THE CONTEXT OF CORNELIUS

What can I do to be saved? Place to discuss sin and its remedy.

Moderator: grand_puba

Marc
Banned
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 4:19 pm

Post by Marc » Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:26 am

Yawn....

The Spirit being poured out on all flesh does not include beasts, birds and fish. I used this to show what your false argument would be reduced to.

Your authoritative source is "your own" interpretation of what "you" believe the Greek words mean despite all the sources I cited. Still waiting for your list....it is quite revealing that none has been supplied so far.

Don't like what the New Testament Greek authorities say? That's OK let's just make up our own defintions. Your stubborn refusal in rejecting what the Greek scholars say reminds me of what Humpty Dumpty said in Alice in Wonderland - "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean".
I can not think of a more appropriate quote that so accurately and succinctly describes your position.

sledford
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:06 pm
Contact:

Post by sledford » Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:25 pm

I see that respect for authority in Scripture commenting on Scripture, Divine commentary, is not what you want to hear.

Marc, doesn't it seem odd that you accuse me of defining Greek words but I have not put forth one single Greek definition? The key is I don't need to (nor anyone else for that matter) since we have Divine commentary doing that for us. Joel prophesied it and Peter applies it. The definitions are given for us by the Almighty by virtue of the application. Plug in any of your proposed definitions of the basic phrases "poured out" and "all flesh" for the spirit and you have a context that makes no sense. What seems to offend you the most is what the Divine commentary of scripture of Joel 2 and Acts 2 is telling you. I mourn that you cannot see that.

Unfortunately you seem to want to take this down a path of "ad hominem" (argue the man) attacks. I can't recall a single exchange that this hasn't happened. So, I depart again as there is nothing more that I can say that results in honest reasoning it seems. I'm sure you'll thump your chest again and declare victory since I won't rejoin your next statements. But, best to you.

Marc
Banned
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 4:19 pm

Post by Marc » Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:06 pm

It is "your" commentary of Scripture that so far has NOT been backed up by any authoritative New Testament Greek scholars.

By refusing to believe these New Testament Greek scholars your definition concerning "the gift of the Holy Spirit" has been defined. It consists as a clear denial of what they say.

Let's see:

Thayer is wrong but Sledford is right.
Vine is wrong but Sledford is right.
Arndt and Gingrich are wrong but Sledford is right.
Kittell is wrong but Sledford is right.

As a "sled" is good for going downhill so too with your approach to this expression.

Incredible.

Having the Spirit "poured out" (ekxeo - Titus 3:6) upon you is the basis of how God "saves" us (Titus 3:5).
- This is precisely what took place with the Gentiles in Acts 10:45 - before they were water baptized in Acts 10:48.

Guess I can't make you see what you don't want to see.

Jarrod
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:23 am

Post by Jarrod » Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:51 pm

And it's also exactly what happened to Balaam in Numbers 24:2.

Peter went to tell Cornelius what he MUST do. Acts 10:6.

What did he tell him to do? The same thing he told those on Pentecost in Acts 2:38. "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." Acts 10:48.

Notice what Peter says as he recounts this in chapter 11:13-14.

"13 And he told us how he had seen an angel standing in his house, who said to him, ‘Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose surname is Peter, 14 who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.’"

Peter was to tell them words whereby they would be saved, corresponding to Acts 10:6, that he would tell them what they must do. And what did he tell them to do? Did he tell them to receive the Holy Spirit? No. That happened, no doubt, and for a reason (to show that God was now accepting of Gentiles) but twice it is said (10:6 and 11:14) that Peter would tell them what to do in order to be saved, and in the context, all he told them to do was to be baptized.

But if we start with the premise that Baptism is not needed, then we must interpret the text to somehow accomidate that, choosing Isegesis over Exegesis. Phooey. :(

Marc
Banned
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 4:19 pm

Post by Marc » Fri Oct 27, 2006 3:12 pm

Balaam does not apply for that took place before Christ was glorified when the "Spirit had not yet been given" (John 7:39).

Peter did tell Cornelius what he "must do" but that does not necessitate that water baptism was necessary for salvation. And since they asked him to stay on for a few days even after they were water baptized (Acts 10:48) he would have undoubtedly "told them" even more "commands". The Gentiles did hear the words whereby they would be saved and that before water baptism since they had already received the Holy Spirit.

1. I noticed you dodged Titus 3:6.

2. Here's something else. Romans 5:5 further explains what took place in Acts 10:45. The love of God was "poured out" (ekxeo) through the Holy Spirit who was "given" (dido). The Gentiles were "given" (dido) the Holy Spirit before they were water baptized (Acts 11:17) therefore they had the love of God poured out within their hearts before they were water baptized. But according to 2 Corinthians 1:22 to have the Spirit within one's heart describes a saved person - such was the case of the Gentiles before they were water baptized.

3. You also dodged "the gift of the Holy Spirit" as used in Acts 10:45.

Let's wait and see if you ever get around to responding to these 3 points.

Jarrod
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:23 am

Post by Jarrod » Fri Oct 27, 2006 3:23 pm

No intent to dodge anything. Just trying to keep my responses fairly brief. :D

I'll certainly get around to addressing your three points above. They are certainly worthy of consideration. Don't have time to reply now. Sounds like my little girl just woke up from her nap. I'll log in later tonight, or over the weekend, to reply.

Lata

Marc
Banned
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 4:19 pm

Post by Marc » Fri Oct 27, 2006 3:38 pm

OK - thank you.

sledford
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:06 pm
Contact:

Post by sledford » Fri Oct 27, 2006 4:51 pm

Jarrod wrote:I'll certainly get around to addressing your three points above. They are certainly worthy of consideration.
Jarrod, I'll let you be the judge of whether they are worthy or not but for reference purposes Marc has been on this topic for the past year as you can see from this other thread: viewtopic.php?t=97 and now in this one. This thread was hijacked by Marc from JSM17's original thoughts shortly after it was started and re-directed to the false "Cornelius was saved before water baptism" argument. You should examine the past posts to get an idea of what you're dealing with. But, my best to you!
Proverbs 17:12 wrote:12 Let a bear robbed of her whelps meet a man, rather than a fool in his folly.

Marc
Banned
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 4:19 pm

Post by Marc » Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:15 pm

It wasn't until recently that I used "the gift of the Holy Spirit" as mentioned in Acts 10:45. This expression was dodged or if it was considered the meaning of it was changed despite what the several New Testament Greek authorities stated. Not one authority was given in opposition - that should send up red flags immediately. "This expression means what I say it means just because I say so" - if one wants to make up definitions of words as they go along that is their choice.

I never mentioned Acts 10:45 and Romans 5:5 coupled together with 2 Corinthians 1:22 before today on this site.

No, nor have I mentioned (previous to today) that we are "saved" (Titus 3:5) based on the fact that the Holy Spirit was "poured out" (ekxeo) upon us (Titus 3:6) - and this is what took place with the Gentiles in Acts 10:45 "before" they were water baptized in Acts 10:48.

Some may really wish these were already taken care of in the past due to untenable beliefs they hold but the facts speak otherwise. For some one of two (or both) reactions are often displayed when ones beliefs are refuted. First, either change the meaning of the words involved or second, ignore the texts all together by stating they have been dealt with before when in actuality they haven't.

Jarrod
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:23 am

Post by Jarrod » Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:20 am

First, sorry for the long post. :wink:

Marc wrote:
Balaam does not apply for that took place before Christ was glorified when the "Spirit had not yet been given" (John 7:39).
The fact that the Holy Spirit indwelt Balaam shows that it is not impossible for the Holy Spirit to indwell an unregenerate man, if such fits God’s purpose.

John 7:37-39 says:
37 On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. 38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.” 39 But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
This says that those who believed in Jesus (and we see throughout the NT that belief that saves in inseparably tied to good works, but I won’t belabor that point here) would receive the Holy Spirit. This does not exclude the Holy Spirit from indwelling a man that has not been saved, if such were to fit God’s purpose, just as it did with Balaam, and so too it did with Cornelius.

Marc wrote:
Peter did tell Cornelius what he "must do" but that does not necessitate that water baptism was necessary for salvation. And since they asked him to stay on for a few days even after they were water baptized -Acts 10:48- he would have undoubtedly "told them" even more "commands".
Are you suggesting that we are saved separate and apart from doing what God has commanded? Or are you suggesting Peter told him something else not revealed? Do you believe that what Peter told Cornelius he Must Do corresponds to Baptism? If so, then you are saying we can be saved without doing that which we are told we must do. If not, what do you believe Peter did tell Cornelius he must do? :?

Marc wrote:
The Gentiles did hear the words whereby they would be saved and that before water baptism since they had already received the Holy Spirit.
Precisely which words are you referring to? Which exact words in the context are the words you believe Peter told them whereby they would be saved?

Marc wrote:
1. I noticed you dodged Titus 3:6.
Titus 3:4-7 says:

“4 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”

In this passage there is a contrast given of the days of old before the gospel and the days of the New Covenant when God’s love and kindness appeared.

We are told it is not our own righteous acts that save us. Amen.

We are told it is according to His mercy we are saved. Amen, and hallelujah! :cheers:

He goes on to say that we are saved through the washing of regeneration. Marc, what do you believe this means? I believe a strong case can be made that this is speaking of baptism, but would first like to hear your thoughts.

He goes on to say it is also by the renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us. I don’t believe anyone here disputes that. Salvation is certainly by the renewing of the Holy Spirit. The question is, when and how does this happen? It is connected in this passage to the washing of regeneration.

I have no problem with your statement “Having the Spirit "poured out" (ekxeo - Titus 3:6) upon you is the basis of how God "saves" us (Titus 3:5).” That is not the question. The question is, what must we DO to receive this gift of salvation which God offers through Jesus.

Marc wrote:
2. Here's something else. Romans 5:5 further explains what took place in Acts 10:45. The love of God was "poured out" (ekxeo) through the Holy Spirit who was "given" (dido).
Romans 5:5 states:

“Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us.”

Just as in John 7:37-39, this passage teaches that those who had faith received the Holy Spirit. It does not show the impossibility of the Holy Spirit being poured out on any other, if such suited God’s purpose.

Marc wrote:
The Gentiles were "given" (dido) the Holy Spirit before they were water baptized (Acts 11:17) therefore they had the love of God poured out within their hearts before they were water baptized.
Your argument does not follow. The passage teaches that it is impossible for one to be saved without having the Holy Spirit. It does not teach that it is impossible to have the Holy Spirit without being saved.

Marc wrote:
But according to 2 Corinthians 1:22 to have the Spirit within one's heart describes a saved person - such was the case of the Gentiles before they were water baptized.
II Cor.1:22 states:

“21 Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God, 22 who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.”

This, along with the other passages you have pointed out, shows that the spirit indwells the Christian. It does not negate the possibility of the Holy Spirit indwelling a man who has not yet been saved. What you are doing (or what it seems to me you are doing, and correct me if I am wrong) in each of these cases is assuming that the reason for the Holy Spirit indwelling man is always in the same way and for he same purpose. This is not so. We see all throughout scripture, OT and NT, the Holy Spirit indwelling different men in different spiritual conditions, at different times and for different purposes. More on this later.

Marc wrote:
3. You also dodged "the gift of the Holy Spirit" as used in Acts 10:45.
This is a good passage to look at. As you know, the phrase “Gift of the Holy Spirit” only appears here and in Acts 2:38.

Does this mean the same thing in each passage? If yes, what? If no, what does each refer do, and how to you determine such?

I will be honest in saying that I am not absolutely 100% sure, but I believe it does mean the same thing in both passages. Marc, I assume you will agree with me there. I know many who would disagree. It is obvious that the gift of the holy spirit in Acts 10 refers to the actual indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I have heard it said by many that such is not the case in Acts 2:38, but that there it refers not to the Holy Spirit itself as being the gift, but that it speaks to the gift the Holy Spirit gives. The language could be used this way, such as in Romans 6:23. There the “gift of God” is not God as the gift, but speaks to the gift God gives. I won’t go into detail for all my reasons here, but I believe, as Marc I am sure you will agree, that the “gift of the Holy Spirit” in both places speaks to the receiving of the Holy Spirit.

However, the receiving of the Holy Spirit is not the same in each case. In one instance it is given as a result of obedience rendered to the command to submit to God by repenting and being baptized. In the other it is given before such submission is made, and for an obvious purpose: to remove any objection from the Jews, making it clear that God was now ready to welcome Gentiles into His fold.

I believe J.W. McGarvey made some good comments on this passage. I do not refer to him as any sort of authority, for there is but one authority-the infallible word. But I do find his comments here to be of merit.
This incident in the conversion of Cornelius can not, in any way, be held as a precedent for us; from the fact that it was a miraculous gift, and therefore peculiar to the age of miracles. It may as well be regarded as necessary to see the Lord as Saul did, in order to a genuine conversion, as to be immersed in the Spirit as Cornelius was. It is, therefore, a very gross deception to urge upon the people that they should receive the Spirit, after the precedent of Cornelius, before they are immersed.

The true explanation of this unusual circumstance is given in the following words, together with Peter's own explanation of it in the eleventh chapter:{16} "Then Peter answered, (47) Can any man forbid water, that these should not be immersed, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? (48 And he commanded them to be immersed in the name of the Lord. Then they requested him to remain some days." The use that Peter made of it expresses the design of its occurrence. That use was to remove all possible objection to the immersion of the parties. In any other case which had occurred, or which occurred after this, no such objection could have existed. The very fact, therefore, which led to this unusual occurrence, was an exceptional circumstance, which furnishes the strongest proof that this case is not a precedent for imitation in this particular.
Before he was interrupted, Peter had already proceeded so far with his discourse as to reach the subject of faith, and of remission of sins, and immersion must have been the next word upon his lips, if he had proceeded after the model of his sermon on Pentecost. The interruption, therefore, did not break the thread of his discourse, but enabled him to proceed with greater confidence to the very conclusion which he had intended. He first appeals to the brethren, to know if any objection yet lingered in their minds, and finding none, he commanded them to be immersed in the name of the Lord.
Let us now recall the fact that Cornelius had been directed to send for Peter to hear "words by which he and all his family might be saved."
Marc, in the case you present, you are assuming the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the same in every instance we find in scripture. This is not the case.

Passage Reason for the indwelling
Numbers 24:2 Caused Balaam, who was acting contrary to God’s will, to prophecy and speak the things of God.
Exodus 31:3 Give Bezalel great wisdom and workmanship ability to build the tabernacle.
1 Samuel 10:10 Gave Samuel the ability to prophecy.
1 Samuel 11:6 Here the Spirit of God caused Saul to get angry and cut up a bunch of Oxen.
Ezekiel 11:24 Gave Ezekiel a vision.
Matthew 10:19-20 The Holy Spirit gives the disciples words to say when going out on the limited commission.
Matthew 12:28 The Spirit of God gives Jesus the power to cast out demons.
John 14:26 The Holy Spirit will bring all things to the apostle’s remembrance.
Acts 2:4 Speaking in tongues
Acts 2:38 The gift of the Holy Spirit given to those who repent and are baptized.
Acts 7:55 Stephen able to see into Heaven, seeing Jesus at the right hand of God.
Acts 10:44-45 Show that God was accepting of the Gentiles.
Romans 5:5 The Holy Spirit is given to those who have faith in God.
Romans 8:9 The spirit of God in you is equivalent to living by the spirit as opposed to by the flesh.
1 Corinthians 3:16 The spirit of God dwells in those who make up his temple, that is, those who are saved.
I Corinthians 12-14 Holy Spirit enables the working of miraculous spiritual gifts.

This is obviously just a small sample. There are many other passages that mention God’s spirit indwelling man. What is the reason for the Holy Spirit indwelling man? That is determined by the context. In the OT, it is primarily to prophecy, but not always. In the New Testament, it is primarily to either work spiritual gifts, or to indwell the Christian as a guarantee of salvation, but not always.

You cannot therefore just point to a passage where a man received the Holy Spirit prior to baptism and say he was saved without baptism unless you can first prove that the Holy Spirit cannot indwell in unregenerate man. And given the many reasons for the Spirit indwelling man, and even examples where the Holy Spirit indwelt a man who was acting contrary to His will, this is a task I do not believe can possibly be fulfilled.

Marc
Banned
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 4:19 pm

Post by Marc » Sat Oct 28, 2006 7:53 am

1. John 7:39 - Unlike the time before Christ was glorified now the Holy Spirit permanently indwells the person who receives Him. Such were the case of the Gentiles before they were water baptized.

2. We can be saved without doing what God has "commanded". 1 John 2:1 says "you may not sin". That is a "command" but if everybody must obey "all" the commands to be saved then who could be saved?

3. The Gentiles did hear enough of the words that were necessary to be saved (belief in the Lordhsip and resurrection of Christ).

4. In answer to Romans 5:5 and 2 Corinthians 1:22 Titus 3:5, 6 will be examined which prove that they demonstrate the Gentiles were saved before they were water baptized. To begin with "the washing of regeneration" does not refer to water baptism. "The washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit". The word "and" is "kai". Besides meaning "and" it also means "even" or "namely". So the Paul is saying "the washing of regeneration which is the renewing of the Holy Spirit". For water/washing (just like in John 3:5) is emblamatic of the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 32:15; Isiah 44:3). This is what Paul meant in his use of:
loutron (washing)
ekxeo (poured)
Both appear within six words of each other in description of what the Holy Spirit does.
Finally, we know that "the washing of regeneration" can "not" be in reference to water baptism because this "pouring out" (ekxeo) in Titus 3:6 is how we are "saved" (Titus 3:5) - and the "pouring out" (ekxeo) of the Holy Spirit took place in Acts 10:45 before the Gentiles were water baptized in Acts 10:48.

5. The gift of the Holy Spirit - You wrote, "It is obvious that the gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts 10 refers to the actual indwelling of the Holy Spirit". But if one is indwelt with the Holy Spirit (who is God) then 2 Corinthians 6:16-18 describes such a person as God's "son" (saved) - such was the case of the Gentiles before they were water baptized. You wrote that it showed that, "God was now ready to welcome the Gentiles into His fold". But by having the gift of the Holy Spirit it shows that "God had already welcomed the Gentiles into His fold".

6. McGarvey states that the conversion of the Gentiles is "exceptional". I can say the same thing about the Jews during this time period for it can not be shown that any Gentile was ever told to be water baptized for the forgiveness/washing away of sins.
Furthermore, it is not so much exceptional because the Gentiles had the Holy Spirit "poured out" (ekxeo) upon them (Acts 10:45) as do "all" Christians (Titus 3:6).

7. In terms of the unsaved having the Spirit Jude 1:20 shows the saved are able to build themselves up in the holy faith by praying in the Spirit - the unsaved can't do this because they are devoid of the Spirit (Jude 1:19).
Notice something else here as well. The ability to build oneself up on "the holy faith" can be done by "praying in the Holy Spirit". This the Gentiles did in Acts 10:46 before they were water baptized showing that they were already part of this "holy faith" (Christians) before they were water baptized.

8. Just one question for now, when do you think the New Testament church began (what point in Scripture)?

- Marc

Jarrod
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:23 am

Post by Jarrod » Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:01 pm

Pentecost. Acts 2.

I'll get to some of your other points above at a later time. Not dodging or ignoring anything, just not able to reply in length right now.

Marc
Banned
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 4:19 pm

Post by Marc » Fri Nov 03, 2006 2:25 pm

Oh man your answer of Pentecost was total bogus!!

Just kidding.



What I mean is did the church begin on Pentecost in reference to Acts 2:4 or Acts 2:38?

JWB8
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 8:06 am
Location: Home
Contact:

Comentary on Acts 19:2 - By Reese, College Press

Post by JWB8 » Thu Nov 30, 2006 12:52 am

And he said to them, Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed -
"When you believed," i.e., at the time you were baptized, as verse 3 shows. In fact when Paul's language in these verses is harmonized, it is seen that "believing" and being baptized" and "receiving the Holy Spirit" are all regarded as part of the same transaction.

"Did you receive the Holy Spirit?" This is a most disputed passage, and at least three major opinions have been advanced in an attempt to explain it.

(1) Some think Paul has in mind the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. Most commentators who so explain this verse evidently are mixed up and confused about the nature of the baptism with the Holy Spirit. Since only apostles received the baptism of the Holy Spirit (the sole exception being the household of Cornelius), it is not reasonable to think that Paul is asking non-apostles if they had been baptized of the Holy Spirit. The Pentecostal or Charismatic interpretation of this passage leaves much to be desired; but so does the attempt of Boles. Boles has set forth the thought that the question means, "Did you know of the events of Pentecost (when the Spirit came) when the gospel of Christ was made known in its completeness?" But this is not the question Paul asked. His question was, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit?" and not "Did you ever hear about the coming of the Spirit?" Boles' attempt to solve this difficult passage leaves much to be desired.

(2) A second attempted explanation makes reference to the Spiritual Gifts. Exegetes (and this may be the majority opinion) defend this interpretation by noting that such gifts are in the context (see verse 6). It is explained that Paul was intending to bestow such gifts on these "disciples," if they had none, and that Paul was surprisd to learn that they knew so little about the Holy Spirit. Against such an interpretation the following points weigh heavily: Would Paul have to ask if they had such powers? Only an apostle could grant them. Had these men ever been in the company of another apostle? Furthermore, the question was not as to a reception of the Holy Spirit during the period since their baptism (when they believed), but as to a reception simultaneous with their original belief. The Greek is "when you believed," not "since you believed." The Greek translated "received" and "believed," are both aorist tense verbs, showing that the receiving and the believing were something that took place at the same time. Now Spiritual Gifts were not regularly given simultanieously with baptism for the remission of sins, so it is doubtful that "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed" has reference to Spiritual Gifts.

(3) Thus we come to the interpretation that is most likely correct - that Paul is asking if they received the indelling gift of the Holy Spirit. Some have raised objection to this explanation. McGarvey, for example, has written:
Paul's question "Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed" had no reference to the ordinary indwelling of the Spirit; for this all receive who repent and are bapized (Acts 2:38 ), and therefore, Paul could have no ground for doubting that they received this.

We reply that this is assuming the point to be proved. Paul could be doing one of two things by asking such a quesion. He might be trying to stir his hearers to interest and action by showing them that their obedience was imperfect. Or he might have been asking this question (much as Philip asked a question of the Ethiopian, Acts 8 ) in order to learn the spiritual condition of these twelve men. There are several lines of thought that point to this third interpretation as being the correct one. It is in accordance with the above affirmations that the believing and the receiving are something simultaneous (something that occurred when a man was immersed into Christ). That's the indwelling gift! Too, it has been suggested that Paul noticed in them, perhaps as they attended the meetings of the church (or the synagogue), a lack of the peace and joy and brightness that showed itself in the others (the "brethren" of 18:27). They had been baptized with the baptism of repentance, and were leading a life of fasting and prayers and alms (as the Baptist taught); but they had not passed on to "righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." Paul therefore set about to teach them the way God more accurately - just as Priscilla and Aquila did Apollos.
Seek and Ye shall find.

Marc
Banned
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 4:19 pm

Post by Marc » Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:08 am

1. If they were Jews then they would have received the Spirit at water baptism - not so with the Gentiles.

2. All who are Christians have been baptized with the Holy Spirit. If you have not been baptized with the Holy Spirit then you are not a Christian (Romans 6:3; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 4:5; Colossians 2:12; Titus 3:6).

3. The Gentiles were indwelt with the Holy Spirit before they were water baptized in Acts 10. Therefore they were already saved before they were water baptized. How much did their water baptism contribute to them being saved? Nothing.

sledford
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:06 pm
Contact:

Post by sledford » Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:30 am

Marc wrote: 3. The Gentiles were indwelt with the Holy Spirit before they were water baptized in Acts 10. Therefore they were already saved before they were water baptized. How much did their water baptism contribute to them being saved? Nothing.
For anyone continuing to read this thread I will recap one critical flaw in Marc's reasoning again. This has already been covered but it needs to remain in the forefront. There is the story of Balaam found in Numbers 24:2 and tells how Balaam was overcome by the HS all inspite of Balaam being a vile, reprobate man. This literal indwelling of the HS was defintely not a sign of Balaam being "saved". So, then the conclusion that the HS indwelling someone represents definitive evidence of someone being saved is not correct. Now, I'll anticipate Marc's standard response:
Marc wrote:Balaam does not apply for that took place before Christ was glorified when the "Spirit had not yet been given" (John 7:39).
With which I'll ask: Balaam doesn't apply by who's standard and judgment?

Is God not the same at all times? Is not the HS part of the God-head? The full quotation of this context from John reads:
John 7:37-39 wrote:37 On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink.
38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.”
39 But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
(As an aside, when you see Marc quoting a passage, please be very careful to read it and the context and don't just assume it's the right application of it).

A simple observation about this context in John 7. The HS had indeed been "given" before as seen in reference to Balaam on the negative side but also countless other cases before now with respect to the HS indwelling people of God. So, the "giving" of the HS that Jesus references can't be literal indwelling or it would mean that Jesus doesn't know what he's talking about. Did Jesus just not know that the HS had indwelt other people before? Not hardly. John 7 simply doesn't mean what Marc says it does.

Now, if one has already made up their mind and will not accept or weigh evidence impartially then Balaam represents a rather serious "inconvenient truth" for it disagrees completely with the conclusion about Cornelius being saved just because the HS "fell on him". But that couldn't be your case could it Marc? (that is indeed sarcasm).

Marc
Banned
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 4:19 pm

Post by Marc » Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:43 am

You stated that Balaam was indwelt with the Holy Spirit. This is false for anyone indwelt by God constitues His child (2 Corinthians 6:16-18).

Next...

sledford
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:06 pm
Contact:

Post by sledford » Thu Nov 30, 2006 12:01 pm

Marc wrote:You stated that Balaam was indwelt with the Holy Spirit. This is false for anyone indwelt by God constitues His child (2 Corinthians 6:16-18).

Next...
Here's what 2 Cor 6:16-18 really says for one:
2 Cor 6:16-18 wrote:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
So, for one, this context speaks of God "dwelling", not the Holy Spirit.

Second, in v16 there is the phrase "and walk in them". If this context were literal then that means God is walking around inside me. That's odd, I don't hear any footsteps. The only reasonable conclusion is that this context speaks of a figurative dwelling and walking, not literal.

What, no rejoinder on John 7? I'm almost disappointed.

Marc
Banned
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 4:19 pm

Post by Marc » Thu Nov 30, 2006 12:52 pm

Sleddy,

.... the Holy Spirit is God (The Trinity).

And John 7 says the Spirit was not yet given. Until when Sleddy? When was the Spirit given?

sledford
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:06 pm
Contact:

Post by sledford » Thu Nov 30, 2006 1:14 pm

Marc wrote:Sleddy,

.... the Holy Spirit is God (The Trinity).

And John 7 says the Spirit was not yet given. Until when Sleddy? When was the Spirit given?
So you're saying the Spirit was never "given" before Jesus words? That Jesus was wrong and the Spirit was never "given" before then? Here's two OT passages of identical language:
Num 11:25 wrote:25 And the LORD came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that , when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease.
Judges 14:19 wrote:19 And the Spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he went down to Ashkelon, and slew thirty men of them, and took their spoil, and gave change of garments unto them which expounded the riddle. And his anger was kindled, and he went up to his father' house.
You've got a very serious harmonization problem, to put it mildly. The only conclusion in harmonization of Scripture is that the "giving" spoken of in John 7 does NOT refer to a literal indwelling of the HS as had happened before as recorded in many (not just the two) passages I've quoted above.

And to the other point, instances of stating "God" does not necessarily mean that it includes the Holy Spirit. You must define does this mean God the Father or the God-hood representing all three (the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit)? The context of 2 Cor 6 provides no support that this is a reference to the God-hood.

Marc
Banned
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 4:19 pm

Post by Marc » Thu Nov 30, 2006 1:26 pm

Yawn (again).

The Spirit was not yet given in the sense of permanently indwelling.

Ezekiel 36:27 and 2 Corinthians 6:16
I "will" put my Spirit within you....so you will be My people, and I will be your God = I will dwell in them and walk among them and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

What's this based on? Having the Spirit permantly indwelling a person - Acts 10:44-47.

sledford
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:06 pm
Contact:

Post by sledford » Thu Nov 30, 2006 2:25 pm

Marc wrote:The Spirit was not yet given in the sense of permanently indwelling.

Ezekiel 36:27 and 2 Corinthians 6:16
I "will" put my Spirit within you....so you will be My people, and I will be your God = I will dwell in them and walk among them and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

What's this based on? Having the Spirit permantly indwelling a person - Acts 10:44-47.
That's odd, I can't find the word "permanently" in any of these contexts. You're not reading new words and ideas into these scriptures are you?

Marc
Banned
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 4:19 pm

Post by Marc » Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:45 pm

Whereas we see in the OT the Spirit "departed" from a person we do not however see it in the New.

1 John 5:6 The Spirit is the truth
2 John 1:2 The truth will abide with us and will be with us forever

Good job dodging Ezekiel and 2 Corinthians 6 Sleddy - kind a figured you would.

While you are at it here's one more for you about the Spirit, the commandments of the covenant and walking in the statues of them.
Check out 1 Thessalonians 4. Paul who was an expert in the Old Testament now discusses how to "walk" (1 Thessalonians 4:1) in "the commandments" they gave "by the authority of the Lord Jesus" (1 Thessalonians 4:2). This is the New Covenant. Oh yes Sleddy, it just happens to be a coincidence that Paul shows the ability to do this is based on the fact of "the God who gives His Holy Spirit to you" (1 Thessalonians 4:8).

Ya see that word "gives" Sleddy? It is the Greek word "dido" and it is the same word used in Acts 11:17 in describing how God "gave" (dido) the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles BEFORE they were water baptized. Thus before they were water baptized they were ALREADY part of the New Covenant.

Those of the New Covenant Sleddy are Christians.

sledford
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:06 pm
Contact:

Post by sledford » Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:49 pm

Marc wrote:Whereas we see in the OT the Spirit "departed" from a person we do not however see it in the New.

1 John 5:6 The Spirit is the truth
2 John 1:2 The truth will abide with us and will be with us forever
But we see Jesus saying something quite to the contrary to your conclusion and does not harmonize with how you're attempting to use 2 John 1:2.
John 15:3-4 wrote:3 You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4 Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me.
John 15:6 wrote:6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.
Now 2 John 1:2 reads:
2 John 1:2 wrote: The Elder,

To the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth, and not only I, but also all those who have known the truth, 2 because of the truth which abides in us and will be with us forever:
What is the antecedent of "forever"? It is the subject "truth". And what is said of the truth is that it "will be with us forever". It does not guarantee a permanency of truth resident in the person. As Jesus said in the quote from John, if we chose to no longer "abide in him" and effectively kick him and the truth out of us, we can do that but with dire consequences no doubt.

So, again, there is no support for a "permanency" of the HS indwelling people in the NT any differently than the OT.
Marc wrote: Good job dodging Ezekiel and 2 Corinthians 6 Sleddy - kind a figured you would.
You must have missed reading my post specifically on 2 Cor 6 about 6 posts back. You might want to re-read it again. Or is this another case of confusing agreement with refutation?
Marc wrote:While you are at it here's one more for you about the Spirit, the commandments of the covenant and walking in the statues of them.
Check out 1 Thessalonians 4. Paul who was an expert in the Old Testament now discusses how to "walk" (1 Thessalonians 4:1) in "the commandments" they gave "by the authority of the Lord Jesus" (1 Thessalonians 4:2). This is the New Covenant. Oh yes Sleddy, it just happens to be a coincidence that Paul shows the ability to do this is based on the fact of "the God who gives His Holy Spirit to you" (1 Thessalonians 4:8).

Ya see that word "gives" Sleddy? It is the Greek word "dido" and it is the same word used in Acts 11:17 in describing how God "gave" (dido) the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles BEFORE they were water baptized. Thus before they were water baptized they were ALREADY part of the New Covenant.

Those of the New Covenant Sleddy are Christians.
Is there a point in that statement somewhere? I'm pretty confident that myself, and the readers, know what the word "gives" means without even consulting the Greek. For what it's worth the quote from Number 11 is the root Hebrew word "nathan" and is the equivalent meaning of the Greek word "dido". But, is there a point in that somewhere for your argument? This doesn't help your harmonization of John 7 with Number 11 and Judges 14. The issue is that "gives" can be either literal or figurative. You have chosen to define it as literal which then cannot harmonize John 7, 2 Cor 6, with Numbers 11 and Number 24 and Judges 14.

Marc
Banned
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 4:19 pm

Post by Marc » Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:02 am

John 15 - Is speaking about loss of fellowship not loss of salvation.

The truth will be with us forever but it does not guarantee it will be with us forever (2 John 1:2). Nice.

What a dodge of 1 Thessalonians 4! Those that are given the Holy Spirit are members of the New Covenant.

Perhaps Thayer will help you spull the blinders off concerning your miusnderstanding of pneumatology.

Concerning "adoption" (huiothesia):

"The nature and condition of the true disciples of Christ, who by receiving the Spirit of God into their souls become the sons of God."

So much for your understanding of John 7:39.

Here's one more from Thayer, "Life" (Zwe) as used in Romans 8:2:

"The Spirit, the repository and imparter of life, and which is received by those united to Christ."

- The Gentiles in Acts 10 "received" the Holy Spirit before they were water baptized thus they already had "life" and this life was "in Christ Jesus".
Receive the Spirit = In Christ = Saved

W.E. Vine tells us that in terms of "sealing" (sphragizw) this occurs "by the gift of the Holy Spirit, upon believing (i.e., at the time of their regeneration...)".
Hey Sleddy the Gentiles received "the gift of the Holy Spirit" before they were water baptized.

sledford
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:06 pm
Contact:

Post by sledford » Fri Dec 01, 2006 3:45 pm

Marc wrote:John 15 - Is speaking about loss of fellowship not loss of salvation.
That's convenient, now isn't it? Marc can just say a passage means "this" or "that" and it is so. So "being cast into the fire" as a result of no longer "abiding in me", as Jesus tells them, means "loss of fellowship"? It doesn't strike you as out of character with the figure Jesus uses and the great degree he takes the figure to reach your conclusion? Jesus says: abide not = cast out = withered = thrown in fire = burned
John 15:6 wrote:6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.
Not to mention, you just defined "abide" in your conclusion of 2 John 1:2 to be a completely different thought (this is not agreement with your definition). Your definition of abide would mean that even "loss of fellowship" in your own conclusion is not possible. Now you have a problem harmonizing with yourself. You have built a linguistic "house of cards" that is falling in on itself.
Marc wrote:The truth will be with us forever but it does not guarantee it will be with us forever (2 John 1:2). Nice.
No, that is not what I said. This is what I said:
sledford wrote:Now 2 John 1:2 reads:

2 John 1:2 wrote:
The Elder,

To the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth, and not only I, but also all those who have known the truth, 2 because of the truth which abides in us and will be with us forever:


What is the antecedent of "forever"? It is the subject "truth". And what is said of the truth is that it "will be with us forever". It does not guarantee a permanency of truth resident in the person. As Jesus said in the quote from John, if we chose to no longer "abide in him" and effectively kick him and the truth out of us, we can do that but with dire consequences no doubt.
Let's break this down even more simply for you. There are two thoughts John expresses:

a) truth which abides in us
b) truth will be with us forever

In both cases the subject (the antecedent of forever) is "truth". The subject of "forever" is NOT "us" as is required in your thesis. Therefore, linguistically there is no proof of your conclusion of "us abiding in truth forever", that is not what John said and is the only logical harmonization with Jesus warning in John 15 about NOT abiding in him if we so choose. Diagramatically the conclusion is this: truth is forever (1 Jn 1:2) != us in truth forever (Marc)

I'm pretty confident that I'm going with Jesus on this one.
Marc wrote: What a dodge of 1 Thessalonians 4! Those that are given the Holy Spirit are members of the New Covenant.

Perhaps Thayer will help you spull the blinders off concerning your miusnderstanding of pneumatology.

Concerning "adoption" (huiothesia):

"The nature and condition of the true disciples of Christ, who by receiving the Spirit of God into their souls become the sons of God."

So much for your understanding of John 7:39.
Again, is there a point in that thought somewhere? How does your quotation of Thayer for the word "adoption" relate to your harmonization problem of what Jesus said of the HS being "given" in John 7:39? Your quotation of 1 Thess 4:8 is another example of the word "given". Great, it's the same word as John 7:39, Numbers 11, Number 24, and Judges 14. This is not helping resolve your problem of harmonizing all of these. Your definition of "given" makes Jesus a liar in John 7:39.

You have some rather "interesting" tactics of mis-direction and diversion from a main point or thought when it presents a problem for you. Several posts back you hung everything on John 7 being a difference in the HS being "given" and how Balaam having the HS "given" to him but being a reprobate man did not apply (in your own judgment only I might add). Is that now ceded ground and your position really doesn't hang on that conclusion any longer?
Marc wrote:Here's one more from Thayer, "Life" (Zwe) as used in Romans 8:2:

"The Spirit, the repository and imparter of life, and which is received by those united to Christ."

- The Gentiles in Acts 10 "received" the Holy Spirit before they were water baptized thus they already had "life" and this life was "in Christ Jesus".
Receive the Spirit = In Christ = Saved

W.E. Vine tells us that in terms of "sealing" (sphragizw) this occurs "by the gift of the Holy Spirit, upon believing (i.e., at the time of their regeneration...)".
Hey Sleddy the Gentiles received "the gift of the Holy Spirit" before they were water baptized.
And is there a point in defining "life" in this statement that is relevant to your definition problem of "given"? This is but another diversion from the harmonization problem exposed in your application of John 7. And again, you still have not addressed the root issue presented in John 7 compared to Numbers 11, 24 and Judges 14 (to name but a few). Was Jesus wrong in John 7 when it is recorded his thoughts that "the HS had not yet been given"?

I've provided several times the only way out of the harmonization problem you have, but I see that you indeed understand the ramifications to your conclusion as you seek to distract from the problem. You have to define "given" to mean a literal indwelling of the HS as an absolute sign of salvation to support your thesis. The only rational, reasonable harmonization of John 7 to make Jesus consistent and not a liar would mean a non-literal indwelling, "giving", of the HS. And THAT conclusion means your thesis about Cornelius does not stand, now doesn't it? And that is why you have abandoned it and would like that "inconvenient truth" to go away.

Marc
Banned
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 4:19 pm

Post by Marc » Fri Dec 01, 2006 4:46 pm

Just because something is convenient doesn't necessitate it is false.

John 15 is comparable to Hebrews 6 - both are describing what occurs due to the loss of fellowship.

So no contradiction with 2 John 1:2 - even those who experience a loss of fellowship have the Holy Spirit "forever".

The truth abides in us AND will be with us forever. The truth's presence in us is "forever".

Nice dodge of Thayer. For he clearly states that those who have been given the Spirit are saved.
Sledford - Have been given the Spirit = not necessarily saved.
Thayer - Have been given the Spirit = saved.

W.E Vine......well he just happened to drop from your radar screen.

Acts 2:38 = If one has the gift of the Holy Spirit they at the same time have the forgiveness of sins. What did the Gentiles receive in Acts 10:44, 45 - that's right, the gift nof the Holy Spirit. Thus they had "the forgiveness of sins" before they were water baptized.

Here's another one for you (to dodge?):
Since the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit and were praying in the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:46) Philippians 3:3 describes such a condition as worshiping in the Spirit of God. Thus before they were water baptized they were ALREADY part of the "true circumcision" (Christians).

JSM17
Posts: 275
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 5:16 pm
Location: Hoffman Estates, Illinois

Post by JSM17 » Sat Dec 09, 2006 2:52 am

Since I started talking about Acts 10 and Cornelius the conversations have gone in many directions, certainly we all struggle with ideas concerning this man. I introduced some thoughts concerning this man and his family a while back, this thought where in an infant state because of my lack of studying of the subject. I have been pondering these thoughts for some time now and I would like to rehash some points about Cornelius that I feel that we have not truly looked at, we are so quick to argue point 3, 4 and skip over 1, 2, what I mean is really how are we viewing Cornelius before the Holy Spirit fell upon him?

This is what I mean I certainly am not dogmatic regartding this but it has to have some signifigance to the understanding of Cornelius.

The first question I have to ask is : Is Cornelius our example of our state before conversion, is he our example of our conversion, is he our example of us recieving the Holy Spirit?

1. Before I was converted I was a degenerate man, was this the state of Cornelius? What does the scriptures say?

Acts 10:1-3
There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian Regiment,2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always.3 About the Ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God coming in and saying to him, "Cornelius!"
NKJV

Acts 10:22-23

22 And they said, "Cornelius the centurion, a just man, one who fears God and has a good reputation among all the nation of the Jews, was divinely instructed by a holy angel to summon you to his house, and to hear words from you."23 Then he invited them in and lodged them.
NKJV

It seems that Cornelius was in a different position that I was in before conversion.


This is the way I have looked at it so far, the Gentiles had not recieved the Gospel yet, but the bible tells us that Cornelius was devote, just among other things. Remember that the Gospel had not come to the gentiles yet, but we know that there where those who had the promise of salvation before Christ came and it was not until the blood was shed that they could have recieved the forgiveness of sins, that why it was accredited to Abraham righteousness.

Cornelius was in the state that Abraham was in a right realtionship with God until it was time for Cornelius to make the choice whether to follow Christ, it was impossible for Cornelius to obey the Gosbel before that because salvation through Christ had not yet been brought to the Gentiles yet. But the scripture says that Cornelius was a good man one who feared God and worked righteousness.

Acts 10:34-36

Then Peter opened his mouth and said:"In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality.35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.
NKJV

Before they were converted into Christ Peter says these things.

Notice also that Peter states that they had recieved the Holy Spirit just as we. They only reason why I bring this up is because the Apostles where in a right realtaionship with God before the day of Pentecost, the Apostles did not recieve the Holy Spirit on that day for salvation they recieved it for a sign , the Holy Spirit came with power, why so that thoe present would believe that their message was from God. Just as Peter and those who were with him would believe that salvation through Christ had now been brought to these Gentiles. Some say that Cornelius was in a Patriarchal conditon as a Gentile who feared and worked righteousness towards God until the appointed time that the gospel would be brought to them.

The scriptures do tell us that Cornelius would be spoken words in which to be saved by, which tells me that here was a good man, a Just man, who feared God and worked righteousness, who had not recieved the Gospel yet. God did not choose a degenerate man to bring salvation to the Geltiles he brought it to Cornelius who is not pictured for us as a degenerate man, but a man in need of the Gospel which had not come to the Gentiles yet.

I write these things to ponder ideas not to cause problems I know many will not agree ,yet we still need to answer some things about cornelius which have been neglected. So I conclude that the Holy Spirit falling upon Cornelius and his houshold is not a sign of salvation but a sign that Peter should preacht he Gospel to them in which they would here world in which they could be saved through Christ, which would be in line with those of the day of Penecost.

They were baptized in the name of the Lord

sledford
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:06 pm
Contact:

Post by sledford » Mon Dec 11, 2006 10:59 am

Before engaging JSM17 with his latest response I need to wrap up on an item left open with Marc. I don't like leaving mental doors open for too long, or as an old, wiser friend once said, "It just leaves a breezy house." This idea that Marc introduced that the giving of the Holy Spirit is defined in two aspects has been going on now for quite some time: a) given as a literal, miraculous indwelling and b) that the literal indwelling was a sign of the salvation of an individual. I don't want to cross-post, that's bad internet etiquette. But, since this topic has been raised in multiple threads it is a bit unavoidable. Instead of reposting my response here is the link to that thread:

post-1627.html#1627

Now, back to JSM17. I think I'm beginning to see your conclusion and application but I want to test it with you to see if I've got it or not. In summation since Cornelius was righteous and in good standing with God he didn't know he needed a salvation until the point of hearing the message that Peter would bring to him. The message would tell him new things that he needed to do in order to continue to be consistent with his righteousness of the past. Therefore, a proof provided by Cornelius of salvation through the word, the message of Peter, is not a transition from lost to saved but from righteousness to righteousness, and that as he understood what God wanted him to do, he did it immediately both in the past and the present on hearing Peter. (As a side bar I intentionally worded that last sentence in a particular way using a "not-but" construct which emphasizes the conclusion after the word "but").

Have I stated (or restated from JSM17's point of view) this accurately? From a purely hypothetical perspective, and I do NOT advise reasoning from hypotheticals as they can be loaded with assumptions and bias, I might phrase the conclusion like this: If Cornelius did NOT respond to the message of Peter, then he would no longer be righteous and would be lost having heard what he needed to do and then rejected it. But God knowing that Cornelius would indeed respond used him as the "proof" that the Gentiles should hear the word just as the Jews did. The emphasis being on God making clean what was in times past unclean, making the Gentiles recipients of the word where in the Old Law they were not.

JSM17
Posts: 275
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 5:16 pm
Location: Hoffman Estates, Illinois

Post by JSM17 » Tue Dec 12, 2006 11:03 pm

I do believe you have understood me correctly. When we see the connection between the Apostles on the day of Pentecost and how they recieved the Holy Spirit (for a sign to those who were to recieve the message) and the Gentiles (Cornelius and houshold) recieve the Holy Spirit also for the same purpose except this time it was for Peter and those who were with Him to believe that salvation had been granted to the Gentiles. They had both recieved the Holy Spirit, the Apostles were already saved and had recieved the Holy Spirit prior the day of Pentecost, when Christ breathed on them, Cornelius before the Holy Spirit fell upon them was righteous before God.

So in concluding these thoughts we see that Cornelius went from a righteous state before God into a righteous state before God through Christ.

A few things need to be confirmed:
Cornelius was in a right relationship with God when hr recieved the Holy Spirit for a sign to the Jews.

Cornelius was not saved in Christ until he obeyed the Gospel(which includes the baptism).

This is why some conclude that Cornelius was a Patriarch, that why I ask people the question when did the Patrarchical dispensation really end?

Indeed if Cornelius refused Christ then at that time he would have not been in a right relationship with God.

I know this seems like stretch for some but look at it it really fits, this explains how they recieved the H.S. and were not yet saved.

Cornelius is a special case, before I was saved I was not righteous, but Cornelius was.

I went back and forth with this thisand finally came to the understanding that if God shows no partiality then God requires the same form the Jews and the Gentiles alike, Acts 2:38 and Acts 10 are in agreement.

Post Reply