[Marc]

Hello,
The following syllogism demonstrates that water baptism is not necessary for salvation:
a. If one has the Holy Spirit they are saved. You can not have the Holy Spirit and be lost. Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6 and 1 John 4:13 are clear on this.
b. Cornelius "received" the Holy Spirit before he was baptized (Acts 10:47).
c. Therefore Cornelius was already saved before he was baptized.

Furthermore in Acts 11:16, 17 Peter states that Cornelius received the "same gift" as those in Acts 2. Those in Acts 2:4 were said to be "filled with the Holy Spirit". Thus since Cornelius received the "same gift" he too was "filled with the Holy Spirit" as well. Did you know that every time that Luke uses this expression it always refers to a person that belongs to God? So the fact that Cornelius was "filled with the Holy Spirit" before he was baptized proves that he already belonged to God before he was baptized.

Finally, 1 Corinthians 12:28 states that the NT gift of tongues are for those "in" the body of Christ. Did Cornelius speak in tongues before he was water baptized?

[tombias]

1) If baptism is unneccessary for salvation, then why Mk 16:16 and Acts 2:38

2) In this text, why did Peter command them to be baptized, if this was not essential to their salvation? Was Peter commanding them to do something that was useless to them? (Acts 10:47-48)

3) In Peter's account of this story in Acts Ch. 11, he clearly states that the angel told Cornelius that Peter would come and tell them what Cornelius and his household needed to be saved (Acts 11:14-17).

4) Finally, Alan Williamson has some really insightful comments on the distinction between the Holy Spirit IN and UPON you that really help us to see the issue clearly. The following is in his words:


"I believe the key to understanding what happened to Cornelius (and his family) lies in the purpose for which they received this outpouring (baptism) of the Holy Spirit. In the context we are able to see that God did this in order to "prove" to Peter and the other Jews that the gospel was for the Gentiles also. That was the effect that this event had, that of convincing the Jews that God will save the Gentiles also through the preaching of the gospel. -- Acts 10:45 11:15-18



As for the argument that such a gift means that baptism is unnecessary, all you have to do is look at the text. AFTER they had received this outpouring of the Spirit, Peter commanded them to be baptized. WHY? -- Acts 10:47



If one will search the scriptures for the purpose of water baptism done in the name of Jesus.. it is clearly done "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). An examination of Acts 19:1-5 shows a relationship between baptism and the Holy Spirit, just as does Acts 2:38. These two passages speak of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor.6:19-20). Note that in Acts 2:38 the obedient are promised to receive the "gift of the Holy Spirit" - same phrase found in Acts 10:45 - but, they are not referring to the same thing.



In Acts 2:38 the gift of the Holy Spirit is the indwelling - cf. Acts 5:32. IN Acts 18:25 - 19:6... the disciples baptized by Apollos did NOT receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit because they were NOT baptized into Christ. Only when Paul baptized them according to the truth of the gospel did they receive the indwelling Holy Spirit... and then AFTER than Paul laid hands upon them and the Holy Spirit came "on" them... and they spoke in tongues.



This is the distinction that needs to be made in Acts 10. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit was "on" Cornelius and his household. They spoke in tongues. This was God's evidence that they could be accepted into the church, saved by the preaching of the gospel... and thus, after this sign Peter commanded them to be "baptized" (in water), even though they had already been baptized in the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:15-17).



The events in Acts 8 show almost the reverse of these two measures... as the people in Samaria who were baptized (Acts 8:12) received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as promised in Acts 2:38. Also, consider Romans 8:9. However, the believers who were baptized in Acts 8 did not have the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, nor the ability to speak in tongues.



Acts 8:14-17 Now when the apostles that were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

15. who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit:

16. for as yet it was fallen upon none of them: only they had been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.

17. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.



To suppose that those baptized in Acts 8 did NOT have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit would deny that they were saved. It would deny the promise of Acts 2:38. And yet it is clear from the text that even though they had obeyed the gospel and were saved (Acts 8:12 and Mark 16:16), this passage reveals that there was another measure of the Holy Spirit to be received through the laying on of the hands of an apostle.



Only when Peter and John came from Jerusalem and prayed for them and laid their hands upon them did the Holy Spirit “fall” on them. This is different from the indwelling. This is something that is “on” them. Such is the distinction that needs to be made in Acts 10 with Cornelius.



God poured out the Holy Spirit directly on Cornelius and his family. There was no laying on of an apostle’s hands, as not even the apostle Peter would dare to impart such a gift to a Gentile. God poured out the “like gift” on this family of Gentiles to prove to all that salvation was for all people.



Acts 11:12-17 And the Spirit bade me go with them, making no distinction. And these six brethren also accompanied me; and we entered into the man's house:

13. and he told us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, Send to Joppa, and fetch Simon, whose surname is Peter;

14. who shall speak unto thee words, whereby thou shalt be saved, thou and all thy house.

15. And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning.

16. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit.

17. If then God gave unto them the like gift as he did also unto us, when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I could withstand God?



Failure to make the distinction between the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (given to all saved individuals at the point of their new birth – Acts 2:38) and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, either directly from God (Acts 2, 10), or by the laying on of an apostle’s hands (Acts 8, 19), will result in much confusion on this Bible subject.




Hebrews 6:1-3 Wherefore leaving the doctrine of the first principles of Christ, let us press on unto perfection; not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

2. of the teaching of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

3. And this will we do, if God permit."

[Marc]

The fact remains that Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before he was water baptized. And according to Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6 and 1 John 4:13 to have the Holy Spirit means that one is saved. Furthermore the text says that Cornelius received the "same gift" (Acts 11:17) as those in Acts 2. Notice those in Acts 2 were "filled with the Holy Spirit". One can be "filled with the Holy Spirit" but not have the Holy Spirit indwelt in you? That doesn't make sense.
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.
Acts 2:38 applies only to the Israelites.

Marc
oceanstar314@yahoo.com

[m273p15c]

Marc, do you think that Acts 2:38 applies to Israelites today? Which baptisms do you think should be practiced today, and by whom?

[Marc]

Acts 2:38 applies only to the Israelites of the transitional time of Acts (see also Acts 22:16).
According to Ephesians 4:5 there is "one baptism". But this one baptism comes in two forms - an inner testimony (spiritual) and an outer seal (physical). Just like the use of "one Lord" can and does refer to more than one Person of the Godhead (Acts 4:29; 1 Corinthians 1:2 and 2 Corinthians 3:17). According to Acts 10:44-48 physical baptism is still to be practiced. And according to 1 Corinthians 12:13 and Colossians 2:11, 12 spiritual baptism is still taking place. In 1 Corinthians 12:13 "baptize" is no more physical than the use of "body". Both are spiritual. The same holds true with "drink' - along with the rest of the chapter. In Colossians 2:11, 12 Paul is no more talking about a physical baptism than he is about a physical circumcision. They are both spiritual.
Further evidence that proves that spiritual baptism is still for today is found in the conversion account of Cornelius. According to Acts 10:45 and 11:16 to have the Holy Spirit "poured out" (ekcheo) upon you and to be baptized with the Holy Spirit is the same thing. But according to Titus 3:6 the Holy Spirit has been "poured out" (ekcheo) upon all Christians. Thus since they mean the same thing all Christians have been baptized in the Holy Spirit.

Marc

oceanstar314@yahoo.com

[M130]

The conversion of Cornelius was a special one. It was to show that the Gentiles would be accepted as well as the Jews. I don't believe that this verse shows at all that baptism isn't necessary. It shows the contrary. As we read on in the later vs. that he was to be baptized. Everytime you read of the person by which to be saved and baptizm it was water baptizm. Ch. 11 shows us that in the vision of Peter the Gentiles (the unclean if you will) would be accepted just as the Jews. I believe this event was a special event for the God to show that the Gentiles would be saved as far as the receiving the Holy Spirit but do believe that it was still necessary for him to be baptized. This is the only time I know of in the entire Bible for such an event and rightly so since the Gentile nations would be partakers of the gospel. Also, since they spoke in tongues would not prove at all that water baptizm isn't commanded. It was a special occasion. The reason we can come to that conclusion is due to the fact that all other times in the scriptures such as Mark 16:16, Acts 8: 26-29: 26Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, "Go south to the road—the desert road—that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza." 27So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, 28and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the book of Isaiah the prophet. 29The Spirit told Philip, "Go to that chariot and stay near it." He was commanded to be baptized. Also, Saul was not saved on the road to Damascus but was told to go into the city where he would be told what to do to be saved. Now that is just plain language here. (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16; John 3:5,22;4:1,2; Acts 1:5,22;) We can only conclude that from the occasion of Cornelius that it was a specila act and time that God chose. We know that he commanded the others to be baptized. We know that God is no respector of persons. So that leaves us with what I mentioned earlier--that baptizm was necassary but even if God chose on THIS occasion he could since it was a different occasion. In the Old Test. the Holy Spirit fell upon a Donkey but that doesn't mean that the donkey was saved. Everytime preaching of Jesus is mentioned the subject of Baptism comes up. That is amazing. It is not say a special prayer, ask jesus to come as your personal savior, etc. It is always spoken in baptism. The old man is washed away in baptism. Baptism is connected to remission of sins always.

[Marc]

The conversion of Cornelius does not show that the Gentiles "would be accepted" but that they "were accepted". For he had already received the Holy Spirit and to have the Holy Spirit shows that one is saved (Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6 and 1 John 4:13).
Baptism is necessary "after" one is saved. It is not necessary though for salvation. Of course Cornelius was "commanded" to be baptized. It is one of the first things a person should do "after" they are saved. We are "commanded" in 1 Corinthians 11 to partake of the Lord's Supper so does that mean if someone hasn't partook of the Lord's Supper they are not yet saved?
I never wrote that Paul was saved on the Damascus Road. Read my previous post. I specifically put his conversion alongside Acts 2:38 by mentioning Acts 22:16.
In your last sentnce you wrote that "baptism is connected to remission of sins always." This is not true. As shown Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before he was water baptized. You cite the example of even a donkey having the Holy Spirit to try to prove that it doesn't necessarily mean that one is saved. However, that took place before the resurrection of Christ when the Holy Spirit "had not yet been given, because Jesus had not yet been glorified" (John 7:39). During this time the Holy Spirit empowered both the saved and the unsaved (including a donkey) to carry out God's will after the resurrection He sealed only those who were saved (Ephesians 1:13). Such was the case of Cornelius before he was water baptized.
I'd like for you to give me just one example in the book of Acts where a Gentile is said to have received the Holy Spirit after they were water baptized. Cornelius is the only example given to us by Luke so that in him Luke establishes the only way that the Gentiles (you and I) are to receive the Holy Spirit - before water baptism.
Galatians 4:6 reads "And becaue you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba! Father!" When Cornelius received the Holy Spirit/was filled with the Holy Spirit/was baptized in the Holy Spirit could he refer to God as "Father" before he was water baptized proving that he was already a son?

oceanstar314@yahoo.com

[M130]

This verse means exactly that the Gentiles were accepted as you will find after reading on in chapter 11 in Peters vision. The Lord's supper is not a good example since that is not commanded TO BE SAVED but IS commanded for us to do in order to remember him and to stay in harmony with God. We have to do it and want to do it. Baptism is commanded for us TO BE SAVED (IN ORDER TO BE) saved. Help me understand why it would be commanded if we are already saved? If I was already saved then I would not worry about being baptized since that is not commanded for my being saved. The two are connected. We do have the Holy Spirit today. Since it is no longer shown in forms of speaking in tongues such as that in Acts, raising of the dead, etc. some assume that they are not saved when in fact the Holy Spirit is in us today. It isn't in us the same way. We know that this is a special time such as the Gentiles as Peter points out by his vision. It is true that their was different ways in which the word baptism is used. In the Bible when you find salvation and baptism together it is always water baptism. How was it that the Eunich was to go "down into" the water to be baptized. Phillip had to have been discussing this with the eunich even though we are not told that directly but only that he was reading in Isaiah. The eunich came to that conclusion after reading and talking with Phillip. Again, why did Saul have to go into the city to be told what to do to be saved on the road to Damascus if he was already saved. That just doesn't seem to be in harmony with the other scriptures.

[Marc]

You keep bringing up things I have already addressed. For the third time Paul was not saved until he was baptized. This was true for all Israelites. You also keep saying that baptism is commanded for us to be saved but several times I have shown that Cornelius already "received the Holy Spirit" (Acts 10:47) before he was water baptized showing that he was already saved before he was water baptized. In terms of the eunuch I have no problem that he went down in the water to be water baptized.
I have no problem that tongues are not for today...but when they were in effect any person having them was "in" the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:28). Such was the case of Cornelius before he was water baptized. You didn't at all address my last two comments.
1. Show me just one passage where a pure Gentile is ever said to have received the Holy Spirit after he was water baptized in the book of Acts.
2. Galatians 4:6 reads "And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba! Father!" Could Cornelius by receiving the Holy Spirit/being filled with the Holy Spirit/being baptized in the Holy Spirit refer to God as "Father" before he was water baptized thereby proving he was already a son?

oceanstar314@yahoo.com

[M130]

No you haven't addressed the things I have addressed but disagreed which I don't have a problem with. I am just explaining the reason I believe that the Bible does not teach what you are. I could go through the Bible since it was written for us(Gentiles). It tells us as in Mark 16 that baptism is necessary as well as believing, and confessing. I could site others that would teach the same thing about the Gentiles. The Bible tells us in Acts that it was to go to the Jews first as you have said but they rejected it so it went to the Gentiles. The entire book of Romans is base on the fact that God never was after a physical Isreal but a spiritual Isreal. In that book he is telling us that it is for all. The Gentiles are grafted in and such. With that in mind, answer this one thing. What must a person do to be saved? Do you have to get the Holy Spirit before one is saved? If so, how will one know if he has the spirit? What is the purpose of baptism? It is either necessary or it is not. You said it was but not for salvation. What is it necessary for??? Salvation: what could be more important for mankind than the things he must do to be saved?

[Marc]

Your first sentence doesn't make any sense. At first you say I didn't address the things you brought up but then you say I disagreed with them. Isn't disagreeing with them with biblical support addressing them?
I'll get to your questions when you deal with the last two statetments I have left in my previous two emails. These have not been addressed.

oceanstar314@yahoo.com

[M130]

I have already give you examples as you have asked. We can use Cornelius. He was not saved on the basis that he had the Holy Spirit only. That was a different case that showed that NOW (not that they already where as you stated) are partakers of the gospel as we are. Read Ch. 11 and in Peter's vision he says that God showed him that what was once unclean (Gentile) is not to be called unclean or common. This is still in the context of the Cornelius story. As I said the jew in the new testement God showed was not the one that He was looking for. It was a Spiritual Isreal. Not all who are of Isreal are of Isreal. Some were indeed Gentiles that were joined by being a prosolyte. Now, you answer me about the other questions I have asked about what must we do to be saved and the others as well. As I said the jew in the new testement God showed was not the one that He was looking for. It was a Spiritual Isreal. Not all who are of Isreal are of Isreal. Some were indeed GENTILES that were joined by being a prosolyte. My first sentence makes perfect sense. I have addressed them as the Bible teaches. I have given Biblical support for mine as well.

[Marc]

No, you haven't really addressed Cornelius. You are saying that he was still unsaved even though he had the Holy Spirit. This contradicts Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6 and 1 John 4:13. Could Cornelius refer to God as "Father" when he received/was baptized with/was filled with the Holy Spirit before he was water baptized proving that he was already a son? You say he was still unsaved even though he spoke in tongues but 1 Corinthians 12:28 states that this NT gift is for those "in" the body of Christ. This NT gift is for saved people "in" the body of Christ.
As already stated, Mark 16:9-20 is too disputed of a text to base any doctrine on. Aleph (Codex Sinaiticus) and B (Codex Vaticanus) do not contain it nor does the Latin manuscript "K" along with the Sinaitic Syriac. Nine of the ten Armenian manuscripts do not contain it as well. Although the majority of the manuscripts do have it manuscripts have to be weighed and not merely counted. Jerome and Eusebius stated that in nearly all the manuscripts they had it was missing. In fact, Victor of Antioch who wrote the earliest known commentary on Mark omits it as well.
You ask what must a person do to be saved. They must hear the gospel, repent, believe and confess. The purpose of baptism is to visibly demonstrate that one has already entered into the body of Christ. It shows our "association" with Him. In 1 Corinthians 10:2 it reads they were "baptized into Moses". This corresponds with us being water baptized into Jesus Christ. But notice even before they were "baptized into Moses" that he was "already" their spiritual leader (Exodus 12:21, 28, 35 and 50). The same thing then with the Christian and Christ. Even before one is water baptized into Jesus Christ He is "already" the Christian's spiritual leader/God. And if Christ is your spiritual leader/God and not Satan then that describes a saved person not an unsaved person - all "before" they are water baptized.

oceanstar314@yahoo.com

[M130]

I don't dispute reading secular items to get information. I myself read some commentaries but draw my conclusions from the Bible. The references you made to me really don't mean much since they are not inspired people. Romans 8:9. A good passage indeed. But lets back up for a moment. In chapter 6:3 says that we are baptized into Jesus and into His death. We are baptized into the death that just as Christ was buried we are buried IN BAPTIZM on order that we will be able to be raised with him. So if we are not buried with him (hear the word used is immersion or under) then we can't be raised. You see the simple language used. Christ: Buried and raised. Believers: Buried and raised. In this passage it is through the baptism that this is done. Now this sets the context for Romans 8:9 talking to people that were already saved by believing and being baptized. The rest of the chapter leading up to the 8:9 passage is talking about how to act after one is baptized INTO Christ. This was to the people at Rome. All were not Jews either. There were complaints at the Church in Rome that the Jews would make claims that since they had the old law that they had a greater right to the new law and some still wanted to make circumcision, etc. a part of being a Christian. Paul addresses this. Gal 4:6--again you can't take bits and pieces. Back up to chapter 3 and before. Paul tells them that they ARE (already) saved. The church as well as Elders had been set up on a previous Journey that Paul had been on. So the letter is written to the Church at Galatia. What is the church? It was the group of believers. And the ones that believed and were baptized were saved. Some of that saved were Jews and some were Gentiles. So when he gets to Gal 4:6 it is a simple matter of Paul telling the already saved people (since they had been baptized) 3:28 says that they are one. You stated well that there is one Body, one Spirit, One baptism, etc. So they are one the way Ephesians calls them one. Eph. 4:5. 1John 4:16--look at verse 15. How does God dwell in us? Of course by his Spirit but what is that? Speaking in tongues? No, no one can do it today. If we could do the New Testament miracles then we could raise people from the dead and that isn't going to happen either. Verse 13 says God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby (KJV) meaning "because of this reason that he just stated" we know that we dwell in him and he in us, because he has given us his Spirit. The Spirit of loving each other is the way we dwell in him and He in us according to verse 13. In other words if we don't love one another then God will not dwell in us. So there you have a person that can be loving and then not love as well (love is something that you do, not just a warm feeling that overtakes a person). . Read 1 John 5:6--there we could sum up the entire matter. He comes to us through water and blood. What water? What Blood? It isn't the water and blood that comes from having a baby. It is baptism and the blood that was shed. I have also showed that the saved are not the only ones to have the Spirit as in the case of Balaam and his donkey. Was the donkey saved? No. I know that is means this from verse 8 in 1 John 5:8. This water bears witness also. To say that Mark is disputed is very correct because the world and denominations don't like it. It convicts the teaching of the false teachers today that say that it isn't necessary. I could see how people call it "disputed" It is in now ways disputed in my mind. All real Christians have no problem with it. Only those that can make their plan fit into it. I have dealt with the scriptures you sited the best that I can with you. I have addressed each one. There would be others that could be more fluent in the matter but this is how I see it. The Bible never uses baptism as a means of showing that we are already saved but rather it is used as the way to be saved. I would do as I Cor. says to seek love and not to worry about things such as speaking in tongues, prophecy, etc. That passage tells us to seek love the greater gift. You told me what must a man do to be saved but you omitted one part: baptism. They all are required. Leave one out and you are not saved.

[Marc]

Romans 6:3 is a spiritual baptism just like Colossians 2:11, 12 is. Both employ the same phrase "baptized into Jesus Christ" and as already shown the Colossian passage refers to a spiritual baptism.
Of course Romans 8:9 (and Galatians 4:6) is being referred to those who are already Christians. Paul is telling these Christians that if you have the Holy Spirit you are saved. Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before he was water baptized therefore Cornelius was already saved before he was water baptized. Despite not being for today tongues at that time showed that one is "in" the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:28 - twenty eight). Did Cornelius speak in tongues before he was water baptized?
I have already responded to the donkey having the Holy Spirit in a previous post. That was during the time when the "Spirit had not yet been given" because Jesus had not yet been glorified (John 7:39). During this time both the saved and the unsaved (including a donkey) were empowered by the Holy Spirit to carry out God's will. It was after the resurrection that He sealed only saved people (Ephesians 1:13). Such was the case of Cornelius before he was water baptized.
Mark 16:9-20 is still too disputed of a text to use. This is true also of 1 John 5:7 in the KJV in trying to prove the Trinity. If it is that important of a doctrine it will appear elsewhere.
You avoided everything that I had written concerning 1 Corinthians 10:2 showing that water baptism comes after salvation.

oceanstar314@yahoo.com

[M130]

The passages you showed me prove that we are baptized into Christ via water baptism. I have answered your questions. You can't seem to rectify the passages. You are taking passages out of context, twisting them and so forth. I don't believe that you really want the truth but enjoy slinging around some scriptures that are not true. I gather that you are a follower of Smythe in his baptist doctrine. I can tell we are not going to get anywhere so I feel that I have exhausted my efforts to teach you the truth. I would like to move on. We are not being productive here.

[Marc]

You have not really addressed my questions. You keep repeating yourself thinking that if you keep stating the same (false) statement it will make it true. You are saying that one can have the Holy Spirit such as Cornelius and still be lost but that totally contradicts Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6 and 1 John 4:13 where to have the Holy Spirit shows that one is saved. You brought up the fact that the donkey had the Holy Spirit even though I already addressed that in a previous letter. You did not even touch on 1 Corinthians 10:2. No, nor did you address that 1 Corinthians 12:28 states that the NT gift of tongues are for those "in" the body of Christ - and Cornelius spoke in tongues "before" he was water baptized.

oceanstar314@yahoo.com

[sid]

To the Forum:

The New Testament had two conversions where the Spirit was received first, and dipping in water followed. These were Saul and Cornelius.

All other conversions were Water first and receiving the Spirit second.

And, What was the difference?
It is very simple and obvious.
When Water was first, the converts were taught by men of earth.
When Spirit was first, Saul and Cornelius were instructed by God.

No where in the Bible did the apostles teach Spirit first.
If they wanted us to believe it, and practice it, they would have taught it.
But they did not teach Spirit first.

Paul wrote that "tongues" were for a sign to unbelievers - 1Cor 14.22.
Annanis (Saul) and Peter (Cornelius) were "unbelievers" about God wanting to save the men. But these two were special cases for "signs" to the Body.

Saul was a "sign" of the apostle to the Gentiles.
Cornelius was a "sign" to add Gentiles to the Body.

All this harping about being saved because Cornelius could "speak in tongues" is disproved in the Old Testament.
A) Saul could prophesy, although alienated from God - 1Sam 19.18-24.
B) Baalam's donkey spoke by the Spirit of God. Was he saved?

DIPPING AND SPIRIT SEPARATED.
A) The body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and is cleansed from sin by Dipping.
B) The apostles received the Spirit (Pentecost) 3-1/2 years after they were dipped.
C) The Samaritans received the Spirit 3 days after they were dipped.
D) The Lord Jesus received the Spirit AFTER He was dipped, and AFTER He prayed - Luke 3.21.
E) We should follow the Lord's example.

We receive the Spirit by prayer - Luke 11.13, Jas 1.5; Isa 11.1-4 coupled with Luke 3.21.

sid
_________________
The New Covenant Is In Revelation

[Marc]

Hi Sid,
In terms of Saul receiving the Holy Spirit before he was water baptized, the text, specifically Acts 9:17, 18, does not explicitly say. It does tell us that he received his sight. His reception of the Holy Spirit like all other Israelites most probably took place after he was water baptized.
In terms of speaking in tongues, the text says King Saul could prophecy. It does not say he spoke in an unknown tongue. Concerning Balaam's donkey the New Testament gift of tongues applies to "people". God can allow anything else to speak if He so chooses but any "person" having this NT gift is "in" the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:28 - twenty eight).

Marc

[Marc]

In terms of the Lord Jesus, He too was an Israelite and as such He would receive the Holy Spirit after He was water baptized. Cornelius (the Gentile) is our example that the Lord has given to us in terms of when a person today receives the Holy Spirit - and that before they are water baptized.

Marc

oceanstar314@yahoo.com

[sid]

Hello, Marc;

"And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him, he said, 'Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.' Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was dipped" - Acts 9.17-18.

These are the verses that you quoted, but you denied that he received the Spirit before dipping.

You had probably misread these verses.

No one in the Bible is recorded to have received the Holy Spirit at the time of dipping. This story is from the Pope, and from the Dark Ages.
But the Bible reads differently.

sid
_________________
The New Covenant Is In Revelation

[Marc]

Hi Sid,
I did not misread the passage in Acts 9. It tells us outright that Paul did indeed receive his sight as the result of the laying on of Ananias's hands. It does not explicitly say that he was filled with the Holy Spirit because of it.

Marc

[Marc]

Hey!
I just noticed something. In my Tuesday October 18, 2005 6:44pm I wrote in the first paragraph "baptized into Jesus Christ". I should have written that Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12 employ the similar phrase "buried with Him through (in) baptism".
Two other things are worth pointing out. First, it was said that just because Cornelius spoke in the New Testament gift of tongues this doesn't prove he was saved before he was water baptized for even Balaam's donkey spoke in a foreign tongue (Numbers 22). As I previously pointed out this gift applies to "people". Any "person" having this NT gift according to 1 Corinthians 12:28 is "in" the body of Christ. The same would hold true that there are horses that are said to be in heaven (Revelation 19). Does this mean then that these horses had to repent of their sins to be in heaven? This is nonsense. But we do know that any "person" that is in heaven did have to repent of their sins in order to be there.
Second, and as already stated, Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6 and 1 John 4:13 all declare that if one has the Holy Spirit they are saved. Cornelius "received the Holy Spirit" (Acts 10:47) before he was water baptized therefore Cornelius was already saved before he was water baptized.
Not only do these three passages declare this important truth but so does John 14:17. The Lord Jesus said that the unsaved (the world) cannot receive the Holy Spirit. How then could Cornelius be unsaved until he was water baptized when in fact he did receive the Holy Spirit when the Lord Jesus said the unsaved cannot receive Him?

Marc
oceanstar314@yahoo.com

[sledford]

[m273p15c]

[Marc]

The Samaritans were catergorized among the Israelites as seen in Acts 1:8 - Jersusalem, Judaea, Samaria "then" the rest of the (Gentile) world.
In terms of those in Acts 19 Adam Calrke is right when he wrote that these were probably Asiatic Jews. These were subject to John's baptism and John baptized Israelites in preparation to the Kingdom of God. Luke also clarifies this point in telling us there were about 12 men in all - a number significant to the Israelite nation.

[sledford]

[Marc]

Jerusalem, Judaea and Samaria represent the Israelites while the uttermost parts of the earth represent the Gentile nations. I'm not sure why He mentions it three times.
It is God and not necessarily man that classifies people. The Bible is clear that the Israelites were to be water baptized first then they were to receive the Holy Spirit whereas the Gentiles, as seen in Cornelius, were to receive the Holy Spirit first then they were to be water baptized.

The Israelites - be water baptized - receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38 - eight)
The Gentiles - receive the Holy Spirit - be water baptized (Acts 10:44-48- eight)

The Israelites needed to be water baptized as part of their repentance for their peculiar sins of rejecting, mocking, beating and crucifying their King - something to which they and they alone were ultimately responsible for.

Marc

[Marc]

A previous post stated that those in Acts 19 to whom Paul baptized were not Israelites for they did not know of the Holy Spirit. However, as my NASB 1977 states in their footnote in relation to "there is a Holy Spirit" (Acts 19:2) it says, "Or, the Holy Spirit has been given." They simply didn't know that the Holy Spirit had been given at Pentecost not that they didn't know of the existence of the Holy Spirit. In Jamieson, Fauset and Brown's commentary it reads, "Literally, the words are, 'we did not even hear whether the Holy Ghost was (given)'. In fact, even the late Church of Christ commentator James Burton Coffman stated concerning this passage, "To be sure, as Boles said, 'They had heard of the existence of the Holy Spirit but not that he had been given at Pentecost.'

Marc

[m273p15c]

[Marc]

Acts 2:38 and 10:44-48 are clear. In the first case the Israelites received the Holy Spriit after they were water baptized and in the second case the Gentiles received Him before they were water baptized. That is what the texts declare. In terms of those in Acts 8 and 19 we could go back and forth as to whether they were Israelites. I personally believe they were. So let's stick with these two "clear" passages. Acts 2:38 definately refers to Israelites while Acts 10:44-48 definately refers to Gentiles. We fall under the conditions of Acts 10:44-48 not A