We, of course, use the expression, "water baptism" in conversation or writing to differentiate the use of the word "baptism" where the mediums of baptism and the baptizer are different in different contexts (of SCRIPTURE, NOT 16th century writings from Geneva).
What if a blind man has it drummed into his skull that the word "car" always means a Ford, four-door, five-passenger sedan. Whenever he hears someone say, "I bought a new car," what will he believe ? He will always believe that the purchase was of a Ford, four-door, five-passenger sedan.
If a person has it drummed into his head from early childhood by his religious organization that at every instance the word, "baptism" is found, water must necessarily be the medium, then he will argue that Ephesians 4:5, Galatians 3:27, etc. must be speaking about some use of water.
In the passage you raised, Matthew 3:11, water is the medium for one baptism, the Holy Ghost is the medium for one baptism, and fire is the medium for one baptism.
Water, the Holy Ghost, and fire are, of course, not synonymous. It is possible for man to immerse another man into water. It is also possible for the Lord Jesus to immerse a believer in the Holy Ghost (without the use of water). It is also possible for the Holy Ghost to immerse a believer into Jesus Christ (without the use of water). And it is possible for Christ to immerse a nation (say, Israel)in fire . . . . without the use of water.
There is one baptism for the context of Ephesians 4 (v. 5), and water is found nowhere in that context. Let he who thinks that Eph. 4.5 speaks of the same baptism as, say, Matthew 28:19, prove that there is water in Eph. 4:5. He could only use circular reasoning, which would not prove his point. Ephesians 5:5 and 1 Corinthians 12:13 can be identical, where the baptizer is the Holy Spirit (not a man), and the medium is the Body of Christ (not water) ; Ephesians 4:5 could not be the same as Matthew 28:19, where the baptizers are human beings, and the medium is water.
I haven't been instructing you, smvoice, I know that you understand these things. I'm just expanding upon your post, if you don't mind.
exactly, WHAT OTHER BAPTISM IS THERE?
The Scriptures are quite clear and the Church has always taught and believed there is ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM.
this is why the Scriptures never say “water baptism” or “spirit baptism”, the Scriptures only say “baptism”.
the Church received AUTHORITY FROM JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF to baptize and the Church received POWER FROM THE HOLY SPIRIT to baptize. without this authority and power, baptism would mean nothing. because of this, Paul can say in 1 Corinthians 12, for by one Spirit we have been baptized into one body. it is the Holy Spirit who regenerates, using the means of the Church to baptize. this can be illustrated by Acts 22:13, when Saul received his sight. It was Ananius who said Brother Saul receive your sight and Saul did. Was it by the power of Ananius that Saul received his sight or the Holy Spirit. Obviously it was the Holy Spirit giving the power to Ananius to restore Sauls sight. So it is with the Holy Spirit giving power to the Church to baptize.
let’s look at some Scripture to prove there is just one baptism ( other than Ephesians 4 which should be enough to settle the matter )
1. Acts 2:38. Peter instructs them to be baptized and they will receive the GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. obviously, the Jews believed Peter’s message, but had not yet received remission of their sins, nor the Holy Spirit. these were indicated to be FUTURE EVENTS, RECEIVED IN BAPTISM. also, notice Peter never says to believe and you will be “spirit baptized” and then after that you should be “water baptized”
2. Acts 8. Philip was brought to the eunuch, preached Jesus Christ to him and obviously preached baptismal regeneration to him. how do we know this? Acts 8:36, the eunuch sees water and asks what is to prevent him from being baptized? notice he doesn’t say “water baptized” and he didn’t say since i have been “spirit baptized” already what’s to prevent me from being water baptized? now up to this point we also know the eunuch has not expressed faith in Jesus Christ, for if he had, Philip’s response would have been nothing prevents you. but Philip answered , if you believe with all your heart, you may. if there was such a thing as spirit baptism, Philip would have said “if you believe with all your heart, the Holy Spirit will baptize you” no, once the eunuch says I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, he was baptized by Philip for the remission of his sins and received the gift of the Holy Spirit, BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT given to Philip. the eunuch only mentions ONE BAPTISM, SINCE PHILIP ONLY TAUGHT HIM ONE BAPTISM.
3. Acts 22:16. Paul ( Saul ) was blinded by Jesus and asked why was he persecuting him. we can only imagine what was going thru his mind, but once he was sent to Ananius and had his sight restored to him, i am pretty sure he believed in Jesus Christ at this point. did that belief mean he was “spirit baptized” already? NO! up until verse 16, Paul was still dead in his sins, he needed to be baptized.
v16 “ and now why do you wait? rise, AND BE BAPTIZED AND WASH AWAY YOUR SINS, CALLING ON HIS NAME” again, notice no mention of “spirit baptism” and a seperate “water baptism”
4. 1 Peter 3:21 this verse is fatal to the two baptism heresy. first notice Peter says “Baptism saves” and he says it saves thru water just as the eight were saved thru water in Noah’s day. so there is no getting around it, Peter makes the point there is only ONE BAPTISM AND IT SAVES. now, if someone says it is “spirit baptism” that saves and not “water baptism”, Peter is obviously talking about baptism that involves water and this verse only mentions baptism. IT DOES NOT SAY SPIRIT BAPTISM SAVES AND WATER BAPTISM IS A PICTURE OR SYMBOL OF THAT SPIRIT BAPTISM THAT OCCURRED ALREADY.
there is a very good reason no one believed this “two baptism” teaching before the 16th century, THE SCRIPTURES DON’T TEACH IT.
look at the fruit of this teaching,it goes against the prayer of Jesus in John 17:21 that all who believe in Him should be one and it goes against Paul’s teaching that there be no dissension in the Church and we all speak with one voice in unity of the faith.
so when Baptist’s preach that there was a great apostosy in the 2nd century and pagan beliefs took over the Church until the true teaching on baptism was restored in the 16th century, they are going against the Scriptures and the fruit of this teaching is the Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventist, Christian Scientists, etc etc.
i realize it upsets many Baptists when i point out the unscriptural nature of their teaching on two baptisms and how it is no more historical, orthodox Christianity than the Mormons, but i, like all Christians, am called to be a witness for the truth. let he who has ears, hear.