For those who think baptism should be some kind of image or analogy, it is noteworthy that the "baptism" of crossing the Red Sea consisted of water overtop, but certainly nothing like full immersion. Those who were "fully immersed" drowned and died. Those who were saved passed through with dry feet, but with water overtop of them ready to be poured.
When we feel the need to defend our form of baptism, we have used many similar defences. I would rather not defend. Usually when we feel the need to defend, it is because we are feeling attacked or insecure or unsure.
Hats Off wrote:When we feel the need to defend our form of baptism, we have used many similar defences. I would rather not defend. Usually when we feel the need to defend, it is because we are feeling attacked or insecure or unsure.
I've heard immersion attacked enough and this "true anabaptist" or "non-mennonite background" label to give me the impression that some people have some superiority complex over how they were baptized. Kind of like circumcision was to jews.