Let's look one last time at the conversion of the Ethiopian Ruler. Read carefully the verses that I have emboldened:
Acts 8:30 Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked. 31 "How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
32 The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture:
"He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before the shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
33 In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth."[e]
34 The eunuch asked Philip, "Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?" 35 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?" 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing. 40 Philip, however, appeared at Azotus and traveled about, preaching the gospel in all the towns until he reached Caesarea. NIV
Some late manuscripts add:
:37 Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." The eunuch answered, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." NIV
Here you have it as PLAIN as day. Phillip didn't use peanut butter or goat's milk. He didn't use tapioca or even sprinkle the Eunuch. They went down INTO the water where Phillip baptized him. You can argue with the sign post and take the wrong way home, but don't be surprised if we shake and scratch our heads and wonder why you go against the scriptures. Baptism means immersion and it's obvious with this passage that this immersion was into WATER.
Now, I am done. I have done my best. I will answer any questions, but I won't restate the Biblical case for using water during baptism.
I think you have my position here wrong scuba.
i do believe in water baptism. No problem with it whatsoever.
but you can't deny that there is a problem with the " water only baptism ".
agian , i point out acts 1. water then the holy ghost.
acts 2 - upper room ( no water at all , but then the holy ghost)
peter to the 3000. Not saying its not water, but why couldn't it be like a billy graham message? he preached, 3000 came forward and made Jesus lord ( baptism in Jesus)?
because you bring up a well that was there you act like its " gospel" that he was standing there dunking people. why didn't the bible mention the well?
all i am saying is that it is subjective and how you read the scriptures.
I am not anit- water at all. But i am also convenced there is enough evidence pointing to other baptisms.
romans 10:9 - where is the water?
thief of the cross. did he get down and find some water?
there are millions who believe the baptism of the holy ghost has no water in it and millions that don't.
i think we can just agree to disagree. As long as we both follow christ.
God bless you,
Bro. Rock ( the talking head pulpit)
i like that name!
