I haven't seen this particular passage posted in this thread yet, so I'm just going to throw it out there for the purpose of discussion. These are the words of John the Baptist himself.
"I baptize you with water for repentance, But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry (an obvious reference to Jesus Christ). He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire" (Matthew 3:11).
For me this represents one of the "seeming" contradictions of the NT. As it is obvious Jesus (and possibly some of the twelve disciples) were advocates of "water" baptism.. but was this only true before Christ was crucified ?
We also read in Acts the Apostle Paul administered baptism with water like John the Baptist did, and this took place after the Day of Pentecost. Curious, huh ? I don't think James (the patriarch of the early Christian Church in Jerusalem) ever baptized anyone.
However, Matthew 3:11 appears to indicate the "nature" of baptism changes after Christ is crucified and the Day of Pentecost occurs. Thereafter, baptism is purely a "spiritual" matter, not a physical event where someone is immersed in water to repent for their sins. That's my view anyways.
Keep in mind, according to Christian theology sin is hereafter and forever washed away by someone accepting the blood sacrifice of Christ crucified as the Son of God. Accepting that is what washes away all sin, (Eph. 1:7, 1 John 1:7, I Peter 1:19, Rev.1:5). This is stated over and over again in the NT.
BTW. As far as I know, the robes of the tribulation saints mentioned in the Revelation appearing in heaven are cleansed by the "Blood of the Lamb".. not by water (Revelation 7:14).
Perhaps early Christians (Like the Apostle Paul) believed water baptism was essential as a recognition of "past" sin.. which thereafter set the stage for a deeper baptism by the Holy Spirit ! That seems like a reasonable assumption to me.
Although I don't see how anyone works "infant" water baptism into that "recognition" scenario.. as I don't see how a new born can consciously make such a decision. Indeed I don't think any infant baptisms by the Apostle Paul, or any other early Christian for that matter are described anywhere in the Bible. I think infant baptism is more about a religious "tradition" that evolved hundreds of years later, than any scriptural requirement for salvation.
This answer appears to clear up the "seeming" contradiction, doesn't it ? At least it represents an attempt to do so. What do you think ?