Brian Crossett
A baptist was eager to speak with me on the subject of baptism by immersion. Totally convinced of the watertight case he was to present and considering me to be a genuine Christian, he proceeded to outline his case.
“Do you read of pouring or sprinkling in the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch and Philip?” he asked.
I answered, “Is this example the way you conduct baptism in your church?” He explained that, leaving out the irrelevant details, such as the location and the fact that no witnesses were present, it was.
I asked if it were not unusual that his pastor be baptized every time he had to baptize someone? Somewhat puzzled, he stated that his pastor was not baptized every time at all; only the adult Christian was baptized. I responded, “But is not immersion baptism.” “Yes,” he agreed, “but the pastor does not undergo immersion at each baptism, only the one to whom he administers the rite.”
So I asked, “Why did Philip go under water with the eunuch if it was not necessary?” With some hesitation, he said that Philip did not go under water, only the eunuch.
I quoted Acts 8:38: “… they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.”
Note the error of the notion that going down into the water is interpreted as immersion since it involves dual immersion. The proper interpretation is that the baptism took place not as part of the going down but immediately after they went down. This is indicated by the conjunctive “and:” “… they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.”
