Featured "to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." - Lk. 1:17

You have demonstrated no such thing....because you offer "your explanation of the facts" does not mean you have "covered it"...everyone offers a view....Rc , cults, everyone thinks they have it covered.

They were ignorant of the Holy Spirit because John had a limited understanding of Him . they identified with his message and his baptism , which was not yet, "christian baptism"

 

"The Biblicist,

The focal point of the Servant’s work in Isaiah’s prophecy is the recovery to God of estranged mankind. But, in keeping with the fact that the curse extended to the whole creation, Isaiah showed that work of recovery to reach beyond man to embrace the entire created order. Through His Servant, Yahweh would vanquish the curse and usher in a new creation (cf. 65:1-25, 66:5-24 with 11:1-10).
a. Thus Yahweh’s message through Isaiah was one of comfort. Desolation and destruction had been decreed, but that wasn’t to be the last word: Judgment and wrath would one day yield to renewal and recovery when the Lord rose up on behalf of His estranged creation to deliver it from its bondage and restore it to Himself. This message and the proclamation of its impending fulfillment had been entrusted to the forerunner – now present in John – and he was to prepare the sons of Israel to receive the Servant coming to accomplish that work (40:1-11).
b. As the Isaianic forerunner, John’s mission was one of preparation; the Lord raised him up to prepare the people of Israel for the coming of their Messiah and the inauguration of His kingdom. He was to “make smooth in the desert a highway for Israel’s God,” and there were two components of his preparatory work, both of which focused on the matter of repentance.
The first was John’s baptism, which the Scripture calls a “baptism of repentance” (cf. Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; also Acts 13:23-24); John called the sons of Israel to undergo this ritual washing in connection with the confession of their sins (Matthew 3:6; Mark 1:5). Some have wrongly concluded that John’s baptism itself secured the forgiveness of sins, but it actually symbolized the purification from uncleanness that was the goal of a person’s repentance. It wasn’t a baptism unto repentance and forgiveness, but a baptism because of the repentance that brings forgiveness of sin. For this reason it was universal in scope (Luke 3:14), though it primarily targeted the unfaithful house of Israel. All men were in need of repentance, even as the forerunner was appointed to announce Yahweh’s salvation that would extend to the ends of the earth (John 1:29).
An even worse conclusion is that John was preparing the people for the coming of the messianic kingdom by calling them away from their bad behavior. Luke’s account especially has been used to support this understanding (ref. 3:10-14). But a closer examination shows that John was revealing to the multitudes that the emerging kingdom calls for an entirely new way of thinking about and approaching life. The kingdom of God, soon to be inaugurated in the messianic Servant, is an otherworldly kingdom that operates according to a radically different set of principles. It is a heavenly kingdom rather than an earthly one.
[Kit Culver]

 

2. The Coming Elijah
John’s role as Isaiah’s forerunner is further elucidated by his being the Elijah promised by Malachi (4:5-6; cf. Matthew 11:7-14, 17:1-13). John’s appearance mirrored Elijah’s, but the real issue was his coming in the spirit and power of Elijah. As the forerunner, John was to prepare a smooth pathway for the Lord’s entrance, but he would do so by turning the hearts of the father to the children and the hearts of the children to the fathers (Luke 1:5-17). Like Elijah before him, John emerged as Yahweh’s prophet at a time when Israel was at a critical point of decision. Each indicted the covenant people for their rebellious unbelief and each called them to repent and return to their God. In Elijah’s case this meant renouncing Baal; in John’s it meant embracing Yahweh in His Son.
Israel’s repentance would prepare them to receive their Messiah, but it also represented the reuniting of their hearts with their fathers. The meaning becomes clear when it is recognized that the text is referring to the patriarchal fathers. The people of Israel were the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to whom the kingdom promise first came, and the Israelite nation was the first realization of that promise. But the children had turned away from their fathers by rejecting the patriarchs’ God and covenant. Now the time had come for Yahweh to inaugurate the true kingdom promised to the fathers – the kingdom they had seen by faith and longed for up until the day of their death (Hebrews 11:8-16). Only by repentance – by rethinking what it means to be sons of the kingdom – would the children of the patriarchs be reunited with them and prepared for Abraham’s Seed.

 

b. Jesus’ identity as the fulfilled temple is most clearly seen in His person, but it is also evident in the purpose of His coming. Specifically, He entered the world as the God-Man in order to recover sacred space by reconciling all things to God. In that way He would usher in the long-promised kingdom.
As seen, the promise of the coming kingdom is everywhere associated with temple and sanctuary imagery. The reason, again, is that God presents His kingdom as being established through His deliverance of His people (and the whole creation) from their captivity (redemption) in order to restore them (and all things) to Himself (reconciliation). The true kingdom is about restored relationship and recovered intimacy, and, considered from within the framework of the Israelite kingdom (as was the case with the prophets), the temple concept speaks to this dynamic more powerfully than anything else. The temple represented sacred space – the reality of divine-human encounter and communion.
Thus the promise of the kingdom was the promise of restored sanctuary. As would be expected, this theme comes to the forefront in the historical context of the captivities. The temple was to be destroyed, but just as Yahweh promised the restoration of David’s house and kingdom, so He promised the restoration of His own “house.” A new “David” would restore the kingdom, and that same Davidide would build the Lord’s house (ref. again Zechariah 6:9-15; also Amos 9:11-15).

Yahweh would recover what humanity could not, but, just as He had sworn that day in the garden, He would do so through a man. Peace was to be recovered through a chosen descendent of Eve – a man later revealed to be the covenant Seed of Abraham and royal Branch of David. This connection is most explicit in Isaiah’s prophecy, but extends through the other prophets as well (ref. esp. Isaiah 9:1-7; also 11:1-9, 42:1-13, 32:1-20, 53:1-55:13, 61:1-7; cf. Jeremiah 33:1-26; Ezekiel 34:1-31, 37:1-28; Amos 9:11-15; Micah 4:1-5:5; Nahum 1:11-15; Haggai 2:1-9; Zechariah 6:9-15, 9:9-12).
The prophets proclaimed that the promise of the kingdom was the promise of everlasting peace, and this kingdom was to be inaugurated by the Davidic king who is the Prince of Peace. For this reason, the gospel writers are careful to emphasize the theme of peace in their presentation of Jesus and His purpose in coming.
One aspect of this fulfillment that is often missed is related to Jesus’ role as the true Israel. As Yahweh’s chosen “son,” Israel was to live with Him in the intimate, unqualified devotion due a Father. The covenant nation’s relationship with God was to be shalomic, but was instead characterized throughout its history by distrust, disloyalty, and lovelessness. Israel responded to Yahweh’s faithful husbandry with unashamed and unrepentant adultery; in every way, Israel failed to be Israel. In contrast, Jesus came as a truly devoted son, living the shalomic life Israel could not.

 

All of that leads to this;
The Son of David was appointed to establish and rule over Yahweh’s house and kingdom forever, and this implied the establishment of Zion as the everlasting focal point of that kingdom. More specifically, the Scripture indicated that Messiah would establish the kingdom through His personal triumph over God’s enemies. By His victory He would deliver the captive people and restore them to their covenant Lord and Father. Messiah’s work was to be one of comprehensive renewal and recovery, and this promise accordingly had a central thread in Zion’s future glorification. The Son of David would rule over Yahweh’s kingdom from His throne in the midst of glorified Zion. This theme is prominent in Isaiah’s prophecy (cf. in context 28:14-16, 40:1-10, 46:12-13, 51:1-11, 52:1-9, 59:1-60:14, 62:1-12, 66:1-13), but weaves throughout the prophetic literature (cf. Psalm 87, 102:11-22, 110:1-10; Jeremiah 3:6-17, 31:1-40; Joel 2:23-32; Micah 4:1-5:5; Zechariah 9:9-17).
Likewise, God’s image-son has been recreated in the likeness of the divine Son and Last Adam (2 Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 2:1-16, 4:17-24, 5:6-10; Colossians 3:1-11; etc.). And yet, “it has not presently appeared what we shall be” (1 John 3:1-2). Moreover, the “not yet” of our present renewal embraces both our spiritual and physical humanity (ref. esp. Romans 8:18-25; cf. also 1 Corinthians 15:1-28; 2 Corinthians 4:1-18; Philippians 1:6, 3:1-21; Colossians 3:1-4).
So also, God has restored His glory-presence to His sanctuary (Ezekiel 43:1-5). However, His dwelling place is no longer a physical structure but the souls of men (cf. John 14:16-17 with Acts 2:1-18; also 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 6:17-20; Ephesians 2:11-22). In the age of promise Zion represented both God’s dwelling place and His relationship with His people; now, in Christ – the fulfilled sanctuary – those representations have converged. Zion has been restored as a living, spiritual house, though it, too, awaits the fullness to come (Revelation 21:1-22:5).

 

So...John being the fore-runner has much more to it, than your burning concern as to if it was christian baptism or not.

 

Clearly you are unable to grasp the magnitude of what is taking place at this time.
YOU have a narrow agenda that you cling to missing the Forrest for the trees.
Your view does not affect me as I never encounter anyone else who suggests this narrow focus. It is error but far from the worst errors that we deal with.
I enjoy how you casually set aside Matthew Henry, John Murray, Ligon Duncan, as if they are novices....lol
You alone have the correct understanding? .....you and this man Graves????
It looks like he was trying to correct the errors of Cambellites, but perhaps went too far In over correcting. It might be something to consider. I have not read enough of his actual ideas....but awhile back would read some B.H. Carroll.
AS time permits I would read a bit more, but those uninspired men I offered seem more on the biblical trail of truth, then assorted trail of blood theology.

 

Well....as we differ....that is exactly as I view your defective teaching. You like Graves before you are bit schismatic , yet you think you are on the trail of blood.....
I will stay where I am using the verses and views I have put forward along with many of the historic teachings of the mainstream teachers.

 

No...the difference between me and you is I am not afraid to compare my thinking with others who are gifted in the scriptures and receive correction and instruction from other people.
Not only do you not do this, but you turn away from this positive instruction because you did not think of it and cannot grasp what is offered.
It is not that you....could not.....it is that you are in defensive mode so when they burst your little bubble you attack these men and reject that which did not enter into your thinking.
You did the same with me, and when I offer other thoughts that agree you cannot deal with it....
If though hast run with the footmen,and they have wearied thee,then how canst thou contend with the horses?and if in the land of peace,wherein thou trustedst,they wearied thee, then how wilt though do in the swelling of the Jordan?

 

Another problem is.....you suggest there is no other baptism mentioned as if the trinitarian baptism Jesus teaches in the great commission is not valid.
He had just said all authority is given unto me,then in light of that gives clear instruction of what baptism He was instructing them to perform.
By the way....it was not John's baptism as you insist it was the only one it could be......and yet you claim you have dealt with it,lol
Hebrews 9:10.......divers WASHINGS, and carnal ordinances imposed on them until the time of reformation......
This was what they were already used to, and the fact they questioned John the Baptist as to if he was the Christ shows they were anticipating such a change......but you had it all covered right?