All Trinitarians are Lost!!!!!!!!!!!

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by rdp

So ol' legalist Peter had the audacity to order Cornelius & his house to baptized in Jesus' name immediately....But he was already "saved"? The verb translated "command(ed)" denotes, "to make special haste" as defined by Greek grammarians.

Peter was guilty of "burying the living"??

Also, I can absolutely prove to the honest in heart right here that Cornelius was NOT saved at Spirit baptism alone (see John 3:3-5)!

Ready?

The angel specifically stated that Peter would tell Cornelius "words by which you will be saved" (Ac. 11.14).


Tell us, did Peter's command to be water baptized in Jesus' Name frame part of his "words" to Cornelius, yes or no:_____________?


If yes, then according to the heavenly messenger his "words" relative to "salvation" included a command to be water baptized in Jesus' name....Or will you tell us that biblical commandments are not necessary for salvation ??

Cornelius was a special case, which I've made abundantly clear. It can not be used as proof text that people are normally saved without baptism, or that we should pray for people to receive the Holy Ghost who have not been baptized.. And I've already explained why God did that in the case of Cornelius.
But the point I'm making is that you who say that Trinitarian Pentecostals who have the Holy Ghost have not been forgiven of their sins because the man who baptized them blew it on the wording. If you truly believe that baptism is for the remission of sins, and that the normative order is to have one's sins remitted and THEN receive the Holy Ghost, then you either have to say that these people have had their sins "washed in the blood" (figuratively) or that they really did not receive the Holy Ghost. You can't have it both ways. God will not dwell in someone who has not repented, and baptism is part of repentance.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Cornelius was a special case, which I've made abundantly clear. It can not be used as proof text that people are normally saved without baptism, or that we should pray for people to receive the Holy Ghost who have not been baptized.. And I've already explained why God did that in the case of Cornelius.
But the point I'm making is that you who say that Trinitarian Pentecostals who have the Holy Ghost have not been forgiven of their sins because the man who baptized them blew it on the wording. If you truly believe that baptism is for the remission of sins, and that the normative order is to have one's sins remitted and THEN receive the Holy Ghost, then you either have to say that these people have had their sins "washed in the blood" (figuratively) or that they really did not receive the Holy Ghost. You can't have it both ways. God will not dwell in someone who has not repented, and baptism is part of repentance.

Then what was the "special case" below?

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed.

14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.

Notice, the Samaritans had believed in the Name of Jesus, seen miracles, deliverances, great joy (Acts 8.5-8), & even been water baptized. Despite of all of this, Peter & John had the audacity to "pray for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit"????

And, there is no doubt whether or not "baptism is for the remission of sins"....They Biblical data specifically states it is & I accept it as written!

I'll never understand why you folks fight the biblical plan of salvation so hard....Other than a misplaced loyalty to religion.

Sad..........

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by rdp

Then what was the "special case" below?

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed.

14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.

Notice, the Samaritans had believed in the Name of Jesus, seen miracles, deliverances, great joy (Acts 8.5-8), & even been water baptized. Despite of all of this, Peter & John had the audacity to "pray for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit"????

And, there is no doubt whether or not "baptism is for the remission of sins"....They Biblical data specifically states it is & I accept it as written!

I'll never understand why you folks fight the biblical plan of salvation so hard....Other than a misplaced loyalty to religion.

Sad..........

And I'll never understand the way your brain assimilates information, because I actually agree with what you say here. But either you completely missed my point or you are dodging it.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Originalist

And I'll never understand the way your brain assimilates information, because I actually agree with what you say here. But either you completely missed my point or you are dodging it.

Not dodging a thing in the world....If you are in agreement then what's the beef??

Perhaps I am missing your point (or maybe you're not elucidating it clearly enough)!