Is Holy Spirit Baptism The Baptism That Saves?

In an article I recently wrote I had a gentleman of the Pentecostal persuasion respond

seemingly upset with me over the issue of baptism as I was emphasizing the importance
of water baptism which he was discounting as being nothing more than a picture of
salvation (whatever that means). Of course, his emphasis was on Holy Spirit baptism. In
any case since I said I would respond I will do so here thinking I might as well make an
article out of my response.

When one reads the gospels the very first mention of the subject of baptism comes with
the introduction of John the Baptist. Mark says, "Then all the land of Judea, and those
from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River,
confessing their sins." (Mark 1:5 NKJV) We know Jesus when baptized "came up
immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw
the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him." (Matt. 3:16 NKJV)
So our very first introduction to the subject of baptism relates it to water, not the Holy
Spirit.

However, John did prophecy of two other baptisms to come. He says, "I indeed baptize
you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose
sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." (Mat
3:11 NKJV)

It is very important to note who will be doing the baptizing in the Holy Spirit and fire.
Will it be the apostles, will it be man? No, for the text says "He," a reference to Jesus,
which means what? If you are going to receive Holy Spirit baptism it will not be at the
hands of men. It will have to come directly from heaven itself.

But, it means even more. It means it cannot be a command for it is something Christ
does for you. In other words it is a baptism you cannot obey. It is something you get, not
something you do. Pentecostals ought to keep this in mind because it is going to cause
problems down the road. Indeed, it is going to cause problems before one even finishes
the book of Matthew.

In the Great Commission of Matt. 28:18-20 Jesus speaking to the apostles said, "All
authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples
of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with
you always, even to the end of the age." (NKJV) The reader already knows enough from
what has been said previously that this is a command for water baptism for it is the only
baptism men can administer.

Men could baptize others with water but not with the Holy Spirit. Only Jesus could do
that. Furthermore, the command of the Great Commission was to teach those they
baptized to go out and do the same with others - make disciples and baptize them - thus
making the Great Commission a perpetual command for the ages.
This means in Eph. 4:5 when Paul said there was "one baptism" we know which one it
was. Prior to the time of Paul's writing of the book of Ephesians there had been two
baptisms - water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism (the baptism of fire being yet future at
the day of judgment). However, by the time Paul wrote the book of Ephesians, scholars
say sometime between 61 and 64 AD, only one baptism remained. This was
approximately 30 years after Jesus had ascended back into heaven and Paul now says as
he writes there is but one baptism.

This puts Pentecostals in a tight spot. If they say we still have Holy Spirit baptism then
they deny we have water baptism. If they say we still have both they make Paul,
speaking by the Holy Spirit, out to be a liar.

Did Jesus speak about baptizing some in the Holy Spirit? Yes, he did. But, to whom? It
was to those with whom he met in Luke 24:33-49. It was with those who were to "tarry
in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high." (Luke 24:49
NKJV) It was to those who would first preach "repentance and remission of sins … in
His name … beginning at Jerusalem." Now who did that? Was Peter the first one? Did
he preach baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) "beginning at Jerusalem"? Yes,
he did.

My critic denies it is necessary to preach what Peter did "beginning at Jerusalem" for he
does not believe what Peter through the Holy Spirit said that day (at least as it relates to
us today). He would then, if he was to preach, have to preach something other than what
Peter did "beginning at Jerusalem."

In the book of John starting with chapter 13 and going through chapter 17 Jesus is with
the apostles he chose at the Last Supper. Here he again speaks about this select group
being baptized with the Holy Spirit or words to that effect (John 14:16-18, 26, 16:13).

Luke, in the book of Acts, speaks of "the apostles whom He had chosen" (Acts 1:2) and
then says, "to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many
infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things
pertaining to the kingdom of God. And being assembled together with them, He
commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father,
'which,' He said, 'you have heard from Me; for John truly baptized with water, but you
shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.'" (Acts 1:3-5 NKJV)

Thus the promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit was only to a select few, not to all
Christians. Many received spiritual gifts, and thus had the Holy Spirit in that sense, but
the promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit was only to those few Jesus chose. I remind
the reader that while Holy Spirit baptism had to come directly from heaven spiritual gifts
could be received at the hands of the apostles. "And when Simon saw that through the
laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Spirit was given." (Act 8:18 NKJV)

Even spiritual gifts were not to last endlessly until the day of judgment. Paul says, in
Eph. 4:11-14 (NAS), "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as
evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work
of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the
faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the
stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children,
tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the
trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming."

Apostles and prophets were obviously men with spiritual gifts. Are there, apostles and
prophets, still with us today? The reader ought to highlight the word "until" in the above
passage. Words do have meaning. Until places a time limit. Then note the last verse that
begins with "As a result." The result is we will not be carried away "by every wind of
doctrine" thus the earth will still be here when the apostles and prophets are gone and so
will every wind of doctrine which we will not be carried away by.

A passage that is even a little clearer is 1 Cor. 13:8-10, "Love never fails; but if there are
gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is
knowledge (miraculous spiritual - DS), it will be done away. For we know in part, and we
prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away." Some say
this refers to Jesus' second coming. Does it? It is hard to see how you or I need to be
told that there will not be prophecy in heaven. Is that not self-evident? Let me tell you
what is "perfect" in addition to Jesus - his completed revelation to man in his word, the
New Testament itself. Do you doubt the word of God is perfect? See Psalms 19:7.

The one who takes issue with me says "In John 3:5 water does not refer to Christian
baptism in the name of the Lord. Prove that it does." If you recall John 3:5 reads as
follows, "Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'" (NAS) Well, what are the other
options? Is it "Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of the Holy
Spirit and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'" That is the way this
sincere man would have it read but I think it is readily seen this will not work taken in the
context of the way the sentence is phrased.

He also argues that Rom. 6:3, Gal. 3:27, and Col. 2:12 all refer to Holy Spirit baptism,
not water baptism. I have already shown that since there is only one baptism today,
according to Paul, then it is an either/or option - either it is Holy Spirit baptism or water
baptism. If it is Holy Spirit baptism then the baptism Jesus commanded in the Great
Commission is of none effect today and you cannot carry out the Great Commission.

In Romans 6:3 Paul says, "Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into
Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?" By using the word "us" Paul includes
himself. Let us hear Ananias at the time of Paul's baptism, Acts 22:16, "'And now why
are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of
the Lord.'" Sounds to me like the responsibility is on Paul to "arise and be baptized."
Sounds like it is something Paul can attend to. He can't if it is Holy Spirit baptism as my
critic claims. He will have to wait on Jesus to do that. Thus my critic is in error.
Gal. 3:27 reads as follows, "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed
yourselves with Christ." (NAS) Am I baptized "into Christ" or am I baptized by Christ?
Holy Spirit baptism is by Christ, not into Christ. If Christ both baptizes one and puts one
into himself (salvation is in Christ - 2 Tim. 2:10) then if you are lost it looks like it is his
fault since there is something he did not do for you. I can obey the command for water
baptism if that is what he commands putting the burden on me but I cannot obey Holy
Spirit baptism for that responsibility is on Jesus. I have not clothed myself with Christ if
it is out of my hands to do so which it is in Holy Spirit baptism.

Finally, Col. 2:12, which he says is a reference to Holy Spirit baptism, reads as follows
with me including verses 11 and 13 in order to read the text in context. "And in Him you
were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the
body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism,
in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who
raised Him from the dead. And when you were dead in your transgressions and the
uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us
all our transgressions." (NAS)

Beginning with Abraham if a male child was not circumcised the eighth day he fell out of
covenant relationship with God on up through the Mosaical Era. You can read about it in
Gen. 17:12-14. If one is in covenant relationship with God he is a child of God. He may
or may not remain faithful and thus can be lost later but at the time he becomes a child of
God he is saved. I have a question. In Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost when the first
gospel sermon ever preached after Christ's ascension, after the giving of the Great
Commission, when were those gathered there, the three thousand, placed into a covenant
relationship with God? Was it before water baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)?
If so they still had their sins.

Circumcision placed one into covenant relationship with God. When were people placed
in that relationship in Acts 2 - was it before or after the receiving of the gift of the Holy
Spirit? One can readily see it was before the receiving of the Holy Spirit but after water
baptism. If you have received "remission of sins" you are saved and in a covenant
relationship with God. Circumcision in the covenant of Christ, in Christianity, is baptism
from a heart of faith for the remission of sins, is water baptism, not Holy Spirit baptism.
In that act, when based on faith, sins are cut away (removed). Colossians 2:11-13 is a
reference to water baptism.

But, sometimes it is good to argue against ourselves so, putting myself in my critic's
shoes, I would come back and say have you not read Rom.2:29, "but he is a Jew who is
one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose
praise is not from men but from God"?

The same Paul that wrote Colossians wrote Romans. We shall tie them together. I
remind the reader my critic believes the talk about baptism in Rom. 6, the first several
verses, is a reference to baptism in the Holy Spirit. But, Paul says in Rom 6:17-18, "But
God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that
form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you
became slaves of righteousness." There are three points to be made. (1) You cannot obey
Holy Spirit baptism thus his argument falls when he says the baptism of Romans 6 is
Holy Spirit baptism. (2) When were they set free from sin according to Paul? Answer -
when they obeyed.

(3) As this passage relates back to Col. 2:12 it shows that one cannot divorce faith from
obedience. Obedience is from the heart. What is in the heart to produce this obedience?
Faith! When understood that obedience is a part of saving faith, that there is no such
thing as saving faith apart from obedience, I readily concede that salvation is by that kind
of faith. This faith always includes as an integral part of what it is obedience.

The trouble is the advocates of salvation by faith are generally such as do not define faith
this way. Their faith does not necessarily include any ideas of obedience thus water
baptism is just kind of an option if I get to it, if I do it, when I do it, sort of thing. When
God says jump you cannot say I will if I want to and when I want to if I decide to. That
is neither faith nor obedience, it is rebellion. How can one claim a circumcision of heart
and talk of having the Spirit all the while saying it does not matter whether you obey
what the Spirit has said, you can be saved whether you obey or do not obey? Jesus, a
man full of the Spirit, did not disobey a single commandment but we do and say it is okay
and that we have the Spirit.

One could go on but we need to head toward a conclusion as this is a long piece already.
Two quick points in closing. If the baptism of the Holy Spirit still exists today then along
with it we must have as a necessity those things that accompany it which include the
spiritual gifts of the first century. Who ever heard of having the baptism of the Holy
Spirit and not having spiritual gifts? Do we have prophets today, do we have miracle
workers today, do we still have revelation being given today? Let each reader judge for
himself.

The final point is this. There is such a thing as the preponderance of the evidence. There
will always be scriptures that can be given in support of any doctrine one proclaims. That
does not mean one has understood them correctly. There will always be tough passages
or verses which are just not clear to one. Any Bible student who denies that, who makes
the claim he completely understands every verse in the Bible is simply a liar. Nothing
more can be made of it.

What then is one to do? The same thing we do in living our ordinary everyday lives
where we must make decision after decision and often not knowing with certainty what is
best. We operate on the principle of using the best information we have available to us
which is often the preponderance of the evidence.

That is exactly what each reader will have to do in resolving for himself or herself the
doctrine of Holy Spirit baptism. Do we have it today on until the day of judgment or was
it for a limited time only? You must decide for yourself.