Baptism = Immersion?

[providenceboard]

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]

Figures. (crawling, crawling)

 

[MW]

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]

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.

Blessings!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

Where can one read about/see these?

Ditto.

Jay,

Thanks brother that means more than you know!

L

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

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]

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon

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!

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]

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]