Baptiso and baptisa(?)

[Purgation_Road]

I had a conversation with a protestant friend of mind and we began talking about regenerative baptism. He mentioned something about two forms of the word baptism, baptisa and baptiso (I could have these wrong). He said they are used in such a way to suggest that there really is no regenerative baptism.

Frankly, it has been almost a year since we talked and I don’t really remember his theory. If this is a common protestant argument and you know how it goes, please explain. And how do I debunk it? Thanks. Sorry for the rather vague question.

 

[CollegeKid]

Honestly I’ve never heard this argument put forth before. The only thing I can think of is if a different word were used for the type of baptism performed by John the Baptist on Christ (which if I’m not mistaken was a proto-type, so to speak, of baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). If this were the case, I don’t see how it would negate passages in Acts of the Apostles and other places that state or imply that baptism is regenerative (e.g., Acts 2:38, Titus 3:5) because clearly there would be no more need for John’s baptism after Christ’s passion, death, resurrection and ascencion. That being said, I’m no scripture scholar, so you shouldn’t put too much stock in my answer.

 

[NotWorthy]

OK, let’s see. … How does Peter put it? Oh yeah, “Repent and be Baptized” hmm, is it baptisa? or baptiso? I don’t know. Let’s move on. “for the forgiveness of your sins” OK, whatever it is, it will cause all my sins to be forgiven. What else? “And you will receive the Holy Spirit”. Wow! So whether I’m baptisa’d or baptiso’d, I’ll have my sins forgiven and I’ll receive the Holy Spirit. Wow, Peter, whatever you’re selling, I’m buying!!!