In the midst of the Reformed debate over what constitutes Christian Baptism, I've struggled to find an answer to the question of where the Baptism of John even originated. Christian Baptism is the successor of John's Baptism, sharing its same mode, but unlike John's Baptism it involves being baptised into the revealed name of the Trinity. The arrival of Christian Baptism also rendered John's Baptism immediately obsolete, since John's Baptism was for repentance in expectancy for the revealing of the Trinity (Acts 19:1-6). Within the Reformed Christian denominations, the baptism debate usually is focused on the two matters of, firstly, the mode of Christian Baptism, and, secondly, who should and should not be baptised. There are, unfortunately, no prescriptive passages in the New Testament that answer both of these matters directly, only descriptions of those who received Christian Baptism. In these descriptions it is also not clear how they received their baptism, nor is it always clear who received it (e.g. "households" being baptised). What is obvious in the New Testament, however, is that there is an assumed understanding regarding what not only Christian Baptism, but also John's Baptism, was by both the writers of the New Testament and its first readers. Considering that Christian Baptism is only a relatively slight modification of John's Baptism, understanding what the mode was and who the receivers were of John's Baptism would also inform what the mode and the receivers of Christian Baptism should be. In finding an answer to these questions about John's Baptism, one would naturally start with searching for the origin of John's Baptism.

However, there appears to be no consensus regarding the origin of John's Baptism. What has been proposed is still speculative, such as the ritual washing basins that have been uncovered in synagogues, although the archaeological and textual evidence for these ritual washings continue to postdate the 1st century AD. It is therefore possible that such ritual washing basins may have been imported into Judaism after the ministry of John the Baptist. Consequently, inferring that John the Baptist was expounding upon a ritual washing practice that developed during the Second Temple period remains tenuous. Considering the significance that Christ gives to John's Baptism however, in combination with His rejection of Second Temple period traditions, it would make more sense for John's Baptism to have its origin somewhere in the Old Testament scriptures.

However, I have not seen any proposals by the Reformed Baptist position as to what this Old Testament scriptural reference point would be. The Presbyterian position, in contrast, insists upon the connection between Old Covenant circumcision and Christian baptism, although this connection is used primarily to justify infants being recipients of covenant signs. This argumentation, however, does not answer how John's Baptism as a mode originated. It also doesn't provide a sufficient answer regarding whom the recipient of Christian Baptism should be, considering that the recipient of Old Covenant circumcision were males, primarily infants. The position then has to insist that the transition from Old Covenant circumcision to Christian Baptism followed the general New Covenant pattern of it being more inclusive than the Old Covenant, resulting in females being included as recipients in the successor to Old Covenant circumcision. This line of argumentation, however, assumes that there is a connection between Christian Baptism and Old Covenant circumcision in the first place. The primary New Testament passage used to justify this connection is Colossians 2:8-12 (ESV):

⁸See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. ⁹For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, ¹⁰and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. ¹¹In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, ¹²having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Debate arises over whether verse 12 should be understood as Paul turning aside in the flow of his explanation for how Christians should follow Christ to explain that the circumcision of Christ (i.e. the circumcision of the heart) is received through baptism, or that verse 11 and 12 are two separate points in Paul's explanation for how Christians are identified with Christ. The ESV translation makes it hard to discern the second interpretation, but the NET translation makes it clearer:

⁶Therefore, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live your lives in him, ⁷rooted and built up in him and firm in your faith just as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness. ⁸Be careful not to allow anyone to captivate you through an empty, deceitful philosophy that is according to human traditions and the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. ⁹For in him all the fullness of deity lives in bodily form, ¹⁰and you have been filled in him, who is the head over every ruler and authority. ¹¹In him you also were circumcised—not, however, with a circumcision performed by human hands, but by the removal of the fleshly body, that is, through the circumcision done by Christ. ¹²Having been buried with him in baptism, you also have been raised with him through your faith in the power of God who raised him from the dead.

The first interpretation is problematic for the Presbyterian position as well, since it contradicts Reformed theology regarding the receiving of Christian Baptism as being unrelated to whether the receiver has received the circumcision of the heart (i.e. they have been regenerated), which is an act of God not initiated by any act of man. This leaves the second interpretation as the only viable one, but this consequently leaves the Presbyterian position with no reference point in the New Testament connecting Christian Baptism to Old Covenant circumcision.

Another implicit problem with the idea that Christian Baptism is connected to Old Covenant circumcision is that it would have to apply to John's Baptism as well. But John's Baptism preceded the New Covenant, and therefore cannot have New Covenant inclusivism applied to it. This implies that if John the Baptist was baptising infants due to his Baptism having a connection to circumcision, it was only male infants, which is an absurd conclusion. Therefore, if no connection can be drawn between Old Covenant circumcision and John's Baptism, then consequently there is no connection between Old Covenant circumcision and Christian Baptism, since Christian Baptism is the successor of John's Baptism.

However, even if the mildest form of the Presbyterian argument is granted - that those who should receive Christian Baptism can be inferred from those who received Old Covenant signs (i.e. male infants) with New Covenant inclusivism assumed - important questions still remain, such as:

• Why does John's/Christian Baptism involve the washing of water?
• If John's Baptism was a baptism of repentance, why did Christ receive it if he was sinless?
• If receiving Christian Baptism is unrelated to whether one is regenerated, then why should a Christian receive baptism beyond it being a command of Christ?

I have found no satisfactory answers to these questions so far amidst the Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian debates, since the debates still remain fixated over whether there is a connection that can be drawn between Old Covenant circumcision and Christian Baptism. I do believe there is an answer to these questions, however, which could move the current in-house debate between Reformed Baptist and Presbyterians over baptism away from its current no-mans land. To reach these proposed answers, my starting point was to start with this question: who was John the Baptist?

Christ states plainly that John the Baptist was the prophesied Elijah. The clearest Old Testament prophecy regarding John the Baptist's role as Elijah is given in the book of Malachi. The book of Malachi's primary audience were the Levitical priests of Judah in their failure to treat God as holy. John the Baptist's role in addressing this situation begins to be described in Malachi 3:1-5 (ESV):

¹“Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts. ²But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap. ³He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, and they will bring offerings in righteousness to the Lord. ⁴Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the Lord as in the days of old and as in former years. ⁵“Then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says the Lord of hosts.

In verse 1, the messenger who prepared the way before the Lord was John the Baptist. There seems to be debate, however, over who is being referred to by "the messenger of the covenant" later in the same verse, whether it is meant to be John the Baptist or the Lord Himself. Considering that the term "messenger" is used to describe an individual twice in the same verse and in proximity to each other, it seems more likely they are referring to the same individual. The reference to the "covenant" is also most likely referring to the Old Covenant, since the whole book is focused upon the law of Moses being restored and upheld in the priesthood again (Malachi 4:4). This would confirm the identity of the second messenger in verse 1 as John the Baptist as well, since he was the last of the Old Covenant prophets who called the people to honour the covenant. Verses 2 through to 4 also describe what the "messenger of the covenant" will do when he comes - refining the priests with "fire" - whereas verse 5 begins to describe what the Lord will do when he comes - "Then I will draw near to you for judgment." Since the messenger's refining in verses 2 to 4 precede and is contrasted to the Lord beginning His judgment, it further indicates that the "messenger of the covenant" is to be identified as John the Baptist instead of the Lord, and that his "refining" is to be identified with his "preparing", not with the Lord's judgment.

With it John the Baptist being the messenger in view in verses 2 to 4, the description it gives of him and his ministry is significant. When verse 2 states that "who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap.", this has to equate to John's ministry, particularly that his ministry was the "refiner's fire" and the "fuller's soap". But verse 3 states outright who John's ministry was intended for, and why: "he will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, and they will bring offerings in righteousness to the Lord." This, I believe, is a key verse, since it states plainly that the Lord is sending the messenger for the purpose of purifying the priesthood of Judah, just as the intended audience of Malachi's book was also the priesthood of Judah. John's ministry, however, was clearly not strictly targeted towards the priesthood of Judah, as per Matthew 3:5-6 (ESV):

⁵Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan were going out to him, ⁶and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

Malachi itself appears to hint that it's references to the "sons of Levi" in chapter 3 verse 3 should not be interpreted as the messenger providing a unique ministry to a subset of the people of Judah, but that the "sons of Levi" should in fact be equated to all the people of Judah. Verse 5 describes the Lord's judgement beginning after the "sons of Levi" have been purified, yet those described as receiving the judgement of the Lord appear to extend beyond strictly the priesthood of Judah. Malachi 4:5-6, in reiterating the purpose of the messenger as described in chapter 3, also states this (ESV):

⁵“Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes. ⁶And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction.”

The fathers and children being referred to here appear to include not just fathers and children within the families of the priesthood of Judah, but the families of Judah as a whole. This doesn't mean, however, that the messenger had one mission consisting of purifying the priests of Judah, and another mission consisting of turning the hearts of children and fathers. John the Baptist in his ministry clearly had just one mission in baptising and calling all of Judah to repentance. Therefore, we should interpret the missions given to the messenger in Malachi of "purifying the sons of Levi" and "turning the hearts of the children and fathers" as the one mission to the same people also. This implies, however, that the "sons of Levi" being referred to in Malachi are to be equated to the people of Judah as a whole, as revealed in the ministry of John the Baptist.

Why would the sons of Levi in Malachi be equated to all of Judah in its prophetic fulfilment, and what is the significance of this equation? The answer most likely lies in Exodus 19:4-6 (ESV), in God's command to the Israelites from Mount Sinai:

⁴‘You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. ⁵Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; ⁶and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.”

It has always been God's desire since the Mosaic Covenant for all of His people to be reckoned as priests that treated Him as holy. John the Baptist's mission, therefore, as informed by Malachi 3:3, was to prepare all of Judah as a kingdom of priests and a holy nation before the coming of the Lord, since he was the "messenger of the covenant", that is, the Mosaic covenant. How then did John the Baptist perform his prophesied duty to refine Judah "like gold and silver", so that they will "bring offerings in righteousness to the Lord"? This refining has to be equivalent to his preaching and his baptism.

Understanding John the Baptist's preaching as part of his refining with "fire" is fairly easy to comprehend, considering how it consisted of exposing the sins of Judah and calling them to repentance for it. Understanding John's Baptism of water as part of his refining, however, is on its face more obscure. I propose, however, that John's Baptism of water as a form of refining/purification must be understood as an expounding of the ordination of Levites into the priesthood. This ordination ritual is first prescribed in Exodus 40:12 (ESV):

¹²Then you shall bring Aaron and his sons to the entrance of the tent of meeting and shall wash them with water ¹³and put on Aaron the holy garments. And you shall anoint him and consecrate him, that he may serve me as priest.

Moses executed this command in Leviticus 8:5-6 (ESV):

⁵And Moses said to the congregation, “This is the thing that the Lord has commanded to be done.” ⁶And Moses brought Aaron and his sons and washed them with water.

It should be noted that this washing was prescribed for the ordination of the high priests in particular, the priests set apart to approach Yahweh Himself in the holy of holies. The high priest was also to undergo ritual washing on the day of atonement as well before approaching Yahweh, as prescribed in Leviticus 16:4 (ESV):

⁴He shall put on the holy linen coat and shall have the linen undergarment on his body, and he shall tie the linen sash around his waist, and wear the linen turban; these are the holy garments. He shall bathe his body in water and then put them on.

Why would John the Baptist be washing all Judah in a manner whose only precedent in the law of Moses is the cleansing of the high priests upon their ordination and their entrance into the holy of holies? Because instead of the priests approaching Yahweh in His temple, Yahweh was now going to approach His priests personally in the wilderness during the ministry of John the Baptist.

This provides a reason why all Judah readily accepted the Baptism of John, since they believed his proclamation that Yahweh was going to meet them in wilderness on the way to His temple, and to be washed with water was the way to treat Yahweh as holy when approaching Him. The entirety of the holiness code in the law of Moses was focused on how Israel was to treat Yahweh as holy, and to be visibly holy to Yahweh in deed, and one of the core tents of treating Yahweh as holy in the holiness code was for no impurity or decay to be brought near to Yahweh. Such was the purpose of the high priest's washing, for the impurity and decay carried by their bodies to be washed away. All Judah accepted John's Baptism, therefore, because they saw it as essential to treating Yahweh as holy, just the same way the priests were prescribed to treat Yahweh as holy.

This would also explain why Christ Jesus could accept John's Baptism to "fulfill all righteousness" (Matthew 3:15). Judah came to receive John's Baptism and confessed their sins while doing so (Matthew 3:6), but since Christ was sinless the confession of sin was not the core purpose of John's Baptism, but instead the core purpose was treating Yahweh as holy. In Judah's case, treating Yahweh as holy first involved admitting the impurity of their heart and not hiding it behind their deeds, which is why they confessed their sins, and then being cleansed of their impurities. In Christ's case, it was the incarnate Son treating the Father as holy, since while the incarnate Son already had a heart perfectly fixed on the Father, he bore the flesh of his mother Mary that was subject to the same impurity and decay as the rest of mankind, and thus he still needed to honour the law of Moses in His relationship to the Father. Also, in view of John's Baptism being a priestly washing, Christ's baptism would mark his ordination into the kingdom of priests alongside those who also accepted John's Baptism.

How does this shed light onto what Christian Baptism is? Christian Baptism differs from John's Baptism in only two respects: recipients are to be baptised into the revealed Trinity, and that it totally supplants John's Baptism. Christian Baptism inherits the meaning of John's Baptism in every other respect. This can be seen in John 3:25, where the disciples of John the Baptist state that they perceived Christ's Baptism as one of "purification". This accords with the description in Malachi of the priests being purified by the messenger, and in the Mosaic covenant context of priestly cleansing as purification. John's Baptism, however, would still have belonged to the Mosaic Covenant, and would have also been temporary in its effect just like any other ritual cleansing prescribed in it. The high priests still had to cleanse themselves each year before entering the holy of holies on the day of atonement. But Christ's Baptism, which He instituted after he received John's Baptism, is permanent due to it belonging to the New Covenant which He administers as the eternal high priest (the priesthood he took up upon His own baptism by John). Christian Baptism could then be understood as baptising its recipient into Christ's priesthood, the order of Melchizedek, in the fulfilment of the kingdom of priests in which one can approach the Father with confidence, as opposed to John's, which baptised its recipients into the Levitical priesthood in expectancy for Yahweh approaching them. This would explain why John's Baptism was seen as needing to be supplanted entirely by Christian Baptism, as depicted in Acts 19:1-6.

Christian Baptism is to be received however but not only by Judahites, but Gentiles also. It is notable in the New Testament that no Gentile convert to Christianity asks for an explanation for what Christian Baptism means, but that they seem to already understand its significance. I presume this is due to the pagan Gentile world at that time being already intimately familiar with priesthoods, with ritual washing being a central practice in many of them. Since these pagan cleansing were done for the sake of treating their gods as holy, it would have been an easy concept for Gentile Christian converts to accept that they must undergo a singular ritual washing to treat Christ as holy forevermore.

This understanding of Christian Baptism as a priestly baptism also coheres with the New Testament theology regarding Christians being the living stones that make up the temple of Yahweh, which is the body of Christ. The Holy Spirit dwells in the midst of the body of Christ, the Church. There is a point in time in which a Christian joins the body of Christ as a living stone in Yahweh's temple. Since it is command of Christ for Christians to receive Christian Baptism, and that the desire for the Christian should be to receive it, them receiving it signifies that they have become a visible member of the body of Christ by treating Yahweh and His temple as holy as they approach Him in confidence. This allows for false converts too, since if someone who receives Christian Baptism, joins the visible Church, and then falls away, they never treated Yahweh as holy in their hearts in the first place. They are, however, still held to account by Christ as permanently identifying themselves as part of His kingdom of priests through their baptism. If they continue in their apostasy, they will incur a greater judgment than those who never identified themselves as part of Christ's kingdom of priests in the first place. If they return, however, there is no need for re-baptism, since their original Christian Baptism truly was a permanent ordination. The receiving of Christian Baptism, therefore, as the way one identifies themselves as belonging to Christ's Church and treating Him and His Church as holy in deed is still independent of whether they actually treat Christ and His Church as holy in their heart. The physical deed of Christian Baptism is still significant in regard to holiness, and whether the recipient continues to honour it or desecrates it.

If Christian Baptism inherits from John's Baptism its significance as a priestly washing, who then should be baptised? The answer would be, all flesh that draws near to Yahweh. In the Mosaic covenant it was only the approved sons of Levi that could approach Yahweh in His dwelling place, but Moses' desire for Israel to be "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" necessarily includes all men, women, and children of Israel. Therefore, under the New Covenant, where the Church is the true Israel, all men, women, and children who draw near to Yahweh to join the visible body of Christ, the temple of the Holy Spirit, should receive Christian Baptism to treat this Third Temple as holy and thus enter the visible body of Christ. This necessarily includes infants, whose families desire to be identified with the visible body of Christ, since all flesh bears impurities and decay that needs to be put away before approaching God. Infants receiving Christian Baptism alongside men and women therefore fulfills the Apostle Peter's words in 1 Peter 2:9-10 (ESV):

⁹But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. ¹⁰Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

It may be that the infant, man, or woman who received Christian Baptism will fall away since they were never a child of God in the first place, and therefore never received his mercy. Nevertheless, all flesh who are identified with the visible Church should be baptised if they are to treat the Church as holy.

What, then, is the mode of Christian Baptism? Was it by immersion or by pouring? If John's Baptism, and consequently Christian Baptism, were modeled after the washing of the high priest at their ordination and on the day of atonement, then the mode of Christian Baptism is inherited from the washing of the high priest. How then were they washed? Leviticus 8:6, once more, gives an example (ESV):

⁶And Moses brought Aaron and his sons and washed them with water.

It was Moses who washed Aaron and his sons at their ordination. They were all standing before the Tabernacle during the ordination, so immersion is not in view, but instead Moses performed the washing by pouring. It does imply, however, that the entirety of their bodies were poured over with water. Take Leviticus 16:4 again, in the high priest's preparation to enter the holy of holies (ESV):

⁴He shall put on the holy linen coat and shall have the linen undergarment on his body, and he shall tie the linen sash around his waist, and wear the linen turban; these are the holy garments. He shall bathe his body in water and then put them on.

The high priest was to prepare himself before the Tabernacle and before the Temple. What was the source of water for them to be purified? It was the Bronze Sea as described in Exodus 30:17-21, which before both the Tabernacle and the Temple (ESV):

¹⁷The Lord said to Moses, ¹⁸“You shall also make a basin of bronze, with its stand of bronze, for washing. You shall put it between the tent of meeting and the altar, and you shall put water in it, ¹⁹with which Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet. ²⁰When they go into the tent of meeting, or when they come near the altar to minister, to burn a food offering to the Lord, they shall wash with water, so that they may not die. ²¹They shall wash their hands and their feet, so that they may not die. It shall be a statute forever to them, even to him and to his offspring throughout their generations.”

The Bronze Sea was set up for the purpose of providing water for pouring, not immersion. In the context of priestly purification, the water was meant to carry off the body's impurities, so it makes no sense for immersion to take place using the Bronze Sea where the impurities would contaminate the Sea itself, rendering it pointless. From these examples, we can infer that John's Baptism and Christian Baptism involved pouring, ideally with enough water to wash the whole body. This could also explain John the Baptist's location of choice to baptise as described in John 3:23 (ESV):

²³John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because water was plentiful there, and people were coming and being baptized

The location name Aenon means "springs" in Hebrew/Aramaic, which is distinct from the Jordan River. It was picked clearly because the water source was pure and abundant, and it being near to the source of the spring it most likely would have meant the water was fast flowing, but not deep. Without first-hand knowledge of the site in the 1st century however this remains as speculation, and is not essential to the argument that John's Baptism involved pouring.

Another piece of speculation that can be added to this argument for Christian Baptism being understood as a priestly washing was provided by Pastor Callum Lewis of Westminster Presbyterian Church Belconnen. He pointed out how by the 1st century in Judea the priesthood of the Second Temple was widely regarded as invalid due to the turmoil brought about by the Greek, Hasmonean, and Herodian exploitation and supplanting of the priesthood for their own ends. John the Baptist, however, was a true heir to the high priesthood as a descendent of Aaron through both his father and mother, so him calling all Judah to himself in the wilderness could be interpreted as both him denouncing the priesthood of the Second Temple as invalid, and him reconstituting a new priesthood through his Baptism. Considering that the messenger's role in Malachi was to purify the priesthood, it would make sense for the messenger himself to act in the office of the high priesthood as well. If the prophetic fulfilment of John the Baptist's ministry can be understood as him restarting the priesthood in the wilderness, then this would further bolster the case that John's Baptism was, and Christian Baptism in turn is, a priestly washing.

In conclusion, I believe that Christian Baptism should be received by all who are identified as part of the visible Church, which includes all men, women, children, and infants, out of a desire to treat Christ and His church as holy. For those that are capable, treating God as holy should also involve their confession of their sin and need for a Redeemer prior to their Christian Baptism, just like John's Baptism. For those that are incapable of confessing however, such as infants, it is still God's desire for them to be counted as part of His kingdom of priests and holy nation, His true Israel, as the fulfilment of Moses' decree from Mount Sinai. As such, they should still receive Christian Baptism, since all flesh still needs to wash away their impurities once for all time before approaching Yahweh in His temple, the Church. We can deduce this due to Christian Baptism's origin in the ordination and purification of the high priesthood that it inherited from John's Baptism. We can likewise deduce from this origin that the mode of Christian Baptism minimally involves the pouring of water over the body, ideally over the whole body if there is sufficient water to perform it, and it only needs to be performed once, even if the recipient falls away and then returns to the faith, or even if the one administrating the baptism was himself secretly a false convert, but nonetheless correctly performed the Christian Baptism, much like Judas Iscariot.

I have also become convinced by the circumstantial evidence of early Church history that the baptism of infants was most likely an Apostolic practice, even based on the evidence of hostile witnesses such as Tertullian. However, the evidence remains circumstantial, and therefore is not strong enough as an argument to settle the Presbyterian and Reformed Baptist debate. I hope through this article I have been able to present a convincing case that John's Baptism, and consequently Christian Baptism, was not entirely a novelty given to John the Baptist by God for his specific prophetic ministry, but that it does have its origin in the Old Testament, with that reference point providing enough clarity for how Christian Baptism should be performed today. The key for settling any matter of doctrine and practice within the Church must be through the right exegesis of the Scriptures, as per 2 Timothy 3:14-17. I am willing to accept that this argument from the Old Testament is wrong however, considering there does not survive any writing from the Apostolic or early Church era that explicitly traces Christian Baptism back to the high priesthood of the Mosaic covenant. My current argument assumes that this was how the Apostles and the first generation of Christians understood Christian Baptism, since I do not want to presume that I have discovered some truth for the very first time hidden from even them. It is evident from the 2nd century Church fathers however that the understanding of Christian Baptism very quickly became untethered from even the New Testament during the chaos of that time, with long-lasting ramifications down through Church History, so it is still possible that this common understanding became lost during this period. What I'm concerned with though is whether I have rightly handled the Word of God, and still I desire to get better at it.