Saved by Water

It has more to do with what you do with Jesus Christ.

If He isn't real, and I believe in Him, I have lost nothing for having believed in Him.

I know that I know that I know that I am saved to the bone.

How impossible it is for anyone to receive the Holy Spirit unless our sins are washed away. Baptism signifies that this has happened to us, that we are truly born again.

Baptism with water does not impart anything to us.

Whoeever saw Christ, saw the Father (John 14:7-11).

And of course I am not purporting that baptism in Jesus' Name is essential to salvation.

I am saying that there is a conditional promise in Acts 2:38-39 and that if we fulfill the condition, we will receive the promise.

I am trusting 100% in Jesus and what He did for me on the Cross.

My baptism in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth for the remission of sins is an identification with His death, burial, and resurrection; and as such, it is a confession of Jesus Christ before men.

Have you received remission of sins?

What verse tells you that you have received the remission of sins and on what basis?

I would contend that the blood is in the water of baptism (compare Acts 2:38 to Hebrews 9:22).

That we appropriate the blood through being baptized in Jesus' Name.

You just don't believe that the experience was salvation to you.

But it was salvation to you whether you believe it or not.

Because there is a distinct possibility that I am right and you are wrong.

Are you going to gamble your eternity on the concept that you are right on this issue?

If you are wrong, then you lose out on the gamble and will perish eternally because of it.

It is expedient to take "water" in John 3:5 literally as being the waters of baptism.

I totally agree that baptism is the no.1. way, God's ordained way. of testifying to the world that we have died and are buried with Christ and God has raised us up to walk in newness of life. But this still falls short of making it essential to salvation.

Baptism signifies it doe not save. We can testify without being baptised.

Repentance is necessary. However, it does not remit sin.

Now you are simply contradicting Scripture in order to maintain your false beliefs. That is not how it works. When you see the appropriate Scriptures, you are to repent and forsake your false beliefs.

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord (Acts 3:19)

......timed out....


Acts 2;38 is specific as well as others.

All I can say to everything is that I know that I have the Holy Ghost because I have fulfilled the condition of a conditional promise for receiving Him.

You may think that you have salvation apart from fulfilling that condition; and you may even have salvation apart from fulfilling that condition.

I have fulfilled that condition; and I believe the promise associated with fulfilling the condition.

The fact that I have fulfilled the condition of the promise does not in any way mean that I do not believe in Jesus Christ.

I know that I know that I know that I have the Holy Ghost because remission of sins and the Holy Ghost are absolutely promised to all those who receive baptism in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth for the remission of sins.

If you have received remission of sins and the Holy Ghost through some other means, then I do not judge you.

However, I think that you are judging me to be unsaved over the fact that I have fulfilled the condition of the promise.

That does not make any sense to me.

Why do you want to take something that in the word of God is something that guarantees salvation and turn it around and make it into something that is condemning to the soul?

This is warped thinking in the slightest.

Again, if you want to neglect an opportunity to receive baptism in Jesus' Name, saying, "I don't really need that because my faith is enough", then I just hope that your faith really is enough and that you really don't need to be baptized in Jesus' Name.

But I think that attitudes can be affected by whether someone has been baptized or not, as concerning faith.

Luk 7:29, And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.
Luk 7:30, But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.

This is why I encourage people to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth for the remission of sins.

For truly, the Holy Ghost is absolutely promised to those who will receive the ordinance; and remission of sins.

You may indeed be able to get it some other way;

But if you want to remove all doubt, "get this one done" and go the whole way with God...receive baptism in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth for the remission of sins when you are given the opportunity.

I would say that if you are given the opportunity to confess Him in such a manner, that, as evangelist Greg Laurie has said at Harvest Crusades, to not confess Him is to deny Him.

It should be clear that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth for the remission of sins is a confession of Jesus before men.

It is written,

Mat 10:32, Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 10:33, But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

Luk 12:8, Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God:
Luk 12:9, But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God.

I would say also that since sprinkling is a valid form of baptism, that you can pour water over your own head while asking God to baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth for the remission of sins as you do so.

With all this said, IF IF IF you think you are saved because of getting water baptized, your trust is misplaced.

This also demonstrates your FALSE BELIEFS.

No one "asks God to baptise you". That's absurd. God GIVES the Holy Spirit WHEN a person believes in Christ.

Gal 3:2,5
2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?

5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?

Those who hear and believe the gospel HAVE the Holy Spirit. No one asks for His indwelling. Just a false doctrine.

Let's look at it again.

" Peter replied, “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."

Why all this assumption that Peter was talking about water here?

What did John the baptizer say about Jesus? Mark 1:8 - I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

John was making a clear distinction between 2 DIFFERENT kinds of baptism. His baptism was symbolic a ritual involving water.

Jesus baptized with the Holy Spirit, NO water involved. When a person believes, they HAVE the Holy Spirit in them. This is a real identification.

Note what Peter and company (6 believers) said about their time with Cornelius:

Acts 11-
12 The Spirit told me to have no hesitation about going with them. These six brothers also went with me, and we entered the man’s house.
13 He told us how he had seen an angel appear in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter.
14 He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.’
15 “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning.
16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’
17 So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”

We see that an angel told Cornelius that Peter's message would bring salvation in v.14
v.15 shows the Holy Spirit's indwelling on those who had believed.
v.16 Peter recalls Jesus' words about John the baptizer. All in CONTEXT.
v.17 Peter equates the experience of the Holy Spirit with Cornelius and household with their own experience on the Day of Penecost when the believers received the Holy Spirit.

Now, WHEN was Cornelius baptized? AFTER receiving the Holy Spirit. Water baptism had NOTHING to do with his receiving the Holy Spirit. Any more than when Peter and the other 120 believers (Acts 1:15) received the Holy Spirit, where there was NO WATER BAPTISM mentioned at all.

FreeGrace2 said:
I guess you really don't understand how contradicted you are here.

First you say you don't deny "there are two Persons".

Then you end with "they are the same Person".

So, you claim that "two Persons" are "the same Person".

I'll just let that sink in for a while.

Don't try to change the subject and DODGE my point.

I don't think the Trinity is in ANY WAY "incomprehensible". That's just an excuse for those who can't or won't think deeply.

I have no problem understanding that there are 3 separate Persons who ALL have the exact same characteristics, attributes. That isn't even difficult to grasp.

Your theory cannot explain how 1 Person can sit at the "right hand of the Almighty". Huh? It takes 2 Persons to do that.

And it takes 2 Persons for one in heaven to speak to the other on earth.

In fact, it is ridiculous to view one Person praying to Himself. Jesus the Son prayed to His Father just before the crucifixion. He not only asked for something specific, but noted "not MY will, but YOURS be done".

If that is 1 Person talking to Himself, we have a very mental Savior.

And all you can do in defense is hide behind what "has been said" about the Trinity being incomprehensible.

I don't care who has said that. They just aren't thinking very deeply or at all. Just a bogus claim.


You mean the same STUPID logic? No thanks.


Let me repeat: all 3 Persons have the exact same characteristics and attributes. They are co-equal. That is not deep at all. And it fully explains what your theory cannot explain and must hide behind the excuse of "incomprehensibility". Nonsense.


All 3 members of the Trinity are Persons. And they talk to each other, and sit beside each other. Your theory cannot comprehend that.


I don't need that passage. I have given you clear examples of the total nonsense of God being 1 Person.

It takes 2 people to talk to each other (unless you think talking to oneself isn't mental), and 2 people to sit beside each other.

And Jesus asking His Father (that DEMANDS 2 People) to remove the cup, but then saying "not MY will, but YOURS be done" absolutely proves they are separate Persons.

Again, a father cannot be his own son.
A son cannot be his own father.

Maybe in an insane world. But not in the real world. God is not insane. He does not talk to Himself. He talks to the other members of the Trinity or Godhead.

What you may think about it doesn't matter. The examples in Scripture prove they are separate and all you can do is mumble something about being "incomprehensible".

Maybe for you that is true, but not for me.