The word baptize or its
derivatives occurs around 20 times or so in Acts. the
majority of the occurrence have to do with water baptism not
spirit baptism although that is clearly mentioned and often
clearly indicated as "baptism with the HS" c.f 11:16.
Which happens to bring up another point. The NT in
general if referring to spirit baptism seems to specify such by
not speaking of just "baptism" but baptism with or by the
HS. Also, regarding total NT usage of the
term. The majority of the occurrence of the word are
clearly water baptism
If you assume it is water baptism each time, you
will think it is. It is what psychologists call self-fulfilling
prophecy. Brother, I think this disagreement is caused by your Fundamentalist background and so
all the non-specific verses you interpret as water baptism. I come from a Protestant background and am
interpreting them by their context and the rest of Scripture. Perhaps neither
of us are 100% right.
It is coming from the fact that I know what I am talking about
(at least on this point) because I have the training to do
so. You are coming from what you have heard, and perhaps what
you want to believe.
OK tell me what you think they trained you to think.
So
you are saying anytime water is not mentioned it must not be
with water? i.e. spirit baptism? To make a pun here you
are out of your water... The word itself from the Greek batisma
denotes the action of washing for (sic?) plunging in water. You have to argue against Greek vocabulary, grammar,
and 2,000 years of church history to say spirit baptism is in
view unless water is clearly stated.... So to use
the redundant word "water" in a given context would be
redundantly repetitive saying the same thing twice. So from the very
meaning of the term itself water baptism is implied. Thus if
spirit is added for clarity it is to differentiate between the
two but saying "I'm not talking about water baptism here".
But when you start basing your opinions on technical terms,
grammar etc you need to go to the original. So the burden of
proof is automatically on your part to prove a given passage is
referring to spirit baptism if the spirit is not expressly
mentioned -- a hard task to say the least.
The word "baptism" is another case in
point. I'm not telling you what I think
it means. I'm telling you (greatly
simplified) what the term itself in Greek
means, and meant for centuries even in pagan
literature. "to dip, immerse, etc" Its
root meaning has nothing to do with the Spirit. It has
everything to do with water. That is not what I think.
It is a fact. Plain and simple.
You started right but ended wrong.
Have you ever immersed a paintbrush in oil paint? How about
yourself in work? Did you wear your bathing suit? I'm
having fun at your expense so please excuse me.
True, it has nothing implicitly to do with the Spirit, but your
educational bias really shows through here because it has
absolutely nothing implicitly to do with water either.
Baptizo is a verb and Spirit and water are nouns. Your
saying it has everything to do with one and nothing to do with
another is like saying, "Driving has nothing to do with cars and
everything to do with golf balls." Unless you provide the
subject and object explicitly or in the context, there is
absolutely no way you can logically assume that baptism refers to
water. As you wrote, the Greeks and the "pagans" knew that. Go
to the DTS website to learn that they know that and I maintain that
the Bible authors and God know that. I think you realize
your problem by now, so let's go on.
[Much time passed and he
looked up the definition, acknowledging a broader definition of batisma.
Other mistaken references that batisma only means
"washing or plunging in water" will be deleted to prevent confusion of
the reader.]
OK, you have three levels of meaning in the term.
1. The profane use -- to simply immerse
in something. In common non religious usage it would refer
to immersing in a liquid, dye, water, etc... I would challenge
you find any non biblical sources for "immersion in the spirit" or
any spirit for that matter. I may have had that very
specific usage but it would have been very rare (perhaps in the
Greek mystery religions). It would have been used a
gazillion times in everyday usage to dip in water.
[This second definition
is more correct in that "to immerse in something" includes "to
immerse in water" since water is a thing in which an
object can be immersed. :-) ]
This common (profane) usage is also found in the bible.
Mark 7:3 uses "nipto" to wash Mark 7:4 uses "baptizomai" to
"wash" speaking of their hands... Interesting "water" is not mentioned but
clearly understood.....
Luke
11:38 is another simple wash usage
In
Numbers 19:18 is an OT (LXX) usage of the common meaning of the
term. to wash (in water)
I pose no debate that the Bible used it in this way.
2.
the religious usage referring to ceremonial washing.
Like water baptism was...
When John baptized did he
baptize them in the spirit? or in the Jordan?? Mat
3:6? Seems like the Jordan was full of water if I remember
right. Interesting too that John was baptizing hundreds if
not thousands before the spirit was even promised. (see
3:11) Christ was the first to received the spirit if you
remember (note Jesus was standing in water at the time being
baptized by John)
What I am arguing is not what you are understanding.
First a table. (We engineers love these things.)
Don't forget to bookmark this page!
