I specifically spoke of the disciples like Philip baptizing while Christ never performed a water baptism. It proves that there wasn't some special person who was in charge of baptizing. Any of the disciples did and were commanded to, while Jesus himself did not. From that very beginning, the "Pastor" in charge of the earliest flock was not the designated baptizer.
It appears that you have to try seeing things through the lenses and blinders of religionists to understand their dogmas. There are many things taught to them that do not align with scripture, especially traditions that many of them subjectively place on the same level as scripture, thus those strange things being made matters of moral crisis if not followed.
Personally, I have no problem with them following the edicts and rantings of their respective denominational religions. That has freed me up from having to feel as though their internal, cultic teachings have any universal authority, as if such actually emanated from the Lord.
The coming of Christ Jesus had the following impact, as indicated by John the Baptist himself:
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall
baptize you with the Holy Ghost,
and with fire: (Matt. 3:11). [Emphasis mine.]
Did not that same Jesus state that we would do mightier things than He did in His earthly ministry? Jesus instructed them, in Mark 16:15, "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." The majority of the apostles remained with the Jews rather than obeying what was commanded of them to go and preach to "...all the world..." I'm sure the denominational religionists have some slick reasoning to provide as their defense for the actions of the majority of the apostles, and why they did not do as commanded.
And then in Matt. 28:19, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"
The majority of the denominational religionists seem to think that still applies to water baptism when we're told that Jesus came to baptize with Holy Spirit and with fire. Gee whiz, we wouldn't want to follow Jesus' example in baptism, especially when we ourselves lack the spiritual stature to which that same Jesus has called His followers. Perhaps that is the reason their denominational religions remain fettered to the posts of ineffectiveness, with the majority of their followers never rising up to any level of spiritual maturity when that baptism of "fire" and "Holy Spirit" remain a distant thought mentioned only in passing while pasting cotton on bunny tails.
It's interesting how their respective religions seem to have developed cultic teachings whereby they draw strange lines of parallel with some things, and yet totally miss others that are legitimately consistent with what's written. I'm saying this not to smear the various denominational religions out there, but rather to shine a light on a topic that I've been studying for some years now as the reasoning behind the continued erosion in their numbers and their continued slide toward liberal theologies, coupled with churchianity history. I simply cannot accept the idea that, had the majority of their ranks actually been baptized with Holy Spirit and with fire, they would never have slid into the modern deterioration we see today; constantly sliding toward an acceptance of homosexual conduct, women a senior leadership as teaching authorities over men, and many other historically and biblically rejected concepts.
Jr.
