The Timing of Cornelius’ Baptism of the Holy Ghost

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Again, no one disputes that. The dispute is with the way you interpret it. You think that person is still lost until he is baptized. You believe that a person can be born of the Spirit but still be dead in sin if he has not been baptized yet. You believe that someone can receive the fullness of the Spirit but at that very moment still be lost and have the full record of her sins still against her if she has not been baptized. It doesn't make sense. Not surprisingly no other group in the history of Christianity has ever believed someone could receive the baptism of the Spirit but at that very moment still be unforgiven.

So is the question whether or not "Born again of water" is baptism? Or is the question about baptism being for the remission of sins?

[Antipas]

It is my understanding that when one receives the baptism of the Holy Spirit they are regenerated (John 3:5-8; John 6:63; Titus 3:5). This means that new life has been spiritually imparted to their spirit (born of spirit). Of course, in order to receive this regeneration, they had to be previously justified by faith as a part of their repentance.

With the above in mind we can say that according to the Bible (not feelings) anyone who has received the baptism of the Holy Spirit has experienced the biblical realities of both justification and regeneration.

According to Scripture, what soteriological reality is experienced in water baptism? Most will say "the remission of sins". But that was the result of one who has obeyed the command to "Repent, and be baptized..." The operative action, in "Repent, and be baptized", being repentance. Does baptism serve any other function beyond serving as an indication of one's repentance through obedience?

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by Antipas

It is my understanding that when one receives the baptism of the Holy Spirit they are regenerated (John 3:5-8; John 6:63; Titus 3:5). This means that new life has been spiritually imparted to their spirit (born of spirit). Of course, in order to receive this regeneration, they had to be previously justified by faith as a part of their repentance.

With the above in mind we can say that according to the Bible (not feelings) anyone who has received the baptism of the Holy Spirit has experienced the biblical realities of both justification and regeneration.

According to Scripture, what soteriological reality is experienced in water baptism? Most will say "the remission of sins". But that was the result of one who has obeyed the command to "Repent, and be baptized..." The operative action, in "Repent, and be baptized", being repentance. Does baptism serve any other function beyond serving as an indication of one's repentance through obedience?

I think you answered your own question with the phrase "the remission of sins". Other than being identified with Christ in his death and burial through baptism among other "functions" of baptism. I think you gave the greatest function of baptism and that is simply the remission of sins.

Remission of sins is the greatest soteriological reality in my opinion, keep the understanding simple and the simple will understand.

[coksiw]

The testimonies in the book of acts and also the ones in our churches doesn't follow an "order" but a "way" of salvation.

You need baptism to have the blood of the lamb applied to your life, so your sins are forgiven. Sometimes we try to put God in an analytical box. He knows what the person is going to do after he is born again of the Spirit. He sees the heart. I'm almost certain that if somebody is filled by the Spirit with the evidences of speaking in tongues, and it is presented with baptism in Jesus name, and rejects it, it won't please God. At that point that person may be playing with its own salvation.
Now if the person is not presented with the baptism in Jesus' name, but instead is baptized in the triune formula, then I leave that judgement to God, who is powerful to bring truth seeking, repented people to the full knowledge of Jesus Christ.

I received the Spirit baptism in an Assembly of God Pentecostal Church with clear evidences of speaking in tongues, and the signs that followed after that. However, I wasn't baptized in Jesus' name until 4 years later when I ended up in a UPCI church.
During all that time, I kept a relationship with God, and when I was presented with the baptism in Jesus' name, at first I argued it, but then the Spirit of God felt in that meeting and told me clearly to listen to them who were teaching me the Oneness Pentecostal doctrine. I obeyed and was baptized in Jesus' name the very next day.

God said that repentance, baptism in Jesus' name for the forgiveness of sins, and being filled of the Spirit is necessary for Salvation. And he left us testimonies to not set an order, but leave it as a way (all three must be completed). Simple.

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

I think you answered your own question with the phrase "the remission of sins". Other than being identified with Christ in his death and burial through baptism among other "functions" of baptism. I think you gave the greatest function of baptism and that is simply the remission of sins.

Remission of sins is the greatest soteriological reality in my opinion, keep the understanding simple and the simple will understand.

Baptism doesn't provide the remission of sin in and of itself. The command from Peter was to, "repent, and be baptized", repentance being the operative term.

The theological conundrum we're all struggling to come to terms with is the notion that baptism brings the remission/forgiveness of sin. That becomes problematic. Because if one receives the baptism of the Holy Spirit prior to water baptism, they have experienced justification and regeneration... without even having their sin forgiven. Which is an impossibility.

I contend that water baptism is a command. And refusal to obey this command within a reasonable time will cost one their soul.

[diakonos]

I contend that water baptism is a command. And refusal to obey this command within a reasonable time will cost one their soul.

But, even if you don’t believe that baptism is for the forgiveness of sin, there is so much more to baptism than just obeying a command.

[coksiw]

I think we are misunderstanding “forgiveness”.
When you repent you sort of restore the relationship between you and God and He starts guiding you to truth by his Spirit. God will hear and guide hungry and contrite souls.
Even though, you are “forgiven” in the sense of “we are starting to get along here”, somebody still needs to pay the price for your sins. That’s what baptism do. It applies the blood of the lamb on you so your sins (or actual debts) are forgiven.

[diakonos]

Scripture, please.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by diakonos

Scripture, please.

[Heb 9:19-22 NASB] 19 For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, "THIS IS THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT WHICH GOD COMMANDED YOU." 21 And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. 22 And according to the Law, [one may] almost [say,] all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
(... same book and context...)
[Heb 10:22 NASB] 22 let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled [clean] from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

- The lamb is sacrificed, the blood shed, then applied to the people for the forgiveness of sins.

[Act 2:38 NASB] 38 Peter [said] to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

[Act 22:16 NASB] 16 'Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.'

- The Christ was sacrificed, blood shed, then the blood is applied in baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

It is like if after the sacrifice is done, you must have the blood applied to actually enjoy the blessing of forgiveness that comes with it. The sacrifice alone was not enough for your salvation. Saying "I'm sorry" was not enough, for the old testament or for the new testament. The Old Testament sacrifices, as the Hebrew author states it, was a shadow of Christ for you to understand. So if you want to understand the new covenant, and the implication of Jesus sacrifice and application for you, you look at the old testament.

Hebrew author was even making the point that the sacrifice of the animals didn't actually pay the debt, but that's another discussion.

And regarding God approaching and guiding the humbled and contrite (broken because of guilt) hearts wanting to get close to him and learn his ways, there are tons in the Bible. I can pull those too, but you probably can remember some.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Costeon

You think it is biblical that someone can receive the life-giving Spirit and at that very moment still be lost if he has not been baptized yet because he is actually still dead in sin. I don't think that is biblical or logical. As I noted to Diakonos, it is not surprising that no other group in the history of Christianity has ever believed you could be born of the Spirit but at that very moment still be unforgiven and thus dead in sin.

So we're at an impasse.

Here is the implication of the most common Oneness Pentecostal view of the conversion experience: someone may be resurrected in Christ at the moment he receives the Spirit, but if he has not yet been baptized, he never actually died or was buried with Christ to begin with. He is raised with Christ, but now needs to die and be buried with Christ.

I find it amazing that, rather than dealing with what was presented, people will ignore what is said, restate their position, repeat their erroneous summary of the other side's position, and then declare victory for themselves and "an impasse" for the discussion.

It's really bizarre to be honest.

Well, not really, it makes perfect sense if a person simply has the whole thing sewn up and isn't really interested in DIALOGUE and DISCUSSION but is simply interested in pontificating.