Are you one of those who believe that the following Scripture passage establishes a doctrine for water baptism by immersion? Perhaps you ought to reconsider.

Acts 8:36-39 (New American Standard Bible)
New American Standard Bible (NASB):

36As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! (A)What prevents me from being baptized?"
37[[a]And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."]
38And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him.
39When they came up out of the water, (B)the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; and the eunuch no longer saw him, but went on his way rejoicing.

I will say to you what I wrote in another forum recently: This response is a great illustration of the problem I have with those who try to formulate or prove doctrine from the Book of Acts. “Acts” is a story of transition for the early Church (Body of Christ) and it’s new members from the Old Covenant (Testament, Will) to the New Covenant (Testament, Will), from the old relationship to God to a new relationship with God, from the old way of doing things (eg, the Law, customs, rituals, and ceremonies) to a new way of doing things (eg, grace, mercy, the movement of the Holy Spirit). Additionally, it is also a narrative about some of the early leaders of the new Church (specifically, Peter, Paul and the original apostles and disciples) and their efforts to understand this new gift that the world had been given, so that they could shape and formulate the doctrine and direction of this new movement (first called The Way, later termed “Christianity”). Think about it: Consider the confusion and turmoil which would exist in the Church today if there had been no Epistles to follow the Gospels and the Book of Acts.

It is also an example of interpreting the Message according to a Scripture, instead of interpreting a Scripture according to the message - like expecting a couple of pieces of jigsaw puzzle to represent the end picture on the front of the box.

I am absolutely amazed at how apparently learned Christians like yourself will take Acts 8:36-39 and suggest that it “clearly” represents anything about the eunuch’s baptismal process. For instance, was the water the eunuch referred to a brook, a stream, a river, a pond, or maybe a lake? Because if the water was a brook or stream or the like (which was much more likely in that part of the world), then it would have been impossible to immerse completely a grown man or woman. But lets say it [i]was[/i] a large enough body of water for complete immersion; using your attempt to make this passage a doctrine for water baptism, then we should only be using outdoor bodies of water in outdoor settings for the ceremony, because nowhere else in the NT Scriptures does it suggest that using indoor “baptistries” or pools in church settings is authorized for water baptisms. (In fact, indoor baptistries started out as fonts, and didn’t really begin to take root until around Augustine’s tenure as Church leader in the 5th century.)

Now, let’s look at the idea of Philip and the eunuch going “down into the water” (notice how you changed the word “[b]into[/b]” to “[b]in[/b]” to justify your interpretation?): If you and I were standing on the bank of any body of water, whether it be a brook, a river, a lake, or whatever, and we wanted to go stand in that water, don’t you see that we would have to walk DOWN that bank to get INTO the water? And by the same token, wouldn’t we have to come UP OUT OF the water (even if it was only ankle deep) to get UP on the bank again? Do you really not see what a tremendous stretch it is to make this simple act into a doctrine for water baptism by immersion, especially with no scriptures in the Epistles to support it? Come on, Brother, give me a break! I think that your failure to be able to provide definitive Scriptures to “clearly” support your position on water baptism by immersion brings up a very important question: Don’t you think that if water baptism was a necessary part of our salvation there would be a lot more guidance concerning the methods and procedures on conducting that ceremony so that there would be no divisive questions like this to deal with?

The Ethiopian eunuch’s actual salvation and spiritual baptism actually came with his words in verse 37 where he said that he believed with all of his heart “that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”(See John 3:16-18) Every reference in the Gospels to the baptism that Jesus Christ would perform on Believers was with the Holy Spirit, not water. “Salvation,” “eternal life” and becoming “born again” are all SPIRITUAL concepts that affect our SPIRITUAL being through the SPIRITUAL presence of Jesus Christ in our SPIRITUAL heart as a result of the SPIRITUAL immersion (baptism) of our SPIRITUAL being in the indwelling SPIRITUAL presence of the Holy SPIRIT. Every reference to salvation in the New Testament Scriptures either says or indicates that it (salvation) occurs through a combination of two components - God’s immeasurable grace and our belief in Jesus Christ, the resurrected Son of God. All other requirements are man’s attempt to control the salvation process and limit who can be saved to those who will “perform” according to his (man’s) standards. The attempt to impose rules, laws and ceremonies on the salvation process is Old Testament thinking, which Christ “clearly” said, as He died on the Cross, “is finished.”

I believe that what the Holy Spirit has shown me is that baptism with water is “clearly” a physical symbol of what happens SPIRITUALLY when we become born again, just as putting on a wedding ring is a physical symbol of the spiritual bond that occurs when we get married. When we can understand [i]that[/i] concept, then the question of whether we’ve been immersed, sprinkled or sprayed will no longer be an issue, anymore than whether we wear a silver band or a gold band is for the marriage ceremony.