A farmer who was a member of the Baptist Church was married to a member of the Methodist Church.  They were extremely compatible in every respect each their respective views of baptism.  The farmer consantly insisted that baptism was a "burial beneath the water" and his wife would respond, "That's stupid sprinkling is just as good."  There came a day when one of the chickens that had just hatched out of the egg, died.  The wife said to her husband as he started out the back door, "Take the baby chick to the garden and bury it."  The next morning as she entered the garden to pick some tomatoes she saw the chicken laying on top of the ground.  She confronted her husband, "I thought I told you to take the chick to the garden and bury it."  He responded, "You did, however, isn,t a sprinkle of sand as good as burying it?"
     As I begin, let me say without a doubt in my mind, a person can go to heaven without being immersed under water.  That being said, why would anyone want to go any other way.
     Why is there so much confusion around a simple Greek word that was translaterated into our language.  In the Greek language, in every aspect, it meant to dip, plunge, or immerse in a liquid.  John the Baptist baptised near Aenon because there was much water there.  Sounds like John might have been doing a little dipping beneath the water.  It does not require "much water" to sprinkle or pour.  I readily admit that it is so much easier to just dip a rose in water and sprinkle a little on the head than go to the burden of finding a hole of water or building a baptistry in order to immerse.  I knew of a Methodist preacher who insisted the new church building have a baptistry in it.  His argument was since we give the convert the choice of sprinkling, pouring or immersion it is only right that we provide the same opportunity for them to choose immersion.
     Even those churches who believe in immersion as the only mode of baptism there also is a division as to when the person is actually saved.  One camp says their baptism is a believer's baptism, only for believers and the other camp says their baptism is sinner's baptism, the sinner is saved during the act of baptism.  Those of that persuasion have never tried to explain to me how Cornelius received the Holy Spirit at the same time he is saved during his baptism.
     I suppose the major difference is that we by action need to answer his question, "Are you able to drink of the cup that I drink and be baptised with the baptism that I am baptised with."  We will never achieve the mark, but let us strive toward the mark of being as close to Christ as we can in both word and deed.