It is impossible to convince a Mormon that he is wrong!

[Michael Wrenn]

Ooooo, I see a "check". Nice move :thumbsup:

Well, then my response to him was a checkmate since the oldest and most reliable manuscripts do not contain Mark 16:9-20, as I stated.

 

[The Biblicist]

Brother Biblicist,

You are absolutely correct that you cannot build a doctrine on one verse. A good example is this verse "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church". By the one verse you might think that Christ built his church on Peter. He did not. That is why you have to read ALL the verses on a certain topic BEFORE you form a doctrinal position.

How about this idea: I will start with the first chapter of Mark and post every verse, one at a time, that includes the words "salvation,, save, baptism, baptize," or any discussion of water in the context of a spiritual event. We can all give our interpretations of each verse. If we would all keep an open mind until we have read ALL the verses, maybe we could come to an agreement on the literal interpretation of the Bible. I promise not to bring in the ECF if you promise not to bring in outside verses to interpret the plain, simple interpretation of each verse. Deal?

You are failing to understand another vital and common sense rule of hermeneutics. The Divine Purpose for any given book of the scriptures. If every book of the Bible had the same Divine purpose for producing it then what a boring and repetitious Bible.

Second, you are attempting to deal with a TOPIC [baptism] and so you have two problems confronting your narrow choice of the gospel of Mark. By limiting it to Mark you have chosen to ignore the vast amount of Biblical material concerning that subject AND you are assuming the purpose for the book of Mark is to define the relationship between baptism and salvation - I think not!

Third, you are also attempting to define salvation in connection with baptism and so any fair and balanced approach to scripture must also take into account the clear and unambiguous precepts and teachings of scripture concerning the basics of salvation.

Fourth, in dealing with baptism you are dealing with the topic of divine ordinances and so any fair and balanced approach must consider the overall teaching of God's divine purpose of external ordinances in relationship to salvation.

Finally, your problem is that you want to narrow, restrict and simplify what is broad, far reaching and sometimes complex. Thus you don't want to do the "work" of rightly dividing the Word of Truth and that is why I called sacramentalists "lazy" and "irresponsible" exegetes.

 

[Revmitchell]

The most reliable early manuscripts do not contain Mark 16:9-20.

I cannot even begin to explain how this misrepresents this issue altogether. There are only two early manuscripts that do not include this. But no scholar anywhere will deny there are legitimate arguments made to support the existence of these verses.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I cannot even begin to explain how this misrepresents this issue altogether. There are only two early manuscripts that do not include this. But no scholar anywhere will deny there are legitimate arguments made to support the existence of these verses.

It definitely does not misrepresent the issue. I am showing that it is unwise to try to establish doctrine on a verse that is not included in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts.

Here is what the NIV Bible says about it: "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16: 9-20."

And the NASB: "Some of the oldest manuscripts omit from verse 9 through 20."

I will quote an excerpt from Westcott and Hort ( and will add the rest if necessary): "It (the addition, vv. 9-20) manifestly cannot claim any apostolic authority..."

So, if you want to argue and discount what I said, go argue with the Bible translators.

 

[Revmitchell]

It definitely does not misrepresent the issue. I am showing that it is unwise to try to establish doctrine on a verse that is not included in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts.

Here is what the NIV Bible says about it: "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16: 9-20."

And the NASB: "Some of the oldest manuscripts omit from verse 9 through 20."

I will quote an excerpt from Westcott and Hort ( and will add the rest if necessary): "It (the addition, vv. 9-20) manifestly cannot claim any apostolic authority..."

So, if you want to argue and discount what I said, go argue with the Bible translators.

Yea I know what the NIV says about it and that is not impressive. Westcott and Hort are not the only credible scholars out there that have spoken on this issue.

Standing in contrast with the evidence for omission is the external and internal evidence for the inclusion of verses 9-20. The verses are, in fact, present in the vast number of witnesses (see the UBS Greek text’s critical apparatus—Aland, et al., 1983, p. 189). This point alone is insufficient to demonstrate the genuineness of a passage, since manuscripts may perpetuate an erroneous reading that crept into the text and then happened to survive in greater numbers than those manuscripts that preserved the original reading. Nevertheless, the sheer magnitude of the witnesses that support verses 9-20 cannot be summarily dismissed out of hand. Though rejecting the genuineness of the verses, the Alands offer the following concession that ought to give one pause: “It is true that the longer ending of Mark 16:9-20 is found in 99 percent of the Greek manuscripts as well as the rest of the tradition, enjoying over a period of centuries practically an official ecclesiastical sanction as a genuine part of the gospel of Mark” (1987, p. 287, emp. added). Such longstanding and widespread acceptance cannot be treated lightly nor dismissed easily. It is, at least, possible that the prevalence of manuscript support for the verses is due to their genuineness.

The Greek manuscript evidence that verifies the verses is distinguished, not just in quantity, but also in complexion and diversity. It includes a host of uncials and minuscules. The uncials include Codex Alexandrinus (02) and Ephraemi Re*script*us (04) from the fifth century. [NOTE: Technically, the Washington manuscript may be combined with these two manuscripts as additional fifth-century evidence for inclusion of the verses, since it simply inserts an additional statement in between verses 14 and 15.] Additional support for the verses comes from Bezae Cant*a*bri*gi*ensis (05) from the sixth century (or, according to the Alands, the fifth century—1987, p. 107), as well as 017, 033, 037, 038, and 041 from the ninth and tenth centuries. The minuscule manuscript evidence consists of the “Family 13” collection, entailing no fewer than ten manuscripts, as well as numerous other minuscules. The passage is likewise found in several lectionaries.

The patristic writings that indicate acceptance of the verses as genuine are remarkably extensive. From the second century, Irenaeus, who died c. A.D. 202, alludes to the verses in both Greek and Latin. His precise words in his Against Heresies were: “Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: ‘So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God” (3.10.5; Roberts and Donald*son, 1973, 1:426). It is very likely that Justin Martyr was aware of the verses in the middle of the second century. At any rate, his disciple, Tatian, included the verses in his Greek Diatessaron (having come down to us in Arabic, Italian, and Old Dutch editions) c. A.D. 170.

Third century witnesses include Tertul*lian, who died after A.D. 220, in his On the Resurrection of the Flesh (ch. 51; Roberts and Donaldson, 1973, 3:584), Against Praxeas (ch. 30; Roberts and Donaldson, 3:627), and A Treatise on the Soul (ch. 25; Roberts and Donaldson, 3:206). Cyprian, who died A.D. 258, alluded to verses 17-18 in his The Seventh Council of Carthage (Roberts and Donaldson, 1971, 5:569). Additional third century verification is seen in the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus. Verses 15-18 in Greek and verses 15-19 in Latin are quoted in Part I: The Acts of Pilate (ch. 14), and verse 16 in its Greek form is quoted in Part II: The Descent of Christ into Hell (ch. 2) (Roberts and Donaldson, 1970, 8:422,436,444-445). De Rebaptismate (A.D. 258) is also a witness to the verses. All seven of these second and third century witnesses precede the earliest existing Greek manuscripts that verify the genuineness of the verses. More to the point, they predate both Vati*canus and Sinaiticus.

Fourth century witnesses to the existence of the verses include Aphraates (writing in A.D. 337—see Schaff and Wace, 1969, 13:153), with his citation of Mark 16:16-18 in “Of Faith” in his Demonstrations (1.17; Schaff and Wace, 13:351), in addition to the Apostolic Constitutions (5.3.14; 6.3.15; 8.1.1)—written no later than A.D. 380 (Roberts and Donaldson, 1970, 7:445,457,479). Ambrose, who died A.D. 397, quoted from the section in his On the Holy Spirit (2.13.145,151), On the Christian Faith (1.14.86 and 3.4.31), and Concerning Repentance (1.8.35; Schaff and Wace, 10:133,134,216,247,335). Didymus, who died A.D. 398, is also a witness to the genuineness of the verses (Aland, et al., 1983, p. 189), as is perhaps Asterius after 341.

Patristic writers from the fifth century that authenticate the verses include Jerome, noted above, who died A.D. 420, Leo (who died A.D. 461) in his Letters (9.2 and 120.2; Schaff and Wace, 1969, 12:8,88), and Chry*sos*tom (who died A.D. 407) in his Homilies on First Corinthians (38.5; Schaff, 1969, 12:229). Additional witnesses include Se*veri*an (after 408), Marcus-Eremita (after 430), Nestorius (after 451), and Augustine (after 455). These witnesses to the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20 from patristic writers is exceptional.

The evidence for inclusion that comes from the ancient versions is also diverse and weighty—entailing a wide spectrum of versions and geographical locations. Several Old Latin/Itala manuscripts contain it. Though Jerome repeated the view that the verses were absent in some Greek manuscripts—a circumstance used by those who support exclusion—he actually included them in his fourth century Latin Vulgate (and, as noted above, quoted verse 14 in his own writings). The verses are found in the Old Syriac (Curetonian) as well as the Peshitta and later Syriac (Palestinian and Harclean). The Coptic versions that have it are the Sahidic, Bohairic, and Fay*yumic, ranging from the third to the sixth centuries. The Gothic version (fourth century) has verses 9-11. The verses are also found in the Armenian, Georgian, and Old Church Slavonic versions.

What must the unbiased observer conclude from these details? All told, the cumulative external evidence that documents the genuineness of verses 9-20, from Greek manuscripts, patristic citations, and ancient versions, is expansive, ancient, diversified, and unsurpassed.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=704

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Yea I know what the NIV says about it and that is not impressive. Westcott and Hort are not the only credible scholars out there that have spoken on this issue.



Didn't say they were. Just giving some sources including two Bible translations.

What I said is still valid, and wise -- best not to try to establish doctrine on verses not in the original manuscripts.


http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=704

BTW, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible also concurs.

 

[Wittenberger]

You are failing to understand another vital and common sense rule of hermeneutics. The Divine Purpose for any given book of the scriptures. If every book of the Bible had the same Divine purpose for producing it then what a boring and repetitious Bible.

Second, you are attempting to deal with a TOPIC [baptism] and so you have two problems confronting your narrow choice of the gospel of Mark. By limiting it to Mark you have chosen to ignore the vast amount of Biblical material concerning that subject AND you are assuming the purpose for the book of Mark is to define the relationship between baptism and salvation - I think not!

Third, you are also attempting to define salvation in connection with baptism and so any fair and balanced approach to scripture must also take into account the clear and unambiguous precepts and teachings of scripture concerning the basics of salvation.

Fourth, in dealing with baptism you are dealing with the topic of divine ordinances and so any fair and balanced approach must consider the overall teaching of God's divine purpose of external ordinances in relationship to salvation.

Finally, your problem is that you want to narrow, restrict and simplify what is broad, far reaching and sometimes complex. Thus you don't want to do the "work" of rightly dividing the Word of Truth and that is why I called sacramentalists "lazy" and "irresponsible" exegetes.

Dear Brother,

You have alot of rules for interpreting the Bible---all of them man-made. Your "common sense rules" are not inspired by God. They may make perfect sense to YOU but God is not bound by what man considers "common sense".

I am happy to start with any of the Gospels. I thought that since I brought up Mark that I would start there, then go to the Book of Acts, and then into Romans and onward (we will be reading alot of Scripture together, brother!)

My idea is that we read each verse, with surrounding verses to present it in context, and each give his/her view of the literal interpretation of that verse or verses without bringing in the ECF, outside verses to reinterpret the plain, simple meaning of the verse/verses in question, and without bringing in any denominational confessions, doctrinal statements, etc.

I will include all verses that even hint that they may be discussing salvation/justification by faith. I will also include all verses that discuss baptism, whether it be John's baptism or Christ's baptism.

At the end of reading all the verses, from the Gospels through the epistles, we can then see if our overall interpretation has changed.

We will ONLY review Scripture. Will you agree?

 

[Wittenberger]

It definitely does not misrepresent the issue. I am showing that it is unwise to try to establish doctrine on a verse that is not included in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts.

Here is what the NIV Bible says about it: "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16: 9-20."

And the NASB: "Some of the oldest manuscripts omit from verse 9 through 20."

I will quote an excerpt from Westcott and Hort ( and will add the rest if necessary): "It (the addition, vv. 9-20) manifestly cannot claim any apostolic authority..."

So, if you want to argue and discount what I said, go argue with the Bible translators.

Telling a fundamentalist Baptist that the King James Version of the Holy Bible contains non-inspired passages is like slapping a grizzly bear in the face. The expression "hell hath no fury like a Baptist seriously insulted" could be well applied to this situation.

Good luck.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Telling a fundamentalist Baptist that the King James Version of the Holy Bible contains non-inspired passages is like slapping a grizzly bear in the face. The expression "hell hath no fury like a Baptist seriously insulted" could be well applied to this situation.

Good luck.

Yes, I know. But I can't help it -- I'm not a fundamentalist.

 

[Wittenberger]

Well, Biblicist hasn't responded, so I'm just going to start with my review of Scripture on the doctrines of salvation and baptism.

Let's start at the very beginning of the New Testament, in the Gospel of Matthew. The first mention of baptism in the New Testament is in Matthew chapter 3. I am going to use the English Standard Version. If anyone feels that a particular verse is translated too differently from the King James, let me know and I will post the passage in the KJV.

I encourage everyone to follow these guidelines:

1. Read the passage and give what the simple, literal interpretation of the passage is, in your opinion.

2. No references to Early Church Fathers, denominational confessions or doctrinal statements. No bringing in outside verses to re-interpret the simple, literal meaning. Let's stick to the passage in question.

3. Once we've finished then we can each draw our conclusions, having first read all scriptures related to these doctrines. Agreed?

 

[Wittenberger]

Matthew 3

English Standard Version (ESV)


John the Baptist Prepares the Way

3 In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, 2 “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” 3 For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he said,


“The voice of one crying in the wilderness:
‘Prepare[a] the way of the Lord;
make his paths straight.’”

4 Now John wore a garment of camel's hair and a leather belt around his waist, and his food was locusts and wild honey. 5 Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan were going out to him, 6 and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. 9 And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. 10 Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

11 “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”

The Baptism of Jesus

13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. 14 John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” 15 But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented. 16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; 17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son,[c] with whom I am well pleased.”

Footnotes:a.Matthew 3:3 Or crying: Prepare in the wilderness
b.Matthew 3:16 Some manuscripts omit to him
c.Matthew 3:17 Or my Son, my (or the) Beloved

 

[The Biblicist]

Dear Brother,

You have alot of rules for interpreting the Bible---all of them man-made. Your "common sense rules" are not inspired by God.

Those things I listed are Biblical based - every single one of them in addition to common sense.

If this is a preview of how you deal with basics what hope is there for us agreeing on anything at all??

We will ONLY review Scripture. Will you agree?

The book of Romans is the Biblical masterpiece of soteriology. Let's begin there in chapter one, verse one.

 

[Wittenberger]

It is very interesting to me in reading the third chapter of Matthew that there is no discussion made here to explain what baptism is and what is its purpose.

If John's baptism is something new, something never seen before by Jews, a "Christian" baptism, then why was all of Jerusalem, Judea and all the region about the Jordan going out to be baptized...even "many" of the Pharisees and Sadducees, the Jewish religion's heirarchy??

All these devout Jews were coming to a man clothed in camel's skin, who ate honey mixed with bugs, to be immersed in the muddy waters of the Jordan, in a brand new ritual that they had never seen before??

 

[Wittenberger]

Matthew 3:11 is of course a very famous verse.

John states that he baptizes with water for repentance but that Someone is coming who is greater than he is and He will baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

So the purpose of John's baptism in water is for repentance, nothing more. Christ's baptism (Christian baptism) will be with the Holy Ghost and with fire.

What does that last phrase mean? 1. Is this just a picture of Pentecost when the apostles were anointed with the Holy Spirit and flames of fire were on their heads? Does this verse only pertain to the apostles and not to anyone else?

2. Does this verse mean that in Christ's water baptism (Christian baptism) we are baptized at the same time with the Holy Spirit and with fire? I've never attended a Baptist or Lutheran baptism where I saw any fire.

3. Or does this verse speak of a spiritual baptism of the soul with the Holy Spirit and with fire? The Holy Spirit part makes sense in this interpretation but what about the fire??

I personally don't think this verse is clear enough in and of itself to know which meaning is correct. I think we will have to wait for more information with further reading of Scripture.

 

[Wittenberger]

Matthew 3:13-17 is the baptism of Christ. John initially refuses to baptize Jesus, he wants Jesus to baptize him. Jesus responds by saying:

15 But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented. 16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him,[a] and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; 17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

Why did Jesus say that John needed to baptize him "to fulfill all righteousness"? Jesus is God, he doesn't need more righteousness. What did Christ's baptism fulfill? A prophecy? A sign? No, it says that the purpose of Christ's baptism was to fulfill "all righteousness".

Just from this passage I have no idea what that means.

Lastly, I do want to point out the language used about the physical act of Christ's baptism: "immediately he went up from the water" I thnk this clearly indicates that Christ's baptism was by immersion.

 

[saturneptune]

The "Catholics" destroyed all evidence of the early "Mormons", that is why there is no historical evidence to support Mormon beliefs.

Don't belive me? Check out what this Mormon "Apostle" says about the evidence supporting the Mormon Church:

http://dwhamby1.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/do-mormons-have-any-evidence-of-their-claims/

Now that is rich, Catholics and Mormons in a debate about which faith is not the true church. LOL

 

[The Biblicist]

It is very interesting to me in reading the third chapter of Matthew that there is no discussion made here to explain what baptism is and what is its purpose.

You are illustrating very clearly why you are not a very good exegete. This chapter is FULL of explanations as to what baptism is and is not and its purpose IF one has eyes to see:

7 ¶ But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

Verse 8 denies that regeneration occurs in baptism simply because John demanded "fruits" or consequences that demonstrated and demanded repentance of sins has occurred as the qualification to be baptized. "fruits of repentance" means EVIDENCE OF A CHANGED LIFE TOWARD GOD! These are the "fruits" found in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit being demonstrable by how one thinks, talks and acts.

This verse defines the phrase "baptism of repentance" to mean a baptism in response to repentance or because of repentance.

Furthermore, he was "preaching" repentance and faith in Christ (vv. 2-3) as he quotes from Isaiah about "him" or the Messiah. This is made crystal clear by the apostle John in John 3;36 so clear one must be completely blind not to see it as the Apostle John spells out the gospel the Baptist preached in these words:

Jn. 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John the Baptist required repentance of sin and faith in Christ MANIFESTED BY FRUITS of repentance (MANIFEST CHANGED LIFE IN REGARD TO GOD AND SIN) as the prerequisite for baptism.

Immediately after demanding evidence of regeneration he clearly sets forth the prerequisite of regeneration prior to baptism in these words:

9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

He is clearly denying NATURAL BIRTH as qualifications for his baptism. He is clearly demanding the FRUIT OF REGENERATION as prerequisite for his baptism and those who do not bring forth such fruit are objects of judgement just as he plainly and explicitly stated in John 3:36 "the wrath of God abideth" on them.

He plainly defines this act as immersion only:

1. The term he chooses "baptizo" rather than rantizo or epicheo
2. He baptized "IN Jordan"
3. The prone position of Christ's body coming up out of the water so that he could see a dove in the sky above by the mode of baptism being administered.
4. He came "up out" of the water WHEN viewing heaven at the same time.

Just look at the head position of those your Lutheran ministers provide a handful of water upon. Look at the administration of any church that sprinkles or pours and you will see they are not in a prone position so that they are looking up at heaven.

One must be blinded by false doctrines not to see baptism is clearly defined and its purpose, its mode, its proper candidates in this chapter.

If John's baptism is something new, something never seen before by Jews, a "Christian" baptism, then why was all of Jerusalem, Judea and all the region about the Jordan going out to be baptized...even "many" of the Pharisees and Sadducees, the Jewish religion's heirarchy??

Remember, Israel had no prophets since the time of Malici and here comes a prophet. Thus this is NEW and different for them. Second, you fail to consider the obvious.

Because his baptism was something NEW and DIFFERENT it drew the crowds to hear him. If it were not NEW and DIFFERENT you would not have the apostle John explaining why the leaders of Israel sent out a delegation to investigate the very reason he was baptizing followed by John providing that explanation:

1. They asked "who art thou" - v. 19

2. "Why then doest thou baptize" v. 25

Immersing was not new to them as they immersed all the furniture of the Temple as part of their ceremonial cleansing rituals. They immersed proselytes as part of their ceremonial cleansing rituals and it is this very practice that brought conflict between the Phariseess and the disciples of John because John did not immerse for ceremonial cleansing reasons but as he explains in Matthew 3:6-9 he baptized only those God HAD ALREADY CLEANSED and that cleansing was EVIDENCED by "fruit" of repentance.

Matthew 3 provides so much more information but you clearly do not have eyes to see for it is so plain and obvious that it jumps out from the pages to those who can see.

 

[The Biblicist]

Matthew 3:13-17 is the baptism of Christ. John initially refuses to baptize Jesus, he wants Jesus to baptize him. Jesus responds by saying:

15 But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented. 16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him,[a] and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; 17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

Why did Jesus say that John needed to baptize him "to fulfill all righteousness"? Jesus is God, he doesn't need more righteousness. What did Christ's baptism fulfill? A prophecy? A sign? No, it says that the purpose of Christ's baptism was to fulfill "all righteousness".

First, God sent John to baptize in order to make Christ manifest and only submission to the baptism of John would fulfill that righteousness.

Second, Jesus claimed the baptism of John justified God (declared God to be righteous) and those who refused to submit to John's baptism rejected "the counsel of God against themsevles" = SINNED AGAINST GOD and therefore Jesus fulfilled that righteousness.

Third, the act of baptism designed by the counsel of God was to be the very symbol of what does actually fulfill all righteousness and that is the very purpose for which Christ came as John predicted as "the lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world" - His death, burial and resurrection. The public ministry to fulfill that purpose began with the baptism of John.

Fourth, John explicitly preached repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ for salvation (Jn. 3:36) and this ordinance was adopted (Lk. 7:29-30) and furthered (Jn. 4:1-2) and incoporated in the Great Commission by Christ Himself (Mt. 28:19) and symbolized the very authority of his own ministry (Mt. 21:23,25).

Just from this passage I have no idea what that means.

Not because the information is not found in this chapter and the rest of the book of Matthew as it is there.

1. God sent John to baptize - v. 1 and so righteousness would demand obedience to God's man sent to administer God's ordinance.

2. This is how God would identify the messsiah - vv. 2-3 Thus this fulfilled the righteousness of prophecy.

3. This baptism was the seal of acceptance of what he preached and he preached the gospel of Jesus Christ - which was his mission as the rest of matthew describes in greater detail - thus fulfilled that righteousness of IDETNFICATION with his own mission.

Lastly, I do want to point out the language used about the physical act of Christ's baptism: "immediately he went up from the water" I thnk this clearly indicates that Christ's baptism was by immersion.

The prequisites for immersion defy administration to infants as John refused to administer baptism to those who could not bring forth fruits demonstrating the presence of repentance. He refused to administer baptism to unbelievers. There is not one single solitary precept or example where anyone administered baptism to infants anywhere in the apostolic age - zilch, nada, none! Jesus said to reject the baptism of John as to reject "the counsel of God against yourselves" and that is precisely what paedobaptism does.

 

[The Biblicist]

Matthew 3:11 is of course a very famous verse.

John states that he baptizes with water

The Greek preposition is "en" and the very same preposition used previously in verse 6 "in (en) Jordan". The whole context demands "in" not "with" as he baptized "IN" Jordan and the term "baptizo" means dip immerse and the prone position of the body of Christ in baptism demands he was face up when coming out of the water.

for repentance

Contextually defined in verses 7-9 to be understood clearly as "BECAUSE OF" repentance as he demanded "fruits" to prove repentance had already occurred and a CHANGED life toward sin and God as prerequisit for baptism.

but that Someone is coming who is greater than he is and He will baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

His hearers were of two classes: (1) those who manifested repentance and were baptized; (2) those who did not manifest repentance and whom he refused to baptize.

There are also TWO CONSEQUENCES inferred by verses 9-11 to those two classes.

1. The unrepentant will be "hewn down" and cast into "FIRE" and Christ would be their judge - v. 10

2. Hence, there was one of two consequences for those who made up his audiance. If they continued in unrepentance they would be judged by "fire" and thus rejected by Christ. If they repented they would be baptized in the Holy Spirit as a manifest acceptance by Christ.

3. The baptized believers were "made ready a prepared people" for the Lord (Lk. 1:17) by John to be formed into his ekklesia or "house of God" and every previous house of God had been first formed and then baptized in the shikinah glory of God as a manifest sign of approval (Ex. 40:33-35; 2 Chron. 7:1-3) and so it would be upon this assembly of baptized beleivers who habitually assembled with him from the baptism of John until his ascension (Acts 1:5; 21-22; 2:1-3).

 

[Wittenberger]

You are illustrating very clearly why you are not a very good exegete. This chapter is FULL of explanations as to what baptism is and is not and its purpose IF one has eyes to see:

7 ¶ But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

Verse 8 denies that regeneration occurs in baptism simply because John demanded "fruits" or consequences that demonstrated and demanded repentance of sins has occurred as the qualification to be baptized. "fruits of repentance" means EVIDENCE OF A CHANGED LIFE TOWARD GOD! These are the "fruits" found in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit being demonstrable by how one thinks, talks and acts.

This verse defines the phrase "baptism of repentance" to mean a baptism in response to repentance or because of repentance.

Furthermore, he was "preaching" repentance and faith in Christ (vv. 2-3) as he quotes from Isaiah about "him" or the Messiah. This is made crystal clear by the apostle John in John 3;36 so clear one must be completely blind not to see it as the Apostle John spells out the gospel the Baptist preached in these words:

Jn. 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John the Baptist required repentance of sin and faith in Christ MANIFESTED BY FRUITS of repentance (MANIFEST CHANGED LIFE IN REGARD TO GOD AND SIN) as the prerequisite for baptism.

Immediately after demanding evidence of regeneration he clearly sets forth the prerequisite of regeneration prior to baptism in these words:

9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

He is clearly denying NATURAL BIRTH as qualifications for his baptism. He is clearly demanding the FRUIT OF REGENERATION as prerequisite for his baptism and those who do not bring forth such fruit are objects of judgement just as he plainly and explicitly stated in John 3:36 "the wrath of God abideth" on them.

He plainly defines this act as immersion only:

1. The term he chooses "baptizo" rather than rantizo or epicheo
2. He baptized "IN Jordan"
3. The prone position of Christ's body coming up out of the water so that he could see a dove in the sky above by the mode of baptism being administered.
4. He came "up out" of the water WHEN viewing heaven at the same time.

Just look at the head position of those your Lutheran ministers provide a handful of water upon. Look at the administration of any church that sprinkles or pours and you will see they are not in a prone position so that they are looking up at heaven.

One must be blinded by false doctrines not to see baptism is clearly defined and its purpose, its mode, its proper candidates in this chapter.






Remember, Israel had no prophets since the time of Malici and here comes a prophet. Thus this is NEW and different for them. Second, you fail to consider the obvious.

Because his baptism was something NEW and DIFFERENT it drew the crowds to hear him. If it were not NEW and DIFFERENT you would not have the apostle John explaining why the leaders of Israel sent out a delegation to investigate the very reason he was baptizing followed by John providing that explanation:

1. They asked "who art thou" - v. 19

2. "Why then doest thou baptize" v. 25

Immersing was not new to them as they immersed all the furniture of the Temple as part of their ceremonial cleansing rituals. They immersed proselytes as part of their ceremonial cleansing rituals and it is this very practice that brought conflict between the Phariseess and the disciples of John because John did not immerse for ceremonial cleansing reasons but as he explains in Matthew 3:6-9 he baptized only those God HAD ALREADY CLEANSED and that cleansing was EVIDENCED by "fruit" of repentance.

Matthew 3 provides so much more information but you clearly do not have eyes to see for it is so plain and obvious that it jumps out from the pages to those who can see.

Your explanation is very good. I agree with everything you have said above. Martin Luther said that he thought the Church should return to the practice of immersion because it was the best picture of our death and resurrection in Christ. I'm not sure why he didn't push it further.

I personally believe that all churches should return to immersion, just as the Eastern Orthodox do.