Rom 10:9-10
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
NASU
Does this passage teach that one has to confess in order to be saved?
I have been told that it does not teach this.
CONFESSION
Moderator: grand_puba
I know of passages that teach that faith is required for salvation, but I know of none that teach what you just said. Do you have a scripture reference for that statement?If one is not saved by faith alone then they are not saved at all.
By what definition of faith does it include confession? Certainly faith will produce confession, but where does the idea come from that confession is part of faith? Romans 10:9-10 as well as other passages (James 2:24, Mark 16:16, et al) certainly seem to indicate that faith in addition to the works that faith produces are required to be saved.
Using "head" to refer to cattle or "sails" to refer to ships is an example of synecdoche. I just can't see synecdoche in Romans 10:9-10. Particularly in verse 9, I see multiple distinct actions required to produce a single end result (righteousness, justification, and salvation being synonyms).
All are saved by faith alone can be found in Romans 4:5 and Titus 3:5, 6. It does not say "faith alone", but as I am sure you are quite aware of, there are times wheh there is more than just one way to express a truth claim.
Concerning 2 Corinthians 9:13 and Romans 1:5, "The obedience of your confession" is obviously another way of speaking of the "obedience of faith" (James Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, page 708).
Ya know after further study of James 2 I believe that it is referring to a false faith that will not produce the fruit of works. Works are a fruit (not a root) of salvation.
Mark 16:9-20 is not in the earliest Greek manuscripts (among others) so is therefore too unreliable of a text to base any doctrine on.
Belief "may" be used as a synecdoche for confession. But obviously not in all situations as you so correctly pointed out in Romans 10:9, 10. This would hold true as well in John 12:42.
Concerning 2 Corinthians 9:13 and Romans 1:5, "The obedience of your confession" is obviously another way of speaking of the "obedience of faith" (James Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, page 708).
Ya know after further study of James 2 I believe that it is referring to a false faith that will not produce the fruit of works. Works are a fruit (not a root) of salvation.
Mark 16:9-20 is not in the earliest Greek manuscripts (among others) so is therefore too unreliable of a text to base any doctrine on.
Belief "may" be used as a synecdoche for confession. But obviously not in all situations as you so correctly pointed out in Romans 10:9, 10. This would hold true as well in John 12:42.
Marc wrote:
Based on this, Marc, do you agree with me that saving faith is faith that includes/encompasses/encapsulates certain actions?
If so, perhaps we are making some headway here. The question then becomes "what actions must fait encapsulate in order to be the working faith that saves?"
We both agree confession is one. What others would you list?
I agree with this.Faith encapsulates confession
Based on this, Marc, do you agree with me that saving faith is faith that includes/encompasses/encapsulates certain actions?
If so, perhaps we are making some headway here. The question then becomes "what actions must fait encapsulate in order to be the working faith that saves?"
We both agree confession is one. What others would you list?
Marc wrote:
Only the MSS Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do not have the account and they are fourth-century MSS. On the other hand the Peshitto, Curetorian, Coptic, Sahidic, and Tatian's Diatessaron Versions which are all second-century Versions do contain the account. I do not appeal to these versions as being, necessarily, accurate translations; rather, I appeal to them as evidence for the existence of and acceptance of Mk. 16:9-20, as being genuine. Furthermore, the MSS Washington, Alexandrian, Ephraim and Bezae do contain the account. If the Vaticanus is supposed to be the most reliable MS and you reject Mk. 16:16, because it is not contained therein, then you must also reject I & 11 Timothy, Titus and Revelation because they are absent from that MS. And what shall we say for the Sinaiticus MS? Not only does it omit Mk. 16:9-20, but it also omits John 21:25; Hebrews 9:15, to the end of the book; Mk. 1:1; John 9:38; Luke 6:1; 22:43, 44; 23:34; John 19:33, 34; Eph. 6:1, and more.Mark 16:9-20 is not in the earliest Greek manuscripts (among others) so is therefore too unreliable of a text to base any doctrine on.
In terms of Mark 16:9-20 not only is it missing both in Aleph and B but it is also lacking in Codex Bobiensis, about 100 of the earliest Armenian manuscripts and two of the oldest Georgian manuscripts. Jerome stated that in nearly all the manuscripts he possessed this section was not there. Even in Tertullian's treatise "De Baptismo" where he lists quite a few passages showing the importance of water baptism not one time is Mark 16:16 ever mentioned. The Old Siniatic Syriac which predates the Peshita concludes at verse 8.
Manuscripts concerning Mark 16:9-20:
a. The earliest Greek lack this section.
b. The earliest Latin lack this section.
c. The earliest Syriac lack this section.
d. The earliest Armenian lack this section.
e. The earliest Coptic lack this section.
In fact, the earliest known commentary ever written on the gospel of Mark was by Victor of Antioch. His commentary on Mark lacked any direct comment on vss. 9-20.
In order to be saved one must believe, confess and repent.
Manuscripts concerning Mark 16:9-20:
a. The earliest Greek lack this section.
b. The earliest Latin lack this section.
c. The earliest Syriac lack this section.
d. The earliest Armenian lack this section.
e. The earliest Coptic lack this section.
In fact, the earliest known commentary ever written on the gospel of Mark was by Victor of Antioch. His commentary on Mark lacked any direct comment on vss. 9-20.
In order to be saved one must believe, confess and repent.
Mark wrote
Here what I really think, ever since the reformation and the birth of this faith alone doctrine man has been force to recognize that he was wrong but many will not, so they must shove all the obedint acts of God's will for man into this word faith or else they can no longer say it is by faith alone. certainly we can say that one will do nothing for God apart from faith but that does not make all things faith, repentance is not faith, confession is not repentance.
And certainly if you are going to say that one is saved by believing, confessing, and repenting, then one is certainly not saved by faith alone, since we are saved also by Love, by grace, by obedience, by blood, by faith, confession, repentance and baptism, and still there is more.
If we say that one who believes but will not confess really does not believe we make Christ out to be a liar, because he said that there were men who believed but would not confess (John 8 and 12), so what was Jesus wrong? Certainly not, this just points to the fact that these things are not the same they are stepping stones of faith and obedience leading to life.
This is just wierd, I know you will say that all these things encompass faith and they are not really those things because they are really just faith, we have been down this road before.In order to be saved one must believe, confess and repent.
Here what I really think, ever since the reformation and the birth of this faith alone doctrine man has been force to recognize that he was wrong but many will not, so they must shove all the obedint acts of God's will for man into this word faith or else they can no longer say it is by faith alone. certainly we can say that one will do nothing for God apart from faith but that does not make all things faith, repentance is not faith, confession is not repentance.
And certainly if you are going to say that one is saved by believing, confessing, and repenting, then one is certainly not saved by faith alone, since we are saved also by Love, by grace, by obedience, by blood, by faith, confession, repentance and baptism, and still there is more.
If we say that one who believes but will not confess really does not believe we make Christ out to be a liar, because he said that there were men who believed but would not confess (John 8 and 12), so what was Jesus wrong? Certainly not, this just points to the fact that these things are not the same they are stepping stones of faith and obedience leading to life.
I just gave you an example where the obedience of faith is the same thing as the obedience of confession.
Words can encompass other word meanings. Akouw (Strong's #191) means to "hear and obey" (Thayer) as in John 10:8; Acts 3:22; Acts 4:19. But in James 1:22 we are told not be hearers only but also to be a doer. It can encompass doing and it may not.
We are not saved by water baptism for I have already shown that the Gentiles in Acts 10 were saved before they were water baptized.
Words can encompass other word meanings. Akouw (Strong's #191) means to "hear and obey" (Thayer) as in John 10:8; Acts 3:22; Acts 4:19. But in James 1:22 we are told not be hearers only but also to be a doer. It can encompass doing and it may not.
We are not saved by water baptism for I have already shown that the Gentiles in Acts 10 were saved before they were water baptized.
If water baptism ended either at Acts10 or before then what baptism is the baptism that would last till the end of the age, according to the great commission? If it is spirit baptism then how is it that Jesus commanded it to be administered by men to other men, when we know that He is the author of H.S. baptism.
And if this be true what you are saying about baptism why administer it at all since it served no other purpose than what we see in the N.T., it certainly does not say it is an outward sign of an inward grace like most like to imply incorrectly
And if this be true what you are saying about baptism why administer it at all since it served no other purpose than what we see in the N.T., it certainly does not say it is an outward sign of an inward grace like most like to imply incorrectly
Mattew 28 says "all" are to be water baptized. This text does not state if it is salvific.
It is salvific in Acts 2:38.
It is not salvific in Acts 10:48.
Since the Gentiles in Acts 10 were clearly saved before they were water baptized (something to which you keep avoiding) then water baptism is an outward sign of an inward grace.
It is salvific in Acts 2:38.
It is not salvific in Acts 10:48.
Since the Gentiles in Acts 10 were clearly saved before they were water baptized (something to which you keep avoiding) then water baptism is an outward sign of an inward grace.
For the casual reader (or one that is not familiar with Marc's other posts), here are the underpinnings of Marc's patently false assertion made in this quote:Marc wrote:Mattew 28 says "all" are to be water baptized. This text does not state if it is salvific.
It is salvific in Acts 2:38.
It is not salvific in Acts 10:48.
Since the Gentiles in Acts 10 were clearly saved before they were water baptized (something to which you keep avoiding) then water baptism is an outward sign of an inward grace.
1) His argument is predicated on the Gentiles being a separate "class" of salvation from the Jews. In his argument the Jews had the "greater sin" in Jesus crucifixion that required them to be water baptized. This of course ignores the facts that it was
a) the Gentiles that actually carried out his crucifixion and it was sinners that caused Jesus to suffer, not just the Jews (Heb 12:3)
b) the disciples were commanded after his resurrection to go teach all nations baptizing them (Matt 28:18-19). There is no definition of a "salvific" sub-class of Jews or Gentiles just "all nations". (Marc, is "all" here not supposed to be taken literally too?)
2) His argument is predicated on indwelling of the Holy Spirit signifies the person as being saved in Acts 10 with Cornelius. But this ignores the case of Balaam in Numbers 24:2.
Just because something is said "loudly" (in an Internet sense) with great assertion by a person does not make it true. The tactic of "you're dodging my point" is made whenever he doesn't agree with another person. The points have been debated back and forth for over a year by many.
1 Cor. 10:12 wrote:12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.
Nice dodge Sledford.
What does John 19:11 say. Yep that's right - "the GREATER sin". Yes the Gentiles carried out the execution but who delivered Christ to the Gentiles hoping they would do this to Him? In fact, even when Pilate (A Gentile) at first desired to release Jesus who was it that continuously cried out for His execution? Go back to the drawing board for that one Sledford.
Yes all are to be water baptized. I never denied that but Acts 10 clearly shows that the Gentiles were saved before they were water baptized.
Balaam was "before" the time Christ was glorified "when the Spirit had not yet been given" (John 7:39). So it does not apply. Try again.
Titus 3:6 shows that any person who has had the Holy Spirit "poured out"(ekxeo) upon them are "saved" (Titus 3:5). This took place in Acts 10:45 Sleddy. You would really love if Acts 10:45 and 10:48 were revearsed but God didn't see it that way much to your chagrin.
What does John 19:11 say. Yep that's right - "the GREATER sin". Yes the Gentiles carried out the execution but who delivered Christ to the Gentiles hoping they would do this to Him? In fact, even when Pilate (A Gentile) at first desired to release Jesus who was it that continuously cried out for His execution? Go back to the drawing board for that one Sledford.
Yes all are to be water baptized. I never denied that but Acts 10 clearly shows that the Gentiles were saved before they were water baptized.
Balaam was "before" the time Christ was glorified "when the Spirit had not yet been given" (John 7:39). So it does not apply. Try again.
Titus 3:6 shows that any person who has had the Holy Spirit "poured out"(ekxeo) upon them are "saved" (Titus 3:5). This took place in Acts 10:45 Sleddy. You would really love if Acts 10:45 and 10:48 were revearsed but God didn't see it that way much to your chagrin.
The Holy Spirit fel upon the Gentiles just as He did the Apostles on the day of Penecost, was the purpose to save them?
No it was for a sign, the Holy Spirit came with Power and signs, why? so that those on the day of Pentecost would believe that the Holy Spirit came, to believe the message which the sign would confirm that salvation indeed came, just as the Jews in Acts 10 needed to believe that salvation was being permitted to come to this respectful Gentile and his household, who before hand had not recieved the Gospel, IT HAD NOT GONE TO THE GENTILES YET.
The Holy Spirit fell upon them for a sign, for Peter and his fellow Jews so that they may believe this.
Do you think it is possible that there are more than one reason for the Holy Spirit being poured out, God chooses His ways over our thoughts.
Most logically God did not call for two or three DIFFERENT gospels what a mess it would be, one gospel to all Jews and Gentiles alike.
This is why it is imperative that those who believe this truth stand on the fact that there must be a reason for the H.S. falling upon the Gentiles before their baptism.
They did not recieve an indwelling before baptism they recieve the H.S. for a sign, they recieve the indwelling as Christians at their baptism.
Just as the Disciple on different occasions recieved the Spirit, limited commission, a time before penecost, pentecost.
Did they recieve the H.S. every time for salvation no He served a purpose, God is not contrary to Himself.
Acts 2:38 and Acts 10 have to line up our else you teach a different Gospel, but there is only one.
No it was for a sign, the Holy Spirit came with Power and signs, why? so that those on the day of Pentecost would believe that the Holy Spirit came, to believe the message which the sign would confirm that salvation indeed came, just as the Jews in Acts 10 needed to believe that salvation was being permitted to come to this respectful Gentile and his household, who before hand had not recieved the Gospel, IT HAD NOT GONE TO THE GENTILES YET.
The Holy Spirit fell upon them for a sign, for Peter and his fellow Jews so that they may believe this.
Do you think it is possible that there are more than one reason for the Holy Spirit being poured out, God chooses His ways over our thoughts.
Most logically God did not call for two or three DIFFERENT gospels what a mess it would be, one gospel to all Jews and Gentiles alike.
This is why it is imperative that those who believe this truth stand on the fact that there must be a reason for the H.S. falling upon the Gentiles before their baptism.
They did not recieve an indwelling before baptism they recieve the H.S. for a sign, they recieve the indwelling as Christians at their baptism.
Just as the Disciple on different occasions recieved the Spirit, limited commission, a time before penecost, pentecost.
Did they recieve the H.S. every time for salvation no He served a purpose, God is not contrary to Himself.
Acts 2:38 and Acts 10 have to line up our else you teach a different Gospel, but there is only one.
The Holy Spirit fel upon the Gentiles just as He did the Apostles on the day of Penecost, was the purpose to save them?
No it was for a sign, the Holy Spirit came with Power and signs, why? so that those on the day of Pentecost would believe that the Holy Spirit came, to believe the message which the sign would confirm that salvation indeed came, just as the Jews in Acts 10 needed to believe that salvation was being permitted to come to this respectful Gentile and his household, who before hand had not recieved the Gospel, IT HAD NOT GONE TO THE GENTILES YET.
The Holy Spirit fell upon them for a sign, for Peter and his fellow Jews so that they may believe this.
Do you think it is possible that there are more than one reason for the Holy Spirit being poured out, God chooses His ways over our thoughts.
Most logically God did not call for two or three DIFFERENT gospels what a mess it would be, one gospel to all Jews and Gentiles alike.
This is why it is imperative that those who believe this truth stand on the fact that there must be a reason for the H.S. falling upon the Gentiles before their baptism.
They did not recieve an indwelling before baptism they recieve the H.S. for a sign, they recieve the indwelling as Christians at their baptism.
Just as the Disciple on different occasions recieved the Spirit, limited commission, a time before penecost, pentecost.
Did they recieve the H.S. every time for salvation no He served a purpose, God is not contrary to Himself.
Acts 2:38 and Acts 10 have to line up our else you teach a different Gospel, but there is only one.
No it was for a sign, the Holy Spirit came with Power and signs, why? so that those on the day of Pentecost would believe that the Holy Spirit came, to believe the message which the sign would confirm that salvation indeed came, just as the Jews in Acts 10 needed to believe that salvation was being permitted to come to this respectful Gentile and his household, who before hand had not recieved the Gospel, IT HAD NOT GONE TO THE GENTILES YET.
The Holy Spirit fell upon them for a sign, for Peter and his fellow Jews so that they may believe this.
Do you think it is possible that there are more than one reason for the Holy Spirit being poured out, God chooses His ways over our thoughts.
Most logically God did not call for two or three DIFFERENT gospels what a mess it would be, one gospel to all Jews and Gentiles alike.
This is why it is imperative that those who believe this truth stand on the fact that there must be a reason for the H.S. falling upon the Gentiles before their baptism.
They did not recieve an indwelling before baptism they recieve the H.S. for a sign, they recieve the indwelling as Christians at their baptism.
Just as the Disciple on different occasions recieved the Spirit, limited commission, a time before penecost, pentecost.
Did they recieve the H.S. every time for salvation no He served a purpose, God is not contrary to Himself.
Acts 2:38 and Acts 10 have to line up our else you teach a different Gospel, but there is only one.
The Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentiles just as He did on the Apostles at Pentecost - In both instances He placed each group "in the body of Christ" for Pentecost is when the NT church began (Acts 2:1-4).
According to Titus 3:5, 6 if one has the Holy Spirit "poured out" upon them (Titus 3:6) this means they have been saved (Titus 3:5). Notice it wasn't one of the orginal apostles who wrote Titus for they could not say the Holy Spirit's "pouring out" saved them (for they were already saved prior to Pentecost). No it was rather Paul who wrote Titus. When the Holy Spirit was "poured out" on Paul that is when he was saved.
Yes one Gospel for all - I never said there was more than one Gospel. But within this "one Gospel" is repentance and that "will" vary depending on the person or party involved.
Speaking of indwelling. In Acts 2:1-4 this is when the Apostles were "indwelt" with the Holy Spirit. Thus since the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit "just as" these Apostles they too were indwelt with the Holy Spirit (saved) before they were water baptized.
According to Titus 3:5, 6 if one has the Holy Spirit "poured out" upon them (Titus 3:6) this means they have been saved (Titus 3:5). Notice it wasn't one of the orginal apostles who wrote Titus for they could not say the Holy Spirit's "pouring out" saved them (for they were already saved prior to Pentecost). No it was rather Paul who wrote Titus. When the Holy Spirit was "poured out" on Paul that is when he was saved.
Yes one Gospel for all - I never said there was more than one Gospel. But within this "one Gospel" is repentance and that "will" vary depending on the person or party involved.
Speaking of indwelling. In Acts 2:1-4 this is when the Apostles were "indwelt" with the Holy Spirit. Thus since the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit "just as" these Apostles they too were indwelt with the Holy Spirit (saved) before they were water baptized.
Acts 22:16
16'Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.'
NASU
Yes it is a wicked web we weave over and over and over and over!
Paul was saved but not until he washed away his sins, if Paul had his sins and recieved the Holy Spirit and was saved then he was saved in his sins, the context of these verses tells us that Paul was told to rise up, and wash away your sins.
I know we will find a way to reason it out to work for the faith alone theory, I'll just wait for the same response about how he was saved before he was baptized, saved in his sin.
Then again it really does make a diference who is reading and responding, whether a dispensationlist or a traditional faith alone theorist or someone who realy sees the scripture for what is says, plainly without forcing another agenda.
Can we at least agree that Paul on the road to Damascus saw Christ and believed? Yet it was not until days later that he is told to arise and wash away his sins? Which tells me that he was not saved by faith alone he acted in obedience in being baptized and washing away his sins? Why is this hard?
16'Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.'
NASU
Yes it is a wicked web we weave over and over and over and over!
Paul was saved but not until he washed away his sins, if Paul had his sins and recieved the Holy Spirit and was saved then he was saved in his sins, the context of these verses tells us that Paul was told to rise up, and wash away your sins.
I know we will find a way to reason it out to work for the faith alone theory, I'll just wait for the same response about how he was saved before he was baptized, saved in his sin.
Then again it really does make a diference who is reading and responding, whether a dispensationlist or a traditional faith alone theorist or someone who realy sees the scripture for what is says, plainly without forcing another agenda.
Can we at least agree that Paul on the road to Damascus saw Christ and believed? Yet it was not until days later that he is told to arise and wash away his sins? Which tells me that he was not saved by faith alone he acted in obedience in being baptized and washing away his sins? Why is this hard?
Paul was a Jew so thus he fell under the conditions of Acts 2:38. He received the Holy Spirit/salvation in or upon his water baptism.
Show me just one post or thread in this entire forum where I have ever written that Paul was saved before he was water baptized. I'll be waiting....
Thank you for once again dodging what I wrote concerning how the Gentiles were saved "before" they were water baptized in Acts 10.
Show me just one post or thread in this entire forum where I have ever written that Paul was saved before he was water baptized. I'll be waiting....
Thank you for once again dodging what I wrote concerning how the Gentiles were saved "before" they were water baptized in Acts 10.
The problem is, how could the household of Cornelius have received the baptism of the Holy Spirit without having "remission of sins"?
Remission was to be received "through His name" (Acts 10:43) and it was in water they were baptized "In the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 10:48; cf. Matt. 28:18-20, Acts 2:38, 8:16, 19:5)
How does the Great commission line up with your Cornelius theory? How does Mark 16:15, 16 line up with your theory?
If this commission would last till the end of the age, did Christ mean only until the gospel went to the Gentiles? Because of your change from Acts 2:38 and Acts10 you have to change what Jesus said about baptizing people, notice He commanded men to baptize other men, remembering the synoptic account in Mark 16.
For a discussion on the Great commission see my post that no one has responded to yet.
Remission was to be received "through His name" (Acts 10:43) and it was in water they were baptized "In the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 10:48; cf. Matt. 28:18-20, Acts 2:38, 8:16, 19:5)
How does the Great commission line up with your Cornelius theory? How does Mark 16:15, 16 line up with your theory?
If this commission would last till the end of the age, did Christ mean only until the gospel went to the Gentiles? Because of your change from Acts 2:38 and Acts10 you have to change what Jesus said about baptizing people, notice He commanded men to baptize other men, remembering the synoptic account in Mark 16.
For a discussion on the Great commission see my post that no one has responded to yet.
When the Holy Spirit was poured out upon them in Acts 2:4 this placed them into the NT church. That is what the pouring out/baptism with the Holy Spirit does. It places a person into the NT church. This is precisely what occurred with the Gentiles in Acts 10:44, 45 before they were water baptized in Acts 10:48.
Mark 16:9-20 is not in the earliest Greek manuscripts (among others) so is therefore too unreliable of a text to base any doctrine on.
Remission is in Christ's name (Acts 10:43) but this does not necessitate that this remission occurred when they were water baptized in His name. Christians are supposed to do all things in His name (Colossians 3:17) but that doesn't mean until they do so they are not yet saved.
I wrote a comment in concerning the Great Commission in your other post.
There are several ways that the Bible clearly demonstrates that the Gentiles in Acts were saved before they were water baptized. I cited one above in my first paragraph but here is one more. 1 John 4:13 states that one can know they abide "in God" because He has "given" of His Holy Spirit. How does one know they abide "in God"? Because He has "given" His Holy Spirit.
The Greek word for given is "dido". It is the very same word that Peter used in Acts 11:17 in describing how the Gentiles were "given" (dido) the Holy Spirit before they were water baptized. So by being "given" the Holy Spirit before they were water baptized these Gentiles were already "in God" before they were water baptized. Thus they were already saved.
Mark 16:9-20 is not in the earliest Greek manuscripts (among others) so is therefore too unreliable of a text to base any doctrine on.
Remission is in Christ's name (Acts 10:43) but this does not necessitate that this remission occurred when they were water baptized in His name. Christians are supposed to do all things in His name (Colossians 3:17) but that doesn't mean until they do so they are not yet saved.
I wrote a comment in concerning the Great Commission in your other post.
There are several ways that the Bible clearly demonstrates that the Gentiles in Acts were saved before they were water baptized. I cited one above in my first paragraph but here is one more. 1 John 4:13 states that one can know they abide "in God" because He has "given" of His Holy Spirit. How does one know they abide "in God"? Because He has "given" His Holy Spirit.
The Greek word for given is "dido". It is the very same word that Peter used in Acts 11:17 in describing how the Gentiles were "given" (dido) the Holy Spirit before they were water baptized. So by being "given" the Holy Spirit before they were water baptized these Gentiles were already "in God" before they were water baptized. Thus they were already saved.
Remission is in Christ's name (Acts 10:43) but this does not necessitate that this remission occurred when they were water baptized in His name. Christians are supposed to do all things in His name (Colossians 3:17) but that doesn't mean until they do so they are not yet saved.
Gal 3:27-4:1
27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.
Acts 2:38-39
a Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
NASU
Then when did remission occur? Before the Holy Spirit fell upon them? Or after?
And again if Mark's Gospel ends at verses 8 it would end this way:
Mark 16:8
8 They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.
NASU
WOW Mark through inspiration would end the Gospel in this manner, I don't think so, do you really think this is how thw it ends, please!
Mark 16:14-16
15 And He said to them, " Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 " He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.
NASU
Galatians 3:27 like Acts 11:16 refers to being baptized with the Holy Spirit. You assume it means water but it does not.
In Acts 2:38 the forgiveness of sins took place in or upon their water baptism. At the same time they were baptized with the Holy Spirit.
You expressed surprise that Matk would end his Gospel that way but you didn't give a reason (s) why. Why couldn't he have ended it this way?
Once again you didn't address 1 John 4:13 or the fact that the baptism with the Holy Spirit places a person into the NT church (the body of Christ).
In Acts 2:38 the forgiveness of sins took place in or upon their water baptism. At the same time they were baptized with the Holy Spirit.
You expressed surprise that Matk would end his Gospel that way but you didn't give a reason (s) why. Why couldn't he have ended it this way?
Once again you didn't address 1 John 4:13 or the fact that the baptism with the Holy Spirit places a person into the NT church (the body of Christ).
Some allege that the baptism commissioned by Christ was not a rite in water. Rather, they contend, it is an immersion in the Holy Spirit. What are the facts regarding this matter?
“How would you respond to those who make the claim that passages such as Galatains 3:27; Romans 6:3,4; Colossians 2:12; 1 Corinthians 12:13, and 1 Peter 3:21—refer to a ‘Spirit’ baptism, rather than to ‘water’ baptism?”
Some years ago I had a series of public debates with a gentleman who contended that there is no divinely-authorized “water” baptism today. The water baptism specifically mentioned in the book of Acts (e.g., 8:36; 10:47), he opined, was merely a “Jewish purification” ritual. He claimed that this ceremonial act was terminated with the close of the book of Acts, and that the only baptism in vogue today is a “Spirit baptism.”
This dogma is quite erroneous, and it can be refuted effectively.
In response I must first point out that it is generally agreed that whatever the “baptism” is—in those passages that associate the rite with salvation—it is the same type of “baptism” in all the verses. In other words, the “baptism” of Matthew 28:19 is of the same kind as that in Acts 2:38; 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12; 1 Peter 3:21; etc. My debate opponent, mentioned above, happily conceded this point.
In view of this, consider the following:
The baptism mentioned in Matthew 28:19 had human administrators. Christ commissioned the apostles to go and make disciples, baptizing them into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Inasmuch as an apostle could not baptize “in the Spirit” (only Christ could do that—Mt. 3:11), one is forced to conclude that the baptism of Matthew 28:19 is water baptism, not Spirit baptism.
I am unaware of any reputable Bible scholar who contends otherwise. If, then, the other passages that mention baptism (see above) are of the same import, it follows that they likewise refer to water baptism, not Spirit baptism.
Both Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12 make it clear that the baptism of these passages involves both an immersion in “something,” and a “being raised” from the same substance. This makes perfectly good sense if water baptism is in view.
On the other hand, if the “Spirit” is the element of the baptism, this would suggest that one is buried in the Spirit, and subsequently “raised from” the Spirit. This would imply further that the new convert would not have the Spirit, and therefore, would not belong to the Lord (Rom. 8:9; Gal. 4:6). This conclusion obviously is wrong—thus demonstrating that the element of the baptism in Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12 is not the Holy Spirit. By default, it must be water baptism.
Water is specifically associated with baptism in 1 Peter 3:21. If the allusion here, then, is to water baptism, and yet 1 Peter 3:21 refers to the same sort of baptism as the other passages cited, then clearly they speak of water baptism as well.
The passage that would come closest to teaching a “Spirit” baptism would be 1 Corinthians 12:13, but, the fact is, a careful analysis of related passages reveals that not even this text teaches a baptism in the Spirit.
Note the following logic: The baptism of 1 Corinthians 12:13 puts one into the one “body,” which is the same as the “church” (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18,24). But the church is identified with the kingdom of Christ (Mt. 16:18-19). Thus, the baptism of the text under consideration introduces one into the Lord’s kingdom.
However, a related passage demonstrates that it is through the birth of “water” that one enters Christ’s kingdom (Jn. 3:3-5). One is forced to conclude, therefore, that the baptism of 1 Corinthians 12:13 is water baptism. In this connection, one should also carefully study Ephesians 5:26, and note the reference to the “washing of water.”
Finally, there is a principle of interpretation that is paramount in sound Bible exegesis. Frequently it is the case that Bible words will form a pattern. That is, a consideration of several passages containing a term will reveal that the word has a commonly understood significance. Such being the case, that normal meaning is to be attached to the term unless an exceptional context suggests that it has taken on a special significance (i.e., a figurative sense).
The term “baptize,” and its cognate “baptism,” occur together about 100 times in the New Testament. A consideration of these passages will reveal that the word may, on occasion, take on a figurative application (cf. Mt. 3:11; Lk. 12:50; Acts 1:5). Unless, though, there is clear contextual evidence that a symbolic sense has been employed, the conclusion must be that the common usage (an immersion in water) is in view.
In view of this principle, there is no reason to conclude the baptism mentioned in Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38, 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12, and 1 Peter 3:21 is anything other than water baptism—an act of obedience, predicated upon faith and repentance, which secures forgiveness of sins and brings one into union with Jesus Christ.
To all of this we add this point. The clear cases of “water” baptism in the book of Acts (chapters 8 and 10) very obviously were not examples of Jewish ritualism. The indisputable fact is that the Mosaic law had been abolished by the cross (Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14), and no Jewish rite was henceforth tolerated in connection with the salvation process (cf. Acts 15:1; Gal. 5:2-4).
“How would you respond to those who make the claim that passages such as Galatains 3:27; Romans 6:3,4; Colossians 2:12; 1 Corinthians 12:13, and 1 Peter 3:21—refer to a ‘Spirit’ baptism, rather than to ‘water’ baptism?”
Some years ago I had a series of public debates with a gentleman who contended that there is no divinely-authorized “water” baptism today. The water baptism specifically mentioned in the book of Acts (e.g., 8:36; 10:47), he opined, was merely a “Jewish purification” ritual. He claimed that this ceremonial act was terminated with the close of the book of Acts, and that the only baptism in vogue today is a “Spirit baptism.”
This dogma is quite erroneous, and it can be refuted effectively.
In response I must first point out that it is generally agreed that whatever the “baptism” is—in those passages that associate the rite with salvation—it is the same type of “baptism” in all the verses. In other words, the “baptism” of Matthew 28:19 is of the same kind as that in Acts 2:38; 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12; 1 Peter 3:21; etc. My debate opponent, mentioned above, happily conceded this point.
In view of this, consider the following:
The baptism mentioned in Matthew 28:19 had human administrators. Christ commissioned the apostles to go and make disciples, baptizing them into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Inasmuch as an apostle could not baptize “in the Spirit” (only Christ could do that—Mt. 3:11), one is forced to conclude that the baptism of Matthew 28:19 is water baptism, not Spirit baptism.
I am unaware of any reputable Bible scholar who contends otherwise. If, then, the other passages that mention baptism (see above) are of the same import, it follows that they likewise refer to water baptism, not Spirit baptism.
Both Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12 make it clear that the baptism of these passages involves both an immersion in “something,” and a “being raised” from the same substance. This makes perfectly good sense if water baptism is in view.
On the other hand, if the “Spirit” is the element of the baptism, this would suggest that one is buried in the Spirit, and subsequently “raised from” the Spirit. This would imply further that the new convert would not have the Spirit, and therefore, would not belong to the Lord (Rom. 8:9; Gal. 4:6). This conclusion obviously is wrong—thus demonstrating that the element of the baptism in Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12 is not the Holy Spirit. By default, it must be water baptism.
Water is specifically associated with baptism in 1 Peter 3:21. If the allusion here, then, is to water baptism, and yet 1 Peter 3:21 refers to the same sort of baptism as the other passages cited, then clearly they speak of water baptism as well.
The passage that would come closest to teaching a “Spirit” baptism would be 1 Corinthians 12:13, but, the fact is, a careful analysis of related passages reveals that not even this text teaches a baptism in the Spirit.
Note the following logic: The baptism of 1 Corinthians 12:13 puts one into the one “body,” which is the same as the “church” (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18,24). But the church is identified with the kingdom of Christ (Mt. 16:18-19). Thus, the baptism of the text under consideration introduces one into the Lord’s kingdom.
However, a related passage demonstrates that it is through the birth of “water” that one enters Christ’s kingdom (Jn. 3:3-5). One is forced to conclude, therefore, that the baptism of 1 Corinthians 12:13 is water baptism. In this connection, one should also carefully study Ephesians 5:26, and note the reference to the “washing of water.”
Finally, there is a principle of interpretation that is paramount in sound Bible exegesis. Frequently it is the case that Bible words will form a pattern. That is, a consideration of several passages containing a term will reveal that the word has a commonly understood significance. Such being the case, that normal meaning is to be attached to the term unless an exceptional context suggests that it has taken on a special significance (i.e., a figurative sense).
The term “baptize,” and its cognate “baptism,” occur together about 100 times in the New Testament. A consideration of these passages will reveal that the word may, on occasion, take on a figurative application (cf. Mt. 3:11; Lk. 12:50; Acts 1:5). Unless, though, there is clear contextual evidence that a symbolic sense has been employed, the conclusion must be that the common usage (an immersion in water) is in view.
In view of this principle, there is no reason to conclude the baptism mentioned in Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38, 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12, and 1 Peter 3:21 is anything other than water baptism—an act of obedience, predicated upon faith and repentance, which secures forgiveness of sins and brings one into union with Jesus Christ.
To all of this we add this point. The clear cases of “water” baptism in the book of Acts (chapters 8 and 10) very obviously were not examples of Jewish ritualism. The indisputable fact is that the Mosaic law had been abolished by the cross (Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14), and no Jewish rite was henceforth tolerated in connection with the salvation process (cf. Acts 15:1; Gal. 5:2-4).
Gal 3:14
14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
NASU
First let me say that it is through "THE" faith, being objective not subjective, check your Greek text for the definite article. So Paul here tells us that as Gentiles we would recieve the promise of the Spirit through the Gospel.
Gal 3:23-29
23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.
We are all sons of God through "THE" faith, the gospel. We become sons of God heirs to the promise, what promise? The promise that Paul just spoke of in the immediate context "THE SPIRIT" (V.14).
If one is baptized into Christ with the Holy Spirit (as you proclaim) Then one has the Spirit before he becomes a heir before one can recieve the promise of the "SPIRIT"
You must be in Christ "ALL ONE IN CHRIST" to be a descendant, in order to recieve the promise.
We do not baptize ourselves with the Holy Spirit do we? This would go contrary to John the baptizers own words.
How does this match up with the Great commission.
If we are immersed into Christ with the Holy Spirit how does this explain one needing to be in Christ to recieve the Holy Spirit.
I know it is a far stretch for a dispensationlist to see how Acts 2:38 lines up with Gal.3:27 and Matt.28:18
The problem I see is truly what purpose does water baptism really take in the denominational churches today, it really serves no purpose.
These Galatians were immersed in water just as those on the day of Pentecost, and they recieved the gift of the Holy Spirit just as it was promise to the Gentiles in Gal. 3, but they first had to become heirs, in order to recieve the promise of the Holy Spirit.
If these Galatians were baptized into Christ this is how they were made disciples, If Christ commanded us to go into the world baptizing people making them disciples how does this happen and why are you forcing partiallity between the Jew and the Gentile?
Does Matt.28 go against Gal.3:27?
14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
NASU
First let me say that it is through "THE" faith, being objective not subjective, check your Greek text for the definite article. So Paul here tells us that as Gentiles we would recieve the promise of the Spirit through the Gospel.
Gal 3:23-29
23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.
We are all sons of God through "THE" faith, the gospel. We become sons of God heirs to the promise, what promise? The promise that Paul just spoke of in the immediate context "THE SPIRIT" (V.14).
If one is baptized into Christ with the Holy Spirit (as you proclaim) Then one has the Spirit before he becomes a heir before one can recieve the promise of the "SPIRIT"
You must be in Christ "ALL ONE IN CHRIST" to be a descendant, in order to recieve the promise.
We do not baptize ourselves with the Holy Spirit do we? This would go contrary to John the baptizers own words.
How does this match up with the Great commission.
If we are immersed into Christ with the Holy Spirit how does this explain one needing to be in Christ to recieve the Holy Spirit.
I know it is a far stretch for a dispensationlist to see how Acts 2:38 lines up with Gal.3:27 and Matt.28:18
The problem I see is truly what purpose does water baptism really take in the denominational churches today, it really serves no purpose.
These Galatians were immersed in water just as those on the day of Pentecost, and they recieved the gift of the Holy Spirit just as it was promise to the Gentiles in Gal. 3, but they first had to become heirs, in order to recieve the promise of the Holy Spirit.
If these Galatians were baptized into Christ this is how they were made disciples, If Christ commanded us to go into the world baptizing people making them disciples how does this happen and why are you forcing partiallity between the Jew and the Gentile?
Does Matt.28 go against Gal.3:27?
It is true that Romans 6:3; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:27 and Colossians 2:12 all refer to the same baptism. This baptism is the baptism with the Holy Spirit. Colossians 2:11, 12 talks about one being "circumcised" in association with "baptism". Those of the "true circumcision" Philippians 3:3 tells us "worship in the Spiritof God". This circumcision is "of Christ" (Colossians 2:11). But we do know that since the Gentiles were the recipients of the Holy Spiirt and were in fact "worshiping in the Spirit of God" (Acts 10:46) we know that they were ALREADY of the "true circumcision". Thus the "baptism" that Colossians 2:12 describes can not refer to water baptism but Holy Spirit baptism. And since this passage refers to Holy Spirit baptism then the other three do as well.
Both Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12 make it clear that the baptism of these passages involves both an immersion in “something,” and a “being raised” from the same substance. This makes perfectly good sense if water baptism is in view.
On the other hand, if the “Spirit” is the element of the baptism, this would suggest that one is buried in the Spirit, and subsequently “raised from” the Spirit. This would imply further that the new convert would not have the Spirit, and therefore, would not belong to the Lord (Rom. 8:9; Gal. 4:6). This conclusion obviously is wrong—thus demonstrating that the element of the baptism in Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12 is not the Holy Spirit. By default, it must be water baptism.
On the other hand, if the “Spirit” is the element of the baptism, this would suggest that one is buried in the Spirit, and subsequently “raised from” the Spirit. This would imply further that the new convert would not have the Spirit, and therefore, would not belong to the Lord (Rom. 8:9; Gal. 4:6). This conclusion obviously is wrong—thus demonstrating that the element of the baptism in Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12 is not the Holy Spirit. By default, it must be water baptism.
1. Baptism is a picture of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. Romans 6 is emphasizing that this is what water baptism is all about. The phrase "like as" in verse 3 shows us that baptism and Christ's death, etc., have a relationship to each other. Baptism is a picture of Christ's death. In other words, baptism is "like as" Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. How can Spirit baptism present a picture of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection? It can not! Only water baptism can do that.
Since the Holy Spirit is God why can't this be possible that we are buried into Him and raised from Him? He is doing the saving.
You avoided Philippians 3:3 and Acts 10:46. Just like you continue to avoid 1 John 4:13 and the fact that when those in Acts 2:4 (cf. Acts 1:5) were baptized with the Holy Spirit this placed them into the NT church. That is what the baptism with the Holy Spirit does. It places one into the NT church - this is precisely what took place with the Gentiles before they were water baptized (Acts 11:16)
You avoided Philippians 3:3 and Acts 10:46. Just like you continue to avoid 1 John 4:13 and the fact that when those in Acts 2:4 (cf. Acts 1:5) were baptized with the Holy Spirit this placed them into the NT church. That is what the baptism with the Holy Spirit does. It places one into the NT church - this is precisely what took place with the Gentiles before they were water baptized (Acts 11:16)
Two baptisms one with water and one with the Holy Spirit.
But there is only one which keeps the unity of the Spirit.
Since you proclaim that baptism does not save then how can one be saved apart from the Holy Spirit?
If all these passages mean H.S. baptism and one cannot be saved apart from the H.S. then baptism indeed saves according to your idea of what baptism means in these verses.
But there is only one which keeps the unity of the Spirit.
Since you proclaim that baptism does not save then how can one be saved apart from the Holy Spirit?
If all these passages mean H.S. baptism and one cannot be saved apart from the H.S. then baptism indeed saves according to your idea of what baptism means in these verses.
1 John 4:12-16
No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us.13 By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world.15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.16 And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him.
NKJV
These verses if you look at them real close you will see that God gives those who abide in Him the Holy Spirit, so really it just confirms what I have been saying all along. We are baptized into Christ for the remission of sins then we recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit.
First you must be in CHrist, "Abide" then He gives you the gift of the Holy Spirit, promise for those who are sons, one must be a son to recieve the inheritance which is the Holy Spirit.
First In Christ second recieve the H.S. there is this idea of cleansing before God's spirit will enter yourbody, it must be free of past sin then God's Spirit come to dwell in you.
No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us.13 By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world.15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.16 And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him.
NKJV
These verses if you look at them real close you will see that God gives those who abide in Him the Holy Spirit, so really it just confirms what I have been saying all along. We are baptized into Christ for the remission of sins then we recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit.
First you must be in CHrist, "Abide" then He gives you the gift of the Holy Spirit, promise for those who are sons, one must be a son to recieve the inheritance which is the Holy Spirit.
First In Christ second recieve the H.S. there is this idea of cleansing before God's spirit will enter yourbody, it must be free of past sin then God's Spirit come to dwell in you.
Been on the road and not able to follow up much in the past week. I've stated before that there is much confusion about the Holy Spirit. I want to wrap up on one point with respect to this and how the HS operated in the NT times and the "promise" of the HS that Jesus made before his death, resurrection, and ascension.
In a different thread there was reference to the context of John 7:39:
So, Jesus being the incarnate Word, the Son of God, what did he mean then in John 7:39 when it is revealed his thoughts that the HS had not been given? The question to be asked really is: HOW would the HS be given that is different from how it was given before?
To answer this we only need to look a little further in John:
1) reprove the world of sin (v8, 9)
2) reprove the world of righteousness (v8, 10)
3) reprove the world of judgment (v8, 11)
4) guide in all truth (v13)
5) speak of things from Jesus (v13)
6) glorify Jesus (v14)
See there is no promise of a direct, miraculous indwelling of the HS in every person that is saved. In John 16, the purpose of the "giving of the HS" is completely defined around the application of truth, glorification of Jesus, and revelation of the Word of God. And it is through the Word that people were saved then and how they are saved today.
In a different thread there was reference to the context of John 7:39:
Now, if one assumes the meaning of "giving the HS" to refer ONLY to a literal, miraculous indwelling of the HS then Jesus doesn't know what he's talking about because clearly it is recorded in the OT that the HS had been "given" before. Take a look at contexts such as Numbers 11 and 24 as well as Judges 14. Same exact language for the HS being "given" to people before. Use the meaning of "giving the HS" to mean literal indwelling and Jesus is a liar and a fraud based on harmonization of scripture because the HS had been "given" before as defined as a miraculous, literal indwelling.John 7:39 wrote:(39) (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
So, Jesus being the incarnate Word, the Son of God, what did he mean then in John 7:39 when it is revealed his thoughts that the HS had not been given? The question to be asked really is: HOW would the HS be given that is different from how it was given before?
To answer this we only need to look a little further in John:
Jesus gives them a list of the things the HS would do in the "giving" he identified earlier in John 7:39. And truly, for this "giving" the earth had never seen before:John 16:7-14 wrote:(7) Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
(8) And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
(9) Of sin, because they believe not on me;
(10) Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
(11) Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
(12) I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
(13) Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.
(14) He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you.
1) reprove the world of sin (v8, 9)
2) reprove the world of righteousness (v8, 10)
3) reprove the world of judgment (v8, 11)
4) guide in all truth (v13)
5) speak of things from Jesus (v13)
6) glorify Jesus (v14)
See there is no promise of a direct, miraculous indwelling of the HS in every person that is saved. In John 16, the purpose of the "giving of the HS" is completely defined around the application of truth, glorification of Jesus, and revelation of the Word of God. And it is through the Word that people were saved then and how they are saved today.