Apostolic Ministers with Guts to Preach 1-Steppers

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Jason

as you said, we can agree on repentance.

Scripture says, He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. so we need baptism. The Biblical method is to baptize in Jesus name, why wouldn't you do that?

True, and I'm not denying baptism, my position is not that baptism is unnecessary, only that justification precludes baptism in the order of salvation. And to be more specific that within that "order" that at the time we are justified we are actually "saved", which would be in my view repentance. This doesn't mean that baptism is unnecessary, or something the repentant believer just does if they feel like it. It is very much a commandment of the Lord, and part of a normative Christian experience. I only assert that justification precludes baptism, and I assert that is the proper scriptural view. Even in an instance like Acts 2:41-people who immediately repent and then are baptized. Were they justified when they were baptized or when they repented of their sins and believed in Christ? I would say immediately when they believed in Christ. This is consistent with all of scripture, and it is why there's no problem if the order ins't always the same (such as in Acts 10:45-48), because as long as justification has taken place, the sinner is now cleansed form their sins and in a new relationship with God. *IF* baptism is what cleanses the sinner/takes away their sins/applies the blood of Christ--then water baptism MUST always proceed the baptism of the Spirit. This is the problem I keep raising, because it is huge.

As for baptizing in Jesus name, I agree it is the Biblical method. I am baptized that way, and have ONLY baptized others that way. That said since I believe justification happens BEFORE water baptism, I do not see water baptism as saving someone in the literal sense, thus nor do I see the specific formula of words as effecting forgiveness, but rather the faith of the repentant sinner in the person and work of Jesus Christ, as being the much more important element of baptism.

That said, and while I agree baptism should invoke the name of Jesus, the fact is there are various "formulas" in Acts, and the "formula" of Matthew 28:19 is legit unless someone says Christ didn't speak those words. I do believe that Acts 2:38 gives us the way the earliest church did it, but still quite early on the church adopted Matthew 28:19, and for what its worth (which is really nothing, since it is only a mans opinion, and only God can judge), I don't think Christ is going to send someone to hell for quoting his words in a baptismal ceremony.

Originally Posted by Amanah

Scripture also says that the HG is the earnest of our inheritance, and without the down payment we are not going to heaven, so we need the Holy Ghost.

Absolutely! Without the Spirit we are none of His.

But when does the scripture you quoted (Eph 1:13-14) say this happens? When we BELIEVED. If one truly believes, they receive the Spirit. You cannot separate believing from he baptism of the Spirit. Romans clearly shows that to be justified is also to be regenerate (born again) to be adopted into God's family, to have peace with God, and to stand before Him righteous. Paul further declares that those who God justifies, He also sanctifies, and will glorify (or rather has already glorified). So IMO we make a grave soteriological mistake when we separate legitimate belief/repentance from the Spirit baptism, leading to a Weslyan, later Pentecostal, second work of grace type doctrine.
(I know Acts 8 & Acts 19 and we can carry this thought out to include those passages, to discuss whether those are normative to the Christian experience in all ages and in all places or not, but for now I won't go there).

Originally Posted by Amanah

When you receive the Holy Ghost, out of your belly flows rivers of living water. Without the release of the Spirit in the lives of believers you won't have the gifts of the Spirit in operation. A group of people who don't have the Spirit in operation when they meet can hardly be called the body of Christ.

Why would anyone not want to follow the teachings of the Apostles and why would they not want the operation of the spirit when they meet?

Agreed, but the New Testament lists many gifts, and I have seen these in operations in the lives of numerous Christians, even cessationists. I think Pentecostals/charismatics have a inclination to the more spectacular gifts, but in many cases (NOT ALL) , the exercise of the "gifts" falls far short of the New Testament pattern and into the same error and chaos that Paul rebuked the Cornthians for.

How many times have you seen many people speaking in tongues all at once? People acting without self control and blaming it on the Spirit? A "prophecy" go forth and then the same one interpret it? "Prophecies" so generic you can't tell what they're supposed to be anyway, and failed prophecies? Claimed healings and miracles that simply don't check out. These are not the NT spiritual gifts, just cheap counterfeits. That's not to say there isn't a real, but one big knock against the so called pentecostal revival is that these type things are more normative than the genuine gifts.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Jito463

Okay, after finally reading through your whole post, I'm a little confused. If you agree with me about the points I brought up, then what's the issue?

That your soteriology is not consistent with the scripture. Reread my posts more clearly, feel free to respond to the very specific questions I posed.

Originally Posted by Jito463

If you agree that there were people who spoke in tongues through the ages, if you agree that just because people claim to be part of the body of Christ, that it doesn't necessarily make it so and if you agree with me that unsaved people can be used of God and still be unsaved, I'm not sure what your remaining argument is.

You glossed over my many points.
A. yes, people sporadically claimed to speak in tongues throughout church history. To you this is a proof they received the Holy Spirit. It is also proof they are in hell, not being baptized in Jesus name. Explain that.
B. There are false converts, always have been always will be. It's of little importance to our discussion on soteriology.
C. The fact that God can use whom He wills, even if they be unbelievers or false converts, hardly justifies your view that essentially everyone who claimed to be a Christian for the majority of the church age (say 3rd-19th century) was actually lost. I think that's a bit problematic. Its a position even more extreme that the Mormons (though not by much) and the Jehovah's Witnesses. It very much opens the oneness pentecostal to the claims of being a cult that are sometimes leveled against it. The view that only we are saved, and no one else before us (except the apostles), and that we alone have the true gospel, and everyone else before us was wrong for 1900 years.

Because we are agreeing to a few historical facts (people spoke in tongues before the 20th century, there are people who claim to be Christians who are not, and God uses whom He wills) hardly means we are in agreement. In fact these are rabbit trails. Let us go back to discussing justification by faith. The only reason I pointed this out was to show HOW no one has agreed with the modern GT Haywood formulated soteriological doctrine prior to the 20th century. Even if you say the apostles, one must wonder what they taught their disciples, since even Clement, the disciple of John the Apostle and bishop of Rome in the very early 2nd century writes to the Corinthians and makes statements on justification by faith. Did he not know the apostles doctrine? Was Clement, the disciple of John, LESS apostolic than the modern UPC? One must wonder.

Originally Posted by Jito463

You say these names as if their historical significance should automatically entitle them to salvation. If they were not saved according to the Apostles' doctrine, then they are lost. It's as simple as that.

Historical significance would be Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Attila the Hun, etc. I'm not suggesting ANYONE is saved because they are historically significant....but to simply dismiss all the men I listed because they meet your criteria is arrogant to the extreme.

Think about it-why do you have a Bible that you can read? It is because God moved on men to translate those scriptures at the very cost of their lives. And knowing it would likely cost them their lives, the translated the scriptures, so that you, piggy backing on their work, and on their blood may spit in their face and condemn them to hell, for not agreeing with your doctrine.

And let me repeat a few of the names of people you condemn to hell, perhaps you are not familiar with them, and maybe you should be an evening doing some research and come back and tell me why you believe they were not true believers, and that they have no real evidence of salvation, and gave their lives in vain (those who died as martyrs) :

John Huss
William Tyndale
Jonathan Edwards
John Wesley

Originally Posted by Jito463

All I can tell you is what the Bible teaches. And if someone does not do as God's Word instructs, then they are lost.

I find it ironic, if not outright disturbing, that oneness pentecostals will ........ to hell the likes of Huss, Whitfield, Wesley, Edwards, Zwingli, Luther, Melancthon, Bunyan, Owen, Watts, Newton, Knox, Taylor, Toplady, Mueller, Wyclif, Savanarola, and so many more, who God has so obviously used, and so many of which gave their lives in torture and in the flames to seal their testimony.

Yet all but bow down and worship the anointed servants of the Lord, the men of God, Lee Stoneking, Jeff Arnold, Anthony Mangum, etc.

What does it say when someone is conditioned to believe that Charles Spurgeon is burning in hell, but Lee Westburg is shouting on the streets of gold? That William Tyndales contributions to the church are essentially meaningless, but David Bernard's are invaluable. That what Hudson Taylor wasn't even saved, but Billy Cole is. Its near idolatry of you own group. Its pride, and a fear of being wrong. Everyone else but us is lost. Read Galatians 5:19-21, Paul condemns this radical sectarianism (read a few versions, you may not pick it up in the King James, the New Living makes it pretty plain). Don't you see a problem with this?

And the real problem is it ALL start with bad hermenutics, misapplication of scripture, a redefining of scripture terms, poor exegesis, and outright denial of the plain words of scripture such as

"And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day." Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life."~John 6:40,47

"that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." ~ Romans 10:9

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Jason B

True, and I'm not denying baptism, my position is not that baptism is unnecessary, only that justification precludes baptism in the order of salvation. And to be more specific that within that "order" that at the time we are justified we are actually "saved", which would be in my view repentance. This doesn't mean that baptism is unnecessary, or something the repentant believer just does if they feel like it. It is very much a commandment of the Lord, and part of a normative Christian experience. I only assert that justification precludes baptism, and I assert that is the proper scriptural view. Even in an instance like Acts 2:41-people who immediately repent and then are baptized. Were they justified when they were baptized or when they repented of their sins and believed in Christ? I would say immediately when they believed in Christ. This is consistent with all of scripture, and it is why there's no problem if the order ins't always the same (such as in Acts 10:45-48), because as long as justification has taken place, the sinner is now cleansed form their sins and in a new relationship with God. *IF* baptism is what cleanses the sinner/takes away their sins/applies the blood of Christ--then water baptism MUST always proceed the baptism of the Spirit. This is the problem I keep raising, because it is huge.

As for baptizing in Jesus name, I agree it is the Biblical method. I am baptized that way, and have ONLY baptized others that way. That said since I believe justification happens BEFORE water baptism, I do not see water baptism as saving someone in the literal sense, thus nor do I see the specific formula of words as effecting forgiveness, but rather the faith of the repentant sinner in the person and work of Jesus Christ, as being the much more important element of baptism.

That said, and while I agree baptism should invoke the name of Jesus, the fact is there are various "formulas" in Acts, and the "formula" of Matthew 28:19 is legit unless someone says Christ didn't speak those words. I do believe that Acts 2:38 gives us the way the earliest church did it, but still quite early on the church adopted Matthew 28:19, and for what its worth (which is really nothing, since it is only a mans opinion, and only God can judge), I don't think Christ is going to send someone to hell for quoting his words in a baptismal ceremony.


Absolutely! Without the Spirit we are none of His.

But when does the scripture you quoted (Eph 1:13-14) say this happens? When we BELIEVED. If one truly believes, they receive the Spirit. You cannot separate believing from he baptism of the Spirit. Romans clearly shows that to be justified is also to be regenerate (born again) to be adopted into God's family, to have peace with God, and to stand before Him righteous. Paul further declares that those who God justifies, He also sanctifies, and will glorify (or rather has already glorified). So IMO we make a grave soteriological mistake when we separate legitimate belief/repentance from the Spirit baptism, leading to a Weslyan, later Pentecostal, second work of grace type doctrine.
(I know Acts 8 & Acts 19 and we can carry this thought out to include those passages, to discuss whether those are normative to the Christian experience in all ages and in all places or not, but for now I won't go there).

Agreed, but the New Testament lists many gifts, and I have seen these in operations in the lives of numerous Christians, even cessationists. I think Pentecostals/charismatics have a inclination to the more spectacular gifts, but in many cases (NOT ALL) , the exercise of the "gifts" falls far short of the New Testament pattern and into the same error and chaos that Paul rebuked the Cornthians for.

How many times have you seen many people speaking in tongues all at once? People acting without self control and blaming it on the Spirit? A "prophecy" go forth and then the same one interpret it? "Prophecies" so generic you can't tell what they're supposed to be anyway, and failed prophecies? Claimed healings and miracles that simply don't check out. These are not the NT spiritual gifts, just cheap counterfeits. That's not to say there isn't a real, but one big knock against the so called pentecostal revival is that these type things are more normative than the genuine gifts.

I have no explanation for why you can receive the HG before you are baptized. but for me this does not negate the examples in Acts of people receiving the HG speaking in tongues and being baptized in the name of Jesus.

Yes, Paul rebuked the Corinthians for disorder, and sometimes we resemble the Corinthian church. I would rather be rebuked for disorder then to not have the Spirit in operation at all.

I don't agree that the gifts operating in the churches I have attended are not genuine.

there are One Steppers, such as Ferd, who believe salvation is at repentance and still they baptize in Jesus name and speak in tongues. If the end result is the same I would not quibble.

there are AoG churches that baptize in the Titles and then in the Name and they encourage people to receive the HG, speaking in tongues. Its disconcerting to me, but I'm not ruling it out.

Then you have people who baptize In the titles and forbid to speak in tongues.

It seems to me that once you start down this path you squeeze truth, Oneness, HG, and the very life out, and you have dry bones, in it's place.

[TakingDominion]

Jason B, I've tried to carefully read this entire thread and your lengthy posts regarding baptism, justification, etc. etc.. I appreciated the last comment you made regarding the plain words of scripture, and then you quoted some very familiar verses.

I want you to know; much of what you've written, I agree with. I'll also admit, some of the words you have used, I have no idea what they mean. Google is helping me sort through some of that. I agree that OP's can get carried away at times. I also agree that some amazing contributions have been made throughout history, by folks of various denominations and beliefs.

My only response, and I'm by no means debating. I love the Word of God. I love how it reveals the mysteries of God to us and how it is connected and interwoven together. I love the types and shadows we can find in the Old Testament, and I love the Gospel of Jesus Christ. My question to you is the same question you posed to OP's, how can you deny very plain words of scripture such as:

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

I believe, that if a person truly believes on the Lord Jesus Christ and accepts him in their heart as savior, then as the scriptures teach, they will repent of their sins, they'll be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, and they will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. If that makes me a "3 stepper" then so be it, but I would argue that it's all part of salvation, not step 1, 2, 3,... or 4, 5 and 6. It's all part of the process.

Remember, it wasn't the OP's that said a man cannot enter the Kingdom of God without being baptized. That was Jesus Christ who said that....

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I have no explanation for why you can receive the HG before you are baptized. but for me this does not negate the examples in Acts of people receiving the HG speaking in tongues and being baptized in the name of Jesus.

Consider that the spirit is poured out upon true repentance, as in Cornelius' case, in which case baptism follows, and the signs and gifting of the spirit follow that. This position would line up with all of scripture.

Repentance is the ONE step that must take place first, and then the Lord sometimes pours out the giftings of the spirit right away, or at baptism, or even later. Who can know the mind of the Lord?

How can true genuine repentance take place without the spirit of the Lord at work?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Consider that the spirit is poured out upon true repentance, as in Cornelius' case, in which case baptism follows, and the signs and gifting of the spirit follow that. This position would line up with all of scripture.

Cornelius had tongues before baptism, though...

Repentance is the ONE step that must take place first, and then the Lord sometimes pours out the giftings of the spirit right away, or at baptism, or even later. Who can know the mind of the Lord?

How can true genuine repentance take place without the spirit of the Lord at work?

Nobody denies repentance is a result of the Spirit working. What we deny is that this is synonymous with "receiving the Spirit" or "being saved".

The Spirit being "poured out" is a Biblical term referring to the Pentecostal experience. This is the problem with error - using Biblical terms for things the writers didn't use them for.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jason B

The problems are that if you say that baptism is necessary for salvation that
1)Salvation is based on a "work" or ritual that we do and not on Christ.

That's not true.

Baptism is the opposite of salvation by works. We get buried because we're good for nothing more than death! It's acknowledging we had to die and we accept that. When one has to die in order to be saved, any hopes of one achieving salvation by goods works is gone out the window. And it's in full dependence upon Christ's death that caused us to be able to die to begin with!

When the bible condemns salvation by works, it is condemning efforts to make oneself righteous apart from anything to do with Christ's work of the cross. That's the proper context of the forbiddence of salvation by works. We EARN heaven by good deeds to move God to deem us righteous because of those deeds. Baptism is not done to impress God to deem us righteous because we accomplished such an impressive baptism. It's agreement with God that we need to be united to Christ's death because judgment for our sins is death.

Because we had to die due to our sins, Christ died in our stead. THAT is what baptism means. How can that be salvation by works apart from Christ? It is baptism INTO HIS DEATH. And that's what Christ is all about -- His death and resurrection.

There is nothing wrong with baptism, it is holy, righteous, and a commandment of the Lord. However the simple ritual is no more effective to regenerate us than doing other pious works equally commanded such as prayer

It does not regenerate us. It puts us into His death and causes His death to become ours so we can say our death penalty's been paid for through Christ's death. And since we died, then we're freed from sin and can now live a life out from underneath the dominion of sin.

, the Lord Supper, scripture reading, church attendance or giving alms. *IF* baptism in the most literal sense does indeed actually save us, then the work of Christ becomes secondary to our own.

It is the work of Christ being applied to us individually. It is not all that saves us but it is PART of what saves us.

All these facts that the scripture state tell me that folks who think those who believe baptism is part of salvation believe in salvation by works are people who misunderstand what baptism is all about, and misunderstand what salvation by works is all about.

NONE of this is a denegration of baptism, which I, as a "one stepper" affirm to be a vital part of the Christian experience. As I've said many times, the man who is justified by faith will be baptized if there is any opportunity to do so.

But one steppers inadvertently change scripture to say "He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized,." That's not what Jesus said. Peter said baptism saves by the resurrection.

2)If you say it's necessary for salvation, then you have to say in what way. The normative answer is "the forgiveness of sins" or similar "the washing away of sins".

That is the weakest answer. The answer is actually that it puts us into Christ's death. And that DEATH is what remits sins. Baptism is like the blood. Both literally do not save anyone. Nor do they literally remit sins. But both blood and baptism that are each said to remit sins actually point to the death of Christ.

Now then if these things are literal and not figurative, we again have a big problem, because the WHOLE of New Testament revelation (to say nothing of early church practice) does not support this view.

The view I espoused is indeed based on the New Testament. In my estimation, to be a one-stepper is to misunderstand Romans 6:3, and it is to misunderstand the proper intent of baptism.

Specifically the detailed teaching of Paul on justification by faith in his epistles, especially Romans and Galatians, nor the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels, nor the epistle of John which is written specifically so that we can know that we have eternal life, as a test for every believer.

Romans 6 teaches baptism is part of salvation, if we wish to talk about Romans.

But it has a bigger problem....

3)If one asserts baptism is necessary for salvation,and that baptism forgives sin, Acts 10:45 forever destroys that view.

Again, it wasn't me who gave that reason for baptism.

Baptism is contractual. It's simply God's demand. It's the SEAL of our part in the contract. His seal is Spirit baptism. But it is interesting both baptisms are seals.

If indeed baptism is what cleanses us in the literal sense, and indeed it is at baptism that God forgives our sins, then it is impossible for a person to receive the Holy Ghost (thus be regerated/born again) while still in sin.

Again, it is contractual. Both signatures are required. Salvation is covenantal, or contractual. One seal may be placed before the other, but both are vitally necessary.

Twist the scriptures as one will, if sin is forgiven in baptism, this is an insurmountable mountain of a problem. Oh, I know, we then make a distinction between remission and forgivenss, but of course such an interpretation falls apart once we move out of the KJV which uses both terms for the same word) into the Greek.

This position is simply untenable. It will not hold up, but its not unique to oneness pentecostals. Catholics and Church of Christ share this view of baptismal regeneration.

That's not my view at all. But to further make my point, if a person's on their deathbed, and cannot be baptized, and would if they could, God considers it the same as baptism.

None?

I do. Have never been convinced Romans 6:3 refers to Spirit baptism. I am aware of the argument, but I do not think it fits the context.

It is water baptism.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Nobody denies repentance is a result of the Spirit working. What we deny is that this is synonymous with "receiving the Spirit" or "being saved".

Amen. If repentance is by default a moment one GETS the Spirit inside, then why did PHilip baptize people in Jesus' name, which requires repentance, and have to see John and Peter come for them to receive the Spirit?

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Amen. If repentance is by default a moment one GETS the Spirit inside, then why did PHilip baptize people in Jesus' name, which requires repentance, and have to see John and Peter come for them to receive the Spirit?

Because they had yet to receive the gifting of the spirit. There is a difference. The spirit of the Lord has to be at work in one's life to allow repentance to do its work. But the fullness of the spirit with gifting comes as a gift from the Lord, as a sign that follows them that believe. Mark 16:17

Let me ask you this question. Acts 2:38 says "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost

You notice here that the HG is called a gift.

Let us reference other passages that speak of that gift:

Romans 12:6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;
7 Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;
8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.

1 Corinthians 7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.


1 Cor. 12: 4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.


1 Cor. 12: 28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

1 Corinthians 14:1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.

1 Corinthians 14:12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

Ephesians 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

Hebrews 2:4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

This is not just one or two scriptures referencing multiple gifts of the Holy Ghost, so I am not pulling 1-2 scriptures together to make a point. The clarity of scripture on this issue can't be ignored. There are a multiplicity of gifts of the Holy Ghost, and to single one out (tongues) and make it salvational does not line up with the whole of scripture on the subject.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Cornelius had tongues before baptism, though...

So? What difference does it make when the gifting happens? It is the Lord's choosing how to gift, and not ours. It is HIS GIFT, and He can choose how and when to give it.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Nobody denies repentance is a result of the Spirit working. What we deny is that this is synonymous with "receiving the Spirit" or "being saved".

The spirit has to be at work for repentance to take place. We can't repent on our own without the spirit convicting us!

But the FULLNESS of the spirit with the gifts comes after we are obedient in repentance/baptism, or whenever the Lord decides to gift, as in Cornelius' case, He gifted before baptism, perhaps as a sign to them of the supernatural power to further convict their hearts.

Originally Posted by Esaias

The Spirit being "poured out" is a Biblical term referring to the Pentecostal experience. This is the problem with error - using Biblical terms for things the writers didn't use them for.

Consider that the spirit is poured out upon true repentance, as in Cornelius' case, in which case baptism follows, and the signs and gifting of the spirit follow that. This position would line up with all of scripture.

Repentance is the ONE step that must take place first, and then the Lord sometimes pours out the giftings of the spirit right away, or at baptism, or even later. Who can know the mind of the Lord?

How can true genuine repentance take place without the spirit of the Lord at work?

Acts: 10:4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.

Evidently Cornelius' prayers and alms meant enough to the Lord that He summoned Peter to go to his house. While repentance was not specifically mentioned here, in the eyes of the Lord, it must have been enough for Him to gift Cornelius with the HG when Peter arrived and preached to him even before being baptized.