Saved by Faith or Saved by Holy Spirit Baptism - Which Is It?

Is a man saved by faith or saved by Holy Spirit baptism? I personally do not believe
either but there are many advocates of one or the other. (Yes, I believe faith is essential
but just not that it is the final step to salvation.)

There are a number of people in what is commonly called the Christian community who
are thoroughly convinced that one is saved by Holy Spirit baptism. I do not believe they
are in the majority but they are out there nonetheless.

The case of Cornelius and his household as found in Act 10 is where most of the
difficulty arises. People feel that when the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius that saved him
or, let me get this straight, did it mean he was already saved before the Spirit fell upon
him for God would not place his spirit on an unsaved sinner?

Thus my first question is which is it? It makes a difference. If the Holy Spirit falling
upon Cornelius is what saved him, he being an unsaved sinner before that happened, then
man is helpless. It then becomes God's sole decision to either baptize you or not so he
will, at his will, baptize some unsaved sinners while not baptizing other unsaved sinners.

Do we have here the doctrine that man is helpless to do anything about his salvation until
the Spirit intervenes directly upon a man? It looks a lot like it. This was a prevalent
doctrine here in the United States in the early 1800's. Are we having a revival of it?

But, here is a question for the reader - if this is the way it works is your faith strong
enough, are you devout enough, (or is it do you work at it hard enough), to get God to
baptize you with the Holy Spirit so you can be saved? Are you as good as Cornelius
was?

On the other hand if Cornelius was saved before the Holy Spirit fell upon him, it falling
upon him for he was already a saved man (saved by faith), then Holy Spirit baptism is not
essential to salvation.

I want the reader to see the dilemma here - it cannot be both ways. If you say Cornelius
received the Holy Spirit because he was saved then he was saved prior to the Spirit's
reception meaning he was not saved by the Holy Spirit at all but by faith. If you say Holy
Spirit baptism was essential to his salvation and he was not saved until he received it then
he was not saved by faith, not at the point of faith. Thus the salvation by faith only
advocates and the salvation by the Holy Spirit advocates have opposing positions if they
will admit it. This will become more evident toward the end of this article.

Certainly, all Christians who are truly Christians have the Spirit of Christ. "But you are
not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone
does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His." (Rom 8:9 NKJV) Does this mean,
however, that salvation came as a result of Holy Spirit baptism?
There are but two known examples in the New Testament beyond dispute of Holy Spirit
baptism - the apostles in Acts 2 and Cornelius and his household in Acts 11:15-17. Yes,
many others had received spiritual gifts but no where is it said that any others were ever
baptized in the Holy Spirit. In fact, we know for certain that in many cases, some would
say all cases, the reception of the spiritual gifts via means of the Holy Spirit was
dependent upon the laying on of hands by an apostle.

In the case of the Samaritans Luke writes, "Now when the apostles who were at
Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to
them, who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy
Spirit. For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the
name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
And when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Spirit
was given, he offered them money." (Acts 8:14-18 NKJV)

To Timothy Paul says, "Therefore I remind you to stir up the gift of God which is in you
through the laying on of my hands." (2 Tim. 1:6 NKJV)

We do not know of a single case in the New Testament scriptures where one was baptized
by the Holy Spirit but what that also bestowed upon him some spiritual gift (the apostles
and the household of Cornelius). Yet, it has clearly been shown above that the
Samaritans did not have spiritual gifts. Were they lost? If one was consistent in his
doctrine a saved by the Holy Spirit baptism advocate would have to say yes.

I think we ought to take a more in depth look at Acts 8:14-18 quoted above (just scroll
back up 3 paragraphs and reread it). Very few people will argue against the idea that
these individuals were already saved prior to the reception of the Holy Spirit. The text
says, "they had been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." It is obvious that this is a
reference to water baptism for if it was Holy Spirit baptism how does one account for the
fact they lacked spiritual gifts?

Cornelius had tongues by which he could offer proof of his baptism. The apostles had a
whole range of miraculous powers to prove their baptism. The only two instances in the
New Testament we know of where the baptism of the Holy Spirit occurred beyond
dispute resulted in both instances in the miraculous.

I will go beyond that. At the point of their baptism, in both cases, the Day of Pentecost in
Acts 2 and at Cornelius' house in Acts 10, the minute they were baptized by the spirit,
miraculous happenings were evident. Until very recently I never heard of anyone making
the claim to having Holy Spirit baptism without it being accompanied by some kind of
miraculous manifestation. If you have Holy Spirit baptism you have the miraculous with
it or else you step outside of New Testament examples.

I agree wholeheartedly that the day of miracles is now past. I put Holy Spirit baptism in
the past with them. But, this doctrine takes the one and leaves the other behind.
But, lest I stray too far I go back to Cornelius. I have said that Cornelius was not saved
by Holy Spirit baptism. He still had one step to take - be baptized in water for the
remission of sins which was the very thing Peter, who he was listening to, had preached
on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 (verse 38). Hear Peter's words to Cornelius.

"'Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy
Spirit just as we have?' And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord."
(Act 10:47-48 NKJV)

I want to ask you something. What is the rush? What is the hurry? Those who say we
are saved by Holy Spirit baptism say water baptism is a non-essential, has nothing to do
with being saved, does not make any difference so what is the rush? I note that there is
nothing else Peter commanded them to do. Why this one thing, a thing they say is a non-
essential? Why command a non-essential? They are already saved so why do they have
to do it now? Here is why?

When the angel came to Cornelius and told him to send for Peter his last words to
Cornelius were "He will tell you what you must do." (Acts 10:6 NKJV) What were those
words that were to be spoken that they must do? Now, please, please note how that
passage is worded. It is what you must do. What you must do for what? Obviously, for
salvation. It is not what you must believe but what you, not God but you, must do. What
was that word?

One can read it for himself beginning in Acts 10:34 going through the rest of the chapter.
There is only one thing in all those verses that Peter ever told them they must do and that
was "he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." (Acts 10:48) Yes, he
gave them facts about Jesus but the command to be baptized was the only direct
command, the only thing he told them they must do. Would they have been saved by
Holy Spirit baptism without doing it?

The question arises then about Acts 15:7 (NKJV), "And when there had been much
dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: 'Men and brethren, you know that a good while
ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the
gospel and believe."

It is said from this passage that there is proof here that water baptism was not needed -
the household of Cornelius was saved before it and without it. The argument is made on
the word "believe." The word is used as what is called a synecdoche. What is a
synecdoche?

It is a figure of speech whereby one speaks of the whole by a part. In his book
"Hermeneutics", by D. R. Dungan, page 305, he says, "This is many times the case with
the salvation of sinners. The whole number of conditions are indicated by the use of one.
Generally the first one is mentioned - that of faith - because without it nothing else could
follow."
Every one of us knows that there is truth in this. How so? Because even if you are a
faith only advocate and can come up with verse after verse advocating your doctrine yet
you know and will admit (I hope) that repentance is required for salvation. Who would
deny that? Thus it is evident that the word faith (or believe) must include repentance (I
believe it also includes baptism upon a confession of faith) and is thus used very often as
a synecdoche, a part standing for the whole. So I believe it is used in Acts 15.

But, let us take a look at Saul (Paul). When Saul was being converted Ananias came to
him and told him to "Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins." (Acts 22:16
NKJV) If we are saved by Holy Spirit baptism is this not strange language? Ananias
tells Saul you do it. If this was Holy Spirit baptism how was Saul suppose to do it? One
cannot do this for himself (be baptized by the Holy Spirit), only God can do it. Could
Saul arise and be baptized in water by men? Most assuredly. There is no doubt that Saul,
soon to be called Paul, was baptized by the Holy Spirit but the command of Ananias to
Saul had nothing to do with Holy Spirit baptism.

(1) If Paul received Holy Spirit baptism and is saved before water baptism then Ananias'
command to him becomes meaningless as he has no sins to wash away and is already
saved. (2) If Paul received Holy Spirit baptism after water baptism then Holy Spirit
baptism is not for the purpose of salvation as Paul was to be saved by doing this thing
which he (not God but he himself) had the power to do and which Ananias says is to
wash away his sins.

To say it was simultaneous is seeking a way out, an attempt to set up a third option since
the first two are too unpalatable. However, if true it would only show that to receive
Holy Spirit baptism Paul had no choice but to get in the water and be baptized and thus
makes no difference to the argument and is as equally as distasteful to the saved by Holy
Spirit baptism group as either of the other two options.

I believe a man must hear and believe the gospel message (1 Cor. 15:1-4), he then must
repent of his sins and be immersed in water for the remission of sins as Peter said in Acts
2:38. Why people hate that first gospel sermon (first ever to be preached and that by an
inspired apostle who was given the keys of the kingdom and used them that day) I will
never understand. They will gladly die before they will submit and be baptized in water
for the remission of sins. Why not just believe and obey?

But, in conclusion, there is a real serious conflict here, as alluded to in the beginning of
this article between those who believe Paul was saved by grace through faith on the road
to Damascus and thus saved before he set foot in the city itself versus those who say he
was not saved until he received Holy Spirit baptism later. I can stand back and view that
fight as a pure spectator since I hold neither position.

I make one more argument before I close. It is an argument I have made before in other
writings. Jesus gave the Great Commission in Matt. 28:18-20 in which, to condense it,
he commanded his disciples to go make disciples and baptize them. We know they
lacked the power to baptize others in the Holy Spirit and thus know Jesus spoke of being
baptized in water. This was to last until Jesus comes again.

For a time in the first century there was both a baptism in the Holy Spirit and the baptism
of the Great Commission. However, after some time had passed by, a number of years,
Paul said in his writing of Eph. 4:4 that there was then remaining only "one baptism".
Which one was it?

The answer is obvious but it has been said I misunderstand. It has been said, "Paul is not
necessarily saying there is only one baptism but that the one baptism that places a person
into the body of Christ is Holy Spirit baptism." Read the passage for yourself and see if
you get that out of it.

By using the exact same line of thought we can just as readily say that Paul is not
necessarily saying in this passage (Eph. 4:4-6) that there is only one body, only one
Spirit, only one hope of your calling, only one Lord, only one faith, only one God and
Father of all. Does the reader believe that? I don't. Take the last mentioned. By using
the logic of my objector one would say "Paul is not necessarily saying there is only one
God and Father of all but that the one God and Father of all is "above all, and through all,
and in you all." (Eph. 4:6, NKJV) Believe it if you can. I cannot.

This is a subject that will never be put to rest even if I was to never personally write
another word on it or ever say another thing about it. But, I do have a few more things to
say on the subject in articles to come, Lord willing.