The Timing of Cornelius’ Baptism of the Holy Ghost

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Jesus said many would be lost who nevertheless cast out demons in Jesus' name, etc. These were people who professed that Jesus was Lord.

So apparently one can not only "have the Holy Ghost" and be lost, but even be baptized and functioning within the visible church, professing Jesus is Lord, and be lost. Jesus did not revoke their salvation, He said He would say to them "I never knew you." Meaning, they were never saved to begin with. (Matt 7:23)

Paul taught likewise that one can operate in all the gifts and still be lost (1 Cor 13).

Cornelius' experience was indeed a departure from the norm. But it was not for the purpose of showing that forgiveness operates independently from baptism.

The unproven assumption is that one must be forgiven before receiving the Spirit. I find a total of 0 verses which say that. What is stated is that the world cannot receive the Spirit, thus it seems that being called is the prerequisite. Yet, many are called, but few are chosen. And, the calling must be made sure (established, made certain and effectual).

Being called occurs prior to being forgiven. It is thus possible to receive the Spirit prior to bring forgiven.

But perhaps more importantly we should consider why the Bible does not view salvation as a series of steps, like we often do. So that we see "problems and conundrums" where the Bible does not. Biblically, salvation is more holistic. "What if X but not Y?" is more along the lines of "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

Originally Posted by Esaias

...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.





(Regarding Acts 2:38 supposedly showing forgiveness as a prerequisite to receiving the Spirit)... 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





(Salvation) 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").


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).


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. (A)ttempt(ing) to solve the error by.positing remission of sins prior to baptism is just another species of the same basic error.

Originally Posted by Antipas

Hmmm...

If one can receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit prior to the remission/forgiveness of sins, then we have a theological problem.

The "theological problem" only exists if one first assumes remission of sins is a prerequisite to receiving the Spirit, which is the very point in question, and which has nowhere been demonstrated. It is just assumed to be true. My posts quoted above provide a demonstration that remission of sins need not be a prerequisite to receiving the Spirit, and Cornelius' example proves it.

If baptism is for the remission of sins, then Cornelius' sins were not remitted until AFTER he was water baptized, which was AFTER he received the Holy Ghost. Therefore, it is proven scripturally that remission of sins is not required to occur prior to receiving the Spirit.

The only way to maintain otherwise is to prove baptism is not in fact for the remission of sins, which cannot be done.

Here, I turn my attention to the doctrine of Justification. Justification is repeatedly stated to be the result of saving faith.

So I ask this...

Is it possible that one's faith and repentance, prior to baptism, allows one to become Justified in the eyes of God, thereby opening up the possibility of receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is being "born of spirit" (Regeneration)???

No. Paul's doctrine of faith is not juxtaposed in apposition to baptism. In other words, Paul isn't contrasting faith with baptism. His use of faith in terms of justification is in contrast to attempting to be justified by the law. The comparison is between Judaism and Christianity. When Paul speaks of "by faith", the one so justified is a Christian, and is assumed to have been baptised, for the Bible does not recognize the "unbaptized Christian".

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.

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The "theological problem" only exists if one first assumes remission of sins is a prerequisite to receiving the Spirit, which is the very point in question, and which has nowhere been demonstrated. It is just assumed to be true. My posts quoted above provide a demonstration that remission of sins need not be a prerequisite to receiving the Spirit, and Cornelius' example proves it.

If baptism is for the remission of sins, then Cornelius' sins were not remitted until AFTER he was water baptized, which was AFTER he received the Holy Ghost. Therefore, it is proven scripturally that remission of sins is not required to occur prior to receiving the Spirit.

The only way to maintain otherwise is to prove baptism is not in fact for the remission of sins, which cannot be done.



No. Paul's doctrine of faith is not juxtaposed in apposition to baptism. In other words, Paul isn't contrasting faith with baptism. His use of faith in terms of justification is in contrast to attempting to be justified by the law. The comparison is between Judaism and Christianity. When Paul speaks of "by faith", the one so justified is a Christian, and is assumed to have been baptised, for the Bible does not recognize the "unbaptized Christian".

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.

How can one receive the Holy Spirit, which brings regeneration and new life, while still sodden with unremitted sin?

There must be some justifying factor that allows one to be declared righteous enough in God's sight to allow a Holy God to impart His own Holy Spirit into the spirit of a human being and thereby become one spirit with said human being (I Corinthians 6:17).

To justify someone in the biblical sense is to overlook all guilt and declare one "just" on based on Christ's imputed righteousness... in spite of their not being just in and of themselves. In a sense, it happens in a moment. But in another sense, it is also a continual work as one lives their walk of faith.

I can see God justifying the repentant soul upon their having saving faith. This justification allows them to move forward, receiving the remission of sin, regeneration, and every other promise of the NT. With this understanding one must be justified in the sight of God to step forward and be born of both water and spirit, in either order. No one can sneak into the waters of baptism and steal their remission of sins without first having demonstrated saving faith in repentance.

And if it isn't justification that is taking place upon the expression of saving faith in repentance, something else is occurring. Some form of prevenient grace that is at work in them prior to their being born again of water and spirit.

And while yes, we know Paul was discussing justification by faith vs. living by the Law... if faith justifies in that context, it justifies in all contexts. And if justification continues on in the believer's life after baptism... it certainly started somewhere. And the only thing I see justification directly connected to is... faith.

[coksiw]

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.

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by coksiw

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.

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by coksiw

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.

[coksiw]

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Ehud

Was it really? I'll take the loss on this one and say I'm too dense to follow. Could either of you explain this to me?

The Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden was the source of immortality. In typology, the Tree of Life represents Jesus. Particularly, Jesus as the Holy Spirit, for the "Spirit is Life" and is sometimes called the "Spirit of Grace" and it is by an outpouring of abundant, justifying grace (which is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit), we become or are made heirs of eternal life (Titus 3:7).

Other examples abound. The Last Adam was made a life-giving (i.e. quickening) Spirit. Etc. and etc.

And yet, within this typology, if Adam and Eve had eaten from the Tree of Life, or, as it were, had merely partaken of the Holy Spirit of Grace, and received eternal life, again, as it were, through Christ, but had not had the body of their sins destroyed, the curse God placed upon them would have yet remained. It would have been some kind of hybrid blessed but cursed state, a saved but damned, as well, confusion, that ultimately, would have led to a disastrous typology of the Gospel.

No, the only plan that could have worked was for a continued expulsion from Paradise and God's Holy Presence, until an atonement could be made for them, which didn't occur until Golgotha. For all the OT saints back to Adam, the propitiating blood of Christ was shed for the remission of sins that were in the past (Romans 3:25) cleansed them and gave to them the right to the Tree of Life.

But looking forward from the cross, the blood of the atonement, that saves us from wrath (Romans 5:9), which was shed for the remission of sins (Matthew 26:28), is so that the body of sins each sinner has amassed over his or her life, can be destroyed (Romans 6:6). Unless and until that body of sin is destroyed in us, even as it was already procured for us at the cross, it is no different, having the Holy Spirit but not being immersed, as it would have been for Adam and Eve to continue to eat freely from the Tree of Life, post-Fall.

It's one and the same thing.

You could also look at it like this:

God giving the Spirit at Pentecost was His faithful fulfillment of covenantal promise. It was Him showing up, as it were, to the altar of marriage. Our immersion in the name of Jesus Christ is our faithful fulfillment of covenantal promise. It's our showing up, as it were, to the same altar of marriage.

Both parties have to say "I do", if you will. The gift of the Holy Spirit is how God says yes to marriage, and agreeing to being baptized is how we say yes to marriage.

With only one or the other, only one side of the covenant is being faithful. God gives the Holy Spirit because He is ever faithful; He cannot deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13). Receiving the Holy Spirit is a wonderful thing, wherever and however it happens, in any person's life, the world over. But being baptized into Christ is just as wonderful, and needs must be accomplished. It is a holy imperative.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Paul is just making an analogy. Notice the last part of the last sentence (v4): so as ... so you. The analogy doesn't set an order of salvation, as the testimony of Cornelius explains. The part that is not an analogy is the "baptized into His death", meaning what I posted earlier, that to be part of the blessing of forgiveness of sins you must apply the blood of Jesus, and that's through baptism.

Paul is making an analogy. The point he makes is that as He resurrected from the death, you should walk in newness of life after the forgiveness of your sins through baptism.

I appreciate your post and have tried to think about it carefully. I'm not sure, however, that I fully understand how you're using the term analogy.

I agree that Paul is making an analogy, but I don't conclude the same thing about it that you do, that because an analogy is involved, the passage does not speak at all to the order we experience the saving work of Christ.

Whether we’re looking at the literal experience of Christ dying, being buried, and being raised from the dead or at our spiritual and metaphorical experience with Christ, the order of the elements is essential to the experience—the order is the experience.

An analogy shows a correspondence between two things to make a point. Regarding Christ’s literal experience, he could not have been buried, raised up, and then die. That’s illogical. It would be just as illogical to say we can receive new life before dying to the old life. Paul’s ultimate point is that we should not go on sinning because in Christ we have died to sin and been buried and have been raised up to walk in newness of life.

He emphasizes the order of events: "5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection." The resurrection of course must--and Paul's point, will--come after death.

It would destroy the analogy to say the order of the events of our experience has no direct correspondence with the order of Christ's literal experience.

Regarding the experience of Cornelius explaining something, to me this entire issue is raised because Scripture does not, in fact, explain his experience. We have Acts 2:38 and all the other conversion experiences conforming to the order of Acts 2:38, and then Cornelius's experience related without explanation. Oneness Pentecostals have taken the exception to the rule and made it the rule--at least it has been in my experience.

You need baptism in Jesus' name to be part of the benefits of the cross, to be participant of the blessing of forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16). Of course, you need to come with faith to make it valid.

I agree. Baptism is a powerful enactment of our dying and rising with Christ by faith. I think it is better to understand baptism as the sign and seal of the faith that justifies us, similar to how circumcision was the sign and seal of the righteousness of faith that Abraham had before he was circumcised. It signified and confirmed the presence of his faith. If he would have refused circumcision that would have shown he did not have faith. I think baptism may function this way and therefore is always tied directly to repentance.

A few passages I think show that, in the remission of sins, repentance is the primary element:

Luke 24:47: "and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" (NKJV). There is an interesting variant reading for this verse, with some Greek manuscripts having "repentance and remission of sins" and others having "repentance for the remission of sins." The other main conservative translations render the verse that way: ESV, NIV, NASB, CSB.

Acts 3:19: "Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out" (ESV).

Acts 5:31: "Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins."

Repentance brings remission of sins; baptism powerfully signifies and confirms it.

There is no order of salvation . . . . The only "order" is that you need to believe in God and in the gospel, and repent; before the being born again part.

I just have to disagree. Either there is an order or there is not. It seems erroneous to me to say, "this part must come first, but then the order of the other parts doesn't matter," based on Cornelius's unexplained experience in Acts 10.

Now I do in fact agree that repentance must come first, with baptism signifying and confirming it.

The main thing I have been criticizing by emphasizing the order of things is the traditional teaching that repentance = death, water baptism = burial, and Holy Spirit baptism = resurrection." If this scheme is true, you end up with many examples of people rising again with Christ before they were ever buried with Christ, which doesn't make sense.

Paul clearly is locating our symbolic identification with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection as occurring in the waters of baptism. Our burial is when we go down in the water; our resurrection is when we come out of the water. This shows the significance of what repentance really is: dying to the old life and rising to the new life when we turn from sin and turn to Christ. Sure God could have had it where we could just say that this is what happens, but God has instead given us this incredibly powerful symbolic experience to signify and confirm our repentance.

Are the people that were taught the triune formula, and never the baptism in the name, saved? What's up with the people that never heard the gospel but were good people and died? It is hard sometimes to understand and accept those cases, but I think the best you can do is to just accept that according to the Bible they are not complete into the truth in the first case, and in the second case they are lost, ... and God is the ultimate judge.
I personally was filled with the Spirit in 1998, and baptized in the triune formula. During all that time I didn't have no doubt I was saved and I had a relationship with God. But then one day I went to a UPCI church without knowing and they grabbed me by the neck and challenged me with the their doctrine. The Spirit confirmed to me that I needed to listen instead of arguing during the meeting, and I obeyed, and was baptized in Jesus' name.
God knows your heart and he is powerful to guide you to all truth. What would've happened if I had died before that happened? well, thankfully, I didn't die.

I like your approach here. I do not, however, believe that you were lost until you were baptized in Jesus' name. The signs of true faith and spiritual life were there.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

The goal of the Gospel is eternal life. Eternal life is immortality with Christ in Paradise. This takes us back to Eden. After Adam sinned, he and Eve were removed from the Garden. What was God's main concern?

That, in their state, they should eat from the Tree of Life. Why would God care about it? What bad would have come from it all if Adam and Eve had just remained in the Garden, went up to the Tree of Life and eaten from it, even though He had just condemned and cursed them?

Would it have not just saved them and made all well? Wouldn't the Tree of Life have just fixed the sin issue and made the Garden available to them again? Why did God have to bar them from the one thing (Tree of Life) that would have seemingly saved the day and brought an end to the catastrophe of eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

If you can discern the answer to all of that, you can understand better why simply receiving the Holy Spirit but not being correctly, Biblically immersed, isn't enough, either.

I'm sorry, but I cannot discern it.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Wouldn’t you view Peter “commanding/giving orders” as a strong indication that he viewed the conversion experience incomplete without all elements involved, i.e., repent, baptism, infilling of HG? Commanding is pretty emphatic, IMO.

“So he gave orders for them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Afterward Cornelius asked him to stay with them for several days.” Acts 10:48

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.