Baptism Q

[icelandic_iceskater]

John the Baptist wasn't baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit, right? Would the baptisms he performed have been considered valid in the church?

If they would not be considered valid, what was the point of them? Baptism takes away the stain of original sin, right (or not right)? What makes John's different?

[CatherineM]

What John practiced was called Mikvah. It was a Jewish ritual cleansing. It was required to be done in living water after someone became unclean. It was also part of the ritual when someone converted to Judaism, or when a new temple priest was being consecrated. Today it is still practiced by Orthodox Jews for a variety of reasons like a bridegroom before marriage or a father before the circumcision of his son.

For John, it meant someone was making a commitment to reform their lives. Jesus obviously didn't need a baptism of washing away original sin since he was sinless. St. Ignatius believed that Jesus allowed John to baptism him to purify the waters of baptism for those of us to follow. St. Justin Martyr believed that Jesus allowed himself to be baptized as an example for the rest of us to follow. In either event, the baptism that John practiced was not a Christian baptism as we practice it.