interesting discussion....Baptism's purpose is so clearly articulated! I have failed miserably in articulating the purpose for Baptism. I had a discussion today with my cousin, who thinks that baptism is a work and not a necessity for salvation. I think of Jesus' earnest petition to the father for Unity. I don't think I knew, or forgot the christian church was part of the restortation movement. My heart is troubled still by all the diversities that surrounds God's people. I thank God for his patience, love, grace, and mercy
Hey Wes, thanks for this very interesting discussion. I do have one question regarding something that brother Harrington brought up. Late in your discussion, he referred to the scenarios where the holy spirit fell on the Apostles (Acts 2) and Cornelius (Acts 10). It has always been my understanding that those events (holy spirit baptism) are separate and distinct from the "gift of the HS" that a person receives when they are baptized into Christ (Acts 2:38). These special events were accompanied with the miraculous sign of speaking in tongues to show that God was giving approval for both the Jews and Gentiles to enter into His kingdom. Is this your understanding? And if so, how should that affect our belief about the timing of and flexibility surrounding baptism?
That definitely used to be my understanding. I've come to think, however, that I was trying to read too much into the text and trying to make the Holy Spirit work in a very mechanical way. I think I was trying to make a distinction where one didn't exist.
In other words, I used to think baptism of the Holy Spirit was only something those two groups experienced. However, it seems to be more of a universal promise to everyone who is a follower of Jesus; based on the testimony of Jesus, John, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Joel. The metaphor of the Spirit being being like water that is poured out upon all the people--and people are immersed in him--is throughout the Bible (both Old and New Testaments).
So, I would say the the Holy Spirit is poured out on, and people are metaphorically "baptized" with the Spirit almost exclusively when they are baptized in water. The two go hand in hand almost always. However, there are those unique exceptions, proving you cannot put God in a box. As Jesus said, "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit" (John 3:8).
So, how does that affect our conversations with others in Christendom who use those passages to argue that baptism is non-essential? I've heard some say that since the Holy Spirit was given to Cornelius before he was immersed, that the subsequent water baptism was merely "an outward sign of the inward grace."
That's what is so crazy about their argument, the first thing Peter said was Cornelius and his household should be baptized. So, right there in the text, we have someone who has received the Holy Spirit, but still needed to be baptized. Why anyone would argue against something Scripture clearly tells everyone to do is beyond me.
Well, a person I talked to recently wasn't arguing against a person being baptized. He just thinks that a person is a Christian BEFORE they are baptized. He'd use the account of Cornelius to say "they had the HS prior to baptism and so can we."
Interestingly, he also believes that if someone "gets saved" and then refuses to be baptized, they are not actually in a saved state because of their open rebellion against the clear command of Christ.
I'm at a loss about how to reason from this portion of Scripture if we're talking about fluidity in when a person can receive the Holy Spirit. However, if Acts 2 and 10 are isolated, 1st-century, early kingdom-formation events with a specific purpose, I think it clarifies expectations for us going forward. I certainly don't want to put God in a box, but I also don't want to go too loose on something if it's meant to be a little more reigned in.
Please carefully read about the Phillipian Jailer, the story supports the point that I was making, not the one you allege. If baptism is a later declaration, why not wait, but they did not. Our position is in step with what the Christians believed for the first 500 years - baptism is how you express repentant faith in Jesus for the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the indwelling Spirit ... Acts 16:31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized.
Baptism is absolutely not necessary for salvation. Scripture never says that.
What baptism by immersion actually represents is a proclamation or declaration of an inner change that has taken place…being born again. But it is not an end but a beginning. A person who has been baptized is now declaring that they identify wholeheartedly with the work and cause of Jesus. Baptism is done in obedience as a commandment found numerous times in the New Testament. One is saved by faith alone, not by baptism
Why?
To build God’s Kingdom through discipleship making… to use Bobby’s and Dann Spader’s own words.
I have Bobby’s book and it is very good if you’re trying to explain the misconception grounded in infant baptism which was heavily influenced by Augustine and Calvin and the reformers of the time.
The reformers never got around to reforming two critical issues the Christian church did not reform and is still dealing with today on multiple fronts
1) That the church (Roman Catholic in particular) replaced Israel (that is a huge issue today 10/30/25, agreed?)
2) Infant baptism
Roman Catholics believe you are saved at infant baptism (I recently attended a Roman Catholic funeral)
The Restoration movement believes it is necessary for salvation
Neither are scriptural
Just like Calvinism, scriptures are taken out of context that ssssssound correct but are misinterpreted to fit a theology rather than taking scripture alone to form one’s theology. Don’t do that with baptism either, even if it kinda sssssounds correct
Sorry, you are saying things like the following that have no basis in scripture - "baptism by immersion actually represents is a proclamation or declaration of an inner change that has taken place" ... these are statements not grounded in theology that comes from the text of scripture ... no one believed what you have written until after the 1500s ...
Baptism is required for salvation, then both C S Lewis AND JRR Tolkien are both in hell. Need I say more?
Okay, I will
Then every Catholic Church, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, Lutheran, Anglican, and Presbyterian churches who have been baptized as a infant are in big trouble (hell must be there destiny)
More?
We are talking about Motther Theresa, John Wesley (let’s not forget the Methodists too bad, so sad). Until we understand what “today” actually means when Jesus tells the thief on the cross that and means it, we will never get it. Billy Graham (a Southern Baptist) has a Greta sermon on this from Australia I I believe.
Southern Baptist? Hmmmmm?
There are no scriptures that support
-infant baptism
- None that support that Peter is the leader of the church
- Ditto for people for who say you MUST worship on Saturday drinking wine is a sin, that election is only for some people, that a believer can lose their salvation once you’ve born again etc.
But you know what Bobby? Those unbiblical beliefs in something like infant baptism will not keep you out of heaven
Maybe this will help…
We are not saved by our correct knowledge behavior or lost by incorrect understanding or sin after you been saved…there an app for that- repentance
We are saved by grace alone by faith ALONE,l, in Christ alone according to Scripture alone, for Gods glory alone…it’s true
Here’s a good scripture to memorize and meditate on John 3:16.
1500’s ? They brought us the Reformation, but they forgot to reform the infant baptism problem and they never reformed that the church replaced Israel…. That’s not aging real well in however in 2025
No timeline just watch the event line.Matthew 24:32
When someone reads Acts 2:38 “for” should be interpreted as “because of” or “the result of” I hope this link comes through. If not you and everyone who
Is reading our back and forth comments, can research it for yourself or themselves.
And let me add, just because you believe the Christian Reconstructionist movement that began in the late 1950’s began by a Calvinist minister named Rousas John Rushdoony is correct, that doesn’t imply you’re going to miss heaven either.
We not save by man’s theologies (man’s words), but by the Word of God.
Not a popes words
Not John Calvin’s word
Not according to Martin Luther
Not Jacob Arminius (who was a Calvinist)
Not John Wesley either
Not Spurgeon (who by the end of life was no longer a five point Calvinist, 3 point?) All five points are not Biblical.
And not according to R.J. Rushdoony either
Nothing wrong with doing theology, like both of us are doing right now. The problem arises when we believe someone’s theology that they just made up outside of Scripture alone.
Today’s the day Bobby that you leave the reconstruction movement
At least I hope so. Praying for you Bobby…seriously
Baptism is how we call on the name of the Lord. This is born out, in Acts chapter 2, where Peter quotes Joel. In that quote, it says whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. Then at the bottom when everybody asked the question, what should we do Peter says repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of sins. Paul also repeats that quote in Romans 10. And as said in 1Peter, if you wanna have a good conscience. toward God, then you get baptized that’s the way I’ve always looked at it.
There is no reason to wait. I absolutely agree. But baptism has absolutely nothing to do with whether you are saved or not.
You know that Bobby and so does Dann Spader, your friend.
Baptism is a command to be followed in obedience. Obedience is better than sacrifice. It has absolutely nothing to do with salvation.
As I and Dann and others have said
1) Baptism is an outward declaration of an inner change (you’ve been born again)
2) Baptism is the beginning of of the Christian life, not an end. You are now identifying with the cause and work of Christ
That is baptism, nothing more, nothing less.
Otherwise, as you said in your very good book which I own, those that have been baptized as infants are not saved. Bobby you know that’s not true.
There is only one and only one sin that will not be forgiven. That is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
So what is that?
I’m glad you asked
Scripture alone tells us…
“And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe in Me;”
John 16:8-9 NKJV
Because they do not believe in Jesus is what Jesus said.
You can be a Catholic, a Methodist, a Pentecostal or whatever label you prefer. None of that prevents you from being saved. Adult baptism (true) , infant baptism, no baptism is not a prerequisite for salvation…not even adult baptism
When you have absolutely nothing better to do Bobby , Google “how many Christian denominations are there?”
You’ll either go down a Google path of 15,000, 45,000 or now 47,000
Why? Because we have our labels and our theologians and isms that divide and when you argue that baptism is required for salvation, that divides further and it’s not even Biblical
You are just dividing Bobby. Why help the deceiver?
Do you want to help pull number this down?
Do an in-depth book on why Calvinism is not Biblical and why it is impossible to lose your salvation once you’ve been born again
That would help.
Ephesians 4:4-5
Thank you for all the good work you’ve done Bobby for the Kingdom. You have my respect as a fellow brother who’s been saved to the fullest, regardless of baptism and that goes for all who read my response.
Would you say that the pouring out of the Holy Spirit is different than the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? I also wanted to ask a question about John the Baptist baptism. It Was for repentance for the remission of sins. My understanding is that it was a looking toward that forgiveness to come? Could the word “Eis” in Mark 1:4 passage mean “toward” and in Acts 2:38 mean “into”?
interesting discussion....Baptism's purpose is so clearly articulated! I have failed miserably in articulating the purpose for Baptism. I had a discussion today with my cousin, who thinks that baptism is a work and not a necessity for salvation. I think of Jesus' earnest petition to the father for Unity. I don't think I knew, or forgot the christian church was part of the restortation movement. My heart is troubled still by all the diversities that surrounds God's people. I thank God for his patience, love, grace, and mercy
Hey Wes, thanks for this very interesting discussion. I do have one question regarding something that brother Harrington brought up. Late in your discussion, he referred to the scenarios where the holy spirit fell on the Apostles (Acts 2) and Cornelius (Acts 10). It has always been my understanding that those events (holy spirit baptism) are separate and distinct from the "gift of the HS" that a person receives when they are baptized into Christ (Acts 2:38). These special events were accompanied with the miraculous sign of speaking in tongues to show that God was giving approval for both the Jews and Gentiles to enter into His kingdom. Is this your understanding? And if so, how should that affect our belief about the timing of and flexibility surrounding baptism?
That definitely used to be my understanding. I've come to think, however, that I was trying to read too much into the text and trying to make the Holy Spirit work in a very mechanical way. I think I was trying to make a distinction where one didn't exist.
In other words, I used to think baptism of the Holy Spirit was only something those two groups experienced. However, it seems to be more of a universal promise to everyone who is a follower of Jesus; based on the testimony of Jesus, John, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Joel. The metaphor of the Spirit being being like water that is poured out upon all the people--and people are immersed in him--is throughout the Bible (both Old and New Testaments).
So, I would say the the Holy Spirit is poured out on, and people are metaphorically "baptized" with the Spirit almost exclusively when they are baptized in water. The two go hand in hand almost always. However, there are those unique exceptions, proving you cannot put God in a box. As Jesus said, "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit" (John 3:8).
So, how does that affect our conversations with others in Christendom who use those passages to argue that baptism is non-essential? I've heard some say that since the Holy Spirit was given to Cornelius before he was immersed, that the subsequent water baptism was merely "an outward sign of the inward grace."
That's what is so crazy about their argument, the first thing Peter said was Cornelius and his household should be baptized. So, right there in the text, we have someone who has received the Holy Spirit, but still needed to be baptized. Why anyone would argue against something Scripture clearly tells everyone to do is beyond me.
Well, a person I talked to recently wasn't arguing against a person being baptized. He just thinks that a person is a Christian BEFORE they are baptized. He'd use the account of Cornelius to say "they had the HS prior to baptism and so can we."
Interestingly, he also believes that if someone "gets saved" and then refuses to be baptized, they are not actually in a saved state because of their open rebellion against the clear command of Christ.
I'm at a loss about how to reason from this portion of Scripture if we're talking about fluidity in when a person can receive the Holy Spirit. However, if Acts 2 and 10 are isolated, 1st-century, early kingdom-formation events with a specific purpose, I think it clarifies expectations for us going forward. I certainly don't want to put God in a box, but I also don't want to go too loose on something if it's meant to be a little more reigned in.
Cornelius, the Phillipian jailer and Lydia we saved by faith.
“What must I do to be saved?”
Just one thing and one thing ONLY. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved”
Baptism came after, as a declaration not a requirement!
To continue to build His Kingdom (Jesus taught multiplication). And that’s exactly what happened in the household.As with Cornelius and Lydia!
Please carefully read about the Phillipian Jailer, the story supports the point that I was making, not the one you allege. If baptism is a later declaration, why not wait, but they did not. Our position is in step with what the Christians believed for the first 500 years - baptism is how you express repentant faith in Jesus for the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the indwelling Spirit ... Acts 16:31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized.
Baptism is absolutely not necessary for salvation. Scripture never says that.
What baptism by immersion actually represents is a proclamation or declaration of an inner change that has taken place…being born again. But it is not an end but a beginning. A person who has been baptized is now declaring that they identify wholeheartedly with the work and cause of Jesus. Baptism is done in obedience as a commandment found numerous times in the New Testament. One is saved by faith alone, not by baptism
Why?
To build God’s Kingdom through discipleship making… to use Bobby’s and Dann Spader’s own words.
I have Bobby’s book and it is very good if you’re trying to explain the misconception grounded in infant baptism which was heavily influenced by Augustine and Calvin and the reformers of the time.
The reformers never got around to reforming two critical issues the Christian church did not reform and is still dealing with today on multiple fronts
1) That the church (Roman Catholic in particular) replaced Israel (that is a huge issue today 10/30/25, agreed?)
2) Infant baptism
Roman Catholics believe you are saved at infant baptism (I recently attended a Roman Catholic funeral)
The Restoration movement believes it is necessary for salvation
Neither are scriptural
Just like Calvinism, scriptures are taken out of context that ssssssound correct but are misinterpreted to fit a theology rather than taking scripture alone to form one’s theology. Don’t do that with baptism either, even if it kinda sssssounds correct
Sorry, you are saying things like the following that have no basis in scripture - "baptism by immersion actually represents is a proclamation or declaration of an inner change that has taken place" ... these are statements not grounded in theology that comes from the text of scripture ... no one believed what you have written until after the 1500s ...
IF….
Baptism is required for salvation, then both C S Lewis AND JRR Tolkien are both in hell. Need I say more?
Okay, I will
Then every Catholic Church, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, Lutheran, Anglican, and Presbyterian churches who have been baptized as a infant are in big trouble (hell must be there destiny)
More?
We are talking about Motther Theresa, John Wesley (let’s not forget the Methodists too bad, so sad). Until we understand what “today” actually means when Jesus tells the thief on the cross that and means it, we will never get it. Billy Graham (a Southern Baptist) has a Greta sermon on this from Australia I I believe.
Southern Baptist? Hmmmmm?
There are no scriptures that support
-infant baptism
- None that support that Peter is the leader of the church
- Ditto for people for who say you MUST worship on Saturday drinking wine is a sin, that election is only for some people, that a believer can lose their salvation once you’ve born again etc.
But you know what Bobby? Those unbiblical beliefs in something like infant baptism will not keep you out of heaven
Maybe this will help…
We are not saved by our correct knowledge behavior or lost by incorrect understanding or sin after you been saved…there an app for that- repentance
We are saved by grace alone by faith ALONE,l, in Christ alone according to Scripture alone, for Gods glory alone…it’s true
Here’s a good scripture to memorize and meditate on John 3:16.
1500’s ? They brought us the Reformation, but they forgot to reform the infant baptism problem and they never reformed that the church replaced Israel…. That’s not aging real well in however in 2025
No timeline just watch the event line.Matthew 24:32
https://share.google/QHExz7LbcrPh9Q6uw
The Greek word “eis” is where you’ve tripped up.
When someone reads Acts 2:38 “for” should be interpreted as “because of” or “the result of” I hope this link comes through. If not you and everyone who
Is reading our back and forth comments, can research it for yourself or themselves.
And let me add, just because you believe the Christian Reconstructionist movement that began in the late 1950’s began by a Calvinist minister named Rousas John Rushdoony is correct, that doesn’t imply you’re going to miss heaven either.
We not save by man’s theologies (man’s words), but by the Word of God.
Not a popes words
Not John Calvin’s word
Not according to Martin Luther
Not Jacob Arminius (who was a Calvinist)
Not John Wesley either
Not Spurgeon (who by the end of life was no longer a five point Calvinist, 3 point?) All five points are not Biblical.
And not according to R.J. Rushdoony either
Nothing wrong with doing theology, like both of us are doing right now. The problem arises when we believe someone’s theology that they just made up outside of Scripture alone.
Today’s the day Bobby that you leave the reconstruction movement
At least I hope so. Praying for you Bobby…seriously
You can have the LAST word Bobby
Baptism is how we call on the name of the Lord. This is born out, in Acts chapter 2, where Peter quotes Joel. In that quote, it says whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. Then at the bottom when everybody asked the question, what should we do Peter says repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of sins. Paul also repeats that quote in Romans 10. And as said in 1Peter, if you wanna have a good conscience. toward God, then you get baptized that’s the way I’ve always looked at it.
There is no reason to wait. I absolutely agree. But baptism has absolutely nothing to do with whether you are saved or not.
You know that Bobby and so does Dann Spader, your friend.
Baptism is a command to be followed in obedience. Obedience is better than sacrifice. It has absolutely nothing to do with salvation.
As I and Dann and others have said
1) Baptism is an outward declaration of an inner change (you’ve been born again)
2) Baptism is the beginning of of the Christian life, not an end. You are now identifying with the cause and work of Christ
That is baptism, nothing more, nothing less.
Otherwise, as you said in your very good book which I own, those that have been baptized as infants are not saved. Bobby you know that’s not true.
There is only one and only one sin that will not be forgiven. That is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
So what is that?
I’m glad you asked
Scripture alone tells us…
“And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe in Me;”
John 16:8-9 NKJV
Because they do not believe in Jesus is what Jesus said.
You can be a Catholic, a Methodist, a Pentecostal or whatever label you prefer. None of that prevents you from being saved. Adult baptism (true) , infant baptism, no baptism is not a prerequisite for salvation…not even adult baptism
When you have absolutely nothing better to do Bobby , Google “how many Christian denominations are there?”
You’ll either go down a Google path of 15,000, 45,000 or now 47,000
Why? Because we have our labels and our theologians and isms that divide and when you argue that baptism is required for salvation, that divides further and it’s not even Biblical
You are just dividing Bobby. Why help the deceiver?
Do you want to help pull number this down?
Do an in-depth book on why Calvinism is not Biblical and why it is impossible to lose your salvation once you’ve been born again
That would help.
Ephesians 4:4-5
Thank you for all the good work you’ve done Bobby for the Kingdom. You have my respect as a fellow brother who’s been saved to the fullest, regardless of baptism and that goes for all who read my response.
Would you say that the pouring out of the Holy Spirit is different than the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? I also wanted to ask a question about John the Baptist baptism. It Was for repentance for the remission of sins. My understanding is that it was a looking toward that forgiveness to come? Could the word “Eis” in Mark 1:4 passage mean “toward” and in Acts 2:38 mean “into”?