The Timing of Cornelius’ Baptism of the Holy Ghost

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

And the skinny answer is, the Roman God Fearer got the Holy Ghost first to make a point to the Judean Law Keeper newly baptized Christians. That the dog, stones, and unclean beasts are accepted by God.

thank you for playing.

Right. But TODAY people still receive the Holy Ghost before baptism.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by diakonos

Right. But TODAY people still receive the Holy Ghost before baptism.

Yes, and Peter commanded these Gentiles to get baptized in Jesus name.

Tongues are proofs, baptism is the command.

As you well know men will shred scripture to confetti, and save no one.

Yet, the Bible is simple, and when the Gentiles spoke in tongues, Peter looked for the thumbs up from the Judeans. When they gave him the ok, he commanded baptism in Jesus name. Therefore, when some get the Holy Ghost before baptism, they MUST get baptized in Jesus name. That's book, chapter, and verse.

Whatever anyone else wants to zigzag around that, it's all on them.

Trying to figure out how I can explain Aunt Bitty Joe got the Holy Ghost and never got baptized but is in heaven, is dumb.

She didn't make it.

But I got to move forward, and while everyone else is arguing, I'm still going to move forward.

[diakonos]

I understand. I have a situation where I am labeled a Pharisee. Here’s the deal. I was asked a stupid false dichotomy.

Q: Who is going to heaven? The apostolic who is living in sin? Or the trinitarian who loved God and is doing everything he can to serve Him?

A: Neither.

So the spew is as follows, “I believe in Acts 238” followed by excuses as to why the trinitarian is going to heaven.

I said, “You DON’T believe because you’re making excuses for someone to be saved some other way.” I think I even told him that he’s being nicer than Jesus.

So, for this I am a Pharisee.

[diakonos]

Another guy lays the same charge because I’m not in favor of lady-men-of-God.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by diakonos

I understand. I have a situation where I am labeled a Pharisee. Here’s the deal. I was asked a stupid false dichotomy.

Q: Who is going to heaven? The apostolic who is living in sin? Or the trinitarian who loved God and is doing everything he can to serve Him?

A: Neither.

So the spew is as follows, “I believe in Acts 238” followed by excuses as to why the trinitarian is going to heaven.

I said, “You DON’T believe because you’re making excuses for someone to be saved some other way.” I think I even told him that he’s being nicer than Jesus.

So, for this I am a Pharisee.

I got a huge wake up call years ago. I was sitting with vegans and primal diet eaters. Two farthest points of the spectrum. Well, they locked horns in passive discussion, and were trying to convert each other. It isn't about who is right, it isn't about us. I have been called every name in the book, I'm only called a Preterist when my opposition has run out of things to discuss. It is used in place for a curse word, in their minds. Just like calling someone a Pharisees, they just run out of real things to say.

Making excuses because MeeMaw and PeePaw were supposedly saved when they were Christian Scientists? Aunt Willa Mae Jean was a devoted Catholic prayed more than any human alive, was able to spit holy water 50 yards and knock a mosquito off Uncle Thibodeaux's nose. So how can she not be seated at the right hand of the Father? This is across the board. Look, newspaper says Benjamin Netanyahu is personally overseeing the building of a temple in Jerusalem. The Jordanians and all Muslims of the world want him and the Israelis to remove the Dome of the Rock and build baby build. Does that make it Biblically so? No, but sadly people are faithless, and have to jab the Word of God with some ecclesiastical steroids. To make them believe in whatever doctrine makes them comfortable.

You meaning to tell me Sister Biddy Joe wasn't saved when she died? She spoke in tongues more than ye all! She was meaner than a cat stuck under the porch, but she prayed in tongues, she spoke prophecies in tongues. She spoke in tongues all over the place, and shouted all over the sanctuary until her bobby pins and oatmeal box launched across the pews. She was in the prayer room from dark to dawn. Brother B!!! How can you say Sister Biddy Joe wasn't saved!!

Sorry, but its the Word that saves us, not our experiences viewed through our bias religious ecclesiastical eyes.

Someone calls you a pharisee, then know that the discussion is over.

They won't eat meat, only vegetables Romans 14:2

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by diakonos

Another guy lays the same charge because I’m not in favor of lady-men-of-God.

Well, that is a Pentecostal thing, and especially among the Spanish Pentecostals. Female preachers is proven like someone dying without water baptism in Jesus name. It is because you can point one out therefore it must be so. No, that isn't logical, that isn't evidence for a document which was written thousands of years ago. If Jesus returned and entered a church service, there would be men and women who would throw Him out. But skippy quick!

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by diakonos

Another guy lays the same charge because I’m not in favor of lady-men-of-God.

Your not alone. I married into a Spanish Pastor's home. That is one subject we dont see eye to eye on.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

Your not alone. I married into a Spanish Pastor's home. That is one subject we dont see eye to eye on.

Elder Claudio Carozzi wrote a great Spanish Bible study on No Woman Preachers.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by diakonos

Right. But TODAY people still receive the Holy Ghost before baptism.

Again, no one disputes that. The dispute is with the way you interpret it. You think that person is still lost until he is baptized. You believe that a person can be born of the Spirit but still be dead in sin if he has not been baptized yet. You believe that someone can receive the fullness of the Spirit but at that very moment still be lost and have the full record of her sins still against her if she has not been baptized. It doesn't make sense. Not surprisingly no other group in the history of Christianity has ever believed someone could receive the baptism of the Spirit but at that very moment still be unforgiven.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Esaias

They speak to people who confess Jesus as Lord (which in the first century context implies water baptism, as the idea one could be a Christian apart from baptism was introduced around the 17th century) and who work miracles, cast out demons, and prophesy in His Name, all of which takes place via the operation of the Spirit. Yet, these people not only "wound up lost" but were never saved to begin with, the Lord says "I never knew you".





No, it does not imply that. In fact, 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.





No, 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.



Absolutely, I agree 100%.




This is where you interject a theological interpreration into the text. No such thing is stated in Scripture, nor is it ever discussed or explained in the way you are presenting it, with the conclusion(s) you are drawing.



Exactly.





Which is in water baptism.



Which appears to take place in baptism.



Which 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. Your attempt to solve the error by.positing remission of sins prior to baptism is just another species of the same basic error.



See above.



Catholic, Orthodox, many Protestants, and most if not all Campbellites believe one receives the Spirit in the act of baptism. Other Protestants and many Baptists believe one receives the Spirit upon initial belief. Other Protestants and some Baptists believe one is born again of the Spirit prior to believing (Reformed, Calvinists, etc).

None of them believe receiving the Spirit is accompanied by external, visible (actually, audible) physical phenomena.

You think it is biblical that someone can receive the life-giving Spirit and at that very moment still be lost if he has not been baptized yet because he is actually still dead in sin. I don't think that is biblical or logical. As I noted to Diakonos, it is not surprising that no other group in the history of Christianity has ever believed you could be born of the Spirit but at that very moment still be unforgiven and thus dead in sin.

So we're at an impasse.

Here is the implication of the most common Oneness Pentecostal view of the conversion experience: someone may be resurrected in Christ at the moment he receives the Spirit, but if he has not yet been baptized, he never actually died or was buried with Christ to begin with. He is raised with Christ, but now needs to die and be buried with Christ.