statements are in blue.
Mine are in black.
"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.... Then they that gladly received his word
were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them
about three thousand souls.
" Acts 2:38, 41.
Note that it does not read, "let us baptize you" as it does in
Matthew 28. God is to baptize, so the author only mentions the object, "you".
Note in the verse baptism is distinct
from the receiving of the HS mentioned in the later half of the
verse. (spirit baptism). In verse 41 it records their
baptism (I think water baptism is pretty clear here).
I would find that extremely
hard to believe. I see
nothing to imply water baptism. How many times is water
mentioned in the chapter? 0. How many times is the Holy
Spirit or Holy Ghost mentioned? 6. So, you must take it
out of context to make water baptism "pretty clear".
Plus, this is the first day that the Holy Spirit arrived for filling
people on earth. So, obviously, He couldn't have entered believing
souls before this day when you hypothesize that they were baptized
with water. This event happened once in the history of the
world, so we cannot draw a rule from this unique event.
If you have always believed without question that the baptism
referred to here was a baptism in water instead of in the Holy
for a discussion on the feasibility of such an event.
If you want to get into some 1st
year Greek (I had to take 5 years of it). "Repent" is an
aorist imperative connected with and "and" to "be baptized" an
aorist passive imperative (not future like you think).
"you will receive" is a future middle verb (because it is a deponent
verb -- 2nd year Greek). So you do (imperative) two
distinct things and then you will (subsequent future) receive
the HS. Therefore repentance and baptism in this context are
distinct from the spirit baptism mentioned later in the same
So the text makes a clear logical and temporal distinction between
water and spirit baptism. I am not saying we fully understand
this verse -- which is actually my point -- we should be humble
enough to say there are things we don't fully
comprehend. In your case you should say you don't
comprehend the Greek either -- unless of course you secretly are
fluent in Biblical Greek and just haven't let on.
What does baptize in the name of
Jesus mean--water? We see people believing in the Gospel of
"the name of Jesus" in 8:12, distinct from baptism but there is
not enough there to convince a skeptic.
Glad you see that also. We both know that many
skeptics wouldn't believe if God told them from Heaven. We must
address the objective intellectual. Even for you, (slightly
biased against the idea), the Greek says what it says to me (slightly
biased in the other direction). If the repenting and baptism are
at the same time, you clearly get baptized (or "immersed") in Jesus
when you repent and are cleansed. To imply that the baptism is
in water some time later doesn't jive with the Greek. This is
very similar to how we use the sentence in advertising.
Buy a hamburger and you will get a free bag of fries. I don't
think you would argue that the two events are separate and that
Ronald McDonald will pay you a visit to your house with your
fries, do you? (-: (Good thing I know you don't
believe this any more so I'm laughing with you.)
Note the clear linkage between baptism (spirit baptism for me
the reception of the spirit is a subsequent act -- you can see that
even in the English without going to the Greek like I had to do
above to make my point ) and forgiveness in the verse. (cf.
22:16). And the context is not spirit baptism (water is
assumed in all contexts unless otherwise stated)
The view that this is referring to spirit baptism doesn't hold
water (forgive the pun but I couldn't help myself) when you look
at the second half of the verse. "and you will (future tense)
receive the HS" clearly a subsequent and distinct act from
the baptism mentioned beforehand.
So, if there a time difference between your baptism in water and
the baptism of the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit doesn't enter
someone even at the moment that baptism in water occurs, as many
people believe? It comes some time later?
>From the official catechism of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC),
Vatican press 1984.
# 1226-1228 quotes Acts 2:38....then states "Hence Baptism is a
bath of water in which...produces a life given effect...and it
becomes a sacrament"
#1262 Section on the "Grace of Baptism" again quoting acts 2:38
"immersion in water symbolizes not only death.....Thus the two
principle effects are purification from sins and a new birth in the
Here is a really good one for you #1427 "It is by faith in the
gospel and by baptism that one renounces evil and gains salvation,
that is, the forgiveness of all sins... Footnotes acts 2:38
So. "most" using your definition
(RCC included) say that Acts 2:38 has everything to do with water, in
fact the RCC church ("most" again) say that that specific verse
proves that baptism is not only a part of salvation but a
necessary sacrament to be saved.
Yes, over half of the Christians are Roman Catholic. But they are
just one of the denominations that has independently interpreted God's
Word, not a majority .
also 2:41 baptism immediately
followed accepting His message .
So, baptism in the Holy Spirit comes after baptism here and we
see the order reversed in Acts 10:43-48 "While
Peter yet spake thes wods, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard
the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were
astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles
also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard
them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered
Peter. 'Can any man forbid water, that these should not be
baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?'
So, if the baptism in the Holy Spirit comes before water baptism
sometimes and after it other times, evidence is gathering that the
events are fairly independent of one another, which supports my
contention that salvation and water baptism are independent events.
"But when they believed Philip preaching the things
concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they
were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed
also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and
wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that
Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and
John: Who when they were come down, prayed for them, that they
might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon
none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord
Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received
the Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw that through laying on of
the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
saying, "Give me this power, that whomsoever I lay hands, he may
receive the Holy Ghost.
" Acts 8:12-19, 36-38
There is nothing here implying that salvation came at the moment that
people got baptized in water. I don't debate that baptism in
water was a common way of expressing one's faith in the early
Here again, we get the understanding that baptism in water and
baptism in the Holy Spirit occur at different times, not at the same
time as many believe.
Second point for me, there is no mention that the Holy Spirit
entered the eunuch when Philip baptized him with water.
"And when [Lydia] was baptized, and her
household, she besought us, saying, 'If ye have judged me to be
faithful to the Lord, come into my house and abide there. And
she constrained us.'
" Acts 16:15
I don't know what you want to point out here. Again, there is no
mention of the type of baptism nor any link with salvation.
The burden of proof is in your court
-- baptism means with water -- definition of the word -- unless
clearly stated otherwise.
This is not true. There is no inherent implication of water.
(To read our debate of the subject whether an educated reader should assume "water" when "baptism" is written,click
.) The link is to judging
her to be
faithful, hence whichever baptism is referenced, it is linked to
of faith that
is water baptism and gifts of the Holy Spirit.
"And [the keeper of the prison] took [Paul and
Silas] the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was
baptized, he and all his, straightway.
" Acts 16:33
Read the context, v. 31: "Believe on the
Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Here there is no mention of the necessity of water baptism, so to
introduce "water" into the text two verses later is rather
"And Crispus, the chief rule of the synagogue,
believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the corinthians
hearing believed, and were baptized.
" Acts 18:8
Once again, the type uncertain and even if it is water baptism, the
verse is not explicit when the person was saved.
"And it came to pass,
that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the
upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 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.'
And he said unto them, 'Unto what then were ye baptized?'
And they said, 'Unto John's baptism.'
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.'
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came
on them; and they spake with tongues and prophesied.
Read verse 1. These people were already believers who hadn't
heard of the Holy Spirit so they didn't have Him. Clearly
there is a long time between baptism of repentance and baptism with
the Holy Spirit. Plus, there was a second baptism but no
Holy Spirit. Then the laying on of hands (something we
practice that the Repenters don't) and the Holy Spirit arrived on the
Yes it was after in time but there is
a strong immediate relationship between the two acts. The NT
doesn't seem to even fathom the idea of a believer not being
baptized [with water]. The acts are clearly distinct but
also intricately entwined. One naturally and automatically
follows the other.
After two dips in the pond and no Holy Spirit, I'm not sure an
objective observer could say that they are "intricately
(I couldn't think of the English
word.) perhaps the writer of Acts was trying to make a point
that there was no connection.
The pattern in the book of Acts was
immediate water baptism following believing his message.
No debate with me there--It was something I enjoyed as a testimony of my faith.
(side note: In later church tradition the
practice of baptism was almost universally delayed after a period
of catechism.) Does that mean baptism is necessary for
Exactly my point.
Does that mean it is a required Christian
act of obedience? yes.
I agree . However, some contend that if an individual has been
baptized once, there is no Biblical precedence for insisting on a
rebaptism. We must demonstrate grace for the Holy Spirit to do His
of convincing and convicting.
Is it "linked" to salvation in some
sense? yes? just as Christ, depending on the individual,
"linked" other things to salvation.
Good point. Salvation depends on faith, the desire
follow the guidance of the Scriptures as we are enlightened by the
more than the desire
for anything else. This is what we
call lordship salvation
. If the Holy Spirit convinces someone to do anything
and he refuses to, then he does not have saving faith.
However, that conviction never occurs, then
there is no lordship decision to be made. Just as you
couldn't show any temporal sequential link between baptism and salvation with any of
these verses, so Biblical sources do not support a consistent temporal
you are wrong there -- they are clearly connected in some sense they
are often mentioned together both temporally and in the same sentence
sometimes even with "and" like 2:38
(It is probably obvious to the reader that we showed that chapter 2 was
not referring to a water baptism. Plus, the temporal sequence is reversed
"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be
baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
This is a Roman Catholic verse use to
justify the idea of baptismal regeneration.
On this one, we need to return to the original event to see
what kind of baptism was meant. The original event was in
chapter 9. The author uses a similar statement in verse 18, although
without the forgiveness part. Notice the context where verse 17 says
that he was promised that he would recover his vision and be
filled with the Holy Spirit. So, verse 18 says the
scale-like blinders fell from his eyes and he was baptized.
It would be completely twisting the verse out of context to change
verse 18 to mean water baptism when 17 said it was Spirit baptism.
Are some of the verses mentioned above
not clear? you bet!
Are some debatable? yes.!! But obviously something is going
on here we don't fully grasp. Therefore I am not willing to
be so dogmatic to say that salvation, works, etc have NOTHING to
do with salvation. Are the the basis of it? NO!!!
related someway, somehow in God's infinite mind? I think
clearly so. How? I really don't know (and that is my point--we
don't know so should be so quick to judge).
Reader: What are your thoughts now about the
Continue the discussion. Annex
A: Can "water" be assumed anywhere "baptism" is mentioned in