I knew a pastor who years ago received his ordination from one of Southern California’s first mega-churches. The head pastor was known for being a strong Bible-first expositional preacher. His knowledge of the Bible was notorious and intimidating. As part of the ordination process, my friend had to submit himself to something similar to an oral exam in front of a panel of other pastors who quizzed him on his theology and knowledge of the Bible.
The head pastor always posed something of a trick question to those he faced; “If Jesus was sinless, why did he submit himself to a baptism of repentance at the hands of John the Baptist?”
Matthew 3:11-15 (ESV) says:
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.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.”
Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented.
I’ve kept this question with me since hearing the story. In conversations with Mormons it’s often suggested that Jesus was baptized to set an example for what we must do. I don’t disagree with this. I think followers of Jesus should follow Jesus’ example and be baptized. But I think I’d like to put a caveat on that.
John was baptizing Jesus with a baptism of repentance. Repentance is clearly an important and fundamental step in trusting Jesus. To be saved by Jesus a person has to be saved from something. Recognizing one’s sin and turning away from it (and toward Jesus) must happen.
But I don’t believe Jesus, as a sinless person, needed to repent. Jesus was indeed baptized by John but not for repentance.
Matthew 3 continues:
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; and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”
I think John was absolutely correct in objecting that he wasn’t qualified to baptize Jesus. Jesus had him proceed because it didn’t matter who baptized him. Jesus’ baptism was a confession of his devotion to God, and God’s confession of his devotion to Jesus. The only two participants of concern were Jesus and God. The righteousness that was fulfilled was not the absolution of sin in Jesus’ life but rather the confessions of Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit.
As Christians, we follow Jesus’ example in baptism. But we do not follow Jesus in a baptism of repentance. We do not carry on the baptism of John the Baptist. We carry on the baptism of Jesus, a baptism of identification and commitment. Just as John was an insignificant and unqualified baptizer, it doesn’t matter by whose authority we are baptized. What matters is how and why we stand before God in our baptism.
LDS & Evangelical Conversations 
“Just as John was an insignificant and unqualified baptizer, it doesn’t matter by whose authority we are baptized.”
…if we are Jesus of Nazareth. For those of us who aren’t Jesus, John is qualified to baptize us—or, if John isn’t available, then anyone who has been commissioned (qualified) like John was. And thus, we do carry on the baptism of John the Baptist. Why not?
Other than those two sentences, I agree completely with all of your post. Great post!
Brian, where’s your Scriptural evidence for differing with Tim? (You can use the Bible or the Book of Mormon—Bible preferred.)
Tim said, “The only two participants of concern were Jesus and God.” What do you mean “and”? I thought you believed Jesus IS God? 😉
Hi Tim greetings from Wales the other side of cyberworld, I love your passion and mission and this subject. I like you in some ways, came from a family that were missionary minded. My parents took in Missionaries who itInerated the Uk, but I was the first one in my family to be missionary fulltime. Like yourself I too have a passion for connecting to those of other faiths as a missionary. I think everyone should be a missionary. It’s the most dynamic life there is.
May I add a thought!
To me, Jesus picture of baptism was an example to us of how salvation was to come. He was first called a “Son” at his baptism, and so are we. As you state, he was “sinless” and he was also God, hence he did not need to be baptized but his baptism was a visual aid of how we too become Son’s of God.
As you know, John baptised unto repentance but Jesus said to baptise in his name (Matt 28:19). In the book of Acts all who were baptised took on his “name” at baptism (Acts 2:38) and so were called “sons,” Just as Jesus was called “son” at his baptism we become son’s at our baptism when we take on his name. Jews come into the family at Circumcision we enter his family through baptism. We as sons take on the father’s name too, and so are baptised into his name (Acts 2:38 10:44-47). All who were baptised in Acts were born of “water and Spirit.” The two elements present at Jesus baptism. This then is the new birth where all men are born of “water and Spirit” (John 3:5) and so become sons of God.
What happens to Jesus happens to us. The spirit descends and the water washed away our sins
(Acts 22:16). Jesus is our model as Sons.
Thanks for allowing me to share.
Paul.
Thanks for your comments, Paul. I agree: we who have made Jesus our Lord are sons of God. I believe we become sons when our spirits are reborn. This normally happens before baptism. Baptism is the outward sign of an inward work.
However, my understanding is that if someone has decided to follow Jesus but does not expect to receive the Spirit of God (thereby becoming a son) until he or she is baptized, that person may not receive the Spirit until he or she is baptized. We receive according to our faith. We get what we expect (Mark 11:22-24).
Because of Jesus’ suffering for our sins, God has poured himself out on us without reservation. The ball is now in our court. We can receive as much as we want!
Mormons do believe that Jesus needed the baptism of John according to 2 Nephi 31:5 (to fulfill all righteousness). Plus the Mormon idea of ordinances needed for exaltation argues that Jesus needed the baptism of John.
I agree with BrianJ that it’s an excellent post. The main thing I’d add is that in some way the Holy Spirit was also a “participant of concern.” The account of Jesus’ baptism is one of the very few places (and the only one that comes to mind) in the scriptures where Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all in some way physically represented, and the arrival of the Holy Spirit seems to have been essential for Jesus to begin his public ministry.
This wasn’t the point of the post, but methinks maybe you should qualify the “we” here a bit more. You are rejecting baptismal regeneration which is dominant paradigm in Catholic and Protestant theology. Mormons in believing in in this are standing with Lutherans and Anglicans as well as Catholics. (I actually thought you were Lutheran, until now BTW). That is baptismal regeneration was the dominant theology when Joseph Smith was preaching and it is the dominant theology now. The Mormon theology of baptism, at least on this issue, is the mainstream, I’m afraid this is one area where you are in the minority and they can stand on the universal opinion of the church fathers and the history of orthodox opinion as expressed by church councils….
What is interesting about Mormonism is the fact that they believe in regenerative baptism and don’t believe in infant baptism. Regenerative adult baptism (well sort of, Mormons baptize at 8) is characteristic of the Stone-Campbell movement whose influence of Mormonism in this and many other areas is obvious.
But if we want to start taking the claims of Mormonism seriously for a moment. Assuming John’s baptism was Jewish (Essene) it was an extension of the tevilah, full body emersion rite, used in ritualistic Judaism for entering the temple after discharge (Keri — men after releasing seminal discharge, Niddah — woman menstrual blood, Zav/Zavah — uterine blood). The idea of extending ritual purity into life, was an essene theory the rejected the temple but not the theology of the temple. A focus on ritual purity was part of Hermetic Judaism and thus likely Hermetic Christianity which I keep discovering is what Mormonism seems to be restoring. I’ll respect the temple rule but washings and anointings should come to mind. Yet again proving Joseph Smith was better at his job than he is given credit for.
Paul of course had a different theology than your typical Essene on baptism and his writings are where you see something like a Christian theology. As an aside, I’d go with Ignatius of Antioch’s Jesus baptism is what made baptism effectual. Of course that only makes sense if you accept baptismal regeneration, that is that baptism is effectual.
God is the One who does the Baptizing.
He commanded it. He had a good reason for doing so. Acts 2:38 says that we receive the Holy Spirit and the forgiveness of sins …IN our Baptism.
In Matthew 28, Jesus says, “Go…baptize and teach…” Notice the order.
Baptism is an external Word, to us, totally apart from anything that we do, say, feel, or think. So now we can have the assurance of our salvation apart of our internal, whatevers.
Now we can faith in God (and what He has done for us)…instead of having faith…in our faith.
Thanks.
Acts 2:38 is an interesting counterpoint
Could it be read that repentance brings about the forgiveness of sins and with baptism we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit?
BrianJ said
In what ways do you think John was commissioned? I realized my response is predicated on what you think his qualifications were.
Eric said:
I said that God was a participant of concern, right?
David Clark said:
I think the spin my post puts on it is that we (and Jesus) need the baptism of Jesus rather than the baptism of John (or the baptism of repentance).
Repentance is not something that ‘we do’.
The Lord leads us to repentance. How? Through the hearing of His Word (law and gospel), and through the Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion.
Ist Peter says, that “Baptism now saves you also.”
Jesus never commanded us to do anything, where He would not be present in it, for us.
St. Paul in Galatians 4 says that “all of us who have been baptized, have put on Christ.”
This speaks about ‘our commitment’ or ‘our seriousness’ (about repenting), as opposed to God’s serious decision for us (in Baptism):
[audio src="http://theoldadam.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/faith.mp3" /]
It really is worth a listen, whether you agree with it all, or not.
Thanks.
I said:
To which Tim responded:
At the risk of being a bit pedantic here, what you said was that the only two participants of concern were Jesus and God. Rightly or wrongly, I interpreted that to mean Jesus and the Father, since you seemed to be distinguishing between God and Jesus. In any case, then, since you’re including the Holy Spirit when you say God, I don’t think we disagree here (elsewhere, but not here).
CD-Host: I wouldn’t disagree that Mormons believe in a form of baptismal regeneration (although I don’t think what Tim said necessarily would contradict a belief in that either). However, while I can’t speak for all Mormons, I certainly don’t believe that baptism has power by itself without the accompanying commitment and identification (to use Tim’s words) or faith in Christ and his work for us. And that’s one reason we wait until the age of accountability (arbitrarily set at 8 for those with usual mental capacity) before baptism.
Steve Martin said:
That, at its heart, is where we disagree. We don’t repent on our own (that’s one reason we have the Holy Spirit), but still God has left the decision to follow him up to us.
Eric —
Eric, trust me I agree with the logic of the Mormon position. I have always considered paedobaptism to be sin and the evidence for baptismal regeneration is overwhelming, IMHO. 100% agree with the logic on this. Despite the fact that you and I both agree on this position I still consider it very rare.
Most people who believe in regenerative baptism believes that commitment and identification are required at some point to make it effectual. In general I think that’s the Mormon position as well.
There is a general concept in Catholicism (my running theory is that Mormon theology of ordinances is essentially the classical theory of sacraments using different language) that “sacraments are not efficacious in and of themselves”. For example forced baptism gets someone wet, it doesn’t create a Christian. Catholics take this in both direction and have the doctrine of “baptism of desire” which means someone who desires to be baptized and say dies before they are able to be baptized, is spiritually baptized, as per Luke 23:43.
The distinction between baptismal regeneration and a baptism of commitment (non-regenerative) is whether there is any “work for us”. Whether it does anything at all, a gift of faith, or is merely a fruit of faith like other good works.
“but still God has left the decision to follow him up to us.”
No, Eric, He did not.
Jesus said, “You don’t choose me, I choose you.” The Gospel of John says that “…we are NOT born of the will…but of God.”
Jesus even spoke to Niccodemus one night and told him “that he can’t do this…one has to be born from above.”
We have made our choice, and that is to reject God. But God, out of His sheer grace and mercy in Christ has decided to save us…anyway.
Thanks.
Tim said,
“Acts 2:38 is an interesting counterpoint
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Could it be read that repentance brings about the forgiveness of sins and with baptism we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit?” [end of Tim’s comment]
Tim’s thought is worthy of ponder. It seems to me that Acts 2:38 is a key to this discussion. As you all know, is interpreted differently by the LDS than by evangelicals.
If the LDS interpretation is correct then Paul lied when he said to the jailer in Acts 16:30, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.” There are many other verses like Acts 16:30 in which believing—without baptism—brings about salvation (the new birth).
I anticipate someone pointing out that true, saving faith is always followed by deeds. I agree. But the first deed that follows our faith could be anything. In my case, I lifted my eyes upward and said, “I’m going to heaven!,” because I felt a weight lift off my shoulders. That was my first act of faith. At that point, I had the Romans 8:16 assurance that I was in God’s special, redeemed family, that I had “received the Spirit of sonship” (Romans 8:15) BEFORE I was baptized.
Nothing that ‘we do’ brings about faith. Faith is a gift. Repentance is something that God works in us.
Can a person not be baptized and be saved? Yes, we say that God can do that. But God can surely save in Baptism.
Jesus said, “Go…baptize and teach…all peoples…” Matthew 28
My 2 cents.( I guess I’m up to about 57 cents worth now :D)
Notice the order. Baptize comes before teach. 1st Peter says that “Baptism saves you,,,”
When the Lord command something, we believe that He is in it. Working (and giving) forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation.
If we don’t allow for God to work in Baptism, then everything falls back into our lap, and we have no real assurance.
CD-Host: I appreciate your informative comments. Among the things you said:
You very well could be right about that.
Cal said:
Not quite. That question is, what does it mean to “believe” in Jesus Christ? In the context of the verse, the jailer and his family were baptized immediately after professing faith; I would suggest that had they not been baptized, it would have been a sign that they didn’t truly believe.
I’m not surprised you said that, Eric.
The problem with your view is that it’s one step in the wrong direction. Once you take that step, the next step might be to say that if someone doesn’t participate in the Catholic Eucharist, it’s a sign that that person doesn’t truly believe (some Catholics have been insinuating this to me lately).
Another step might be to say that if you don’t believe Jesus has an everlasting past, it’s a sign that you don’t truly believe. I’m sure you know where I’m going with this.
As for me, I’m going to leave religion with the religious, and go with reality.
I’m just glad you believe, Eric. Have a nice day!
Steve Martin said, “1st Peter says that ‘Baptism saves you.’”
I believe that refers to baptism in the Spirit (the new birth).
In any case, I agree with you that water baptism can be a powerful experience.
Cal
And they would be right. The literal meaning of excommunicate is to no longer be in Eucharistic communion:
CCC 1327 In brief, the Eucharist is the sum and summary of our faith: “Our way of thinking is attuned to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our way of thinking.
I thought you were Protestant?
I am Protestant, CD.
(Why do you call yourself CD- Host? It’s been bugging me because it’s so strange. :-))
Click on his name and you can see his blog. CD are initials for “Church Discipline”
Tim asked: “In what ways do you think John was commissioned? I realized my response is predicated on what you think his qualifications were.”
D&C 84:27-28, the short answer of which is: “[he] was ordained by the angel of God.”
That is more explicit (in some ways) than the record in Luke 1, where we read the “spirit and power of Elijah” and “filled with the Holy Spirit,” but the two records work well in agreement.
Neither of those say anything about his qualifications in one sense; i.e., there’s no particular reason why God had to call John. There may in fact have been many reasons not to choose John—e.g., maybe he was proud, prone to lying, or grew a lousy beard—none of which are in the text and any of which God might have overlooked just as he overlooked similar disqualifications in others.
Thanks Tim.
There are a lot of good comments and viewpoints here on this post.
As a “Mormon”, we believe that baptism is the gate or the beginning of our life with Christ. We believe that when we are baptized we make a covenant with God. This covenant and ordinance, we believe, is essential to receive certain blessings and promises God has for us. We believe that faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and Repentance lead us to Christ and as a result we should come Follow him – which includes baptism by one who has authority. We believe that Jesus went to John the Baptist, because he had the authority of the priesthood to baptize Jesus Christ. So why was Jesus baptized – “to fulfill all righteousness”. So what does “to fulfill all righteousness” mean? The Bible doesn’t fully explain. However, in the Book of Mormon – it is clarified through the prophet Nephi (2 Nephi 31:5—7, 9):
“And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!
And now, I would ask you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water?
Know ye not that he was holy? But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments. . . .
And again, it showeth unto the children of men the straightness of the path, and the narrowness of the gate, by which they should enter, he having set the example before them.”
So this is the reason “Mormons” (Church of Jesus Christ of LDS) believe we are to “follow” his example. Like most of the Book of Mormon, it helps us understand Christ a little better.
Keep up the good work Tim. I found your blog looking for ways to unite “Evangelicals and Mormons” to focus on what we both believe in that is common and to help each other become what they feel and believe they should do and become (despite differences), rather than divide and weaken each other – which is not God’s plan.
I second Josh’s post.
Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Light. By him are all things made know that need knowing.
Alma 13:2 “And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son, in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption.”
The way priests were ordained taught the people about our relationship with the Savior.
Its no mystery that the High Priests symbolized the role of the Savior, and in fine, all ordinances, parts, expressions were symbolic of Jesus Christ and instructive of him. The baptism of John is a type or a shadow, if not the very same thing as, the baptism of Jesus. The casualties were those disciples of John that never made the connection to Jesus of Nazareth.
Repentance means to change, to become the opposite of, to be reborn, permanently turned away, transformed, different from prior state. One can repent and receive a remission of their sins whilst not being baptized. Yet the scriptures are clear “Repent and be baptized”. Jesus had no need to repent of any sins, and that’s not what any Mormon I know believes. He is the Example, the Way, the Path, the Mediator between us and the Father.
Pingback: It Remained Upon Him 011812 « Mennonite Preacher
Pingback: Better Counterfeits or Better Believers? « BibleOpia Blog
Pingback: Preach Loud » Why Was Jesus Baptised?
Great article, I have been asking the Lord “What is God’s Salvation Plan for our Gerneration” , the Lord showed me that BAPTISM is very important which every preacher leaves out not knowing it’s full meaning :
Genises 1, when the earth was formed it was related to a baptism.
NOAH’S GENERATION SAVED THROUGH BAPTISM
1 Peter 3:21 we see through Noah’s righteousness (God declared Noah righteous through his faith in him) his family was saved through BAPTISM, Noah’s and the flood referred as a baptism which now saves.
MOSE’S GENERATION “ ISREALITES SAVED THROUGH BAPTISM “
1 Corinthians 10: 1-6 we see through Moses righteousness (God declared Moses righteous through his faith in him) the Isrealities were saved through BAPTISM as they were baptised into Moses through the red sea as a baptism.
ABRAHAM’S GENERATION “ ISREALITES SAVED THROUGH CIRCMCISSION RELATED TO BAPTISM “
Romans 4:9–1″FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.”2 we see through Abraham righteousness (God declared that he was righteous though his faith in him) the Jews though circumcission Abraham convenant with God.
O U R GENERATION “ JESUS BAPTISM AND THE CROSS“
Mathew 3:15 REASON FOR JESUS BAPTISM was “ to fulfill all righteousness”, we were all baptised into Jesus, everyone from Adam and Eve till the last person born before his return will be saved if we just have FAITH that Jesus has done everything for our salvation. By Jesus taking our sin had to die as wages of sin is death. JESUS HAD TO COMMIT THE OFFENCE BEFORE BEING PUNISHED BY DEATH (THE CROSS) DIED AND SHED HIS BLOOD. Do not forget John the Baptist called Jesus the lamb of God who takes the sins of the world a few times at his baptism.
JESUS HAD TO HAVE TAKEN ON OUR SIN BEFORE THE CROSS. HE HAD TO HAVE TAKEN ON SIN AT HIS BAPTISM (Baptism has continually been shown thoughout the Bible) here we must understand that John the Baptist, the high priest as Jesus said he was the greatest person that ever lived in the old testament. AS ALL NEW TESTIMENT ESPECIALLY HEBREWS 7-11 CLEARLY SHOW WHAT JESUS WAS TO FILFULL EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE TABANACLE.
1 John 5;6-12, —— who came by the water and the blood(and the Spirit testifies) when Jesus come out of the water and the Spirit descended upon Jesus). His BAPTISM AND THE CROSS.
Colossians 2:12 explicitly defined baptism as an act done through faith: “. . . having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God.” In baptism you were raised up with Christ through faith—your own faith,.
1 Peter 3:21 The apostle Peter, in his first letter, defined baptism this way, “. . . not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”
Baptism is “an appeal to God for a good conscience.” It is an outward act and expression of inner confession and prayer to God for cleansing, that the one being baptized does, not his parents.
TO END GODS WORD IS SO WONDERFULL. There is so much more that relates to this topic for example:
If Jesus was total man then if he had taken our sins at his baptism just like the book of Leviticus, he could say to the cripple pick up your bed and walk your sins are forgiven, he knew he was carrying all our sins. Why would he be led to the wilderness after his baptism to be tested by Satan if he was GOD. The temptations would have meant nothing. Interesting, just like the lamb that was lead into the wilderness with Isreal’s sins. At his baptism he was called the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
SALVATION FOR OUR GENERATION 2012
Once we believe by FAITH that are born again ACCCORDING TO SCRIPTURE from above according to the word of God (through his baptism and the cross) we receive the Holy Spirit and become his children. WE ARE SAVED THROUGH HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS, NOTHING THAT WE COULD OR CAN DO, FOR HE DIED FOR US WHEN WE WERE STILL SINNERS.
WE ARE SAVED BY FAITH, PLEASE GET TO KNOW THE REAL MEANING OF TRUE FAITH, AS SOME FAITH OR WRONG FAITH WILL NOT GET YOU SAVED.
WE WERE IMPUTED SIN BY ADAM AND EVE, NOW JESUS CHRIST HAS IMPUTED HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS SO THAT WE ARE CLEARED ONCE AND FOR ALL FROM SIN, WE WERE SINNERS NOW WE ARE BORN AGAIN IN THE SPIRIT, AND THEREFORE WE ARE NOT SINNERS ANY MORE, JESUS TOOK OUR PASSED, PRESENT AND FUTURE SINS ONCE AND FOR ALL.
PS HE IS NOT COMING BACK FOR SIN AS HE HAS DEALT WITH IT ONCE , HE IS COMING BACK FOR HIS BRIDE
O U R GENERATION “ JESUS BAPTISM AND THE CROSS“
Mathew 3:15 REASON FOR JESUS BAPTISM was “ to fulfill all righteousness”, we were all baptised into Jesus, everyone from Adam and Eve till the last person born before his return will be saved if we just have FAITH that Jesus has done everything for our salvation. Like By Jesus taking our sin had to die as wages of sin is death. JESUS HAD TO COMMIT THE OFFENCE BEFORE BEING PUNISHED BY DEATH (THE CROSS) DIED AND SHED HIS BLOOD. Do not forget John the Baptist called Jesus the lamb of God who takes the sins of the world a few times at his baptism.
This reasoning is taken from Leviticus 16 (day of atonement) and as referred back form Hebrews 7-11 ( Jesus as the Lamb of God), . The high priest Aaron took the two goats without spot or blemish. One for God and was killed and the blood sprinked as God had told them, the other Aaron placed his two on the head of it and transferred all the sins of Isreal on to it. Then it was led into the wilderness by a capable person. When John the baptist baptised Jesus he layed his hands on Jesus and transferred all the sins of the world onto Jesus, here we see the correspondance that Jesus was then led into the wilderness by a capable person the Holy Spirit. This is why Jesus could say to the cripple your sins are forgiven as he knew that he was carrying everyones sins.
JESUS HAD TO HAVE TAKEN ON OUR SIN BEFORE THE CROSS. HE HAD TO HAVE TAKEN ON SIN AT HIS BAPTISM (Baptism has continually been shown thoughout the Bible) here we must understand that John the Baptist, the high priest as Jesus said he was the greatest person that ever lived in the old testament. JOHN THE BAPTIST’S WHOLE MINISTRY WAS TO BAPTISE JESUS, HE WAS IN THE WILDERNESS AWAY FROM A PERVERT AND WEAKED GENERATION, MINISTERED BY GOD FOR THIS IMPORTANT PART OF OUR SALVATION. REASON FOR JESUS BAPTISM was “ to fulfill all righteousness”, UNRIGHTEOUSNESS IS SIN THEREFORE TO FULFILLL ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS IS “NO MORE SIN”
THERE IS SO MUCH THAT RELATES TO HIS BAPTISM, ONE WOULD HAVE TO WRITE A BOOK ON IT.
PLEASE ANYTHING THAT YOU CAN FAULT ME WILL BE WECOMED SO THAT I MY ASK THE GOD FOR THE CORRECT MEANING OF JESUS BAPTISM IN RELATION TO OUR SALVATION.
GOD BLESS
Mario
At Christmastime it is so important to remember that Santa Claus punches heretics in the face.
FYI, all you Mormons who deny the Incarnation. St. Nick’s gonna lay the smack down on you too.
Every heretic knows Santa Claus has a strong left but no ground game and no leg kick defense. Some solid leg kicks to slow him down and you can pick him apart, take him down, and pound him into submission. So I say bring it on.
Ask Arius how that sh!t goes down.
I must concede that that was nasty. (See Actual footage of Santa Claus vs. Arius.)
But see Samuel the Lamanite vs. Santa Claus:
One, Samuel the Lamanite is fictional; Santa Claus is real. Two, Samuel the Lamanite never punched out anyone. He just can fly, and deflect arrows. Santa Claus didn’t shoot an arrow at Arius.
Santa claus’ only hope is to fly away from STL. Its a little known fact that Samuel was also extremely effecient in fisticuffs. And,although Samuel couldn’t put Santa away, I’ve never seen a man take such a beating. When it comes to harbingers of Christmas, STL is hands-down man-to-man combat champion. He TKO’d Simeon of Jerusalem, stomped each of the three Magi, and kicked the living crap out of Clarence the Angel from It’s a wondeful life.
Clarence in the movie or Clarence in his prime?
Admittedly, Clarence after the Movie. Clarence in his prime was a force to be reckoned with.
SAMUEL THE LAMANITE IS NOT REAL.
Tell that to beaten, bruised, and bloodied Santa Claus. As the old saying goes, Samuel the Lamanite will break your bones, but your words will never hurt him.