Quote:
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.
Threaded Mode
