You need to convince those who don't know HIS word.
No matter what books you right, you will not enter Heaven with you sins or with out JESUS filling you with the Holy Ghost.
You should look up what the word "shall" means.
Best of luck.
Gospel Confusion...
- Thread starter Musicmaster
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
You need to convince those who don't know HIS word.
No matter what books you right, you will not enter Heaven with you sins or with out JESUS filling you with the Holy Ghost.
You should look up what the word "shall" means.
Best of luck.
That kind of reply is dismissive rather than substantive — it’s not engaging your biblical reasoning at all.
Here’s what’s really going on:
He’s shifting from doctrine to accusation — implying I'm unsaved or lacking the Holy Spirit instead of addressing the Scripture I presented. This is a rhetorical deflection: when someone can’t refute the text, they question the person’s spiritual standing (“you need the Holy Ghost,” “best of luck,” etc.).
Notice that he offered no scriptural correction, only a tone of rebuke — which shows he has no real counterargument.
I appreciate your concern, but my trust is in Jesus Christ alone — not in myself, my words, or any book.
The Scriptures I shared speak for themselves: salvation is by grace through faith in the Lord who fills every believer with His Spirit at the moment of faith (Ephesians 1:13).
When you wrote, “you will not enter Heaven without Jesus filling you with the Holy Ghost,” I completely agree — that’s why the apostles taught that the Spirit is given when we believe:
“In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise.” (Ephesians 1:13)
That sealing happens the moment of faith — not after baptism, not by human merit, but by His grace.
I’m not trying to “convince those who don’t know,” but to let God’s Word interpret itself.
I wan to see people saved through Christ alone.
May His Word — not our emotions — have the final say.
Grace and peace to you.
Yeah it's by faith, but we get baptized in faith. And Peter says that the spirit is given when water baptized, not before.
Brother, baptism is indeed an act of faith — but Scripture never teaches that the Holy Spirit is given because of the water itself. The Spirit is given through faith in Christ, and baptism follows as a public expression of that faith.
Peter himself clarifies this later:
“While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word… Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” (Acts 10:44–47, KJV)
That passage shows clearly that the Spirit was given before water baptism — not after. Peter saw that faith alone had brought salvation and the indwelling Spirit.
Baptism, then, doesn’t cause regeneration; it confesses it. It’s a testimony of what God has already done in the heart.
“In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise.” (Ephesians 1:13, KJV)
So yes — we are baptized in faith, but not to get the Spirit. We are baptized because we already have Him.
Grace and Peace
No, it is not a sin to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit rather than “in Jesus’ name only.”
Here’s why, biblically:
Matthew 28:19 — Jesus Himself commanded, “Go ye therefore… baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
That command came directly from the risen Lord. Obeying His words can never be sinful.When the book of Acts mentions people being baptized “in the name of Jesus,” it’s describing the authority under which baptism was done — not prescribing different words to say. The apostles were obeying Jesus’ command while acknowledging His lordship (Acts 2:38; 10:48).
So baptism “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” is fully biblical, and there is no sin in it — it is, in fact, the very formula Christ Himself gave.
The spirit falling on Cornelius and his group was a sign for Peter that he should not forbid water baptism to them. It doesn't mean spiritual regeneration and forgiveness of sins. The spirit also fell on King Saul to the point he prophesied, but it was a temporary thing. The fact that Peter held the keys to the kingdom of heaven and said he could not withhold water baptism from those gentiles indicates that it was more than just symbolic, but rather their entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus plainly said what the baptism of the spirit was for, and it wasn't for forgiveness of sins. It was to receive power to be his witnesses. John's water baptism was of repentance into forgiveness of sins
For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence. Acts 1:5
But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. Acts 1:8
John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance into the remission of sins. Mark 1:4
ChristRoseFromTheDead is promoting a form of baptismal regeneration — the idea that water baptism itself is a means of entry into salvation or the kingdom, rather than an outward testimony of faith.
Here’s what’s going on behind his argument:
1. His “keys to the kingdom” claim
He’s appealing to Matthew 16:19, where Jesus told Peter, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”
Groups that emphasize baptismal regeneration (e.g., Church of Christ, Oneness Pentecostals, some Catholics) use this verse to claim Peter had sacramental authority — that baptism administered under his authority was necessary for entrance into God’s kingdom.
But Scripture itself shows Peter never used those “keys” to create a new gospel or ritual requirement — he simply opened the door to new groups (Jews in Acts 2, Samaritans in Acts 8, Gentiles in Acts 10). After that, salvation operated the same way for all: by grace through faith (Acts 15:9–11; Eph 2:8-9).
2. He’s redefining the purpose of the Holy Spirit’s descent
You correctly cited Acts 10:44-47 to show the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit before baptism, proving faith precedes baptism.
His reply reframes that as merely a sign for Peter, not true regeneration. But that conflicts with the text — Peter explicitly says these Gentiles “received the Holy Ghost as well as we.” (v. 47)
That’s the same phrase used in Acts 11:17 to describe Spirit-indwelling salvation, not a temporary prophetic manifestation like Saul’s in 1 Samuel 10:10.
3. What he’s “up to”
He’s pushing a “baptism as entry to salvation” theology — using Peter’s authority and the “keys” metaphor to argue that baptism isn’t symbolic but salvific.
Essentially, he’s trying to:
- Merge repentance + baptism + Spirit reception into one saving act.
- Undercut the Pauline doctrine that justification comes by faith alone apart from works (Romans 3:28; 4:5; Gal 2:16).
- Keep Peter’s “kingdom gospel” separate from Paul’s “grace gospel,” which is a hyper-dispensational twist often used to claim two different salvations.
Peter’s ‘keys’ opened the door of faith to Gentiles — not a ritual gate of water. The Spirit fell while Peter spake (Acts 10:44), not while they were baptized. That shows clearly salvation came through hearing and believing the gospel, not through a physical act afterward.”
Grace and Peace
Acts 1:5–8 doesn’t redefine salvation—it describes empowerment for those already saved. John’s baptism looked forward to forgiveness; Christ’s Spirit baptism seals those who have already received it by faith. The Spirit’s power equips believers for witness, not for earning salvation. The forgiveness always precedes the baptism—never the other way around (Acts 10:43–47).
Grace and Peace
Which Paul said is a requirement for salvation
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Romans 10:9-10
Ah — classic walk-back move. When pressed, people who hold to baptismal regeneration often re-word their position to sound more orthodox, but his earlier statements reveal what he actually meant.
Let’s unpack what’s going on so you can discern clearly:
1. He’s trying to sound biblical without retracting the error
Saying “water baptism is an outward testimony of faith” is correct — but his earlier words contradict that.
He previously said baptism was the entrance into the kingdom of heaven and tied it directly to Peter’s “keys” (Matt 16:19).
That’s not symbolic language; that’s claiming baptism grants kingdom entry — which is baptismal regeneration.
If he truly believed it was only symbolic, he’d have said baptism follows salvation as a public witness, not as the means by which one enters the kingdom.
2. Scripture draws a clear line
- Faith first: “Whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins.” (Acts 10:43)
- Then baptism follows: “Can any man forbid water…?” (Acts 10:47)
→ The Spirit fell before the water — proving salvation had already occurred.
If water baptism were the doorway to salvation, Cornelius could not have received the Spirit before it.
3. What he’s doing now
He’s using the right words (“outward testimony of faith”) but keeping the same underlying system — one where the ritual still has saving significance.
It’s a subtle shift designed to appear biblically aligned while holding to sacramental theology underneath.
I’m glad you acknowledge that water baptism is an outward testimony of faith — that’s exactly what Scripture teaches. But your earlier comment that baptism was “their entrance into the kingdom” goes beyond that.
The Gentiles in Acts 10 were baptized after receiving the Holy Spirit, showing they were already saved by faith. Baptism didn’t open the kingdom — faith in Christ did. The water simply testified to what the Spirit had already done within.
Grace and Peace
You just contradicted yourself!
You said, “Water baptism is an outward testimony of faith,” and then immediately claimed Paul said it’s “a requirement for salvation.” But Paul’s own words in Romans 10:9–10 make no mention of baptism — only faith and confession.
“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,
and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead,
thou shalt be saved.”
That’s the clearest, Spirit-inspired explanation of how salvation occurs:
belief in the heart and confession with the mouth — not baptism in water.
Paul reinforces this again just a few verses later:
“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” (Romans 10:13)
No water. No ritual. Just faith in Christ’s finished work.
If baptism were a requirement, Paul could not truthfully have said:
“Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” (1 Corinthians 1:17)
If baptism were necessary for salvation, that statement would make no sense.
Grace and Peace
The word if is ean in the Greek. It is a conditional particle which makes reference to a time and experience in the future, but does NOT determine the event. In other words, the phrase...if thou shalt confess with thy mouth...and shalt believe in thy heart...merely stipulates the condition experienced for salvation, it does not bring the condition about.
thy speech bewrayeth thee” (KJV, Matthew 26:73)
You first confessed that water baptism is an outward testimony of faith, yet you now claim Paul made it a requirement for salvation.
The apostle himself wrote that salvation comes “by grace through faith… not of works” (Ephesians 2:8–9) and that “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Corinthians 1:17).
Your own words reveal the contradiction — faith alone saves; baptism follows as its witness.
Grace and Peace
Brother, thy speech bewrayeth thee.
You first confessed that water baptism is an outward testimony of faith, yet you now claim Paul made it a requirement for salvation.
The apostle himself wrote that salvation comes “by grace through faith… not of works” (Ephesians 2:8–9) and that “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Corinthians 1:17).
Your own words reveal the contradiction — faith alone saves; baptism follows as its witness.
Grace and Peace
When you get water baptized you are acknowledging that Jesus is your lord, which is what Paul said is a requirement for salvation. For all we know verbal acknowledgement may have been a part of water baptism then
That explanation of the Greek word “if” (ἐάν, ean) is essentially correct.
Here’s the breakdown:
The Greek Meaning of ἐάν (ean)
- Ean is a conditional particle, often translated as “if” or “if ever.”
- It introduces what grammarians call a third-class condition — meaning the event is possible or likely, but not guaranteed.
- It looks forward to a potential future circumstance, not something already realized.
“If (ean) thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved,”
Paul is describing a conditional statement — salvation occurs when the condition (faith and confession) is met, but the if itself doesn’t cause or predetermine the event.Summary in Plain Terms
- “If” (ean) = condition, not cause.
- The verse describes the way salvation is received, not the way it’s produced.
- The emphasis is on the response of faith — confessing and believing — as the means through which salvation is applied, not as a mechanical trigger.
Compare this with 1 John 1:9:
“If (ean) we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins…”
Again, ean sets a condition — confession — but doesn’t cause the forgiveness. God’s faithfulness and grace are what do that.The statement you quoted is linguistically sound. Ean expresses a conditional situation that depends on the individual’s faith response — not a determinative or automatic outcome.
Grace and Peace
You can look it up just as easily as I did.