Does baptism save you?

[jlhargus]

I should amend my original question to: is it necessary for salvation? I don’t think anyone believes (though in reality I’m sure someone actually does…) that all you need for salvation is to be baptized.

JL: Yes baptism is necessary for salvation but not an absolute necessity nor is it ALL one needs. In baptism we are BORN AGAIN BY water and of the Spirit.

Jn3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, EPCEPT a man be BORN AGAIN, he CANNOT SEE THE KINGDOM of God. 4 NICODEMUS SAITH unto him, HOW can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? 5 JESUS ANSWERED, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, EXCEPT a man be BORN OF water AND OF the Spirit, he CANNOT ENTER THE KINGDOM of God. 6 THAT which is BORN OF THE FLESH IS FLESH; and THAT which is BORN OF SPIRIT is spirit.

The thief had no opportunity to be baptized. Natural birth is a necessity, but not an absolute necessity, without exceptions. Even natural birth has exceptions. In exceptional cases the physician intervenes birthing by cesarean. In exceptional cases the Great Physician can intervene in one’s spiritual birth. God is not limited by the sacraments. When the lack, of baptism by water, is thru no deliberate fault of their own, such as the thief on the cross.
All men as babies are BORN OF THE FLESH. We must be BORN AGAIN by WATER and of the Spirit.

How are we born again a child of God? [Gal 3:26 For **YE ARE all the CHILDREN OF GOD by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For AS MANY of you AS HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED into Christ HAVE PUT ON CHRIST.]

 

[Abrigham]

I was hoping the shock and revulsion might cause her to recoil in fear!

I had to stop reading when I got to “If baptism is necessary for salvation, then all babies who die go to hell since they weren’t baptized. Remember, when someone says baptism is necessary, there can be no exceptions – otherwise it isn’t necessary.”

I can’t find the particular verse, but from my understanding the Bible states that Hell is only certain for those who have heard the Gospel and reject it. I can’t see a loving God condemning a newborn baby to Hell because they weren’t baptized and have no possible way of knowing the Gospel.

I did scroll down to where he tries to explain away the verses that clearly state that baptism is necessary aaand he’s just absolutely so ridiculous. That’s all I can say.

I’m sooo tired of seeing people that claim to know the Bible inside out and backwards pull out the verses that support their idea and then twisting or simply ignoring the ones that show they are completely wrong and misleading themselves and, even more unfortunately, others. If you have a belief that makes you twist Scripture to the point that it is unrecognizable, maybe you should go back to the drawing board on that one.

 

[Abrigham]

Oh goodness gracious…It’s in the Bible :banghead:

If Baptism doesn’t work, then why do the Apostles say the exact opposite of that every time they talk about baptism?

Instead of me getting upset, I’m gonna have a laugh.

Saint Paul’s Baptism Oopsie

Hahaha! That was hilarious.

 

[JonNC]

I was hoping the shock and revulsion might cause her to recoil in fear!

Jon

 

[po18guy]

I had to stop reading when I got to “If baptism is necessary for salvation, then all babies who die go to hell since they weren’t baptized. Remember, when someone says baptism is necessary, there can be no exceptions – otherwise it isn’t necessary.”

I can’t find the particular verse, but from my understanding the Bible states that Hell is only certain for those who have heard the Gospel and reject it. I can’t see a loving God condemning a newborn baby to Hell because they weren’t baptized and have no possible way of knowing the Gospel.

I did scroll down to where he tries to explain away the verses that clearly state that baptism is necessary aaand he’s just absolutely so ridiculous. That’s all I can say.

I’m sooo tired of seeing people that claim to know the Bible inside out and backwards pull out the verses that support their idea and then twisting or simply ignoring the ones that show they are completely wrong and misleading themselves and, even more unfortunately, others. If you have a belief that makes you twist Scripture to the point that it is unrecognizable, maybe you should go back to the drawing board on that one.

Jon

Mission accomplished, I’ll ride slowly off into the sunset. Oooops. It’s raining. Never mind.

 

[Sixpence]

They see it as a public declaration of faith and nothing more. If that’s the case, why even do it?

Why did Jews get circumcised for thousands of years if it was just a sign? It’s analogous to that reasoning, and Romans 4 helps you make the connection.

I could simply stand on their stage and say “I believe in God and Jesus is my savior!” Why baptize at all?

Abraham could have done without circumcising Isaac, too. Is it really so worthless, just because it isn’t based on a 13th-century system describing what “graces” are and how/when/why they must be received?

And when does the gift of the Holy Spirit come? Before, during or after this declaration of faith?

He comes whenever He chooses to come. God is a person with a will of His own, not some cosmic Rupe Goldberg project that Catholic sacraments are uniquely equipped to set in motion. If you talk to some different people and find out what happens- as a matter of what actually happens for each individual, not as a matter of doctrine- you will find that it varies.

I read this as “Baptism now SAVES YOU” and I’m really not sure how it could be interpreted differently.

Jesus described two kinds of baptism- one with water, and one that Jesus was responsible for. I will baptize you with the Holy Spirit (and with fire) which I read as an emphasis on God’s purifying qualities. To my reading of this passage, it’s talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit who regenerates you and causes you to become a new creation. Here, too, the aspect of cleansing and purification is also alluded to. When neighboring verses are accounted for, baptism with the Holy Spirit (and with fire) is the one that makes more sense of the two.

It seems to me people are interpreting these in skewed ways to validate their already formed beliefs so they can say it’s what the Scripture says, rather than using the Scripture to base their beliefs around.

Yeah, everyone says that. Coming from someone who’s elevated their already-formed-beliefs to the same level of authority as Scripture, though, it’s coming from a curious source. Wrt the timing of when the Holy Spirit comes, though- I’m curious to see whether you’ll let reality dictate your understanding of what’s happening, or if you’ll find ways to skew reality to fit with how you think it should be. Devin Rose says he received the Holy Spirit when he was baptized. I say I got Him over six years later. I can point you to dozens of personal friends who say the Holy Spirit indwelt them for as many years prior. There are many examples from all sides, and that’s because God’s timing is whatever He decides it will be. This is what’s actually happening- the timing varies.

 

[po18guy]

Jesus described two kinds of baptism- one with water, and one that Jesus was responsible for. I will baptize you with the Holy Spirit (and with fire) which I read as an emphasis on God’s purifying qualities. To my reading of this passage, it’s talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit who regenerates you and causes you to become a new creation. Here, too, the aspect of cleansing and purification is also alluded to. When neighboring verses are accounted for, baptism with the Holy Spirit (and with fire) is the one that makes more sense of the two.

Everyone knows John 3:3, but few seem to read two verses ahead to John 3:5: we are born anew/again/from above by “water and the Spirit.” Jesus commanded that we be baptized. The thief on the cross is a rare exception. We are talking of the normative way of being born again. Jesus and the twelve baptized with water. The Ethiopian eunuch asked to be baptized with water. When the scales fell, Paul asked for water baptism. He himself baptized. Peter baptized. Until the ego was placed in charge of interpreting scripture, everyone baptized.

I think we depart from our Lord’s words and actions at our own peril. He commanded it. I submit to it. Simple.

We all like new stuff, but this is not an area in which to innovate.

 

[Abrigham]

Yeah, everyone says that. Coming from someone who’s elevated their already-formed-beliefs to the same level of authority as Scripture, though, it’s coming from a curious source.

Are you saying I have elevated my beliefs to the same level of authority as Scripture? Because I haven’t even completely finished reading the Scripture and make no such claim. I simply found that my understanding of the Scripture that I have read is not what I’m being told by my church and was seeking insight from others. If I thought my beliefs were on the same level of Scripture I wouldn’t be asking for advice.

 

[jlhargus]

I was baptized as a baby in the Catholic Church. After not going to any church for a very long time, my husband and I were recently rebaptized (he was baptized as an infant as well) at a local Protestant church. They explained to us why our infant baptisms were invalid and that this was necessary to join their church, quoting verse Acts 2:38 which says:

“And Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. …’” (RSV)
They interpret the word “for” in “for the forgiveness of your sins” as “because of” instead of “in order to”. So they see it as you are baptized BECAUSE of your repentance and forgiveness, not IN ORDER TO receive the forgiveness. They see it as a public declaration of faith and nothing more. If that’s the case, why even do it? I could simply stand on their stage and say “I believe in God and Jesus is my savior!” Why baptize at all? And when does the gift of the Holy Spirit come? Before, during or after this declaration of faith?

JL: Their interpretation would contradict other scripture such as [Acts22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and **BE BAPTIZED, and WASH AWAY THY SINS, calling on the name of the Lord.]

Strong’s Greek Definitions for #1519 does not have “because of” at all. It has, into, unto, to, toward, for, among. I have checked 32 different bibles, on BibleGateway.com, all of them indicate baptism forgives, remits sins. “Because of” is never used. Except for some mainline Protestants most other Protestants claim baptism is a public declaration. Not one has ever present scripture evidence for that claim.

 

[jlhargus]

Another verse brought to my attention by a friend, which she claims also says you do not need to be baptized in order to be forgiven, is 1 Peter 3:21, which says:

“Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…” (RSV)
I read this as “Baptism now SAVES YOU” and I’m really not sure how it could be interpreted differently.

I’m sure there are more verses on this topic. I’d love for them to be brought up. But also, how do you interpret the second verse differently to mean that it’s not necessary? I’m just not seeing it. It seems to me people are interpreting these in skewed ways to validate their already formed beliefs so they can say it’s what the Scripture says, rather than using the Scripture to base their beliefs around.

JL: [1Pt3:20 …… in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were **SAVED BY WATER. 21 THE LIKE FIGURE whereunto even BAPTISM doth also NOW SAVE US (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:]

Water baptism does now SAVE not by removing dirt from the body but by washing away our sins regenerating a dead soul thru the action of the Holy Spirit. Who then indwells the regenerated soul. Eight souls were SAVED BY WATER. The LIKE FIGURE (type) of WATER BAPTISM now SAVES us. As Peter said in Acts2:40-41 SAVE YOURSELVES.

[Acts2:37 Now when **THEY HEARD this, they were PRICKED IN THEIR HEART, and SAID unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, WHAT SHALL WE DO? 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. 39 For THE PROMISE is unto you, AND to YOUR CHILDREN, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.]

[Acts2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, **SAVE YOURSELVES **from the untoward generation. 41 Then THEY that gladly RECEIVED his word were BAPTIZED: and the SAME DAY were **ADDED UNTO THEM **about three thousand souls. 42 And THEY CONTINUED stedfastly IN THE APOSTLES’ DOCTRINE AND FELLOWSHIP, and in breaking of bread (mass), and in prayers.]

Peter says SAVE YOURSELVES. How? By being BAPTIZED thru which they WERE ADDED to that ONE VISIBLE apostolic fellowship the Church, the body of Christ.]
For the Adult first they hear the word, the heart is pierced by the Holy Spirit, they believe. They ask WHAT MUST WE DO? Peter said SAVE YOURSELF REPENT and BE BAPTIZED everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR REMISSION OF SINS, and you shall RECEIVE the gift of the HOLY SPIRIT. For the PROMISE is for you AND your CHILDREN.] Acts2 give the definitive answer how one is first set on the road to salvation. For the child they have no actual sins to repent of. Their faith is the faith of their parents and Church. They are born of flesh and need to be born again by water AND of the Spirit. Receiving the indwelling Holy Spirit.

[Titus:3:5 **Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy HE SAVED US, BY THE WASHING OF REGENERATION, AND RENEWING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT;] SAVED BY WASHING (baptism).

Notice Titus 3:5, BY WASHING (water) of REGENERATION and RENEWING of the HOLY SPIRIT. Mirrors [Jn3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, EXCEPT a man be BORN OF **WATER and of the SPIRIT, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.]

[Eph5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 **That he might SANCTIFY AND CLEANSE IT WITH the WASHING OF WATER BY THE WORD,]

 

[jlhargus]

I was baptized as a baby in the Catholic Church. After not going to any church for a very long time, my husband and I were recently rebaptized (he was baptized as an infant as well) at a local Protestant church. They explained to us why our infant baptisms were invalid and that this was necessary to join their church, quoting verse Acts 2:38 which says:

JL: [Acts2:37 Now when **THEY HEARD this, they were PRICKED IN THEIR HEART, and SAID unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, WHAT SHALL WE DO? 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. 39 For THE PROMISE is unto you, AND to YOUR CHILDREN, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.] CHILDREN, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.]

The PROMISE is the Holy Spirit, indwelling the soul, which is eternal life The word for children is teknon. Teknon would be children from infant up. We see the same word teknon (children) used in Act21:21 in reference to circumcision. We know infants were circumcised at 8 days old. The promise is to adults and to THEIR children. These were Jews of the diaspora, they all understood that children were brought into God’s covenant on the basis of the parents faith. Children have no sin of which to repent, they LACK the Holy Spirit. Lost by Adam for ALL humanity their faith is the faith of their parents.

The PROMISE is to those PRESENT and far away. There were three thousand PRESENT, who where baptized and the odds that whole families (households) where PRESENT and baptized can’t be refuted. Also notice those baptized RECEIVE the GIFT of the HOLY GHOST. Are infants born with the GIFT of the HOLY GHOST or of flesh? Wasn’t that GIFT, of the Holy Ghost, lost for ALL humanity by Adam’s original sin?

 

[Trebor135]

I had to stop reading when I got to “If baptism is necessary for salvation, then all babies who die go to hell since they weren’t baptized. Remember, when someone says baptism is necessary, there can be no exceptions – otherwise it isn’t necessary.”

That comment also struck me as… silly. By Slick’s logic, “If showing up to class for a midterm or final on the appointed day is necessary for writing the exam, then all students who get sick, obtain a doctor’s note, show it to the professor, and are granted a deferral must receive a failing grade since they weren’t able to attend. Remember, when someone says showing up to class is necessary, there can be no exceptions – otherwise it isn’t necessary.”

I can’t find the particular verse, but from my understanding the Bible states that Hell is only certain for those who have heard the Gospel and reject it. I can’t see a loving God condemning a newborn baby to Hell because they weren’t baptized and have no possible way of knowing the Gospel.

I’m not aware of anything in the New Testament about invincible ignorance…

I did scroll down to where he tries to explain away the verses that clearly state that baptism is necessary aaand he’s just absolutely so ridiculous. That’s all I can say.

It would be an understatement to say that Slick’s attempt to reconcile Acts 22:16 with Calvinistic theology misses the mark by a wide margin. He assumes baptismal symbolism and attempts to make the data fit the conclusion Slick has already decided upon.

I’m sooo tired of seeing people that claim to know the Bible inside out and backwards pull out the verses that support their idea and then twisting or simply ignoring the ones that show they are completely wrong and misleading themselves and, even more unfortunately, others. If you have a belief that makes you twist Scripture to the point that it is unrecognizable, maybe you should go back to the drawing board on that one.

 

[po18guy]

Are you saying I have elevated my beliefs to the same level of authority as Scripture? Because I haven’t even completely finished reading the Scripture and make no such claim. I simply found that my understanding of the Scripture that I have read is not what I’m being told by my church and was seeking insight from others. If I thought my beliefs were on the same level of Scripture I wouldn’t be asking for advice.

Speaking of elevation, the sad fact is that some have elevated scripture to the level of God. Idolatry issues aside, this can be a deadly mistake, as it remains their ego that interprets God’s intent.

The Lord, via scripture, gives all authority to His Church, and prohibits the individual from interpreting. The devil, for his part, seeks to undo all that the Lord has done, and dupes even the elect, if that were possible, in to reversing what the Lord has ordained.

 

[po18guy]

I’m not aware of anything in the New Testament about invincible ignorance…

This touches on the principle, if not the actual practice:

Luke 12:47-48
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
47 And that servant who knew the will of his lord, and prepared not himself, and did not according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48 But he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more.

 

[Trebor135]

Is it really so worthless, just because it isn’t based on a 13th-century system describing what “graces” are and how/when/why they must be received?

Christians were believing in baptismal regeneration long before the thirteenth century. This is one of the many doctrines held in common by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox, with the last group emerging in the… fifth century.

He comes whenever He chooses to come. God is a person with a will of His own, not some cosmic Rupe Goldberg project that Catholic sacraments are uniquely equipped to set in motion.

I’d like to propose this Scripture passage for your consideration, from John chapter nine:

[1] As he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth.
[2] And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
[3] Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him.
[4] We must work the works of him who sent me, while it is day; night comes, when no one can work.
[5] As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”
[6] As he said this, he spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle and anointed the man’s eyes with the clay,
[7] saying to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Silo’am” (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing.

Was this man’s healing simply the outcome of “some cosmic Rupe Goldberg project that [the sacramental act of washing in the pool was] uniquely equipped to set in motion”?

If you talk to some different people and find out what happens- as a matter of what actually happens for each individual, not as a matter of doctrine- you will find that it varies.

I doubt most Catholics would disagree that the grace bestowed in baptism will bear fruit at different times for different people (see the parable of the sower and the seeds).

 

[Abrigham]

This touches on the principle, if not the actual practice:

Luke 12:47-48
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
47 And that servant who knew the will of his lord, and prepared not himself, and did not according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48 But he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more.

Another sort-of example. Doesn’t say that people who are ignorant get off easy, but that judgment day will be worse for people who knew and turned away than for those who were ignorant. I still can’t find the exact verse I’m thinking of, though. Maybe it doesn’t exist. (My crazy church probably made it up! Haha, I jest )

Matthew 10:14-15

“And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Soddom and Gomor’rah than for that town.” (RSV)

 

[thistle]

I should amend my original question to: is it necessary for salvation? I don’t think anyone believes (though in reality I’m sure someone actually does…) that all you need for salvation is to be baptized.

Baptism is necessary for salvation but does not ensure it.

 

[po18guy]

Another sort-of example. Doesn’t say that people who are ignorant get off easy, but that judgment day will be worse for people who knew and turned away than for those who were ignorant. I still can’t find the exact verse I’m thinking of, though. Maybe it doesn’t exist. (My crazy church probably made it up! Haha, I jest )

Matthew 10:14-15

“And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Soddom and Gomor’rah than for that town.” (RSV)

It is like “God helps those who help themselves” Not in scripture. As to what happens to unbaptized children, the Church states that we can only commend them to God’s unfathomable mercy - the same mercy we must beg at our judgment.

 

[jlhargus]

Why did Jews get circumcised for thousands of years if it was just a sign? It’s analogous to that reasoning, and Romans 4 helps you make the connection.

JL: [Gn17:10 **This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a TOKEN of the covenant betwixt me and you. 12 … 13 … 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath BROKEN my covenant.]

Circumcision did not bring about any inner change it was a SIGN of covenant family relationship with God. Pointing to the real circumcision of the heart, water baptism.
[Phil 3:3 For **WE ARE THE CIRCUMCISION, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.]

Baptism BY water AND of the Spirit also brings one into covenant family relationship with God. But it does much more. It brings about an inner supernatural spiritual change. Washing away our sins, Act22:16, regenerating a dead soul to new life.

[TITUS 3:5 **Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he SAVED us, BY the WASHING OF REGENERATION, and RENEWING OF the Holy Ghost; 6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; 7 That BEING JUSTIFIED by his grace, we should be made HEIRS according to the hope of eternal life]

Thru baptism we are BRON AGAIN a child of God. Sharing in God’s very life and nature thru the Holy Spirit. The flesh ruled before baptism now the soul indwelled by the Holy Spirit has the ability to overcome the flesh. Circumcision did not change people. Baptism actually changes our nature in a supernatural way thru the Holy Spirit. We become a NEW CREATION. The old man has passed away all things are new.

Abraham could have done without circumcising Isaac, too. Is it really so worthless, just because it isn’t based on a 13th-century system describing what “graces” are and how/when/why they must be received?

JL: No Abraham couldn’t he would have broken the covenant. Issac would not have been in the covenant family of God. He would have been cut off from his people.

He comes whenever He chooses to come. God is a person with a will of His own, not some cosmic Rupe Goldberg project that Catholic sacraments are uniquely equipped to set in motion. If you talk to some different people and find out what happens- as a matter of what actually happens for each individual, not as a matter of doctrine- you will find that it varies.

JL: Unless you are Pentecostal and consider the manifestation of the Holy Spirit with speaking in tongues as the instant you were saved. How would you know other than the Word of God when you received the Holy Spirit? I’m guessing you are equating a conversion experience as receiving the Holy Spirit.

Remember Paul had a life changing encounter with Christ, yet he was told to be baptized and wash his sins away. Paul didn’t receive the Holy Spirit when he had his conversion experience and first believed.

[Acts9:8 And **Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. 9 And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink. 10 And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord.]

[Acts9:17 And **Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, AND be filled with the Holy Ghost. 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, AND arose, and WAS BAPTIZED. 19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.]

Three days later Ananias laid hands on Paul and he received his sight. Immediately Paul received his sight. THEN Paul arose to be baptized, to remit and wash away his sins, and receive the Holy Spirit. Being BORN AGAIN by water AND of the Spirit, as Christ tells us in Jn3:5. As Peter tells us in Acts2:38 repent, be baptized FOR remission of sins, RECEIVE the gift of the Holy Spirit. By the way Paul was probably baptized by pouring as he stood. He was baptized in a house.

 

[jlhargus]

Jesus described two kinds of baptism- one with water, and one that Jesus was responsible for. I will baptize you with the Holy Spirit (and with fire) which I read as an emphasis on God’s purifying qualities. To my reading of this passage, it’s talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit who regenerates you and causes you to become a new creation. Here, too, the aspect of cleansing and purification is also alluded to. When neighboring verses are accounted for, baptism with the Holy Spirit (and with fire) is the one that makes more sense of the two.

JL: [Acts1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. 5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be ** baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.] This was said at the Ascension of our Lord into heaven.

We are baptized with the Holy Spirit by WATER and of the Spirit, Jn3:5. [Eph5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved THE CHURCH, and gave himself for it; 26 **That he might SANCTIFY AND CLEANSE IT WITH the **WASHING OF WATER **BY THE WORD,]

The baptism of the Holy Spirit by FIRE was at Pentecost. If you believe one is saved when one first believes and is indwelled and regenerated at that time. Then you are saying the Apostles and none in the upper room even believed before Pentecost. Even with your theory the baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire came AFTER water baptism.

The baptism of the Holy Spirit, at Pentecost, the Church associates with the Sacrament of Confirmation. It’s given after baptism.

Acts19: 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And WHEN PAUL had LAID HIS HANDS UPON THEM, THE HOLY GHOST CAME ON THEM; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Acts8:12 But now the people believed Philip’s message of Good News concerning the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ. As a result, many men and women WERE BAPTIZED. 13 … 14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17 **Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. **

[2Cor5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.] How do we get in Christ and become a new creature?

[Rms 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were **BAPTIZED INTO JESUS CHRIST were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are BURIED WITH HIM BY BAPTISM INTO DEATH: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even SO WE ALSO SHOULD WALK IN NEWNESS OF LIFE. 5 For if we have been PLANTED TOGETHER IN THE LIKENESS OF HIS DEATH, we shall be ALSO IN THE LIKENESS OF HIS RESURRECTION: 6 Knowing this, that OUR OLD MAN IS CRUCIFIED WITH HIM, THAT THE BODY OF SIN MIGHT BE DESTROYED, that HENCEFORTH WE SHOULD NOT SERVE SIN. 7 For he that is dead is freed from sin. 8 Now IF WE BE DEAD WITH CHRIST, we believe that WE SHALL ALSO LIVE WITH HIM:]

Yeah, everyone says that. Coming from someone who’s elevated their already-formed-beliefs to the same level of authority as Scripture, though, it’s coming from a curious source. Wrt the timing of when the Holy Spirit comes, though- I’m curious to see whether you’ll let reality dictate your understanding of what’s happening, or if you’ll find ways to skew reality to fit with how you think it should be. Devin Rose says he received the Holy Spirit when he was baptized. I say I got Him over six years later. I can point you to dozens of personal friends who say the Holy Spirit indwelt them for as many years prior. There are many examples from all sides, and that’s because God’s timing is whatever He decides it will be. This is what’s actually happening- the timing varies.

JL: You can’t overide scripture truth by what people claim. That’s called a tradition of men. You claim you got the Holy Spirit six years after baptism, which contradicts scripture. Scripture tells us in Acts2:38 we receive the Holy Spirit at baptism. So you didn’t even believe after baptism? What was the purpose of your baptism?

ACTS 19:1 And it came to pass that, while Apollos was at Corinth Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus and FINDING certain DISCIPLES 2 HE SAID unto them HAVE YOU RECEIVED THE HOLY GHOST SINCE YE BELIEVED? And they said unto him WE HAVE NOT SO MUCH AS HEARD whether THERE BE ANY HOLY GHOST 3 And HE SAID unto them UNTO WHAT then WERE YE BAPTIZED? And THEY SAID UNTO JOHN’S BAPTISM 4 Then said Paul, JOHN verily BAPTIZED WITH the BAPTISM OF REPENTANCE SAYING unto the people that they should BELIEVE ON HIM WHICH should COME AFTER HIM that is ON CHRIST JESUS 5 When they heard this THEY WERE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS

Evidently more is needed than BELIEF and faith in Christ, to receive the Holy Spirit and be born again. John’s baptism of WATER, was of repentance, believing or having faith in the one to come, the Christ. Yet they needed the sacrament of Christian baptism to be born again by water AND the Spirit. The Holy Spirit and Christian, water, baptism go hand and hand else why would Paul ask about baptism when he found they had not RECEIVED or even heard of the Holy Spirit? We receive the remission of sins AND the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. In the sacrament of Christ’s baptism just as Peter tells us in Acts2:38.