The Timing of Cornelius’ Baptism of the Holy Ghost

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Costeon

I would indeed believe that his command shows that we are to be baptized in water and baptized in the Holy Spirit. I am not arguing that baptism is insignificant or dispensable. As I told Esaias, we all believe that Christians are to experience Acts 2:38, but we disagree theologically on how we understand it.

Believing that salvation comes at true repentance and that baptism signifies this and is our identifying with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection used to be an acceptable position within the UPCI, which I am a part of, but now it is not. I'm not sure how prevalent this view has been in other Oneness groups.

2 Chronicles 7:14

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

So, Israel was already saved way before Pentecost.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Remission of sins is a function of justification. It is not a separable "step" or event. Remission of sins is a phrase that means one's crimes have been forgiven, blotted out, removed from one's account. Justification means to have one's sins (crimes) blotted out, removed from the record, so that the individual is declared righteous. They are, in effect, the same thing.

And since remission of sins occurs in water baptism, that is where justification occurs (initially being declared righteous, one's record of sins being blotted out, etc).

Furthermore, it is in Christian baptism that one "washes away your sins" (Acts 22:16). Therefore, "cleansing" takes place in water baptism as well.

I very much agree with what you say about remission of sins being a function of justification.

In Romans Paul is discussing the actual way people are justified, and he uses Abraham’s experience to exemplify this. Paul says, if Abraham had been justified (declared not guilty) after doing anything, that would have meant that he had earned it. But, in fact, he didn’t do anything. He only trusted God, and God accounted it to him as righteousness. The nature of Abraham’s saving faith was something internal, something in his heart and mind. That and that alone justified him.

This, of course, raised the question of the significance of circumcision. Paul explains, “11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.

Paul calls baptism our circumcision in Col 2. Similar to OT circumcision, it is a sign and seal of our justifying faith.

In the new covenant, whether we are Gentiles or Jews we are justified exactly like Abraham was, which is why he is called our father. When we trust as Abraham trusted, we are justified just as he was justified. Paul adds, “Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, 24 but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead.”

This anticipates what Paul says in Rom 10:9: “that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”

I noted the nature of Abraham’s faith above. Our saving faith is similar: 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." This is what it means to have saving belief. “For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame” (v.11). To have saving faith is to believe and confess.

As the sign and seal of our faith, baptism is the appropriate and normative place for our saving faith to be confessed. If I refused or put off baptism that would show I did not truly have faith, just as if Abraham had refused to be circumcised would have shown he had no faith.

Since baptism is the sign and seal of faith and the place justifying faith is normally expressed and is so closely related to repentance in Acts 2:38, it is appropriate and understandable why the saving action is attributed to the symbol of baptism itself—even though we all know that baptism accomplishes nothing apart from faith.

Bringing this back to the original issue, so in my mind, it makes more sense to think that God granted Cornelius remission of sins at the very moment of faith and then baptized him with the Spirit. The essential thing that makes baptism meaningful, faith, was present, but since Cornelius was a Gentile, baptism, the usual sign and seal, would not have been offered to him regardless of what faith he might have claimed. God intervened and did a unique thing for Cornelius to prove to the Jewish Christians that Gentiles were accepted.

Again, the implication of what I've quoted from your previous post is that someone could receive the fullness of the life-giving Spirit but still not be justified if they had not been baptized yet. Or, with the traditional OP view, someone's "sins (crimes) [could be] blotted out, removed from the record, so that the individual is declared righteous," which is the essence of salvation (Luke 1:77), but nevertheless still be lost till they are baptized with the Spirit and speak in tongues. They could still be going to hell though God had pronounced them righteous. Those implications cannot be denied, dismissed, or ignored, which is why I cannot accept the traditional view.

What I've stated is that God could if circumstances warranted it justify someone at faith apart from baptism, since that faith alone is what makes baptism meaningful. Though this would be unusual, it would not be illogical. It would not create a scenario where someone had been declared righteous but still was lost if they had not yet been baptized in the Spirit, or one in which someone is still lost because they had yet not been declared righteous in baptism, though they had received the life-giving Holy Spirit.

The view I've stated can make sense of both the situations that follow the order of Acts 2:38 and the unusual situations, like Cornelius's, that don't, without creating illogical implications.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

So, Israel was already saved way before Pentecost.

People were saved in the Old Testament by grace through faith based on the atoning sacrifice of Christ if they had the same justifying faith like Abraham had.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Costeon

People were saved in the Old Testament by grace through faith based on the atoning sacrifice of Christ if they had the same justifying faith like Abraham had.

That’s not what 2 Chron 7:14 is saying.

Would you like to try again?

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

That’s not what 2 Chron 7:14 is saying.

Would you like to try again?

Maybe you could. I don't know what you're trying to say. Justification had been the topic in the last couple of posts. You mentioned the salvation of people in the OT, so I just stated how they were justified. In short, just like NT believers.

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

The Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden was the source...

Thank you for the response; much appreciated.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Costeon

I very much agree with what you say about remission of sins being a function of justification.

In Romans Paul is discussing the actual way people are justified, and he uses Abraham’s experience to exemplify this. Paul says, if Abraham had been justified (declared not guilty) after doing anything, that would have meant that he had earned it. But, in fact, he didn’t do anything. He only trusted God, and God accounted it to him as righteousness. The nature of Abraham’s saving faith was something internal, something in his heart and mind. That and that alone justified him.

This, of course, raised the question of the significance of circumcision. Paul explains, “11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.

Paul calls baptism our circumcision in Col 2. Similar to OT circumcision, it is a sign and seal of our justifying faith.

In the new covenant, whether we are Gentiles or Jews we are justified exactly like Abraham was, which is why he is called our father. When we trust as Abraham trusted, we are justified just as he was justified. Paul adds, “Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, 24 but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead.”

This anticipates what Paul says in Rom 10:9: “that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”

I noted the nature of Abraham’s faith above. Our saving faith is similar: 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." This is what it means to have saving belief. “For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame” (v.11). To have saving faith is to believe and confess.

As the sign and seal of our faith, baptism is the appropriate and normative place for our saving faith to be confessed. If I refused or put off baptism that would show I did not truly have faith, just as if Abraham had refused to be circumcised would have shown he had no faith.

Since baptism is the sign and seal of faith and the place justifying faith is normally expressed and is so closely related to repentance in Acts 2:38, it is appropriate and understandable why the saving action is attributed to the symbol of baptism itself—even though we all know that baptism accomplishes nothing apart from faith.

Bringing this back to the original issue, so in my mind, it makes more sense to think that God granted Cornelius remission of sins at the very moment of faith and then baptized him with the Spirit. The essential thing that makes baptism meaningful, faith, was present, but since Cornelius was a Gentile, baptism, the usual sign and seal, would not have been offered to him regardless of what faith he might have claimed. God intervened and did a unique thing for Cornelius to prove to the Jewish Christians that Gentiles were accepted.

Again, the implication of what I've quoted from your previous post is that someone could receive the fullness of the life-giving Spirit but still not be justified if they had not been baptized yet. Or, with the traditional OP view, someone's "sins (crimes) [could be] blotted out, removed from the record, so that the individual is declared righteous," which is the essence of salvation (Luke 1:77), but nevertheless still be lost till they are baptized with the Spirit and speak in tongues. They could still be going to hell though God had pronounced them righteous. Those implications cannot be denied, dismissed, or ignored, which is why I cannot accept the traditional view.

What I've stated is that God could if circumstances warranted it justify someone at faith apart from baptism, since that faith alone is what makes baptism meaningful. Though this would be unusual, it would not be illogical. It would not create a scenario where someone had been declared righteous but still was lost if they had not yet been baptized in the Spirit, or one in which someone is still lost because they had yet not been declared righteous in baptism, though they had received the life-giving Holy Spirit.

The view I've stated can make sense of both the situations that follow the order of Acts 2:38 and the unusual situations, like Cornelius's, that don't, without creating illogical implications.

Where would you fit in 2 Thessalonians?

2Th 1:8....In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
2Th 1:9....Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Where would you fit in 2 Thessalonians?

2Th 1:8....In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
2Th 1:9....Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

In context, Paul is specifically talking about the vengeance God will exact on those unbelievers who were persecuting the Thessalonians: "6 since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, 7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ."

The ones "who do not know God, and . . . who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" are specifically these unbelieving persecutors. I would not broadly apply this to sincere believers in Jesus Christ as well.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Costeon

I very much agree with what you say about remission of sins being a function of justification.

In Romans Paul is discussing the actual way people are justified, and he uses Abraham’s experience to exemplify this. Paul says, if Abraham had been justified (declared not guilty) after doing anything, that would have meant that he had earned it. But, in fact, he didn’t do anything. He only trusted God, and God accounted it to him as righteousness. The nature of Abraham’s saving faith was something internal, something in his heart and mind. That and that alone justified him.

This, of course, raised the question of the significance of circumcision. Paul explains, “11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.

Paul calls baptism our circumcision in Col 2. Similar to OT circumcision, it is a sign and seal of our justifying faith.

In the new covenant, whether we are Gentiles or Jews we are justified exactly like Abraham was, which is why he is called our father. When we trust as Abraham trusted, we are justified just as he was justified. Paul adds, “Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, 24 but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead.”

This anticipates what Paul says in Rom 10:9: “that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”

I noted the nature of Abraham’s faith above. Our saving faith is similar: 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." This is what it means to have saving belief. “For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame” (v.11). To have saving faith is to believe and confess.

As the sign and seal of our faith, baptism is the appropriate and normative place for our saving faith to be confessed. If I refused or put off baptism that would show I did not truly have faith, just as if Abraham had refused to be circumcised would have shown he had no faith.

Since baptism is the sign and seal of faith and the place justifying faith is normally expressed and is so closely related to repentance in Acts 2:38, it is appropriate and understandable why the saving action is attributed to the symbol of baptism itself—even though we all know that baptism accomplishes nothing apart from faith.

Bringing this back to the original issue, so in my mind, it makes more sense to think that God granted Cornelius remission of sins at the very moment of faith and then baptized him with the Spirit. The essential thing that makes baptism meaningful, faith, was present, but since Cornelius was a Gentile, baptism, the usual sign and seal, would not have been offered to him regardless of what faith he might have claimed. God intervened and did a unique thing for Cornelius to prove to the Jewish Christians that Gentiles were accepted.

Again, the implication of what I've quoted from your previous post is that someone could receive the fullness of the life-giving Spirit but still not be justified if they had not been baptized yet. Or, with the traditional OP view, someone's "sins (crimes) [could be] blotted out, removed from the record, so that the individual is declared righteous," which is the essence of salvation (Luke 1:77), but nevertheless still be lost till they are baptized with the Spirit and speak in tongues. They could still be going to hell though God had pronounced them righteous. Those implications cannot be denied, dismissed, or ignored, which is why I cannot accept the traditional view.

What I've stated is that God could if circumstances warranted it justify someone at faith apart from baptism, since that faith alone is what makes baptism meaningful. Though this would be unusual, it would not be illogical. It would not create a scenario where someone had been declared righteous but still was lost if they had not yet been baptized in the Spirit, or one in which someone is still lost because they had yet not been declared righteous in baptism, though they had received the life-giving Holy Spirit.

The view I've stated can make sense of both the situations that follow the order of Acts 2:38 and the unusual situations, like Cornelius's, that don't, without creating illogical implications.

Brother, this post I made earlier is relevant to your point. It a different view of the "justified by faith" topic:

After looking at it a little deeper, I see that when Paul was talking about justified by Faith he was just contrasting it with the impossibility of justification by law as Esaias was saying.
Abraham justification wasn’t in the context of repentance but in the context of a given promise. Likewise, we are justified by faith when we believe the gospel and demonstrate our faith by living it, as Abraham did, and Hebrew 11 testifies of others.
Authentic faith involves living it, as Paul suggests in his letters. Therefore, if you receive the gospel with Faith, which contains a promise, and your faith is authentic, and as result you live it, you will obey Acts 2:38, which makes you seek (or agree to receive) the baptism of water and the Spirit.
So basically, justified by faith just means that we appear just to God when we believe his word and demonstrate our faith by obedience. I don’t think you are justified if you don’t seek baptism of water and the Spirit after hearing the gospel, because authentic faith requires that you live by it.

Thoughts?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Costeon

In context, Paul is specifically talking about the vengeance God will exact on those unbelievers who were persecuting the Thessalonians: "6 since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, 7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ."

The ones "who do not know God, and . . . who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" are specifically these unbelieving persecutors. I would not broadly apply this to sincere believers in Jesus Christ as well.

I believe I can agree with you. Thanks!