FOR or BECAUSE OF the forgiveness of your sins, (Acts 2:38)

[BillyBob65]

The word translated "divide" in the KJV had a different meaning from what it does today. Loosely it meant "cut a straight furrow" an agricultural term. So yes, to your post. The better translation into modern language is rightly handling the word of God. If that is done there will be no contradictions. It aligns with letting scripture interpret scripture.

So @BillyBob65 if there are scriptures that show salvation and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit before water baptism (Acts 10:44,47); if the Bible shows baptism following belief and repentance (Acts2:37,41); shows baptism following belief and repentance (Acts2:37,41); if it shows that biblical figures have believed and not been immediately baptized (Thomas, John 20:28-29;John 12:42-no mention of baptism); if scripture declares that the way of eternal life is believing and does not mention baptism in those same scriptures (Acts 16:30-31); if Scriptures tells us that when we believed we were sealed by the Holy Spirit and no baptism is mentioned (Eph 1:13}

then

“And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’”

cannot mean that water baptism is when our sins are forgiven (saved) and receive the Holy Spirit. Rightly handling the word of God will solve the "riddle" Give it a go.

if there are scriptures that show salvation and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit before water baptism (Acts 10:44,47);

This is proof you are not rightly handling the word of God. The spirit coming upon Cornelius was not the indwelling and if you would just get past your bias and let the scriptures do the talking you would see that. This whole chapter is about God bringing the gentiles into the kingdom as foretold of Joel. the chapter makes it clear that the spirit coming upon was for a sign of witness to the Jews. It was not for the benefit of the gentiles but to show the Jews (Peter and accompanying party) that Gods will is to add the gentiles. This we know by what Peter says. 45 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. See it was the Jews that was astonished. Why? because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. Peter says this is the ONLY time this has happened since it was poured out on them at Pentecost. It just so happens that this is also the LAST time it happened in this manner. No other place is it recorded as happening as this in scripture. This out pouring was never promised to all people what is promised is the indwelling spirit (See Acts 2:38 Romans 6:3ff Galatians 3:27 and Acts 19:1-5) and this happened in verses 47,48. This is the textual context of Acts 10. It is you that is blinded by the context and can't see that the spirit coming upon in verse 44 is not the giving of the indwelling but an outpouring of witness.

The Bible shows baptism following belief and repentance (Acts2:37,41);

Yes this is the whole of teaching the baptism in the name of Christ. It is the way it is taught all through Acts in all the conversions recorded. Just as recorded in Mark 16:15,16. This is one that lots of people reject saying it is an addition to the end of Mark 16 jut this is not the only place we see this pattern. All the new testament teaches believe and be baptized if you let the scriptures talk.

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

John 12:42 Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:

You did not rightly handle this for you cut out the context and only used the paer you wanted to back your bias but the rest of the context is

46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

See Jesus said to believe in him is to believe his WORDS. Not just pick and chose but to trust in his words as he has given them. So to believe in him you must also believe him when he says baptism is for remission of sin and the giving of the indwelling spirit which is promised to all Acts 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

if scripture declares that the way of eternal life is believing and does not mention baptism in those same scriptures (Acts 16:30-31)

30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house

Again you mishandled the scriptures. You try to build your doctrine on a half truth. You cut off the context again trying to make it say what it does not. They did not just say Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved but they preached the gospel to them telling them what to believe.

32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

And apparently They taught the same gospel as of Act 2 with the same results. You see you are doing a poor job of rightly handling the scriptures. You are butchering them up and using only the tidbits that you try to build your own doctrine on because if you would have read the next two verses you would have seen that baptism was taught.

f

Scriptures tells us that when we believed we were sealed by the Holy Spirit and no baptism is mentioned (Eph 1:13}

And again you mishandle scripture. You try to make this as an exclusion of the command to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ but again remember if you have believed in Jesus you have believed and submitted to baptism (see Acts 19:1-5) See scripture will back itself if you let it. It has made it clear what the teaching on baptism is and what blessing we receive in the act. You just have to trust and obey what the Lord has said. That is the only way to have faith in Christ is to trust his words for they are truth and life. It is not me that is not rightly handling the word of truth. I have shown where we disagree and gave the scriptures to support it. I have use full context not just cutting off context where I want. Let the public see if I have not given the full context of scriptures.

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.
cannot mean that water baptism is when our sins are forgiven (saved) and receive the Holy Spirit. Rightly handling the word of God will solve the "riddle" Give it a go.

See here is the proof that you are not rightly handling the word of God and you lose all credibility in your words. That is exactly what it says. There is many other scriptures that back that and show it is true as recorded. Your rejection of what Jesus has said is very telling. This is why scripture is over your head you do not trust in the recorded word but try to make it fit your bias. I have shown you where do this with many many scriptures but your eyes are blinded by your bias. You telling me that God cannot mean what he said is just to much but very telling so your words are empty with out scriptural support.

How was that for give it a go?

 

[makesends]

This is proof you are not rightly handling the word of God. The spirit coming upon Cornelius was not the indwelling and if you would just get past your bias and let the scriptures do the talking you would see that. This whole chapter is about God bringing the gentiles into the kingdom as foretold of Joel. the chapter makes it clear that the spirit coming upon was for a sign of witness to the Jews. It was not for the benefit of the gentiles but to show the Jews (Peter and accompanying party) that Gods will is to add the gentiles. This we know by what Peter says. 45 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. See it was the Jews that was astonished. Why? because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. Peter says this is the ONLY time this has happened since it was poured out on them at Pentecost. It just so happens that this is also the LAST time it happened in this manner. No other place is it recorded as happening as this in scripture. This out pouring was never promised to all people what is promised is the indwelling spirit (See Acts 2:38 Romans 6:3ff Galatians 3:27 and Acts 19:1-5) and this happened in verses 47,48. This is the textual context of Acts 10. It is you that is blinded by the context and can't see that the spirit coming upon in verse 44 is not the giving of the indwelling but an outpouring of witness.

Mod Hat: Please (for the sake of your own argument, and for clarity) do something visible— color, quotes, italics, maybe even more than one thing, to delineate when what you post is quoted from scripture (or others), and what is not. This will help this site be more readable and enjoyable to others, and, if your reasoning is valid, it will help your argument.

 

[Arial]

How was that for give it a go?

Petty much a pile of word salad full of category mistakes, red herrings, ad hominin etc. But I will have to deal with unraveling the massive knot of language later.

 

[Arial]

This is proof you are not rightly handling the word of God. The spirit coming upon Cornelius was not the indwelling and if you would just get past your bias and let the scriptures do the talking you would see that.

In all your quotes I will mark in bold those things that are unnecessary, ad holmium, and only serve to make the discussion an argument and a pitting of wills against each other. The conversation should be straight forward and stick to points being made, and that is what I will attempt to do. As an opening statement I will say that the "proof" you provide to show that I am not rightly handling the word of God, consists of simply telling me what your interpretation of various scriptures is, without ever touching on the original issue and question. My premise in giving the scriptures I did, letting the words of the scriptures speak for themselves, was, if they are compared to your interpretation of Acts 2:38 meaning that we do not receive forgiveness of our sins or the indwelling of the Holy Spirit until we are baptized, does that create a contradiction within the Bible. It was not given for you to then prove that I was not rightly handling the word of God. It was not about me at all. It was not even about you. It was a question that you have not answered, though I realize you think you have.

In the spirit of good will and hopeful that the exchanges can become profitable, let's look at what you say. You say that the Spirit coming upon Cornelius was not the indwelling. This is not dealing with the issue of my question about does the presence of a specific interpretation of one scripture contradict the clear meaning of others given without any biased interpretation laid over them. Instead, it just finds a way to begin to use the scriptures given to contradict the clear meaning before ever addressing the clear meaning. I believe in what follows you make an attempt to support the claim that Cornelius was not receiving the indwelling (which indeed needs to be supported) so we shall see.

This whole chapter is about God bringing the gentiles into the kingdom as foretold of Joel. the chapter makes it clear that the spirit coming upon was for a sign of witness to the Jews. It was not for the benefit of the gentiles but to show the Jews (Peter and accompanying party) that Gods will is to add the gentiles. This we know by what Peter says. 45 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.

I assume you are talking about chapter 10. There is no doubt that it was a sign to the Jews. And it was also a sign to the Gentiles that they were also, through faith, God's people. How does that prove that it was not the indwelling? The two are not mutually exclusive. Does the Scripture say that when they were baptized in vs.47-48 that their sins were forgiven and the Holy Spirit indwelt them? No. It does however in v 47 say that they had received the Holy Spirit. What does received mean?

It just so happens that this is also the LAST time it happened in this manner. No other place is it recorded as happening as this in scripture. This out pouring was never promised to all people what is promised is the indwelling spirit (See Acts 2:38 Romans 6:3ff Galatians 3:27 and Acts 19:1-5) and this happened in verses 47,48.

In verse 47 it says they had received the Holy Spirit. Verse 48 says they were baptized because they had received the Holy Spirit. The reason it is not shown as happening that way, is because one it had been made known by the sign that Jew and Gentile both received the Holy Spirit, it did not need to be repeated every time someone got saved. As to the other scriptures you give as "proof" for me to go through them and show what they are saying without yours or my presuppositions (iow no presuppositions) imposed on them would make a long post even longer. If you want to do that you are welcome to take them up in a separate post and I will respond. For now, I will simply say your use of them is presuppositional and in and off themselves, they do not prove that the outpouring is not the indwelling.

So, no proof of the claim that Cornelius did not receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit when it came upon him has been provided. And no proof that he did receive the indwelling in the water baptism has been provided.

Yes this is the whole of teaching the baptism in the name of Christ. It is the way it is taught all through Acts in all the conversions recorded. Just as recorded in Mark 16:15,16. This is one that lots of people reject saying it is an addition to the end of Mark 16 jut this is not the only place we see this pattern. All the new testament teaches believe and be baptized if you let the scriptures talk.

That baptism is commanded of the believer is not the issue. The debate is not for or against baptism. The question attempting to be addressed is whether or not a person receives remission of sins and the indwelling Holy Spirit through water baptism. And the original goal and question was whether or not saying it is how we receive remission of sin and the indwelling Holy Spirit contradicts other clear scriptures on the same subject and those that tell us how we receive remission of sin and the indwelling.

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

John 12:42 Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:

You did not rightly handle this for you cut out the context and only used the paer you wanted to back your bias but the rest of the context is

The subject is not me and whether or not I rightly handled the word of God when I gave those scriptures. I gave the scriptures for a particular purpose, and it did not require the context for that purpose. It was specifically to show that believing, therefore salvation, is mentioned without water baptism for the remission of sins and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. So, to further clarify, what good/purpose is believing if it does not bring the promised blessing of remission of sins and the indwelling Holy Spirit unless one gets water baptized?

46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

See Jesus said to believe in him is to believe his WORDS. Not just pick and chose but to trust in his words as he has given them. So to believe in him you must also believe him when he says baptism is for remission of sin and the giving of the indwelling spirit which is promised to all Acts 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

The debate here is not whether or not we should be baptized. No argument against baptism has been put forth. The debate is whether or not our sins are still held against us even though we believe, until we are water baptized. And whether or not we do not receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit until we are water baptized. And, to return to the original debate, whether if the Bible teaches the latter, is their a contradiction between that and other scriptures on the same subject.

30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house

Again you mishandled the scriptures. You try to build your doctrine on a half truth. You cut off the context again trying to make it say what it does not. They did not just say Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved but they preached the gospel to them telling them what to believe.

32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

And apparently They taught the same gospel as of Act 2 with the same results. You see you are doing a poor job of rightly handling the scriptures. You are butchering them up and using only the tidbits that you try to build your own doctrine on because if you would have read the next two verses you would have seen that baptism was taught.

Me and my handling of the word of God are not the subject. Your handling of the word of God is not the subject. I will answer the same way I answered above when the subject was changed by bringing context into the conversation instead of dealing with the issue. I quoted a small portion of that scripture for a particular purpose. That purpose had to do with the subject of the conversation. They show a place in scripture where believing was said to be the way of salvation, but baptism was not given as a way of salvation at the same time and in the same place. If baptism were needed in order to have sins remitted and to receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, it would need to be said every single time the way of salvation is mentioned. Otherwise, a person can believe and at the same time not be saved. Salvation is the remitting of sins and "believe and you will be saved" has no meaning if it is incomplete.

Yes, the next two verses said they were baptized. No argument against that has been presented. The question is do the next two chapters say they were baptized in order to remit their sins and gain the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?

And again you mishandle

It isn't about me.

You try to make this as an exclusion of the command to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ

I am not and never was arguing against baptism. So, everything that follows is a straw man defense. What I am arguing against is that our sins are remitted and we receive the Holy Spirit by water baptism.

See scripture will back itself if you let it. It has made it clear what the teaching on baptism is and what blessing we receive in the act. You just have to trust and obey what the Lord has said. That is the only way to have faith in Christ is to trust his words for they are truth and life. It is not me that is not rightly handling the word of truth. I have shown where we disagree and gave the scriptures to support it. I have use full context not just cutting off context where I want. Let the public see if I have not given the full context of scriptures.

You made clear your position, but you did not prove your premise. . Eph 1:13 was not given for exegetical comment but for the purpose that I named.


My post #137 was never handled properly by the opposition.

It was treated as though I were:

• Opposing baptism
• Gave the scripture I did for exegetical purposes
• Gave interpretations of those scriptures
• Assumed interpretations of those scriptures
• Was saying I was rightly handling the word of God

When in fact I was

• Asking a question about whether one thing contradicted a particular interpretation of another thing
• Gave small portions of scriptures that illustrated what I needed to be illustrated
• Was not denying baptism

What my opponent did was

• Never answer the question
• Devolve into personal remarks
• Change my scripture quotes from an illustration to a conversation about their context
• Present context as the issue

 

[BillyBob65]

In all your quotes I will mark in bold those things that are unnecessary, ad holmium, and only serve to make the discussion an argument and a pitting of wills against each other. The conversation should be straight forward and stick to points being made, and that is what I will attempt to do. As an opening statement I will say that the "proof" you provide to show that I am not rightly handling the word of God, consists of simply telling me what your interpretation of various scriptures is, without ever touching on the original issue and question. My premise in giving the scriptures I did, letting the words of the scriptures speak for themselves, was, if they are compared to your interpretation of Acts 2:38 meaning that we do not receive forgiveness of our sins or the indwelling of the Holy Spirit until we are baptized, does that create a contradiction within the Bible. It was not given for you to then prove that I was not rightly handling the word of God. It was not about me at all. It was not even about you. It was a question that you have not answered, though I realize you think you have.

In the spirit of good will and hopeful that the exchanges can become profitable, let's look at what you say. You say that the Spirit coming upon Cornelius was not the indwelling. This is not dealing with the issue of my question about does the presence of a specific interpretation of one scripture contradict the clear meaning of others given without any biased interpretation laid over them. Instead, it just finds a way to begin to use the scriptures given to contradict the clear meaning before ever addressing the clear meaning. I believe in what follows you make an attempt to support the claim that Cornelius was not receiving the indwelling (which indeed needs to be supported) so we shall see.

I assume you are talking about chapter 10. There is no doubt that it was a sign to the Jews. And it was also a sign to the Gentiles that they were also, through faith, God's people. How does that prove that it was not the indwelling? The two are not mutually exclusive. Does the Scripture say that when they were baptized in vs.47-48 that their sins were forgiven and the Holy Spirit indwelt them? No. It does however in v 47 say that they had received the Holy Spirit. What does received mean?

In verse 47 it says they had received the Holy Spirit. Verse 48 says they were baptized because they had received the Holy Spirit. The reason it is not shown as happening that way, is because one it had been made known by the sign that Jew and Gentile both received the Holy Spirit, it did not need to be repeated every time someone got saved. As to the other scriptures you give as "proof" for me to go through them and show what they are saying without yours or my presuppositions (iow no presuppositions) imposed on them would make a long post even longer. If you want to do that you are welcome to take them up in a separate post and I will respond. For now, I will simply say your use of them is presuppositional and in and off themselves, they do not prove that the outpouring is not the indwelling.

So, no proof of the claim that Cornelius did not receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit when it came upon him has been provided. And no proof that he did receive the indwelling in the water baptism has been provided.

That baptism is commanded of the believer is not the issue. The debate is not for or against baptism. The question attempting to be addressed is whether or not a person receives remission of sins and the indwelling Holy Spirit through water baptism. And the original goal and question was whether or not saying it is how we receive remission of sin and the indwelling Holy Spirit contradicts other clear scriptures on the same subject and those that tell us how we receive remission of sin and the indwelling.



The subject is not me and whether or not I rightly handled the word of God when I gave those scriptures. I gave the scriptures for a particular purpose, and it did not require the context for that purpose. It was specifically to show that believing, therefore salvation, is mentioned without water baptism for the remission of sins and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. So, to further clarify, what good/purpose is believing if it does not bring the promised blessing of remission of sins and the indwelling Holy Spirit unless one gets water baptized?

The debate here is not whether or not we should be baptized. No argument against baptism has been put forth. The debate is whether or not our sins are still held against us even though we believe, until we are water baptized. And whether or not we do not receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit until we are water baptized. And, to return to the original debate, whether if the Bible teaches the latter, is their a contradiction between that and other scriptures on the same subject.



Me and my handling of the word of God are not the subject. Your handling of the word of God is not the subject. I will answer the same way I answered above when the subject was changed by bringing context into the conversation instead of dealing with the issue. I quoted a small portion of that scripture for a particular purpose. That purpose had to do with the subject of the conversation. They show a place in scripture where believing was said to be the way of salvation, but baptism was not given as a way of salvation at the same time and in the same place. If baptism were needed in order to have sins remitted and to receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, it would need to be said every single time the way of salvation is mentioned. Otherwise, a person can believe and at the same time not be saved. Salvation is the remitting of sins and "believe and you will be saved" has no meaning if it is incomplete.

Yes, the next two verses said they were baptized. No argument against that has been presented. The question is do the next two chapters say they were baptized in order to remit their sins and gain the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?

It isn't about me.

I am not and never was arguing against baptism. So, everything that follows is a straw man defense. What I am arguing against is that our sins are remitted and we receive the Holy Spirit by water baptism.

You made clear your position, but you did not prove your premise. . Eph 1:13 was not given for exegetical comment but for the purpose that I named.


My post #137 was never handled properly by the opposition.

It was treated as though I were:

• Opposing baptism
• Gave the scripture I did for exegetical purposes
• Gave interpretations of those scriptures
• Assumed interpretations of those scriptures
• Was saying I was rightly handling the word of God

When in fact I was

• Asking a question about whether one thing contradicted a particular interpretation of another thing
• Gave small portions of scriptures that illustrated what I needed to be illustrated
• Was not denying baptism

What my opponent did was

• Never answer the question
• Devolve into personal remarks
• Change my scripture quotes from an illustration to a conversation about their context
• Present context as the issue

Post will follow it was to long to give the quote from your or original pots

 

[BillyBob65]

@ Arial

I assume you are talking about chapter 10. There is no doubt that it was a sign to the Jews. And it was also a sign to the Gentiles that they were also, through faith, God's people. How does that prove that it was not the indwelling? The two are not mutually exclusive. Does the Scripture say that when they were baptized in vs.47-48 that their sins were forgiven and the Holy Spirit indwelt them? No. It does however in v 47 say that they had received the Holy Spirit. What does received mean?

See it is faulty reasoning. You are missing the point that in verse 47,48 that is a direct reference to Acts 2:38. Acts 2:38 is the baptism in the name of Christ the only one that says that the indwelling spirit is given. How do you know that the indwelling was given in verse 48 rather than 44? the power upon is the one that the miracles gifts are associated with not the indwelling because scripture teaches that the indwelling produces fruit not miraculous gifts. We have to study all the word to know this not just one chapter.

In verse 47 it says they had received the Holy Spirit. Verse 48 says they were baptized because they had received the Holy Spirit. The reason it is not shown as happening that way, is because one it had been made known by the sign that Jew and Gentile both received the Holy Spirit, it did not need to be repeated every time someone got saved. As to the other scriptures you give as "proof" for me to go through them and show what they are saying without yours or my presuppositions (iow no presuppositions) imposed on them would make a long post even longer. If you want to do that you are welcome to take them up in a separate post and I will respond. For now, I will simply say your use of them is presuppositional and in and off themselves, they do not prove that the outpouring is not the indwelling.

So, no proof of the claim that Cornelius did not receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit when it came upon him has been provided. And no proof that he did receive the indwelling in the water baptism has been provided.

Again you totally miss the boat by not quoting the whole text. 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? the bold text you left out is key to understanding this . As well as we is pointing back to when the outpouring happened to the Apostles in Acts 2. There were many conversions between here and there and this is the only time it happens in this manner since on them in Acts 2. The power of witness is not the indwelling but a separate working of the spirit for a specific reason. The indwelling produces fruit not the power of witness. That has to be given by the laying on of hands.

The proof is right there in the chapter you just have to understand what the scriptures are revealing.

That baptism is commanded of the believer is not the issue. The debate is not for or against baptism. The question attempting to be addressed is whether or not a person receives remission of sins and the indwelling Holy Spirit through water baptism. And the original goal and question was whether or not saying it is how we receive remission of sin and the indwelling Holy Spirit contradicts other clear scriptures on the same subject and those that tell us how we receive remission of sin and the indwelling.

The scriptures are not in contradiction it is mans view that is in contradiction. The scriptures back each other and has been given to show how they all harmonize. It is mans bias that is causing the confusion because of a bias understanding and trying to make the scriptures say what is needed to fill that bias. If you see contradiction then you must rethink your understanding not try to rewrite the scripture of say that they can no mean what look obvious .

The subject is not me and whether or not I rightly handled the word of God when I gave those scriptures. I gave the scriptures for a particular purpose, and it did not require the context for that purpose. It was specifically to show that believing, therefore salvation, is mentioned without water baptism for the remission of sins and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. So, to further clarify, what good/purpose is believing if it does not bring the promised blessing of remission of sins and the indwelling Holy Spirit unless one gets water baptized?

Here is a perfect violation of rightly handling the word.you said "I gave the scriptures for a particular purpose, and it did not require the context for that purpose. " Yes it does require context when you quote Gods word. It has to mean what it means in context not ripped out of context as a proof text to try to fit a complete different meaning. Those was your words not mine that context doesn't matter. That says a lot as to why you are having trouble see the truth of scripture and a direct violation of rightly handling the word. Your words are not creditable if they are not the oracles of God.That make for man made doctrine not Gods revelation.

The debate here is not whether or not we should be baptized. No argument against baptism has been put forth. The debate is whether or not our sins are still held against us even though we believe, until we are water baptized. And whether or not we do not receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit until we are water baptized. And, to return to the original debate, whether if the Bible teaches the latter, is their a contradiction between that and other scriptures on the same subject.

This we try to let the bible answer but we have to accept what it says and can not just say well that is not what it means.

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.
Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Acts 19:2 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.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 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.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

See the bible does say that Acts 2:38 is for the remission of sin and the giving of the indwelling spirit. MOD EDIT: Rule violating content removed. Please do not make comments or remonstrances belittling or indicating directly that an opponent is not believing Scriptures or otherwise lacking Christian virtues. This is a violation of Rule 2.1 and 2.2.

Me and my handling of the word of God are not the subject. Your handling of the word of God is not the subject. I will answer the same way I answered above when the subject was changed by bringing context into the conversation instead of dealing with the issue. I quoted a small portion of that scripture for a particular purpose. That purpose had to do with the subject of the conversation. They show a place in scripture where believing was said to be the way of salvation, but baptism was not given as a way of salvation at the same time and in the same place. If baptism were needed in order to have sins remitted and to receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, it would need to be said every single time the way of salvation is mentioned. Otherwise, a person can believe and at the same time not be saved. Salvation is the remitting of sins and "believe and you will be saved" has no meaning if it is incomplete.

Yes, the next two verses said they were baptized. No argument against that has been presented. The question is do the next two chapters say they were baptized in order to remit their sins and gain the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?

MOD EDIT: Rule violating content removed. Please abide by Rules 2.1 and 2.2 concerning peace and contention. By only posting part of a scripture out of context is not the way we study the bible. every aspect of the plan of salvation does not have to be repeated every time. If God said anything one time that should be enough for we are to trust Gods word he should not have to keep repeating himself and to say otherwise is just reflecting from the truth to hold onto our bias and we all know that to be true. I can not believe you would say different if you are wise in scripture. It is about you and me because if we discuss Gods word we are to do so in the oracles of God not change what he said or dismiss something as can't be true.

I am not and never was arguing against baptism. So, everything that follows is a straw man defense. What I am arguing against is that our sins are remitted and we receive the Holy Spirit by water baptism.

MOD EDIT: Rules violating content removed. Please read Rules 2.1 and 2.2 and apply.

When in fact I was
1. Asking a question about whether one thing contradicted a particular interpretation of another thing
2.Gave small portions of scriptures that illustrated what I needed to be illustrated
3.Was not denying baptism

1. your opponent did answer your question with scriptural support in context with each answer
2. that was taken out of the context for the full meaning of the small portion you chose which did not give the true meaning of the verse you ripped it from.
3. but refusing to accept the reason God gave to the baptism in Christ name thus making it not the baptism that Jesus authorized but man made version to fit a bias.

 

[BillyBob65]

Checkmate

 

[Arial]

See it is faulty reasoning. You are missing the point that in verse 47,48 that is a direct reference to Acts 2:38.

I will respond to this post simply to point out the incorrect hermeneutical approach to "scripture interprets scripture" and when I come to it, the correct hermeneutical approach to context. Just in case there are those who listen when they read. The first thing that confuses the issue is that you identify Acts 2:38 and then mention vs. 47 and 48 without identifying that they come from a different chapter. Chapter 10.

How can Acts 10:47.48 be a direct reference to Acts 2:38 when the people in chapter 10 are in a whole different place and did not hear what Peter said in Acts 2? Cornelius had not even heard the gospel. The implication in the text is that he was a Jewish convert and worshiped the God of Israel.

"Scripture interprets scripture" does not mean randomly applying one scripture to another random scripture and coming up with an interpretation that does not fit into the context where it is being forced into. You have forced your interpretation of Acts 2:38 into Acts 10:47,48 when there is no contextual connection between the two. IOW you have interpret Acts 10 through Acts 2 instead of through its own narrative statements. That is context override.

Acts 2:38 is the baptism in the name of Christ the only one that says that the indwelling spirit is given.

That is not true.
Eph 1:13-14

In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,
who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.
When you heard and believed. Not when you were water baptized.

How do you know that the indwelling was given in verse 48 rather than 44?

How do you know it wasn't? I know it because it says so in plain English.

the power upon is the one that the miracles gifts are associated with not the indwelling because scripture teaches that the indwelling produces fruit not miraculous gifts. We have to study all the word to know this not just one chapter.

Miraculous gifts were given to the apostles to authenticate the authority of what they said. Do you think they weren't also indwelt? Where does Scripture differentiate between the Holy Spirit coming upon and his indwelling, saying the first produces miraces and the second fruit?

We do indeed have to study all the word not just one chapter, or in the case of your posts, one scripture from which you interpret all other scriptures, so now would be a good time for you to learn what it means to handle it rightly.

Here is what Acts 2:38 means when it is grammatically examined. I will give it in summary form to save space. You can look up the details yourself.

Acts 2:38 grammatically links forgiveness and the promise of the Spirit to repentance, while baptism is commanded as a consequent act of identification; reading baptism as the means of remission or indwelling requires overriding the syntax and the rest of Luke–Acts.

It actually says plainly

Repent — because forgiveness of sins is now proclaimed in Christ —
and let each of you be baptized in His name as the public identification with that forgiveness,
and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

If Acts 2:38 teaches sins are not forgiven until baptism and the Spirit does not indwell until baptism, then Acts immediately contradicts itself here:

• Acts 10:44 — Spirit falls before baptism
• Acts 11:17 — Peter says this was identical to Pentecost
• Acts 15:8–9 — God cleansed hearts by faith
• Acts 3:19 — repentance → forgiveness (no baptism mentioned)

 

[Arial]

Again you totally miss the boat by not quoting the whole text. 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? the bold text you left out is key to understanding this

The key to understanding it is to not impose an interpretation of one single scripture and use it as the base for interpreting all other scripture. "As well as we" adds nothing to your assertion and it takes nothing away from mine. You are not only imposing your interpretation of Acts 2 into Acts 10, but you are also imposing the context of Acts 2 into Acts 10.

As well as we is pointing back to when the outpouring happened to the Apostles in Acts 2. There were many conversions between here and there and this is the only time it happens in this manner since on them in Acts 2.

He was not pointing anywhere. That would mean nothing to Cornelius---he wasn't there. And the only reason it never happened again as it did at Pentecost is because that was a one-time event that did what God sent it to do then and there. The reason the same manifestation was given in the case of Cornelius was to establish in Peter and all the Jews that Jews were not the only ones Christ came to save. There were only Jews at Pentecost.

The scriptures are not in contradiction it is mans view that is in contradiction.

That is what I have been pointing out to you. And you keep insisting that you have not created a contradiction when you say that salvation (which does not exist without remission of sins and the indwelling of the Spirit) is either distinct from the remitting of sins and the indwelling, or, the indwelling and remission of sin is through baptism, when Scripture repeatedly states that salvation is through faith, not water baptism. That is a contradiction. You can't make it a non-contradiction by imposing your interpretation of Acts 2 into a context where it has no place. Which is what you have done and continue to do over and over. That is not the definition of scripture interpreting scripture and it is not the definition of using context, and it is not the definition of using the full counsel of God.

The scriptures back each other and has been given to show how they all harmonize. It is mans bias that is causing the confusion because of a bias understanding and trying to make the scriptures say what is needed to fill that bias.

Does "man's" bias apply to everyone but you?

If you see contradiction then you must rethink your understanding not try to rewrite the scripture of say that they can no mean what look obvious .

What do you think I have been doing? I saw a contradiction with your interpretation of Acts 2: 38 and other (many) scriptures that contradict that view. So I set out to discover without rewriting anything as I know that would defeat my purpose, why Acts 2 is not contradicting those passages that say believing is the way of salvation, (no remitting of sins means no salvation as salvation is the remitting of sins); that say we are saved by grace through faith etc.; and I did a bit of a study on baptism, both John's and the Christian. Then I looked into the Greek rendering of that passage to see if that would help establish what it was saying. In this thread and in this last set of discourse, I have been presenting my evidence to show it is you who created a contradiciton by not correctly interpreting the verse. So why not take your own advice and rethink your position instead of letting your bias force itself into everything else?

 

[Arial]

Here is a perfect violation of rightly handling the word.you said "I gave the scriptures for a particular purpose, and it did not require the context for that purpose. " Yes it does require context when you quote Gods word. It has to mean what it means in context not ripped out of context as a proof text to try to fit a complete different meaning.

Which is what you did, ripped chapter 2 out of its context and imposed it into the context of chapter 10.

The reason my examples did not require the context was because it said the same thing even in the context. It showed what was not there in relation to salvation while at the same time speaking of salvation and how we are saved. My point was what was NOT there. Water baptism. Salvation was there, forgiveness was there, the indwelling Spirit was there---but no water baptism.

Your answer is that it didn't need to be because it was in Acts 2. Here is an eye opener. The people the apostles were writing to and Luke in Acts, did not have the NT. There would always be those and even maybe most, who had never seen or heard what we have in our canon as Acts. So, if a person's sins were not remitted and the Spirit did not indwell unless a person was baptized in water, that would be the most necessary of all to be said every single time.

 

[Arial]

Those was your words not mine that context doesn't matter. That says a lot as to why you are having trouble see the truth of scripture and a direct violation of rightly handling the word. Your words are not creditable if they are not the oracles of God.That make for man made doctrine not Gods revelation.

How many of those straw men do you have in your back pocket? I didn't say context doesn't matter. In red and crossed through is a rules violation so watch your mouth. What I said was it was immaterial for making the particular point I was making. (See post 150 so I don't have to repeat it for a fourth time.)

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.

Already dealt with.

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

From chat GPT
Here is a careful Greek-to-English grammatical breakdown of Acts 22:16, showing exactly what the verse says, what the grammar allows, and—critically—what it does not say. This is one of the most abused verses in baptismal-regeneration arguments, so precision matters.

ἐπικαλεσάμενος​

• Aorist middle participle
• Modifies the two imperatives βάπτισαι and ἀπόλουσαι
• Indicates means or attendant circumstance, not instrumentality of baptism

This participle is the only explicit action tied to sin-washing.

The grammar does not say​

“Be baptized so that baptism washes away your sins.”

There is:

• No preposition (εἰς / διά / ἐκ) linking baptism to forgiveness
• No causal construction
• No explicit statement that water effects remission

B. The participle gives the means:​

“Wash away your sins by calling on His name”

This is grammatically clean and biblically consistent:

• Romans 10:13 – “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved”
• Acts 2:21 – same phrase
• Acts 9:14 – Christians are those who “call on His name”

Why “wash away” is not literal water​

A.​

• Used for moral or spiritual cleansing
• Same idea as:
  
  • Isaiah 1:16 (LXX): “wash yourselves; make yourselves clean”
  • 1 Corinthians 6:11: “you were washed… in the name of the Lord Jesus”

B. Paul was already regenerate​

Before Acts 22:16:

• He saw Christ (Acts 9:3–6)
• He called Him “Lord”
• He was praying (Acts 9:11)
• Ananias called him “Brother Saul”

So Acts 22:16 cannot be describing initial regeneration by water.

---

6. The middle voice matters​

Both imperatives are middle voice:

• βάπτισαι — “have yourself baptized”
• ἀπόλουσαι — “wash yourself”

The middle voice emphasizes personal appropriation, not mechanical causation.

7. How English should reflect the grammar​

A faithful sense-translation:

“And now why do you delay? Rise, be baptized, and cleanse yourself from your sins by calling on His name.”

This preserves:

• the participle’s force
• the means of cleansing
• the non-causal role of baptism

One-sentence refutation of baptismal regeneration from Acts 22:16​

Acts 22:16 does not teach that baptism washes away sins; grammatically, the washing is connected to calling on the Lord’s name, while baptism is a commanded response accompanying that appeal.

Connection to Acts 2:38 (quietly devastating)​

Both passages:

• place forgiveness with repentance / calling on the Lord
• command baptism as a response
• never grammatically assign remission to water

Luke is consistent. The theology that isn’t comes later.

 

[BillyBob65]

Which is what you did, ripped chapter 2 out of its context and imposed it into the context of chapter 10.

The reason my examples did not require the context was because it said the same thing even in the context. It showed what was not there in relation to salvation while at the same time speaking of salvation and how we are saved. My point was what was NOT there. Water baptism. Salvation was there, forgiveness was there, the indwelling Spirit was there---but no water baptism.

The reason my examples did not require the context was because it said the same thing even in the context. It showed what was not there in relation to salvation while at the same time speaking of salvation and how we are saved. My point was what was NOT there. Water baptism. Salvation was there, forgiveness was there, the indwelling Spirit was there---but no water baptism.

Which is what you did, ripped chapter 2 out of its context and imposed it into the context of chapter 10.

What I did was show that the scriptures teach that the baptism of Acts 10 :48 was the same one as of Acts 2:38

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.

Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

See same baptism It is scripture people are arguing against not me

The reason my examples did not require the context was because it said the same thing even in the context. It showed what was not there in relation to salvation while at the same time speaking of salvation and how we are saved. My point was what was NOT there. Water baptism. Salvation was there, forgiveness was there, the indwelling Spirit was there---but no water baptism.

I already shown this to be false but it was deleted so I can not respond to this being I am being censored. I would tell you to go back to see what I said but it is no longer there.

The reason my examples did not require the context was because it said the same thing even in the context. It showed what was not there in relation to salvation while at the same time speaking of salvation and how we are saved. My point was what was NOT there. Water baptism. Salvation was there, forgiveness was there, the indwelling Spirit was there---but no water baptism.

I could try to help you see the faulty reasoning with this but it will be considered an attack on the person not their view and deleted as is already being done so no need to even try to answer such a ridiculous reasoning. When being censored it does no go to try to explain anything you see the opponent as wrongly viewing.

 

[BillyBob65]

What I did was show that the scriptures teach that the baptism of Acts 10 :48 was the same one as of Acts 2:38

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.

Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

See same baptism It is scripture people are arguing against not me


I already shown this to be false but it was deleted so I can not respond to this being I am being censored. I would tell you to go back to see what I said but it is no longer there.


I could try to help you see the faulty reasoning with this but it will be considered an attack on the person not their view and deleted as is already being done so no need to even try to answer such a ridiculous reasoning. When being censored it does no go to try to explain anything you see the opponent as wrongly viewing.

see there is your problem you trust Chat GPT over the actual text of the bible . I can go and ask it in a different way and it will give a different answer already tried that so NO I will not let CHAT GPT do my studying for me.

 

[JesusFan]

Yes isn't that what Paul is saying in Romans 6 It is in baptism in the name of Christ where we are baptized into his death (cleansed by the blood)

That would be the Baptism of the Holy Spirit in to the person of Jesus and the body of Christ via faith, not by the water

 

[JesusFan]

see there is your problem you trust Chat GPT over the actual text of the bible . I can go and ask it in a different way and it will give a different answer already tried that so NO I will not let CHAT GPT do my studying for me.

Did not Jesus ALWAYS state that they believed in him, had faith in Him, that was what counted, not water baptism? And what mode of Baptism counts, is it immersed, dipped, sprinkled? is it in the name of Jesus Only?

 

[makesends]

Miraculous gifts were given to the apostles to authenticate the authority of what they said. Do you think they weren't also indwelt? Where does Scripture differentiate between the Holy Spirit coming upon and his indwelling, saying the first produces miraces and the second fruit?

To clarify, for the reader, @Arial is referring here to God's working on the believer, and even that, referring to some [supposedly] necessary difference between the two notions. It is indeed shown in several places, that the Spirit of God can both 1) 'fall upon' an unregenerate unbeliever, as seen in the Old Testament, for a special purpose, and 2) 'fall upon' a regenerate believer, as seen in the New Testament, also for a special purpose. But that is not what she is arguing against here, except for the notion that this 'being fallen upon' by the Holy Spirit is always and everywhere a separate issue (or separate occurrence) from regeneration. It is not. To say that it is, as I also used to say, is (or, at least for me, 'was') a result of a definition made necessary by the theology in which I grew up.

According to the theology in which I grew up, since the work of the Spirit was necessarily everywhere and always of one or the other of two categories, the 'Baptism of the Spirit' would necessarily have to be the term to describe what happened to King Saul (search, "Is Saul also among the prophets?"). Rather obviously, I think, Saul was not regenerated, yet we also shouldn't call that, "Baptism", as there was no soteriological implication made there. He was merely overwhelmed.

In John 3 we are shown that, as unaccountable as the wind, the Spirit does what it will, quite apart from our will or even our understanding.

 

[Arial]

What I did was show that the scriptures teach that the baptism of Acts 10 :48 was the same one as of Acts 2:38

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.

Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

See same baptism It is scripture people are arguing against not me

Here you simply changed the subject of the debate. I never claimed it wasn't the same baptism. And you failed to address the fact that you are imposing the context of Acts 2 and your interpretation into the context of chapter 10. If you think that I don't notice these things, and that no one else does, you are mistaken there too. You aren't dealing with your own mishandling. You just avoid dealing with it. Hoping it will go away??

I already shown this to be false but it was deleted so I can not respond to this being I am being censored. I would tell you to go back to see what I said but it is no longer there.

The only things that were deleted (ediited) as far as I know were violations of rules 2.1 and 2.2 which deal how we treat one another here. So try and say it without insulting people or changing the subject. Here, I will give you a chance to do so. This is the content you said was false and why.

The reason my examples did not require the context was because it said the same thing even in the context. It showed what was not there in relation to salvation while at the same time speaking of salvation and how we are saved. My point was what was NOT there. Water baptism. Salvation was there, forgiveness was there, the indwelling Spirit was there---but no water baptism.

I could try to help you see the faulty reasoning with this but it will be considered an attack on the person not their view and deleted as is already being done so no need to even try to answer such a ridiculous reasoning. When being censored it does no go to try to explain anything you see the opponent as wrongly viewing.

Do it without attacking the person or accusing them of not believing scripture because they disagree with you. Address the issues posed. I have no idea what was deleted but I know that no mod here deletes something just because they disagree with what was said. You are not being censored. How do you explain the fact that the only things that are edited (and I have marked them many times without deleting them and told you they were marked for rules violations so you could see what is considered a rule violation so don't be blaming the messenger) are derogatory remarks about the person or their ability to understand scripture or that they don't believe scripture? Everything else is still standing. That whole post above is off topic and only about persons. So, no more of that. I have posted a lot of material in rebuttal to your rebuttal, broken into several posts and I still have more to go, and I can't see that you have addresses any of it, just complained about being censored.

You posted "checkmate" while I was still working on my first response, but there was no checkmate.

 

[Arial]

see there is your problem you trust Chat GPT over the actual text of the bible . I can go and ask it in a different way and it will give a different answer already tried that so NO I will not let CHAT GPT do my studying for me.

See what I marked in bold up there? That is an example of rule violation 2,2 and 2.1. Read them and remember you agreed to follow them when you joined.
2.2. Address the issue, topic, or argument, not the person. Such things as inflammatory or marginalizing language, divisiveness, misquoting, misrepresenting, trolling, and personal attacks (including belittling, insulting, falsely accusing, or making assumptions about the character, motives, or faith of other members) are strictly prohibited. It only serves to derail meaningful theological discussion. Avoid speech that incites needless conflict, fosters resentment, seeks to stir up strife among believers, or exaggerates or distorts another member's words in order to discredit them or to win an argument. When quoting or summarizing another member’s position, do so honestly, in context, and preferably with a citation to ensure that their views are represented accurately and fairly. Aim to promote unity in Christ while allowing for meaningful debate, speaking the truth in love and humility, recognizing that all wisdom and understanding comes from God (cf. Rule 2.1).
2.1. All members must engage in discussions with humility, respect, and peace (Eph 4:2; Rom 12:18; Matt 7:12; 1 Cor 13:1-13). Discussions should be constructive, seeking to edify rather than tear down. Approach discussions with a willingness to listen, a readiness to learn, and a heart that seeks to edify fellow believers in unity with Christ Jesus.

As a response to your post, I used ChatGPT for the grammatical breakdown of the passage because I am not a Greek scholar and my Bible is written in English. I do not use ChatGPT for my Bible study. And I do not trust ChatGPT over the Bible. An apology would be welcome. My prompt to ChatGPT was to give me a grammatical breakdown of Acts 22:16. Ask the same question any old way you want, post the question and response, and we will see what happens.

 

[makesends]

That it is in the name of Jesus is not what we are dealing with. Whether is is immersed, dipped, or sprinkled is not the issue we are dealing with. What is being debated is your claim that sins are remitted and the Spirit indwell by water baptism. If the constant change in subject is because you have recognized that you may have been mistaken in your interpretation of Acts 2:38, just say so or if that is too much to ask, and I understand if it is, then just stop trying to give the appearance of having not conceded by changing the subject. If the realization has finally come home to rest in your heart, I praise God for it.

Not sure, but it appears you have confused @JesusFan with @BillyBob65 here. I read him to be opposing your opposition. He seems to me to agree with you.

His argument refers to those things which, though tangential to the discussion, are what the text is about, as over against what BillyBob claims. He asks BillyBob to explain the particulars of what he thinks the text is about, to demonstrate the impossible nature of his claim.

But I haven't read all he has said. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[BillyBob65]

That would be the Baptism of the Holy Spirit in to the person of Jesus and the body of Christ via faith, not by the water

You have to be able to prove this with scripture. Can you give Scripture to prove this is what you call the Baptism of the Holy Spirit?