IF Water baptism requirement for salvation, another Gospel?

[Michael Wrenn]

Back to the OP: 15 And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation. 16 The one who believes AND is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.
The word "and" is a joining word. If you want to make a purchase online, you must have a credit card AND an account with the company you wish to buy from. Both are necessary. If either is missing I will not be able to complete the transaction. Catholics/Lutherans/Anglicans/Orthodox believe Peter uses the word 'and' to join belief and baptism as the necessary elements of salvation. The line after that 'the one who does not believe will be condemned' many on this board believe diminishes the former statement. If either of them is missing there is no salvation. In this case belief is missing and the person is condemned. Its like saying 'the one who has a credit card and an company account will be accepted for the online transaction but the one who does not have an company account will be denied'

The oldest manuscripts omit verses 9-20 of Mark Chapter 16. It's not wise to establish doctrine on that.

The thief on the cross was not water-baptized. Was he saved? Oh, wait, I guess he underwent the "baptism of desire". BTW, do you have any scripture that supports this doctrine? Even disputed scripture?

We are not saved or justified by outward rituals. Jesus didn't teach it nor did the apostles. Faith is all that's required for spiritual birth.

I'm not virulently anti-catholic like some are, but the RCC would not be the church that it is were it not for its reliance on extra-biblical and even anti-biblical teachings. I prefer some RCC beliefs to those of Calvinism, but not this extreme sacramentalism.

 

[Ed B]

God says to be baptized, so why would not anyone be baptized?
Christians are to be water baptized, even after having received the Holy Spirit.

Acts 10:47 Then Peter said, “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”

.

This is a great example of how water baptism does not save. As you clearly show the believers had received the Holy Spirit before water baptism, thus they were already saved. The water baptism is one of the signs of the new covenant, the outward testimony that the new Christian is now part of the Church and a partaker of the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord. But as the Scripture you provide points out the effectual conversion was complete before the water baptism or else they would not have been filled with the Holy Ghost. But just a good works follow those who have believed unto salvation, so also does water baptism follow those who are saved, they are both evidence of who we are but not the things that save us.

 

[Moriah]

This is a great example of how water baptism does not save. As you clearly show the believers had received the Holy Spirit before water baptism, thus they were already saved. The water baptism is one of the signs of the new covenant, the outward testimony that the new Christian is now part of the Church and a partaker of the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord. But as the Scripture you provide points out the effectual conversion was complete before the water baptism or else they would not have been filled with the Holy Ghost. But just a good works follow those who have believed unto salvation, so also does water baptism follow those who are saved, they are both evidence of who we are but not the things that save us.

The Bible also tells us of people being water baptized first and still not of received the Holy Spirit. So, one cannot say that water baptism always follows receiving the Holy Spirit.

Acts 8:14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. 15When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 17Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit."

 

[Yeshua1]

Wasn't my question was it? I asked you to provide evidence of the posts where those 'advocating' Catholicism were misrepresenting what the Catholic Church teaches. Can you do it or not? You are the one claiming that people presenting the Catholic position are not being truthful. Your claims of the 'heresies' of Catholicism show just how little you know about the Catholic Church.

My point in listing just SOME of the doctrines held by the RCC that are non christian is those expousing such views here seem to portray them as being biblical and christian!

 

[Yeshua1]

The oldest manuscripts omit verses 9-20 of Mark Chapter 16. It's not wise to establish doctrine on that.

The thief on the cross was not water-baptized. Was he saved? Oh, wait, I guess he underwent the "baptism of desire". BTW, do you have any scripture that supports this doctrine? Even disputed scripture?

We are not saved or justified by outward rituals. Jesus didn't teach it nor did the apostles. Faith is all that's required for spiritual birth.

I'm not virulently anti-catholic like some are, but the RCC would not be the church that it is were it not for its reliance on extra-biblical and even anti-biblical teachings. I prefer some RCC beliefs to those of Calvinism, but not this extreme sacramentalism.[/QUOTE]

Think that those highlighted areas from your post reflect just WHy RCC theology is wrong!

The "baptism of desire" is line Mormon Baptising the dead by proxy, as both allow for others to be saved apart from belief inChrist! other sincere religiouspeople can enter into eternal life with christ!

Also, the view that sacraments are means to have effectually grace applied towards us undercuts very heart of the Gospel, as jesus atonement provided FULLY for ALL spiritually blessings towards us, and we receive them by faith alone!

 

[Yeshua1]

The Bible also tells us of people being water baptized first and still not of received the Holy Spirit. So, one cannot say that water baptism always follows receiving the Holy Spirit.

Acts 8:14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. 15When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 17Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit."

transistion period in switching from Old to new Covenant!
God "kept' them from receiving, as way to provide evidence/proof of jesus as messiah to not just the Jews...

Today, all receive the Holy Spirit immediatly at conversation!

 

[Moriah]

transistion period in switching from Old to new Covenant!
God "kept' them from receiving, as way to provide evidence/proof of jesus as messiah to not just the Jews...

Today, all receive the Holy Spirit immediatly at conversation!

I do not know what you mean when you say, "God "kept' them from receiving, as way to provide evidence/proof of jesus as messiah to not just the Jews..."

The scriptures I gave show us of people being water baptized first and still not of received the Holy Spirit. So, one cannot say that water baptism always follows receiving the Holy Spirit. The scriptures I gave have nothing to do with the transition period.
God gives His Spirit when He accepts us, to those who obey. A person might receive the Holy Spirit when they hear the message that saves. A person might receive the Holy Spirit years after saying they believe in God and Jesus. A person might receive the Holy Spirit during baptism, or after.

Acts 8:14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. 15When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 17Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit."

 

[The Biblicist]

Acts 8:14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. 15When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 17Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit."

You are confusing apples with oranges. This text does not refer to the indwelling Person of the Spirit of God but to the EXTERNAL gifts of the Spirit of God. It was something that could be VISIBLY SEEN so that Simon desired to PURCHASE the power to lay on his hands so that such miraculous gifts could be imparted. This is the apostolic power described by Paul in Romans 1:11 to those who already had the indwelling Spirit but did not have what the laying on of apostoical hands could impart. This is what Paul refers to concerning the laying on of his hands upon Timothy in 2 Tim. 1:5.

 

[Moriah]

You are confusing apples with oranges. This text does not refer to the indwelling Person of the Spirit of God but to the EXTERNAL gifts of the Spirit of God.

You are wrong. The receiving of the Holy Spirit is the gift.

It was something that could be VISIBLY SEEN so that Simon desired to PURCHASE the power to lay on his hands so that such miraculous gifts could be imparted.

You are missing the fact that the scriptures say, “They simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.” During the laying of the foundation, Gentiles were given the ability to speak in tongues as evidence of having received the Holy Spirit. However, the gift is the Holy Spirit.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are missing the fact that the scriptures say, “They simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.” During the laying of the foundation, Gentiles were given the ability to speak in tongues as evidence of having received the Holy Spirit. However, the gift is the Holy Spirit.

You don't know what you are talking about as usual. Neither Romans 1:11 or 2 Timothy 1:5 can possibly refer to the gift of the indwelling Spirit of God as the Romans were already Christians with the indwelling Spirit of Christ as Romans 8:9 explicitly states and yet they had not received what Paul could impart by the laying on of apostolic hands.

What the Samaritans received was through the laying on of apostolic hands and what they received was VISIBLY noticable as it caused Simon to attempt to bribe them to give him the power to lay his hands on people so they received such things.

Of course you have zip, nada, zilch spiritual discernment (1 Cor. 2:14; Rom. 8:7) when it comes to the scriptures so no matter how much evidence is placed before you will change anything.

 

[Moriah]

You don't know what you are talking about as usual. Neither Romans 1:11 or 2 Timothy 1:5 can possibly refer to the gift of the indwelling Spirit of God as the Romans were already Christians with the indwelling Spirit of Christ as Romans 8:9 explicitly states and yet they had not received what Paul could impart by the laying on of apostolic hands.

What the Samaritans received was through the laying on of apostolic hands and what they received was VISIBLY noticable as it caused Simon to attempt to bribe them to give him the power to lay his hands on people so they received such things.

Of course you have zip, nada, zilch spiritual discernment (1 Cor. 2:14; Rom. 8:7) when it comes to the scriptures so no matter how much evidence is placed before you will change anything.

You do the works of the devil when you say to me that I do not know what I am talking about as usual. You and your brute talk of me will gain for you listeners and followers of your false doctrine. You will gain followers, but it will not be because you are right.

I did not say Romans 1:11 is about receiving the Holy Spirit. Romans 1:11 is about Paul imparting some gift. The Holy Spirit is the gift; however, there are gifts of the Holy Spirit, such as speaking in tongues.

 

[The Biblicist]

I did not say Romans 1:11 is about receiving the Holy Spirit. Romans 1:11 is about Paul imparting some gift.

As in 2 Tim. 1:8 so Romans 1:11 is about receiving SPIRITUAL gifts through the laying on of apostolic hands. The Holy Spirit is never given through the laying on of apostolic hands or we would still have to have their hands being laid on today to receive the Holy Spirit. Acts 8 has nothing to do with receiving the indwelling Person of the Holy Spirit. Simon could not see the indwelling Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands. He saw the SPIRITUAL GIFTS being manifested through the laying on of apostolic hands.

The Holy Spirit is not given through men laying hands on other men but is given directly by the Spirit Himself through REGENERATION.

 

[Moriah]

As in 2 Tim. 1:8 so Romans 1:11 is about receiving SPIRITUAL gifts through the laying on of apostolic hands.

I have already explained which scriptures were about receiving the Holy Spirit and which one is about receiving gifts of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is never given through the laying on of apostolic hands

You are wrong. The Holy Spirit can come on someone after an apostle placed his hands on him or her; see Acts 8:17 and Acts19:6.

or we would still have to have their hands being laid on today to receive the Holy Spirit.

You are wrong again. We know from the scriptures that Jesus certainly laid His hands on many of those He healed; however, He also healed without laying His hands on people. In fact, there were times when He was nowhere near the vicinity of those He healed. Matthew 8:8 describes Jesus healing the servant of the centurion without going near the centurion’s house.

The Holy Spirit is not given through men laying hands on other men but is given directly by the Spirit Himself through REGENERATION.

The Holy Spirit was given sometimes by the laying of the hands of the Apostles; they are not just any man.
You are in a false religion teaching falseness.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are wrong. The Holy Spirit can come on someone after an apostle placed his hands on him or her; see Acts 8:17 and Acts19:6.

Acts 19:6 affirms my position not yours. Paul laid his hands upon them and what they received was the gifts of the Spirit - read it:

Acts 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Both tongue and prophesying are listed as SPIRTUAL GIFTS in 1 Cor. 12. Romans 1:11 and 2 Tim. 1:8 both refer to SPIRITUAL GIFTS.

The same is true with Acts 8:17-19:

18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.


You cannat SEE the Indwelling Spirit! No man can SEE the Spirit. What he SAW was the manifestations of the Spirit or SPIRITUAL GIFTS. The Holy Spirit is NEVER given through the hands of men but is directly given through the new birth and the new birth is NEVER through laying on of hands.

You are wrong again. We know from the scriptures that Jesus certainly laid His hands on many of those He healed; however, He also healed without laying His hands on people. In fact, there were times when He was nowhere near the vicinity of those He healed. Matthew 8:8 describes Jesus healing the servant of the centurion without going near the centurion’s house.

Healing is listed as a SPIRITUAL GIFT and what he imparted was not the Person of the Spirit but HEALING by the Spirit.

You are simply not dealing with these scriptures objectively.

 

[Moriah]

Acts 19:6 affirms my position not yours. Paul laid his hands upon them and what they received was the gifts of the Spirit - read it:
Acts 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

THEY HAD NOT YET EVEN HEARD OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. They first received the Holy Spirit after they believed there was a Holy Spirit, then Apostle Paul laid hands on them and the Holy Spirit came on them.
Speaking in tongues was a sign to the Jews, as was prophesized about in the Old Testament.
Speaking in tongues were also proof that Gentiles also received the Holy Spirit. God in His infinite wisdom knew that the Gentiles speaking in tongues would be a sign to the Jews that the Gentiles are also included in salvation. Can you imagine how necessary it was for the Jews to have the sign that salvation is for the Gentiles too? This is very important since the Jews called the Gentiles "unclean people." It was even against the law for Jews to associate closely with the Gentiles. See the following passage how God poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit even on the Gentiles, as was evident by the Gentiles speaking in tongues and praising God.

Acts 10:44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.

You are simply not dealing with these scriptures objectively.

You just do not accept the Truth. You have been ensnared.
Are you going to admit that the Holy Spirit is the gift?

 

[The Biblicist]

THEY HAD NOT YET EVEN HEARD OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. They first received the Holy Spirit after they believed there was a Holy Spirit, then Apostle Paul laid hands on them and the Holy Spirit came on them.
Speaking in tongues was a sign to the Jews, as was prophesized about in the Old Testament.
Speaking in tongues were also proof that Gentiles also received the Holy Spirit. God in His infinite wisdom knew that the Gentiles speaking in tongues would be a sign to the Jews that the Gentiles are also included in salvation. Can you imagine how necessary it was for the Jews to have the sign that salvation is for the Gentiles too? This is very important since the Jews called the Gentiles "unclean people." It was even against the law for Jews to associate closely with the Gentiles. See the following passage how God poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit even on the Gentiles, as was evident by the Gentiles speaking in tongues and praising God.

Even if your intepretation of Acts 19:2 is correct (there are grammatical indications it is not) they believed in verse 5 and it is in verse 6 they received spiritual gifts through the laying on of apostolic hands. Even you have to admit that the norm of scripture is reception of the Spirit at the point of faith. What happened in verse 6 is in addition to faith in verse 5.

Acts 10:44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.

This is explained by Peter in Acts 11:15-16 to be what occurred to them "at the beginning" rather than something habitually occuring since the beginning as there were thousands being saved since the beginning.

Again, what they witnessed was the EFFECTS of the Holy Spirit not the giving of the Person of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the text says the Holy Spirit came "ON" all who heard the message not "IN" them. It is what they "heard" that led them to believe the Holy Spirit had been poured out "ON" them - speaking in tongues. There is absolutely NOTHING in either of these texts to show that they received the indwelling Person of the Spirit by laying on of apostolic hands. In both passages it is the EFFECTS that were witnessed not the giving of the indwelling Person.

You just do not accept the Truth. You have been ensnared.
Are you going to admit that the Holy Spirit is the gift?

You have not provided any valid evidence to support your theory. All you have provided is valid evidence to support the normal Biblical position that it is the gifts of the Holy Spirit that was given through apostolic hands and the effects of the Spirit = spiritual gifts that was SEEN and HEARD by observers.

 

[Moriah]

Even if your intepretation of Acts 19:2 is correct (there are grammatical indications it is not) they believed in verse 5

In scripture 5, it says, “On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. “
That does not mean they received the Holy Spirit. Just like in Acts 8:15 15When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.

This is explained by Peter in Acts 11:15-16 to be what occurred to them "at the beginning" rather than something habitually occuring since the beginning as there were thousands being saved since the beginning.
Again, what they witnessed was the EFFECTS of the Holy Spirit not the giving of the Person of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the text says the Holy Spirit came "ON" all who heard the message not "IN" them. It is what they "heard" that led them to believe the Holy Spirit had been poured out "ON" them - speaking in tongues. There is absolutely NOTHING in either of these texts to show that they received the indwelling Person of the Spirit by laying on of apostolic hands. In both passages it is the EFFECTS that were witnessed not the giving of the indwelling Person.

All this nonsense talk because you do not want to admit you are wrong and learned something.

 

[The Biblicist]

In scripture 5, it says, “On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. “

The consistently Biblical order is believe and be baptized. Are you saying they did not believe what they heard? If so, then why would they submit to baptism again????????? They believed before they were baptized and they received the Spirit prior to their baptism. What they received in verse 6 by the laying on apostolic hands is spelled out and it is not the Person of the Holy Spirit but his gifts just as in Rom. 1:11 and 2 Tim. 1:8 and Acts 8 and Acts 10. You have nothing to support your theory on but pure imagination and imagination contrary to the NORM of the rest of scripture.

Indeed, there is no such thing as faith apart from regeneration just as there is no such thing as justification by faith apart from regeneration because God does not justify the unregenerate man.

All this nonsense talk because you do not want to admit you are wrong and learned something.

What you call "nonsense" is solid biblical evidence you cannot refute so you resort to ridicule which shows the weakness of your position.

 

[Moriah]

The consistently Biblical order is believe and be baptized. Are you saying they did not believe what they heard?

Where do you get questioning me like that? Apostle Paul asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

If so, then why would they submit to baptism again????????? They believed before they were baptized and they received the Spirit prior to their baptism.

WHEN PAUL PLACED HIS HANDS ON THEM, THE HOLY SPIRIT CAME ON THEM. That is what the scripture says.

Indeed, there is no such thing as faith apart from regeneration just as there is no such thing as justification by faith apart from regeneration because God does not justify the unregenerate man.

You are trying to fit in your false beliefs. Acts 19 proves that a person DOES NOT receive the Holy Spirit first.

 

[The Biblicist]

Where do you get questioning me like that? Apostle Paul asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

Go back and read what I said. I was speaking of verse 5. Paul does not baptize unbelievers nor does he baptize unregenerated people. Hence, they had to be in possession of the Spirit prior to baptism if they were regenerated.

Verse 6 has to do with the laying on of hands and the gifts of the Spirit not regeneration. Hence, you have no argument.

WHEN PAUL PLACED HIS HANDS ON THEM, THE HOLY SPIRIT CAME ON THEM. That is what the scripture says.

Do you know the difference between "on" and "in"????? This language always refers to gifts and power of the Spirit never regeneration and indwelling of the Spirit.