As far as a literal interpretation goes, Trent (among other councils) has already declared its interpretation as being literal. CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
What about the baptism of desire? Or the "baptism by fire" of a battlefield conversion shortly before death and before the a baptism could be preformed?
On the contrary, people were thronging to John's Baptism, including Jesus the Christ Himself. It was the in thing to do in those days.
What is the more likely assumption to make is that the process was not complete for mankind until the Lamb of God made His Sacrifice.
Since John's Baptism was such a phenomenom in those days, why would we speculate that Dismas was also not Baptized? Because he was a thief? I say we have Baptized theives among us even today.
On the contrary, people were thronging to John's Baptism, including Jesus the Christ Himself. It was the in thing to do in those days.
What is the more likely assumption to make is that the process was not complete for mankind until the Lamb of God made His Sacrifice.
Since John's Baptism was such a phenomenom in those days, why would we speculate that Dismas was also not Baptized? Because he was a thief? I say we have Baptized theives among us even today.