The Difference Between Water and Spirit Baptism

I will let the videos do all the talking for me, it shows my position on the subject... sorry, I use youtube a lot. I happen to be a more visual type of person.

part 1


part 2


part 3


part 4

so in a nutshell:

water baptism is initiated by us.

spirit baptism is initiated by God himself, and it's actually a legal procedure of adoption.


A person that undergoes both baptisms has a very specific purpose in God's heavenly arrangement. That of becoming king and priest in God's heavenly Kingdom.

Those who do not receive the spirit baptism, their hope is to be subjects of that heavenly kingdom, and live forever on a paradise earth.

NOW THAT'S GOOD NEWS!!!

reply to post by holywar


Though our views differ in the sense of heaven and earth, I do agree with you on the whole baptism thing. As you knew from the thread this one splintered from, I believe in two baptisms. The water is symbolic.... basically letting God know that you are ready for His Holy Spirit baptism. Usually, a water baptism is accompanied by the laying of hands by ordained ministers in an attempt to recieve the Holy Spirit therefore makeing it one single event. I think this might be where some of the arguments come in with the idea that it's only one baptism.

Now to clarify on what an ordained minister is. It's someone who has been called on by God to teach His flock. An ordained minister has the Holy Spirit in him/her already thus makeing this minister a qualified candidate for laying hands on a newly baptised person. It's like the Holy Spirit feeding from the minister to the newly baptised person. That being said, God Himself can pour out His Holy Spirit without the assistance of a minister. The point is, we should note two baptism... water and spirit. Water in the name of Jesus. Spirit in the name of the Holy Spirit. Both in the name of God. This is where being baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit comes in. Both baptisms combined makes this three-way true.

Just my thoughts. I can't believe no one else has commented on this thread yet. Please visit my thread on general theology discussions. It's quite deserted like this thread. There are no limits to my new thread. Discuss what you want as long as it has to do with theology and is civil in discussion. I'll give your thread a flag. God bless you.

spirit baptism is an act

This is why infant baptism isn't valid from God's perspective, the person needs to choose of there own free will to do it.

Sorry but if you were baptized as an infant your baptism is currently invalid in God's eyes.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
This is why infant baptism isn't valid from God's perspective, the person needs to choose of there own free will to do it.

Sorry but if you were baptized as an infant your baptism is currently invalid in God's eyes.

Invalid? Do you feel circumcisions are invalid? They didn't have free will, the parents took the upper hand and made the decision for them. Same thing with OT ritual cleansing. God's the same yesterday, today and tomorrow - He doesn't change.

Exactly when do you suppose He changed the commandment of honoring our Moms and Dads? If teaching our children about the ways of God doesn't start at home, where should it?

reply to post by Myrtales Instinct


Did John the Baptist, baptize infants? No he didn't, he was baptizing adults that wanted to repent of there sins, of there own free will.

And Jesus himself got baptized as an Adult, which should tell you something right there.

Teaching children about God at very young age should be done as you say but that doesn't make the choice for the person, eventually they must accept or reject the teaching themselves.
If they accept it, THEN they get baptized.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


I agree totally. The act of infant baptism by the sprinkling of water on the head is an outright pagan doctrine. The word "baptise" actually means "to submerge" which does not constitute flicking water on a baby's head. As you said, the person must be of age to be able to accept what is involved with baptism. The choice of baptism should not be taken lightly because you are signing a spiritual contract to God at this moment. A child can't do this responsibly.

The fact remains that we don't know if John baptized children. Matthew states "people" came out to be baptized, Mark records 'the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem" went out to him and Luke referred to them as "crowds."

Jesus never turned the children away. They came with their parents and were fed along with everyone else at the miracle of the loaves and fish.

Furthermore, John was filled with God's spirit from birth, so the work of the Lord can start at any point in someones life.

I'll concede that all children are blameless until a certain age of accountability, so it doesn't hurt not to be baptized. But if a child is baptized as an infant (though I'm far from being Catholic) in a Catholic Church, and they grow up around the word of God into an adult, loving him with all their heart, mind and soul - God isn't going to label their love "invalid" so it doesn't make sense that he would not accept their sprinkles.

reply to post by Myrtales Instinct


The whole point of baptism is to bury the old sinful self and resurrect into a new spiritual body. A baby can't be made to do this. I agree that children being around a faithful family and witnessing baptisms and repentance all around them is a good thing to instill at a young age. The 'sprinklings' are very problematic, but not for the child. Moreso for the parents that allowed it to happen, for the child was not able to speak for him/herself and was forced into baptism making the contract void for the child.

Surely we can all agree to disagree on that point.

So, back to the four videos posted. I actually thought it was a good teaching but it's incomplete.

1. We all know what happens at a water baptism, but the teaching fails to address exactly what happens to someone as they undergo baptism in spirit. The teaching starts with point A, skips point B, and instead goes directly into point C, where these people are the first resurrected.

2. It seems to teach that the first resurrection happens after death, and this is not so. The ones Jesus chooses to participate in the first resurrection are sealed while they are alive. They will go through personal tribulation that is so immense - even to the point of death for a reason.

3. It doesn't even mention the fire aspect of the baptism of spirit.

4. Though it talks about being born again, it uses a hokey set of stairs gliding up into the heavens to where (in the mind of the one who made the video) they think that the kingdom of God is. Actually the kingdom is here right now and most don't perceive it. For a teaching as serious as an individual being born again he's not going to leave us second guessing ourselves. We are our brothers keeper - that's the point of the gifts of the spirit. It failed to communicate who is actually born or what the final product is in this birthing process.

I've got a ton of things to do, but I'll come back tonight and explain myself.

Have a good day.

Doesn't anyone find it odd that the teaching presented doesn't even mention the fire aspect of spirit baptism?

Matthew 3:11, and Luke 3:16 both record John saying there is a fire aspect to the baptism. The whole reason John came baptizing was so that Jesus can be revealed. This is and has been an ongoing process for the last couple thousand years until the full number of the Gentiles have come in. People who are baptized with John's water baptism acknowledge, that God's way is the right way.

Everyone knows from scripture, that fire has different meanings. There is a fire that burns and consumes, we'll call this regular fire. There is also another fire that burns but does not consume, we'll call this one spiritual fire. An example of this fire would be when God called to Moses and asked him to remove his shoes and the Lord appeared within the flames of a bush - but the bush was not consumed.

Where water baptism is about cleansing the outer man, spirit baptism is all about cleansing the inside of man. Just as we go down in the water to put off the old man, we rise back up out of the water to the newness of life. This water baptism also mimicks, the spiritual baptism that Jesus gives to the ones he chooses to reveal it to, for Jesus is the one who taught us to pray: "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth, AS IT IS DONE IN HEAVEN."

I want to tell you that the fire baptism, that Jesus gives starts in your feet, but unless you have experienced it - you won't believe me, so I'm going to try to explain it through Jesus' own words, to better help you understand why the fire starts in your feet.

'You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.'

'Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.'

'A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean.' These three sayings are recorded in John 13.

It is exactly like a divine spark ignites, but whether it's in our blood system and this is the seal of the blood covenant or it is in our nervous system - I can't say for sure. Please don't think that the phrase 'divine spark' is just some hokey gnostic phrase because it's not. The concept of a divine spark is a very Jewish concept.

So the divine spark ignites, it works it's way up.... up..... up, cleansing our body, which is a temple. Just as Jesus phycially cleaned out the temple in Jerusalem, he cleanses us too. There is so much more to say about this baptism, that my mortal words could never do it justice, so I'm not going to try. But what goes down must come up, for there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed and Jesus himself is the kindler of the fire. This is rapture! Instantly changed. Personally chosen. The first to be resurrected. Beloved disciples. Chosen to judge with him.

Imperfect people who make mistakes but he shows them mercy, kindness, forgiveness, compassion and a love that compares to no other.

And all judges need to have these qualities or noone will be saved.