The Water Baptism of 1 Corinthians 12:13

Those events which you wrote about took place before the New Covenant went into effect. (Mark 14:24)
Prove the Holy Spirit baptism saved Paul in Acts 9.
I'm fine with debating all examples of the Holy Spirit being poured out after Acts 1.
 
Then it is in error because one cannot have a gift of the Spirit without having the Holy Spirit.

Using examples in order to refute this from events which took place before what is described in Acts 2:4 is irrelevant.
It proves many received the Holy Spirit yet this was not how any of them were saved.
This is also true during the new covenant.
No one has ever been saved by Holy Spirit baptism.
The apostles were saved before Acts 2.
John 1:4;8
- John did baptize in the wilderness and preach the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins
Sins forgiven in John's baptism.
- I indeed baptized you with water but Jesus shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit baptism did not forgive their sins.
John's water baptism was for the forgiveness of sins.
 
Not proved on your part.

I see you are suffering from truth decay. It's time you brush up on what the Bible teaches.
LOL, nice pun. But insulting me does not advance your argument. You advocate the position that an exception to the rule (Cornelius, which is not really an exception, but you see it as one) invalidates the rule. But exceptions are only that, exceptions, and they do not invalidate the rule. God established the rule that we are born again through water and the Spirit (John 3:5). The Apostles taught that we receive the gift of salvation from God when we are immersed in water (Acts 8:36, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Rom 6:1-7, Col 2:11-14, 1 Pet 3:21, Gal 3:26-27, Eph 5:26-27, etc.), provided that we have also repented (Acts 3:19) and confessed Jesus as Lord (Rom 10:9-10). Since that is the rule, identifying "exceptions" (real or imagined) do not invalidate the rule. They simply identify cases where, in the first century, there was a "special case". But as noted before, Cornelius is not an exception to this rule. Cornelius received miraculous empowerment of praise and speaking in tongues when the Spirit fell on him, nothing more. He was not saved, he was not brought into the Kingdom of God, and the Holy Spirit did not enter into residence in his heart. If these things had occurred, then he would not have needed to be baptized in water afterwards. But he did require baptism still (Acts 10:47-48), because he had not been saved, and was not in the kingdom, and did not have the indwelling of the Spirit yet. These things require water, just as Jesus told Nicodemus in John 3.

The rest of your arguments have been addressed as well.
 
The baptism with the Holy Spirit.

You have never been able to refute the evidence I supplied that demonstrates this.
Sorry, but that is not the "baptism with the Holy Spirit", and there is NO evidence that it is. You want it to be because that would support your preconception. But Scripture refutes your ideas.
There is ONLY ONE BAPTISM in the NT Church (Eph 4:5-6).
That baptism is the baptism in which we are saved (Rom 6:1-7, Col 2:11-14, Gal 3:26-27, and all the others I posted).
That baptism REQUIRES water (John 3:5, 1 Pet 3:21, Acts 8:36), and it requires human, physical action (Matt 28:19, Acts 22:16, Acts 8:36-38).

You seem to want to shortcut God's shortcut to salvation. But a shortcut to a shortcut lands you stuck in a ditch.
 
So is your false doctrine.
I don't have any false doctrines. Anything that I believe that can be disproved through Scripture, I change my belief. But you have not disproved anything I have said.
Try opening your eyes first.
If all you have is insults and trite blustering, we are done here. Come up with an honest argument from Scripture or quit wasting our time here.
 
Back
Top Bottom