The Timing of Cornelius’ Baptism of the Holy Ghost

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Martin Luther rejected the book of James. He didn't like it: "St. John' Gospel and his first Epistle, St. Paul's Epistles, especially those to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and St. Peter's Epistle - these are the books which show to thee Christ . . . Therefore, St. James' Epistle is a perfect straw-epistle compared with them . . ." (Basic Theology, article "The Canon")

I don't believe I have mentioned Martin Luther or implied that I thought any book of Scripture is insignificant.

You need to look at all the verses that talk about a topic before drawing a conclusion, otherwise you end up with the mental faith alone doctrine like Protestant do.

:-) And I would say that you need to look at all the verses about a topic as well. I have not suggested anything about a mental faith being all there is to it. I have talked about baptism as being similar to circumcision in that it is a sign and seal of faith. Someone can no more reject baptism than Abraham could have rejected circumcision. He was nevertheless justified "saved" before circumcision.

More than that may be just us overthinking it or not looking at the full picture. I feel like if we get caught up in how many milliseconds of being lost while you obey the gospel is like trying to micromanage God in how he is dealing with the specific soul and the time he gives us to live and show our obedience to the faith.

I suppose if what I have seen in practice involved only milliseconds, i.e., someone comes up out of the water and begins to speak in tongues, then nothing may have struck me as problematic. However, this is not what is practiced in general. As I've said, trying to follow the Cornelius experience seems to be the preferred conversion experience, and in practice very often a significant amount of time elapses before water and Spirit baptism are experienced.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

I think the scripture speaks very plainly that a person must be baptized and a person must receive the Holy Ghost. Its very simple to search out and see.

There is no need to over complicate a persons salvation experience with "who's on first and what's on second". Even trinitarians during a debate with Oneness Pentecostals proclaimed it is a sin to reject baptism. Although we see the function of baptism different than they I believe the consensus is that its a part of ones salvation experience.

I agree. I have not said one doesn't need to be baptized in water or baptized with the Spirit. Acts 2:38 is what needs to be done. I believe it is supposed to be a part of one's conversion experience, though obviously I don't understand them as expressed in the currently dominant view among Oneness Pentecostals.

Of course I don't think trying to carefully understand our salvation experience is anything like "who's on first," etc. I think it is very significant that the standard teaching on conversion leads to unacceptable implications.

You may need to define what you think is illogical concerning the oneness position on conversion.

I have mentioned these illogical implications throughout my posts in this thread. I am about to have to leave and will be gone for a while and so don't have time to restate them here right now, but please checkout my earlier posts, especially those to Esaias or responding to things he has said.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by coksiw

[Gen 15:5-6 NASB] 5 And He took him outside and said, "Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be." 6 Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.

Where did that happen? in Canaan, Abraham was already there in obedience to the faith:

[Gen 12:1-5 NASB] 1 Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go forth from your country, And from your relatives And from your father's house, To the land which I will show you; 2 And I will make you a great nation, And I will bless you, And make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing; 3 And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed." 4 So Abram went forth as the LORD had spoken to him; and Lot went with him. Now Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran. 5 Abram took Sarai his wife and Lot his nephew, and all their possessions which they had accumulated, and the persons which they had acquired in Haran, and they set out for the land of Canaan; thus they came to the land of Canaan.

Are you're saying Abraham was justified before Scripture explicitly says he was justified?

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Are you're saying Abraham was justified before Scripture explicitly says he was justified?

Nope, what I'm saying is that the statement of being justified was said after he believed for the first time, and obeyed accordantly and moved to Canaan.

I'm also aware of the "Then he" on that verse. However, most translation say "And he", and the Septuagint says "kai" (and). Romans don't use "then" or "and". However, when you read the passage, it feels like a continuation of events anyways.

See this:

[Heb 11:8-12 NASB] 8 By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going. 9 By faith he lived as an alien in the land of promise, as in a foreign [land,] dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise; 10 for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God. 11 By faith even Sarah herself received ability to conceive, even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered Him faithful who had promised. 12 Therefore there was born even of one man, and him as good as dead at that, [as many descendants] AS THE STARS OF HEAVEN IN NUMBER, AND INNUMERABLE AS THE SAND WHICH IS BY THE SEASHORE.

The last bold text is the exact promise where the statement of justified by faith happened in Gen 15:5-6. The promise is told again in Gen 22:17.

Why the Bible doesn't say that he was justified when he first believed and obeyed? Aren't you saying that believing activates justification right away?

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Nope, what I'm saying is that the statement of being justified was said after he believed for the first time, and obeyed accordantly and moved to Canaan.

I'm also aware of the "Then he" on that verse. However, most translation say "And he", and the Septuagint says "kai" (and). Romans don't use "then" or "and". However, when you read the passage, it feels like a continuation of events anyways.

See this:

[Heb 11:8-12 NASB] 8 By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going. 9 By faith he lived as an alien in the land of promise, as in a foreign [land,] dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise; 10 for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God. 11 By faith even Sarah herself received ability to conceive, even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered Him faithful who had promised. 12 Therefore there was born even of one man, and him as good as dead at that, [as many descendants] AS THE STARS OF HEAVEN IN NUMBER, AND INNUMERABLE AS THE SAND WHICH IS BY THE SEASHORE.

The last bold text is the exact promise where the statement of justified by faith happened in Gen 15:5-6. The promise is told again in Gen 22:17.

Why the Bible doesn't say that he was justified when he first believed and obeyed? Aren't you saying that believing activates justification right away?

I may need you to clarify what your ultimate point is if you don't mind, because I'm not sure i know what you're ultimately getting at.

There is definitely a debate on when Abram's justification actually occurred, whether in Gen 12 or 15. I guess I would be inclined to say 15 because, well, that's when Scripture explicitly says he was. I was reading 12 and 15, and though similar things are mentioned about the covenant, 15 is different. In 15 God confirms that the promised seed would come directly from his own body and not through Abram's servant. Abram believed this promise. God then confirms the covenant through sacrifice.

When he was justified may be up for debate. How he was justified is not. It was by believing and trusting the promise of God. He was not declared righteous because he obeyed. His initial justification came before any act of obedience. That is Paul's point. He obeyed later because he had true justifying faith. He was declared righteous then obeyed, which demonstrated his faith. Again, Paul's clear contrast in Romans 4 is between believing and doing.

I do believe someone has to be baptized, but not in order to be justified. Baptism is the usual place a person publicly confesses his saving faith, baptism being the sign and seal of his justifying faith.

That is the theology of it all.

In actual practice, though, I would not lead someone to repent/make a confession of faith apart from baptism. I would lead them to baptism. Someone may be justified before going down in Jesus' name, but the Body of Christ would not know that and could not regard someone has having that faith till he is baptized.

So if we would follow the order of Peter's command in Acts 2:38, a person coming to justifying faith and receiving the remission of sins and being baptized would basically occur together. Since we don't do this generally and push people to receive the baptism of the Spirit before being baptized we now have this debate of when forgiveness of sins actually occurs.

I understand you to believe that someone can have the fullness of the Spirit but not have his sins forgiven if he is not baptized yet. I find that to be impossible because that would necessarily mean he was still lost (you can't be alive spiritually and still be dead in sin), and so I conclude that what must be present for forgiveness of sins is not baptism but faith/repentance.

Luke 24:47: "and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."

Acts 13:38-39: "Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses."

Acts 3:19: "Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out."

Acts 5:31: "To give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins."

Acts 10:43: "To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”

I'm not suggesting by these verses that baptism is dispensable or not the usual place where repentance would take place, but these verses suggest to me that repentance is the primary thing and if present forgiveness comes. When Peter said what's in v. 43, Cornelius and his household believed in Him and were forgiven and then almost instantaneously baptized with the Spirit.

Ultimately, though I think the traditional OP view of conversion can make a strong case, I think what I have been arguing for in this thread has more explanatory power and can make sense of all the passages about salvation without contradiction or unreasonable or illogical implications.

I'm reluctant to use words like illogical or unreasonable because I don't want anyone to think I am suggesting anyone is stupid for holding the traditional view. I don't think that. Nor do I think I am supremely logical or reasonable. I am just trying to do my best to understand a difficult issue.

God bless.

[coksiw]

Brother, that’s definitely an interesting point.
If I understand correctly, you are saying that you are justified the moment you believe, however you are also saying that repentance is necessary for justification, correct? Or are you justified the moment you believe even if you haven't repented yet? Could you please clarify this point in the context of the verses you are posting?

You are also saying that if you are justified but you don’t show obedience to the faith afterward you can “lose” your justification? Or that if you don’t obey you didn’t have the kind of faith that justify to begin with?

Also, you are saying that being justified equals to being saved, or that it is part of being saved?

Whenever I ask questions I may not have a specific point, I’m just testing you propositions and see how you explain them or build better ones. If you propositions are solid then your reasoning can be valid if your logic is correct.

I can explain the argument you present about the flaw of the OP traditional view of being filled with the Spirit and you sins not forgiven yet” part, and hopefully I do it well, but first I would like to hear the answer to the previous questions.
Thank you.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Brother, that’s definitely an interesting point.
If I understand correctly, you are saying that you are justified the moment you believe, however you are also saying that repentance is necessary for justification, correct? Or are you justified the moment you believe even if you haven't repented yet? Could you please clarify this point in the context of the verses you are posting?

I don't think belief/faith can be separated from repentance. In common Protestant theology, at least, faith and repentance are considered the two distinguishable though inseparable aspects of conversion, faith being the positive aspect of turning toward Christ and repentance being the negative aspect of turning away from sin. This makes sense to me. When I hear the promise of salvation through Christ, if I truly accept it, I will do both. So, someone is justified when they have faith in Christ and repent. It is illogical to suggest that someone could turn to Christ in faith for salvation while refusing to repent and turn from the sin he needs salvation from.

You are also saying that if you are justified but you don’t show obedience to the faith afterward you can “lose” your justification? Or that if you don’t obey you didn’t have the kind of faith that justify to begin with?

The faith that justifies is the faith that obeys. If I preached the gospel and someone said that he or she had accepted the promise but refused to be baptized, I would not accept that they had justifying faith or had repented to begin with. That is different from someone who truly has faith and repents but is not immediately led by believers to baptism. It apparently is possible to be justified without the sign and seal of justification, as Abraham experienced before he received circumcision. Of course, once the command came, since he had true faith, he obeyed. If he had not, that would have shown he had lost his faith. I have mentioned my own history. It should never have happened that no one taught me to be baptized for 6 months. Do I think I was not justified because I had not been baptized yet? Definitely not. Once I finally was taught it and asked if I wanted to be baptized, I immediately said yes, because I did have justifying faith.

The problems and debates arise in part because we don't just follow the order of Acts 2:38.

Also, you are saying that being justified equals to being saved, or that it is part of being saved?

Justification is an aspect of our saving experience in Christ. It's a judicial declaration by God that we are forgiven and declared righteous and that Christ's righteousness has been imputed to us. It's distinguishable but inseparable from regeneration and adoption. This of course means that I think there is a saving experience of the Spirit apart from the baptism of the Holy Spirit that occurs at faith and repentance. Again in practice, all this would be occurring in close connection with baptism, which is why, I think, that the a saving work of the Spirit is associated with baptism in texts like Romans 6 and Colossians 2.

Whenever I ask questions I may not have a specific point, I’m just testing you propositions and see how you explain them or build better ones. If you propositions are solid then your reasoning can be valid if your logic is correct.

Makes sense.

I can explain the argument you present about the flaw of the OP traditional view of being filled with the Spirit and you sins not forgiven yet” part, and hopefully I do it well, but first I would like to hear the answer to the previous questions.
Thank you.

I look forward to reading it. Thank you for taking the time to discuss this.

[Antipas]

Personally, I see Justification as a part of salvation, but not the whole. When one comes to saving faith that faith will initially bring repentance. When the convert comes to faith and repentance, they experience Justification. This means that God doesn't count their sin against them. The doors of salvation are swung open wide. The convert can then be water baptized, washing their sins away, and receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. However, this can be in any order. Some might actually receive the Spirit before water baptism.

When one is water baptized, their sins are officially washed away. And when they receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit they experience regeneration.

Justification essentially allows the remission of sins and regeneration to take place.

If one's faith and repentance isn't genuine... they are not under Justification, and they cannot receive the remission of sins or the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Ever see those types that just try and try to receive the Spirit and don't? They need to experience Justification through genuine faith and repentance.

If one's faith and repentance is sincere... they receive Justification... but if they draw back and do not move forward to receive the remission of sins and regeneration, they step out from under God's justifying grace.

Justification, Remission, and Regeneration are all essential parts of a greater whole, and each interconnects with the other to allow one to receive the fullness of the Salvation taught in Scripture. So those who have obeyed Acts 2:38 have experienced justification, remission, and regeneration. This makes them a child of God... and that's the doctrine of adoption. Now, being an adopted child of God, they are to actively seek sanctification in the hope of their future glorification.

Many mainstream Christians claim that faith and repentance brings Justification... and they stop here thinking that justification is salvation. They fail to see that Justification has a purpose. They don't continue on to receive the remission of sins provided in water baptism, nor the regeneration that comes through the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Justification is always moving forward... and by stopping at repentance... they come out from under God's justifying grace. As a result, they are incapable of experiencing genuine adoption. They have fallen short of becoming true children of God, seeing that they are not walking in the fulness of all of salvation's spiritual realities.

Only by obeying Acts 2:38 can one say that they have experienced justification, remission of sin, and regeneration.

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by Antipas

Personally, I see Justification as a part of salvation, but not the whole. When one comes to saving faith that faith will initially bring repentance. When the convert comes to faith and repentance, they experience Justification. This means that God doesn't count their sin against them. The doors of salvation are swung open wide. The convert can then be water baptized, washing their sins away, and receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. However, this can be in any order. Some might actually receive the Spirit before water baptism.

When one is water baptized, their sins are officially washed away. And when they receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit they experience regeneration.

Justification essentially allows the remission of sins and regeneration to take place.

If one's faith and repentance isn't genuine... they are not under Justification, and they cannot receive the remission of sins or the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Ever see those types that just try and try to receive the Spirit and don't? They need to experience Justification through genuine faith and repentance.

If one's faith and repentance is sincere... they receive Justification... but if they draw back and do not move forward to receive the remission of sins and regeneration, they will be lost.

Justification, Remission, and Regeneration are all essential parts of a greater whole, and each interconnects with the other to allow one to receive the fullness of the Salvation taught in Scripture.

How can they be lost, you claimed that by faith alone ones sins are not counted against them? baptist, catholic, presp, etc have a belief similar to that.

faith and baptism/repentance are two sides of the same coin. You guys make it seem like faith is just an intellectual thing such as faith=knowledge or belief, but faith without baptism is not faith at all. invisible faith does not exist.

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

How can they be lost, you claimed that by faith alone ones sins are not counted against them? baptist, catholic, presp, etc have a belief similar to that.

faith and baptism/repentance are two sides of the same coin. You guys make it seem like faith is just an intellectual thing such as faith=knowledge or belief, but faith without baptism is not faith at all. invisible faith does not exist.

When I say that through faith and repentance one experiences Justification, I am seeing Justification as a means of grace, not necessarily salvation itself. It is God looking at a sin soaked sinner, and justifying them predicated upon what Christ as done for them. But this justification is only opening the door, the convert has to walk through that door and receive the remission of sins provided by water baptism (remission) and the baptism of the Holy Spirit (regeneration). If they draw back and do not enter in to receive remission and regeneration, they are not experiencing the fullness of actual NT salvation.