born of water

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Sorry, it is part of the book and I cannot help but stand on it.

It was NOT an exception.



That is not true. There is no on-credit concept in the bible in the way you present it.



The norm is what includes Acts 10's experience.

Brother, the Book of Acts covered all sorts of situations to ensure we get the doctrine correct. People getting the Spirit before baptism necessitating a demand for baptism, people getting it afterwards necessitating a demand for Spirit baptism, people who believed PART truth who required water and Spirit baptism both, Jews, and Gentiles. Etc. The NORM is the picture that comes through from the entirety of all accounts mentioned in Acts, not MOST.



What is wiggling is saying Acts 10 cannot be part of the NORM. Again, someone could say they don't have to obey your sermon because God will give them obedience on credit with your view on Acts 10.

I fully reject in strong terms the "on credit" concept.

In Acts nobody before or after Cornelius received the Holy Ghost prior to baptism. That tells us the norm is the Acts 2:38 order. Furthermore, nobody, including Cornelius, was ever prayed for by the Apostles to receive the Spirit prior to baptism. Therefore, we must view the Cornelius incident as an exception God made out of the necessity to make the Jewish Christians understand that Gentiles were a part of God's plan.

God has the right to break his order of things. We do not.