# The Nature of John's Baptism



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 6, 2010)

KMK said:


> Sorry for misunderstanding you, Bruce. Do consider John's Baptism to be an OT ordinance, a Christian baptism, or neither?


 
Ken,
I don't think John was doing something that was so "out there," something not fairly readily grasped in connection with the biblical religion the people professed.

But I also think that John was opening the door to the NT, preparing the way; so I think his function is as a hinge. So, I don't see his rite as wholly the one or the other. It partakes of both ages.


----------



## Herald (Nov 6, 2010)

Contra_Mundum said:


> But I also think that John was opening the door to the NT, preparing the way; so I think his function is as a hinge. *So, I don't see his rite as wholly the one or the other. It partakes of both ages.*



Bruce, that may be true, but John's baptism, by necessity, required Christian baptism after conversion. John's baptism was not a Christian baptism even though it may have been transitionary in nature. That's all I'll say on this as I don't want the thread to totally depart from the OP.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 6, 2010)

> John's baptism was not a Christian baptism even though it may have been transitionary in nature. That's all I'll say on this as I don't want the thread to totally depart from the OP.



Just as Abrahamic circumcision wasn't Mosaic? We'd have to start another thread on this.

This current thread is also suggestive concerning the question of baptism with (by) the Spirit into Christ which is symbolised by water baptism. I believe that some/many believers in both Reformed and other churches don't have as good a grip on Romans 6 and the meaning of their baptism as they ought. They understand fairly well the earlier chapters about being justified by faith alone, but Romans 6 is somewhat mysterious to them.

Therefore for some of them when they have a subsequent "experience" e.g. of assurance or whatever, if they are moving in charismatic circles, it gets labelled as "the baptism with the Holy Spirit." 

To the extent that such a thing is a genuine work of God, they've probably come to a better understanding of what happened to them when they were regenerated i.e. of what happened to them when they were baptised with the Spirit by Christ into Himself, ingrafted into all He is and has done, including in particular His death, burial and resurrection.

Yet the Apostle views Romans 6 as basic teaching:
_Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?(Romans 6:3, ESV)_

I think many - even Reformed believers - are well taught that justification is by faith alone in Christ alone through grace alone, but are less well genned-up on what it means that we have died and risen with Christ, and that in Him we have died to sin and to the law as a means of salvation.


----------



## Herald (Nov 6, 2010)

Richard,

John did not baptize in a trinitarian manner. His baptism was one of repentance. This shouldn't even be a paedo-credo disagreement.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 6, 2010)

> This shouldn't even be a paedo-credo disagreement.



We'd probably have to start another thread, but there seem to be disagreements among paedos themselves on John's baptism, so I don't see it firstly as a paedo v. credo thing.



> His baptism was one of repentance.



Christian baptism is a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, too. I think the evangelists weren't contrasting John's baptism with baptism after John, but with the Old Covenant baptisms (?)



> John did not baptize in a trinitarian manner.



We don't know what "formula" (precise words) he used but it would have been in some wording in the Name of God. It was usually accepted as the equivalent of Christian baptism i.e. we do not read of the early disciples being re-baptised in the Christian manner.


----------



## Reformed Roman (Dec 3, 2010)

This is something I can agree with Presbyterians on, when I can it was a "sign of faith". True baptism that is. John's baptist, was I agree, a baptism of repentance.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 5, 2010)

It's interesting that both circumcision and baptism are established sometime before the time of redemption and the establishment of the sacraments commemorating that redemption.

Abraham and the Old Testament visible Church begins to be set apart by circumcision about 430(?) years before the redemption from Egypt and the establishment of the Passover to commemorate that.

The nucleus of the New Testament visible Church begins to be set apart by the baptism of John, and his disciples/Jesus' disciples, about 4(?) years before the redemption from sin and Satan through Christ, and the establishment of the Lord's Supper to commemorate that.

A visible people of God are first set apart by God in circumcision or baptism _in order_ to them - or at least some of them - being redeemed.

Sometimes people are brought within the Visible Church by birth, or other providence, quite some time before they are redeemed.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 6, 2010)

bump

Does this general pattern in redemptive history - of assembling and setting apart a people and then redeeming them - have any implications for individual redemptive history of Christians?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 6, 2010)

Preliminary: this thread was not "started" by me, but looks like a thread broken off another thread. So my response has no connection to my "initial" comment.

Richard,
WADR, I'm not buying this "pattern" you see. It's only a couple examples, and they don't truly parallel, the connection is not at all intuitive, but frankly feels forced.
Sorry, brother.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 6, 2010)

Thanks.


----------

