Baptism with the Holy Spirit Salvation

[e.r.m.]

I've heard the two associated together in conversation, but there's actually no verse in the NT that links the two together. Therefore Baptism with the Holy Spirit is not what saves a person.

The floor is open.

Thank you.

 

[Sees]

Didn't John the Baptist say Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit?

 

[Shiranui117]

Baptism with the Holy Spirit is indeed salvation in the true sense--but at the same time, it is only the beginning of the process of salvation.

 

[e.r.m.]

Didn't John the Baptist say Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit?

John the Baptist did, and that's all he said. He didn't give any neaning to it, he just said it would happen.

 

[e.r.m.]

Baptism with the Holy Spirit is indeed salvation in the true sense--but at the same time, it is only the beginning of the process of salvation.

Thank you.
Where does the Bible say this?

 

[e.r.m.]

There's simply no relationship between Baptism with the Holy Spirit and getting saved.

It's one of those things where people have just gotten used to the idea, like the one where people think Jesus was born in a manger, where the Bible says Jesus was placed in a manger only after he was born. The actual scriptures treat Baptism with the Holy Spirit and getting saved as two separate things.

 

[Shiranui117]

There's simply no relationship between Baptism with the Holy Spirit and getting saved.

It's one of those things where people have just gotten used to the idea, like the one where people think Jesus was born in a manger, where the Bible says Jesus was placed in a manger only after he was born. The actual scriptures treat Baptism with the Holy Spirit and getting saved as two separate things.

It depends on what exactly you mean by "getting saved." If you mean the Evangelical, Fundamentalist idea of eternal security, then no, baptism does not save you. But, does baptism remove sin, clothe us with Christ, and make us die to our old selves, making us new creatures in Christ? Yes. And in that way, baptism does, in fact, save us.

Thank you.
Where does the Bible say this?

1 Peter 3:21 is a place that comes up at the top of my head.
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

I could cite Romans and other places as well.

 

[e.r.m.]

It depends on what exactly you mean by "getting saved." If you mean the Evangelical, Fundamentalist idea of eternal security, then no, baptism does not save you. But, does baptism remove sin, clothe us with Christ, and make us die to our old selves, making us new creatures in Christ? Yes. And in that way, baptism does, in fact, save us.

1 Peter 3:21 is a place that comes up at the top of my head.
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

I could cite Romans and other places as well.

Thank you Shiranui,
I agree with these scriptures.
1 Peter 3:21, and the ones in Romans refer to water baptism, which does do what you said.
But these do not refer to Baptism with the Holy Spirit, which is different.

 

[Shiranui117]

Thank you Shiranui,
I agree with these scriptures.
1 Peter 3:21, and the ones in Romans refer to water baptism, which does do what you said.
But these do not refer to Baptism with the Holy Spirit, which is different.

Oh! I always assume they're the same thing. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[e.r.m.]

Oh! I always assume they're the same thing. Sorry for the confusion.

No problem, it opens up a new discussion. Acts 2 & Acts 10 are the only times Baptism with the Holy Spirit is mentioned to have happened. Water baptism in Jesus's name Acts 2:38, 10;47-48 is commanded for every disciple Matthew 28:19., and therefore the universal one."

 

[sojourner]

Hmmm... It's always been the position of church teaching, though, that baptism is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, implying that the Holy Spirit is at work in the person, and that it's the H.S., and not the water, in and of itself, that is efficacious, yes? The Holy Spirit has always been present in the act of baptism, beginning with Jesus, when God descended like a dove and lighted on Jesus.

 

[e.r.m.]

Hmmm... It's always been the position of church teaching, though, that baptism is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace,

Sojourner, it's been so long!
Yes, it's the position of the church, of "some" churches, but not the position of the Bible. This "sign vocabulary" was the brainchild of Ulrich Zwingli. This vocabulary didn't exist in the first century.

implying that the Holy Spirit is at work in the person, and that it's the H.S., and not the water, in and of itself, that is efficacious, yes? The Holy Spirit has always been present in the act of baptism, beginning with Jesus, when God descended like a dove and lighted on Jesus.

Not to detract from the OP, the topic is about Baptism with the Holy Spirit, the miraculous, outward, and visible spectacle described at Pentecost and Cornelius's house. The position is that this baptism, as distinct from water baptism in Jesus's name, is not linked scripturally to getting saved.

 

[Shiranui117]

Hmmm... It's always been the position of church teaching, though, that baptism is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, implying that the Holy Spirit is at work in the person, and that it's the H.S., and not the water, in and of itself, that is efficacious, yes? The Holy Spirit has always been present in the act of baptism, beginning with Jesus, when God descended like a dove and lighted on Jesus.

Precisely.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, it's the position of the church, of "some" churches, but not the position of the Bible.

The Bible was written by people who espoused that position. The church took that position long before the church had the bible.

the topic is about Baptism with the Holy Spirit, the miraculous, outward, and visible spectacle described at Pentecost and Cornelius's house.

Ok, well, that's not baptism, though. Do you think that's the only time and way in which the H.S. comes to people -- through tongues of fire and speaking in tongues?

 

[e.r.m.]

The Bible was written by people who espoused that position. The church took that position long before the church had the bible.

Sorry for the delay. The earliest extraBiblical history that I've found shows that the church did not take that position.
This quote from Justin Martyr is
approximately A.D. 155, about fifty-five years after the Apostle John
died:
And for [water baptism] we have
learned from the apostles this
reason. Since at our birth we were
born without our own knowledge or
choice, by our parents coming
together, and were brought up in
bad habits and wicked training; in
order that we may not remain the
children of necessity and of
ignorance, but may become the
children of choice and knowledge,
and may obtain in the water the
remission of sins formerly
committed. (Justin, First Apology
61)

Justin was born around 100 AD and
was converted around age 30 AD,
which makes this belief as early as
30 years after John died. Since he
said he learned this from the
Apostles, then this is what the
Apostles taught.

That water baptism was meant as an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, - Is pure nonsense.

Ok, well, that's not baptism, though. Do you think that's the only time and way in which the H.S. comes to people -- through tongues of fire and speaking in tongues?

That is baptism with the Holy Spirit, which came 'upon' people and it was a spectacle. Pentecost and Cornelius's house were the only two times that Baptism with the Holy Spirit was recorded.

The Holy Spirit 'upon' also came on at the laying on of the Apostles hands.

 

[Shiranui117]

Sorry for the delay. The earliest extraBiblical history that I've found shows that the church did not take that position.
This quote from Justin Martyr is
approximately A.D. 155, about fifty-five years after the Apostle John
died:
And for [water baptism] we have
learned from the apostles this
reason. Since at our birth we were
born without our own knowledge or
choice, by our parents coming
together, and were brought up in
bad habits and wicked training; in
order that we may not remain the
children of necessity and of
ignorance, but may become the
children of choice and knowledge,
and may obtain in the water the
remission of sins formerly
committed. (Justin, First Apology
61)

Justin was born around 100 AD and
was converted around age 30 AD,
which makes this belief as early as
30 years after John died. Since he
said he learned this from the
Apostles, then this is what the
Apostles taught.

Alright, and? That says nothing about "water baptism" and "baptism of the Holy Spirit" being two separate things.

That water baptism was meant as an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, - Is pure nonsense.

So what, you believe that baptism is just done for show?

That is baptism with the Holy Spirit, which came 'upon' people and it was a spectacle. Pentecost and Cornelius's house were the only two times that Baptism with the Holy Spirit was recorded.

The Holy Spirit 'upon' also came on at the laying on of the Apostles hands.

The laying-on of hands corresponds to Chrismation, not baptism.

 

[e.r.m.]

Alright, and? That says nothing about "water baptism" and "baptism of the Holy Spirit" being two separate things.

Correct, it does not. I was addressing something different with Sojourner.

The following scriptures list Baptism with the Holy Spirit and water baptism in Jesus's name as two separate things.

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

Acts 11:16-17 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ [17] So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”

Acts 10:47-48 “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” [48] So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

So what, you believe that baptism is just done for show?

On the contrary, I'm saying water baptism is not done for show.

The laying-on of hands corresponds to Chrismation, not baptism.

I agree that the apostles' laying on of hands was not baptism. I've never heard of the term Chrismation before.

 

[Shiranui117]

Correct, it does not. I was addressing something different with Sojourner.

The following scriptures list Baptism with the Holy Spirit and water baptism in Jesus's name as two separate things.

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

Acts 11:16-17 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ [17] So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”

Acts 10:47-48 “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” [48] So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

I'd consider those exceptions to the rule, God showing the Apostles that the Church is open to Gentiles--not just Jews. And if you read the passages, that's clearly the case.

On the contrary, I'm saying water baptism is not done for show.

Alright, just checking. I remember you arguing strongly for the salvific effect of baptism a few months ago--wasn't sure if your position had changed.

I agree that the apostles' laying on of hands was not baptism. I've never heard of the term Chrismation before.

Chrismation is a follow-up that finishes what baptism starts, and is thus always done immediately after baptism in the Orthodox Church. Its Western equivalent is "confirmation", which since the Reformation was divorced from baptism, leaving children unable to partake of the Eucharist before they were confirmed at the "age of reason". Chrismation definitively seals the believer with the Holy Spirit, and empowers them to live the Christian life with all faith, dignity, diligence, determination, strength and devoutness. Chrismation is known as "laying-on of hands" in the Scriptures (though the laying-on of hands is also done with Ordination).

 

[e.r.m.]

I'd consider those exceptions to the rule, God showing the Apostles that the Church is open to Gentiles--not just Jews. And if you read the passages, that's clearly the case.

I'm aware and I agree with the context. In Acts 2 baptism in Jesus's name, which is shown in Acts 10:47-48 to be water baptism, was commanded after the apostles and the 120 got baptized with the Holy Spirit. These were also two separate baptisms. I don't know to which rule you are referring, as these were the only two times Baptism with the Holy Spirit were recorded.

Alright, just checking. I remember you arguing strongly for the salvific effect of baptism a few months ago--wasn't sure if your position had changed.

Correct. I still hold that position.

Chrismation is a follow-up that finishes what baptism starts, and is thus always done immediately after baptism in the Orthodox Church. Its Western equivalent is "confirmation", which since the Reformation was divorced from baptism, leaving children unable to partake of the Eucharist before they were confirmed at the "age of reason". Chrismation definitively seals the believer with the Holy Spirit, and empowers them to live the Christian life with all faith, dignity, diligence, determination, strength and devoutness. Chrismation is known as "laying-on of hands" in the Scriptures (though the laying-on of hands is also done with Ordination).

We CoC believe that that's all wrapped up after belief and baptism, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit anyway. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is different than when the Holy Spirit comes upon people and gives them special abilities. The Holy Spirit 'upon', brought on by the laying on of the apostles hands, is not something anyone can do today.

 

[sojourner]

and may obtain in the water the
remission of sins formerly
committed. That water baptism was meant as an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, - Is pure nonsense.

OK, there's nothing there that refutes the "outward and visible sign," though. Baptism has always been seen as a perichoresis, that is, God acts and we respond. Baptism is an act of obedience, yes? God acts in our lives, and we respond by participating in the act of baptism. It's not the water that saves. Rather, it's the co-action of God's act of grace and our response of obedience. The water is a vehicle and is not, in and of itself, efficacious. Justin Martyr assumed that as known and so did not reiterate it here.