[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Costeon

These texts do not involve people, like Cornelius, with true faith turning to Christ, and so I don't think they really speak to the issue of when someone is first saved.

They speak to people who confess Jesus as Lord (which in the first century context implies water baptism, as the idea one could be a Christian apart from baptism was introduced around the 17th century) and who work miracles, cast out demons, and prophesy in His Name, all of which takes place via the operation of the Spirit. Yet, these people not only "wound up lost" but were never saved to begin with, the Lord says "I never knew you".

Yes, that was not the purpose of God baptizing them with the Spirit before baptism; he was making a point to the Jewish Christians about Gentiles turning to him without needing to become Jews first, but it does imply that God can forgive sins apart from baptism if he chooses.

No, it does not imply that. In fact, the context, and the angel's words to Cornelius, and Peter's response to the incident demonstrate quite the opposite, that baptism is for the remission of sins, even in Cornelius' case.

It's no assumption. The order of Acts 2:38 is not haphazard as if Peter just happened to mention repentance first and receiving the gift of the Spirit last. No, there is a a logical flow to the order he gives. The order is significant and shows that the prerequisite to receiving the baptism of the Spirit is forgiveness of sins.

No, if anything it shows the prerequisite is "repent AND BE BAPTISED". It doesn't say "be forgiven so you can receive the Spirit". It says repent and be baptized and you shall receive the gift of the Spirit. You shall and so you can are two different things, one is not the other.

It's not surprising, then, that we never see people being filled with the Spirit prior to repentance/baptism in the rest of Acts, with the exception of Cornelius. The Scriptural norm is established by Acts 2:38 and the rest of the conversion accounts in Acts. We should follow this norm. The normal place that God has established for expressing saving faith and repentance and receiving the forgiveness of sins is water baptism.

Absolutely, I agree 100%.

Cornelius's experience shows that God can and will grant forgiveness before baptism under certain extenuating circumstances, such as what Cornelius faced.

This is where you interject a theological interpreration into the text. No such thing is stated in Scripture, nor is it ever discussed or explained in the way you are presenting it, with the conclusion(s) you are drawing.

I am not, however, authorized to preach exceptions to the rule. I am to preach as Peter did in Acts 2:38.

Exactly.

I don't think trying to determine the moment someone is redeemed is the equivalent of asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. There is a specific moment when we die to sin and are raised again.

Which is in water baptism.

There is a specific moment we are circumcised in the Spirit.

Which appears to take place in baptism.

There is a specific moment when the Father transfers a person into the kingdom of the Son of his love.

Which according to Scripture is conjoined with being placed into Christ, which parallels being placed into Moses (1 Cor 10) which requires "water and Spirit" (John 3:5). In other words, it is identified with new birth or regeneration, which is identified with water baptism AND receiving the Spirit, which is viewed in Scripture not as separable events but as a whole (a unity, being born again, converted, "saved").

It is not gradual, as if someone eases into it. There is a moment, and I want to know what this is.

Scripture presents (initial) salvation or conversion as an effect or result of repentance, baptism in the Lord's name, and receiving the Spirit. We habitually break this soteriological unity into component parts or " steps" but I believe that is unscriptural (since the apostles never did such).

The Bible never says that you can be forgiven of your sins and at that moment still be lost. The Bible never says you can receive the Spirit and at that moment still be lost. So any teaching that leads to or suggests the possibility of these things happening cannot be true.

Being forgiven but still lost... receiving the Spirit but still lost... are erroneous ways of thinking and speaking, due to separating the unity of conversion into "steps". Common, but erroneous. Your attempt to solve the error by.positing remission of sins prior to baptism is just another species of the same basic error.

As it is, that's what the standard Oneness view of conversion leads to. Someone can repent and be baptized and be forgiven, but still be lost till they are baptized in the Spirit and speak in tongues. Conversely, someone can be baptized in the Spirit and have experienced the fullness of the Spirit in conversion, but still be lost till they are baptized in water. There is no way of getting around these conclusions.

See above.

I'm not aware of any other teaching on the conversion experience (Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant) that leads to these possibilities.

Catholic, Orthodox, many Protestants, and most if not all Campbellites believe one receives the Spirit in the act of baptism. Other Protestants and many Baptists believe one receives the Spirit upon initial belief. Other Protestants and some Baptists believe one is born again of the Spirit prior to believing (Reformed, Calvinists, etc).

None of them believe receiving the Spirit is accompanied by external, visible (actually, audible) physical phenomena.