If baptism is essential

[daverain]

.



Simple reply:

If one MUST be baptised,

WHY could this NOT mean baptised by The Holy Spirit?


Also, Here's Titus 3:5
--------------------

5
He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of His mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,

Sorry, I do NOT see water baptism here. But that we are -NOT- saved by 'righteous things we had done' (like 'righteous-dunking')

Is this one of those 'school-boy-pranks', or something?




.

 

[aggie03]

.
Simple reply:

If one MUST be baptised,

WHY could this NOT mean baptised by The Holy Spirit?

Well, if the only stipulation or example that we ever had was the phrase "baptized" it would be difficult to determine one way or the other what was being referred to. Since this is not the case, I believe there is sufficient evidence to rule out a baptism by the Holy Spirit being required. More as an aside than anything else, what do you think it means to be baptized by the Holy Spirit?

Also, Here's Titus 3:5
--------------------

5
He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of His mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,

Sorry, I do NOT see water baptism here. But that we are -NOT- saved by 'righteous things we had done' (like 'righteous-dunking')

What makes being baptized a righteous thing? What makes anything a righteous thing? Is submission to the Lord's will a righteous thing?

If I am commanded to do something, does my compliance with that command mean that I deserve anything? No, of course not. Be being baptized because God told me to do so in no way "earns" my salvation. I would simply be saved because God has said He would forgive my sins I was baptized and believed in Him.

Is this one of those 'school-boy-pranks', or something?

I assure you, it is not

 

[Jim Woodell]

What makes being baptized a righteous thing? What makes anything a righteous thing? Is submission to the Lord's will a righteous thing?

If I am commanded to do something, does my compliance with that command mean that I deserve anything? No, of course not. Be being baptized because God told me to do so in no way "earns" my salvation. I would simply be saved because God has said He would forgive my sins I was baptized and believed in Him.

Luke 17:10 "So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.'"

If a person is baptised thinking, "This will earn me salvation!", they have missed the gospel.

Rom. 6:23 "The wages of sin is death, the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Salvation is a gift that can only be accepted or rejected, but there is something the sinner must do (Acts 16:30-31) to be saved. The gift must be appropriated to the sinner (imputed, reckoned, attributed, credited). How is that done? Through faith (Romans 4:1ff) that produces obedience to the Father (James 2:20-24).

If I was offered a Billion Dollar gift via a check, it would be necessary for me to sign the check and deposit it before the funds were appropriated to my account. So it is with salvation. Salvation is a "FREE GIFT" but it must be accepted by the sinner. How by faith that leads him/her to obedience (Matt. 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:22-24, 36-40)

 

[daverain]

.

Salvation is a gift that can only be accepted or rejected, but there is something the sinner must do

(Acts 16:30-31)

to be saved. The gift must be appropriated to the sinner (imputed, reckoned, attributed, credited). How is that done? Through faith (Romans 4:1ff) that produces obedience to the Father (James 2:20-24).

If I was offered a Billion Dollar gift via a check, it would be necessary for me to sign the check and deposit it before the funds were appropriated to my account. So it is with salvation. Salvation is a "FREE GIFT" but it must be accepted by the sinner. How by faith that leads him/her to obedience

(Matt. 28:19-20;

Mark 16:15-16;

Acts 2:22-24,

36-40)

Acts 16: 30-31:
---------------

Nothing there about water baptism saving, but "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your whole household."


Matthew 28:19-20
------------------

Nothing here saying water baptism saves


Mark 16: 15 to 16
-----------------

Yes. We are saved by being baptised by The Holy Spirit (nothing here about water baptism


Acts 2:22
---------

Nothing about water-baptism here



36-40
------

Some MIGHT think by this, that water-baptism gives The Holy Spirit.

Nope.

Please see Acts 10:44.



(Yawn)



Peace in Christ






.

 

[Jim Woodell]

Yawn

"And this do, knowing the time, that it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us that when we believed." (Rom. 13:11)

 

[- DRA -]

.

Acts 16: 30-31:
---------------

Nothing there about water baptism saving, but "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your whole household."

.

The conversion of the jailer doesn't stop at verse 31. It continues through verse 34. What does it mean to believe in the Lord? Look at the "whole passage"? Note verse 34. He believed when he did what he was instructed to do by the word.

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

May I cut in?



This is not profitable and is not necessary. I have asked several times (one very recently) that these types of statements be avoided. This nothing more than an appeal to ridicule and does not further your point nor negate Mr. Woodell's. This adds nothing to our discussion.

you forgot to state where i apologize if i sounded rude or inconsiderate. And its not ridicule it is a fact. If you misinterpret a passage for your pupose then it will not help you to understand others.

I disagree



I presonally don't believe that Mr. Woodell has changed this verse at all. In fact, I'll go ahead and quote it again so that this will be plain for all to see:

Titus 3:4-7 ASV

But when the kindness of God our Saviour, and his love toward man, appeared, (5) not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, (6) which he poured out upon us richly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour; (7) that, being justified by his grace, we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

I've tried to highlight what I believe to be the most crucial phrases and words to our discussion. We all must remember, though, to keep everything in the proper context of the letters we find it in, so let's always try to help one another with that aspect. Back to the verse...

You should try it again. underline OF. AND FINISH THE VERSE " WHICH HE POURED OUT .. THROUGH Jesus Christ. Remember that he Baptises with the Holy Spirit nothing else. So in context it cant be of Water because Jesus doesnt use this for anything. You also need to understand what Grace means. It means all GODS DOING NONE OF OURS.

If you'lll notice in the phrase that we're directly discussing, there is an important word that you seem to be leaving out: "and". According to God's mercy, He saved us through the washing of regeneration AND the renewing of the Holy Spirit. The word "and" is joining to separate things together. Think about it like this:

I never left it out you are misuseing it. It is connecting washing of regeneration to renewing which are both done by the Holy Spirit. OF is the word you need to look at. They are not seperate at all. If they are show me specific scripture that makes this clear. Where does it say that water baptism regenerates( it means in Greek Being born again) if this is so then the blood is taken out

If you go to an iced cream store and purchase vanilla iced cream, after eating two spoonfulls, which of the following would you say: "I have eaten vanilla iced cream and vanilla iced cream" or "I have eaten vanilla iced cream" ? Obviously the second phrase is correct because you have only eaten one thing. However, were you to eat two separate things, like chocolate and vanilla icead cream, it would then be necessary to say "I have eaten vanilla AND chocolate iced cream".

I believe that the same principle applies here. There are two separate things that are occurring: the washing of regeneration AND the renewing of the Holy Spirit. I believe that the phrase "washing of regeneration" refers specifically to being baptized. Acts 2 shows that baptism is for the remission of sins. It literally is a "washing of regeneration".

There are two seperate things happening BUT only one thing doing it. Acts two is not water baptism and it cant be how you get the Holy Spirit because Jesus said that the Spirit gives birth to the Spirit. Act 10 shows people recieving the holy Spirit without water. There are plenty of passages which uses washing and they are not of water but of something else, such as the Holy Spirit, or of fire.

I disagree with you again, and I believe perhaps that you misunderstand the significance of baptism. It is not a prideful thing, it is not something that one can boast about. It is not something that is difficult to do so that it somehow merits my being saved. In fact, I would even agree with you that baptism is not really what saves us (though this doesn't make it unnecessary). I believe the Bible is very clear that we are saved by the mercy and grace of God, however, I believe the Bible is equally clear that under the New Covenant God will give this mercy and grace to those who have been baptized for the remission of their sins.

There is no signifance with it except for you personal. s all about the HEART not ACTS you do. they follow the what the heart is expresing as in good works. But you do say it is what saves you because of how you interpret scripture. Hebrews 9:10 would suggest that it is not needed. And Jesus never spoke about it in all his teachings. So you say we are not saved by water yet you say we cant receive mercy and grace without water baptism. This is totally unscriptural. Eph. 2:8-10 John 3:16, Read 1 Cor. 12:1-13 Nothing given except by the spirit verse 13 we were all BAPTIZED by ONE SPIRIT. Which goes with Eph. 4:4-6, again i can not see how you can even think this idea of yours.

I believe this may have been taken out of context, and does not lend support to your argument. If you wish to discuss this point separately, I will be more than happy to do so



I do not understand what you are trying to say here. Would you please reword this a little more clearly. 1 John 5:8 seems to be pretty clear that there are three who bear witness to the world.

Three bear witness, none speaking of salvation but of Christ and what he did or what happened to him.

1 John 5:6-8 ASV This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. (7) And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth. (8) For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.

What does the verse say the water does? It says the water bears witness in verse 8. How would you explain this? Also notice that the water is specifically listed separate from the Holy Spirit, therefore, it cannot be the Holy Spirit.

It is not the Holy Spirit i never said it did, it is water but it is either Johns baptism of Christ and the Spirit coming on him or refering to John 19:34, since it states here that it was mans witness, which is stated in verse 9.

I think that you may be taking this entire passage out of its context. However, I will allow you to reply and perhaps clear things up because it may be that I am simply misunderstanding what you are trying to say. I hope that you have had a wonderful day, and I look forward to hearing back from you

Hardly done wrong. You need to read Romans 4 and 5 and also Hebrews 7:6-10:1-39 and show me where water ever comes into play for us to receive anything. As matter of fact any where in scripture it shows this.

 

[Jim Woodell]

Matt. 28:16-20 "But the Eleven Disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. And when they saw him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, 'All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

1. Jesus spoke to the disciples.
2. He commanded the disciples to "make disciples and baptize them." As has been correctly stated, Jesus alone is the baptizer with the Holy Spirit, so this could not have been Holy Spirit baptism.
3. Those that the disciples baptized were to "teach them to observe all things commanded." He had just commanded disciples to make disciples and baptize them, so those discipled and baptized were to make disciples and baptise them, etc. etc. etc.
4. How long was this to last?? To the end of the age.

Please read these verses for yourself and see what they say to you.

This is is in harmony with the companion verses of Mark 16:15-16 and also harmonizes with the nine cases of conversion we have recorded in the Book of Acts.

When folks quote Romans 6:3-4; Col. 2:12; Eph. 4:4; Gal. 3:26-27; 1 Peter 3:21 and say Holy Spirit baptism, they are not getting that from the text. Please read for yourself.

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

Matt. 28:16-20 "But the Eleven Disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. And when they saw him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, 'All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

1. Jesus spoke to the disciples.
2. He commanded the disciples to "make disciples and baptize them." As has been correctly stated, Jesus alone is the baptizer with the Holy Spirit, so this could not have been Holy Spirit baptism.
3. Those that the disciples baptized were to "teach them to observe all things commanded." He had just commanded disciples to make disciples and baptize them, so those discipled and baptized were to make disciples and baptise them, etc. etc. etc.
4. How long was this to last?? To the end of the age.

Please read these verses for yourself and see what they say to you.

This is is in harmony with the companion verses of Mark 16:15-16 and also harmonizes with the nine cases of conversion we have recorded in the Book of Acts.

When folks quote Romans 6:3-4; Col. 2:12; Eph. 4:4; Gal. 3:26-27; 1 Peter 3:21 and say Holy Spirit baptism, they are not getting that from the text. Please read for yourself.

the Spirit gives birth to the Spirit nothing else to say water gives you nothing. You are joking and way off all thoise given are of the Holy Spirit. One Faith one Baptism... The one Baptism is of Christ no way around it at all. It is made very clear that this is so. 1 Cor. 12:13 For we were baptized by ONE Spirit into one Body... This is Christ baptism and all salvation is coming into the one body. As for Rom 6 read Rom 8:9-11 it restates rom 6 and its of the Holy Spirit. Gal 3:26 is of the Spirit, Like i said the Spirit gives birth to the Spirit. You have essentially taken the Baptism of Christ out of scripture completly. Show me a instance of the use of this Christ baptism if it is not these. How are we justified in Gods eyes. show me scripture that says it takes water baptism to be justified. Read ever verse that Talks of us being justified by God and tell me where water is ever mentioned. Even if matt. 28:19 is water its still after they are saved. Being a disciple doesnt make yo9u saved there were many disciples of Christ before is death and discilpes of John the baptist but they werent saved by Christ either. Every one keeps putting AND inbetween disciples and baptizing. Its not there its all one thing together not seperate. and its INTO the name of the.... this means what Gal. 3:26 says. And it says " And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." It doesnt give how long we are to do it it says he will be with us till the end of the age. You added to it and change the meaning again.

 

[Jim Woodell]

Even if matt. 28:19 is water its still after they are saved. Being a disciple doesnt make yo9u saved there were many disciples of Christ before is death and discilpes of John the baptist but they werent saved by Christ either. Every one keeps putting AND inbetween disciples and baptizing.

Notice the above statement. You say on the one hand "even if Matt. 28:19 is water its still after they are saved." Thank you for at last admitting that this has to be water since men are baptizing men. So on this we are agreed.

On the second point, I don't remember anyone putting "and" between disciple and baptising in that text. The text says, "As you are going into all of the world, make disciples, baptizing them into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." NO AND there. I said in my previous post, "disciples baptized disciples." That's what the text teaches.

Everyone of my persuasion that I have read after states Acts 2:38 just as it is written:
"Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of sins and you shall receive the GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT." Certainly conversion is spiritual. It is a birth of the Spirit. But when does it occur? Jesus was clear in John 3:3-8, You must be born again. How? Of water and the Spirit. Those are the words of Jesus.

 

[Toms777]

Everyone of my persuasion that I have read after states Acts 2:38 just as it is written:
"Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of sins and you shall receive the GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT." Certainly conversion is spiritual. It is a birth of the Spirit. But when does it occur? Jesus was clear in John 3:3-8, You must be born again. How? Of water and the Spirit. Those are the words of Jesus.

Two questions:

1) Why do you reject what Acts 2:38 actually says when showing logically and in context of the rest of scripture?

2) Do you believe in baptzing the name of Jesus only?

 

[SoulFly51]

Tom - will you give it up already.

 

[Toms777]

Tom - will you give it up already.

No, I will never give up the truth!

 

[SoulFly51]

That's good - then accept it.

 

[Toms777]

That's good - then accept it.

I have - I am looking for you to follow!!!

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

Notice the above statement. You say on the one hand "even if Matt. 28:19 is water its still after they are saved." Thank you for at last admitting that this has to be water since men are baptizing men. So on this we are agreed.

On the second point, I don't remember anyone putting "and" between disciple and baptising in that text. The text says, "As you are going into all of the world, make disciples, baptizing them into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." NO AND there. I said in my previous post, "disciples baptized disciples." That's what the text teaches.

Everyone of my persuasion that I have read after states Acts 2:38 just as it is written:
"Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of sins and you shall receive the GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT." Certainly conversion is spiritual. It is a birth of the Spirit. But when does it occur? Jesus was clear in John 3:3-8, You must be born again. How? Of water and the Spirit. Those are the words of Jesus.

for one it was a physical birth and a spiritual birth, we have allreafy shown you this and you just ignore it. If you insist that it is water baptism and the spirit then you will do this with any other passage as well. as for acts 2:38 look at Luke 24:47 It says what Mark 16:16 says " and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached. Why does it not speak of wtaer baptism here. Its saying the same thing but just doesnt use your favorite word. Read Acts 3:19 " Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out. No water baptism here either and it says repent, for forgiveness. What about Acts 8:13 Simon himself believed and was baptized. verse 16 " Because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the lord Jesus." Isnt this what Acts 2:38 says in the name of Jesus Christ. and receive the Holy Spirit yet they didnt. also in Acts 10 the same thing they receive it without water. So we have one where they were baptized but still didnt reive the Holy Spirit and one where they did without it. So how do we harmonize these.

 

[- DRA -]

Jim Woodell,

I couldn't help but notice two questions asked by one of the posters. They were:

1) Why do you reject what Acts 2:38 actually says when showing logically and in context of the rest of scripture?

2) Do you believe in baptzing the name of Jesus only?

I hope you don't mind that I throw in my 2 cents worth. The questions are directed to either the poster, or those that believe this reasoning to be true. And, I really don't mind if the poster directs any comments that may have to you -- so that we can maintain our focus on studying the Scriptures and NOT resort to personal attacks.

Question #1: The context of Acts 2:38 is that some of the Jews that heard the sermon preached by the apostle Peter were convicted of their sins and asked what they should do about them (verse 37). Peter, under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit (see John 16:7-14 and Acts 2:1-4), told them what to do to have their sins taken away. Three thousand of the Jews obeyed what they were told to do (see verse 41), and were saved and added to the church by the Lord (see verse 47). What is it about this context is "out of context?" Personally, I don't think there is a problem with the context. The problem is with accepting what Peter commanded the Jews to do in verse 38. Obviously, the passage presents problems for those who deny what Mark 16:16 plainly says, and for those who create a whole doctrine (salvation by faith alone) around one passage of Scripture -- like John 3:16. Sorry, but taking baptism out of Mark 16:16 so that it agrees with what John 3:16 says if we add the word "alone" to the passage doesn't negate what Acts 2:38 says. Have you considered a different approach? Why not leave the word "alone" out of John 3:16, leave the word "baptism" in Mark 16:16 so that it says what the Lord said, and accept Acts 2:38 for what it says. Then you can find the harmony that is necessary, and you don't have to change a thing to achieve it.

Question #2: "In the name of Jesus Christ" means to act by authority or power from the Lord (see Acts 4:7). It is synonymous with "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" in Matt. 28:19 and "in the name of the Lord" in Acts 10:47-48, Acts 19:5, and Col. 3:17.

My Question: Why are you worried about being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ if you are NOT willing to be baptized for the reason stated in Acts 2:38?

Thank you, Jim.

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

Jim Woodell,

I couldn't help but notice two questions asked by one of the posters. They were:

1) Why do you reject what Acts 2:38 actually says when showing logically and in context of the rest of scripture?

2) Do you believe in baptzing the name of Jesus only?

I hope you don't mind that I throw in my 2 cents worth. The questions are directed to either the poster, or those that believe this reasoning to be true. And, I really don't mind if the poster directs any comments that may have to you -- so that we can maintain our focus on studying the Scriptures and NOT resort to personal attacks.

Question #1: The context of Acts 2:38 is that some of the Jews that heard the sermon preached by the apostle Peter were convicted of their sins and asked what they should do about them (verse 37). Peter, under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit (see John 16:7-14 and Acts 2:1-4), told them what to do to have their sins taken away. Three thousand of the Jews obeyed what they were told to do (see verse 41), and were saved and added to the church by the Lord (see verse 47). What is it about this context is "out of context?" Personally, I don't think there is a problem with the context. The problem is with accepting what Peter commanded the Jews to do in verse 38. Obviously, the passage presents problems for those who deny what Mark 16:16 plainly says, and for those who create a whole doctrine (salvation by faith alone) around one passage of Scripture -- like John 3:16. Sorry, but taking baptism out of Mark 16:16 so that it agrees with what John 3:16 says if we add the word "alone" to the passage doesn't negate what Acts 2:38 says. Have you considered a different approach? Why not leave the word "alone" out of John 3:16, leave the word "baptism" in Mark 16:16 so that it says what the Lord said, and accept Acts 2:38 for what it says. Then you can find the harmony that is necessary, and you don't have to change a thing to achieve it.

Question #2: "In the name of Jesus Christ" means to act by authority or power from the Lord (see Acts 4:7). It is synonymous with "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" in Matt. 28:19 and "in the name of the Lord" in Acts 10:47-48, Acts 19:5, and Col. 3:17.

My Question: Why are you worried about being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ if you are NOT willing to be baptized for the reason stated in Acts 2:38?

Thank you, Jim.

So since here Peter is speaking to Jews it is this way, but when he speaks to the gentiles they receive the Holy Spirit without water baptism and he never said to do it for the remission of sins that there is one way for the gentiles and one way for the jews. This is your reasoning if we are to go by the literal writeing of scripture. I might add that a lot of scripture teaches the way that the gentiles were svaed and not the way you say the jews were saved. You do not harmonize at all. Do you teach that we and the jews have two dofferent ways of salvations. Obviousely not but in your reasoning you should.

 

[- DRA -]

So since here Peter is speaking to Jews it is this way, but when he speaks to the gentiles they receive the Holy Spirit without water baptism and he never said to do it for the remission of sins that there is one way for the gentiles and one way for the jews. This is your reasoning if we are to go by the literal writeing of scripture. I might add that a lot of scripture teaches the way that the gentiles were svaed and not the way you say the jews were saved. You do not harmonize at all. Do you teach that we and the jews have two dofferent ways of salvations. Obviousely not but in your reasoning you should.

Ephesians 2:1 through 4:6 deals with God breaking down the dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles. Is there a difference between how the Jews and Gentiles are saved? Nope. Note Gal. 3:26-29. Salvation is based on faith and baptism -- just like the Lord commanded in Mark 16:16.

We have been through this before. The baptism in Acts 2:38 was "in the name of Jesus Christ", which is synonymous with the baptism "in the name of the Lord" in Acts 10:47-48. Therefore, the logic goes, the baptism in the name of the Lord in Acts 10:47-48 was for the remission of sins, as was the baptism in Acts 2:38. With that settled, the issue for us to determine is why the first Gentiles to have the gospel preached to them received the baptism of the Holy Spirit before they were baptized into Christ. What does the passage in Acts 10 tell us? It tells us that Peter's conclusion was they couldn't be denied the right to be baptized in water -- in the name of the Lord -- which was for the remission of sins. So, the baptism with the Holy Spirit obviously didn't mean they were already saved, but simply showed to the Jews that God approved of these Gentiles receiving the gospel and that He was showing His approval for them to obey it. Therefore, Peter commanded them to be baptized.

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

Ephesians 2:1 through 4:6 deals with God breaking down the dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles. Is there a difference between how the Jews and Gentiles are saved? Nope. Note Gal. 3:26-29. Salvation is based on faith and baptism -- just like the Lord commanded in Mark 16:16.

We have been through this before. The baptism in Acts 2:38 was "in the name of Jesus Christ", which is synonymous with the baptism "in the name of the Lord" in Acts 10:47-48. Therefore, the logic goes, the baptism in the name of the Lord in Acts 10:47-48 was for the remission of sins, as was the baptism in Acts 2:38. With that settled, the issue for us to determine is why the first Gentiles to have the gospel preached to them received the baptism of the Holy Spirit before they were baptized into Christ. What does the passage in Acts 10 tell us? It tells us that Peter's conclusion was they couldn't be denied the right to be baptized in water -- in the name of the Lord -- which was for the remission of sins. So, the baptism with the Holy Spirit obviously didn't mean they were already saved, but simply showed to the Jews that God approved of these Gentiles receiving the gospel and that He was showing His approval for them to obey it. Therefore, Peter commanded them to be baptized.

we have look what the word THROUGH is always by . JESUS. Salvation by Faith and Believing in your heart. You really did this passage all wrong (Acts 10) Read verse 43 That everyone who BELIEVES in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name. Peter didnt say receives forgiveness through water like you keep saying he does. Read 11:16-18. Peter said that God gave them the same gift as he gave us. the gift is GRACE and GRACE is what brings salvation. " So then God has granted even the gentiles repentance unto life." How through the Holy Spirt, which is christ which is God which is the only way to receive salvation. He does not say they had to because they were not saved or did he say for the remission of sins. If you keep reading into scripture things not spoken you will never get it right.