The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Baptism why the disagreement concerning mode?

Yes, we come head-to-head since you once again have posted something controversial. And, you even anticipated that you would meet some opposition so one must assume you knew beforehand that what you were going to post wasn't generally accepted.

YOU made the connection between Christ being baptized in regard to His entering the "priesthood" and a believer being baptized in regard to their being "priests" unto God. This is why I provided what the Westminster Confession teaches concerning the meaning of Baptism. However, YOU seem to think that ALL those who before us have somehow missed something very important and that we should accept and/or adopt your personal "insight(s)". Yet, when one consults the Confessions of all the major denominations on this matter, not one mentions "priesthood" as that which baptism signifies. I personally consulted the following Confessions:

• Westminster Confession of Faith
• Belgic Confession
• French Confession
• Savoy Confession
• Second Helvetic Confession
• Waldensian Confession
• Thirty-nine Articles of Religion
• London Confession of Baptist Faith

Now, how is it that these many denominations and 100's of godly men who were more than knowledgeable of the Scriptures somehow missed this "insight" you have come across? Doesn't it seem likely that IF this was an important item in regard to the meaning of baptism that SOMEONE would have included it in a denominational statement of faith? And, given that these denominations have various disagreements in regard to baptism, e.g., mode, recipients, etc., YET they all are in agreement that "priesthood" has no place in the meaning of baptism. Shouldn't that tell you something even further? Could it possibly be that Christ's baptism was in some ways unique and therefore not completely applicable to believers?

In His grace,