## AdamM (Aug 24, 2006)

If I recall correctly, the sort of baptismals recently discovered by archeologists in the earliest Christian churches clearly were not being used for immersion, since they look more like a shower stall base. However, the design does appear well suited for water being sprinkled or poured (take your pick) over the head of the person being baptized.


----------



## dannyhyde (Aug 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> If I recall correctly, the sort of baptismals recently discovered by archeologists in the earliest Christian churches clearly were not being used for immersion, since they look more like a shower stall base. However, the design does appear well suited for water being sprinkled or poured (take your pick) over the head of the person being baptized.



Where can one read about/see these?


----------



## Larry Hughes (Aug 24, 2006)

> Where can one read about/see these?



Ditto.

Jay,

Thanks brother that means more than you know!

L


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 24, 2006)

> analogy of being buried and raised up with Him.



Who determines the length of the anaology. If one would follow it strictly - 1) Jesus was entombed, not buried, so baptism would be floating ont he water, and 2) he was in there for 3 days.  If its by immersion, man, hold your breath!


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> 
> 
> > analogy of being buried and raised up with Him.
> ...


 Well keep holding your breath, because Presbyterians expect you to believe that the baptism ordiance squarely supplants circumcision. Circumcision is just for males.... Baptism is for both men and women of faith. Silly Presbyterians.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Aug 24, 2006)

The immersion only argument is shear rationalism from every angle and in reality stands about as much scrutiny as two men starring at a blue sky and one saying to the other, "it's not blue".

The mode of immersion only needing to argue and twist the obvious burial mode, if you will, of Christ is its self on the brink of absurdity in order to sustain itself. It's kind of like the argument that "to a hammer every thing looks like a nail", when in reality its not.

Whether it "pictures more literally a death and burial form", which even under rationalization it doesn't, but even if that is allowed it totally misses and diverts the real significance (as do all forms of works juxtaposed against grace) of the conscience of the believer. Baptisms significance lies not in "does it better literally picture a physical form of burial that entails burial and covering into the earth" (which is rationally arguable one way or the other) and thus regeneration. Rather its true significance lies in the FACT that baptism is being put into and linked to the death and burial and rising of the Christ, HIS crucifixion, HIS death and HIS life "for me" the baptized. And that is why it is a sacrament and FOR faith and a Gospel sign, and not a law sign (act of obedience to "gain something" or "prove something"). To divert the attention to its "literalness" in mimicing one physical form of burial and rising, is to divert it away from Christ where the linkage is to clearly remain.

The folly of one resting in & arguing for the form of baptism better mimicing A form of physical burial versus fixing one on its clear linkage to Christ "for me" where rest, assurance and faith are only found is, seriously, too puerile to address.

Ldh

[Edited on 8-26-2006 by Larry Hughes]

[Edited on 8-26-2006 by Larry Hughes]


----------

