"Catholics Reject John Chapter Three"

[crazzeto]

In-other-words, you want me to contradict Scriptures so you can dispute what I say.

You gave me two wrong options to choose from to answer your question.

I have stated very clearly what I believe and used Scripture to support my statements. Why don’t you simply tell me what part you don’t understand?
**
You said: **1. I think the majority of “speaking in tongues” is suspect, honestly. Two different words for “tongues” was used in Acts and Corinthians. One implies speech, the other “babbling.”
**I asked: **What two words?

Wow, now I’m curious too. Nathan is asking a very straight forward question, which you haven’t really answered. Can I assume if you believe that baptism is not symbolic, then you believe as Catholics do that you are Baptised with both water and Holy Spirit at the same moment?

 

[geometer]

Wow, now I’m curious too. Nathan is asking a very straight forward question, which you haven’t really answered. Can I assume if you believe that baptism is not symbolic, then you believe as Catholics do that you are Baptised with both water and Holy Spirit at the same moment?

What do you know about the Holy Spirit? What have you experienced that informs you of the Holy Spirit?

 

[crazzeto]

What do you know about the Holy Spirit? What have you experienced that informs you of the Holy Spirit?

You again… Anyway the question is very direct, and directed at someone else I’ll ignore your questions to me, as I find them a bit combative and out of line.

 

[system]

Folks,please check out this site,www.johnthebaptist.us.It is hosted by a Catholic man.

 

[geometer]

You again… Anyway the question is very direct, and directed at someone else I’ll ignore your questions to me, as I find them a bit combative and out of line.

Have you been reading this thread? The thread was started because I had said that Catholics reject John chapter three.

Be as ignorant as you like, everyone else has…

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Ginger I was up front. I AM trying to draw you out. I’m asking you to put your beliefs out on the line. That’s what this forum is all about. And right now, I don’t understand what you believe. I have multiple answers and multiple ways to explain something to you, but it is contingent on how you believe. Would you debate a Jehovah’s Witness the same as a Mormon? I’m not comparing you to them but the concept is similar. I will answer your one question:

The tongues at Corinth are not associated with a “language” but to a “sound” (Greek: fwnw:n “phonon”) (1 Cor. 14:10-11). This contrasts with the tongues at Pentecost which were heard as a “language” (Greek: dialevktw/ “dialektos”) (Acts 2:6, 8; cf., Acts 1:19; 21:40; 22:2; 26:14).

Now before we take your larger post point by point, I would like you simply to explain to me exactly what you believe. I thought I knew, now I’m not so sure, so I’m asking you to clarify and be specific. You know where I stand, and it keeps me honest and prevents me pulling cheap debating tricks. I expect the same from you, and I don’t think that is unfair.

Now again: At what specific point are you saved. When is that moment.

 

[DerekD]

please define the “moment you truly believe”, and how that concept is taught to a seeker in such a way that they will have no doubt regarding the precise moment that they have been baptized by the Spirit.

Thanks.

the moment one truly believes is the moment one believes the message of the gopel and immediately receives the holy spirit. it is in your bible in several places. Peter was preaching in Acts and on at least 2 seperate occassionas he was speaking the one that believed what he was saying received the holy spirit; in fact the jews that were with him were astonsihed, the bible says, becuase they had received the holy spirit just as they had. that is quite a statement coming from these jewish converts that were with peter. God has always saved strictly on the basis of faith and a true faith will alwyas been seen in the lives of men by they attitudes, speech and labor for Christ; his is why James said that faith without works is dead, simply meaning that faith is ficticious or phoney because true faith will result in a new person who belongs to Christ, given by the Father to Christ, paid for with a price and has a new nature apart from the flesh, which is able through the power of the spirit to do those things which come from the heart; whether thougt, word or deed.

 

[DerekD]

In-other-words, you want me to contradict Scriptures so you can dispute what I say.

You gave me two wrong options to choose from to answer your question.

I have stated very clearly what I believe and used Scripture to support my statements. Why don’t you simply tell me what part you don’t understand?
**
You said: **1. I think the majority of “speaking in tongues” is suspect, honestly. Two different words for “tongues” was used in Acts and Corinthians. One implies speech, the other “babbling.”
**I asked: **What two words?

All one has to do is read the few passages in scripture and see exactly how tonues were used and how they were ligitimately performed; then compare that to what we now see, you will not see a shred of similarity. Pay particular attention to the number of people in the Bible that spoke at one time and what the required number fo r interpretations and then look at the warnings when everyone at once is involved; it is chaos. Today;s church will have entire congegation babling and random individuals interpreting that which is not even a know language - not from God.

 

[Ginger2]

The tongues at Corinth are not associated with a “language” but to a “sound” (Greek: fwnw:n “phonon”) (1 Cor. 14:10-11). This contrasts with the tongues at Pentecost which were heard as a “language” (Greek: dialevktw/ “dialektos”) (Acts 2:6, 8; cf., Acts 1:19; 21:40; 22:2; 26:14).

And is that same word for “a sound” used here:
Mat 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

And here:
Luk 1:42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed [art] thou among women, and blessed [is] the fruit of thy womb.

You are confusing two different words with two different meanings to support your opinion.

The meaning of the two words can be understood by reading 1Cr 14 in context:

9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.
10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them [is] without signification.
11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh [shall be] a barbarian unto me.
12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual [gifts], seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.
13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue pray that he may interpret.
14 For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?

There is a difference between speaking in a voice or using your vocal cords or other means to make noise - a common thing anyone can do…
and
speaking in tongues, which is a miracle because no matter what sounds you make, others hear in a language they understand.

1 Cor is explaining this to us so we are not thinking we are special when in fact we are babbling to no point .

But this is for another thread…

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger I was up front. I AM trying to draw you out. I’m asking you to put your beliefs out on the line.

I reread all my posts to see if I really have been as vague as you claim…

I have been very clear on what I believe and I have backed everything up with Scriptures. Which I might add you have not. When you make a mistake you simply blow it off as unimportant.

In answer to your question…

At what specific point are you saved. When is that moment.

At the moment we believe - truly believe.

 

[Ginger2]

…I have multiple answers and multiple ways to explain something to you, but it is contingent on how you believe…

Perhaps you would do better to reason from the Scriptures, afterall, you are talking with a Protestant.

… I would like you simply to explain to me exactly what you believe. …You know where I stand, …

Not entirely. You seem to be saying salvific Baptism of the Spirit is infused thru water Baptism.

But, Catholics teach Mary was saved from the moment of conception.

Catholics teach the criminal on the cross was saved by baptism of desire.

Yet, you claim one Baptism and then make exceptions for more than one!

Ginger

 

[crazzeto]

Have you been reading this thread? The thread was started because I had said that Catholics reject John chapter three.

Be as ignorant as you like, everyone else has…

I’ve been on again, off again lurking after our little disagreement. However with regard to the thread, I’ve posted my arguments, go back and re-read/re-hash them if you wish on your own.

I’m not interested in participating in the kind of argument you’re putting forth. This is my final response until I see a little more well mannered a posting.

 

[geometer]

I’ve been on again, off again lurking after our little disagreement. However with regard to the thread, I’ve posted my arguments, go back and re-read/re-hash them if you wish on your own.

I’m not interested in participating in the kind of argument you’re putting forth. This is my final response until I see a little more well mannered a posting.

You have not but forth a scriptural argument. You have never tried to explain the meaning of the first 21 verses of John. We are all waiting for your elucidation…

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Why didn’t Apollos get baptized in Jesus name?Response: It doesn’t say that he did or didn’t, so an argument from silence benefits neither of us. All we can go off of is the message the apostles constantly preached, which was baptism, and assume this same message was most likely preached to Apollos when he was pulled aside. It evidently was to his apostles. It also appears that after being taken aside, he left immediately. Since baptism and the laying on of hands was often bestowed simultaneously by a bishop (apostles), it is also possible he did not receive his baptism until he returned. It does not say he had an official ministry in league with the apostles until at a later point in time, when he is referred to in the epistles of Paul. It’s a bit obvious from reading the entire passage I originally posted that he was a lone wolf, defending belief in Christ, however imperfectly.

While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul traveled through the interior of the country and came [down] to Ephesus where he found some disciples. He said to them, ‘Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?’ They answered him ‘We have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.’ He said ‘How were you baptized?’ They replied, ‘With the baptism of John.’ Paul then said, 'John baptized with a baptism of repentance,
These disciples already received water Baptism for repentance.Response: Yeah, John’s baptism. You can’t argue that the apostles baptized the exact same water baptism as John. John differentiated between his baptism and Jesus’ baptism. Jesus then gave the power to baptize to his disciples. I think you are missing that the disicples cannot directly apply the Holy Spirit, especially since there is no way to read the person’s heart and thus know the moment to apply the said Holy Spirit. You are ignoring the vast Scriptural evidence and OT allusions presenting water and Spirit simultaneously. This means every time you see the disciples baptizing somebody, it’s with water Ginger. Your statement is also irrelevant because these disciples already believed, and so should have been saved with baptism of the Holy Spirit already. Imperfect knowledge does not change the fact that they believed in Christ. Again, water baptism, Ginger.

telling people to believe in the one who came after him, that is, in Jesus.’ When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
being Baptized in the Name of Jesus has nothing to do with the water which is for repentance - this
Jhn 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) Response: No, John’s baptism is simply for repentance. Jesus’ baptism is not the same, and nowhere does Scripture say that Jesus’ baptism is a “baptism of repentance.” It says “repent, and be baptized,” which is crucially different. The above passage merely says the Spirit had not come down on them since Pentecost had not come about. To deny otherwise is to deny that the apostles were saved with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit after Jesus’ resurrection but prior to Pentecost, so this is a dead end Ginger. Besides, the very fact that you are baptized in the name of Jesus implies a third party, since the name is invoked. You can’t baptise yourself with the Holy Spirit, the directive was given to baptise others, hence the name is said aloud and water baptism is applied. Why? because as I already stated above, apostles cannot apply baptism of the Holy Spirit. Unless of course, it comes through water Another thing to keep in mind is Jesus would not give the exact same water baptism of repentance as John, because then John would not be “becoming less.” Jesus could have John baptize the same baptism in Jesus’ name, and simply bestow the “Holy Spirit” as you say. This is obviously not the case. John could only become less if the water baptism done by the disciples differed.

And when Paul laid [his] hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophecied. Altogether there were about twelve men."
Laying on of hands was done to “infuse” the gifts of the Spirit - which would one day cease, because, as you said, they are no longer necesary.Response: Certain gifts are no longer necessary. There is a progression in the decline of certain gifts. Tongues and prophecy are not the only gifts of the Holy Spirit so implying that all gifts, and thus the laying on of hands, cease is incorrect.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Notice something in the above. They were believers in Jesus, they were in Ephesus where Apollos had been preaching. … So what was the problem? Why didn’t they get the Holy Spirit upon believing? I’m not sure they were believers in Jesus.
Paul then said, ‘John baptized with a baptism of repentance,telling people to believe in the one who came after him, that is, in Jesus.’ When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Why did Paul need to specify the one coming after John is Jesus, if they already knew? It was upon hearing this they were Baptized in Jesus’ name.
Response: Apollos was obviously a disciple of John. Who else would have John’s baptism, a knowledge of Jesus and the “way”, but an incomplete knowledge? Apollos’ disciples were also referred to as “believers.” That is pretty self-explanatory, since the NT calls only believers in Christ “believers.” Paul wasn’t telling them something they didn’t already know about Jesus’ identity, because that would contradict the information provided just prior in the passage that they were believers and Apollos knew of Jesus and “the way.” Paul is describing the difference in the baptisms, and how John’s baptism was one of repentance LOOKING FORWARD TO Jesus. Then they are rebaptized. That’s pretty clear cut. Besides. Paul wouldn’t have implied they should have received the Holy Spirit unless they were believers in Christ, Ginger. You’re “not sure” they were believers because it undermines your argument. I wouldn’t be “sure” if I were you, either.

“I have been very clear on what I believe and I have backed everything up with Scriptures. Which I might add you have not”
Response: I think anybody here can see that my posts are littered with Scripture. The really comical thing is you are responding to arguments I made from Scripture, so that’s just an utter fallacy. Accusations won’t help you here.

When you make a mistake you simply blow it off as unimportant. **Response: That statement begs the question. First off, how about you be specific about what it is I am blowing off? Secondly, you haven’t proven convincingly that I have made a mistake. I could easily call your entire interpretation a “mistake,” Ginger, but instead I’d rather prove it

Laying on of hands is not baptism. It is the passing of Spiritual gifts to witness and evangelize. These gifts are no longer passed on since the last Apostle passed on.
Response: This again merely begs the question. You have no Scriptural evidence for this claim, and no early Christian testimony. Hence this is false by Protestant “Bible alone” standards as well as mine.

But, Catholics teach Mary was saved from the moment of conception.

Catholics teach the criminal on the cross was saved by baptism of desire.

Yet, you claim one Baptism and then make exceptions for more than one!

**Response:Yep. God can work outside of His sacraments. Those that had the Holy Spirit come down on them still had to be water baptized and saved. Cornelius is a sweet example. And Paul believed Christ; got his directives from Jesus himself. And yet he still had to have his sins washed away by Ananias. Hmmm Ginger. Hmmmm…And the only time you can show me that people were not salvificly baptized with water is the exceptions God makes for people unable to due to death and Mary, the Mother of God. You’re running short on meaningful examples here. God can save people outside of baptism, Ginger, good for you, Catholics believe that. What you fail to realize is that the only time God does so is for people that are at the moment of death, or a one time deal for Mary who served as a Sacred vessel. Doesn’t sound like it’s an option for us.****Cyprian of Carthage, 253 AD:

“Some say in regard to those who were baptized in Samaria that when the apostles Peter and John came there only hands were imposed on them so that they might receive the Holy Spirit, and that they were not re-baptized. But we see, dearest brother, that this situation in no way pertains to the present case. Those in Samaria who had believed had believed in the true faith, and it was by the deacon Philip, whom those same apostles had sent there, that they had been baptized inside—in the Church. . . . Since, then, they had already received a legitimate and ecclesiastical baptism, it was not necessary to baptize them again. Rather, that only which was lacking was done by Peter and John. The prayer having been made over them and hands having been imposed upon them, the Holy Spirit was invoked and was poured out upon them. This is even now the practice among us, so that those who are baptized in the Church then are brought to the prelates of the Church; through our prayer and the imposition of hands, they receive the Holy Spirit and are perfected with the seal of the Lord” (ibid., 73[72]:9).

Hmmm, funny how I can find my exact interpretations of Scripture among the early Christians. Would that you could do the same. You can argue your interpretation all you want, but as long as I have history on my side, yours is just a bad opinion. Trying to decry Catholic beliefs with a Catholic compiled book is an exercise in futility. ****

 

[Ginger2]

Nathan,

I am flabbergasted at how some of your responses are almost word for word what I have said previously.

As for finding quotes from church fathers who agree with what I say, that would be easy in most cases. But why should I bother? Every time I quote church fathers who disagree with RC teaching, Catholics say, “That’s just there personal opinion.”

I am not going to respond any longer. But not because I am upset with you nor because your latest post repeats many of my arguments to you as tho you never read my posts.

I have my hands full with other issues.

Ginger

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Fair enough Ginger. The underlined portions ARE your words. My response is in bold. That might explain why they sounds the same as your arguments: they are your arguments. Take care.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Let’s get back to Jesus and Nicodemus. In John 3:3, Jesus tells Nicodemus that man has to be “born again” to be able to enter the kingdom of God. Nicodemus then asks, How can a man go back into his mother’s womb. Jesus then explains what He means. That is, the duality of man, his physical birth (of water) and his Spirit. And it’s the Spirit that needs to be changed (“born again”) Here’s what He said,

“Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be “born of water” and of the Sprit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. In verse 6, Jesus reiterates, “Flesh gives birth to flesh but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.”

The contention here is about the man “born of water” Does it mean physical birth or does it mean baptism?

I, as well as many Protestants, say it’s man’s natural/physical birth for the following reasons: ( 1 ) “water” here is a metaphor alluding to people’s natural/physical birth, supported by Scripture as per, PS 144:7, Is 8:6-7, Jer 47:2 and Rev. 17:15, which very clearly states, “ The waters you saw,---- are the people, ----- .“ ( 2 ) At the cross, John 19:34, “water” and blood flowed from Jesus when He was pierced. The “water” represents the physical man, the “blood” represents man’s Spirit which becomes “Born Again” upon the belief in Jesus’ Blood for the atonement for man’s sins.

( 3 ) After Jesus said, man is “born of water“, in the following verse 6, He continues to explain the duality of man Flesh (physical) gives birth to flesh while Spirit gives birth to the spirit. -----( 4 ) some say (Catholics) the born of water, means baptism, I disagree , since Jesus continued to explain the duality of man in verse 6. If it ment baptism, He should have then explained to Nicodemus about baptism. Or tell him to go see John for more information about being “born again” by baptism.

( 5 ) There’s no Scripture that even indicates that baptism is ment in verse 5.-----( 6 ) After examining many versions of the Bible, I found only one version, the Catholic Duoay/Rhiems bible that had the audacity to change what Jesus had said in verse 5 from “man born of water” to “man born AGAIN of water”. NO ONE has the right to change what Jesus said. By adding the word “again” changed the meaning which could indicate “born again“ by water baptism.

( 7 ) As a result, Catholics believe that at water baptism, man becomes “born again” and the Holy Spirit is infused upon being baptized. But there’s not even ONE Scripture that supports that claim. In fact Eph 1:13 contradicts that claim which states, “ And you heard the Word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having BELIEVED, you were marked in Him with a seal the promised HOLY Spirit, v 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession----.”

( 8 ) The proof of this is in Acts 10:44, Cornelius‘ group received the Holy Spirit by hearing the gospel that Peter preached , and later they were baptized. They received the Holy Spirit by belief not by water baptism. The thief on the cross got saved by repenting and his belief in Jesus. He wasn’t even baptized, yet Jesus received him.

IF THIS IS WRONG SHOW ME BY SCRIPTURE, NOT BY A TIRADE THAT “BORN OF WATER” MEANS BAPTISM. ED O

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Hey Ed, I’m glad to see you back. I will respond point by point.

1 ) “water” here is a metaphor alluding to people’s natural/physical birth, supported by Scripture as per, PS 144:7, Is 8:6-7, Jer 47:2 and Rev. 17:15, which very clearly states, “ The waters you saw,---- are the people, ----- .“ RESPONSE: The verse in Revelation is a specific vision, where water refers to a vast multitude, and as such I fail to see how it bears much relevance to the passage in John 3:5. Jesus is not speaking apocalyptic words of symbolism, which is the category Revelation fits into. Psalm 144:7 is as follows: Reach down from on High; rescue me from deep water, and set me free from the grasp of foreigners." No allusion to any kind of birth there, Ed. Isaiah 8:6-7: “Because these people rejected the slowly flowing waters of Shiloah and rejoiced with Rezin and the son of Remaliah, the Lord will certainly bring against them the mighty rushing waters of the Euphrates River - the king of Assyria and all his glory. It will overflow its channels and spill over all its banks.” The above is clearly literal water, Ed, again, doesn’t fit your purposes. Or how about Jeremiah 47:2: “This is what the Lord says: Look, waters are rising from the north and becoming an overflowing wadi. They will overflow the land and everything in it, the cities and their inhabitants. The people will cry out, and every inhabitant of the land will wail.” Absolutely no reference here Ed. The only slight chance you had was with Revelation, and it did not refer to any kind of birth, merely to a vast multitude of people. Water actually refers far more commonly to DEATH, and Jesus words “born of water and the Spirit” would be redundant and unnecessary if referring to physical birth, since all people are physically born. Jesus would have simply said “be born of the Spirit.” Why would you command someone to be physically born? Besides, the grammar couples water and the spirit together as a single incident. You also ignore the contexts of LITERAL water that Peter DIRECTLY links to baptism. Seeing a connection here? Water goes from the ancient Hebrew symbol of death to a symbol of life in Christ. It becomes a means to new creation. New creation in Genesis: water and spirit. New creation with Noah and the flood: water and Spirit. Baptism into Moses through the red sea: water and spirit. Yet you choose to ignore Saint Peter and focus on an obscure verse in Revelation taken out of context. I don’t even think you read the other verses you cited. They helped my case by refrring to literal water.

( 2 ) At the cross, John 19:34, “water” and blood flowed from Jesus when He was pierced. The “water” represents the physical man, the “blood” represents man’s Spirit which becomes “Born Again” upon the belief in Jesus’ Blood for the atonement for man’s sins. RESPONSE: If you have to tell me what it symbolizes, then you are merely giving me your own interpretation. The water an blood could symbolize blood and baptism, which is what we believ and so did the early Christians. It could also be the fact that Jesus was dead from hypovolemic shock and had water built up in the pericardial sack. Either way this statement is not authoritative.

( 3 ) After Jesus said, man is “born of water“, in the following verse 6, He continues to explain the duality of man Flesh (physical) gives birth to flesh while Spirit gives birth to the spirit. -----( 4 ) some say (Catholics) the born of water, means baptism, I disagree , since Jesus continued to explain the duality of man in verse 6. If it ment baptism, He should have then explained to Nicodemus about baptism. Or tell him to go see John for more information about being “born again” by baptism. RESPONSE: Being born of the flesh is referring to the non-sacramental nature of John’s baptism. This actually does damage to your argument, since if Jesus had meant that being “born of water” meant physical birth, then he wouldn’t have used the phrase “born of water,” he would have said “born of the flesh.” He would not send Nicodemus to John, because the water baptism of John is not the same as the water baptism Jesus had his disciples do. If it were, John would not be “becoming less,” because everybody would still be doing John’s baptism but in jesus’ name.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

( 5 ) There’s no Scripture that even indicates that baptism is ment in verse 5.-----( 6 ) After examining many versions of the Bible, I found only one version, the Catholic Duoay/Rhiems bible that had the audacity to change what Jesus had said in verse 5 from “man born of water” to “man born AGAIN of water”. NO ONE has the right to change what Jesus said. By adding the word “again” changed the meaning which could indicate “born again“ by water baptism. RESPONSE: The only way you can say that is to ignore the examples of the apostles, who baptized with water, and apparently felt the Spirit was inolved too. The Duoay also relied on inferior manuscripts, as did the King James Bible, and this lends further credence to my contention that the fathers actually did NOT misquote Scripture. However, since there are so many manuscripts with the words “born again,” the onus is on you to go against the stream and say this is not the correct understanding, especially in light of verse 7. Audacity is a pretty heavy charge, Ed, let’s keep this civil. Also keep in mind that all of the anti-nicene Christians believed in baptism of water and the Spirit. You can continue to choose to ignore this, but I would see that as counterproductive if you wish to arrive at truth.

7 ) As a result, Catholics believe that at water baptism, man becomes “born again” and the Holy Spirit is infused upon being baptized. But there’s not even ONE Scripture that supports that claim. In fact Eph 1:13 contradicts that claim which states, “ And you heard the Word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having BELIEVED, you were marked in Him with a seal the promised HOLY Spirit, v 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession----.”RESPONSE: You are somewhat going backwards again. Jesus equated belief with OBEDIENCE, and what he told people was to repent and get baptized. Mere belief as you mean it is not enough, or Paul would have been saved upon receiving his vision from Christ. Instead, even though he believes, he still has to be baptized by Ananias and have his sins washed away. The Eunach believed in Christ, but it was not called baptism until the verse where he is baptized with actual water.

( 8 ) The proof of this is in Acts 10:44, Cornelius‘ group received the Holy Spirit by hearing the gospel that Peter preached , and later they were baptized. They received the Holy Spirit by belief not by water baptism. The thief on the cross got saved by repenting and his belief in Jesus. He wasn’t even baptized, yet Jesus received him. RESPONSE: I’ve covered Cornelius already. The Holy Spirit came upon him, but he was not saved, because Peter had not spoken the words of salvation to him yet. And as we both know, these words were of repentance and baptism. The Holy Spirit coming down as it did on Pentecost is not the same as when it infuses you salvificly. Otherwise the apostles would have been unsaved after Jesus resurrection but prior to Pentecost. The entire argument about the thief has been dealt with in the above posts to Ginger.