Here I am not sure which baptism you refer to, but both apply.
"Bob took a shower today" does this mean Bob showered with water, or perhaps Bob showered with sand, or maybe something else? Or do you suppose that the word shower in itself provides sufficient inference by its standard use in language that water can be implied without explicitly mentioned?
The word baptism, in Greek, means washing. baptism infers water because one doesn't regularly wash or bathe in something other than water. The Jewish practice of ritual washing and bathing in the mikveh, from which Christian Baptism comes from, was with water. John's baptism of repentance was a form of mikveh washing that was done for the anticipation and expectation of the coming of the Messiah. Jesus told His apostles, "Make disciples of all nations, baptizing them..." By this Christ instituted what we call Christian Baptism, this is that Baptism which is "in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit" as per Christ's own words in Matthew 28, which is in the name and authority of Christ for the remission of sins (see Acts 2:38), this is the same Baptism which Paul mentions throughout His letters, such as to the Romans where He says we were joined to Christ's death, burial, and resurrection; or in Galatians 3:27 where he says that we have "put on Christ", or in Colossians where he says that we were buried with Christ in our baptism as a spiritual circumcision made without hands.
This is Christian Baptism, and it happens with the use of water. It's what baptism itself infers, it's what the Apostles themselves taught and practiced, it's what Christians have always believed.
I very much doubt that. I don't think there is any ambiguity here, it's pretty clear--and so I suspect it has nothing to do with clarity, and everything to do with being intentionally obtuse so as to avoid admitting what is quite plain and obvious.
Do you see any difference at all between water baptism and the baptism of the Holy Spirit?
Yes. Baptism with the Holy Spirit is what happened on Pentecost, that's why Jesus Himself says that they would be baptized with the Holy Spirit "not many days from now", and we see the connection between what John the Baptist said, that the One who came after him would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire--and that is exactly what happened on Pentecost. Jesus kept His promise, He sent the promised Holy Spirit, poured out on all flesh even as the Prophet Joel had spoken centuries earlier. The promise of God of the sending of the Holy Spirit was fulfilled, and the Church was empowered for its mission of preaching the Gospel, and the Apostles to go out and be Jesus' witnesses beginning first in Jerusalem and ultimately to the farthest reaches of the inhabited world--and the Church has continued that mission since then.
The only other instance in the Bible that mentions baptism with the Holy Spirit is another event which looks a lot like Pentecost, and this is where St. Peter comes to the house of Cornelius, and the Spirit is again poured out upon the Gentiles, which Peter takes as a very clear sign that what God had given and done for the original Jewish believers God was doing also for the Gentiles; that the Gospel of Jesus Christ was for Jew and Gentile without discrimination. That is why Peter, explaining what happened, says that he was reminded of the words of Jesus about the baptism with the Holy Spirit which had happened with them at the beginning, that is, on Pentecost; and for this reason Peter did not withhold baptism from the Gentiles, but had the entire household baptized.
Outside of Pentecost and Cornelius' house, I see no biblical support for the idea that "baptism with the Holy Spirit" refers to anything other than what the Bible itself mentions.
At no point does the laying on of hands by the Apostles get called "baptism with the Holy Spirit". It just doesn't, that connection is never made in the Bible. Laying on of hands is its own thing, and is the antecedent of the Christian practice of Chrismation.
I think it would be wise to use the word "water" before using the word baptism, unless the context is clearly not the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins. (Acts 2:38)
I have entered the word "water" and "Spirit" into your post so as not to be confused.
If I am wrong on any of my "entries" please let me know.
If I say baptism, I mean baptism. If I want to speak of baptism with the Holy Spirit I'll say baptism with the Holy Spirit. I mean what I say, just like the Bible means what it says. It's not confusing. When the Bible mentions baptism, it means baptism. If it ever means something else, it explains what it means, hence "baptism with the Holy Spirit" is not baptism, it is "baptism with the Holy Spirit".
There is no reason to believe baptism ever means anything other than baptism unless the text says so.
Here are a couple of places where both water baptism and the baptism of the Holy Ghost are mentioned.
Acts 2:38..."Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
No mention of baptism with the Holy Spirit, it mentions only Baptism.
Acts 8:15-16..."Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)"
No mention of baptism with the Holy Spirit, it mentions that the Samaritans had received Baptism, and then later the apostles came and laid on hands, not baptism with the Holy Spirit (remembering that no where does the Bible call the laying on of hands "baptism with the Holy Spirit", that is never found in Scripture)
Acts 19:5-6..."When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied."
No mention of baptism with the Holy Spirit, instead we see that Paul had them baptized, then he laid hands on them, but no "baptism with the Holy Spirit" to be found in the text. Baptism followed by laying on of hands (Chrismation) is what we see in Scripture; and is the basis for this practice throughout Christian history.
It is why the baptized are anointed with oil, with hands laid on, as the sign and seal of the Holy Spirit. The application of holy oil (chrism) as the sign and seal of the Holy Spirit upon the baptized has been standard Christian practice since the Apostles, as we see right here in the book of the Acts of the Apostles.
But "baptism with the Holy Spirit" is never associated with the Chrismation, or with some idea of a "second blessing" which Christians can get which has no biblical justification; neither is baptism with the Holy Spirit ever identified with anything other than the spontaneous outpouring of the Spirit as recorded in the 2nd chapter of the Acts, and in the 10th chapter of the Acts.
I am more than willing to have my mind changed on this point, but I have as of yet encountered no arguments of substance which would provide me with an alternative exegesis that fits the observable data.
-CryptoLutheran