Is water baptism a pre-requisite for receiving the Holy Spirit?

[tonychanyt]

Again go back and read the post where i posted verses. For an example here is one of the verses i posted.

Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

If you are baptized, you will receive the Holy Spirit.

It does not say that baptism is a pre-requisite for receiving the Holy Spirit: If you receive the Holy Spirit, you must have been baptized.

 

[d taylor]

If you are baptized, you will receive the Holy Spirit.

It does not say that baptism is a pre-requisite for receiving the Holy Spirit: If you receive the Holy Spirit, you must have been baptized.

In the context of Acts 2 it does for Jewish believers at the time of the start of the church.

Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

 

[tonychanyt]

In the context of Acts 2 it does for Jewish believers at the time of the start of the church.

Can you prove that with first-order logic?

 

[d taylor]

Can you prove that with first-order logic?

Do not need to this verse plainly states that The believing Jews had to be baptized to receive The Holy Spirit.

Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

 

[tonychanyt]

Do not need to this verse plainly states that The believing Jews had to be baptized to receive The Holy Spirit.

Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Can you prove that with first-order logic? Can you follow the syntax of FOL and prove the plain statement as you have claimed?

 

[d taylor]

Can you prove that with first-order logic? Can you follow the syntax of FOL and prove the plain statement as you have claimed?

That is unnecessary, Acts 2 explains it very well.