Would I be admitted?

[ImaginaryDay2]

In Post #1 ImaginaryDay2 told us his baptismal history (sprinkled or something similar as an infant using the trinitarian formula in the Presbyterian Church, then baptised as a believer in the name of Jesus alone by a church that did not believe in the Trinity.)

He then asked would he be welcomed into membership within mainline baptist churches.

Based on my association with a Baptist church over a number of years, the answer is No. For three reasons.

1. The Baptist tradition is to baptise only people that the Baptist church considers to be believers.

2. The Baptist church recognises only baptism by full immersion.

Therefore, ImaginaryDay2’s first baptism is considered null and void.

3. Generally speaking, the Baptist church recognises only (full immersion) baptisms performed using the trinitarian formula. That is common to most churches. In fact, in recent years in more than one part of the world, groups of churches agreed to recognise each other’s baptisms, as long as they continued to use the trinitarian formula.

So ImaginaryDay2 is out of luck there, too.

Thank you for the honest answer (not that anyone else was not forthcoming), and it's what I suspected.

By way of contrast, the well-documented Apostolic practice was to baptise in the name of Jesus alone. (Acts 2:38; Acts 8:16; Acts 10:36,48; Acts 19:5; Romans 6:3)

And as previously pointed out by a poster named visionary, Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI, and recognised as one of the greatest Roman Catholic scholars [I could not find that scholar reference a few minutes ago when I looked for it again, but I have seen it]) admitted that the trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19 was not in fact stated by Jesus, but was a later addition to the text (that is, a deliberate corruption).

Hence my second baptism. The Pentecostals appealed to the same number of references as above to support baptism in the name of Jesus alone. And it made sense on the surface at the time. However, since I rarely take anything merely on someone's word, I studied the overarching concept of "Oneness", as the baptism formula was tied in to this concept. I studied the bible and other reference material extensively, including supportive references given to me by the church. What I found was a history based on the concept that after the original twelve and their cohort either died, or were killed off, the original idea of "Oneness" disappeared. Since there was no written bible (so the claim went), and the Apostolic churches were beginning to rise to power (read: Catholic), much of the doctrine was 'controlled' by them, as well as by church councils.

So, for one attempting to support the Oneness tradition, there had to be a 'story', and this one made sense to them. Suddenly, in the early 20th century, Oneness began to make a revival through the Azuza street meetings and other such movements. The conclusion drawn (by the Oneness crowd) was that what was lost was being restored by God.
So that's just the "Reader's Digest" version. But as I looked at these "revivals", it was hardly a "Oneness" revival at all. There were many 'flavors' of Pentecostalism that were born during the time (I can recommend many good books and references for anyone interested).

So, the more I studied, and the more I attempted to see "One" God (and I reeeealy did want to see it - I was 7 years into it at the time), the more it just didn't make sense. Perhaps the biblical record does not reflect a trinitarian formula in any of the cases stated above, but I have no reason not to believe that Apostolic tradition - using a trinitarian formula - is not correct.

Now we’ll see how many people will try to twist what I’ve said, to mean something else.

But perhaps they won’t try after all, now that I’m preempting that attack.

Hopefully I have explained my pov a bit so that it comes across as neither an attack nor a twist

It is obvious that I was not questioning the doctrine of the Trinity. (Readers will have noticed that my questions regarding doctrine and practice (and requests for supporting Scripture), pertain to post-Nicene theological developments.) It is abundantly clear that I was merely pointing out (as is my custom) that the churches of Christendom should follow Inspired Apostolic Practice, and asking (indirectly): Upon what basis (now known to be valid or invalid) do those churches deliberately not do so? And: What does God think of that?

My pov is that we are following Apostolic Practice. The church councils and creeds that (some of us) follow and consider authoritative for practice help in that regard. Otherwise, I'm left with a rather twisted version of "sola scriptura" a'la Pentecostalism that looks nothing like any other Christian church, and that rejects any other Christian of any other flavor.

Because he has mentioned no third baptism, are we to assume that ImaginaryDay2 was welcomed into the Lutheran church on the basis of his first baptism?

Yes.

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

Now we can see why ImaginaryDay2 said in Post #87 that even after some time of devoted study, he was unable to present a succinct summary of the infant baptism issue, covering just a few short paragraphs.

The term pedobaptism (or paedobaptism) refers specifically to the baptism of infants. That is the dictionary definition of the term.

But the definition of the word “infant” varies. It can refer to babies, but it also refers to young children up to ages seven or eight years of age. (There is also a strictly legal definition which is different again.)

Albion rejected the option I presented [emphasis added] (“- People who made a reasoned, personal decision to become believers, plus their legal infants”), which unequivocally included adopted children. He substituted an alternative thought in its stead [emphasis added once again] (“- People who made a reasoned, personal decision to become believers, plus their minor children.”), which lacks that unequivocal inclusion. After I pointed that out, he then stated that his definition included “minor children who are not infants such as four or five-year-olds”, and implied that my thought excluded them. He also accused me of being “linguistically challenged”.

==============================================================================================

To add to the overall confusion, Lämmchen in Post #394 in the “Can babies be conscious of their baptism?” thread indicated that small children can have faith, and that if they can have faith, they should not be denied baptism. But people (of whatever age) having independent faith cannot be candidates for pedobaptism. Pedobaptism (broadly speaking) imputes the faith of the parents onto the child. We are therefore confronted with a situation with respect to children – what is God’s view regarding a believer being subjected to pedobaptism? Or vice versa? (“It can’t do any harm” would be an expected cop-out, but one that is potentially displeasing to Someone In Authority.)

==============================================================================================

No wonder that, even after devoted study, coming to grips with this whole concept of pedobaptism, can be problematical. For instance, should aware children who refuse to accept the faith, be baptised forcibly against their will?

How can live-in servants (and bonded slaves) not be included in “whole households”? And what about visitors (as was ably pointed out by ImaginaryDay2)?

And does the following statement from a Reformed web page, talking about couples, even make sense?: I would apply this to baptism in this way: unbelieving parents are holy if they are still part of the visible community of the church, so that their children are both holy and the proper recipients of baptism. Unbelieving parents who are not part of the visible community of the church are no longer holy, and their children are not holy and are not to be baptized. I.e. self-confessed unbelieving couples who remain in the church (???) can have their children baptised. But if they leave the church, they can’t.

(http://reformedanswers.org/answer.asp/file/39819)

==============================================================================================

Such is the confusion that results when man-made doctrines and practices supplant the Simple Original Apostolic Gospel.

Now, can that in fact be the touchstone to apply when considering doctrines and practices in general? Does simplicity identify Original Gospel Revelation, and complexity identify man-made accretions (additions)?

==============================================================================================

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Such is the confusion that results when man-made doctrines and practices supplant the Simple Original Apostolic Gospel.

Now, can that in fact be the touchstone to apply when considering doctrines and practices in general? Does simplicity identify Original Gospel Revelation, and complexity identify man-made accretions (additions)?[/color]

At this point I would challenge Pedrito to give us a succinct explanation of the "Simple Original Apostolic Gospel" so revealed to him

 

[Arsenios]

==============================================================================================

In Post #74 ImaginaryDay2 questioned my thought expressed in Post #72 (Once again, I suggest that the hoops through which Baby Baptisers find themselves having to jump, should act as triggers to other Readers – triggers for them to question the foundations on which those particular doctrines and practices are based.).

He then presented a number of references apparently pertaining to water baptism (but two of which may in fact not so pertain, marked as [?]): John 3:5 [?]; Acts 2:38; Acts 16:33; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3-4a; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:11-12; Titus 3:4-6 [?]; 1 Peter 3:21.

He then stated: No hoops, just scriptural study., the implication being that the above verses provide unequivocal support for the baptism of babies.

But do they?

The problem lies not with the presented reference themselves, but with the interpretations that are superimposed upon them.

Let’s explore the situation by asking a progressive series of questions. Precise answers to these questions (as opposed to the often imprecise answers that have been issued by some Posters in the past [but not by ImaginaryDay2 from memory]) – precise answers will help us determine with a high degree of accuracy, both the benefits that are understood to accrue to babies when they are baptised, and the Scriptural basis for those individually documented benefits.

==============================================================================================

To start the ball rolling, it would be sensible to establish just who (the types of people) were being baptised by the apostles (as understood by the Baby Baptisers). That will then guide us with respect to the questions to follow.

(The situation in apostolic times was not that different from that in Jakarta, Indonesia, when I lived there. Properties in the rich areas had family accommodation for live-in servants. Those servants were often husband-and-wife teams (as where I was renting a room), and sometimes a servant family included children.)

So, an apostle or other good-news-bringer is invited to present his revolutionary message to a household. It is reasonable to assume that any and all servants would be invited to the presentation. So, in the general case, there would end up being: adults who accepted the message; adults who rejected the message; infants associated with a family in which there was at least one believer; infants associated with a family in which there was no believer.

==============================================================================================

Therefore, the first question is: which of the following groups of people was it apostolic practice to baptise in a household:
- People who made a reasoned, personal decision to become believers (and no-one else); or
- People who made a reasoned, personal decision to become believers, plus their legal infants; or
- People who made a reasoned, personal decision to become believers, plus those people who decided not to become believers; or
- People who made the decision to become believers, plus people who decided not to become believers, plus the legal infants of both?

Once the precise, unequivocal answer is received for that question, we can then move on to the next question in sequence.

I invite ImaginaryDay2 to take the front running in supplying the requested information for us.

==============================================================================================

Why would one wish to prevent children from being Baptized INTO Christ?

Only ONE spirit wants to keep us outside of Christ...

We Baptize our children...

In days of old, we Baptized our servants as well...

We wanted our servants to be HIS Servants...

AS His Servants they wanted to be OUR servants...

Servants were not Baptized by their choice alone...

Because they were servants, not free...

Nor is a child free, though he is heir of all...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

At this point I would challenge Pedrito to give us a succinct explanation of the "Simple Original Apostolic Gospel" so revealed to him

I love your optimism!

And join you in your challenge...

fwiw - I can give it in less than 10 seconds standing on one foot...

And this, mind you, in my mid 70s, I say!

And so can you!

Arsenios

 

[Josiah]

The term pedobaptism (or paedobaptism) refers specifically to the baptism of infants. That is the dictionary definition of the term.

But the definition of the word “infant” varies. It can refer to babies, but it also refers to young children up to ages seven or eight years of age.

In the 16th Century, the Anabaptists invented a new dogma of baptism, it had several aspects including

ANTI-PAEDOBAPTISM (prohibition of baptism before the receiver reaches a certain age. You are absolutely right, that critical age is never defined! Some Anabaptists would put it as 10 or 8 or 6 or 4 or 2 or .... it's always left as either an unknown or various. Thus, we often speak of this as a dogmatic prohibition of giving baptism to any under the age of "X" (X being an unknown)> The reason these Anabaptists invented this view had NOTHING to do with the Bible.... it had to do with their radical synergism, they held that one before the age of "X" (those that invented this new dogma would never say what age that is, either!) simply can't contribute their part in the salvation of themselves.

CREDOBAPTISM was another part of their new, out-of-the-blue dogma that the recipient of Baptism must FIRST make some public, credible STATEMENT of faith before the vale of prohibition is lifted.

They also held that baptism must involve a LOT of water.... entirely covering the whole of the person.... the quantity of water involved was made Dogma.

They also held that baptism does nothing.... "it is an outward SIGN of an inward CHANGE" that self and God together have made and the receiver has made publicly evident in some credible way. Of course, the Bible says no such thing.... no one said any such thing until these Anabaptists in the 16th Century came up with that.


None of these new ideas flow from teachings of the Bible, of course, and they fly in the face of 1500 years of universal, ecumenical Christian belief and practice, going back at least to 65 AD.

 

[MennoSota]

Why would one wish to prevent children from being Baptized INTO Christ?

Only ONE spirit wants to keep us outside of Christ...

We Baptize our children...

In days of old, we Baptized our servants as well...

We wanted our servants to be HIS Servants...

AS His Servants they wanted to be OUR servants...

Servants were not Baptized by their choice alone...

Because they were servants, not free...

Nor is a child free, though he is heir of all...


Arsenios

Is this your statement? Do you have biblical support or are you clinging to your church traditions that have been made up over time?

 

[MennoSota]

In the 16th Century, the Anabaptists invented a new dogma of baptism, it had several aspects including

ANTI-PAEDOBAPTISM (prohibition of baptism before the receiver reaches a certain age. You are absolutely right, that critical age is never defined! Some Anabaptists would put it as 10 or 8 or 6 or 4 or 2 or .... it's always left as either an unknown or various. Thus, we often speak of this as a dogmatic prohibition of giving baptism to any under the age of "X" (X being an unknown)> The reason these Anabaptists invented this view had NOTHING to do with the Bible.... it had to do with their radical synergism, they held that one before the age of "X" (those that invented this new dogma would never say what age that is, either!) simply can't contribute their part in the salvation of themselves.

CREDOBAPTISM was another part of their new, out-of-the-blue dogma that the recipient of Baptism must FIRST make some public, credible STATEMENT of faith before the vale of prohibition is lifted.

They also held that baptism must involve a LOT of water.... entirely covering the whole of the person.... the quantity of water involved was made Dogma.

They also held that baptism does nothing.... "it is an outward SIGN of an inward CHANGE" that self and God together have made and the receiver has made publicly evident in some credible way. Of course, the Bible says no such thing.... no one said any such thing until these Anabaptists in the 16th Century came up with that.


None of these new ideas flow from teachings of the Bible, of course, and they fly in the face of 1500 years of universal, ecumenical Christian belief and practice, going back at least to 65 AD.

Shall we let scripture decide?
Somehow I doubt any of you folks will let scripture speak for itself. You will demand that church tradition overrule and define scripture.

 

[Arsenios]

Shall we let scripture decide?
Somehow I doubt any of you folks will let scripture speak for itself. You will demand that church tradition over-rule and define scripture.

Do you know the difference between
IN (the Holy Spirit)and
BY (the Holy Spirit)?

Granted, it IS grammar...

But even so...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Is this your statement?

Nor, (like the servant), is a child free, though he is heir of all...

Do you have biblical support or are you clinging to your church traditions that have been made up over time?

Gal 4:1
Now I say,
That the heir, as long as he is a child,
differeth nothing from a servant,
though he be lord of all...


We STILL Baptize our Children INTO Christ...

WHY would YOU not DO so TOO???

Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

Do you know the difference between
IN (the Holy Spirit)and
BY (the Holy Spirit)?

Granted, it IS grammar...

But even so...


Arsenios

I know what "by" means.
We are baptized into Christ (not into water) "by" the Holy Spirit (not by water).

12*The human body has many parts, but the many parts make up one whole body. So it is with the body of Christ.*13*Some of us are Jews, some are Gentiles,some are slaves, and some are free. But we have all been baptized into one body by one Spirit, and we all share the same Spirit

 

[MennoSota]

Nor, (like the servant), is a child free, though he is heir of all...



Gal 4:1
Now I say,
That the heir, as long as he is a child,
differeth nothing from a servant,
though he be lord of all...


We STILL Baptize our Children INTO Christ...

WHY would YOU not DO so TOO???

Arsenios

Where is the word baptizo in Galatians 4:1? Am I missing something there?
How does Galatians 4 fit with baptism?
Think of it this way. If a father dies and leaves an inheritance for his young children, those children are not much better off than slaves until they grow up, even though they actually own everything their father had.*2*They have to obey their guardians until they reach whatever age their father set.*3*And that’s the way it was with us before Christ came. We were like children; we were slaves to the basic spiritual principles*of this world.

4*But when the right time came, God sent his Son, born of a woman, subject to the law.5*God sent him to buy freedom for us who were slaves to the law, so that he could adopt us as his very own children.*6*And because we*are his children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, prompting us to call out, “Abba, Father.”7*Now you are no longer a slave but God’s own child.*And since you are his child, God has made you his heir.

 

[Josiah]

Shall we let scripture decide?

Sure.

Just quote the verse, "But thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath celebrated their Xth birthday!" (to substantiate the Anti-Paedobaptism dogma the Anabaptists invented in the 16th century)

Just quote the verse, "But thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath first publicly and adequately chanted the Sinner's Prayer!" (To substantiation the Credobaptism dogma the Anabaptists invented in the 16th Century).

Just quote the verse, "But thou canst NOT apply water in any baptism!" (to substantiate your new invention of Anti-Aquabaptism)

Just quote the verse "But thou must use a LOT of water in baptism so that the receiver is entirely covered by water!" (to support the Baptist view you both support and repudiate)

Just quote the verse, "But Baptism doth nothing, accomplishes nothing and is not used by God for anything."



So far, all you've done is parrot the radical synergistic arguments of the Anabaptists (even though you CLAIM to be a monergist) and their silly, absurd idea that we can't do anything unless it is clearly illustrated as having been done in the Bible (you state that by posting on the internet, go figure). You insist there be Scripture that state positions but you can't find even one verse that states even one of your new baptist dogmas - not one, for even one. Think about that.... it's OBVIOUS to all but you, my friend. OBVIOUS.




.

 

[MennoSota]

Sure.

Just quote the verse, "But thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath celebrated their Xth birthday!" (to substantiate the Anti-Paedobaptism dogma the Anabaptists invented in the 16th century)

Just quote the verse, "But thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath first publicly and adequately chanted the Sinner's Prayer!" (To substantiation the Credobaptism dogma the Anabaptists invented in the 16th Century).

Just quote the verse, "But thou canst NOT apply water in any baptism!" (to substantiate your new invention of Anti-Aquabaptism)

Just quote the verse "But thou must use a LOT of water in baptism so that the receiver is entirely covered by water!" (to support the Baptist view you both support and repudiate)

Just quote the verse, "But Baptism doth nothing, accomplishes nothing and is not used by God for anything."



So far, all you've done is parrot the radical synergistic arguments of the Anabaptists (even though you CLAIM to be a monergist) and their silly, absurd idea that we can't do anything unless it is clearly illustrated as having been done in the Bible (you state that by posting on the internet, go figure). You insist there be Scripture that state positions but you can't find even one verse that states even one of your new baptist dogmas - not one, for even one. Think about that.... it's OBVIOUS to all but you, my friend. OBVIOUS.




.

Tell me when you want to be serious and observe scripture. At present, you're just running from scripture.

 

[Josiah]

Sure.

Just quote the verse, "But thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath celebrated their Xth birthday!" (to substantiate the Anti-Paedobaptism dogma the Anabaptists invented in the 16th century)

Just quote the verse, "But thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath first publicly and adequately chanted the Sinner's Prayer!" (To substantiation the Credobaptism dogma the Anabaptists invented in the 16th Century).

Just quote the verse, "But thou canst NOT apply water in any baptism!" (to substantiate your own dogmatic new invention of Anti-Aquabaptism)

Just quote the verse "But thou must use a LOT of water in baptism so that the receiver is entirely covered by water!" (to support the dogmatic Baptist view you both support and repudiate)

Just quote the verse, "But Baptism doth nothing, accomplishes nothing and is not used by God for anything."



So far, all you've done is parrot the radical synergistic arguments of the Anabaptists (even though you CLAIM to be a monergist) and their silly, absurd idea that we can't do anything unless it is clearly illustrated as having been done in the Bible (you state that by posting on the internet, go figure). You insist there be Scripture that state positions but you can't find even one verse that states even one of your new baptist dogmas - not one, for even one. Think about that.... it's OBVIOUS to all but you, my friend. OBVIOUS.


.

Tell me when you want to be serious and observe scripture. At present, you're just running from scripture.

We've all been willing..... but you've been running from Scripture. You insist all must have the words of Scripture to support their baptism Dogmas - but you don't have even ONE to support even ONE of the dogmas you promote.... It's obvious.

All you offer is parroting the Anabaptist denomination tradition.... the synergistic arguments you reject and the absurd rubric of the Anabaptist tradition that you reject. It's obvious.

Think about it. This could be an epiphany for you.





.

 

[Arsenios]

I know what "by" means.

Then there is a possibility of hope, however small a sliver that might end up being...

We are baptized into Christ...

Hooray!!

(not into water)

Right - We do not become fish!

Can we be Baptized into Christ APART FROM Christ's Baptism???

Mat 3:16
And Jesus,
When He was baptized,
went up straightway out of the water:
and, lo,
the heavens were opened unto Him,
and
He saw the Spirit of God
descending like a dove,
and alighting upon him:

So from Scripture now, Dear Menno:
When Christ was Baptized...

[1] WHO Baptized Him?
a) A flesh and blood human being?
b) The Holy Spirit?
c) A Scripture Reader?

[2] WHAT was He Baptized IN?
a) Water?
b) Pitch?
c) His Sleep?

[3] WHAT THEN descended on Him?
a) The Holy Spirit?
b) A new feeling?
c) A vulture?

"by" the Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit only came AFTER Christ came OUT OF the WATER...

So:
FIRST: WATER...
SECOND: The HOLY SPIRIT...

Says so right there in the Holy Gospel of St. Gatthew...

(not by water).

Agreed!
IN water,
not BY water...
BY a Servant of God...

12*The human body has many parts, but the many parts make up one whole body. So it is with the body of Christ.*13*Some of us are Jews, some are Gentiles,some are slaves, and some are free. But we have all been baptized into one body by one Spirit, and we all share the same Spirit

Strong's number 1722
"EN" = IN
a primary preposition denoting (fixed) position

BY, as it is mistranslated above, is called in Greek the Dative of Agency,
and is denoted by the unmodified dative noun...

When the noun is modified by the word EN,
it is not longer a Dative of Agency naming the one doing something,
but now simply denotes the PLACE IN WHICH something is done...

Christ Baptizes us IN the Holy Spirit, INTO Himself...

I thought you said you knew the difference between BY and IN!!


Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

We've all been willing..... but you've been running from Scripture. You insist all must have the words of Scripture to support their baptism Dogmas - but you don't have even ONE to support even ONE of the dogmas you promote.... It's obvious.

All you offer is parroting the Anabaptist denomination tradition.... the synergistic arguments you reject and the absurd rubric of the Anabaptist tradition that you reject. It's obvious.

Think about it. This could be an epiphany for you.





.

Deflection. Discuss scripture or be silent.

 

[MennoSota]

Then there is a possibility of hope, however small a sliver that might end up being...



Hooray!!



Right - We do not become fish!

Can we be Baptized into Christ APART FROM Christ's Baptism???

Mat 3:16
And Jesus,
When He was baptized,
went up straightway out of the water:
and, lo,
the heavens were opened unto Him,
and
He saw the Spirit of God
descending like a dove,
and alighting upon him:

So from Scripture now, Dear Menno:
When Christ was Baptized...

[1] WHO Baptized Him?
a) A flesh and blood human being?
b) The Holy Spirit?
c) A Scripture Reader?

[2] WHAT was He Baptized IN?
a) Water?
b) Pitch?
c) His Sleep?

[3] WHAT THEN descended on Him?
a) The Holy Spirit?
b) A new feeling?
c) A vulture?



The Holy Spirit only came AFTER Christ came OUT OF the WATER...

So:
FIRST: WATER...
SECOND: The HOLY SPIRIT...

Says so right there in the Holy Gospel of St. Gatthew...



Agreed!
IN water,
not BY water...
BY a Servant of God...



Strong's number 1722
"EN" = IN
a primary preposition denoting (fixed) position

BY, as it is mistranslated above, is called in Greek the Dative of Agency,
and is denoted by the unmodified dative noun...

When the noun is modified by the word EN,
it is not longer a Dative of Agency naming the one doing something,
but now simply denotes the PLACE IN WHICH something is done...

Christ Baptizes us IN the Holy Spirit, INTO Himself...

I thought you said you knew the difference between BY and IN!!


Arsenios

You cannot mix John's baptism if repentance into Christian baptism, Arsenios. Yet, you keep mixing them together. By do doing, you are saying that Jesus needed to repent in John's baptism. Did Jesus need to repent? Was Jesus not saved and needed baptism to be saved? Do you see the problems in your mashup?

 

[Arsenios]

You cannot mix John's baptism if repentance into Christian baptism, Arsenios. Yet, you keep mixing them together. By do doing, you are saying that Jesus needed to repent in John's baptism. Did Jesus need to repent? Was Jesus not saved and needed baptism to be saved? Do you see the problems in your mashup?

Thank-you for making my point for me...

Jesus did not NEED Baptism...

So why DID Christ insist on being Baptized?

Do you remember?

And for that matter, did John need Baptizing?

Does Scripture tell us?

Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

Thank-you for making my point for me...

Jesus did not NEED Baptism...

So why DID Christ insist on being Baptized?

Do you remember?

Arsenios

Symbolic so the world could see that the Spirit baptizes us into Christ.