The conversion of Cornelius (baptism not necessary) - #1

[Marc]

Hello,

Water baptism is not necessary for salvation. Cornelius and those accompanying him were saved the very moment they believed the truth claims presented to them by Peter concerning the Lordship/resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 10:36, 39, 40). These two conditions are necessary for salvation (Romans 10:9).

Notice what occurred before they were baptized:

1. In Acts 10:44 the Holy Spirit is said to have "fell upon them". The Greek word for fell is "epipipto". Luke always uses this term for an actual possession of something (Luke 1:12; 15:20; Acts 8:16; 10:10; 11:15; 13:11; 19:17; 20:10, 37).

2. In Acts 10:45 the Holy Spirit is said to have been "poured out upon the Gentiles". The Greek word for poured is "ekcheo". Luke always uses this term for an actual dispersion/bestowal of something (Acts 2:17, 18, 33; 22:20).

3. In Acts 10:47 the Holy spirit is said to have been already "received". The Greek word for receive is "lambano". Luke always uses this term for an actual reception of something (Luke 5:5, 26; 6:4; 7:16; 9:16, 39; 11:10; 13:21; 19:12; 20:21, 28, 29, 30, 31, 47; 22:17, 19; 24:30, 43; Acts 1:8, 20, 25; 2:23, 33, 38; 3:5; 7:53; 8:15, 17, 19; 9:19, 25; 10:43, 47; 15:14; 16:3, 24; 17:9, 15; 19:2; 20:24, 35; 24:27; 25:16; 26:10, 18; 27:35; 28:15).

The "gift of the Holy Spirit" in Acts 10:45 is the same "gift of the Holy Spirit" in Acts 2:38:

1. The same phrase. Peter states that it is the "same gift" (Acts 11:17).

2. The same author (Luke).

3. The same speaker (Peter).

4. The same book (Acts).

5. The same context (the them of Christ's Lordship/resurrection to unsaved people).

6. The same response (acceptance).

Not only is it true that these Gentiles were saved before their baptism but the same holds true for Paul as well. Ananias' encounter with Paul (Acts 9:17) encapsulates all four of the other passages in Acts where the laying on of hands is employed.

a. Paul's reception of the Spirit (as with the other apostles before him, the receiving and being filled with the Holy Spirit are used synonymously; Acts 1:5 and 2:4), like those in Acts 8:17 and 19:6, occurred the moment Ananias laid his hands on him.

b. Paul's commission, like those in Acts 6:6 and 13:3, occurred the moment Ananias laid his hands on him. Nor can it be argued that it always took an apostle to bestow the Spirit. The same can be argued then that it always took an apostle to heal through the bestowal of their hands. As the Lord allowed Ananias to bypass one so too with the other.

Based on this evidence it is clear that Paul was saved before his baptism.

God the Holy Spirit dwells in only those who are saved (Romans 8:8, 15-17 and 1 John 4:13).

This dwelling is forever (eternal security).

a. The Holy Spirit is said to be with us forever (John 14:16).

b. The Holy Spirit seals us to the day of redemption (Ephesians 1:13; 4:30).

c. "He who has bathed (saved) need only to wash his feet (Christian walk) (John 13:10).

[jim]

Total confusion resides in this man's thinking -- he picks up facts from different places and tries to put them all together without any respect for the contexts. They are supposed to fit together because he says so. I would not deal with every passage he uses but point out his basic fallacies in reasoning and the misuse of scriptures.

Hello, Water baptism is not necessary for salvation. Cornelius and those accompanying him were saved the very moment they believed the truth claims presented to them by Peter concerning the Lordship/resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 10:36, 39, 40). These two conditions are necessary for salvation (Romans 10:9).

RESPONSE --

Obvious purpose is to use Cornelius as an exception to baptism being related to the forgiveness of sins so he has Cornelius saved before being baptized. He makes a very bold assertion that cannot be sustained by the passages he uses. In fact, his use of Rom. 10:9 and conclusion will also eliminate repentance, because he means that these two and ONLY THESE TWO CONDITIONS are necessary to salvation. Repentance is not faith.

Notice what occurred before they were baptized:
1. In Acts 10:44 the Holy Spirit is said to have "fell upon them". The Greek word for fell is "epipipto". Luke always uses this term for an actual possession of something (Luke 1:12; 15:20; Acts 8:16; 10:10; 11:15; 13:11; 19:17; 20:10, 37).
2. In Acts 10:45 the Holy Spirit is said to have been "poured out upon the Gentiles". The Greek word for poured is "ekcheo". Luke always uses this term for an actual dispersion/bestowal of something (Acts 2:17, 18, 33; 22:20).
3. In Acts 10:47 the Holy spirit is said to have been already "received". The Greek word for receive is "lambano". Luke always uses this term for an actual reception of something (Luke 5:5, 26; 6:4; 7:16; 9:16, 39; 11:10; 13:21; 19:12; 20:21, 28, 29, 30, 31, 47; 22:17, 19; 24:30, 43; Acts 1:8, 20, 25; 2:23, 33, 38; 3:5; 7:53; 8:15, 17, 19; 9:19, 25; 10:43, 47; 15:14; 16:3, 24; 17:9, 15; 19:2; 20:24, 35; 24:27; 25:16; 26:10, 18; 27:35; 28:15).

RESPONSE --

So what?

The "gift of the Holy Spirit" in Acts 10:45 is the same "gift of the Holy Spirit" in Acts 2:38:
1. The same phrase. Peter states that it is the "same gift" (Acts 11:17).
2. The same author (Luke).
3. The same speaker (Peter).
4. The same book (Acts).
5. The same context (the them of Christ's Lordship/resurrection to unsaved people).
6. The same response (acceptance).

RESPONSE --

His parallel case for Acts 2:38 being the same gift as 11:17 is total ignorance and doesn't fit what he is trying to make it say.

First -- whatever the "gift of the Holy Spirit" is in Acts 2:38, it FOLLOWS rather than PRECEDES the remission of sins the "remission of sins".

Second -- the "same gift" (Acts 11:17) does not refer to Acts 2:38 which is a promise to those who repent and are baptized but rather to Acts 2:1-13, which is the occasion to which Peter refers by the comparison. In Acts 2:14-ff Peter ties the outpouring to what was prophesied by Joel. What happened to the apostles in 2:1-13 had nothing to do with their personal salvation but was the fulfillment of Joel 2 and was associated with their inspiration and powers enabling them to preach.

The clear purpose of the gift of the HS to Cornelius is demonstrated by the evidence in 11:17 -- it was evidence of God's acceptance of the Gentiles as a part of "all flesh" -- no longer just the Jew. That is proved by Peter's defense before the Jews -- "...what was I, that I could withstand God?" Their conclusion was, "Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life (v. 18)."

The outpouring of the Holy Spirit was not designed to save Cornelius. In fact, the very words of the angel to Cornelius was that his salvation was dependent on "words by which he and his house would be saved." It is the message that was preached to Cornelius that would save him. The HS has inspired not only men to speak (cf. Jno. 11:51; Numbers 22:20) but also Balaam's donkey (Numbers 22:28).

This man sees any reference to the HS as a kind of HS baptism that saves a person.

Not only is it true that these Gentiles were saved before their baptism but the same holds true for Paul as well. Ananias' encounter with Paul (Acts 9:17) encapsulates all four of the other passages in Acts where the laying on of hands is employed. a. Paul's reception of the Spirit (as with the other apostles before him, the receiving and being filled with the Holy Spirit are used synonymously; Acts 1:5 and 2:4), like those in Acts 8:17 and 19:6, occurred the moment Ananias laid his hands on him. b. Paul's commission, like those in Acts 6:6 and 13:3, occurred the moment Ananias laid his hands on him.

RESPONSE --

Saul's salvation could not have come when Ananias laid his hands on him, even if Ananias imparted to him the powers of the HS, for Ananias told him to "arise and be baptized and WASH AWAY THY SINS..." (22:16). If Saul was saved by what Ananias did, then was saved but still had his sins!!!

His obvious misunderstanding of the laying on hands is demonstrated by Acts 6:1-7. One qualification for these men to serve was that they were "...full of the Holy Spirit" (v. 3) -- they already had the HS before hands were laid on them (v. 6).

Nor can it be argued that it always took an apostle to bestow the Spirit. The same can be argued then that it always took an apostle to heal through the bestowal of their hands. As the Lord allowed Ananias to bypass one so too with the other. Based on this evidence it is clear that Paul was saved before his baptism.

He anticipates an objection that the HS was given only by the hands of the apostles because that is clearly stated in Acts 8:17-18, but easily dismisses that truth by asserting that Ananias conferred the HS through the laying on his hands. It is pure assumption that is contrary to the evidence of the contexts. If Saul received his powers and inspiration through the laying on of Ananias' hands, then he was not equal to the other apostles who received the HS directly. The HS was poured out on the other apostles directly in Acts 2:1-ff. Consistently, he would have to affirm that those in Samaria and other places who received the HS through the laying on of hands would have the same powers as the apostles. And, this would also be true for us, if we have the HS -- his use of the passages that follow requires that of him.

God the Holy Spirit dwells in only those who are saved (Romans 8:8, 15-17 and 1 John 4:13). This dwelling is forever (eternal security).
a. The Holy Spirit is said to be with us forever (John 14:16).
b. The Holy Spirit seals us to the day of redemption (Ephesians 1:13; 4:30).
c. "He who has bathed (saved) need only to wash his feet (Christian walk) (John 13:10).

(jim -- STRANGE INTERPRETATION!!!)

[m273p15c]

Marc,

I apologize for the excessive delay. We have been overwhelmed with inquiries and responses, and since we do not use automatically generated responses, it takes longer than one might would expect. Again, I apologize, but I hope this note will still prove to be profitable to you in your efforts to be found well-pleasing to the Lord.

Your diligence is clear in the organization of your thoughts and questions, which is always appreciated. Since I believe that the Bible teaches that baptism is commanded for the remission of sins, it may not surprise you that I would disagree with some of your conclusions. My efforts will be to quote your original points and then follow each section with a response. I would expect some of these responses to generate more questions from you. I would be glad to exchange thoughts as we both have time, and hopefully we can have a mutually profitable study, as the Lord would expect from His servants (Proverbs 27:17; Acts 17:11).

Thanks again for your comments. I look forward to hearing your response, and pray that this study will lead to us having a better understanding and drawing closer to the Lord.

=======================================================

Quoted original with comments:

Water baptism is not necessary for salvation. Cornelius and those accompanying him were saved the very moment they believed the truth claims presented to them by Peter concerning the Lordship/resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 10:36, 39, 40). These two conditions are necessary for salvation (Romans 10:9).

I am assuming that you meant, "ONLY These two conditions are necessary for salvation." I assume this because I also believe that these two conditions, belief and confession (Romans 10:9), are necessary for salvation. However, since you originally objected to the commandment of baptism, I assuming you meant that ONLY these two works, belief and confession, are required, eliminating the commandment for baptism.

With this in mind please note, that by your strict interpretation of Acts 10:36-40, confession cannot be required. Your usage of Romans 10:9 is unfair, because the house of Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before they ever confessed or praised the Lord (Acts 10:44-46). Since this context makes no mention of confession, by what right do you add 'confession' to the list of requirements?

The right which you exercised, in which I also agree and exercise, is the reasonable use of all verses that relate to a subject. No subject can be properly examined in light of Scripture, unless one combines everything that God had to say on the subject. Therefore, you also mentioned Romans 10:9, which requires confession. Using this same principle, which you exercised, would you please examine I Peter 3:21 and Acts 2:38? Both of these verses add baptism to the list of requirements. In fact, I Peter 3:21 states that "baptism doth now save us". No matter how we rationalize these verses, we cannot change the fact that baptism in some way saves us, making it an essential component of our conversion and salvation.

Although I believe that this answers your question, for completeness and fairness, I would like to continue to study the remainder of your note.

Notice what occurred before they were baptized: 1. In Acts 10:44 the Holy Spirit is said to have "fell upon them". The Greek word for fell is "epipipto". Luke always uses this term for an actual possession of something (Luke 1:12; 15:20; Acts 8:16; 10:10; 11:15; 13:11; 19:17; 20:10, 37). 2. In Acts 10:45 the Holy Spirit is said to have been "poured out upon the Gentiles". The Greek word for poured is "ekcheo". Luke always uses this term for an actual dispersion/bestowal of something (Acts 2:17, 18, 33; 22:20). 3. In Acts 10:47 the Holy spirit is said to have been already "received". The Greek word for receive is "lambano". Luke always uses this term for an actual reception of something (Luke 5:5, 26; 6:4; 7:16; 9:16, 39; 11:10; 13:21; 19:12; 20:21, 28, 29, 30, 31, 47; 22:17, 19; 24:30, 43; Acts 1:8, 20, 25; 2:23, 33, 38; 3:5; 7:53; 8:15, 17, 19; 9:19, 25; 10:43, 47; 15:14; 16:3, 24; 17:9, 15; 19:2; 20:24, 35; 24:27; 25:16; 26:10, 18; 27:35; 28:15).

I believe you make too much of the significance of these words, importing meaning that is not necessarily implied. These words offer no information on the duration of the thing received.

It is certainly true that the members of Cornelius' household had received the Holy Spirit, but being filled with the Holy Spirit is not always a sign of salvation:

- Wicked High Priest, Annanias, spoke by the Holy Spirit (John 11:51; II Peter 1:21) - Wicked Prophet Balaam and his donkey, were filled and spoke by the Holy Spirit (Numbers 24:2-4; II Peter 2:15-16) - Wicked King Saul and his messengers were filled with and spoke by the Holy Spirit (I Samuel 19:20-24)

BTW, "epipipto" means to be possessed by something. Literally, it means to "fall on, rush upon, or press on". Figuratively, it means "to be overwhelmed by, or taking possession by". Since the Holy Spirit is the subject and Cornelius' household is the object, the Holy Spirit must have possessed these people, not the other way around.

The "gift of the Holy Spirit" in Acts 10:45 is the same "gift of the Holy Spirit" in Acts 2:38: 1. The same phrase. Peter states that it is the "same gift" (Acts 11:17). 2. The same author (Luke). 3. The same speaker (Peter). 4. The same book (Acts). 5. The same context (the them of Christ's Lordship/resurrection to unsaved people). 6. The same response (acceptance).

Is the gift in Acts 2:38 the same gift in Acts 10:45? Please notice the following differences:

- Acts 2:38 -> subjects repented and were baptized, then received remission of sins and gift of Holy Spirit. baptism preceded gift, while in Acts 10:45, the gift preceded baptism.

- Acts 11:15-17 -> Peter related this bestowal of the Holy Spirit to the reception that they received at the beginning. Peter didn't receive the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38. He already had the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-4).

The same gift, is not the gift of Acts 2:38, but the gift of Acts 2:1-4, which the disciples received in the upper room, at "the beginning".

The confusion arises over equating baptism of the Holy Spirit to the generic distribution of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The generic distribution of the gifts of the Holy Spirit was accomplished through the laying on of apostles' hands (Acts 8:14-19). Yet, something very special happened to Cornelius. In fact, it was only after it occured and Peter thought on it a while that he realized that what happened to Cornelius and his family had only happended to them at the very beginning. No man administered their reception of spiritual gifts! In fact, he relates it to Christ's administering of the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:15-18), while baptism in the name of the Jesus is administered by men (Acts 8:35-39).

The baptism of the Holy Spirit was not towards salvation, but to prove that God had granted the Gentiles opportunity to repent unto life (Acts 11:17-18). It's purpose was to signify, not to save. After it happened, Peter asked the rhetorical question, "'Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?' And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." (Acts 10:47-48). Until this point, Jews would not have taught the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 11:1-18), even though it was intended from the beginning. After witnessing the undeniable power of God working through these people, they understood that God had granted repentance unto life unto the Gentiles. Please note that the purpose, administrator, and medium is completely different in Holy Spirit baptism than in baptism in Jesus' name and the distribution of spiritual gifts. These three things are unique and cannot be interchanged.

We can talk more on this later, if you like.

Not only is it true that these Gentiles were saved before their baptism but the same holds true for Paul as well. Ananias' encounter with Paul (Acts 9:17) encapsulates all four of the other passages in Acts where the laying on of hands is employed. a. Paul's reception of the Spirit (as with the other apostles before him, the receiving and being filled with the Holy Spirit are used synonymously; Acts 1:5 and 2:4), like those in Acts 8:17 and 19:6, occurred the moment Ananias laid his hands on him. b. Paul's commission, like those in Acts 6:6 and 13:3, occurred the moment Ananias laid his hands on him. Nor can it be argued that it always took an apostle to bestow the Spirit. The same can be argued then that it always took an apostle to heal through the bestowal of their hands. As the Lord allowed Ananias to bypass one so too with the other. Based on this evidence it is clear that Paul was saved before his baptism.

How could Paul receive the Holy Spirit and be saved when Ananias laid his hands on him, if afterwards he still had to "arise, be baptized, and wash away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord"?

"Then a certain Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good testimony with all the Jews who dwelt there, came to me; and he stood and said to me, 'Brother Saul, receive your sight.' And at that same hour I looked up at him. Then he said, 'The God of our fathers has chosen you that you should know His will, and see the Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth. 'For you will be His witness to all men of what you have seen and heard. And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'" (Acts 22:12-16)

If Paul received the Holy Spirit when Ananias laid his hands on Paul, then Paul is a clear example being filled with sins and the Holy Spirit at the same time.

Also, please notice that one of the qualifications for receiving the "laying on of hands" in Acts 6:6 and 13:3, was that the people were already filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:4 -> 6:6; 11:22-25 -> 13:3). How could they already be filled with the Holy Spirit if they were to later receive the Holy Spirit through the "laying on of hands"?

And, please notice that those who received the Holy Spirit in Acts 8:17 and 19:6 had already been baptized in the name of Jesus (Acts 8:14-18; 19:2-6). Again, baptism preceded the receiving of the Holy Spirit, unlike the cases of Cornelius. The gifts were also only obtained after an apostle laid hands on them.

BTW, the Bible teaches that only apostles could give spiritual gifts through the laying on of their hands (Acts 8:14-19; 19:2-6), with the exception of baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is administered by Christ (John 1:33-34; Acts 1:4-5). However, it never teaches that only apostles could heal. In fact, apostles bestowed the gifts of healing through the laying on of hands. Many other people, who were not apostles, could heal miraculously, for example, Philip (Acts 8:7) and the Corinthians (I Corinthians 12:9-12, 28-31). I do not know of any statement to limit the gifts of healing, like the ability to give spiritual gifts is limited to apostles (Acts 8:14-19; 19:2-6).

God the Holy Spirit dwells in only those who are saved (Romans 8:8, 15-17 and 1 John 4:13). This dwelling is forever (eternal security).

There is a distinction between the Holy Spirit "dwelling in us" and the Holy Spirit "filling us". One case suggests a relationship, and favor shown through the dwelling and abiding. The other refers to the distribution of gifts and power. More on this at the bottom.

a. The Holy Spirit is said to be with us forever (John 14:16).

This promise was made to the apostles, and only indirectly benefits us through their recording of their guidance into "all truth" (John 14:25-27; 15:26-27)

b. The Holy Spirit seals us to the day of redemption (Ephesians 1:13; 4:30).

Agreed, but there is nothing in this verse to explain how it is done, much less to link it salvation apart from baptism.

c. "He who has bathed (saved) need only to wash his feet (Christian walk) (John 13:10).

Please recall that this response was prompted by Peter's request for Jesus to wash Peter's hands, head, and feet, as Jesus washed the feet of the disciples. It was not a spiritual request, but a physical, direct, and literal statement. Jesus had literally girded his waist, literally picked up a wash basin, and literally washed the disciples feet. Nothing in the text suggests that this statement is a parable, analogy, or any other figure. As one friend told me, "It makes for good preaching, but it don't make it right." There is no basis for the suggested figurative analogy. Clearly, Jesus does transition and draw a lesson from the illustration at the end of the verse, when he says, "but you are not all clean", because verse 11 states it as figurative. However, it only refers to the last part of the verse being figurative, while the first part corresponds to Peter's request.

In closing, I would offer the following summary points:

1. We must put all the verses of Scripture together to learn God's will on any one point. No one verse or verses can be singled out, and interpreted to the exclusion of other verses.
2. God's Word commands that we be baptized for remission of sins (I Peter 3:21; Acts 2:38) stating that baptism is the point in which God brings us in contact with Christ's redeeming blood and sacrifice (Romans 6; Hebrews 10:22; Ephesians 5:25-26; Acts 22:16).
3. Several cases can be sited, showing that man can receive the Holy Spirit temporarily, to work God's will, while never entering into a saved relation with God (Balaam, Balaam's donkey, King Saul, Annanias the High Priest).
4. Regarding further discussion of laying on of hands, baptism of the Holy Spirit, and the one enduring baptism (Ephesians 4:4), please see our articles on our web-site entitled, "Which Baptism?" and "The Importance of Baptism". Hopefully, it will clarify my beliefs on these points and elaborate further on them.

Again, if you have any questions or comments on these thoughts, I would be glad to hear them.

[Marc]

It has been awhile since I wrote that letter to you which I do keep saved. I have made several changes to it. I don't intend to throw you off by having you adequately answer something I do not hold to any more. Sorry about that.

Only belief is necessary for salvation. Cornelius received the Spirit before saying anything. However those who truly belive will confess and those trulyuely confess will be baptized but the initial point of justification is belief (1 John 5:1). Acts 2:38 and 22:16 baptism is for the remission of sins. This command is only given to the Jews never to the Gentiles as Cornelius demonstrates. This special sin of the Jews had to do with crucifying their Messiah. Water baptism was necessary for them to have these sins washed away. Gentiles, like us, do not fall in this category. The reception of the Spirit occurs with belief. Cornelius demonstrates this.

All the examples you gave me (Annanias, Balaam and his donkey, King Saul etc) all occurred before Christ was glorified. During this time the Spirit came upon men to empower them for some form of service. Afterwards to have the Spirit meant that you are saved (1 John 4:13). Furthermoremore, Cornelius spoke in tongues. This gift was given to those who were already believers not unbelievers (1 Corinthians 12:10). Concerning Paul I have changed my view about his receiving the Spirit. Like all Jews connected with either the ministry of John the Baptist/Jesus he would not receive the Spirit until he was baptized (see above).

Sincerely

Marc

[jim]

I had a discussion with a fellow one time who took the same position. I will bring you a file tonight that might help you understand where he is coming from.

The simplest reply to show the fallacy of his position is in the great commission -- the gospel is for all nations, into all the world, for every creature, and baptism is a an essential condition of that gospel for all men (Mt. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15-16).

He seems to want to accept everything but the truth.

Jim

[m273p15c]

Thanks for clarifying your points. I am glad to hear that you are continuing to study and learn. Hopefully, these thoughts will be profitable to you as you continue your studies.

First, although I also believe that only those who truly believe will confess and be baptized, I do not believe that justification occurs at the point of belief. More clearly stated and of more practical concern, belief alone is not enough to save. The only verse that contains the phrase "faith only" in the entire Bible reads:

"You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." (James 2:24)

In fact the entire last half of James chapter two, is a testament that faith only is useless. If faith alone, without works, is dead, then how does justification occur without works (James 2:14-26)?

We are justified by our faith, through God's grace, but our faith is judged by our works. In the last day, we will be judged not according to our faith, but according to our works (I Peter 1:17; II Corinthians 5:10). Baptism is stated to be the point at which our old man of sin is put to death and we are raised to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:1-10). If we are already saved before baptism, how is the old man still alive, walking in sin?

Second, you previously noted Cornelius as evidence that one can be saved before salvation. However, please note that Cornelius is an exception, and not the rule. Peter stated that what happened to Cornelius is the same as what happened to the apostles at the beginning (Acts 11:15). He also designates it as baptism of the Holy Spirit, which was to be administered Jesus (Acts 11:15-17).

Now, we have a limiting factor. By the writing of Ephesians, there was only ONE baptism (Ephesians 4:5). John's baptism had ceased, his ministry being fulfilled (Acts 19:1-5). Now the question is, "Which baptism remained, Holy Spirit baptism or water baptism in the name of Jesus?" One must have also ceased by Ephesians 4:5; otherwise, how could there be one?

Now, it is evident that they are not the same baptism, because in the case of Cornelius, he received the gift of tongues, which Peter called baptism in the Holy Spirit, and later he had to be baptized in water, in the name of Jesus (Acts 11:15-17; 10:44-48). Therefore, one of these baptism must have ceased by the writing of Ephesians 4:5. Which one?

The following contradictions prevent Holy Spirit baptism from being the ongoing baptism. Please notice that Jesus commanded a universal baptism that was to be administered by men (Matthew 28:18-20), yet the Holy Spirit baptism was administered by Jesus (Luke 3:16; John 1:32-34; Acts 11:16). It was the baptism administered by men that was to go into the whole world (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16). Moreover, nowhere is the purpose of Holy Spirit baptism linked to the forgiveness of sins. Yet, baptism in Jesus' name that was commanded and administered by men was for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16). Instead, Holy Spirit baptism served as sign to the Jews that God had opened the doors of the kingdom to Gentiles as well as Jews. In both references to this occurrence, it prompted the recognition that Gentiles could also be saved (Acts 11:15-18). The medium of the baptism that saves is water (I Peter 3:20-21), yet Holy Spirit baptism is in the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, Holy Spirit baptism is not the ONE baptism. Only baptism in water (Acts 10:44-48), in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 10:44-48), can provide remission of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16; Romans 6:1-4). The fact that Cornelius spoke in tongues before being baptized is an exception, and not the rule, even for non-Jews (Acts 8:14-16; 19:5-6 -> Ephesians were Gentiles, Ephesians 2:11).

Third, regarding separate requirements for Jew and Gentile, please consider these points.

1. The purpose of the New Covenant and gospel was to create "one new man in Christ" and to "break down the middle wall of partition" between Jew and Gentile (Ephesians 2:11-18). Having a separate entry point is contrary to this one new man.
2. The Galatian (Gentile) Christians were added to Christ by baptism:
   

   "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:27-28)

   Also, please note the dissolution of distinction between Jew and Greek.
3. The Great commission, which included baptism, was to go into all the world (Mark 16:15-16). In fact, they were to baptize people of all nations (Matthew 28:18-20). No distinction was to occur between Jew and Greek.
4. The same gospel had the power to save to both Jew and Greek (Romans 1:16). Again, no recognition that one set of requirements was given to Jew and another to Gentile.
5. There is one baptism (Ephesians 4:5); therefore, Jews could not be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, while Gentiles baptized for some other reason.

What passage would you use to show that Jews were baptized for remission of sins, and Gentiles were either not baptized or baptized for some other reason? Cornelius can not be cited as a rule, because he was an exception, baptized in the Holy Spirit, which no longer occurs.

Fourth, the normal rules regarding reception of the Holy Spirit do not apply to Cornelius. As noted earlier, he is an exception, not the rule. In general, people received the Holy Spirit, not through Jesus administering baptism in the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:15-18), but through the laying on of apostles' hands (Acts 8:14-20).

Fifth, several passages link salvation and conditional works, including baptism. Also, please note that many of these letters were written to Gentile Christians (Galatians 3:26-27; I Peter 3:21; Romans 6:1-10; Hebrews 10:23; Ephesians 5:25-26; Titus 3:5; Colossians 2:11-12).

Again, it is my prayer that these thoughts will be profitable to you in your study. I look forward to your response, as I am sure it will be helpful to me in better understanding God's Word.

May God bless you in your pursuit of truth.

[Marc]

James 2 is talking about the fruit of justification and not its root. Throughout the passage it reads "see" "show" and "say". Our already existing faith is to be demonstrated to others. Notice his use of Abraham when he offered up Isaac on the altar. His works demonstrated that his faith was real. However Paul informs us that he was declared justified years before this event (Romans 4). Like confession and baptism if there are no works then the faith was not real to begin with. But 1 John 5:1 makes it clear that belief is its starting point. You quote Romans 6 but notice carefully it says in verse 3 that believers are "baptized into Jesus Christ". This same expression "baptized into" is also used of Moses in 1 Corinthians 10:2. Here the Israelites publicly identified with Moses but, and very importantly, they had already accepted his leadership (Exodus 12:21, 28, 35, 50). That is exactly what Christians do today. They accept Christs' leadership then and only then are they baptized.

I agree Cornelius is the exceptioon but that for the Gentiles.....us. Luke gives no other account of how a pure Gentile receives the Spirit so Cornelius is the norm. In terms of Epheseinas 4:5 it is one baptism of two components of an inward element and an outward seal.

The Jews at that time are saved like everyone...by faith. However their means of attaining the Holy Spirit was delayed until they were baptized. They were justified like everyone else before baptism but God withheld the Holy Spirit until they were baptized. Taking a closer look at Acts 2 we see that the Jews gladly received the message Peter spoke to them. What was the climax of the message? It was that Jesus is both the Lord and Christ. That they accepted He was the Christ they were already regenerated (1 John 5:1). "Born of God" only describes saved people. Finally, by his confession we know that the eunuch abided in God (1 John 4:15). To abide in God always describes a saved person and such was the eunuch's spiritual status before he was baptized.

Sincerely

Marc

[m273p15c]

Marc,

Thanks for again responding. Given the length of the note, I found it easiest just to reference and respond to the individual ideas of your note, which are provided below. I look forward to hearing from you again.

BTW, at some point, you might find it profitable to go through some of our online correspondence studies. I think going through the first 6 would help bring to light more fundamental concepts, which would be good for us to discuss. Although several people help, because of our previous correspondence, I would be the one to examine and reply to your answers. However, I would prefer to finish this study first.

May God bless you in your pursuit of truth

=======================================================

James 2 is talking about the fruit of justification and not its root. Throughout the passage it reads "see" "show" and "say". Our already existing faith is to be demonstrated to others. Notice his use of Abraham when he offered up Isaac on the altar. His works demonstrated that his faith was real. However Paul informs us that he was declared justified years before this event (Romans 4). Like confession and baptism if there are no works then the faith was not real to begin with.

I agree that faith is the beginning point. Belief must precede works. Works do demonstrate that faith is real. However, based on your above paragraph, I believe you are overlooking two key points in James:

1) James 2 does indeed refer to the process of justification. Please notice this verse:

"Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?" (James 1:21)

Please noticed that the verse states "justified BY works". Now matter how we try to rationalize the words, they cannot be ignored. We must fit our views around the words of the Bible, not the other way around.

2) So, what about the statement in Romans 4:3, based on Genesis 15:6? As you stated, it states that righteousness was accounted before Abraham actually offered Isaac. At first glance, it seems these verses are in contradiction. One states Abraham was justified by works; the other states that he was justified before works. We cannot simply dismiss one, and embrace the other that supports our cherished view. God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), so these passages must be harmonized. If we ignore one, we are likely to adopt an extreme position that would have been resisted by the passage we ignored.

I think the clarifying answer is two fold:

a) Each passage was written to battle opposite extremes: In the letter to Romans, the Christians believed that they could work such that they might "earn" their salvation. They were exalting themselves and eliminating grace. Paul makes that clear in the context of Romans 4.

"For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.' Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness." (Romans 4:2-5).

Paul is fending off a doctrine of justification by works only - the elimination of grace. Now, the Christians, to whom James was writing, suffered from adopting the other extreme position - faith only:

"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,' but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, 'You have faith, and I have works.' Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe -- and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.' And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." (James 2:14-26).

Especially notice his conclusion: "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. ... For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." (James 2:24, 26).

The difference is that Paul is dealing with justification by works only. Remember, he spoke of the works earning the wages, being accounted as a debt. James is not speaking of these kind of works, which brings up the next clarifying point.

b) Please notice these verses from James 2:

"But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?" (James 2:20-22).

Please notice that faith was "made perfect" through works. These are not works that stand opposed to faith, which Paul spoke of in Romans 4. These are works that compliment, and even "perfect" faith". Therefore, faith in and of itself, and the justification provided thereby, is incomplete, partial, and imperfect. Conditional, or demonstrative works are required to make it complete, whole, and perfect. Therefore, the justification of Romans 4:3 and Genesis 15:6 was incomplete without the works.

Again, if you want to discuss when God actually makes the "tick" mark in the Lamb's book of life, I will not argue that with you. What is important to discuss is our obligations before the Lord; therefore, if you do not already agree, and if you are willing, I would be glad to consider the question, "Are works required for salvation?" More specifically, "Does God command us to be baptized to be saved?" That I believe to be true, and I believe these passages show it to at least be plausible and harmonious with the Bible doctrine of justification.

But 1 John 5:1 makes it clear that belief is its starting point.

I believe you are reading more into this passage than what is there. I believe you want it to read:

"Whoever only believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God"

yet, it reads:

"Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God"

This is an accommodative form of speech that requires belief to be "born of God". It does not eliminate other conditions. This is verified by reading a little bit more of the context, which will reveal more similarly stated conditions:

"Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God." (I John 4:15).

This verse is almost exactly like I John 5:1; therefore, is not confession a requirement, by your own reasoning? Furthermore, love is also a requirement:

"Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God." (I John 4:7)

Therefore, in this immediate context, we have belief, confess, and love as three requirements for a relationship with God. However, the context continues in describing love:

"Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome." (I John 5:1-3)

Consequently, if one does not obey God, then they do not love Him. Can one go to heaven without loving and obeying God?

This is the real question, "What does God require of us?" Why else would you being going down this line of reasoning, except to loose something that is required for salvation?

You quote Romans 6 but notice carefully it says in verse 3 that believers are "baptized into Jesus Christ". This same expression "baptized into" is also used of Moses in 1 Corinthians 10:2. Here the Israelites publicly identified with Moses but, and very importantly, they had already accepted his leadership (Exodus 12:21, 28, 35, 50). That is exactly what Christians do today. They accept Christ's leadership then and only then are they baptized.

Yes, someone must accept the leadership of Christ. In fact, confession at a conversion preceded baptism (Acts 8:35-38). It does no good to go through the motions, if the heart is not sincere (John 4:24; Micah 6:6-8; Matthew 23:23). However, does mere acceptance of leadership save?

Let's go back to Paul's example of the "baptism of Moses". While encamped at the edge of the Red Sea, with the Pharaoh and the Egyptians closing in fast, the children of Israel did not respond in faith, instead they complained to Moses and questioned his leadership (Exodus 14:10-14). Now, Moses reprimands and encourages them to remain faithful, which they do, but what if they did not? Again, this is the real question under consideration, "Is acceptance of Christ's (Moses') leadership enough?"

If the children of Israel had not crossed the Red Sea, what would have happened? What would have happened if they had not obeyed? If they did obey, would that imply that they "earned" their salvation? Certainly not. God parted the Read Sea. That's grace. If He had not, then they would not have been saved. But, if the Israelites had not been "baptized into Moses", would they have been saved?

I agree Cornelius is the exceptioon but that for the Gentiles.....us. Luke gives no other account of how a pure Gentile receives the Spirit so Cornelius is the norm.

This is simply not true. Both the Samaritans, who were certainly not Jews, and the Ephesian Gentiles (Ephesians 2:11) only received the Holy Spirit after they were baptized into Jesus name (Acts 8:14-16; 19:5-6). Please refer to the last note for more discussion on this point.

In terms of Epheseinas 4:5 it is one baptism of two components of an inward element and an outward seal.

How can this be true? The case of Cornelius distinctly separates the two baptisms. First, he was baptized in the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:44-45; 11:15-17), and then following that, he was baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 10:47-48). The two baptisms were separated by the following:

• recognition of baptism of the Holy Spirit
• amazement
• concluding invitation should be offered to be baptized in the name of Jesus - commandment to be baptized in the name of Jesus
• finally baptism in the name of Jesus.

Since they were two distinct events in time, how could these two baptisms be considered one?

The Jews at that time are saved like everyone...by faith. However their means of attaining the Holy Spirit was delayed until they were baptized. They were justified like everyone else before baptism but God withheld the Holy Spirit until they were baptized. Taking a closer look at Acts 2 we see that the Jews gladly received the message Peter spoke to them. What was the climax of the message? It was that Jesus is both the Lord and Christ. That they accepted He was the Christ they were already regenerated (1 John 5:1). "Born of God" only describes saved people.

Again, this is not true. Even after they acknowledged Christ, they were still lost and needed to do something to be saved. In addition to commanding them to repent and be baptized, Peter also said, "Be saved from this perverse generation" (Acts 2:40). How were they to be saved? He had just told them to "Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). How could they be saved, if they were already saved at the acknowledgement of Christ in Acts 2:37? Furthermore, how could they be baptized for the remission of sins in Acts 2:38, if their sins were already forgiven in Acts 2:37?

Finally, by his confession we know that the eunuch abided in God (1 John 4:15). To abide in God always describes a saved person and such was the eunuch's spiritual status before he was baptized.

It seems as though you have reverted and now believe again that confession is required.

This passage should not be misinterpreted as was I John 5:1. We cannot insert words, such as "only" into passages. I am sure that it was not intentional, but I fear that your prejudices are blinding you.

The entire book of I John deals with so-called Christians who would deny fleshly incarnation of Christ (I John 4:1-3). Several things were required to recognize true Christians, and many requirements are given in I John:

• belief in Christ (I John 5:1)[/quote]
• confession of his fleshly incarnation (I John 4:1-3, 15)
• love of God (I John 4:21-5:1)
• love of the brethren (I John 5:1-2)
• obedience to God (I John 5:1-3)

None of these include the word "only". They are all requirements of true Christians. If someone confesses but does not believe, does he still abide in God? This is how you are interpreting I John 5:1 and I John 4:15. You are adding the words "only", "alone", or "merely" so that the idea is that only this one thing is required. Since other verses in the context, which are similar in grammatical structure, relate other requirements for a relationship with God, then why have you singled out belief as being the only one requirement that is necessary?

Just for your reference, the following list of verses, which link baptism to salvation, are again provided:

Galatians 3:26-27; I Peter 3:21; Romans 6:1-10; Hebrews 10:23; Ephesians 5:25-26; Titus 3:5; Colossians 2:11-12

[Marc]

Paul is not combating an all works righteousness as compared to faith alone. He combats every bit of works. Romans 11:6 declares that no works are involved whatsoever. James is combating those who would simply say they believe without any fruit - such is impossible.

Those who do believe will confess and love otherwise they didn't believe to begin with. Belief though is when one is justified (1 John 5:1).

Acts 8 are not pure Gentiles. They are a mix.

I have already answered you concerning Acts 2:38.

Romans 6 we publicly identify ourselves with Christ just like the Israelites publicly identified with Moses. Both groups though have already accepted their leadership. Now if they fall away they are either back slidden or were never true followers to begin with. Simon went through all the formalities but Peter stated that he was in the "gall of bitterness".

Cornelius had the Holy Spirit before he was baptized. To have the Holy Spirit means that one is saved (1 John 4:13). Therefore Cornelius was saved before he was baptized.

There aren't any individuals indwelt by God the Holy Spirit who are at the same time children of the Devil (unThis). This is impossible.

The same is true for the eunuch, by conffesing Jesus is the Son of God, 1 John 4:15 states that he abided in God and God abided in him (1 John 4:15).

Sincerely

Marc

[jim]

He is searching but not for truth. He is searching for some way to get around baptism being for the remission of sins. His adopting the position that baptism was for the remission of sins for the Jews but not for the Gentiles takes issue with his own arguments relating to justification by faith without obedience. If Jews were saved by being baptized, then that annuls his whole systems of arguments that man cannot be saved by works, since baptism, in his mind is a work. But, according to him, you have some people (Jews) who were saved by baptism. He doesn’t seem to realize that if God saved the Jews by baptism (and to him that is a work), then, according to his concept about justification by works, God stands opposed to himself. He argues as one who is very deficient in Bible knowledge but who is committed to a position of justification by faith alone and is unaware of the dilemmas that presents. I predict that he will abandon the argument that the Jews were saved by baptism.

Without some kind of agreement with him about a specific proposition or topic to be discussed you will find that you keep chasing him all over creation. I would present to him a proposition to be discussed, if he wants to keep on discussing the Bible with you – for instance, let him affirm that “Man is justified at the point in time when he first mentally assents to the truth that Jesus is the Christ.” The specifics of that proposition will allow you to demonstrate and, hold his feet to the fire, that there are many who believe in Jesus who are not justified, then you can deal with him as to what the bible means by “faith.” Or, perhaps a discussion of what is involved in the meaning of “works” – you have already covered that adequately but you have to understand that his concept of the meaning of works is “anything man does” and when he thinks of works, he automatically conjures up in his mind “works that earn or merit” salvation. In pursuit of that subject, he will have problems with the conditions of repentance and confession and even faith itself that is called a “work” (Jno. 6:28-29). The ultimate consequence of a consistent application of what the bible means by “works” as “anything man does” will require him to take Calvin’s position that man cannot even believe by himself (since that is something man does) – God must give him the faith.

His observation, “Those who do believe will confess and love otherwise they didn’t believe to begin with. Belief though is when one is justified,” puts him in direct conflict with passages such as Jas. 2:19, “…the devils believe and tremble,” and Jno. 12:42, “Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue…” He will have to adjust his statement to something like, “Those who REALLY believe” to maintain his position.

If you pursue answers to him in the present format, perhaps by using passages like Rom. 6:17-18; Heb. 5:8-9, in conjunction with the others you have used, you can get him to see that obedience to God-given conditions for receiving the remission of sins is not justification by our own, works of merit but by obeying conditions God gave.

Instead of asking him to explain verses like Gal. 3:26-27 and 1 Pet. 3:21, et al., I would ask specific questions about the verses. You have made some points on them previously that he has ignored and conveniently dismissed. Now, hold his feet to the fire. No I don’t think you are being too hard on him.

You did an excellent job on answering his argument on Jas. 2, and your analysis is quite correct.

CORNELIUS

I think your arguments have been good, though you feel that you are having a problem with his points here.

Maybe these suggestions will help you. There is a connection made by Peter in Acts 11:15-17, back to what happened to the apostles in Acts 2. For what reason? In Acts 2:16-ff Peter affirms that this was what Joel prophesied. One thing that Joel had prophesied was that God would pour out his Spirit “on all flesh.” On the day of Pentecost only Jews (the apostles) received the outpouring. The context of Joel 2, is designed, with other passages, to prove God’s acceptance of both Jew and Gentile (all flesh). The outpouring of the HS in Acts 10, on the house of Cornelius (Gentiles) was essential to fulfill that prophesy – by the outpouring, it proved once and for all that Gentiles were on equal footing with the Jews in relationship with God. It was this very thing that Peter used to prove to the Jewish brethren who called him in question that he had done no wrong in going in and eating with Gentiles and that Gentiles were to be saved as well. Those Jews who questioned Peter, upon hearing Peter’s evidence of God’s outpouring of His Spirit, concluded, “Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life,” (11:18). The outpouring (resulting in baptism of the HS) was not designed to save the house of Cornelius any more than the apostles being baptized by the HS on the day of Pentecost was designed for their salvation.

Your illustrations about God’s Spirit being in and inspiring those to speak who were not saved are accurate arguments to prove the point that what Cornelius received was not designed to save him. Clearly, Cornelius understood that it was a message of words that was designed to save him (11:14). And Peter commands them to be baptized in water – which necessarily implies in conjunction with other passages that he still needed to be saved. His answer to your points that this was before Jesus was glorified is a mere quibble that does not deal with argument.

1 JOHN 5:1 –

I think you have answered him adequately on this passage. He uses this passage as though John is addressing unbelievers about how to be saved. Everything John writes is addressed to those who are already believers. His argument here is that every Christian has been begotten by believing (actually, the idea of trusting in a savior which is inclusive of meeting God’s conditions – repentance, confession, baptism) therefore, every begotten person should love every other begotten person. To take this passage to the exclusion of other things John says in this book or other writers have said about being begotten is a grave injustice to scripture. Note 1 Pet. 1:22-23 – same figure, “Seeing you have purified your souls IN OBEYING THE TRUTH…being born again…” But he doesn’t want anything that relates to obedience to God’s commands. 1 John 5:2-3, continues addressing disciples with reference to their responsibilities of keeping his commandments. Note again Heb. 5:8-9.

I would try to get him to commit to discussing one specific proposition – I believe it is the only way you will make any progress with him.
Jim

[m273p15c]

Marc,

Again, would you please answer these verses?

In Galatians 3:26-27, Paul referenced that those Gentile Christians had been "baptized into Christ". If these Gentile Christians were added into Christ's body at the point of belief, then how did baptism get them "into Christ", if they were already "in Christ"?

In I Peter 3:21, Peter clearly states that "baptism doth now save us". How can baptism save us from anything, if one is already saved before baptism? Now you might ask, "Was not this book written to Jews?" Earlier you had stated that the Jews were required to be baptized to be saved, and that they received forgiveness of sins at baptism. This would seem to explain this verse; however, I would ask you to consider this follow-up question, "Were then the Jews saved by works?" Previously, you rejected the idea that Gentiles would need to be baptized, invoking the charge that such a requirement was characteristic of a salvation by works. Therefore, if you are right, then were not the Jews saved by a system of works? If they were not, then by whatever reasoning you use, can not that same reasoning be applied to the Gentiles? If the Jews were saved at baptism, yet still being saved by God's grace, then so can Gentiles be saved at baptism by God's grace. Was a gospel of grace preached to Gentiles and a gospel of works required for the Jews?

Again, Peter states it clearly, "Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit, ... having been born again, ... through the word of God ..." (I Peter 1:22-23). All of these components are involved in the purifying process. How can the soul be purified in obedience of the truth, if it was already purified at the moment of belief?

Also, please examine Romans 6:1-10 more closely. Further discussion is provided below, along with your reference, but for now please consider, "How could a Roman Gentile have obeyed God in baptism, while he was still a "slave of sin"? If he was saved at belief, would he not have already been a "slave of righteousness" (Romans 6:17-18)? Now, again, if Romans was written exclusively to Jews, then how would Paul's arguments against a system of works have been in harmony with the requirement that they perform the work of baptism? Yet, it was written to Gentiles (Romans 11:11-13), so how would the Gentile have obeyed God, after belief, and still been a slave of sin, right up unto his obedience?

The writer of Hebrews speaks of Jesus, "Though He was a Son, He learned obedience by the things which He suffered." Without this obedience, Christ's work would have been incomplete, because the text continues, "And having been perfected ...". Although this speaks of Christ, the parallel is drawn, lining out the requirements of those who would be saved in His likeness, "He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him" (Hebrews 5:8-9). How can one be saved if they do not obey? If obedience is required, how can they be saved before they obey?

Ephesians 5:25-26 says that Jesus "loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word." Now, if He cleansed the church with "the washing of water", then would not the Gentiles have been included in this church and have been "sanctified and cleansed with the washing of water by the word"? Or, is there one church for Gentiles and another for Jews (Hebrews 10:22)? There is only one faith, one baptism, and one body (Ephesians 4:4-6), so how can there be two different groups who believe two different systems (faith versus works), have two baptism for two different reasons, and are added to two different bodies?

In general, it seems as though you are focusing on a couple of verses, and denying the conflicts that are generated by an incorrect interpretation with the rest of the Bible. I say this frankly, but kindly, as we turn to the comments from your previous note.

Paul is not combating an all works righteousness as compared to faith alone. He combats every bit of works. Romans 11:6 declares that no works are involved whatsoever. James is combating those who would simply say they believe without any fruit - such is impossible.

James said:

"Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?" (James 2:21-22)

He speaks of far more than just fruit. He speaks of justification. If works have no impact on justification, then how could he say that Abraham was "justified BY works"? No amount of rationalization will remove the preposition, "BY", denoting the means and method. Any line of reason that removes "works" from the process of "justification" destroys both the Greek and English languages.

Also, James is clear that belief is not sufficient. He points out, "You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe -- and tremble!" "But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead" (James 2:19-20)? If the demons believe, and REALLY believe such that they tremble in fear, then what is the benefit of belief alone? James uses this point to illustrate "that faith without works is dead". If faith is dead without works, then how can belief save without obedience?

Now, regarding Paul, he was not eliminating works entirely. He speaks of works that earn the wages of salvation - as of debt (Romans 4:4). This is the significance of "works", as Paul used it throughout Romans. To make it all inclusive of works is to pit James and Paul against each other and make God a liar (Titus 1:2). How else can this be explained without destroying the language? An explanation is not valid if it contradicts the very language that is supposed to express it.

Also, do you think that baptism would warrant salvation? If I am immersed in water and the Lord does nothing, what do I get? All wet! If the Lord does something, did my actions demand His blessings? Does He owe me salvation because I was dipped in water? God's grace is still required. Baptism and all the other good works in the world can never undo sin and its wages (Romans 6:23). Conditional works cannot be in competition with grace, because it is impossible for them to replace it. Therefore, the works that Paul was discussing must be something different; otherwise, why did he discuss them as competing and opposing choices (Romans 4:4-5)?

Those who do believe will confess and love otherwise they didn't believe to begin with. Belief though is when one is justified (1 John 5:1).

Again, why do you select I John 5:1 and ignore the requirements to confess, love, and obey as also referenced in the book of I John (4:7; 4:15, 5:1-3)? Since they are all grammatically and logically similar to I John 5:1, then they are all binding. Also, these passages cannot be interpreted such as to ignore other passages, such as I Peter 3:21, which says "baptism saves us". For more similar, please see list of verses at very beginning and end of this note.

Moreover, John speaks of those who definitely believed, but yet did not confess Christ's name:

"Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God." (John 12:48)

Therefore, it is not necessarily true that if one believes, he will necessarily confess Christ's name, love God, and love the brethren. Since the Bible says they believed, were they saved even though they never confessed Christ's name? Is confession therefore required? If it is required beyond belief, is that not something we must do? A work? Again, please recall James comparison to the demons who believe and tremble, but do not obey (James 2:19-20).

Acts 8 are not pure Gentiles. They are a mix. I have already answered you concerning Acts 2:38.

Then what about the Ephesians Christians? They, being Gentiles (Ephesians 2:11), received the Holy Spirit only after they were baptized into Jesus name (Acts 19:5-6). Also, what passage states that Jews have different requirements than Gentiles? There was one commission to go into all the world to every nation (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16). What passage makes any distinction for Jew versus Gentile in baptism? Is there not only one gospel, one faith, one baptism, and one body (Galatians 1:7-8; Ephesians 4:4-6)?

Romans 6 we publicly identify ourselves with Christ just like the Israelites publicly identified with Moses. Both groups though have already accepted their leadership. Now if they fall away they are either back slidden or were never true followers to begin with. Simon went through all the formalities but Peter stated that he was in the "gall of bitterness".

Where in Romans 6 does it say "publicly identified"? Instead, I read:

"Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. ... knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin." (Romans 6:3-7)

How do you access the benefits of His sacrifice? "As many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death." Who has been freed from sin? "For he who has died has been freed from sin." When is the old man of sin done away? "Knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with." When do we die "with Him"? "Therefore we were buried with Him THROUGH baptism into death." Again, please keep in mind that the book of Romans was written to Gentiles (Romans 11:11-13)

Cornelius had the Holy Spirit before he was baptized. To have the Holy Spirit means that one is saved (1 John 4:13). Therefore Cornelius was saved before he was baptized. There aren't any individuals indwelt by God the Holy Spirit who are at the same time children of the Devil (unThis). This is impossible.

Again, this does not prove anything. IF Cornelius did "abide in the Spirit", then it only proves he was baptized in the Holy Spirit, which no longer occurs today - ONE baptism (Ephesians 4:5). Also, "abiding in the Spirit" and "having the Spirit in us" is vastly different than the Spirit empowering somebody to speak in tongues. Again, please note the following examples:

• Wicked High Priest, Annanias, spoke by the Holy Spirit (John 11:51; II Peter 1:21)
• Wicked Prophet Balaam and his donkey, were filled and spoke by the Holy Spirit (Numbers 24:2-4; II Peter 2:15-16)
• Wicked King Saul and his messengers were filled with and spoke by the Holy Spirit (I Samuel 19:20-24)

You mentioned that these occurred before Jesus was glorified; however, that does not change the principle you stated:

"There aren't any individuals indwelt by God the Holy Spirit who are at the same time children of the Devil (unThis). This is impossible."

Were not Annanias, Balaam, and King Saul, children of the Devil? How did the Holy Spirit move through them? How is this different than Cornelius? Please note nowhere does it say that the Holy Spirit "abided" with or in Cornelius - only that he was given the gift of the Holy Spirit, which was manifested in tongue speaking.

That being said, let me reiterate: Regardless, nothing is proved by Cornelius. IF Cornelius did "abide in the Spirit", then it only proves he was baptized in the Holy Spirit, which no longer occurs today - there remains only ONE baptism (Ephesians 4:5). Please see previous note for further discussion.

The same is true for the eunuch, by conffesing Jesus is the Son of God, 1 John 4:15 states that he abided in God and God abided in him (1 John 4:15).

It seems as though you have reverted and now believe again that confession is required.[/quote]
This passage should not be misinterpreted as was I John 5:1. We cannot insert words, such as "only" into passages. I am sure that it was not intentional, but I fear that your prejudices are blinding you.

The entire book of I John deals with so-called Christians who would deny fleshly incarnation of Christ (I John 4:1-3). It is not written to unbelievers, stating the requirements for salvation. It was written to Christians who were to detect and withdraw from the evil influences in their midst (I John 4:1-3). Several things were required to recognize true Christians, and many requirements are given in I John:

• belief in Christ (I John 5:1)
• confession of his fleshly incarnation (I John 4:1-3, 15)
• love of God (I John 4:21-5:1)
• love of the brethren (I John 5:1-2)
• obedience to God (I John 5:1-3)

None of these include the word "only". They are ALL requirements of true Christians. If someone confesses but does not believe, does he still abide in God? This is how you are interpreting I John 5:1 and I John 4:15. You are adding the words "only", "alone", or "merely" so that the idea is that only this one thing is required. Since other verses in the context, which are similar in grammatical structure, relate other requirements for a relationship with God, then why have you singled out belief as being the only one requirement that is necessary?

Again, no view is true that contradicts other passages (Titus 1:2). Please harmonize the first verses from Galatians 3:26-27; I Peter 3:21; 1:22-23; Romans 6:1-10, 17-18; Hebrews 5:8-9; 10:22; Ephesians 5:25-26; and James 2:14-26.

I realize that disagreements in belief may generate the deepest kind of tension, but please let me assure you that I pray only the best may come from this study. I pray, and consider it not unreasonable, that we could come to the unity of the same mind upon this significant facet of the Lord's gospel (I Corinthians 1:10). I hope no offense is taken in whatever weakness or ignorance I reveal during our study. Although both of our patiences may be stretched, I ultimately care only for the well-being of our souls before God, as I hope and believe you do also. If I "hold your feet to the fire", it is only in our best joint interest and that of truth, and I trust that when you do the same, it is for the same good motive.

May God continue to bless our study that we may come to an accurate understanding.

[Marc]

Romans 6 and Galatains 3 baptism pictures what already occurred within our heart. In 1 Corinthians 10:2 the Israelites are said to have been "baptized into Moses" yet we know they had already accepted his leadership before their "baptism" (Exodus 12:21, 28, 35, 50). So too with believers in Christ, our submission acceptance of Christ occurs before we are baptized.

I never wrote "that the Jews were required to be baptized to be saved." I did write that they were required to be baptized in order to receive the Holy Spirit. God did not give them the Holy Spirit unless they were baptized. They are saved the same way everyone else is - by faith. In order for these Jews to be baptized they had to accept Peter's words that Jesus is both Lord and Christ. To do so would be regenerating (1 John 5:1).

You ask "How can one be saved if they do not obey?" - They can't. But obeying the gospel IS believeing the gospel. These passages make this abundantly clear (Acts 6:7: Romans 10:16; 1 Peter 2:6-8).

In 1 Peter 3:21 the waters of baptism are a picture of the flood while the Ark is a picture of Christ. Beleievers are "in Christ" (Ark) BEFORE they are baptized. To be "in Christ" necessitates one is already saved.

James 2 demonstrates that the faith one has will be revealed in works. If there are no works then there faith was equivalent to those of demons. Good works will naturally flow from a justifying faith. Paul mamkes this clear in Ephesians 2:

verse 8 saved by grace through faith

verse 9 works can not save us

verse 10 good works will come about because one is already saved

I don't "ignore the requirements to confess, love, and obey as also referenced in the book of 1 John (4:7; 4:15: 5:1-3)." All are based on the justifying belief spelled out in 1 John 5:1. All are not posssible unless this belief -making one 'born of God" -is there to begin with.

You cite John 12:42, 43 but these are not believers as verse 43 makes clear. Those who believe will confess. If one does not confess then the belief was a sham. The fact that "they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God" John would later declare that the love of the Father was not in them (1 John 2:15). If the love of the Father is not to be found in somebody this classifies them as an unbeliever not one of God's own. Furthermore, James calls then "enemies of God" (James 4:4) - again not a description of one who is His child.

Acts 19:5, 6 are not Gentiles but were Jewish disciples of John the Baptist. Their Jewishness is not lost to Luke in that there were 12 of them (Acts 19:7). Based on the eunuchs confession we know that he was already a Christian - God knew it the moment he believed in his heart. 1 John 4:15 tells us that God abided in him and that BEFORE he was baptized. Therefore baptism is not essential for salvation. It wasn't until Jesus was glorified that the Holy Spirit would permanently indwell believers (John 7:37-39; Ephesians 4:30). Before this time He did not indwell but empowered people in some form of service. Attempting to use Annanias, Balaam, King Saul, etc will not work. No unsaved person after Christ's glorification is said to do anything by the Holy Spirit. So by receiving the Holy Spirit before Cornelius was baptized cancels out the necessity of baptism to save... By speaking in tongues- something only a believer could do (1 Corinthians 12:10)- cancels out the necessity of baptism to save. In Cornelius Luke establishes the normative experience of the Holy Spirit's reception by the Gentiles -like us.

Marc

[m273p15c]

Marc,

I will not be accessing my e-mail for a while, almost 2 weeks, so please take your time to think about and respond to this note. Also, I was unable to finish reviewing your previous note, but I wanted to send to you my current "rough draft". Hopefully, I can finish the response in about 2 weeks.

I am somewhat inclined to cease our study at this point. Almost everything that is stated in your last note is a rehash of previous arguments. I believe that if you reread my last note, almost every argument presented in the latest note will be answered. However, I do plan to go through this note in detail, for the sake of fairness and thoroughness.

Before we dive into the last note, would you please take a moment to consider these brief thoughts on Bible studies and logical thinking in general?

First, God is a logical and reasonable God (Isaiah 1:18). Through the examples of Jesus and the writers of the New Testament, we see that God intended for man to draw necessary conclusions from the Scripture (John 10:34-36; Matthew 19:4-6; Matthew 22:23-33 and Luke 20:27-40; Matthew 22:4-6; Acts 2:25-36; Galatians 1:16; Hebrews 7:1-19). Moreover, God cannot lie (Titus 1:2). Therefore, no section of Scripture may contradict another portion of Scripture. This lays upon us the burden of reasoning through the Scripture, and harmonizing the Scriptures. Not only is it possible, but it is necessary to determine God's will. We cannot be content with contradiction, if we desire to lay hold on the truth.

Second, just because Scripture is quoted to support an argument, does not make the argument valid, sound, or right. Scripture can be, and is twisted to produce the desired interpretation (II Peter 3:15-17). Even the Devil quoted Scripture (Matthew 4:6). Therefore, we must not only base our arguments on Scripture, but we must be diligent to ensure that they necessarily follow. If a Scripture's import is ambiguous to the argument under consideration, then it cannot be used, because it may have multiple meanings.

Third, we must be extremely diligent that we do not first form our conclusions and then go to the Scripture to support them (Proverbs 18:13). Such preconceived conclusions prejudices and blinds our interpretation of Scripture, making it more difficult to come to an understanding of God's Word. In fact, it becomes impossible to see the truth, if we have decidedly determined the conclusion. Paul gave a warning to all Christians:

"The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved."

"And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (II Thessalonians 2:9-12)

Many people will be deceived and perish, simply because "they did not receive the love of the truth". We must be sure that we love truth above all of our cherished traditions, notions, prejudices, conventions, and personal desires. If we do not, then Paul promised that "for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie". Therefore, we must be extremely careful that we do not take our views to the Scripture to find support, because we will find support. It will not be sound, valid, or right. We can be sure that it will contradict other Scriptures, if we only had looked a little more carefully, but because we desired a specific interpretation, as soon as we find a verse that supports our cherished view, even if taken out of context, then we adopt it as a proof text. Paul warns that many people will be destroyed this way (II Thessalonians 2:9-12; II Peter 3:15-17).

If we find ourselves, asserting points without Scriptural basis, taking verses out of context, or using ambiguous verses as justification, then we know that we are either unaware of the need for care, reckless, or dishonest ("by their fruits you shall know them" - Matthew 7:17-23). Many people are unaware at first, but become calloused and dishonest over time. Also, if we find ourselves thinking in our hearts, "I know this has to be right ... There must be a verse in here somewhere...", then we know we have let our love of truth slip from its rightful and needful position within our heart. Only diligence, humility, and a deep love of truth will protect us from such things. When was the last time we prayed for a "deeper love of truth"?

Now with this preface of principles and warnings, let us turn to consider the last note of exchange. In addition to previous responses, this preface should be useful for helping us not only understand the truth, but check our heart.

Romans 6 and Galatians 3 baptism pictures what already occurred within our heart.

What would you think if I wrote in response to your points,

"Acts 10 and I John 5 only refers to the critical nature of belief, not the immediate salvation upon belief."

Both of these are assertions. All of the logic that was previously presented is dismissed with a wave of a hand. My friend, please go back and reexamine the previous note. I took some time in preparing those thoughts, and until they are answered, they will stand as contradictions, at least in my mind.

In 1 Corinthians 10:2 the Israelites are said to have been "baptized into Moses" yet we know they had already accepted his leadership before their "baptism" (Exodus 12:21, 28, 35, 50). So too with believers in Christ, our submission acceptance of Christ occurs before we are baptized.

Again, this was addressed previously. I also agree that submission to leadership must precede obedience. Jesus showed us this in His own obedience to the Father (Hebrews 5:7-9). Below is a reference from a previous note:

Yes, someone must accept the leadership of Christ. In fact, confession at a conversion preceded baptism (Acts 8:35-38). It does no good to go through the motions, if the heart is not sincere (John 4:24; Micah 6:6-8; Matthew 23:23). However, does mere acceptance of leadership save?

Let's go back to Paul's example of the "baptism of Moses". While encamped at the edge of the Red Sea, with the Pharaoh and the Egyptians closing in fast, the children of Israel did not respond in faith, instead they complained to Moses and questioned his leadership (Exodus 14:10-14). Now, Moses reprimands and encourages them to remain faithful, which they do, but what if they did not? Again, this is the real question under consideration, "Is acceptance of Christ's (Moses') leadership enough?"

If the children of Israel had not crossed the Red Sea, what would have happened? What would have happened if they had not obeyed? If they did obey, would that imply that they "earned" their salvation? Certainly not. God parted the Read Sea. That's grace. If He had not, then they would not have been saved. But, if the Israelites had not been "baptized into Moses", would they have been saved?

I never wrote "that the Jews were required to be baptized to be saved." I did write that they were required to be baptized in order to receive the Holy Spirit. God did not give them the Holy Spirit unless they were baptized. They are saved the same way everyone else is - by faith.

I am sorry that I misunderstood you. The following paragraph from your first response, sent after you mentioned that you had changed your views, threw me off:

"Acts 2:38 and 22:16 baptism is for the remission of sins. This command is only given to the Jews never to the Gentiles as Cornelius demonstrates. This special sin of the Jews had to do with crucifying their Messiah. Water baptism was necessary for them to have these sins washed away."

Reading over this paragraph again, I must confess that I am thoroughly confused. If the baptism for the Jews in Acts 2:38 and 22:16 was for "the remission of sins" as you said previously, but they were saved previously at the moment of belief, then how did their being baptized remit their sins? Have you changed your view on this too, or am I missing something?

In order for these Jews to be baptized they had to accept Peter's words that Jesus is both Lord and Christ. To do so would be regenerating (1 John 5:1).

Again, I agree that needed to accept Peter's words, but that is not what they asked:

"Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, 'Men and brethren, what shall we do?"' Then Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'" (Acts 2:37-38)

Please notice that they asked what were they to DO. They expected that they needed to do something. They must already believe, because now they are ready to act. Peter could have cleared up their misunderstanding, and eliminated any confusion, and say "accept Christ's leadership". But, he did not. He told them to DO something. Would not this classify as a work? What did he tell them to do? "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ." What was the purpose of the baptism? "For the remission of sins". Again, is not this a work?

You ask "How can one be saved if they do not obey?" - They can't. But obeying the gospel IS believeing the gospel. These passages make this abundantly clear (Acts 6:7: Romans 10:16; 1 Peter 2:6-8).

This seems to me to be a complete surrender of the position, and yet it seems to be entirely inaccurate. You said:

"obeying the gospel IS believing the gospel"

I agree that believe is considered part of obedience, and is therefore, considered something you do, a work. Jesus acknowledges that belief is a work in John 6:29. If it is a work, then how can this be reconciled that we are "saved by grace through faith ... works can not save us" (you on Ephesians 2:8-9)? I can answer this pretty easily, because I believe it is a conditional work, which does not earn our salvation. However, this seems to be difficult for a "grace only" position. I am confident that you did not mean that belief is the only obedience required in the gospel, so I will not discuss that.

In 1 Peter 3:21 the waters of baptism are a picture of the flood while the Ark is a picture of Christ. Beleievers are "in Christ" (Ark) BEFORE they are baptized. To be "in Christ" necessitates one is already saved.

James 2 demonstrates that the faith one has will be revealed in works. If there are no works then there faith was equivalent to those of demons. Good works will naturally flow from a justifying faith. Paul mamkes this clear in Ephesians 2: verse 8 saved by grace through faith verse 9 works can not save us verse 10 good works will come about because one is already saved >

So then how is one "saved by works"?

I don't "ignore the requirements to confess, love, and obey as also referenced in the book of 1 John (4:7; 4:15: 5:1-3)." All are based on the justifying belief spelled out in 1 John 5:1. All are not posssible unless this belief -making one 'born of God" -is there to begin with.

You do ignore the way they are written. They are couched in the same language as belief. To be consistent, if you make one a requirement for salvation, then you must make all of them. Otherwise, inconsistency prevails and prejudice is suspect.

You cite John 12:42, 43 but these are not believers as verse 43 makes clear. Those who believe will confess. If one does not confess then the belief was a sham. The fact that "they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God" John would later declare that the love of the Father was not in them (1 John 2:15). If the love of the Father is not to be found in somebody this classifies them as an unbeliever not one of God's own. Furthermore, James calls then "enemies of God" (James 4:4) - again not a description of one who is His child.

Yes their belief was inadequate, but it does not change the fact that the Bible says they believed. Based on your argumentation, they should have been saved. Since they were not, then belief must not be the point of salvation.

Acts 19:5, 6 are not Gentiles but were Jewish disciples of John the Baptist. Their Jewishness is not lost to Luke in that there were 12 of them (Acts 19:7).

What is the significance of 12? They were not converts of John. They were converted by Apollos traveling through Ephesus (Acts 18:24-19:3). Plus, Paul calls them Gentiles as earlier proved from Ephesians. It cannot be proven that they were Jews.

Based on the eunuchs confession we know that he was already a Christian - God knew it the moment he believed in his heart. 1 John 4:15 tells us that God abided in him and that BEFORE he was baptized. Therefore baptism is not essential for salvation. It wasn't until Jesus was glorified that the Holy Spirit would permanently indwell believers (John 7:37-39; Ephesians 4:30). Before this time He did not indwell but empowered people in some form of service. Attempting to use Annanias, Balaam, King Saul, etc will not work. No unsaved person after Christ's glorification is said to do anything by the Holy Spirit. So by receiving the Holy Spirit before Cornelius was baptized cancels out the necessity of baptism to save... By speaking in tongues- something only a believer could do (1 Corinthians 12:10)- cancels out the necessity of baptism to save. In Cornelius Luke establishes the normative experience of the Holy Spirit's reception by the Gentiles -like us.

Again, I believe this was dealt with in previous notes. However, for the sake of fairness, I hope to revisit it later. Sorry for the briefness on the last few points. The review is not complete, but I wanted to send you what I had, in case I was unable to send a completed review later.

[Marc]

If the Jews would not cross the Red sea then they never believed in Moses to begin with. To answer your question (one of them?) no mere acceptance of leadership does not save. It must be from the heart.

Acts 2:38 - these individuals were already justified before they were baptized (1 John 5:1). These Jews did not accept that Jesus is the Christ and still remain Jews. Their baptism washed away their sins of rejecting and having their Messiah crucified. They had to do with sins of fellowship. One can be a Christian and still die with sin (1 Corinthians 11:30-32). No pure Gentile, as Cornelius demonstrates, was required to be baptized in order to wash away their sins. I'm sure I have previously written to you that Paul in his 2 instances where he related his conversion experience that it was only to the Jews where baptism is stressed (Acts 22:16).

We are saved by works in that they confirm the belief was genuine at a previous point. The point of justification is belief (1 John 5:1). Without this belief that makes one "born of God" none of the things you mentioned are possible.

Those in John 12:42, 43 should not have been saved becuse it says they believed. The fact that they did not confess due to their love of things besides God demonstrates that they were "enemies of God".

Finally, it is the message of the gopsel that saves people. Paul lays down its requirements in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. One must believe:

1. That Jesus is the Christ.

2. He died for our sins.

3. This belief that He is the Christ is based on His death, burial and resurrection.

No where is baptism mentioned in Paul's account of the gospel in which they are saved.

Sincerely

Marc

[m273p15c]

Marc,

If the Jews would not cross the Red sea then they never believed in Moses to begin with. To answer your question (one of them?) no mere acceptance of leadership does not save. It must be from the heart.

If it is not followed by actions, from the heart or not, it is still a mere acceptance. It is only "mental ascent" and "mere acceptance" until it is followed by action. When were the Israelites saved? Were they saved before or after they crossed the Red Sea?

Acts 2:38 - these individuals were already justified before they were baptized (1 John 5:1). These Jews did not accept that Jesus is the Christ and still remain Jews. Their baptism washed away their sins of rejecting and having their Messiah crucified. They had to do with sins of fellowship. One can be a Christian and still die with sin (1 Corinthians 11:30-32). No pure Gentile, as Cornelius demonstrates, was required to be baptized in order to wash away their sins. I'm sure I have previously written to you that Paul in his 2 instances where he related his conversion experience that it was only to the Jews where baptism is stressed (Acts 22:16).

Although you have related it in almost all of your previous notes, this remains a very interesting explanation. However, it has some serious flaws, which I have tried to point out before:

1. There is no Scriptural reference to this explanation. You have come to this conclusion, but no where is such a distinction made between Jew and Gentile. If anything, the whole of the New Testament brings the two together. ONE faith, ONE baptism. (Ephesians 4:4-6). However, your interpretation describe two faiths and two baptisms.
2. I John 5:1 is badly taken out of context. More on this below.
3. If the Jews were baptized for remission of any sin, then some work was required, which contradicts your concept of salvation by faith only.
4. Cornelius is taken out of context. The only exception noted was that he was baptized in the Holy Spirit, as were the apostles at the beginning (Acts 11:15-18). Afterwards, he still had to "repent unto life". He still was not saved. Repentance was required. This clearly shows that belief was not enough alone. At least repentance is required, and that is something that people must do! Therefore, we already know that your interpretation of I John 5:1 is incorrect because it contradicts the case of Cornelius, which requires more than belief.
5. Paul is also badly misused. Where does it talk about the special sin of crucifying Christ? There is nothing in that context to suggest that Paul had to do something special because he was a Jew. Since the Lord was unknown to Paul before the vision, then we know that he did not crucify Him. If he did not crucify Christ, then he could not be responsible or accountable for that sin. Also, how were Samaritans and all the other non-pure-Gentiles, who were not involved with the crucifixion, still accountable for it? This seems to be a heavy implication and consequential charge against God's justice.
6. I Corinthians 11:30-32 is also badly taken out of context, but a discussion of it is not pertinent to our main point.
7. Baptism for remission of sins and as the point of initial salvation is noted for several Gentile Christians (Romans 6; Galatians 3:26-27,...). I have spent many hours preparing several paragraphs on this, which I believe went for the most part unanswered. Please reexamine our past correspondence for MUCH more on this.

We are saved by works in that they confirm the belief was genuine at a previous point. The point of justification is belief (1 John 5:1). Without this belief that makes one "born of God" none of the things you mentioned are possible.

Again, I have said this several times, and yet this has been ignored every time. You are GREATLY taking this verse out of context. Several verses contradict this. I will not repeat my previous notes, but the questions regarding I Peter 3:21; Romans 6; Hebrews 10, and all the other passages still stand unanswered and in direct contradiction with this interpretation. You are waving your hands at these points. Why? Why do you so greatly resist that God asks for you to be baptized to be saved?

Why do I consider it taken out of context? Again, I believed I answered this sufficiently previously. But, just as review:

1. Numerous other passages demand and require more than belief only.
2. I John was not written to unbelievers, nor is it instruction on how to become saved. Instead, it was written to people who were already Christians and provides, among other things, tests to determine whether someone is really a Christian. Please see the context:
   

   "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
   
   "By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world." (I John 4:1-3)

   The context is of testing the "spirits", which would include the author and proponent of the false messages preached to them. Clearly, they were facing serious false doctrine and false teachers. They are given several tests, which would determine the source of the message and provide means for their own self-evaluation and confirmation. You have focused on ONE of many tests (I John 5:1):
   

   "Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him."

   However, at some point it becomes dishonest to ignore the other requirements. Previously you said that you did not ignore them, but in truth you do. As was noted earlier, obedience, confession, and love of God are all noted as characteristics of Christians. If they do not have theses characteristics, then how can they be Christians?
   
   Again, as if there was any doubt from the context of I John, we know the interpretation is incorrect because other passages require obedience, specifically baptism. Again, please answer how, in any way, one can be "justified by works" if justification is by faith only (James 2:24)? Please consult our previous correspondences regarding James, which still stand unanswered. Belief alone is imperfect and incomplete without works (James 2:22-24). If one is "justified by works", then no one can be justified without works in any way. There is no way around this.

Besides contradicting the rest of the Scripture, your interpretation of I John 5:1 presents terrible contradictions with the rest of your own interpretations. I John 5:1 says "whoever believes". There are no qualifications. I believe you must look at the context and consider other passages to maintain harmony in the Scripture. However, you will not let me. You strictly observe, "whoever believes". Yet, if I point out cases of people believing who were not saved, then you place qualifications. Why? Who gave you the right to place qualifications, but I cannot? My friend, you are being prejudicial and highly inconsistent in your interpretation of I John 5:1. If anyone who believes is born of God, then why were the demons not saved who believed that Jesus was the Christ, and why were the Jews from John 12 not saved who also believed? This verse offers no distinction between Jew and Gentile, so by what right can you insert a qualification and I cannot? Consistency is one of the best tests for honesty. You cannot maintain your awareness of your inconsistency and your honesty. Once you learn of your inconsistency, you must put one of them away - either your inconsistency or your honesty.

Those in John 12:42, 43 should not have been saved because it says they believed. The fact that they did not confess due to their love of things besides God demonstrates that they were "enemies of God".

Again, this does not matter. They believed, so according to your use of I John 5:1, then they were born of God. You are adding qualifications as it suits your interpretation.

Finally, it is the message of the gospel that saves people. Paul lays down its requirements in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. One must believe: 1. That Jesus is the Christ. 2. He died for our sins. 3. This belief that He is the Christ is based on His death, burial and resurrection. No where is baptism mentioned in Paul's account of the gospel in which they are saved.

Again, this is badly taken out of context. This was never meant to be an all inclusive recipe for how to be saved. He does not mention confession, repentance, baptism of any kind, anything else. He does not mention "belief from the heart" or "acceptance of Christ's leadership". It is highly unfair to interpret any passage to the exclusion of all others.

I know that I am being much more straightforward in this note. Not out of frustration, impatience, or desperation, do I resort to this style of communication. It is only because I have oft repeated these thoughts and pointed out clear contradictions, but yet it appears to me that you have hardened your heart by ignoring multiple questions and inconsistencies. I both dislike and dread writing in such a pointed manner, but I feel that I am left without a choice.

"Winning" this discussion is a despicable thought in my sight. Only out of pure love do I set down to contemplate your interpretation, reflect upon my own, and consider the revelation of Scripture. If you "win", but I am "right", then what good is your victory? Of course, I must be cautious that I guard against the same.

Also, as I mentioned previously, I have no interest in "whittling on God's end of the stick". What I am concerned about is obeying God and teaching what He teaches through the Bible. Disobedience and preaching false doctrine regarding our salvation would not be sins that I want written in anybody's "book" on Judgment Day. I have no interest in academics. My only concern is the practical and ultimate personal consequences that are implied by these questions. Only because of the seriousness of this question and the resulting impetus of love do I believe that these discussions should be conducted. I am not trying to minimize faith or God's grace. I agree with you that it is the key; however, without our obedience, God will not perfect His grace in us.

"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'" (Matthew 7:21-23)

May God help us,

In brotherly love.

[Marc]

The Israelites deliverance occurred before the Red Sea. They were already "God's people".

Concerning Acts 2:38 there aren't two faiths. I never said that. Everyone is saved the same way - by faith. God withheld the Holy Spirit until they were baptized. However they were justified before their baptism. They already believed that Jesus is the Christ (Acts 2:36, 41). This would be regenerating (1 John 5:1). The eunuch is said to abide in God and God is said to abide in him before not afetr his baptism (1 John 4:15).

You explanation of Cornelius is way off. He "received the Spirt" (Acts 10:47) which occurred before his baptism. To have the Spirit meant that God had already abided in Him (1 John 4:13). To say that he still wasn't saved means that God dwelt in him but he was still a child of the Devil (unsaved). This simply won't work. To abide in God spiritually describes someone who is ALREADY saved. - all this BEFORE his baptism. Conecening 1 Corinthians 15 it does not have to mention repentance for it is inherint in belief. This is why when Cornelius got saved (and yes before his baptism) nowhere did Peter demand repentance but rather belief (Acts 10:43). Later it is stated that he repented because he believed (Acts 11:18) You end by quoting Matthew 7:21-23 but to BELIEVE in the Son IS to do the will of the Father (John 6:40).

Marc

[m273p15c]

Marc,

The Israelites deliverance occurred before the Red Sea. They were already "God's people".

Just because they were Jews does not make them "God's people". There will be many Jews in Hell.

"... For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham ..." (Romans 9:6-7).

The Hebrews were required to obey also. Lineage did nothing to bring them into ultimate favor with God, although they certainly enjoyed some blessings because of it.

"Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not think to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." (Matthew 3:8-10)

The Jews at standing at the shore of the Red Sea were still within Pharaoh's grasp until they crossed over the Red Sea. It was not until they crossed the Red Sea and Pharaoh was destroyed in it that they were safe. Even then, they were still subject to spiritual ruin because they did not remain faithful. This was the point Paul originally made: The Israelites enjoyed similar spiritual blessings to New Testament Christians, but they fell because they thought that they could not fall (I Corinthians 10:1-12). God's mercy would not (not 'could not', but would not) save them until they did their part to walk across the dry ground. Did their 'walking' earn their salvation? Of course not. It was only through God's gracious miracle in parting the Red Sea that they were saved. They had to believe that God would not let the waters come crashing down on them as they passed, and they had to faithfully obey. But, if they had not actually walk through, then all the belief in the world would have been useless.

Concerning Acts 2:38 there aren't two faiths. I never said that. Everyone is saved the same way - by faith.

You did not say that, but it is an unavoidable conclusion. Although you believe in one Lord, two different system of faiths must be pursued by the Jew and the Gentile. Just because they share the same Lord, does not make them the same faith. Ephesians 4 list "one Lord", "one faith", and "one baptism" as all being separate requirements. One system has a baptism that is just for show, and the other has one that is mostly for show, but also is required to forgive the special sin of crucifying the Messiah. Acts 2:38 says that baptism was "for the remission of sins", not just one, but multiple sins. Why did they have to do this work for the "remission of sins"? Even if it was just one sin, any sin, if a work was required for its remission then that destroys the entire doctrine of "faith only", which we discussed earlier as a basis for rejecting baptism as a work. Whether it was one sin or all of their sins, if baptism was required for the "remission of sins", then faith alone was not enough.

Also, you make there be two distinct baptisms, yet there is clearly only one (Ephesians 4:4). Only one baptism and gospel was to be preached to every creature (Matthew 28:18-20). If the Jews had to be baptized for the remission of sins, then so did the Gentiles; otherwise, there is two faiths and two baptisms.

God withheld the Holy Spirit until they were baptized. However they were justified before their baptism. They already believed that Jesus is the Christ (Acts 2:36, 41). This would be regenerating (1 John 5:1).

If they were regenerated at the point of belief, then how could they still have sin? Your conclusions violate the context. They had at least some sins (Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16); therefore, was their faith not good enough? Again, if they were justified, then they would have been blameless. Since they still had sin, they could not have been justified.

Regarding I John 5:1, I am sorely disappointed to see you make this reference. After I showed several apparent contradictions and conflicts that result from its use outside of its context, you use it again, even though its denial was a main thrust of several past notes. If you had said, "I do not understand ...", or if you had answered any of the contradictions that arise from your interpretation, which I indicated, then I would have been understanding of its reuse. However, you did not even acknowledge any of the previous points. Why? I do not know why. I would like to assume that you overlooked them, but I have made the same arguments too many times. ... I say this not as a jab, or as a proof of truth. I am only concern that we both share a profound love of the truth. We must be willing to following God's Word no matter where it leads us, even if our most cherished doctrines will lie ruined in its wake. It is an experience not unknown to me. I can sympathize with having one's 'faith' dashed, when someone realizes that their faith is not based on "the faith".

I John 5:1 cannot refer to just belief alone, because otherwise the believing Jews would have been saved, as well as the demons who believed (John 12:42, 43; James 2:22-24). Therefore, we must understand that there is some qualification. What kind of belief is therefore saving? Is it not an obedient faith (James 2:22-24)? Again, faith will always be incomplete and imperfect without obedience (James 2:22-24). This kind of faith can never save, which is the very point of James 2, John 12:42-43, and Matthew 7:21-23[/b].

The eunuch is said to abide in God and God is said to abide in him before not afetr his baptism (1 John 4:15).

Again, you take this passage badly out of context. The same points could be made for this verse as were made for verse 5:1 from the same context. This is one of the many requirements by which one may know that he is a child of God. If he does not meet all the requirements, which include obedience (5:1-4), then he is not a child of God. Again, this is not a recipe for conversion, but the combined tests are a way to know the source of spirits, whether they be of 'truth' or 'error' (I John 4:1-6), and a way to know their own salvation, even though it was common knowledge that they had already believed (I John 5:13). Many other tests could have been mentioned, but they were suffering specifically from ruining burden of Gnostic false teaching, and those tests mentioned were specific to that false doctrine.

Moreover, using James' point, even demons confessed that Jesus was the Son of God, yet they were evil personified (Mark 3:21). Also, the people from Matthew 7 confessed and even worked in Christ's name, yet they were not saved. Just because someone confesses does not mean he is saved. The true confession will be witnessed, proven, and perfected in deeds. What's that old saying about "good intentions". I don't know the rest of the saying, but words alone are not worth anything, I think was the point.

You explanation of Cornelius is way off. He "received the Spirt" (Acts 10:47) which occurred before his baptism. To have the Spirit meant that God had already abided in Him (1 John 4:13). To say that he still wasn't saved means that God dwelt in him but he was still a child of the Devil (unsaved). This simply won't work. To abide in God spiritually describes someone who is ALREADY saved. - all this BEFORE his baptism.

You assume that Cornelius had the Spirit in the same way that is referenced in I John 4:13. Again, several references are made to people speaking through the Holy Spirit, who were wicked. Since your arguments are based on the nature of God and the Devil, then they transcend covenant boundaries. This has been covered before and does not offer any proof. No where in the Bible does it indicate that the Holy Spirit could do this in the Patriarchical Age and the Mosaical Age and not the Christian Age.

Concerning 1 Corinthians 15 it does not have to mention repentance for it is inherint in belief. This is why when Cornelius got saved (and yes before his baptism) nowhere did Peter demand repentance but rather belief (Acts 10:43). Later it is stated that he repented because he believed (Acts 11:18)

Exactly. Repentance always follows belief, and Cornelius "repented unto life". Therefore, he did not have life until he repented. Therefore, belief alone was and is not sufficient (James 2:26). I believe you have well made my case. According to what you said earlier, the Pentecostal Jews should have been saved in Acts 2:36, but yet they were still commanded to repent after their belief (Acts 2:38). If Cornelius had "life" after his belief and before his repentance, then was repentance also required for Jews and not for Gentiles? Also, how could he repent for the purpose of obtaining something that he already had? The order in Acts 10 is preaching (hear gospel), command to believe, assumed followed by belief because he received baptism of Holy Spirit, repentance, command to be baptized, and then baptism. If the Holy Spirit baptism followed repentance, then the requirements extend beyond belief and include repentance. Consequently, it will be hard to consistently explain I John 5:1 (you are arguing only belief is necessary, correct me if I am wrong). If repentance is not required and followed the Holy Spirit baptism, which was a sign of salvation, then how could he then repent unto life, if he already had it? The context points out the inconsistency and the error. Either way it seems that the doctrine is at an impasse.

About the "inherent repentance", you and I are very close to agreement at this point. I also believe that repentance and confession are inherent in a true belief. Belief is most often used in the Bible to refer to the kind that repents, confesses, and is baptized. You believe the other two are inherent because other passages require it? Since other passages also require baptism, then why is it not inherent? All the arguments that you use to eliminate baptism also eliminate repentance and confession; otherwise, if they do not, you will not be able to be consistent.

Remember, obeying God's commandments is inherent in the belief of I John 5:1 (I John 5:1-4).

You end by quoting Matthew 7:21-23 but to BELIEVE in the Son IS to do the will of the Father (John 6:40).

So do you admit that works are required? If belief is a work, then you have no basis for rejecting any other works, such as repentance, confession, and baptism. How can you reconcile this with your previous interpretation of Romans 4 and II Timothy 1:9?

Also, please note that Matthew 7:21-23[ ups the bar considerably. He does not say, "whoever believes" or "whoever acts in my name". They believed in Jesus, confessed in Jesus, and even performed mighty deeds in His name, yet He says they were workers of iniquity, because they did not do what He asked. How then will a person who is only believed, but not even confessed or obeyed the commands fare on Judgment Day? I can't speak for God, but He has already revealed that they will not be recipients of the promised mercy. If He extends special mercy for special cases, that's His business and prerogative as the Judge. However, I can't speak about it, and I sure can't promise it, since He didn't promise it. All I can do is preach what He revealed.

You are right that faith is the basis of our salvation. Please keep in mind what I said at the beginning (if I didn't, then I meant to do so, and I apologize): We are justified by faith (Romans 3:28), but our faiths, and thereby us, are judged and justified by our works (I Peter 1:17; II Corinthians 5:10). Apparently, until we demonstrate works and obey God's commanded conditional response, baptism for the remission of sin, then we will not receive remission of sins (Romans 6:1-10; Galatians 3:26-27; Hebrews 10:22; Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5; John 3:5; I Peter 3:21; Acts 2:38; 22:16). Faith remains incomplete, and imperfect without works (James 2:24-26). In this way baptism completes the initial conversion and saves us (I Peter 3:21). If the "stroke" in the "Book of Life" is based on our faith, justified by God's gracious offering of Christ's blood, then it is not made until our faith is justified and judged by our conditional obedience. Remember, God is also being accused and His just nature demands that God be just when He is judged by His accusers (Romans 3:4-6, 26; Psalm 51:4; Job 1:9-12; Revelation 12:10-11). Baptism is not the only brick in the building, nor is it the most important, but it is nonetheless part of the process God revealed. I do not seek to emphasize it, but it cannot be dismissed either.

BTW, I am still waiting on answers regarding Romans 6; Galatians 3:26-27; I Peter 3:21, etc, which show baptism is the entry point into Christ's body and saves us. I don't mean to hammer these mercilessly, but it would not be fair to you nor loving of me to not force you to confront them.

May God help us both, sincerely.

[Marc]

All who crossed the Red Sea demonstrated that they were God's before hand. The act confirmed what was already true.

Acts 2:38 is a multiple of sins. Rejecting the Messiah, crucifying Him, etc are all a number of sins.

Again you misunderstand Cornelius. He had the Holy Spirit before he was baptized. He spoke in tongues before he was baptized. To have the Spirit and have the abilityspeakealk in tongues applies only to those who are already believers...NOT UNBELIEVERS. The individual reception of the Holy Spirit happened afPentecostcost. Cornelius BELIEVED and then he received the Holy Spirit. Water baptism plus everything else in the Christian life followed. m273p15c, the Holy Spirit dwelt in Cornelius before he was baptized. Thus baptism is not necessary for salvation. Please no more letters. If you can't "see" the truth of this then everything else I write about will not connect.

[m273p15c]

Marc,

A man must know when he has done all he can. It saddens me to see this study end as it is.

I pray your conscience is never able to dismiss nor grow accustomed to the sting of the conflicts and contradictions. Saying this does not prove anything, but its all I can pray now.

May God help us both

[Marc]

Hello,

The conversion of Cornelius clearly shows that water baptism is not necessary for salvation. There are two good reasons that we know that he was saved before he was water baptized.

1. Before he was water baptized he already "received" the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:47). In view of this, there are three passages that demonstrate that he was saved. They are Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6 and 1 John 4:13.

a. Romans 8:9 - If one has the Holy Spirit they "belong" to Christ. To belong to Christ does not describe an unbeliever but a believer - such was the case of Cornelius before he was water baptized.

b. Galatians 4:6 - Because he was already a "son" God sent the Holy Spirit into his heart whereby he can now rightly refer to God as "Abba! Father!" This would only describe a condition of one who is a believer.

c. 1 John 4:13 - Because he had the Holy Spirit Cornelius abided in God and God abided in him. To abide in God and to have God abide in you does not describe an unbeliever but a believer - such was the case of Cornelius before he was water baptized.

2. Before he was water baptized he spoke in the New Testament gift of tongues (Acts 10:46). This New Testament gift is for those "in" not "out of" the church (1 Corintians 12:28) which is Christ's body (Colossians 1:24). Therefore, by having this New Testament gift Cornelius was already "in" the body of Christ and that before he was water baptized.

Marc