The conversion of Cornelius (baptism not necessary) - #3

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 » Sun May 14, 2006 1:20 pm

Cornelius was not saved before Peter met him. He shall tell you words whereby you will be saved. "Will be" means he is not saved now. Otherwise you have him saved then saved.

- Marc

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

Post by JSM17 » Sun May 14, 2006 2:29 pm

Cornelius was not saved just by hearing a message about Christ, unless you are a dispensationalist you must make accounts for the mixing of Holy spirit baptism and water baptism. If Cornelius is our example of being saved because the Holy Spirit fell upon him and they spoke in tongues then I am still waiting with many others who have not yet recieved this.

Do you think that possibly the account in Acts 2 and in Acts 10 are isolated events for the purpose of the Jews and the Gentiles receiving salvation for the first time? Why was the manifestation of the Holy Spirit visually acclaimed by tongues in both accounts? Why were they still baptized in water if there is only one baptism that keeps the unity of the Spirit? Do you speak in tongues like these men did? When was Cornelius saved? How does Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16 fit into this conversion in Acts10?

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

Post by Marc » Sun May 14, 2006 3:16 pm

All persons have had the Holy Spirit "fall upon" them. To have the Holy Spirit "fall upon" you and to have the Holy Spirit "poured out" upon you is the same thing (Acts 10:44, 45) and as already been shown all Christians have had the Holy Spirit "poured out" upon them (Acts 10:45 cf. Titus 3:6). Thus since they mean the same thing then all Christians have had the Holy Spirit "fall upon" (epipipto) them.
In terms of tongues not all had this NT gift (1 Corinthians 12:30) "but" any person that did happen to have this NT gift is "in" the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:28) - such was the case of Cornelius before he was water baptized.
Cornelius was saved when the Holy Spirit baptized him into the body of Christ (Acts 11:16 cf. 1 Corinthians 12:13) which occurred before he was water baptized.
Acts 2:38 and 22:16 apply only to certain Jews during the transitional nature of Acts.

- Marc

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

Post by JSM17 » Sun May 14, 2006 8:25 pm

So you teach more than one gospel one for the people at Pentecost and one for cornelius and us, do you teach a different Gospel for the samaritians in Acts 8. So simply you are a dispensationalist that teach more than one gospel plan of salvation in the N.T.

In the rest of the N.T there are no other conversion were the Holy Spirit is given as it was on Pentecost and in Acts 10.


What do you do with the Great comission, how do you baptize someone with the Spirit?

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

Post by Marc » Sun May 14, 2006 9:03 pm

You never addressed the fact that I have shown that the Holy Spirit has "fallen upon" all Christians.
I don't baptize anyone with the Holy Spirit. Christ does.
You assume I teach more than one gospel. I do not. All need to repent to be saved do they not? If two men wanted to come to Christ and one was a murderer and the other man never murdered the man who murdered would have to repent of his murder(s) whereas the other man would have no need to. Two plans of salvation? No, simply their repentance was different. The same holds true for those Jews in Acts 2. They had to be water baptized to receive the forgiveness of sins for they were especially guilty in what they had done to Christ. They had committed "the greater sin" (John 19:11).
Not only did you not address what I wrote about the Holy Spirit "falling upon" people but you avoided what I wrote about the NT gift of tongues.
Moreover the fact that Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before he was water baptized proves that he was already saved before he was water baptized. The text in Acts 2:38 is clear if one has "the gift of the Holy Spirit" they also have "the forgiveness of sins". Cornelius received "the gift of the holy Spirit" in Acts 10:45 "before" he was water baptized in Acts 10:48. Therefore Cornelius already had "the forgiveness of sins" before he was water baptized. If one has "the forgiveness of sins" are they saved or unsaved?

Jews - be baptized - receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38)
Gentiles - receive the gift of the Holy Spirit - be baptized (Acts 10:45, 48)

Things that are different are not the same.

- Marc

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

Post by Marc » Mon May 15, 2006 9:00 am

Hey!
Just thought I'd add explain something in regards to John 19:11 in terms of those who who "delivered" (apodidomi) Christ up to Pilate committing "the greater sin". I am well aware of the fact that the text says "he" that delivered Christ up but "he" can be used as a plural. If I said, "He who speeds will receive a ticket" my reference is to more than one person. In fact, that this is exactly the case here Luke records Peter telling the Jews in Acts 3:13 it was they who "delivered" (apodidomi) Christ up to Pilate therefore committing "the greater sin".

- Marc

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

Post by JSM17 » Fri May 19, 2006 7:53 pm

Acts 19:1-7
It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. 2 He said to them, " Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit." 3 And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, " Into John's baptism." 4 Paul said, " John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. 7 There were in all about twelve men.
NASU

So according to your theory:

Jews - be baptized - receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38)
Gentiles - receive the gift of the Holy Spirit - be baptized (Acts 10:45, 48)

AND


"Gentiles - receive the gift of the Holy Spirit how? (Acts 19:3, 6)??????????????????????????

The New birth is two element not one! WATER AND SPIRIT

The transitional nature of Acts has to do with ethnic progression, To the Jews then to the Samaritians and then to the Gentiles as Christ commanded in the Great commision. There is one Gospel plan for all man today! How does one obey the command to go into the world and baptize!!!!!!

If the one baptism is Holy Spirit baptism only then there is no longer a need to water baptize. So then why was Cornelius water baptized also. Was it an outward sign of his inward grace, was it to show everyone his proclaiming faith, was not the speaking in tongues enough of a proclamation for people to believe that he pronounced Christ?

Why was Cornelius water baptized?

When Peter proclaimes in ACTS 2:39 "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."
NASU

Who are those afar off and why did Peter direct this to all those afar off if it would not pertain to them I.E. the gentile and those of us today?

Does Acts 2:38, 39 apply to us today or was Peter wrong when he said to ALL WHO ARE FAR OFF AS MANY AS THE LORD WILL CALL TO HIMSELF. Does the Lord call us differently then He called those on the day of Pentecost?

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

Post by Marc » Fri May 19, 2006 11:04 pm

Those in Acts 19:1-7 is not a clear cut case as to if they are Gentiles.
You write that the new birth is two elements not one! WATER AND SPIRIT. By the Lord Jesus' reaction to Nicodemus in John 3:10 He "expected" him to know that He was talking about. How would Nicodemus be expected to know about the Christian baptism in the name of the Triune God when it was years before it was instituted? Why can't "water" refer to the Holy Spirit and His regenetive power? Why can't "water" refer to being born from the womb?
Since God had already accepted/saved Cornelius these Jews should also accept him as a Christian brother and not deny him water baptism. God had accepted/saved him so there should be no reason why the Jews should not accept him and baptize him in the name of the Lord.
Acts 2:39 - To you (Jews), to your children (Jews), all who are afar off (the Jews of the Diaspora - Daniel 9:7), as many as the Lord our God shall call (would encapsulate the three previous groups he just mentioned). And as already pointed out this "promise" can "not" possibly refer to the Gentiles for Peter says "the gift of the Holy Spirit" would be the "result" of being water baptized. But in Acts 10:45, 48 the Gentiles received "the gift of the Holy Spirit" not as a result of water baptism but "prior" to water baptism. That isn't the same promise at all. One is after while the other is before.

I'm still waiting for a response on "the gift of the Holy Spirit". If one has "the gift of the Holy Spirit" then they have "the forgiveness of sins" (Acts 2:38). Did Cornelius receive "the gift of the Holy Spirit" in Acts 10:45 before he was water baptized in Acts 10:48?

- Marc

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

Post by JSM17 » Sun May 28, 2006 9:59 pm

I'm still waiting for a response on "the gift of the Holy Spirit". If one has "the gift of the Holy Spirit" then they have "the forgiveness of sins" (Acts 2:38). Did Cornelius receive "the gift of the Holy Spirit" in Acts 10:45 before he was water baptized in Acts 10:48?
I will say yes that Cornelius recieved the gift of the H.S. before water baptism, and yes it seems that when one recieves the gift of the H.S they are saved.

But what confuses me is in Acts 19, if it is not a clear cut situation that is like saying I do not understand how this passage matches up with Acts 10, but it must, so how does it.

Acts 19:1-7
It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. 2 He said to them, " Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit." 3 And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, " Into John's baptism." 4 Paul said, " John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. 7 There were in all about twelve men.
NASU

So when were they baptized with the H.S when they were baptized into the water or when Paul laid his hands on them,

Is it possible in both cases that the manifestation of the H.S upon obedience to water baptism is different then the laying on of hands for the purpose of miraculous gifts, or the falling upon the gentiles in Acts 10.

Concider this:
Acts 6:2-6
3 "Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task. 4 "But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word." 5 The statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch. 6 And these they brought before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them.
NASU

If they had the H.S. already then why did the Apostles lay their hands on them?

This may give us an in site into the matter in which we have been talking about.

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

Post by Marc » Sun May 28, 2006 10:15 pm

We simply do not know if the people in Acts 19 were Gentiles or not. And since there is no way of knowing with certainty we must go by what is clear (Acts 2 is clear that they were Jews while Acts 10 is clear that they were Gentiles). In any event these individuals received the Holy Spirit not based on faith or baptism but through the laying on of Paul's hands. That there are no living apostles today this text would not apply to us.
I believe they were baptized with the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the imposition of Paul's hands.
The laying on of hands in Acts 6 was to show that they had received authority for their commission by the one(s) who have laid their hands on them (Numbers 27:18; 1 Timothy 5:22).

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

Post by JSM17 » Tue May 30, 2006 9:31 pm

In Acts 6 they were men full of the H.S yet the Apostles laid their hands on them why, so that they could recieve the power to work miracles.


Acts 6:8
8 And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people.
NASU

Did Stephen have this power before he was chosen? NO, that is why they laid their hands on them, there is more evidence that proves that the laying on of hands was for the giving of the power to perform certain miracles. This does not negate the fact that they had already recieved the gift of the H.S. upon water baptism, just as you have in Acts 2:38.

There must be a seperation of the gift of the H.S and the power.

Baptism does now save you, just as Noah was saved BY water we also in like manner are saved by water baptism 1 Peter 3:20, 21

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

Post by Marc » Wed May 31, 2006 6:03 am

I have no problem that people can be given certain power after the apostles laid their hands on them. I agree they would have received the gift of the Holy Spirit upon their water baptism for as Jews they would have fallen under the conditions of Acts 2:38. But the fact remains that Cornelius was given the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was water baptized.

a. If one receives the gift of the Holy Spirit they have the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38).
b. Cornelius received the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was water baptized.
c. Therefore Cornelius already received the forgiveness of sins before he was water baptized.

I'd like to see how "a' and/or "b" which prove the truth of "c" is in error.


Now before I address 1 Peetr 3:21 (in which you will probably repsond?) I would ask that you address the above syllogism.

In 1 Peter 3:21 baptism simply "pictures" the Christians salvation. When Christ said "This is My blood" was the wine literally His blood or did it like water baptism here picture a higher spiritual reality? Furthermore, the waters of baptism "correspond" to the waters of the flood while the ark is a type of Christ. They were already "in" the ark before the waters of the flood came upon them so too the Christian is already "in Christ" (the Christian's ark) before the waters of baptism.

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

Post by JSM17 » Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:26 pm

In Acts 11 Peter tells us that as he began to speak the things in which they would be saved by the H.S. fell upon them, so in concluding with your idea with your syllogism, these Gentiles were saved before they even heard the message in order to be saved, therefore H.S. was not given for salvation at that point He was given so the Jews standing before them would believe that salvation will be granted to them, which Peter was having a hard time with.

Back in Acts 2 when Peter says those who are a far off he is talking about the Getiles, do a word study of this phrase it means Gentiles.

So if the H. S. fell upon them before they eve heard the words in which to be saved by then how does that apply to us today?

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

Post by JSM17 » Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:46 pm

a) Peter would speak words in which they would be saved.
b) as Peter began to speak the Holy Spirit fell upon them.
c) The Holy Spirit was not a sign of their salvation because Peter did not speak the things in which they would be saved, he had just began speaking when the Spirit was given.

Which was for the purpose to prove to the Jews that salvation was granted to the Gentiles, just as it had been done to them in the beginning, so the people on the day of Pentecost would know that these men were of God speaking the truth about what they should do about their relationship with God.

Just as in Act 10, You have salavation coming to the Gentiles, the H.S. given to these men with power (signs, tongues) for the purpose of the Jews to believe. After they had been taught by Peter the things in which they could be saved they were baptized only after the repented and confessed.

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

Acts 11:15 archomai

Post by Marc » Thu Jun 01, 2006 1:09 pm

Those who are afar off can refer to the Jews of the Diaspora (Daniel 9:7). And as already pointed out the "promise" mentioned in Acts 2:38 can not possibly refer to the Gentiles:

1. Jews - be baptized - receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38)
2. Gentiles - receive the gift of the Holy Spirit - be baptized (Acts 10:45, 48)

Does that look like the same promise to you?


The ark and Christ compared:

1. The ark was provided before the catastrophe so was Christ (Revelation 13:8).

2. The ark provided deliverance to Noah while Christ provides deliverance (salvation) to us.

3. There was only one ark as there is only one Savior (Acts 4:12).

4. God revealed the ark to Noah as God reveals Christ to us (2 Corinthians 4:6).

5. God waited and waits patiently for those to come into the ark and receive Christ (1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 3:9).

6. The offer of safety was temporary and has to be heeded while there remains an opportunity (Gemesis 7:11-13; 2 Corinthians 6:2).

7. The window of the ark was "above" (Genesis 6:16). That is where we should be looking and living for Christ (Colossians 3:1, 2).

8. The ark was made of wood (Genesis 6:14). Christ was the root out of the parched ground (Isaiah 53:2) and a branch (Isaiah 11:1).

9. The ark was to have a cover (kaphar) inside and out (Genesis 6:14). It had no value without this covering. This same word "kaphar" is used to describe the atonement in relation to the blood of Christ (Leviticus 17:11).

10. Inside the ark one was saved from God's wrath. The same with Christ (John 3:36).

11. Only a few people were saved by being in the ark (Genesis 7:7) while only a few people will be eternally saved by being in Christ (Matthew 7:13, 14).

12. The ark had one door and God shut it (Genesis 7:16). A Christian is shut or sealed in Christ (Ephesians 1:13; 4:30).

When Luke writes that Peter rehearsed the events in orderly sequence it is not to be understood in a strict chronological order for according to Acts 11:13 those listening to him would have believed that Peter is just now being informed of the angel appearing to Cornelius but in actuality he knew about it earlier than this event according to those who spoke with him in Acts 10:22. The account is orderly and correct but it is not strictly chronological. The precise timing of the events are not his concern. In terms of Acts 11:15 then "began" (archomai) is to be taken figurativelly. Thayer states concerning the use of this word in Acts 11:15, "Acts xi.15 (cf. 10:44)". Cf. means "to consult" or "refer to". Thus when we are attempting to ascertain when the Holy Spirit fell we ar told to refer to Acts 10:44 and there it states He fell while Peter was still speaking these "words" (plural) so it does not mean He fell upon them just as he spoke his first word. A discrepency? Not really. Here's a modern day example as to why it is not. Take for example if my preacher appproached me and was describing to me a sermon he recently preached at another church and said, "As I began to preach the Holy Spirit convicted the congregation". It would be perfectly plausible (as well as etymologically allowable) for me to believe the conviction took place "sometime" at the beginning of his sermon rather than at the mere utterance of his very first word. His emphasis would not be on what he spoke during his sermon but on what the Holy Spirit had done. The same holds true with Peter desribing the events with these Gentiles. It wasn't so much as to what he said that he wanted to emphasize but rather what the Holy Spirit had accomplished.

So my syllogism still stands:

a. If one recieves "the gift of the Holy Spirit" they have "the forgiveness of sins" (Acts 2:38).
b. Cornelius received "the gift of the Holy Spirit" in Acts 10:45 before he was water baptized in Acts 10:48.
c. Therefore Cornelius already had "the forgiveness of sins" before he was water baptized.


1. The same Greek phrase
2. By the same author
3. In the same book
4. In the same context (concerning the them of Christ's Lordship and resurrection)

Despite this evidence some may still insist that the phrase refers to two differnt things however notice what Thayer and Vine say concerning its usage in "both" passages:

"with the epexegetical gen. of the thing given, the Holy Ghost, Ac 2:38; 10:45" (Thayer, on the Greek word dorea)

"In Acts 2:38 'the gift of the Holy Ghost', the clause is epexegetical, the gift being the Holy Ghost Himself; cf. 10:45" (Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words).

That it refers to salvation in Acts 2:38 so too it refers to salvation in Acts 10:45 - before water baptism in Acts 10:48.

- Marc
oceanstar314@yahoo.com

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

Post by JSM17 » Sat Jun 03, 2006 1:47 pm

Here Peter gives his defence for what happened to the Gentiles and how it ties in with what happened to the Jews, notice that Peter said that they would be saved just like them, Acts 2 and Acts 10 are in parallel.

Acts 15:8-11
8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us,9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they."NKJV

How were the Jews saved on the day of Penecost?

The same way thet Corneliusand his household were saved in Acts 10.

I know you try to do away with the idea that the H.S. fell upon them before Peter was able to tell them of words that they would be saved, as he began:( archomai (ar'-khom-ahee); middle voice of NT:757 (through the implication of precedence); to commence (in order of time) to speak the H.S. fell upon them.

I also find it interesting that even after the H.S. fell upon them and as you claim (they are saved) Peter still feels that it is important to say: 17 If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?"
NKJV

Hadn't they already recieved God, then why does Peter say this and then continue to command them to be baptized INTO Christ, just as you have in Galatians 3:27.


Lets look at this way from a Galatians point of view were their would be a mix of Jew and Gentile.

Here is the problem, Paul says that through THE FAITH we become sons (Gal.3:26)

When we become sons we are then heirs to the promise, what is the promise? 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would recieve the promise of the Spirit through the faith.
(Gal. 3:14)
The Spirit is the promise within the context of Galations 3.

The problem I see is how did they become sons through the faith?, it is answered in verse 27 were it says 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. When were they in Christ? when they clothed themselves with Christ, Paul said that they could recieve the promise of the H.S. only if they first became sons, when did they become sons? when they clothed themselves with Christ in baptism. Baptism of what, were they baptized with the H.S. before they were in Christ?

Paul says if you belong to Christ then you are Abraham's decendants, heirs according to the promise. 3:29

So you must first become an heir to recieve the promise which Paul has already told us is the H.S.

But in order to become a son one must be baptized into Christ, HOW? By water in which we know that one is buried into His death raised to a newness of life. Roman 6:3,4

To be born again is to be born of water and Spirit. John 3:5

Acts 2:38 says repent every one of you and be baptized in the Jesus Christ for the remission of sin and you shall recieve the gift of the H.S.

And since Peter tells us that God is no respecter of persons when it comes to salvation, why would he keep changing the admission to His kingdom. He wouldn't

Cornelius would be told words in which he would be saved

Believe repent confess be baptized, be faithful unto death.

Baptism is never explained to be an outward sign of an inward grace.

Baptism is in connection with getting into Christ.

In accordance with Romans 6:3, 4 what is the element that Paul says that we must be baptized with?

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

Post by Marc » Sat Jun 03, 2006 2:36 pm

Yes everyone is saved by grace. This is true. This grace allows a person to be saved but how one gets saved at this time varied. In terms of God not being a respector of persons this means that now the Gentiles can be saved. It is not meant exclusivelly for the Jews.

I have shown how those in Acts 2:38 and 10:45 were not saved in the exact same way. You never responded to my syllogism.

a. If one has received the gift of the Holy Spirit then thye have the forgivneess of sins (Acts 2:38).
b. Cornelius received the gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts 10:45 before he was water baptized in Acts 10:48.
c. Therefore Cornelius already had the forgiveness of sins before he was water baptized.

I'd like for you (or anyone else) to demonstrate how "a" and /or "b" which prove the truth of "c" is in error.

Since God had already saved/accepted Cornelius by giving him the gift of the Holy Spirit these Jewish Christians should now accept him into their fellowship as a Christian brother and baptize him despite the fact that he is a Gentile.

Romans 6:3 and Galatains 3:27 like Acts 11:16 refer to being baptized with the Holy Spirit.

If "water" in John 3:5 refers to water baptism then you have the Lord Jesus "expecting" Nicodemus to know what He was talking about (John 3:10). How could Nicodemus know what He was talking about when the Christian institution of baptism in the name of the Triune God hadn't even started yet? That is quite anachronistic.
I asked in a previous post why couldn't "water" either refer to being born from the womb or the Holy Spirit and His regentive power.
a. In a nutshell John 3:5, 6 reads that one must be born of water and Spirit. That which is born of flesh is flesh and that which is born of Spirit is spirit. Notice that unlike what He does with Spirit Christ substitutes flesh for water (He did not say that which is born of water is water) thereby equating the two.
b. John likens water to the Holy Spirit elsewhere in his gospel (John 4:10, 14; 7:37-39) and Paul states we "drink" of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13). But even perhaps more importantly than that is the fact that Nicodemus would have Old Testament texts to draw on (unlike with Triune baptism) to make this association (Isaiah 44:3; Ezekiel 36:25, 26).
Some may reply by saying that if water meant the Holy Spirit then Christ said one must be born of Spirit and Spirit which is quite redundant. However the Greek word for and is "kai" and Thayer states that it can be used epexegetically. That is it can mean "even", "namely" or "which is". So one must be born of water which is Spirit.

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

Post by JSM17 » Sat Jun 03, 2006 2:45 pm

So one must be born of water which is Spirit
Its not so much that it is reduntant , but does not make any sense, many aspects that Christ spoke about that had not yet been introduced, the Spirit would not have been given for some time ,yet Christ spoke about Him with the women at the well. Does this mean that it would never happen because it was not yet established?

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

Post by Marc » Sat Jun 03, 2006 2:56 pm

The women at the well being a Samaritan would probably have some idea about the Holy Spirit from the Old Testament.
You haven't shown why water "can't" refer to being born from the womb or the Holy Spirit himself.

You never responded to the syllogism.

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

Post by JSM17 » Sat Jun 03, 2006 10:07 pm

a. If one has received the gift of the Holy Spirit then thye have the forgivneess of sins (Acts 2:38).
b. Cornelius received the gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts 10:45 before he was water baptized in Acts 10:48.
c. Therefore Cornelius already had the forgiveness of sins before he was water baptized.
You have what is called a four term syllogism which is not a syllogism at all, we would call such a silly-gism.

Here is a correct syllogism.

a) One is saved when he receives the H.S.
b)Cornelius recieved the H.S.
c) Therefore cornelius was saved

a) salvation comes by hearing of the Gospel
b) Peter would tell Cornelius words in which they could be saved
c) Salvation came to cornelius by hearing the Gospel ( Not recieving the H.S.)

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

Post by Marc » Sat Jun 03, 2006 10:18 pm

Cornelius had the forgiveness of sins before he waas water baptized therefore Cornelius was already saved before he was water baptized.

Cornelius was saved by both hearing the gospel and receiving the Holy Spirit. By receiving the Holy Spirit he was born of the Holy Spirit (John 3:8)....before he was water baptized.

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

Post by JSM17 » Sun Jun 04, 2006 7:32 am

Acts 11:4

4 But Peter explained it to them in order from the beginning, saying
NKJV


Peter explains to them the order of things, why dod you say it is not important if Luke says that Peter explained to them them the oreder of things.

Acts 11:14-16
'15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning.
NKJV


As he began to speak , I already gave you that word in the Greek for began, the H.S. fell upon them.

So if Peter would speak words in which they could be saved then they were saved without hearing and obeying the Gospel. Which goes contrary to all N.T. scripture.

There is much more to it that you have already refused to see, if you would understand were Cornelius was before these men came to him you would have a better insight to why salvation even came to him. It wasn't because he was an alien sinner, he was a patriarch just like Abraham, he was RIGHTEOUS before God's eyes, why was that? Yet he still needed to obey under the N.T. in which Christ came.

If the H.S. fell upon Cornelius as it did to the Apostles then were the Apostles also aliens sinners when the Holy Spirit came upon them, remember the H.S. came with power firery tongues came upon them so the crowd could see that they had recieved the Spirit, just as Corn. did so that the Jews would believe that salvation was to come to the Gentiles.

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

Post by Marc » Sun Jun 04, 2006 9:06 am

I've already explained both Acts 11:4 and 11:15 in a previuos post and nothing what I wrote was refuted.

The Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius as did it to the apostles in that now both were now indwelt with the Holy Spirit and since the Holy Spirit is God and God indwells is you that describes a saved person (2 Corinthians 6:16-18). There was a once a time where a person (such as the apostles) could be saved without having the Holy Spirit indwell in them. This would be before Christ was glorified since the Holy Spirit "had not yet been given" (John 7:39) but there is never a time when a person can be indwelt with the Holy Spirit after Christ was glorified and be lost (2 Corinthians 6:16-18). Cornelius was indwelt with the Holy Spirit before he was water baptized therefore he was a child of God before he was water baptized.

According to Acts 2:38 if one has the gift of the Holy Spirit do they have the forgiveness of sins?

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

Post by JSM17 » Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:49 am

Can a man be saved without the Gospel?

Cornelius and his household would be told words in which they could be saved, the Holy Spirit was poured out on them before they were told these words, it was at the beginning of his sermon that the H.S. was given.

Acts 15 has already shown us that the Jews would be saved in the same manner as the Gentiles.

Cornelius was a devout man working righteouness for God, who was a Patriarch not under the law, but was required to obey the Gospel in order to remain in a right relationship with God.

If Abraham was still alive when Cornelius was, Abraham would of had to obey the Gospel also, and was he not in a right relationship with God.

Does the text ever say that Cornelius was an alien sinner? No

It says he was a righteous man, same word used in the Greek to describe Abraham.

The purpose of the Spirit was not save Cornelius but the purpose of the H.S. was to convince the Jews that salvation had been granted to them so Peter could tell them words in which they could be saved by, the gospel.

No matter what you say, Cornelius was not saved without Faith, repentance , confession, baptism, Before Peter even tells them the whole of all these things the Holy Spirit fell upon them.

a) One is saved by the Gospel(Hearing the word)
b)Faith comes by hearing the gospel (word)
c) Cornelius was not saved until he heard the words (Gospel) in which he would be saved

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

Post by Marc » Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:25 am

The text says Cornelius needed to hear words whereby he "will be" saved. You have him saved and then saved again without ever being unsaved. Yes saved but... not really saved.

Yawn...I have already explained Acts 11:4 and 11:15. You keep repeating the same thing without refuting what I have previously written. I am ceasing this dialogue because of this. I explain things but then you turn around and assert the same thing even though I have already responded to it (this has occurred in other threads as well). That is striving and it displays an unwillingness to accept the truth by desperately holding on to biblically untenable beliefs. In fact, I asked in my last letter that if one has the gift of the Holy Spirit do they have the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). But as usual this went unanswered. Guess I can't make you see what you don't want to see.

I'll be happy to discuss this with anyone by email:

oceanstar314@yahoo.com

- Marc

PS- You previously mentioned (then quickly dropped) 1 Peter 3:21. Since the ark is a type of Christ all those who attempted to get "in" the ark through the waters of the flood all perished so too all those who attempt to get "in Christ" (the Christian's ark) through the waters of baptism will also perish.

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

Post by JSM17 » Tue Jun 06, 2006 5:19 am

Yes Marc those on the day of Pentecost who had been alien sinners who crucified Christ who called out to Peter and said what must we do had recieved the gift of the H.S only after they had forgiveness of sins.

Cornelius was a man devouted to God, one who feared Him and worked righteousness and was accepted by Him before the H.S. came upon him. Acts 10:35

It is you who do not see the change of covenants in the text. Cornelius was in a right relationship with God, just like Abraham, justified, righteous, but was on that sinking ship of the O.T. and had to come to obedience to Christ in order to continue to pleasing to God through Christ. These are the words in which Peter would speak to them in order for them to be saved.If Abraham was still alive the day that Cornelius was, then Abraham would of had to do the same thing as Cornelius. Are you sure it is not you who have not addressed the issue and it is not you who cannot see the truth within the text.

If anyone wishes to better understand the truth behind this devout Patriarch you can e- mail me at jeffmiller17@sbcglobal.net

Just remember that Marc thinks the Jews and the Gentiles are saved by a different gospel, the Jews were saved by way of Acts 2 and the Gentiles saved by way of Acts 10, yet he wants to connect them together for his purpose of proving his point.

If the Gentiles were saved when the H.S fell upon them then why would Peter make this statement after they had been saved already?

Acts 11:17-18
17 "Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?"
NASU
Stand in God's way of what? of telling them things in which they could be saved.

After Cornelius recieved the H.S. Peter realizes that salvation has been granted to come to the Gentiles, so then why should he stand in the way of God, and proceeds to tell them words in which they could be saved, we already know from the text that repentance and baptism in water were preached, and we ahave already concluded that belief and confession are also included in obedience to our Lord.

So for all today just as it was on the birth of the church of are Lord and Savior

one must:

Hear: Romans 10:17

Believe: Mk. 16:16; Romans 10:9-10

Repent: Luke 13:3-5, Acts 2:38; 17:30

Confess: Matt. 10:32; Romans 10:9-10

Be baptized: Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3, 4; 1 Peter 3:21

Remain faithful: James 1:12; Rev. 2:10


P.S. 1 Peter says that Noah was saved by water in a like manner we too are saved in baptism, Noah was taken out of that old world and brought into the new world through the ark by way of that saving water, just as we are taken out of the old world and brought to a newness of life by way of the waters of baptism. 1 Peter 3, Romans 6:3, 4


Anyone wishing to understand these things better or to discuss them better e- mail me

jeffmiller17@sbcglobal.net

Thank you Marc for your devotion to the scriptures and to your willingness to discuss them with me.

May all glory be to God.

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

Post by JSM17 » Tue Jun 06, 2006 5:52 pm

As I suspected the syllogism you sent to me is guilty of a four-term fallacy. Remember, there must be three and only three terms, each used twice to have a valid (in the right form) syllogism. There are other rules that apply even after the first one is in place. Such as distributed terms and whether or not one has a conclusion with negative premises, etc. His language is terrible: If ONE receives the gift of the Holy Spirit THEY have the forgiveness of sins
("one" is singular; "they" is plural---the two should agree in number).

The four terms in the above syllogism are:
  1. One receives the Holy Spirit
  2. Have the forgiveness of sins
  3. Was water baptized
  4. Cornelius
One could make this a valid syllogism if forgiveness of sins were equivalent to water baptized (which it should be), but I am sure that your correspondent is not about to do that!

Also, as we have discussed, the first premise [If one receives the gift of the Holy Spirit he has the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38)] is false. The text is clear in showing that the reason why the Holy Spirit came upon Cornelius as Peter began to preach was to finally convince Peter that Gentiles also are now proper recipients of the gospel (Acts 10:34, 35, 44-46; 11:14-17). The event even convinced the Jews in Jerusalem that the faith (Acts 15:9) was also for Gentiles: "The God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life" (11:18; 15:6-11). Had it not been for the baptism of the Holy Spirit, Peter could not have asked, "Can anyhone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." (10:46). Not only could Peter baptize that household, they were commanded to be baptized (10:48).
Other than the fact that the syllogism has four terms and not three and that the major premise (a.) is false, it is a pretty good syllogism.

In order to make the syllogism at least valid (in the right form), it could read:

Major Premise: All persons who receive the gift of the Holy Spirit before baptism are persons who are saved prior to baptism.

Minor Premise: Cornelius was a person who received the Holy Spirit prior to baptism.

Conclusion: Therefore, Cornelius was a person saved before baptism.

As stated before, the Major Premise is false, consequently the conclusion does not follow.

Though Cornelius was in a right relationship with God before Peter's arrival, he was not saved by the gospel and therefore was not in Christ. Baptism put Cornelius in Chnst, for he was baptized into Christ, put on Christ (Gal. 3:26-27), buried into Christ's death (Rom. 6:3-4), entered a new relationship with the Godhead (Matt. 28:19-20), and now walked in "newness of life" (Rom. 6:5).

cp34
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: The conversion of Cornelius (baptism not necessary)

Post by cp34 » Sat Jun 10, 2006 7:10 pm

email wrote:Hello,
The following syllogism demonstrates that water baptism is not necessary for salvation:
a. If one has the Holy Spirit they are saved. You can not have the Holy Spirit and be lost. Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6 and 1 John 4:13 are clear on this. Then why did Jesus say in Mark 16:16, that baptism is necessary for salvation and why did Jesus say in Matthew 28:18-20, that make disciples of all then nations, baptizing them... So if Jesus is comand it why are people denie it?
b. Cornelius "received" the Holy Spirit before he was baptized (Acts 10:47). He was still commanded to be baptized. Why is that not being looked at or being addressed!
c. Therefore Cornelius was already saved before he was baptized.

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

Finally, 1 Corinthians 12:28 states that the NT gift of tongues are for those "in" the body of Christ. Did Cornelius speak in tongues before he was water baptized?
Think before you speak & live righteous today, becuase tomorrow is not promise to us.

Locked