Do we need to have the Holy Ghost to be saved?

Um, no. That is a heretical teaching on par with transubstantiation.

I read the article, MEE, and here's my analysis of it.

Paragraph 1: Author says "The proper way to express faith in Jesus is to confess His name. In each of the cases just cited, the candidates expressed their faith in Jesus by being baptized in the name of Jesus," and gives verses from Acts and, surprisingly, 1 Corinthians to back up that claim. Too bad that the same author who wrote 1 Corinthians also tells us in his letter to the church at Rome that we must confess with the mouth (Rom 10:9).

That, my friend, is a serious error on the author's part.

Paragraph 2: Reference to Acts 10:43, indicating that this verse says baptism for the remission of sins. While I'm not attempting to contradict Acts 2:38, Acts 10:43 is part of Peter's preaching to Cornelius and the Gentiles, and Peter never talks about baptism until AFTER the Holy Spirit falls upon those present. In this verse, Peter specifically says that through His name, we receive remission of sins; not "through baptism, we receive remission of sins." Subtle, yet huge difference.

Paragraph 3: Talks about baptism as part of our salvation experience, and uses Mark 16:16 and 1 Peter 3:21 as it's support. We've talked Mark 16:16 to death, so I'm only going to say this one thing: If you cannot look at 1 Peter 3:20-21, and compare it with Hebrews 11:7 and see that scripture is NOT contradicting itself, then there's nothing more to discuss on this subject.

If you see a contradiction between 1 Peter 3:20-21 and Hebrews 11:7, then that contradiction MUST MUST MUST be explored, because scripture does not contradict itself.

Paragraph 4: A true crack in the "oneness" philosopy. "The Spirit of God did not die for us; only Jesus the man died for us and was buried in the tomb."

According to "oneness" philosophy, aren't the Spirit and the Man the same? I imagine the explanation is that when our flesh dies, our spirit does not; but this seems to still contradict the "oneness" philosophy, because it necessary requires an understanding that there are still "separate" parts/personalities/persons.

Not explained in this paragraph; not even really approached. An oversight on the author's part?

Final paragraphs. This statement stuck out: "Since the only one who can take away sins is Jesus- not by our deeds, not the water, and not the preacher- we call upon Him in faith, depending upon Him to do the work."

Directly contradicts paragraph 3 of this same article. How can the author say in paragraph 3 that baptism is part of our salvation experience, and then state that water doesn't take away sins?

The author then asks the question: "why would anyone refuse to be baptized in Jesus' name?"

To my knowledge, no one has. Those that have been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are just as much baptized in Jesus' name as those that are baptized in the name of Jesus--since the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is God/Jesus/Holy Spirit, just as Jesus is God/Jesus/Holy Spirit.

Further, one CANNOT say that someone's baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is following the exact words of Jesus Christ Himself.

(edited at this point; messed up the last paragraph. Should read: Further, one CANNOT say that someone's baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is invalid, since doing so is simply following the exact words of Jesus Christ Himself.

And my final thought on this article: Let's say that the author is correct, and it's not the water, but the baptism that plays a part in the salvation process. Seems logical to my simple mind that if that's true, then I could ask why sprinkling, pouring, shucks, even using dirt isn't acceptable.)

[ December 02, 2002, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: Don ]

 

Sularis,

It would seem that elementary, but those who insist that baptism saves are denying the life that the Spirit gave to Cornelius before his baptism.

I am trying to get a straight answer out of them as to what they believe. Do they honeslty think that the Spirit can indwell an unsaved person? If so, how does this correspond to the same verses they were trying to use to prove the opposite? They won't answer me.

~Lorelei

 

Lorelei:
Cornelius received the baptism of the Holy Spirit before he was saved.Acts 10:43.
No one can be saved without faith. Hebrews 11:6. Faith comes from hearing and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17. Cornelius, at the time the spirit fell had not heard the words by which he was to be saved. Acts 10:32,33;11:14.
Peter's gospel sermon was interupted at the beginning by the Holy Spirit's intervention. In Acts 11:15 the Bible says, " As I BEGAN to speak the Holy Ghost fell on them as on us at the beginning. If Cornelius were saved by the falling of the spirit, he was a man saved without faith. He had not heard the words by which he was to be saved. Romans 10:17,James 1:18,21. According to the inspired pen of Luke, Peter was interrupted at the beginning ( ARCHE) of his speech. Therefore, he had not heard the gospel that saves and could not have had faith as he had not heard. Therefore , he was not saved at the point of intervention by the Spirit. Unless, you believe one may be saved without faith.
If one reads Acts 10:25- 35, he finds the purpose of the intervention of the Spirit upon Cornelius was to confirm that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs of salvation with the Jews.vs.43. Eph.3:11-17, Gal. 3:29.

 

Frank, I disagree.

The Gentiles present had the Holy Ghost come upon them; but to say they weren't saved yet?

Peter finished preaching in v.43. Then we find this: v.44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

Then we see Peter ask this: v.47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

"As well as we"? Peter, through this simple inclusion, put the Gentiles on the same level as the saved Jews who were present.

You mention Acts 11:15 to indicate that the Holy Spirit fell upon them before they were saved; yet Peter tells us in v.16-17 of the same chapter: "Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?"

Two things there: The Holy Spirit falling upon the Gentiles was apparently enough to prove to Peter that God had given them the gift of salvation; and Peter expressly pointed out the fact that baptism by water was no longer required, that baptism of the Holy Spirit replaced it.

According to the inspired pen of Luke, in Acts 10, we find that while Peter yet spake these words; and in Acts 11, we find Peter saying, "as I began to speak." Not "before I spoke."

Subtle, yet huge difference. He was speaking as the Holy Spirit fell upon them.

Sorry, but I don't see your response to Lorelei holding water.

[ December 02, 2002, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: Don ]

 

This is a lie!

Let us look at what those verses REALLY say.

In Acts 10, we see that they did indeed hear the Word of God.

Peter says that whosoever believes in him shall have remission of sins and then Holy Ghost falls upon them that heard the word.

Let us look again chapter 11, read all of what Peter has to say.

They received the Holy Ghost, just as the apostles had because they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ.

To say that they did not believe or have faith calls Peter a liar.

It also does not answer the question as to how one can die in baptism after they have been given life by the Spirit.


~Lorelei

 

DHK:
The Baptism of Acts 2 is for the remission of sins. You contradict vs. 38 out right by your flawed interpretation of verses 39-41. Save yourselves is an action verb. According to Acts 2:38, the action was repenting and being baptized , not faith only. You do not understand grammar anymore than the words BE SAVED or SAVE YOURSELVES. These phrases require by the rules of greek and english ACTION.
If I say be sound in your doctrine can you do it? If I say be Loud can you do it?
And you have the will to do it!
You do not know engish any better than the Greek language!!
In Acts 4:4, you are simply trying to array scripture against scripture. Jesus said he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:16, Acts 18:8, Gal. 3:26,27, Acts 8:36-39. Those that believed were baptized.
In Acts 8:12, those who believed were baptized in water for unto the remission of sins. Acts 2:38-41. They were not Holy Spirit baptized. see Acts 8:16.
In Acts 16:31-33 the Jailer was SAVED after he had heard the word. vs. 32. He was saved after he had repented. vs.33. He was saved after he was baptized. vs. 33. Again, consistent and harmonious with the first converts to Christianity in Acts 2:38-41.

Moreover,with your flawed logic and hermeneuitc, I can prove repentance only saves. Acts 17:11.
Using your flawed hermeneutic and logic, I can prove confession only saves. Romans 10:10.
Using your flawed hermeneutic I can prove baptism only saves. I Pet. 3:21.
Using your logic and hermeneutic , I can prove the blood only saves. Rev. 1:5.
Using your flawed hermeneutic, I can prove grace only saves. Acts 15:11.
Using your logic I can prove faith only saves. Gal. 3:26.
The fact is If I used your logic and hemeneutic I would be guilty of the same error as you in claiming that anything only saves, by insisting that baptism only saves us. This is not true at all.

Baptism, as are the other things listed,is a part of salvation. The Bible says so. I have given book, chapter, and verse for each. I accept the whole counsel of God. Acts 20:27. It is the sum of his words that are truth,( Ps. 119;60) not just the ones you want to lift and seperate from the very theme of the Bible, which is the salvation of man. John 3:16,17.

 

Who, pray tell, has the flawed interpretation?
Mark 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
--Did John baptize "for" i.e., because their sins had already been repented of and remitted (forgiven), or did he baptize before they repented and received forgiveness of sins. The word "for" is the same here as in Acts 2:38.

41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
--Which is correct: 1. "They repented 'because' of the preaching of Jonas; or, 2. They repented unto (receiving) the preaching of Jonas? The same word "eis" or "at the" is used here as well.

And so in Acts 2:38 "be baptized "because of" the remission of sins, is a perfectably acceptable translation.

You don't even make sense here. You cannot save yourself. That is why Jesus Christ died for your sins. Because you can't save yourself. If you could save yourself there would be no need for Christ to come and die for you.

Is that your excuse for not accepting Scripture for what it says at face value?

4 Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.
--Is it really that hard to believe, that every time Scripture is quoted you use the excuse "you are simply trying to array Scripture against Scripture." We are to compare Scripture with Scripture, something you apparently do not do. The weight of evidence of Scripture speaks against you as I already have demonstrated. Salvation is by faith and faith alone. Baptism has nothing to do with it.
DHK

 

DHK:
The Greek word eis is employed 1774 times in the new testament. It is NEVER translated because of. John's baptism was for the remission of sins. This is exactly what he preached according to Mark 1:4. By your logic, Jesus died because sins had already been forgiven. This is simply false! Mark 14:24, Hebs. 9:22, I Pet. 1:17,18. However, that is the way you have it by your interpretation of eis.

The word because in Mat. 12:41 is from the greek word HOTI, NOT EIS. This is just another example of ignoring the meaning of words or using the wrong word!

Save yourselves from this untoward generation or be saved from this untoward generation requires action. Be saved is an action verb. This does not mean one earns salvation. It means God grants it based on what he has asked man to do. Acts 2;37;9:6;16:30. Must do is from the greek word dei and is a divine imperative. In other words, it is essential. There is no getting around it! This is what the words mean in the original language. This is what each of the conversions in the book Acts demonstrate without exception!

Acts 4:4 is not the totality of the evidence on the subject. See Mark 16;16, Gal. 3:26-29, Acts 8:12;36-39,16:30-33;18:8. Of course, using sound rules of interpretation are not high on your to do list.

Yes, you do array scripture against scripture, as this is the only way you can try to defend your theology of faith only saves! However, it just want work!

You have ignored the totalitiy of the harmonious evidence. ALL THE EXAMPLES OF THOSE BECOMING CHIRSTIANS IN THE BOOK OF ACTS USING THE WORD BELIEVED WERE ALSO BAPTIZED,NO EXCEPTION! Jesus connects the two. Mark 16:16.

No, I have not arrayed scripture against scripture. I have harmonized them.

 

It is never translated "because of," but often "for" which means "because of" in many places. John's baptism was for (because of) the repentance of sins. As you can see by your own examples our preposition "for" is quite flexible and can be used in just more than one way. Your problem is that you are trying to force your theology into one verse of Scripture that contradicts the rest of the Bible, all based on the meaning of this one little preposition.

You are not paying attention here, and are looking at the wrong word.

Mt 12:41
The men (aner) of Nineveh (NineuithV) shall rise
(anisthmi) in (en) judgment (krisiV) with (meta) this (tauth) generation (genea,) and (kai) shall condemn (katakrinw) it (autoV): because (oti) they repented (metanoew) at eis the preaching (khrugma) of Jonas (IoanaV); and (kai), behold (idou), a greater than (pleiwn) Jonas (IoanaV) is here (wde).

They repented at (because of) the preaching of Jonah. Eis is the word that is used.

No, you have misunderstood this verse. Peter was speaking specifically (in this verse) to the Jewish people that had crucified Christ. He had already referred to them earlier in verse 23: "ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain."
"Save yourselves from this untoward generation," was the specific judgement that would fall on that generation of Jews that had crucified Christ.
We in wise can save ourselves.

Yes, they became Christians by believing (by faith alone), then they were baptized.
DHK

 

Hey Don! I just sent you a PM.

 

DHK:
I have already mentioned most of the following material. The word eis in Mat. 12:41 means in the name of as ei has been displaced by en. This is according to the Baptist Scholar A. T. Robertson in his book "Word Pictures of the New Testament."

In an attempt to force the meaing of eis, he uses Mat. 12:41, and states there are numerous cases in the New Testament were eis is means because of. However, he FAILS TO SITE any of them. He admits one will understand the use of the word as he believes baptism is esential for the remission of sins. Mr. Robertson prefers his personal theology over the inspired text. Robertson states and I quote," my view is decidedly AGAINST the idea of PETER, PAUL or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received."

These instances in Matthew 10:41,42 could be translated more in line with the general meaning of the word, “with a view of”, or “in the sphere of,” and Matthew 12:41 could be translated “they repented into the preaching (khrugma) of Jonah,” that is “into a state of harmony with Jonah’s prophecy,” or “into the object of Jonah’s preaching, righteousness.

The important thing to see about Robertson’s argument is this: He took two controversial passages (Matt. 10:41; 12:41) where the meaning is unsure in order to try to prove his point. He could not produce anything stronger. There is nothing to substantiate his translation of this word in the other 1700 plus times it is used.

 

I don't remember quoting Roberson in this discussion. Your argument on the definition of the word eis is quite bogus.

eis is used 1773 times, of those 1,773 times it is translated "for" only 140 times. That is not very many times. Considering the variety of meanings that our English word "for" has makes for even a greater ambiguity in the reading of the KJV. So then exactly how is eis translated?

573 times as "into"
281 times as "to"
207 times as "unto"
140 times as "for"
138 times as "in"
58 times as "on"
29 times as "toward"
26 times as "against"
26 times as "to (with)"
24 times as "upon"
22 times as "at"
16 times as "among"
10 times as "that...might"
8 times as "that...may"
8 times as "that...should"
8 times as "of"
6 times as "throughout"
6 times as "whereunto"
5 times as "concerning"
4 times as "therein (with)"
4 times as "to meet (with)"
4 times as "that (with)"
3 times as "wherein (with)"
3 times as "to this end (with)"
3 times as therefore (with)"
56 times it is not translatable.
99 times it has other miscellaneous translations such as: "for this cause" "to be partakers of" and many more.

There are obviously some that give the sense of "because of" including Acts 2:38
DHK

 

Don't you guys just love Greek prepositions. Volumes have been written just to cover all their uses in the NT alone. They are even worse in classical.

 

I was going off this statement that you made:

The Spirit is what gives us life. If Christ is in us our Spirit is alive according to Romans 8:9. Maybe I should have said buried at baptism, either way, why would you want to be buried when your Spirit has already been made alive?

Also, doesn't your church teach that baptism is where the 'blood is applied'? If so, how can the Spirit enter a man if the blood has not yet been applied to cover his sin?

~Lorelei

 

Lorelei,

With that approach, then the Holy Spirit cannot enter a person until baptism has been accomplished.

Worse yet, if a person is baptized against his/her will, does that mean he's received the application of the blood and the subsequent Holy Spirit even if he didn't want it. ?

 

Right which is in error of the scriptures. Either you have the Spirit and are saved, or you don't. If you can have the Spirit without baptism then you are saved without baptism. I am just trying to clarify how they justify thier belief that baptism saves someone who already has the Spirit (ie is already saved).

I don't know, this isn't taught in the Word of God, that is for sure. Again, I was just trying to clarify if this indeed what thier church teaches.

~Lorelei

 

Right which is in error of the scriptures. Either you have the Spirit and are saved, or you don't. If you can have the Spirit without baptism then you are saved without baptism. I am just trying to clarify how they justify thier belief that baptism saves someone who already has the Spirit (ie is already saved).

~Lorelei</font>[/QUOTE]If you will look at the conversion of Cornelius, Acts 10:45-48, you will see that one can receive the Spirit of God before water baptism. Keep in mind that God was not finished with the household of Cornelius with just them receiving the Spirit.

Acts 10:45)...because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46)For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47) Can any man FORBID WATER, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48) And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord....

The point is that you have to have the Spirit and water baptism. Why would Peter say, "Can any man forbid water, the these should not be baptized?"

There is no remission of sins without the blood of Christ. This is why water baptism is for the remission of sins. The is where the blood is applied.

John 3:5..Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of
God.

1. Buried with Christ in obedience to His death, burial and resurrection. Romans 6:3-4) 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.

2. Remission of sins (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16) And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

3. To put on Christ (Gal. 3:27) For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

How can a person read these scriptures and say that water baptism means nothing toward salvation?

Carol