A question for Baptists about Baptism of the Holy Spirit

1 Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (KJV)

1) The baptism of the Holy Spirit is the imperceptible work of God by which the believing, repentant sinner is placed by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ at the very moment of his/her conversion.

2) By simply repenting of his/her sins and inviting Jesus Christ into their heart as their personal Savior.

3) At the very moment they trust Christ.

4) Being baptized by the Holy Spirit and indwelt by the Holy Spirit occurs at the same time.
1 Cor 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? (KJV)

To be filled with the Holy Spirit is to empty yourself of you and allow the Spirit to control you.

 

You speak of a different baptism of the Holy Spirit than I read about in the New Testament. It was very visible then.

Baptism of the Holy Spirit was never a command, but a promise.

You reference I Cor 12:13. Here it states that we are baptized into one body. What is the body?
It is the Church (Col 1:18, Eph 1:22-23).

Ok, we are baptized into the church. Is this baptism with the Holy Spirit? Notice in I Cor 12:13, we are baptized "BY" not "WITH".

I Pet 1:21, "for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

How would anyone know anything about baptism unless it was revealed, by the Spirit?

If we can figure out how people were added to the church, we can figure out if it is Holy Spirit baptism or baptism is water talked about in I Cor 12:13.

Does the bible talk about people being added to the church? Yes, in Acts 2.

First, lets look at what the believers in Acts 2:37 were told to do in verse 38, "Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Did any of the group heed this instruction? Yes, verse 41 says, "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them."

3000 received the word and were baptized. Notice, it says "added to them". Added to who or what?

We find out in Acts 2:47, "praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved."

There is no question he is talking about water baptism in Acts 2:41. Water baptism adds us to something, what is it? Acts 2:47 tells us we are added to the church.

When Philip preached Jesus to the Eunuch, the first words out of the Eunuch's mouth was a request to be baptized in water (Acts 8:36-37).

One of Jesus last statements on this earth was , "And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned."

This command was for the apostles to go preach the gospel and baptize those who believed. Since man cannot baptize other with the Holy Spirit, he is certainly talking about baptism in water. (See also Matt 28:18-20).

Those who believe and are baptized (in water) will be saved according to Mark 16:16.

One of the following is a true statement,

1) Mark 16:16 means what it says
2) Jesus really meant, "He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized" when he actually said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"
3) Jesus was mistaken
4) Jesus was just kidding
5) Jesus was lying

It's no wonder that Saul was told (after believing and praying for 3 days), "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." - Acts 22:16

If it is as you described, why hadn't those baptized (in water) believers in Acts 8 been baptized with the Holy Spirit? (Acts 8:12, 15-16).

 

Greetings

WRT Col 1:18, this is a great and errant oversimplification of an analogy. The analogy is that of a human body in which the church is just a part. The head of this body is the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus, the direct statement of 1 Cor 12:13 is to be preferred over an analogy, simile or metaphor that are by nature limited in their theological teachings.

Believers are immersed into Christ. This is the central teaching of Eph 1. The phrase “in Him” is used some 12 times.

This is a violent wrenching of a verse from context. In fact, it violates all three related contexts!

I. Surrounding context begins in Acts 1:6 where the disciples want to know if Jesus will “restore” (apokatistanoo) Israel’s kingdom. Jesus did NOT rebuke them! They were right – except for the element of time. Likewise, in Acts 3:19-21, Peter preaches repentance regarding the “times of refreshing” and the “times of restitution of all things.” Here, we see the noun form (apokatastasis) of the verb used in 1:6. Arminians dismiss this unmistakable parallel language. The parallel between 1:6 and 3:19-21 is reflected in Deut 30:1-6.


II. For the immediate context, if Peter is looking for the restoration of national Israel BEFORE and AFTER Acts 2, then he is IN Acts 2. With proper context in mind Peter first shows his fellow countrymen that they have crucified their Messiah (2:23). Jesus rose from the dead, will return, and will execute Messianic vengeance upon His enemies (2:35; Psa 110:1-2; Isa 61:1-2;l; Jer 46:10). He reminds them that they crucified the One (2:36) Who is both "Lord and Christ." Repent and be baptized (2:38). Save yourselves "from this UNTOWARD GENERATION" (2:40).

The immediate context is Peter’s sermon to national Israelites who have crucified their Messiah. Peter quotes from several OT passages. Joel 2:28-32 is a reference to Jesus’ return to rescue national Israel in the “day of the Lord.” Psalm 16:8-11 is a reference to Jesus not being left in corruption. Psalm 110 shows that the exalted Lord will rule from Zion and make His enemies His footstool. This same LORD will come to bring judgment on that UNTOWARD GENERATION. Everything of Peter’s message refers to national Israel – judgment, salvation and blessings. Arminians deny these clear OT implications for national Israel and redefine them as a universal principle.

It is deceptive manipulation to misrepresent the great weight of scripture by a verse intended only for first century Jews looking for national restoration and wishing to avoid God's wrath on their UNTOWARD GENERATION before judgment falls in AD 70. Common sense context shows that Acts 2:38 is not a normative principle today.


III. In the far context, Peter links Israel’s national repentance to their Messiah (Acts 5:28-31). Stephen equates Israel’s national deliverance via Jesus to Moses’ leadership (Acts 7:37). Peter links the message of Jesus to Israel in his message to Cornelius (Acts 10:36). Jesus is linked with the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel (Acts 13:23-25). James prays for the restoration of Israel and David’s earthly tabernacle (Acts 15:16-17; cf Amos 9:11-15). Paul preaches Israel’s restoration (Rom 9-11). This is serious biblical support for the restoration of national Israel. Yet Arminians make a cavalier dismissal of God’s Word because their theology “knows” that Israel will not be restored. They thus close their eyes and ears to contextual truths and embrace the error of humanism.

Arminians would deny the eternality of God’s covenants (Gen 9:16; 15 other such references in scripture) in order to make scripture support their denominational error. Immediate context, near context, and far contexts all give unparalleled and dramatic support for the restoration of national Israel.

Lloyd

 

Greetings

mman also confuses Mark 16:16. He falls for the negative fallacy error. Let me show an example.

If we modified Mark 16:16 just a bit for emphasis, then the negative fallacy error is more readily seens.

Let's assume Mark 16:16 says: "Salvation is by believing, being baptized, continually praising the Lord, and tithing." All of these qualifiers are commanded in scripture. They are all biblical! But they are not part of justification. Rather, only believing justifies; the rest are for sanctification.

Even the last half of verse 16 shows that only belief is enough for not being damned. The other qualifiers are important but their absence is not a denial of justification by faith.

One can be saved without:
- tithing,
- without continually praising the Lord, or
- being baptised.
One cannot be saved without belief in Jesus.

Worship of human-centered self-righteous creeds blinds one to the negative fallacy error.

Heresy results!
Lloyd

 

So Jesus didn't mean what he said? Is that your answer? You can "what-if" Jesus said this to death, if that helps with your mental gymnastics you HAVE to go through rather than to accept this clear teaching.

The commission was for the apostles to go to all the world, every nation, and to every creature.

You try to falsely limit this to Israel only. I don't know why, but you have your reason.

If you would only look at the simple truth. It's not hard. You don't have to understand Greek to understand the bible.

Acts 1:8 ...and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth."

Yes, they started in Jerusalem, but they didn't stop there. They went into all the world, just as Jesus had commanded them (Matt 28:18-20, Mark 16:15-16). You are the one who has no scripture to back-up your claim that Acts 2:38 was only for Israel.

Surely you don't believe Jesus meant to only go and baptize the Jews only (as in Acts 2) when he said, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned." - Mark 16:15-16.

Here is a verse even a third grade child can understand, yet an "educated" man such as yourself stumbles.

Read it for what it says. It doesn't talk about tithing? How ridicilious to add that to the text. Tithing, an old testament requirment no longer in force, was never said to wash away our sins.

That cannot be said of baptism. Baptism is what puts us into Christ (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:27). Baptism washes away our sins (Acts 22:16). Baptism saves us (I Pet 3:21). Throw all the chaff you want. Do all the mental gymnastics you want. That will never change the plain and simple truth, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned."

Now I want you to remove all prejudice and bias and read Mark 16:15-16. According to this verse, does one have to be baptized in order to be saved? If you had one chance to answer this and you soul's destiny depended on it, how would you answer before God? How could this verse be any more plain? Let's just suppose that belief and baptism are prerequisites for salvation. How else could God have said it for you to believe it. OK, I really mean this, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believth not shall be condemned. Would you believe it then? Again, it could not be made any more plain that it already is. This verse tells what what to do to be saved and what to do to be condemned. Is this only for the Jews on Pentecost?

By the way, it doesn't matter what Peter understood or didn't understand prior to Pentecost. It was the Holy Spirit speaking, not Peter. Do you think the Holy Spirit had a good understanding of all things (Acts 2:4).

It was the Holy Spirit that said, "Repent and be baptized... for the remission of sins" -Acts 2:38

What was the purpose of baptism (Acts 2:38)? For (eis) the remission of sins. Why did Jesus shed his blood? For (eis) the remission of sins (Matt 26:28). This is the message that was to be preached to all the world, every nation, and every person (Mark 16:15-16, Matt 28:18-20).

It's not hard to understand. It requires none of your mental gymnastics. It is the simple truth. When Philip preached Jesus, he preached water baptism (Acts 8:35-36).

 

Hey mman

Why do you never learn? I have shown you the proper contextual understanding for this verse many times. Here it is again.


I. Surrounding context begins in Acts 1:6 where the disciples want to know if Jesus will “restore” (apokatistanoo) Israel’s kingdom. Jesus did NOT rebuke them! They were right – except for the element of time. Likewise, in Acts 3:19-21, Peter preaches repentance regarding the “times of refreshing” and the “times of restitution of all things.” Here, we see the noun form (apokatastasis) of the verb used in 1:6. Arminians dismiss this unmistakable parallel language. The parallel between 1:6 and 3:19-21 is reflected in Deut 30:1-6.


II. For the immediate context, if Peter is looking for the restoration of national Israel BEFORE and AFTER Acts 2, then he is IN Acts 2. With proper context in mind Peter first shows his fellow countrymen that they have crucified their Messiah (2:23). Jesus rose from the dead, will return, and will execute Messianic vengeance upon His enemies (2:35; Psa 110:1-2; Isa 61:1-2;l; Jer 46:10). He reminds them that they crucified the One (2:36) Who is both "Lord and Christ." Repent and be baptized (2:38). Save yourselves "from this UNTOWARD GENERATION" (2:40).

The immediate context is Peter’s sermon to national Israelites who have crucified their Messiah. Peter quotes from several OT passages. Joel 2:28-32 is a reference to Jesus’ return to rescue national Israel in the “day of the Lord.” Psalm 16:8-11 is a reference to Jesus not being left in corruption. Psalm 110 shows that the exalted Lord will rule from Zion and make His enemies His footstool. This same LORD will come to bring judgment on that UNTOWARD GENERATION. Everything of Peter’s message refers to national Israel – judgment, salvation and blessings. Arminians deny these clear OT implications for national Israel and redefine them as a universal principle.

It is deceptive manipulation to misrepresent the great weight of scripture by a verse intended only for first century Jews looking for national restoration and wishing to avoid God's wrath on their UNTOWARD GENERATION before judgment falls in AD 70. Common sense context shows that Acts 2:38 is not a normative principle today.


III. In the far context, Peter links Israel’s national repentance to their Messiah (Acts 5:28-31). Stephen equates Israel’s national deliverance via Jesus to Moses’ leadership (Acts 7:37). Peter links the message of Jesus to Israel in his message to Cornelius (Acts 10:36). Jesus is linked with the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel (Acts 13:23-25). James prays for the restoration of Israel and David’s earthly tabernacle (Acts 15:16-17; cf Amos 9:11-15). Paul preaches Israel’s restoration (Rom 9-11). This is serious biblical support for the restoration of national Israel. Yet Arminians make a cavalier dismissal of God’s Word because their theology “knows” that Israel will not be restored. They thus close their eyes and ears to contextual truths and embrace the error of humanism.

Arminians would deny the eternality of God’s covenants (Gen 9:16; 15 other such references in scripture) in order to make scripture support their denominational error. Immediate context, near context, and far contexts all give unparalleled and dramatic support for the restoration of national Israel.


Acts 2:38 is NOT a normative principle for today.
Lloyd

 

Hey ChurchBoy

you asked:

mman stumbles here as well. John's baptism was to prepare national Israel for their Messiah. National Israel has yet many unfulfilled promises that depend on a literal physical Messiah ruling from literal Jerusalem upon David's literal throne. Peter, in Acts 1 and Acts 3 is still looking for this Kingdom. So is James in Acts 15:16.

So the Samaritans were baptised as a symbol of national forgiveness. This was to prepare them for accepting Messiah Jesus when He revealed Himself.

John's baptism did not save (Acts 19:4).
Lloyd

 

Is this really all you have????? Acts 2:38 is applicable today.

In Matt 28:18-20, they were instructed to teach, baptize and teach (what? To observer all things that I have commanded you. What had he commanded them? To go teach, baptize and teach).

This is a never-ending loop for all nations.

It is so simple.

Did Jesus really mean, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" or did he mean something else?

When will you accept the simple truth?

 

Yes, it is very simple.

Mk 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

 

Greetings mman:

You asked:

How is it that you never use context?


The context of Acts 2:38 was national Israel.
The context of Matt 28 is the whole world.

D-U-H. Sound exegesis sees two different contexts!


Did you perchance ever look at the underlying Greek? There is only one verb in Matthew's Great Commission: make disciples. All other English verbs are really Greek participles. Basic first year first semester knowledge of Greek dictates that all participles have only derivative value to the main verb.

Making disciples comes first. Only then does baptizing and teaching occur.


Making disiciples pertains to justification.
Baptizing and teaching pertain to sanctification.

It is one of the greatest errors to confuse justification with sanctification.

Harmony between the texts depends on CONTEXT.
Context rules!
Lloyd

 

Hey Michael

Great observation!

I wonder how it is that mman and others who embrace a human-centered self-righteous theology of death can be so blind to such an easy CONTRAST!

One baptism is physical, earthly, visible.
One baptism is spiritual, eternal, unseen.
(II Cor 4:18)

One baptism is a symbol.
One baptism is the real deal!

It takes a lot of twisted theology for mman to make physical water by the eternal saving baptism.

Great observation. There are so many of these great points supporting Spirit baptism and denouncing water baptism for justification!
Lloyd

 

ascund

You fall into the same err as many when attempting to annotate the "negative" part of the verse as stated by Jesus in Mark 16:16!

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned(Mk.16:16, KJV).

You assume that since 'baptism' was left out of the 2nd part of the statement, it inferred that 'baptism' was not important to the overall part of the verse regarding salvation. I believe that is an incorrect assumption! Jesus knew that if someone is not going to believe then baptism is not needed or even required. It could be stated a different way as follows:

He that eateth and digesteth shall live; but he that eateth not shall die.

Why was 'digesteth' omitted from the 2nd part of that statement? It is apparent! If one does not eat there is nothing to digest so he will die. You must eat in order to have digesting take place.

The same applies to Mark 16:16. You must 'believe' in order to have something to be 'baptized' for.

If you were to join a club that required some kind of initiation wouldn't you first like to know something about the club? You could perhaps have to do something rediculous or foolish, then learn that this club is something you don't like in the first place!

Jesus states that baptism is MORE than just an initiation, but something needed and REQUIRED for salvation. Yet believing comes first, and without believing, baptism, confession, nor repentance avails nothing. Jesus made that clear. Jesus made that statement in Mark 16:16 to signify the importance of BOTH belief and baptism to salvation, and trying to twist and use Jesus' own Words in an attempt to make someones doctrine concur with His words is wrong! Jesus meant what He said, and said what He meant!!!

 

Tts 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;


Tts 3:11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

 

The baptism mentioned above is Holy Spirit Baptism.

If one does not believe, he is not baptized with the Holy Spirit and is damned. Water baptism will not do anything for an unbeliever.

If one does believe, he has been baptized with the Holy Spirit and is saved (ie. not damned). This persons subsequent obedience to the ordinance of water water baptism is a physical testimony to the spiritual reality of Christ's salvation of the believer's soul.

The only baptism that can truly save me is from God. If I am depending on someone's physical baptism to save me, then I am placing my faith in the wrong hands.

See how well this clears things up.

 

The baptism mentioned above is Holy Spirit Baptism.

If one does not believe, he is not baptized with the Holy Spirit and is damned. Water baptism will not do anything for an unbeliever.

If one does believe, he has been baptized with the Holy Spirit and is saved (ie. not damned). This persons subsequent obedience to the ordinance of water water baptism is a physical testimony to the spiritual reality of Christ's salvation of the believer's soul.

The only baptism that can truly save me is from God. If I am depending on someone's physical baptism to save me, then I am placing my faith in the wrong hands.

See how well this clears things up. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]So you can baptize others with the Holy Spririt? When you read the parallel account in Matt 28, this is clearly instructions for man to carry out. The simple fact that water baptism is the command, while baptism with the Holy Spirit was a promise from Jesus. If you can baptize others with the Holy Spirit, then you can fulfill Matt 28 and Mark 16. If you can bapize others in water, then you can fullfill Matt 28 and Mark 16.

Baptism always mean immersion. When associated with baptism in the NT, it is always means immersion in water, unless the context dictates otherwise. There is nothing in the context in Mark 16:16 to demand or even suggest Holy Spirit baptism. Furthermore, HS baptism is not a command man can perform.

Anyone who says we are baptized with the HS today preaches a different HS baptism than we read about in the NT.

When Philip preached Jesus in Acts 8:35-36, "Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.

36As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?"

Preaching Jesus includes instructions for water baptism. You say Mark 16:16 is not water baptism. Then when did Jesus talk about water baptism? The simple fact is that the good news about Jesus includes instructions about water baptism. Instructions Jesus gave in Mark 16:16 and Matt 28:18-20.

You see, Mark 16:16 is talking about water baptism. To simply claim that it is not, because that contridicts some other held beliefs, is not true to the text or to related texts.

Would the Holy Spirit have sent Philip on a mission if he was going to deliver the wrong message? Certainly not! You see, if Jesus never commanded a bapism is water, then Philips message would not have included it. If baptism in water were not necessary and the Eunuch had asked on his own knowledge, Philip would have certainly set him straight. No, Philip set a condition on the Eunuch's immersion in water, then immersed him when he complied. The Eunuch rejoiced after his immersion in water. Nowhere in scripture, after the establishment of the church in Acts 2, will you ever find anyone rejoicing when they "believe" but you will find rejoicing after their immersion in water.

If HS baptism were automatic when people believe, then why did the Samarians not have it when they believed?

Read Acts 8:13-16. Notice, they had been baptized only in the name of the Lord. You understand "open in the name of the law", right? By the authority of the law. To be baptized in the name of the Lord, is by his authority. He is certainly not talking about HS baptism, as seen in verse 16.

Jesus said in Matt 28:18-20, that all authority had been given to Him, then he commanded baptism. A parallel account is in Mark 16:16. This is certainly water baptism, and the baptism in the name of the Lord in Acts 8.

 

Greetings

Yes! but be careful. The instructions must teach the same pattern illustrated in Jesus' public water baptism. His baptism was not for justification but to mark the beginning of a public ministry for God.

Thus, water baptism is a proper symbol of the Spirit's true saving baptism. This is why Mark 16:16b shows that only lack of belief is sufficient to condemn a person.

People typically stumble over the negative fallacy associated with this verse. Let me expand the verse so you see the point. Salvation is by belief, water baptism and tithing. Clearly, tithing is not an issue of getting saved (justification) but is an issue of sanctification. It is a terrible mistake to confuse justificaiton with sanctification.

The negative of this three part statement does not hold. The following statement is an error:

Only belief leads to justification. Salvation is the overarching term for both justification and sanctification. When one does not pay attention to the details of terminology, then any dogma is possible - even likely.

Lloyd

 

Yes! but be careful. The instructions must teach the same pattern illustrated in Jesus' public water baptism. His baptism was not for justification but to mark the beginning of a public ministry for God.

Thus, water baptism is a proper symbol of the Spirit's true saving baptism. This is why Mark 16:16b shows that only lack of belief is sufficient to condemn a person.

People typically stumble over the negative fallacy associated with this verse. Let me expand the verse so you see the point. Salvation is by belief, water baptism and tithing. Clearly, tithing is not an issue of getting saved (justification) but is an issue of sanctification. It is a terrible mistake to confuse justificaiton with sanctification.

The negative of this three part statement does not hold. The following statement is an error:

Only belief leads to justification. Salvation is the overarching term for both justification and sanctification. When one does not pay attention to the details of terminology, then any dogma is possible - even likely.

Lloyd </font>[/QUOTE]Again, you go adding to God's word. It is plain. You can understand it. Tithing was never a requirement for salvation.

You bring the same invalid arguements time and time again, of which I am tiring of refuting.

The mental gymnastics you are required to do to explain away such a clear, easy passage are totally unnecessary.

Most people with any common sense, even third graders, can understand, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned" - Mark 16:16.

This does not require tithing, animal sacrifices, or any other old testament requirement.

Now, did Jesus mean what he said or did he mean something else?

This verse tells us what it takes to be saved and what it takes to be condemned.

Even you said this was a universal command. Therefore, it includes the Jews, else it was not universal. The same gospel was preached to the Jews first and also to the Greeks (Rom 1:16).

When was it preached to the Jews first. Acts 2.

What were they told to do when the believed? To repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38). See how this agrees with what Jesus told them in Mark 16:16? This is the first time the Apostles taught anyone after Jesus commissioned them in Mark 16:15-16 (Matt 28:18-20).

Why don't you honestly look at the phrase, "for the remission of sins" in Acts 2:38. You will find that this is to obtain the remission of sins, not because their sins were already forgiven. I know your way to explain this away is to say it was only for the Jews, which has also been dealt with in the past, and touched on in this reply, since the commission given in Mark 16 and Matt 28 was UNIVERSAL, which, by default, would include the Jews.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't perceive that you are truly interested in the truth. You are only concerned with "proving" you are so much smarter than everyone else, you must be right and anyone who would dare question you is a beginning bible student without any knowledge.

For these reasons, unless you demonstrate otherwise, I am ignoring all your future response, since they are clearly a waste of my time. I am only interested in the truth and those seeking the truth.

God's word is plain and simple, concerning matters of salvation, and it doesn't need to be twisted or explained away.

 

Mr 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.


Ac 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye 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. (With water)

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.

Which Baptism is required to be saved, Water/Ghost??

Quite obviously, from the above scriptures, These repented of their sins, but had not trusted in the one who "PAID" for their sins.

There is no salvation outside of Jesus, only Jesus can baptise with the "HOLY GHOST".

"Man" can't baptize "Man" into receiving the "Holy Ghost", else John's baptism would have been "sufficient".