Why do you think Baptists put so much emphasis on the mode?

It's very simple, really. Because Baptists are concerned that the right meaning is communicated.

We are identifying with Christ's death. We are saying He is our substitute.

 

Agreed. Also, it can be strongly inferred from scripture that immersion or dipping in water is the proper mode (Matt 3:16 and John 3:23).

I respect that there are many who disagree with both believer's baptism and baptism by immersion. Presbyterians and most Reformed denominations (except Baptists) do not require a profession of faith by infants, and they also dip or sprinkle. That is their prerogative based on what they believe scripture teaches. However, if someone claims to be a Baptist, yet they believe mode is unimportant, then they really are not a Baptist. It does not mean they are less of a Christian or they are some raging heretic that needs to be condemned. It simply means they do not believe in historical Baptist distinctives.

 

The notion of modes of immersion is not Baptist.

 

I disagree (of course) that baptism is a picture of substitution. It is not substitution, and no elements of substitution existed.

Romans 6 presents the appropriate presentation :

1What then shall we say? Shall we continue in sin so that grace may increase?

2Certainly not! How can we who died to sin live in it any longer?

3Or aren’t you aware that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?

4We were therefore buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may walk in newness of life.

5For if we have been united with Him like this in His death, we will certainly also be united with Him in His resurrection.

6We know that our old self was crucified with Him so that the body of sin might be rendered powerless, that we should no longer be slaves to sin. 7For anyone who has died has been freed from sin.

8Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with Him. 9For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, He cannot die again; death no longer has dominion over Him. 10The death He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life He lives, He lives to God. 11So you too must count yourselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.​

Immersion is the only manner in which this "mode" can be presented.

Though, when some bury their dead, they do sprinkle dirt over the body before shovels begin to scoop.

 

The reason Baptists are hawkish on imersion, besides the legalistic avenue, is because they want it to picture our descent into Christ's grave, and being raised with Him.

We are crucified with Christ. He wasn't merely crucified for our sakes, or because of us, as you are asserting. We are in Him, getting the judgment due our sin.

 

Baptism symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection of our substitute. This is why the mode of immersion is emphasized.
Galatians 2:19-21
For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

 

So, am I to assume you both disagree with the statement of the Romans passage I posted?

Being crucified with Christ does not mean that Christ suffer FOR, but I suffer WITH.

He suffered, as a believer I suffer.
He was buried yet lived, I will be cremated yet live.
He rose from the grave, I have been given a new body to house my eternalness.

The law ordinances that were held against me, were nailed to the cross by God.

The Baptism is as portrayed in the Romans passage and it does not present substitution.

 

Galatians 2 clarifies Romans 6 so you see the substitutionary nature of Paul's argument in Jesus death.

 

Does not Galatians use the word 'with"?

"I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me."

The "for" used in the next sentence is not "instead" but "stead" = our benefit, for the sake of me, on my behalf and concerning me (from Strong's).

Again, as I showed threads ago, Galatians 2 does not support substitution.

 

No. We are baptized into HIS death, not our own. What is the point of HIS death?

 

I agree with your thinking, accept we are not baptized into His death. but buried through baptism into our own death, that we are raised like Christ in a new life. Our old life is to be put to death for we are new creatures in Him.

As Romans states:

4We were therefore buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may walk in newness of life.​

 

Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

 

Again this is not substitution, for does it not state that it was because of our action of baptism. Or are suggesting that something mysterious took place as water covered us ?

Romans is.using the imagery of physical baptism to show the death of Christ was not for all but to believers only and as such we also physically died with Him for we have eternal life by His resurrection.

Because we died with Him the “life I (we) now live …. for (the benefit) us.”

Because we died with Him, we then do not die but pass from this existence into that new creature like unto Him.

 

The rite of baptism isn't imagery. It's a testimony and the initiatory rite into the faith. That's what it means to be baptized into Christ.

But Paul wants you to know the fullness of what it means to enter Christ. That means you entered His death. It doesn't mean as you assert elsewhere that He died with us or for us in no more a manner than one's brother on a battlefield. His death wasn't just another case of persecution. His death was atoning, meaning it was THE death that He died. The just death that was meant for us sinners. Not merely the death of a martyr. We were there in Him.

It's stated explicitly. A rational denial of the fact doesn't exist. We are crucified with Him. We are baptized into HIS death.

He and us on the Cross. In the same place. In the same time.

And you say, He didn't take our place?

Jesus saved us by going through the judgment for us. And Peter applied the type of Noah and the Ark. We are in Christ, as Noah was in the Ark when judgment is 'poured out' (since you like that phrase) upon the earth. The righteous judgement of God beat upon the Ark on all sides, but not a drop fell on the souls that were within.

The like figure, Peter says, whereunto even baptism doth also now save us. The Flood couldn't swallow the Ark, and the pains of death couldn't hold Christ. And because we were lifted out of that death by the Resurrection of Christ, we no longer have a conscience of sins, and come boldly, in good conscience, to the throne of grace.

 

5For if we have been united with Him like this in His death, we will certainly also be united with Him in His resurrection.

Like is imagery not initiatory. He was not some sorority or fraternity to join.

Baptists have forever taught that the ordinance of Baptism is a "picture" and not of substance. For if it were of substance, then the Church of Christ folks might have a hold on some validity concerning their view of baptism for the remission of sins.

Of course Paul has that desire. But do not make it pertain to baptism. We entered death "with Him" for He died once for all believers of all ages. He did not die for each individual in a separate age and time as they came to know Him, but knowing them from the beginning He died for all believers all the Father gave Him.

But there is a difference between the crucifixion and the death.
6We know that our old self was crucified with Him so that the body of sin might be rendered powerless, that we should no longer be slaves to sin. Again, not substitution but inclusion.

His blood was the atonement, not the death. The blood has always been the focus of the atonement. The blood was shed for all creation, that seen and unseen. However, only the death and resurrection are beneficial to believers. In that manner the death was not as any other, for He was pure and innocent with no sin, and therefore death could not be imposed upon Him, yet by Him being in the physical flesh, death still reigned.

This is important for it validates that He laid down His own life. Sin nor the wages took it from Him.
9For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, He cannot die again; death no longer has dominion over Him.

That we believers have "no condemnation" is why death has no more a shackle on us, but we pass from death to life. His death therefore was our benefit.

10The death He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life He lives, He lives to God. 11So you too must count yourselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Certainly, As I posted previously, and denied not:
3Or aren’t you aware that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?

However, this is not the concept of substitution, but inclusion. That some desire it to be substitution removes the truth of how then a believer should conduct their life.

Again, Certainly. As I posted:
5For if we have been united with Him like this in His death, we will certainly also be united with Him in His resurrection.

Again, this is not substitution, but inclusion.

In what manner did the OT sacrifices "take the place" of the person offering or the one bringing the sacrifice, especially that of the yearly atonement?
In Egypt, did the blood take the place, or signify a "Passover," a turning away of death?

What I state is that we do not die, not because we do not sin, for we do, and sin still will pay its wages, so this physical will loose vitality. But we will not die.

The believer has eternal life, not because Christ took our place, but because He alone met the requirements necessary, and as our "heart door" is imprinted by Him (for we are in Christ) we pass from this life into eternity. If one is not In Christ, in the dwelling of the new creation, in the shelter identified by Christ's blood, then there is no belief, no shelter and the wages of sin and death will cause the wrath of God to fall upon that person.

As I have pointed out above, the Romans 6 passage presents the believers must be intricately involved in the death and resurrection not substituted for but included (with).

You are taking what Peter stated and perhaps moving the goal posts. Here is the passage:

14But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear what they fear; do not be shaken.” 15But in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord.

Always be prepared to give a defense to everyone who asks you the reason for the hope that is in you. But respond with gentleness and respect, 16keeping a clear conscience, so that those who slander you may be put to shame by your good behavior in Christ. 17For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. 18For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit, 19in whom He also went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

In the ark a few people, only eight souls, were saved through water. 21And this water symbolizes the baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to Him.​

There is no mention of the "judgement for us." That you take the statement of Peter from what he presented and move the goal of that statement to include something else is not appropriate.

Just as he expressed in Romans, that baptism symbolizes, pictures, and impresses upon all that which Christ did and how the believer now intends to live.

 

Union is another way of saying identity, like a marriage...a real marriage, not what some people are calling marriage. The man and the woman become one flesh (which has nothing to do with sex). Baptism is to the church as the ring is to marriage.

You don't allow church membership without it. One isn't even allowed to be called a Christian who refuses it.

A symbol, more accurately, but for Baptists a picture of something.

It's their entering into Christ, that is, HIS death and HIS resurrection that they want shown. That's the meaning in all Christian all Christian Baptism regardless of the mode.

LOL, Peter and Paul are the ones who brought baptism into it.

And here you deny the Scripture. We entered HIS death. Do I need to cite the passage again?

No, we were in him, as we were in Adam, and as Noah was in the Ark.

That's just semantics. The Flood touched the Ark instead of the souls that were within, and the judgment touched Christ instead of us.

A cursory glance at the law of the offerings will dispel your notion that the atonement is in only one aspect of Christ's sacrifice.

Here you go. Yield to this Scripture, and everything else falls into place. Yielding means to stop trying to say it means He entered death like everyone else enters death. We entered HIS death. That one death. The death of the Cross. One time.

Again, the Flood touched the Ark instead of Noah, and the judgment of the Cross touched Christ instead of us.

That's not true at all. If it's your conduct that gives you the answer of a good conscience, then you're striving by works.

Again, semantics. The Flood touched the Ark instead of Noah, and the judgement of the Cross touched Christ instead of us.

Seriously? The spotless life that is offered whether in service or for sin is not the life of the Israelite, which is the life that is demanded. And you ask in what manner the offerings "take the place" of the offerer?

The Paschal Lamb took the place, and the blood over the door signified to the fact that the amends had been made with this house.

 

Peter places the flood waters as the Baptism of believers, not in the light of the judgement of God. He doesn’t bring judgement of God into the context at all, not even by inference.

Both Peter and Paul are using immersion symbolically showing the Work of Christ.

Showed you line by line and by emphasis from both Romans and Peter.


If you could appraise that I miss quoted, or did not make appropriate application, then I would appreciate and do encouraged you to lift out that Scripture and show the error I made.

 

*sigh* Forget about baptism for now, except the meaning attached to it by Peter and Paul, which is our identity in Christ, and Him crucified.

Peter puts it right out there. It isn't an interpretation on anyone's part who confesses the substitutionary work of Christ. The Flood narrative is a parallel, or type, rather, of the work of Christ.

It is a perfect picture of what it means to be in Christ, and I've noticed you avoid it, as you constantly avoid the lessons in the offerings.

In every reply I do just that.