What is necessary to become saved?

Water Baptism does nothing as far as the Blood is concerned.

Jesus' baptism was not the same baptism that John baptized with. From the moment we believed, from the moment we accepted Christ, we were baptized into His Body.

Water Baptism is an outward expression of an inward faith in Christ.

 

im not saying that we are saved by works.

i am saying that we are saved BY grace THROUGH faith.

we are saved by grace. but to keep that grace we need faith. and faith without works is dead.

you can all agree on that i hope.
that make more sense where im comin from?

now. without our works to support our faith. and vice versa. we do not have true faith. and without true faith we are not saved by grace through faith, but hope to be saved by grace through works. IF our works and faith do not match.

if they do match, then yes, we are saved by grace through faith.

that make any more sense where im comin from now?

i do not know what mman is sayin as im at school and havn't the time to read all of it right now.

but i do not believe that we can be saved... and yet have no works. but in that statement i am not saying that we are saved by our works.

its a little whack to understand... but it makes sense. i'll whip out the scripture when i get home. although ya'll been postin some great scripture.

God bless

 

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Acts 2:38 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.

Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

We are baptized into Christ from the moment we repent and believe.

If water baptism baptized people into Christ, then people would not have to repent of their sins, just get baptized.

 

It's way whack because that's not what the Bible presents. Again the book of James even though it uses the term faith in the book is not a book that is speaking about salvation by grace through faith, so you are taking one verse out of context, to make it agree with another verse of Scripture and you can't do that.

You have to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Just because the word faith appears in both verses doesn't mean they are talking about the same thing.

 

Trust in Christ and Him alone for salvation=Saved.

 

You are on the right track. Just being submerged beneath the water does nothing, that is not scriptural baptism.

Baptism without belief is not scriptural. We could call that swimming. Immersion in water for the wrong reason is not baptism. Immersion without repentance is not scriptural baptism. Everyone who goes swimming today would fit that bill. That would make the power in the water.

The power is not in the water, it is in the blood. As I have shown, we come in contact with the blood through the water, but only when that is done in faith. The source of faith is God's word. God's word tells us that we need to believe and be baptize (Mark 16:16), and we need to repent and be baptized (Acts 2:38). Without believing, and repenting, then we are just swimming, not being baptized.

 

Surely you have scriptures to show that baptism is not for the remission of sins, or that baptism does not save us, or that baptism does not wash away our sins or that baptism is an outward sign of an inward grace.

The water and the blood have always been connected, they are in agreement with each other. Just because you say they don't, doesn't make it so. Where is your proof.

Let's look at these one at a time.

Acts 2:38 baptism is "for the remission of sins"
Matt 26:28 Jesus blood is shed "for the remission of sins"

If both of these are "for" the same thing, then they have to be connected. It is the same Greek phrase used in both verses, "for the remission of sins".

How can you not see the connection between the water and the blood? Do you think it was an unimportant piece of trivia that "blood and water" flowed from Jesus' pierced side?

 

By that statement do you mean believe only, or do you mean trust Him enough to do what He says?

Do you believe that confession is unnecessary for salvation? (Rom 10:10)

Do you believe that repentance is unnecessary for salvation? (Acts 17:30)

Do you believe that baptism is unncessary for salvation? (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, I Pet 3:21)

 

Those verses don't even mention the water. I'm not saying he wasn't refering to water baptism, but clearly, the physical act of going down into water is not what he was emphasizing. Remember, it is BY ONE SPIRIT we are "baptized" into ONE BODY (1 Cor.12:13). Baptism has a spiritual dimension, and THIS is what puts you into Christ, not the water. The water is a symbol of this (this debate is just like the one with the "Catholists" on "Real presence". You basically agree with them on baptism; I wonder why you don't accept real presence as well).

Yeah, doing away with logic has always been the way false religions could control people and pull anything over their eyes. You take some isolated verses like this, and build a whole doctrine off of them, yet ignore the testimony of the rest of scripture, and then the only recourse when this is challenged is to attack logic. But actually, you're the one using logic when you insist that "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved" means "He who is not baptized shall not be saved", even though it doesn't say that. You have not shown this to be true, but keep repeating the verse over and over, ignoring all of the other scriptural factors int he matter, thinking that alone makes it true.

Once again, these cover the spiritual aspect of baptism, which the water ceremony was to accompany. It is not about the water.

Once again, that is an OT example, that is "of the flesh", "of the letter", and is a shadow of the spiritual realities we have today.

And He is powerful enough to be able to do it without physical water. Water was an outward sign, not something God depended on to be able to save us.

What I'm saying, is that you keep saying this, but then look at what you also say in the same breath:

To you, it's all about the water. If this is true; then the power is IN the water. IT can be "in" two things at once; like being in a box inside of a box; but still, it is self-contradictory to make a statement like that, and then try to deny that there is power in the water. One needs spiritual power to come in contact with the blood. What is the means? Water!! The water then has some spiritual power; it was given this power by God (exactly like in the OT) perhaps; but nevertheless, some power has been divested in the water, so that one cannot access the blood without it. You're the one who just needs to face the facts of what your teaching leads to. But saying "the power is in the water" doesn't SOUND good, and you want to be able to teach precisely that, but without it sounding so bad. But it can't be done. We all see right through it.

But if you want to see what actually gives us this power; then look right in John 1:12 "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the power to become Sons of God, even to them who believe on His name. There, by the way, is your scripture on "believing only".

Sorry, this correlation of "blood and water" coming from the side of Jesus on the Cross says nothing about baptism by water. If anything, it shows a spiritual application of the "water" in passages like 1 John 5:7, which you have cited elsewhere, trying to apply that to bapptism too.
Christ shed His blood for the remission of our sins, and we are to be baptized into HIM (spiritually) to come into contact with that blood, and water was used as a symbol of this, not what actually puts us into Him.

And this too is all the more showing us the spiritual application of the OT shadows. "sprinkling of the heart to cleanse [[our] conscience". Do you believe that is a literal sprinkling with water? Whose heart has been physically removed to be sprinkled like that? No; that is spiritual, and likewise is "washed with pure water". Don't forget "Washing of water BY the word" (Eph.5:26); NOT washing of the word by water. (Baptism is never called "washing" anyway).

But the "Water" is not the literal water of a baptismal pool! Read the context (which is right in the serse you quoted)! It has nothing to do with water baptism; but rather Christ "came by" water and blood.

 

Those verses don't even mention the water. I'm not saying he wasn't refering to water baptism, but clearly, the physical act of going down into water is not what he was emphasizing. Remember, it is BY ONE SPIRIT we are "baptized" into ONE BODY (1 Cor.12:13). Baptism has a spiritual dimension, and THIS is what puts you into Christ, not the water. The water is a symbol of this (this debate is just like the one with the "Catholists" on "Real presence". You basically agree with them on baptism; I wonder why you don't accept real presence as well).

Yeah, doing away with logic has always been the way false religions could control people and pull anything over their eyes. You take some isolated verses like this, and build a whole doctrine off of them, yet ignore the testimony of the rest of scripture, and then the only recourse when this is challenged is to attack logic. But actually, you're the one using logic when you insist that "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved" means "He who is not baptized shall not be saved", even though it doesn't say that. You have not shown this to be true, but keep repeating the verse over and over, ignoring all of the other scriptural factors int he matter, thinking that alone makes it true.

Once again, these cover the spiritual aspect of baptism, which the water ceremony was to accompany. It is not about the water.

Once again, that is an OT example, that is "of the flesh", "of the letter", and is a shadow of the spiritual realities we have today.

And He is powerful enough to be able to do it without physical water. Water was an outward sign, not something God depended on to be able to save us.

What I'm saying, is that you keep saying this, but then look at what you also say in the same breath:

To you, it's all about the water. If this is true; then the power is IN the water. IT can be "in" two things at once; like being in a box inside of a box; but still, it is self-contradictory to make a statement like that, and then try to deny that there is power in the water. One needs spiritual power to come in contact with the blood. What is the means? Water!! The water then has some spiritual power; it was given this power by God (exactly like in the OT) perhaps; but nevertheless, some power has been divested in the water, so that one cannot access the blood without it. You're the one who just needs to face the facts of what your teaching leads to. But saying "the power is in the water" doesn't SOUND good, and you want to be able to teach precisely that, but without it sounding so bad. But it can't be done. We all see right through it.

But if you want to see what actually gives us this power; then look right in John 1:12 "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the power to become Sons of God, even to them who believe on His name. There, by the way, is your scripture on "believing only".

Sorry, this correlation of "blood and water" coming from the side of Jesus on the Cross says nothing about baptism by water. If anything, it shows a spiritual application of the "water" in passages like 1 John 5:7, which you have cited elsewhere, trying to apply that to bapptism too.
Christ shed His blood for the remission of our sins, and we are to be baptized into HIM (spiritually) to come into contact with that blood, and water was used as a symbol of this, not what actually puts us into Him.

And this too is all the more showing us the spiritual application of the OT shadows. "sprinkling of the heart to cleanse [[our] conscience". Do you believe that is a literal sprinkling with water? Whose heart has been physically removed to be sprinkled like that? No; that is spiritual, and likewise is "washed with pure water". Don't forget "Washing of water BY the word" (Eph.5:26); NOT washing of the word by water. (Baptism is never called "washing" anyway).

But the "Water" is not the literal water of a baptismal pool! Read the context (which is right in the serse you quoted)! It has nothing to do with water baptism; but rather Christ "came by" water and blood.

 

[ May 04, 2006, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

Those verses don't even mention the water. I'm not saying he wasn't refering to water baptism, but clearly, the physical act of going down into water is not what he was emphasizing. Remember, it is BY ONE SPIRIT we are "baptized" into ONE BODY (1 Cor.12:13). Baptism has a spiritual dimension, and THIS is what puts you into Christ, not the water. The water is a symbol of this (this debate is just like the one with the "Catholists" on "Real presence". You basically agree with them on baptism; I wonder why you don't accept real presence as well).

Yeah, doing away with logic has always been the way false religions could control people and pull anything over their eyes. You take some isolated verses like this, and build a whole doctrine off of them, yet ignore the testimony of the rest of scripture, and then the only recourse when this is challenged is to attack logic. But actually, you're the one using logic when you insist that "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved" means "He who is not baptized shall not be saved", even though it doesn't say that. You have not shown this to be true, but keep repeating the verse over and over, ignoring all of the other scriptural factors int he matter, thinking that alone makes it true.

Once again, these cover the spiritual aspect of baptism, which the water ceremony was to accompany. It is not about the water.

Once again, that is an OT example, that is "of the flesh", "of the letter", and is a shadow of the spiritual realities we have today.

And He is powerful enough to be able to do it without physical water. Water was an outward sign, not something God depended on to be able to save us.

What I'm saying, is that you keep saying this, but then look at what you also say in the same breath:

To you, it's all about the water. If this is true; then the power is IN the water. IT can be "in" two things at once; like being in a box inside of a box; but still, it is self-contradictory to make a statement like that, and then try to deny that there is power in the water. One needs spiritual power to come in contact with the blood. What is the means? Water!! The water then has some spiritual power; it was given this power by God (exactly like in the OT) perhaps; but nevertheless, some power has been divested in the water, so that one cannot access the blood without it. You're the one who just needs to face the facts of what your teaching leads to. But saying "the power is in the water" doesn't SOUND good, and you want to be able to teach precisely that, but without it sounding so bad. But it can't be done. We all see right through it.

But if you want to see what actually gives us this power; then look right in John 1:12 "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the power to become Sons of God, even to them who believe on His name. There, by the way, is your scripture on "believing only".

Sorry, this correlation of "blood and water" coming from the side of Jesus on the Cross says nothing about baptism by water. If anything, it shows a spiritual application of the "water" in passages like 1 John 5:7, which you have cited elsewhere, trying to apply that to bapptism too.
Christ shed His blood for the remission of our sins, and we are to be baptized into HIM (spiritually) to come into contact with that blood, and water was used as a symbol of this, not what actually puts us into Him.

And this too is all the more showing us the spiritual application of the OT shadows. "sprinkling of the heart to cleanse [[our] conscience". Do you believe that is a literal sprinkling with water? Whose heart has been physically removed to be sprinkled like that? No; that is spiritual, and likewise is "washed with pure water". Don't forget "Washing of water BY the word" (Eph.5:26); NOT washing of the word by water. (Baptism is never called "washing" anyway).

But the "Water" is not the literal water of a baptismal pool! Read the context (which is right in the serse you quoted)! It has nothing to do with water baptism; but rather Christ "came by" water and blood.

 

[ May 04, 2006, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

[ May 04, 2006, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

Those verses don't even mention the water. I'm not saying he wasn't refering to water baptism, but clearly, the physical act of going down into water is not what he was emphasizing. Remember, it is BY ONE SPIRIT we are "baptized" into ONE BODY (1 Cor.12:13). Baptism has a spiritual dimension, and THIS is what puts you into Christ, not the water. The water is a symbol of this (this debate is just like the one with the "Catholists" on "Real presence". You basically agree with them on baptism; I wonder why you don't accept real presence as well).

Yeah, doing away with logic has always been the way false religions could control people and pull anything over their eyes. You take some isolated verses like this, and build a whole doctrine off of them, yet ignore the testimony of the rest of scripture, and then the only recourse when this is challenged is to attack logic. But actually, you're the one using logic when you insist that "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved" means "He who is not baptized shall not be saved", even though it doesn't say that. You have not shown this to be true, but keep repeating the verse over and over, ignoring all of the other scriptural factors int he matter, thinking that alone makes it true.

Once again, these cover the spiritual aspect of baptism, which the water ceremony was to accompany. It is not about the water.

Once again, that is an OT example, that is "of the flesh", "of the letter", and is a shadow of the spiritual realities we have today.

And He is powerful enough to be able to do it without physical water. Water was an outward sign, not something God depended on to be able to save us.

What I'm saying, is that you keep saying this, but then look at what you also say in the same breath:

To you, it's all about the water. If this is true; then the power is IN the water. IT can be "in" two things at once; like being in a box inside of a box; but still, it is self-contradictory to make a statement like that, and then try to deny that there is power in the water. One needs spiritual power to come in contact with the blood. What is the means? Water!! The water then has some spiritual power; it was given this power by God (exactly like in the OT) perhaps; but nevertheless, some power has been divested in the water, so that one cannot access the blood without it. You're the one who just needs to face the facts of what your teaching leads to. But saying "the power is in the water" doesn't SOUND good, and you want to be able to teach precisely that, but without it sounding so bad. But it can't be done. We all see right through it.

But if you want to see what actually gives us this power; then look right in John 1:12 "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the power to become Sons of God, even to them who believe on His name. There, by the way, is your scripture on "believing only".

Sorry, this correlation of "blood and water" coming from the side of Jesus on the Cross says nothing about baptism by water. If anything, it shows a spiritual application of the "water" in passages like 1 John 5:7, which you have cited elsewhere, trying to apply that to bapptism too.
Christ shed His blood for the remission of our sins, and we are to be baptized into HIM (spiritually) to come into contact with that blood, and water was used as a symbol of this, not what actually puts us into Him.

And this too is all the more showing us the spiritual application of the OT shadows. "sprinkling of the heart to cleanse [[our] conscience". Do you believe that is a literal sprinkling with water? Whose heart has been physically removed to be sprinkled like that? No; that is spiritual, and likewise is "washed with pure water". Don't forget "Washing of water BY the word" (Eph.5:26); NOT washing of the word by water. (Baptism is never called "washing" anyway).

But the "Water" is not the literal water of a baptismal pool! Read the context (which is right in the serse you quoted)! It has nothing to do with water baptism; but rather Christ "came by" water and blood.

 

Those verses don't even mention the water. I'm not saying he wasn't refering to water baptism, but clearly, the physical act of going down into water is not what he was emphasizing. Remember, it is BY ONE SPIRIT we are "baptized" into ONE BODY (1 Cor.12:13). Baptism has a spiritual dimension, and THIS is what puts you into Christ, not the water. The water is a symbol of this (this debate is just like the one with the "Catholists" on "Real presence". You basically agree with them on baptism; I wonder why you don't accept real presence as well).

Yeah, doing away with logic has always been the way false religions could control people and pull anything over their eyes. You take some isolated verses like this, and build a whole doctrine off of them, yet ignore the testimony of the rest of scripture, and then the only recourse when this is challenged is to attack logic. But actually, you're the one using logic when you insist that "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved" means "He who is not baptized shall not be saved", even though it doesn't say that. You have not shown this to be true, but keep repeating the verse over and over, ignoring all of the other scriptural factors int he matter, thinking that alone makes it true.

Once again, these cover the spiritual aspect of baptism, which the water ceremony was to accompany. It is not about the water.

Once again, that is an OT example, that is "of the flesh", "of the letter", and is a shadow of the spiritual realities we have today.

And He is powerful enough to be able to do it without physical water. Water was an outward sign, not something God depended on to be able to save us.

What I'm saying, is that you keep saying this, but then look at what you also say in the same breath:

To you, it's all about the water. If this is true; then the power is IN the water. IT can be "in" two things at once; like being in a box inside of a box; but still, it is self-contradictory to make a statement like that, and then try to deny that there is power in the water. One needs spiritual power to come in contact with the blood. What is the means? Water!! The water then has some spiritual power; it was given this power by God (exactly like in the OT) perhaps; but nevertheless, some power has been divested in the water, so that one cannot access the blood without it. You're the one who just needs to face the facts of what your teaching leads to. But saying "the power is in the water" doesn't SOUND good, and you want to be able to teach precisely that, but without it sounding so bad. But it can't be done. We all see right through it.

But if you want to see what actually gives us this power; then look right in John 1:12 "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the power to become Sons of God, even to them who believe on His name. There, by the way, is your scripture on "believing only".

Sorry, this correlation of "blood and water" coming from the side of Jesus on the Cross says nothing about baptism by water. If anything, it shows a spiritual application of the "water" in passages like 1 John 5:7, which you have cited elsewhere, trying to apply that to bapptism too.
Christ shed His blood for the remission of our sins, and we are to be baptized into HIM (spiritually) to come into contact with that blood, and water was used as a symbol of this, not what actually puts us into Him.

And this too is all the more showing us the spiritual application of the OT shadows. "sprinkling of the heart to cleanse [[our] conscience". Do you believe that is a literal sprinkling with water? Whose heart has been physically removed to be sprinkled like that? No; that is spiritual, and likewise is "washed with pure water". Don't forget "Washing of water BY the word" (Eph.5:26); NOT washing of the word by water. (Baptism is never called "washing" anyway).

But the "Water" is not the literal water of a baptismal pool! Read the context (which is right in the serse you quoted)! It has nothing to do with water baptism; but rather Christ "came by" water and blood. </font>[/QUOTE]Slow down, you only need to post it once

When I mention rain, do I have to mention water? No, it is understood.

Baptism in the bible always means immersion in water unless something in the text demands otherwise.

Let's go through this one at time to make it more managable.

Eph 4:5 - One baptism. There have been many, but now, there is just one baptism. Once we settle which one, we can move forward.

The one baptism, is it in water or with the Holy Spirit?

 

I'm terribkly sorry about all of this. This board is slowing down, and sometimes when you don't see the "message posted", it has not posted yet (ANd I did not want to have to type and put together all of that again).
And then it kept freezing down, so it wouldn't even let me delete the excess posts in time. (then when I went back instead of retry, the changes did't go through.

I'll bet all those pages and pages of SDA propaganda (and some others) being posted are what are clogging up the server.

 

Those verses don't even mention the water. I'm not saying he wasn't refering to water baptism, but clearly, the physical act of going down into water is not what he was emphasizing. Remember, it is BY ONE SPIRIT we are "baptized" into ONE BODY (1 Cor.12:13). Baptism has a spiritual dimension, and THIS is what puts you into Christ, not the water. The water is a symbol of this (this debate is just like the one with the "Catholists" on "Real presence". You basically agree with them on baptism; I wonder why you don't accept real presence as well).

Yeah, doing away with logic has always been the way false religions could control people and pull anything over their eyes. You take some isolated verses like this, and build a whole doctrine off of them, yet ignore the testimony of the rest of scripture, and then the only recourse when this is challenged is to attack logic. But actually, you're the one using logic when you insist that "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved" means "He who is not baptized shall not be saved", even though it doesn't say that. You have not shown this to be true, but keep repeating the verse over and over, ignoring all of the other scriptural factors int he matter, thinking that alone makes it true.

Once again, these cover the spiritual aspect of baptism, which the water ceremony was to accompany. It is not about the water.

Once again, that is an OT example, that is "of the flesh", "of the letter", and is a shadow of the spiritual realities we have today.

And He is powerful enough to be able to do it without physical water. Water was an outward sign, not something God depended on to be able to save us.

What I'm saying, is that you keep saying this, but then look at what you also say in the same breath:

To you, it's all about the water. If this is true; then the power is IN the water. IT can be "in" two things at once; like being in a box inside of a box; but still, it is self-contradictory to make a statement like that, and then try to deny that there is power in the water. One needs spiritual power to come in contact with the blood. What is the means? Water!! The water then has some spiritual power; it was given this power by God (exactly like in the OT) perhaps; but nevertheless, some power has been divested in the water, so that one cannot access the blood without it. You're the one who just needs to face the facts of what your teaching leads to. But saying "the power is in the water" doesn't SOUND good, and you want to be able to teach precisely that, but without it sounding so bad. But it can't be done. We all see right through it.

But if you want to see what actually gives us this power; then look right in John 1:12 "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the power to become Sons of God, even to them who believe on His name. There, by the way, is your scripture on "believing only".

Sorry, this correlation of "blood and water" coming from the side of Jesus on the Cross says nothing about baptism by water. If anything, it shows a spiritual application of the "water" in passages like 1 John 5:7, which you have cited elsewhere, trying to apply that to bapptism too.
Christ shed His blood for the remission of our sins, and we are to be baptized into HIM (spiritually) to come into contact with that blood, and water was used as a symbol of this, not what actually puts us into Him.

And this too is all the more showing us the spiritual application of the OT shadows. "sprinkling of the heart to cleanse [[our] conscience". Do you believe that is a literal sprinkling with water? Whose heart has been physically removed to be sprinkled like that? No; that is spiritual, and likewise is "washed with pure water". Don't forget "Washing of water BY the word" (Eph.5:26); NOT washing of the word by water. (Baptism is never called "washing" anyway).

But the "Water" is not the literal water of a baptismal pool! Read the context (which is right in the serse you quoted)! It has nothing to do with water baptism; but rather Christ "came by" water and blood. </font>[/QUOTE]Slow down, you only need to post it once

To make this more managable, let's discuss this one at a time. Baptism in the bible is always refers to it's common meaning (in water), unless something in the text demands otherwise. If I say it is raining, I don't have to say it is raining water for you to understand. If I modify the statement and say it is raining pinecones under that tree, you understand that it is not water falling but pinecones.

There have been various baptisms, but now there is just one. What is the one baptism in Eph 4:5, water or with the Holy Spirit?

 

You keep repeating that assertion about spirit and water baptism being two baptisms. If that is true, then since there is only one baptism, then is baptism by the spirit into the body false then?
That would mean there is no spiritual birth; we are just like in the OT, where everything is of the flesh and the letter. That would make perfect sense, given the rest of your illustrations. But then we are all lost, because the OT shows that no one could be justified by their works.
Instead, the "one baptism" comprises both spirit and physical baptism. But clearly, it is the spirit where the power of salvation lies.

 

There is just one baptism. The baptism that puts us into Christ. The baptism that washes away our sins. The baptism that is for the forgiveness of sins.

I Cor 12:13, "For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body". This is exactly what happened in Acts 2. Peter was speaking by inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4). They were baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38, 41). They were added to the Church (Acts 2:41, 47). There is no doubt their baptism in Acts 2 was in water.

Let's look at Acts 8. Philip spoke the word of the Lord to the people of Samaria and those that believed were baptized (vs 12). Now, were they baptized in water, with the Holy Spirit, or both?

If the two are linked and inseperable, then your answer would have to be both. However, notice verses 15-16 , "who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Here a clear distinction is made between baptism in water and everything else.

Also notice that water baptism is the baptism refered to as done in "the name of the Lord Jesus". In other words, water baptism is by Jesus' authority.

Jesus had been given all authority (Matt 28:18). He commanded his apostles to go make disciples and baptize them and then teach them to go teach and baptize others and teach them to go teach and baptize others and so on, creating a cycle that never ends. This is baptism in water since neither you nor I could fulfill this commission if it were baptism with the HS, because that was a promise from Jesus and something He would do. The baptism in Matt 28:18-20 had human administrators. Therefore water baptism is the only possibility for the "one baptism" in Eph 4:5.