Ron, it's interesting that both bapto and baptizo both describe an object being placed into liquid, not liquid being placed onto an object. :-DAll, we should not underestimate the importance of symbols! There is a difference between + and - :-o
Hi MarkThe prepositions which follows baptO and baptizO are "in" or "into". If you use the equivalent English 'immerse' and test which prepositions go with that it is quite enlightening. eg. you would never say 'I immerse with water" but 'into' or, at the point of the baptism, 'in' water. It might have saved us a bit of difficulty if we had not begun with the phrase 'baptism with the Spirit'. Baptism in Spirit as distinguished from 'baptism in water' is the true rendering.
Gillian,Good answer. I do not believe that for a person to truly be baptized that he must be immersed in water for it to be a real baptism. I think, however, that there is one constant that we can all agree on. True baptism is a baptism into Christ.Rom 6:2-3 3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? We were not baptized into water, but into Christ. The physical act is only a public profession of an inward act that should have already taken place. When the Hebrews were baptized at the Red Sea, they were not immersed in water but into Moses 1Cor10:2(the law). I think what the bible describes as baptism is that of putting men into an ideal state or position. i.e. ChristSo whether we sprinkle or dip it should be an outward reflection of an inward change.But I was kinda hoping that you would have brought up some scriptures such as:Ezekiel 36:25 Then will I [b]sprinkle[/b] clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. :-DIn Christ,Jeremy Hulsey
If I might paste over some paragraphs from the Jewish Roots thread:Why would anyone want to be baptized in a similar manor to Christ? Because if we want to identify with Him we desire to emulate His ways. If I were able I would have been baptized in the Jordon; but that was not reasonable nor did the Lord require it. So what shall I do? I will do what I always desire to do. Shoot as close to the mark as is reasonably possible. If its time for baptism and I see a water jug and a baptismal tank; which is most like the Lord's method? When in doubt we should always take the most disciplined route. If I'm going to get wet anyway; why not just go on under? Would my desire not be as a believer to press toward the mark? Press presupposes opposition- the enemy would love to give every excuse in the book for falling short of what God asked. This is one of the definitions of sin by the way that Richard Owens Roberts mentions in "Sin is Crouching at the Door." What am I able to do? Is it opportunity or uncertainty stopping me or is it rebellion?Jesus said "My MEAT (nourishment) is to do the WILL of Him that sent me." And in another place He said "I have meat to eat that you know not of." He told us "Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after righteousness for they shall be filled." That person who hungers and thirsts for righteousness is a person BORN of the Spirit. New born babies don't have to be begged to eat. The come out wanting something to eat and we best have it or its going to be a long night! (My 6 children all did at least). The milk of God's word are the simple things that are fit for a babe in Christ. What could be more 'simple' than to give a command "be immersed in water" in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Anyone no matter how much you know about God can do that simple thing.The baptism of Christ is different from John's baptism- (Christ's baptism, as I see it is baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus). They can call the name of Christ also if they want- but everything we do (as Spirit Full believers) we are doing as unto Christ and in His name as His ambassadors anyway. The 'Jesus name only' (UPC) group miss this as a distinction between John's and Christ's baptism and baptise in "Jesus name only." They forget that there was only about 2 months or so between Mark 16 and Acts 2. The formula for baptism don't change in 2 months I suggest. So then, baby is born and it desires to do the WILL of the Father because of their new nature. It used to be their "meat" to sin against God- now it is their "meat" to do the will of Him of whom they are born of. The first drops of milk (as it were) is to HEAR the commandment of baptism and then be a doer of the work. Not when they hear, but when their new nature desires to straitway obey (be a doer of) this command it is evidence of their regeneration. Phillip straitway baptized the Ethiopian Eunuch (the Messianics say he was not a Eunuch, but anyway), BECAUSE he says something like "There's some water, lets do it NOW." Phillip then left and He went by tradition and helped establish (along with Mark) the work in Alexandria Egypt. If he was good enough to go that he desired to OBEY Christ straitway- with an Isaiah scroll in hand he was good to go. That DESIRE allowed Phillip to leave the man to himself. Far different from us having to constantly beg people to obey a lot of times!? How do we know that the Eunuch was good to go? He had an immediate hunger and thirst to fulfill ALL righteousness- even as Christ. So what I do is- when a person is saved I IMMEDIATELY offer water baptism- if they say YES lets do it- I feel confident that there was conversion- if not, I see no cause to look further as they have no real desire to do what Christ commanded. This is NOT to suggest baptismal regeneration; but I would have to wonder why a person would say NO to that offering of baptism if they believed it was their Lord's will. Some were never offered baptism. What shall we say to them? Do what the Holy Spirit is convicting. I have gone back and done a lot of things that had no real bearing on my salvation. I just wanted to be a doer of the work. It is my MEAT. God Bless and Best Regards in Christ,-Robert
_________________Robert Wurtz II