In Acts chapter 10 we see the record of the first Gentile converts to Christianity – a centurion by the name of Cornelius and his household. This is a wonderful passage for all of us who weren’t born Jews as we see God accepting us into His church. This is also a passage that has created much discussion and controversy. While many of my brethren have written excellent articles on this subject, I wanted to tackle it myself, and to try and bring some things to the table that aren’t always discussed. I hope this study will be beneficial to you.
Let us begin in Acts 2, on the day of Pentecost, when the church of Christ came into existence. On this day Peter and the apostles use the keys of the kingdom given to them by Jesus to “open the doors” of the church as Jesus said they should – in Jerusalem, to the Jews first. The Holy Spirit falls upon them giving them the ability to speak in languages (tongues) that they have never studied that they might proclaim the gospel to all in attendance. In verses 17 through 21 Peter quotes from the prophet Joel to explain how they are doing this miraculous thing. In verse 17, Peter quotes that God will “pour out His Spirit on all flesh”. This is very important. What does “all flesh” mean? As I see it, there can only be two options:
- Every single person
- All “types” of flesh
If it were to mean every single person then the Spirit would be poured out onto believers and unbelievers alike, regardless of whether or not they ever come to belief in Him. I don’t know of any religious group that believes that. The second option is the only one that makes sense. In view of the scriptures there can only be two “types”, or kinds, of flesh – Jewish and Gentile. This means that the apostles baptism in the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost partially fulfilled Joel’s prophecy. At this point the Holy Spirit had only been poured out onto one type of flesh – Jewish.
Now we turn to Acts 10, where most of the details of Cornelius’ conversion are recorded. Cornelius was a very good man (verse 2), but he was not saved. He needed to know about Jesus and His life, teachings, death, burial and resurrection. He was told in a vision to send for Peter that he might hear what he needed to know (verses 3 – 6).
Let me pause here for just a moment. Much is made about the fact that Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before water baptism. Since the Holy Spirit is promised only to Christians, many conclude that Cornelius was saved prior to baptism. What about the fact that Cornelius was given a vision from God? Does that make him saved because the Lord spoke to him in a vision? Obviously some special and scripturally unique things are at work in the case of Cornelius. Please keep that in mind.
Peter receives his own vision (verses 10 – 15), although he doesn’t understand exactly what it means at the time. When Cornelius’ men come for Peter, the Spirit informs him that they have come by His command, so Peter willingly goes to Cornelius’ home. To get a picture of how much Cornelius understood at this time we can look at verse 25. Cornelius falls down and worships at Peter’s feet. That Peter had to reprimand him for such shows that this good man still needed teaching.
It is when Peter begins to preach to them that the miraculous happens – the Holy Spirit falls upon Cornelius and his household and they begin to speak in tongues just like the Apostles on the day of Pentecost (verses 44-46). The reason for this miraculous, and unique, occurrence is two-fold:
· To completely fulfill Joel’s prophecy
· To show the Jews that the Gentiles were to be accepted into the kingdom
Once the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius and his household the Spirit had been poured out onto “all flesh”. There is no other instance of Holy Spirit baptism outside of the apostles and Cornelius’ household.
One of the great struggles for the first Jewish Christians was to accept the Gentiles as brethren. Centuries of viewing the Gentiles as lesser races were very hard to overcome. Look at our own country and how many still view those of African descent. There are countless passages I could point to that address just how hard it was for those coming out of Judaism. Romans 2 -3, and Galatians 2 are just a few chapters that deal with this subject. Due to the difficulties that would have to be overcome it makes sense that God would use something amazing to show that the Gentiles were to be accepted.
Peter recounts the conversion of Cornelius to his Jewish brethren in Acts 11, where we’re told something very important:
15“And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning.
The message that we see preached in Acts 10 was only about to begin when the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius. They didn’t hear about Jesus until after the Holy Spirit fell upon them. Is this how we’re saved today? Before hearing, believing, repenting, confessing or being baptized in water? Even though I completely reject the false doctrine of “faith-only” salvation, you can’t even claim that they were saved by their faith alone in Christ as they hadn’t heard about Him before the Spirit fell on them! Did the Holy Spirit fall upon you and give you the ability to speak in a language you’ve never studied before you even heard the gospel of Christ proclaimed? Friends, if this did not happen to you (and I know it didn’t), then that means this was a unique situation that doesn’t apply to you today.
Let me slightly shift gears at this point and ask you a question that I think is important – when were the apostles of Jesus saved? Certainly you won’t contend that the men who walked daily by the savior’s side and were personally chosen by Him to carry His message weren’t saved until they were baptized with the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. The baptism of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles served as a sign that their message was from God – it was not a seal of salvation. The baptism of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius and his household served as a sign that the Gentiles were to be accepted – not as a seal of their salvation. Just as the Spirit of God could speak through the mouth of a donkey as a sign to Balaam (Numbers 22: 28), the Spirit of God could give unsaved Gentiles the gift of tongues. Look at Acts 11:
17“Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?”
18When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.”
The baptism of the Holy Spirit was a sign that quieted the Jews grumblings against Peter for going to the Gentiles. They saw clearly that their new brethren were not those of the same physical bloodlines, but those bought with the blood of Christ.
There is a difference between the baptism of the Holy Spirit (which is only recorded as occurring with the apostles and the house of Cornelius) and the gift of the Holy Spirit which is promised to all obedient believers (Acts 2:38). The baptism of the Holy Spirit only served as a sign to unbelievers, not as an indicator of salvation. The gift of the Holy Spirit is a seal that marks our salvation (2 Corinthians 1:22, Ephesians 1:13, Ephesians 4:30).
How did Cornelius and his household receive the gift of the Holy Spirit? Peter commanded that they be baptized with water (Acts 10:47-48), just as he had commanded the Jews on Pentecost (Acts 2:38). If the Gentiles were saved in a different manner than the Jews then there are two plans of salvation for people of different heritages. We know this is not true as Peter proclaimed to Cornelius that God is not one to show partiality (Acts 10:34), or as some translations say, God is “no respecter of persons”.
I hope that this study helps those who might be confused about the conversion of Cornelius. For those who believe that he was saved prior to his baptism in water, there are serious questions to be answered:
- Can we be saved without first hearing the gospel? If you contend that Cornelius was saved when the Holy Spirit fell upon him, you must believe that he was saved without hearing of Jesus.
- Were the apostles saved prior to being baptized in the Holy Spirit in Acts 2? If they were, then you must acknowledge that the miraculous gifts that accompanied that baptism served as a sign to unbelievers, not of their salvation. If you say they weren’t saved until Acts 2, then you have Jesus entrusting the keys to the kingdom to the unsaved.
- Are there two plans of salvation? If the Jews in Acts 2 were given a different plan of salvation than the Gentiles of Acts 10, then God truly is a “respecter of persons”, not to mention an author of confusion, which the scriptures plainly state that He is not (1 Corinthians 14:33).
123 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 8, 2008 at 7:14 pm
lee
acts 5:32 says that god gives the holy ghost{ a gift }
only to those who obey him. if you are right,
you would have to conclude if the holy ghost fell on gentiles before salvation
that it would have to be without their even wanting it.
that they had no choice in the matter.
they must be saved later without their even having a choice.
lee
August 8, 2008 at 7:19 pm
coreydavis
Acts 5:32 says that the Holy Spirit is given to those that obey. What had Cornelius obeyed if he hadn’t even heard about Jesus yet?
God has given people things they didn’t want in the past, many times these were not things they desired (such as Miriam’s leprosy), but he often gave them to people who weren’t seeking to be obedient. Look at Solomon, who did want to be obedient – he wanted wisdom, but was given many things he didn’t even ask for.
Just because they were given the baptism of the Holy Spirit doesn’t mean that they had no choice to heed the rest of Peter’s teachings.
August 8, 2008 at 7:29 pm
lee
peter is the one who said it not me
god gives[ gift ] to those who obey.
i didnt write it so you cant discount it.
lee
August 8, 2008 at 7:42 pm
coreydavis
Lee,
I think the difference is that you see this occurrence as the Holy Spirit being permanently given to Cornelius and his household. I don’t see it as that. I see it as a sign to Peter and all of the Jewish Christians. I think the harmony of the scriptures shows us that they would be given the GIFT of the Holy Spirit (as Peter describes in Acts 5:32) when they OBEYED, just like the Jews in Acts 2.
You would have God permanently giving Cornelius the indwelling Holy Spirit before he even heard about Jesus. Does that harmonize with the rest of scripture? Can you show me one other instance where a person was saved (in the NT, after the resurrection) without believing in Christ?
August 8, 2008 at 7:54 pm
lee
corey,
from the time that the gentiles spoke in tongues to the time peter said to baptize them
there is no mention of any further preaching is there? remember they were magniying
god. they must have believed in christ.
no further preaching after receiving the holy ghost.
lee
August 8, 2008 at 8:02 pm
coreydavis
You have to look at Peter recounting it in chapter 11. He said that the Holy Spirit fell on them as he BEGAN to speak. That means that the message you read in Acts 10 wasn’t delivered until AFTER the Spirit fell on them, so yes, there is a mention of further preaching. The entire message we read in Acts 10 was delivered after this occurred. They couldn’t believe in that which they’d never heard. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
August 8, 2008 at 8:14 pm
lee
corey,
you infer that because that is your position. it doesnt say that there was any further
preaching in chapter 11.
however in chap 10 : 34-43 peter has already preached jesus and him crucified to them ending in a key verse 43 that whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sin.
so they had heard before the holy ghost fell. i dont see how it could be more plain.
amen?
August 8, 2008 at 8:21 pm
coreydavis
Lee,
Chapter 10 is one account. Chapter 11 explains what happened more fully. You’re going on the assumption that the preaching in verses 34-43 of chapter 10 occurred PRIOR to the falling of the Holy Spirit. If all we had was the account in chapter ten I would have to agree with you. That isn’t all we have. Chapter 11 makes it as plain as can be that the Holy Spirit fell on them BEFORE that preaching was done. Chapter 10 makes it seem as if Peter preached and the Holy Spirit fell on them after he was finished. Chapter 11 makes it clear that isn’t what happened.
Acts 11: 15“And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning.
Is that what it says in Chapter 10? No. We have to go to chapter 11 to see it. Peter began to speak and the Holy Spirit fell on them. The message you read in chapter 10 was NOT delivered before the Holy Spirit fell on them.
August 8, 2008 at 8:22 pm
coreydavis
Does Acts 11:15 say that the Holy Spirit fell on them “after I finished speaking” or “as I began to speak”?
August 8, 2008 at 8:36 pm
coreydavis
I’m out for the weekend. We can pick up the conversation monday if you’d like.
I appreciate the discussion and I like it when someone challenges me to search the word and examine my own beliefs.
August 8, 2008 at 8:38 pm
lee
now who is being honest?
verses 34-43 came before44.
chap 11 is a recounting of the story.
August 8, 2008 at 10:25 pm
churchesofchrist
I love your site Corey. I plan to start visiting here more often where I can engage in some real bible study.
Have a nice weekend
Randy
August 8, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Jeff
I don’t recall God giving Balaam’s donkey much choice in the matter, either.
And then there are those pesky Samaritans in Acts 8, who believed and were baptized, but did not have the HS fall on them. Instead, Philip (not an apostle) had to send for Peter and John (apostles) to pray and lay hands on them, after which they received the HS.
There’s certainly a rule here and an exception. The rule seems to me to be that in the case of the Samaritans; the exception in the case of Cornelius.
August 11, 2008 at 2:55 am
walkinlove
Just as the Spirit of God could speak through the mouth of a donkey as a sign to Balaam (Numbers 22: 28)
26 Then the angel of the LORD moved on ahead and stood in a narrow place where there was no room to turn, either to the right or to the left. 27 When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD, she lay down under Balaam, and he was angry and beat her with his staff. 28 Then the LORD opened the donkey’s mouth, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?”
29 Balaam answered the donkey, “You have made a fool of me! If I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now.”
30 The donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?”
“No,” he said.
The Lord is now the Spirit of the Lord? Corey is there a complete list of word translations the CoC uses so we can all follow what they really believe? Calling on the name of the Lord means baptism, the Lord now means the Holy Spirit, what else?
The Lord is yeh-ho-vaw or Jehovah = “the existing One”
ko’-desh – Holiness
roo’-akh – Spirit
As in Isiah 63:10 Yet they rebelled
and grieved his Holy Spirit.
So he turned and became their enemy
and he himself fought against them.
That uses Roo’akh, Numbers does not use Roo’akh it is not the Holy Spirit but God who makes the Donkey talk and thus you are off the mark using that as an example!
August 11, 2008 at 2:58 am
walkinlove
I’m in the middle of some heavy duty equipment purchase preperations but in due time I will take this apart for you and counter most of if not all you claim.
Holy Spirit is a seal of their salvation, it is 180 degrees opposite of what Peter claimed in 2:38! And stands against Peter’s claim in my mind!
August 11, 2008 at 1:24 pm
coreydavis
but in due time I will take this apart for you and counter most of if not all you claim.
You are welcome to participate in the discussion here if you have something to add. Bringing the condescending attitude you show on Nathan’s blog here won’t fly though. If you have a point, then make it. If not, you can save your comments about how you plan on coming later to take my comments apart.
August 11, 2008 at 6:06 pm
churchesofChrist
Holy Spirit is a seal of their salvation, it is 180 degrees opposite of what Peter claimed in 2:38! And stands against Peter’s claim in my mind!
- not sure where wlakinginlove is going with this…
August 11, 2008 at 6:07 pm
walkinlove
“If it were to mean every single person then the Spirit would be poured out onto believers and unbelievers alike, regardless of whether or not they ever come to belief in Him. I don’t know of any religious group that believes that. The second option is the only one that makes sense. In view of the scriptures there can only be two “types”, or kinds, of flesh – Jewish and Gentile. This means that the apostles baptism in the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost partially fulfilled Joel’s prophecy. At this point the Holy Spirit had only been poured out onto one type of flesh – Jewish.”
———————————
My reply:
This means just as Cosmos means in John 3:16, the whole world may partake if they accept the Gift that was given, there are no limits to persons or races, but they have to accept the gift and believe, there are no examples of the Holy Spirit falling on anyone who did not believe in Jesus are there? As I stated before, your claim that the Donkey in Numbers was speaking because of the Holy Spirit is incorrect as the Holy Spirit is not spoken of in that verse!
———————————–
Cory said:
“Now we turn to Acts 10, where most of the details of Cornelius’ conversion are recorded. Cornelius was a very good man (verse 2), but he was not saved. He needed to know about Jesus and His life, teachings, death, burial and resurrection. He was told in a vision to send for Peter that he might hear what he needed to know (verses 3 – 6).
Let me pause here for just a moment. Much is made about the fact that Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before water baptism. Since the Holy Spirit is promised only to Christians, many conclude that Cornelius was saved prior to baptism. What about the fact that Cornelius was given a vision from God? Does that make him saved because the Lord spoke to him in a vision? Obviously some special and scripturally unique things are at work in the case of Cornelius. Please keep that in mind.”
———————————–
My reply:
If you make a rule and then have exceptions it changes the rules! Thus the original rule now has been modified! So we have an example of the order of Acts 2:38 being reversed 180 degrees, they received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized thus changing Acts 2:38 poorly worded example!
———————————-
Cory said:
Peter receives his own vision (verses 10 – 15), although he doesn’t understand exactly what it means at the time.
———————————-
My reply:
Why is it that Peter who IS filled with the Spirit is unable to understand the vision? After all does not the Holy Spirit have the ability to give him the answer? Could it be that even the Apostles were left to their own wisdom at times??? And if that is the case should we not attempt to see when they were and were not operating with the anointing that God placed on them?
———————————
Cory said:
When Cornelius’ men come for Peter, the Spirit informs him that they have come by His command, so Peter willingly goes to Cornelius’ home. To get a picture of how much Cornelius understood at this time we can look at verse 25. Cornelius falls down and worships at Peter’s feet. That Peter had to reprimand him for such shows that this good man still needed teaching.
———————————-
My reply:
Apparently since Peter did not understand his vision, nor was his statement in Acts 2:38 correct based on what happens with Cornelius, it seems that Peter was also in need of teaching! As do we all since we see only in part!
———————————-
Cory Said:
It is when Peter begins to preach to them that the miraculous happens – the Holy Spirit falls upon Cornelius and his household and they begin to speak in tongues just like the Apostles on the day of Pentecost (verses 44-46). The reason for this miraculous, and unique, occurrence is two-fold:
•To completely fulfill Joel’s prophecy
•To show the Jews that the Gentiles were to be accepted into the kingdom
Once the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius and his household the Spirit had been poured out onto “all flesh”. There is no other instance of Holy Spirit baptism outside of the apostles and Cornelius’ household.
————————————
My reply:
I believe that you state the obvious since only Christ followers would lead others into a relationship with Jesus Christ! Thus it would have to be the only examples since a non-believer would not lead another to Christ since they would be blind also! To attempt to prove something by this statement is simply incorrect!
koo’-ree-os is the term Cornelius uses it Acts 10:4 when responding and calling the Angel of God by the term Lord! The term is defined in the Greek as follows: Definition:1) he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has
power of deciding; master, lord
1a) the possessor and disposer of a thing
1a1) the owner; one who has control of the person, the master
1a2) in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor
1b) is a title of honor expressive of respect and reverence,
with which servants greet their master
1c) this title is given to: God, the Messiah
from kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, i.e. (as noun)
controller; by implication, Master (as a respectful title):- God,
Lord, master, Sir.
Now why is it that this Angel does not correct him, in Revelations when John bows before the Angel there he is told to get up because the Angel is just another servant of God. To call the Angel master is wrong and should have been corrected but was not! Why???? Rev 22:9 Interestingly in Numbers 22 we also see a man bowing before an Angel of the Lord and is not corrected. Could it be they are somehow different then the other Angel’s? And could it be the messenger was Jesus?
—————————————
Cory said:
One of the great struggles for the first Jewish Christians was to accept the Gentiles as brethren. Centuries of viewing the Gentiles as lesser races were very hard to overcome. Look at our own country and how many still view those of African descent. There are countless passages I could point to that address just how hard it was for those coming out of Judaism. Romans 2 -3, and Galatians 2 are just a few chapters that deal with this subject. Due to the difficulties that would have to be overcome it makes sense that God would use something amazing to show that the Gentiles were to be accepted.
—————————————-
My reply:
And he could have simply told them and they would have believed! A messenger from God would have wowed them plenty. What you need to realize is that Acts 2:38 is blown out of the water, pun intended, with this occurrence of the Holy Spirit falling. In 2:38 you must first be baptized then the Holy Spirit will be given. In this case it happens opposite yet because you and others have to support their Idol of water baptism as the key to salvation you can not or will not acknowledge that this is opposite of what Peter said should happen! I remind you again that Peter and the others are in council over circumcision after this event has taken place and I am sure someone had to have asked how could it be that they have the Holy Spirit and are not baptized?
Finally one should note that Peter shows that they already know about Jesus in Acts 10:36 “You know the message he sent to the people of Israel… through Jesus Christ. They already knew about Jesus! And if you use the KJV you have to consult verse 37 to see they already know!
Now one other minor but interesting point there is this. Peter says in Acts 10:47″Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” Now they have the Holy Spirit and are not baptized yet Peter said in Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Be baptized and you will receive the Holy Spirit, not receive the Holy Spirit and you will be baptized! He is proved wrong with this event, why because he was not speaking totally under the authority of the Holy Spirit and it is why later on they are in council over the smaller matter of circumcision! Yes he still baptized them because that is all he knew to do, it was what was done when Jesus was alive so he did it. Paul’s focus was off baptism totally, he can’t even remember how many he baptized. How is it that Paul leaves people hanging when they could still go to hell because they had not been baptized? How can Paul stand before God and give an account of how he let people go to hell because he was unwilling to get wet? Open your eyes man!
————————————–
Cory said:
Peter recounts the conversion of Cornelius to his Jewish brethren in Acts 11, where we’re told something very important:
15“And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning.
————————————–
My reply:
A small note there, there is no recorded event of the disciples being baptized themselves! They were with Jesus and he washed their feet claiming they were only partly dirty, that is as close as I can come to them being baptized themselves. So could this statement actually mean they received the Holy Spirit like them without baptism? And yes we all assume that since Jesus was baptized and they also baptized with water that they had to have been baptized also but there is no recorded record of it that I find! So at worst case they have the GIFT of the Holy Spirit already before water baptism. Frankly had Paul been there instead of Peter I have to believe they would not have even talked about baptism!
—————————————
Cory said:
The message that we see preached in Acts 10 was only about to begin when the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius. They didn’t hear about Jesus until after the Holy Spirit fell upon them. Is this how we’re saved today? Before hearing, believing, repenting, confessing or being baptized in water?
—————————————
My reply:
Acts 10:36You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all.
Acts 10:37(KJV) And the word [I say] ye know….
Acts 10:44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.
Peter lets us know that they already know about Jesus in 10:36/37, how did you miss this?????? I assume you use a KJV that makes it harder to see this!
—————————————–
Cory said:
Even though I completely reject the false doctrine of “faith-only” salvation, you can’t even claim that they were saved by their faith alone in Christ as they hadn’t heard about Him before the Spirit fell on them! Did the Holy Spirit fall upon you and give you the ability to speak in a language you’ve never studied before you even heard the gospel of Christ proclaimed? Friends, if this did not happen to you (and I know it didn’t), then that means this was a unique situation that doesn’t apply to you today.
—————————————–
My reply:
They were saved, Cornelius already knows about Jesus as do the rest of them, they do have a relationship already with God because Cornelius is seen praying to God and God sends a special messenger to him who he calls that messenger Lord and is not corrected so I have to conclude that the messenger is Jesus! The interchanges with God through prayer and speaking with the messenger, they never talk about sending them someone to save them, they are already saved because they have faith! Thus God gives them the seal of that relationship by allowing them to have the Holy Spirit. There was no water involved in this salvation process, it is only Peter at the end that forces water to save face! And the by product of this also shuts up the Jewish believers yes!
——————————————
Cory said:
Let me slightly shift gears at this point and ask you a question that I think is important – when were the apostles of Jesus saved?
——————————————
My reply:
When they had faith in him even before he died! John 15:4 Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.
How can they already be in him if they are not already saved?
——————————————
Cory said:
Certainly you won’t contend that the men who walked daily by the savior’s side and were personally chosen by Him to carry His message weren’t saved until they were baptized with the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.
——————————————
My reply:
That is what some CoC believe I am sure since I have heard it taught that way!
——————————————
Cory said:
The baptism of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles served as a sign that their message was from God – it was not a seal of salvation.
——————————————
My reply:
Eph 1:13 And when you heard the word of truth (the gospel of your salvation) – when you believed in Christ – you were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit,
——————————————-
Cory said:
The baptism of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius and his household served as a sign that the Gentiles were to be accepted – not as a seal of their salvation. Just as the Spirit of God could speak through the mouth of a donkey as a sign to Balaam (Numbers 22: 28), the Spirit of God could give unsaved Gentiles the gift of tongues. Look at Acts 11:
——————————————–
My reply:
Where does it say that Cory? Numbers 22 does not reference the Holy Spirit at all, who has taught you this? It does reference God and another appearance of a special messenger! But not the Holy Spirit! So Cory did you decide this was true yourself or did another teach you this? If another who was it? And when will you ask them about this false teaching??
———————————————
Cory said:
17“Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?”
18When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.”
The baptism of the Holy Spirit was a sign that quieted the Jews grumblings against Peter for going to the Gentiles. They saw clearly that their new brethren were not those of the same physical bloodlines, but those bought with the blood of Christ.
There is a difference between the baptism of the Holy Spirit (which is only recorded as occurring with the apostles and the house of Cornelius) and the gift of the Holy Spirit which is promised to all obedient believers (Acts 2:38). The baptism of the Holy Spirit only served as a sign to unbelievers, not as an indicator of salvation. The gift of the Holy Spirit is a seal that marks our salvation (2 Corinthians 1:22, Ephesians 1:13, Ephesians 4:30).
————————————–
My reply:
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
10:47″Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”
He does not say anything about the baptism of the Holy Spirit or the Gift but only that they have the same Holy Spirit that Peter and the others have!
Or are you saying that Peter is not saved since it does not say they received the gift?? (Rolls Eyes) Acts 2:4All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.
Acts 10:45And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
Gift is used in the KJV also!
The above passage happens before the question of Acts 10:46 and the baptism by water in Acts 10:48!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
———————————–
Cory said:
How did Cornelius and his household receive the gift of the Holy Spirit?
———————————–
My reply:
God gave it to them in Acts 10:44 that comes before Acts 10:48!
———————————–
Cory said:
Peter commanded that they be baptized with water (Acts 10:47-48), just as he had commanded the Jews on Pentecost (Acts 2:38).
————————————
My reply:
Except one small difference, the baptism in water happens after the Gift of the Spirit! Acts 10:45 clearly shows the gift has been given, Acts 10:48 is where they were baptized in water! This happens after Peter states they have the Gift!
I have to ask how long are you going to hold on to this even though the truth is staring you right in the face in Acts 10:45 vs Acts 10:48
————————————-
Cory said:
If the Gentiles were saved in a different manner than the Jews then there are two plans of salvation for people of different heritages. We know this is not true as Peter proclaimed to Cornelius that God is not one to show partiality (Acts 10:34), or as some translations say, God is “no respecter of persons”.
————————————–
My reply:
And it would seem no respecter of Peter’s command in Acts 2:38 LOL!
————————————–
Cory said:
I hope that this study helps those who might be confused about the conversion of Cornelius. For those who believe that he was saved prior to his baptism in water, there are serious questions to be answered:
• Can we be saved without first hearing the gospel? If you contend that Cornelius was saved when the Holy Spirit fell upon him, you must believe that he was saved without hearing of Jesus.
—————————————-
My reply:
Acts 10:37 “that word you know, which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached
They already knew about Jesus, even in the KJV it clearly says that in verse 37! Thus it appears that you are incorrect in part of your study Cory!
—————————————–
Cory said:
• Were the apostles saved prior to being baptized in the Holy Spirit in Acts 2? If they were, then you must acknowledge that the miraculous gifts that accompanied that baptism served as a sign to unbelievers, not of their salvation. If you say they weren’t saved until Acts 2, then you have Jesus entrusting the keys to the kingdom to the unsaved.
——————————————
My reply:
No you only give those choices, but in reality the seal of the Holy Spirit did not come in to that moment, their salvation came when they had faith in him, thus was before his death while they were with him and acknowledged him as the Son of God! Otherwise they were not already in remaining in Jesus as spoken in John where he tells them to remain in me!
——————————————-
Cory said:
• Are there two plans of salvation? If the Jews in Acts 2 were given a different plan of salvation than the Gentiles of Acts 10, then God truly is a “respecter of persons”, not to mention an author of confusion, which the scriptures plainly state that He is not (1 Corinthians 14:33).
——————————————–
My reply:
Once again we have to consider if Peter was speaking for himself or by the power of the Spirit when he makes the statement in Acts 2:38, it would appear that his time line of what should happen does not happen in Acts 10, also there are some who are baptized by water who do not have the Holy Spirit until later but are not re-baptized if memory serves! Acts 8:16For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Plan of salvation of Jesus, the thief asks him to remember and he does, the disciples remain in him and he remains in them, Peter tells people to be baptized and they do, James teaches about faith without works does not save and it doesn’t. The common theme is faith, the rest are secondary to that faith in Jesus as the only way to salvation. It’s only when you start constructing things so that only water can get you saved that you start running into problems of having to rewrite things and change the meanings of words to make things fit.
Romans 3:30 Since God is one, he will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.
Faith in Jesus Christ as the payment for the sins of the world and faith that he is who he says he is, the Son of God, the Christ. The above examples all have that same common thread, they all believe in Jesus!
And because of that faith we follow his commands, Love God with all your heart, Lover others as yourself!
Cory if I come off condescending I am sorry, I seek the truth as you do. Faith based salvation isn’t as false as you think, at least it does not appear that way!
August 11, 2008 at 7:22 pm
coreydavis
This means just as Cosmos means in John 3:16, the whole world may partake if they accept the Gift that was given, there are no limits to persons or races, but they have to accept the gift and believe, there are no examples of the Holy Spirit falling on anyone who did not believe in Jesus are there? As I stated before, your claim that the Donkey in Numbers was speaking because of the Holy Spirit is incorrect as the Holy Spirit is not spoken of in that verse!
So you contend that the Holy Spirit is falling like this on people today? Show me any other example of such outside of the apostles and Cornelius’ household. Perhaps you should look at Jeff’s post to see the problem with that. And yes, the Holy Spirit fell on people who didn’t yet believe in Christ – Cornelius & his household.
As to the Holy Spirit speaking through Balaam’s donkey, you are correct. It is simply stated as the Lord speaking through it, not the Holy Spirit. I don’t know exactly what that changes, but you are correct.
If you make a rule and then have exceptions it changes the rules! Thus the original rule now has been modified! So we have an example of the order of Acts 2:38 being reversed 180 degrees, they received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized thus changing Acts 2:38 poorly worded example!
This is the basis of most of what you wrote – that Peter was basically speaking on his own, and not inspired of God, on Pentecost. When do you contend that the apostles of Christ were inspired? Ever? Only when it suits your beliefs? The apostles, specifically Peter, still did things that were wrong in their personal lives, but we have NO EXAMPLE of them TEACHING incorrectly or falsely. Will you say that the message on Pentecost was uninspired?
Why is it that Peter who IS filled with the Spirit is unable to understand the vision? After all does not the Holy Spirit have the ability to give him the answer? Could it be that even the Apostles were left to their own wisdom at times???
See above.
Now why is it that this Angel does not correct him, in Revelations when John bows before the Angel there he is told to get up because the Angel is just another servant of God. To call the Angel master is wrong and should have been corrected but was not! Why???? Rev 22:9 Interestingly in Numbers 22 we also see a man bowing before an Angel of the Lord and is not corrected. Could it be they are somehow different then the other Angel’s? And could it be the messenger was Jesus?
Yes, that may be possible, although I don’t know what that has to do with this discussion. If it were Jesus, they didn’t seem to know it, and we’re not told definitively that it was.
And he could have simply told them and they would have believed! A messenger from God would have wowed them plenty. What you need to realize is that Acts 2:38 is blown out of the water, pun intended, with this occurrence of the Holy Spirit falling. In 2:38 you must first be baptized then the Holy Spirit will be given. In this case it happens opposite yet because you and others have to support their Idol of water baptism as the key to salvation you can not or will not acknowledge that this is opposite of what Peter said should happen! I remind you again that Peter and the others are in council over circumcision after this event has taken place and I am sure someone had to have asked how could it be that they have the Holy Spirit and are not baptized?
Finally one should note that Peter shows that they already know about Jesus in Acts 10:36 “You know the message he sent to the people of Israel… through Jesus Christ. They already knew about Jesus! And if you use the KJV you have to consult verse 37 to see they already know!
Now one other minor but interesting point there is this. Peter says in Acts 10:47″Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” Now they have the Holy Spirit and are not baptized yet Peter said in Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Be baptized and you will receive the Holy Spirit, not receive the Holy Spirit and you will be baptized! He is proved wrong with this event, why because he was not speaking totally under the authority of the Holy Spirit and it is why later on they are in council over the smaller matter of circumcision! Yes he still baptized them because that is all he knew to do, it was what was done when Jesus was alive so he did it. Paul’s focus was off baptism totally, he can’t even remember how many he baptized. How is it that Paul leaves people hanging when they could still go to hell because they had not been baptized? How can Paul stand before God and give an account of how he let people go to hell because he was unwilling to get wet? Open your eyes man!
Not everyone believed the apostles just because they said something. Paul had to defend his apostleship to those that had already accepted many/most of his teachings.
Again, like Lee, you refuse to take in the extra information chapter 11 gives us – that the Holy Spirit fell BEFORE he taught them about Jesus. If you only read one gospel account you’d think there was only one man at the empty tomb. If you read another you’ll see there were two. When you balance them all you’ll see they were two angels, not just men. I tend to look for the harmony of the scriptures, not just looking at what I want to support what I already believe.
Your comments about Paul having his focus “off baptism totally” are completely false. This is the same inspired writer who tells us TWICE that we are baptized INTO Christ. Paul didn’t always perform the immersions himself because people identified with the one who immersed them, taking the focus off the one they were being baptized into. Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize (and they did more baptisms than John), yet He baptized no one. Why? Paul makes that clear – because they would have bragged about WHO baptized them and lose the meaning of their baptism.
A small note there, there is no recorded event of the disciples being baptized themselves! They were with Jesus and he washed their feet claiming they were only partly dirty, that is as close as I can come to them being baptized themselves. So could this statement actually mean they received the Holy Spirit like them without baptism? And yes we all assume that since Jesus was baptized and they also baptized with water that they had to have been baptized also but there is no recorded record of it that I find! So at worst case they have the GIFT of the Holy Spirit already before water baptism. Frankly had Paul been there instead of Peter I have to believe they would not have even talked about baptism!
See above. Again, to say that Paul’s presence would have kept baptism from being preached on Pentecost is totally false. He submitted to it himself and teaches it in his epistles. You might even read in Acts 19 where Paul had people RE-BAPTIZED! So much for not caring about baptism any longer. You’re still saying that Peter’s message in Acts 2 was uninspired. Please tell me when you think he was inspired.
Acts 10:36You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all.
Acts 10:37(KJV) And the word [I say] ye know….
Acts 10:44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.
Peter lets us know that they already know about Jesus in 10:36/37, how did you miss this?????? I assume you use a KJV that makes it harder to see this!
You assume too much. I’ll ask you again to actually look at the recounting of this occurrence in chapter 11
They were saved, Cornelius already knows about Jesus as do the rest of them, they do have a relationship already with God because Cornelius is seen praying to God and God sends a special messenger to him who he calls that messenger Lord and is not corrected so I have to conclude that the messenger is Jesus! The interchanges with God through prayer and speaking with the messenger, they never talk about sending them someone to save them, they are already saved because they have faith! Thus God gives them the seal of that relationship by allowing them to have the Holy Spirit. There was no water involved in this salvation process, it is only Peter at the end that forces water to save face! And the by product of this also shuts up the Jewish believers yes!
Lucky you, you know more than the apostle of Christ! Baptism in water was only to save face? What is the word for that? Blasphemy, I think. They were told that Peter would tell them the words by which they might be saved. You have them saved already. Who is right, you, or the messenger of God?
Eph 1:13 And when you heard the word of truth (the gospel of your salvation) – when you believed in Christ – you were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit,
Exactly, you must believe. Cornelius couldn’t believe because chapter 11 makes it clear they hadn’t been taught anything to believe. Also, please show me where someone is said to have had faith, but didn’t back it up with action and was considered pleasing to God.
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
10:47″Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”
He does not say anything about the baptism of the Holy Spirit or the Gift but only that they have the same Holy Spirit that Peter and the others have!
Or are you saying that Peter is not saved since it does not say they received the gift?? (Rolls Eyes) Acts 2:4All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.
Acts 10:45And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
Gift is used in the KJV also!
The above passage happens before the question of Acts 10:46 and the baptism by water in Acts 10:48!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, they received it in the manner the SAVED apostles did on Pentecost, which wasn’t a mark of their salvation but a sign. Have I mentioned yet that you should read chapter 11? Almost all of your comments would be true if it weren’t for the extra information we’re given there.
Acts 10:37 “that word you know, which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached
They already knew about Jesus, even in the KJV it clearly says that in verse 37! Thus it appears that you are incorrect in part of your study Cory!
Preached to whom? To the JEWS! That is pretty much the whole point of Cornelius’ conversion. The gospel was to be taken to the Jews first, since they would have a knowledge of the Messiah.
Once again we have to consider if Peter was speaking for himself or by the power of the Spirit when he makes the statement in Acts 2:38, it would appear that his time line of what should happen does not happen in Acts 10, also there are some who are baptized by water who do not have the Holy Spirit until later but are not re-baptized if memory serves! Acts 8:16For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
I guess you need to decide that for yourself. I have no reason to believe that Peter was uninspired – you do. If you acknowledge that Peter was inspired on Pentecost you’d have to obey the words of the Lord he taught that day, and it seems clear you don’t want to do that. I guess Peter was only inspired if his teachings fall in line with your beliefs.
As Jeff pointed out, after Cornelius, no one had the Holy Spirit fall on them in this manner. You can‘t find a single example of such. After that occasion the only way people received the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit was to have the apostles lay their hands on them.
Much of what you wrote was repetitive, so I’ve only addressed those things once. I’ve tried to cover everything that was worth addressing.
August 11, 2008 at 7:29 pm
churchesofChrist
I must say Im impressed with walkinginlove….you remind me of somebodywho use to preach in the church of Christ
August 11, 2008 at 8:00 pm
churchesofChrist
Note, I didn’t say I agree with “walkinginlove” but was impressed. I agree with Corey’s POV. I have a feeling walkinginlove will have a come back. Good dialogue ! Anyone reading my comments on Nathans blog http://answeringchurchofchrist.wordpress.com/ don’t be confused – I am just making their arguments for them…and oddly no rebuttal from “faithful.”
Good work guys !!
August 11, 2008 at 8:36 pm
walkinlove
As for the Holy Spirit falling on someone like happened in Acts, first the Bible does not exist so the ability to give the word to others can be done through the translations and since I see speaking in other languages as a tool to reach the unsaved it would not be needed, however if in a remote location that was limited to the word I could see God doing so if he needed to do so. Who am I to stand in the way of God I believe is our proper response!
I believe that Peter’s message was inspired that lead to them asking the question, I do question based on observations of the later events that run counter to Acts 2:38 that the question they asked may have caught him off guard and the temptation to be a lose cannon may have brought his response. That same lose cannon that allowed him to walk on water and to also be called Satan by Jesus himself. His personality has to be a factor taken into consideration. That is one of the reasons I trust Paul’s focus more because he was a letter of the law personality and he is focused on faith statements and not works, he had tried the works road and it had lead him into conflict with the one he was seeking to serve, God! By his personality he should have been dunking people left and right but he wasn’t! Why? I know he was not called to do so, but why was he not called to lead others to salvation instead of leading them 4/5s the way? It would be like me throwing you a life ring but not pulling you to safety. Hey grab this and then I let you go over the falls with the ring in hand only to perish except for a few that he baptized.
Acts 11:17So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?”
The word Gift is used, secondly, he gave a detailed order of occurrence in Acts 10, Cory are you saying he was wrong about the order and if so isn’t he then misrepresenting the order and thus not guided by the Holy Spirit? Otherwise it is documented that he had told them that they ALREADY knew about Jesus and they received the Gift before the baptism was done, it is clearly written out in Acts 10. Acts 11 is in less details as to the steps and is somewhat a summation of the events in 10. In Acts 10 he uses the word Gift before the water Baptism takes in a later verse! It is clear in the order it happens, those details are left out of Chapter 11!
Cory said:
“Preached to whom? To the JEWS! That is pretty much the whole point of Cornelius’ conversion. The gospel was to be taken to the Jews first, since they would have a knowledge of the Messiah.”
Cory, Peter was talking to Cornelius and his friends, when he said “as you know” because they knew about Jesus. Cornelius has a talk with Jesus who appeared as an Angel of the Lord, who was called Lord and did not correct him for the statement. He has a relationship with God already, what is missing is the Holy Spirit, that is what Peter allowed to come about. They know already who Jesus is. Or Peter’s statement in verse 37 is false. It may have been preached to the Jews, that is not the issue here, what the issue is, did they know about Jesus and based on Peter’s statement they did!
Since Moses law taught many things, why don’t you still obey them? Because those were changed with Jesus coming. Acts 2:38 was changed with Acts 10! So why follow something that changed later and how do you make it the cornerstone of your belief system that allows you to judge peoples salvation when there are clear examples of it being incorrect in the order later in the same Chapter and in the case of Acts 8, missing altogether? If the Apostles are the only ones who can give the gift of the Holy Spirit then we are all lost! God gives the gifts, he gave his son, he gave the helper!
You need to go read Chapter 11 again! Now I ask you again, is this knowledge you came to yourself or did someone else teach you these things? If so who?
I’m sorry but you are allowing your bias on Acts 2:38 to cloud your vision!
August 12, 2008 at 2:36 am
walkinlove
I used poor wording in the first part of this, I meant that the Bible did not exist in their time and thus the needs of the body of Christ are different then they are today because we have the written word to go by. And that if the tool of speaking in other languages were needed in a remote area God could certainly give that tool or gift again if needed.
August 12, 2008 at 3:09 am
walkinlove
“churchesofChrist on August 11, 2008 said:
I must say Im impressed with walkinginlove….you remind me of somebodywho use to preach in the church of Christ”
I’m honored that you would say that, while I disagree with the conclusions that the CoC have come to, I do respect their study of the word!”
I am trying to understand what keeps things like the clear sequence of Acts 10 and how it is in conflict from being seen by CoC followers, what drives this simple thing from not being able to be seen. Hiding behind the cloak of a sign does not diminish that it did happen differently and attempting to use Acts 11 makes the argument even weaker since the step by step details are missing in that Chapter and are glossed over.
The Bible says to work out your own understanding, at what point does a CoC follower stop working our their own salvation and start submitting to another’s view of that salvation?
Everything I have written here comes from a study of the word I did and from reading that i have done over the past month or two, it was not drilled into me by another believer or a teacher of the word. When I was confronted by CoC members who spoke their key points of the Bible, I disagreed with their statements and countered them with limited knowledge I had at the time, but I also took the warning as a sign that I needed to study in detail to see what was driving their willingness to sit on God’s seat and judge another follower of Christ as a non-believer and not a brother. I have met people who I disagree with before but I have never considered their different views to cause me to question their seeking of the truth.
It is a dangerous thing to sit on God’s seat and judge, God gives clear warnings against it, yet it seems to be easily practiced with the CoC against any other body who believes Jesus is who he said he was. The warnings against judgment against another are all over the Bible, but yet it is still done. Why? Do you have no fear that what you sow you will reap?
August 12, 2008 at 11:39 am
churchesofChrist
From walkinginlove: Everything I have written here comes from a study of the word I did and from reading that i have done over the past month or two, it was not drilled into me by another believer or a teacher of the word. When I was confronted by CoC members who spoke their key points of the Bible, I disagreed with their statements and countered them with limited knowledge I had at the time, but I also took the warning as a sign that I needed to study in detail to see what was driving their willingness to sit on God’s seat and judge another follower of Christ as a non-believer and not a brother. I have met people who I disagree with before but I have never considered their different views to cause me to question their seeking of the truth.
- walkinginlove, what about Mormans, JW’’s? Can we say honestly that they are heaven bound?
August 12, 2008 at 12:53 pm
walkinlove
If you refuse to believe that Jesus is God in the flesh then you can not come to the father through him, and nobody can come to the father except through him the scripture is clear on this. But there is a big difference in someone who’s focus is on another part of scripture and someone who decides to totally rewrites scripture.
For instance I look at the scripture where the thief asks to be remembered, and I, knowing that his legs were broken because he was still alive and that process had to be extremely painful, that this was done and at the same time Christ has died because his legs were not broken and they used a spear to make sure he was not just in a state of fainting, that I consider him to have died under the new covenant, it is clear to me this has to be!
Jesus is dead, the thief is subjected to extreme pain and I am to conclude that even though blood offerings were done for sin and Jesus is that blood offering and he himself states “it is finished” that the thief died under the old covenant? This is CoC teaching according to the CoC I have seen on TV.
Or that Jesus because he could forgive sin, used that to cover the thief, yet the thief died after Jesus and subject to having his legs broken and I having experienced an occasional thumb smacking by a hammer know there is a real temptation to utter less then rosy comments during that time, I have to conclude the thief would have sinned because of the pain those soldiers inflicted on him after Jesus death and thus he actually has new sin that Jesus could not forgive because he is dead.
So here I am with a thief not under the new covenant according to CoC teachings and dieing under the old without a sin offering to cover his new sin that Jesus could not forgive because he is dead, I have to believe Jesus was not lying to the thief because his uncovered sin has to be covered somehow. It can not be covered under the old covenant, it can’t be covered under the power Jesus had on the earth to forgive sins, it has to come from the Mercy X factor that Jesus talked about when he was alive. Without that X factor that can allow the thief to be covered under Jesus death Jesus has lied to the thief!
Jesus dies and the new covenant comes about at that moment of that death, the debt is paid, the thief is covered under the debt. it is finished means it is finished, period, the master has spoken!
So I stand in conflict with CoC teachings and believe that I have used wisdom and am correct on the matter, yet I am told I have been fooled or mistaken or that I am a false teacher of sorts?!
You say only water can get you to heaven, I say who are we to stand in the way of God? Especially when they all were taken aback by the happenings in Acts 10, and because it is reversed in sequence as what Peter declared, you can not judge a mans salvation on that passage, it stands in the way of God! Can you be saved by following Acts 2:38, yes if you have faith that Jesus is who he claimed to be. Could a man hanging on a cross call on the name of the Lord verbally, I believe he could as was done at the time of Jesus’ death! As you say God is not a respecter of persons!
August 12, 2008 at 1:16 pm
coreydavis
I believe that Peter’s message was inspired that lead to them asking the question, I do question based on observations of the later events that run counter to Acts 2:38 that the question they asked may have caught him off guard and the temptation to be a lose cannon may have brought his response. That same lose cannon that allowed him to walk on water and to also be called Satan by Jesus himself. His personality has to be a factor taken into consideration. That is one of the reasons I trust Paul’s focus more because he was a letter of the law personality and he is focused on faith statements and not works, he had tried the works road and it had lead him into conflict with the one he was seeking to serve, God! By his personality he should have been dunking people left and right but he wasn’t! Why? I know he was not called to do so, but why was he not called to lead others to salvation instead of leading them 4/5s the way? It would be like me throwing you a life ring but not pulling you to safety. Hey grab this and then I let you go over the falls with the ring in hand only to perish except for a few that he baptized.
Here is what you’re saying – you accept Peter’s inspiration until he commands baptism for the remission of sins. Why would you say that? Is it because it doesn’t fit with your views? What you need to understand is that the events of Acts 10 didn’t happen a couple of days after Acts 2. Peter had plenty of time to “wise up” if he was mistaken on Pentecost, yet there he is in Acts 10, still insisting upon baptism. Even more telling is that Peter still taught on the essential nature of baptism in 1 Peter 3:21 near the end of his life.
As to Paul, I’ve already explained why he would personally do few immersions. If you don’t like that explanation, I don’t know what else to say to convince you.
The word Gift is used, secondly, he gave a detailed order of occurrence in Acts 10, Cory are you saying he was wrong about the order and if so isn’t he then misrepresenting the order and thus not guided by the Holy Spirit? Otherwise it is documented that he had told them that they ALREADY knew about Jesus and they received the Gift before the baptism was done, it is clearly written out in Acts 10. Acts 11 is in less details as to the steps and is somewhat a summation of the events in 10. In Acts 10 he uses the word Gift before the water Baptism takes in a later verse! It is clear in the order it happens, those details are left out of Chapter 11!
No one is disputing that there is more information in chapter 10 than 11. That doesn’t mean that there is no valuable info in chapter 11. In fact, knowing that the Holy Spirit fell on them as Peter BEGAN to preach is very valuable.
Since Moses law taught many things, why don’t you still obey them? Because those were changed with Jesus coming. Acts 2:38 was changed with Acts 10! So why follow something that changed later and how do you make it the cornerstone of your belief system that allows you to judge peoples salvation when there are clear examples of it being incorrect in the order later in the same Chapter and in the case of Acts 8, missing altogether? If the Apostles are the only ones who can give the gift of the Holy Spirit then we are all lost! God gives the gifts, he gave his son, he gave the helper!
You would have the gospel message changing as the apostles teach. That is not how the law of Moses worked. It was given and held true until Jesus fulfilled it. Why would Jesus not give them all the knowledge they needed from the beginning? Why would He allow them to begin preaching an incomplete gospel? Is the Lord not capable of giving them all they need to know? I am not judging the salvation of others in that I condemn as only the Lord can, I judge in that I discern, based upon the word of God. Only God will condemn or reward.
To clarify, the Apostles were the only ones who could impart the MIRACULOUS gifts of the Holy Spirit (by the laying on of hands). The non-miraculous gift is still available to all believers and occurs when we have heard, believed, repented, confessed and have been baptized for the remission of sins. To go back to your first point, we now have the complete New Testament writings, furnishing us with all we need for doctrine, etc., so there is no need of miraculous gifts. Those who the apostles laid their hands upon could not give the gifts to others (as Jeff pointed out), so that means that after the last apostle died there was no one to impart these miraculous gifts.
You need to go read Chapter 11 again! Now I ask you again, is this knowledge you came to yourself or did someone else teach you these things? If so who?
This is the attitude you often show that I can’t stand. Let me make this clear for you – I was raised to believe in “faith only” and most of the standard denominational teachings. When confronted with the truth I tried to rail against it. I wanted the Bible to say what I already believed – not what it truly says. I came to my beliefs based upon my own study of the word. Knowing that what I once held as true wasn’t I committed myself to accept the truth whether or not it falls in line with what is commonly taught in the churches of Christ today. Because of this I don’t always agree with my brethren on some issues and have been labeled a “liberal” in some cases and a “Pharisee” in others. That is fine with me. I will try to accept only what I find to be true in the word of God and I will let Him judge me on what I find there.
It is a dangerous thing to sit on God’s seat and judge, God gives clear warnings against it, yet it seems to be easily practiced with the CoC against any other body who believes Jesus is who he said he was. The warnings against judgment against another are all over the Bible, but yet it is still done. Why? Do you have no fear that what you sow you will reap?
And what of you? You have repeatedly belittled the teachings I believe in. Do you have no fear? Do you think that because you might say that those in the churches of Christ are saved that you’re given license to then attack them and belittle them? What difference is there between “I don’t believe you are my brother” and “you are my brother, but you are wrong, wrong, wrong (and a little stupid)”?
August 12, 2008 at 2:26 pm
walkinlove
“Here is what you’re saying – you accept Peter’s inspiration until he commands baptism for the remission of sins. Why would you say that? Is it because it doesn’t fit with your views? What you need to understand is that the events of Acts 10 didn’t happen a couple of days after Acts 2. Peter had plenty of time to “wise up” if he was mistaken on Pentecost, yet there he is in Acts 10, still insisting upon baptism. Even more telling is that Peter still taught on the essential nature of baptism in 1 Peter 3:21 near the end of his life.”
Because of what I have said before, Acts 10 is different in order to Acts 2, had Peter said “most of the time”, all except one time anything but what he said then I would be much more inclined to give it larger weight, he did not wise up yet he was given a lesson as were the other Jewish believers who thought that Jesus was only for them. They had to have been in jaw dropping mode at the time Acts 10 takes place! The difference comes from the fact that your study of the word has Acts 2:38 as the only way to reach the blood and my study has shown me that the thief does not meet Acts 2:38 and that Acts 10 also does not meet Acts 2:38 and that the original believers themselves do not meet Acts 2:38! Where is it that they were Baptized for the Remission of sins in the name of Jesus?
You say 2:38 is the only way, I say that the Bible says there are more ways, Acts 10, Thief on the cross, Peter and the followers at Pentecost themselves all are saved but none of them appear to match the Acts 2:38 model. Peter and the original believers are not re-baptized in the name of Jesus after the Gift of the Holy Spirit is given Why? They would have to be done so to conform to the Acts 2:38 model would they not?
Corey said “Why would He allow them to begin preaching an incomplete gospel? Is the Lord not capable of giving them all they need to know?”
Yes he is capable to give all wisdom but he also wants us to have faith!
Gen 22:1 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!”
“Here I am,” he replied.
2 Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about.”
He did not know his son would be spared nor what mountain he was going to!
Gen 12:1 The LORD had said to Abram, “Leave your country, your people and your father’s household and go to the land I will show you.
2 “I will make you into a great nation
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.
3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you.”
4 So Abram left, as the LORD had told him; and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he set out from Haran. 5 He took his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, all the possessions they had accumulated and the people they had acquired in Haran, and they set out for the land of Canaan, and they arrived there.
6 Abram traveled through the land as far as the site of the great tree of Moreh at Shechem. At that time the Canaanites were in the land. 7 The LORD appeared to Abram and said, “To your offspring [a] I will give this land.” So he built an altar there to the LORD, who had appeared to him.
8 From there he went on toward the hills east of Bethel and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east. There he built an altar to the LORD and called on the name of the LORD. 9 Then Abram set out and continued toward the Negev.
You see God can give all the answers but sometimes he makes us walk by faith in him alone! Otherwise Acts 10 would not have been met with such surprise! God can and will do things different then we think he will, we are no different then Peter! Also note that they had a meeting over circumcision, they must have talked about something and maybe disagreed over some issues before it was over, otherwise there would be no need for them to talk about it before giving a response! Thus they worked out the answer at that moment and were not given the answer before it had occurred. We see them as super Christian supermen always walking in the spirit and that is not true, Paul and Barnabas have an argument that is purely personality driven, Paul can’t remember who be baptized etc. They were on their own part of the time!
So I do not stand against water baptism, but I do stand against those who would use Acts 2:38 to judge other believers as unsaved when only Jesus knows if we are in relationship with him, I only note that those who say it is the only way appear to be wrong in their conclusions based on what I have read.
August 12, 2008 at 2:31 pm
walkinlove
And I come here Corey because you are a well thought articulate man who believes differently then I do on some scripture, I enjoy your posts, even the ones I do not totally agree with. I hope that I am no longer considered to be condescending in my posts! I’m sure your reaction based on what you see in the scriptures is “how can he say that” as is mine and it is easy to post in that mind set and appear condescending. But it is not my intention.
August 12, 2008 at 4:24 pm
coreydavis
The difference comes from the fact that your study of the word has Acts 2:38 as the only way to reach the blood and my study has shown me that the thief does not meet Acts 2:38 and that Acts 10 also does not meet Acts 2:38 and that the original believers themselves do not meet Acts 2:38! Where is it that they were Baptized for the Remission of sins in the name of Jesus?
Let’s start with the thief. 1 Corinthians 15: 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.
The resurrection is one of the keys of the gospel message. Paul says that without it his preaching is worthless and so is the faith of those who believe it. The thief couldn’t believe in the resurrection because it hadn’t happened yet. That means he was NOT under the new covenant. How can I make this clearer? Christians must accept the resurrection. If you want to be saved like the thief you need to make a time machine, go back to Calvary, climb up on a cross next to Jesus and be personally pardoned by Him.
You mention the original disciples who walked with Jesus. Jesus had them baptize more people than John the Baptist. What was this baptism? Would Jesus instruct it, yet not have them submit to it when He HIMSELF submitted to it? Was it exactly the same as the baptism under the Christian covenant? It may have been somewhat different (like John’s baptism), but I ask you, what about the Jews who died before Christ? What happened to them? Was not their keeping of the law made good by Jesus’ sacrifice? Does it not make sense that the baptisms performed by John and the disciples were made good by that same sacrifice.
What I see is that you’re focusing on the exceptions rather than the rule. It seems like you’re looking for some loopholes to disregard the clear NT teachings on baptism. I do not advocate disregarding these things, but we can see that some situations were very unique (like the thief and Cornelius). To try and apply these today is a stretch of scripture I’m not willing to make.
He did not know his son would be spared nor what mountain he was going to!
But he still did what he was told. He also told his servants that he “and the boy” would return. How did he know that when he was prepared to kill him? Because he had faith in God’s promise to bless the whole world through Isaac. One way or the other, he knew that Isaac must live to fulfill the promise.
You see God can give all the answers but sometimes he makes us walk by faith in him alone! Otherwise Acts 10 would not have been met with such surprise! God can and will do things different then we think he will, we are no different then Peter! Also note that they had a meeting over circumcision, they must have talked about something and maybe disagreed over some issues before it was over, otherwise there would be no need for them to talk about it before giving a response! Thus they worked out the answer at that moment and were not given the answer before it had occurred. We see them as super Christian supermen always walking in the spirit and that is not true, Paul and Barnabas have an argument that is purely personality driven, Paul can’t remember who be baptized etc. They were on their own part of the time!
This just reinforces my point that the apostles words were not always just accepted because they were inspired. God let the Jewish Christians reason with the scriptures and signs they witnessed (or were told about) to come to the conclusion He wanted. When they rejected it, the apostles rebuked them.
Look at the argument over John Mark again. Was there a false teaching on Paul’s part? No. It was a difference of opinion based upon previous happenings. Paul, and the other apostles, are never portrayed as teaching falsely, yet they didn’t always make the right decisions in their personal lives. God didn’t suddenly make them so they wouldn’t sin, but He did inspire them to teach that which is true.
I appreciate you dropping the condescending tone. I know it is difficult to make written words sound the way you intend in the mind of the reader. I appreciate you challenging me and making me study further. My challenge to you is to look at the case of the thief on the cross and Cornelius’ household and ask yourself “can I find another example like this in scripture”? Put those instances against the large body of conversion stories in the book of Acts and see which ones make up the rule and which appear to be unique.
August 12, 2008 at 6:39 pm
lee
good afternoon corey.
August 12, 2008 at 6:47 pm
coreydavis
Hello, Lee.
August 12, 2008 at 9:43 pm
walkinlove
Let’s start with the thief. 1 Corinthians 15: 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.
The resurrection is one of the keys of the gospel message. Paul says that without it his preaching is worthless and so is the faith of those who believe it. The thief couldn’t believe in the resurrection because it hadn’t happened yet. That means he was NOT under the new covenant.
1 Cor 15:12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.
No since Paul is responding to those who believe there is no resurrection and his preaching is about Christ rising from the dead, if that had not happened his preaching would have been a lie and all of what was taught would be for nothing. It has nothing to do with when the debt was paid! What did Jesus say it is finished, if it was only about his life he should have said I am finished. What is finished is the old covenant! I do not believe your post in any way effects the Thief only Paul’s message is effected by the lack of a resurrection!
Christians must accept the resurrection. If you want to be saved like the thief you need to make a time machine, go back to Calvary, climb up on a cross next to Jesus and be personally pardoned by Him.
And again I will state, that the thief had an opportunity to sin after Christ’s death, that sin would have not been pardoned by him because it had not happened yet and it could not be covered under the old testament because the blood payment was not made, the only way was the blood payment that had just happened and that finished the old covenant! If you were not so locked into Acts 2:38 being the only method you would be able to reason this yourself, by locking into Acts you are not free to even consider this!
You mention the original disciples who walked with Jesus. Jesus had them baptize more people than John the Baptist. What was this baptism? Would Jesus instruct it, yet not have them submit to it when He HIMSELF submitted to it?
And we assume that to be true, yet the washing of the feet seems to indicate that were only partially dirty spiritually, I do assume they were baptized, however there is no recorded passage in the bible that proves it to be so.
It may have been somewhat different (like John’s baptism), but I ask you, what about the Jews who died before Christ? What happened to them? Was not their keeping of the law made good by Jesus’ sacrifice? Does it not make sense that the baptisms performed by John and the disciples were made good by that same sacrifice.
Not according to Acts 19 where those with John’s baptism were re-baptized in the Name of Jesus. As for those dieing under the old law their debts were paid for by Jesus as ours are today, their sin offerings were only a covering until the perfect lamb could be slain.
What I see is that you’re focusing on the exceptions rather than the rule. It seems like you’re looking for some loopholes to disregard the clear NT teachings on baptism.
No I am showing you the loopholes that exist, the thief, those in Acts who have the gift and the seal. When you make a rule, exceptions to that rule are part of the rule. If I tell my kids they can stay up till 9pm but later make an exception for Friday night were it is 11 because they do not need to get up, I have altered the rule. They would not follow the 9pm rule on friday because there was an exception in place.
In the case of Acts 2:38, Peter himself is an exception because he has not shown to be re-baptized, the thief on the cross is an exception as I have pointed out above. You are frustrated because you see me looking for loopholes and I am frustrated because you do not see the loopholes, you are intent that bedtime is 9pm! I am applying all scripture that I can find on the subject and not just Acts 2:38! The difference is, if we both came upon a wreck and the driver was dieing you would allow them to enter hell because there wasn’t time to get the bath ready, I would count on the thief’s example and call upon the Lord to remember him/her and have faith that the Mercy that Jesus sought from the pharisees he would himself use as with the Thief who is not covered completely because of Jesus death before him! The thief after all did come to the kingdom like the child Jesus speaks about having faith in Jesus to save him or remember him as was his choice of words.
I’ll have to answer the rest later as I have take care of some things, have a good evening!
August 12, 2008 at 10:45 pm
lee
i believe walkinlove side tracked you from our talk.
or maybe you were through.
lee
August 13, 2008 at 1:24 pm
walkinlove
I’m sorry Lee, I will monitor the site and let you both finish and take this back up them. Again my apologies!
August 13, 2008 at 1:25 pm
coreydavis
I do not believe your post in any way effects the Thief only Paul’s message is effected by the lack of a resurrection!
Simple question – is it imperative that Christians believe in Jesus’ resurrection?
And we assume that to be true, yet the washing of the feet seems to indicate that were only partially dirty spiritually, I do assume they were baptized, however there is no recorded passage in the bible that proves it to be so.
The washing of feet was Jesus showing us that we are to serve one another. It has nothing to do with baptism.
Not according to Acts 19 where those with John’s baptism were re-baptized in the Name of Jesus. As for those dieing under the old law their debts were paid for by Jesus as ours are today, their sin offerings were only a covering until the perfect lamb could be slain.
It seems clear that the Ephesians of Acts 19 were baptized with John’s baptism AFTER the death of Christ. John’s baptism is invalid today.
If you understand that Jesus’ death made good the law keeping of the Jews who died before Him you should be able to understand that it made good those baptisms that occurred while He lived.
If I tell my kids they can stay up till 9pm but later make an exception for Friday night were it is 11 because they do not need to get up, I have altered the rule. They would not follow the 9pm rule on friday because there was an exception in place.
Well, if your children are like you, you’ve got a problem because they’re going to reason if you let them stay up to 11 on Friday you should let them stay up until 11 EVERY night since you let them do it once. That is what you’re arguing – if there is any unique case, or exception, then it should apply to all people at all times.
The difference is, if we both came upon a wreck and the driver was dieing you would allow them to enter hell because there wasn’t time to get the bath ready, I would count on the thief’s example and call upon the Lord to remember him/her and have faith that the Mercy that Jesus sought from the pharisees he would himself use as with the Thief who is not covered completely because of Jesus death before him!
You oversimplify. In that case the individual is dead and in God’s hands. I would hope and pray that God would accept them, but I have no real evidence for my hope. I would wonder why they didn’t follow Christ before they found themselves in such a situation, but it really wouldn’t matter then.
You would pronounce that person saved and use that as a basis to ignore the commandments to be baptized prior to salvation.
Many of my brethren would pronounce that individual as condemned. That is not my place. I would acknowledge that they didn’t obey all of the Lord’s commands, but I don’t know exactly what He will do (thus, I am labeled a liberal by some). Let me give you an example that I’ve heard before:
A man is about to marry the daughter of a very rich man. On their wedding day the bride-to-be dies before the ceremony. Would the would-be groom be in the rich man’s will?
Lee – I thought that most of your concerns were addressed in my exchanges with w.i.l.
If not, let me know what you want me to address and I will.
August 13, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Katherine
I’m sorry-Corey, I was not trying to bring you in or make Johnny say anything towards you. I was just thinking about the people Johnny had not engaged on here that were part of the church of Christ, and you were one who came to mind.
I did not mean to cause any problems, and will leave you out of the discussion from now on.
I hope you are doing well.
August 13, 2008 at 6:58 pm
coreydavis
Katherine,
No harm, no foul. I just wanted to let everyone know I don’t want to be used as an example of some “wrong” Johnny has supposedly committed. I know you weren’t trying to do anything malicious, and since I hadn’t said much lately there wasn’t any way for you to know that I wanted my name left out of those kinds of discussions.
It was just a “heads-up” more than anything.
Take care,
Corey
August 13, 2008 at 11:40 pm
lee
pools open folks.
lee
October 30, 2008 at 9:28 pm
ProdigalKnot
I almost hate to resuscitate this conversation, but I think Corey is correct about the disciples baptisms. They could hardly have been baptizing people in the name of Jesus if they weren’t already baptized themselves by John! Jesus Himself was baptized not in His own name, but by the baptism of repentance performed by John. When Christ insisted that John perform the baptism, what did He say? He said it was to “fulfill” all righteousness (Matt 3:15) didn’t He?
So, at that point Jesus “fulfilled” the promise of John’s baptism which was done in expectation of the arrival of “the lamb of God” which John pointed out had happened (John 1:29). Which means, I believe, that the baptisms performed by John (remember that Andrew was the Baptist’s disciple before Jesus called them John 1:40) were accepted up and until the disciples were instructed by Jesus to begin baptizing in Jesus name. John said he was going to decrease (John 3;30) from the point of Jesus’ baptism.
While I have some problems with baptism having to be completely understood as “washing away your sins” in order for it to be valid, I still believe it is efficacious if done because the one being baptized is doing it simply because Jesus commanded it. Indeed, as I mentioned on Randy’s site, if complete knowledge of the “how” is required before baptism is valid, then one cannot be saved unless they also know that faith and repentance and baptism promise the Holy Spirit also (Romans 19). In fact, Jesus says the Holy Spirit is given to them that “ask for it” (
John 20:22 indicates quite clearly that Jesus “gave” the Holy Spirit to the disciples after He was resurrected (they couldn’t receive something they couldn’t also possess), so their baptism on the day of Pentecost could not have been a “Saving” baptism. Christ said they would be endowed with power. So the disciples who remained after Judas’ betrayal were, as alluded to earlier in John 13:10, already “clean” and ones who had “bathed”.
Why the Ephesian’s baptism into John’s baptism wasn’t honored:
Because, as I’ve shown above, John’s baptism was superseded by Christ’s fulfilling of that ministry. From the time the disciples began baptizing in the name of Jesus, Johns’ baptism was nullified. Why he continued to baptize after Christ’s baptism is unclear, but God allowed John to be removed from the scene. So, these Ephesians were disciples of John by proxy. They had not been baptized by John himself or, if they had been, it was after Christ’s disciples began baptizing. In any case, they were not aware that the Messiah had come. I believe these “disciples” were Jewish, since John’s baptism was not directed toward any but the Jews and their proselytes.
As Pentecost clearly shows, being baptized with the Holy Spirit isn’t what saves us. Even Saul and the men he sent to kill David (1 Sam 19:20) were baptized, or come upon, by the Holy Spirit and “prophesied”. We know that Saul was no longer pleasing God, because “had departed from Saul”. (1 Sam 16:14, 18:12) Then we have Samson who had the Spirit rush upon him and give him supernatural strength (Jdg 14:6, 14:19, 15;14) yet Samson was not a Godly man was he?
Lastly, as Corey points out, Peter adds information to the story about Cornelius in Chapter 11 where Peter says Cornelius told him that an (not THE) angel of the Lord had said to send for Peter so that “he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.”
Acts 10:4 says that Cornelius was “terrified” or “being much alarmed” so it is as natural as Saul’s response on the road to Damascus to say “lord”. In that culture, anyone with power or position was called “lord” so it indicates not familiarity but obeisance to a recognized person of power.
If being baptized in an outward fashion by the Holy Spirit is required for salvation, how come it was done repeatedly, not only to characters in the OT, but also to the believers in Jerusalem after Peter and John had been warned to stop preaching and the group had prayed to God for boldness in Acts 4:31? The NT refers to repeated occasions of the Apostles being “filled with the Holy Spirit” after the day of Pentecost so it is apparently a temporary thing for the purpose of the moment.
I actually like the question about Peter being ignorant of God’s will when he saw the vision! It indicates to me that the power that came upon Peter at Pentecost did not remain upon him. Peter was being his hardheaded self in that God had to show him the vision three times (that should be called Peter’s number!) AND confirm it vocally. Peter still didn’t understand (sounds like the Peter who didn’t get it that the Kingdom wouldn’t be literal) until the arrival of the messengers added the final piece to the puzzle of what he was to do. Then he was perplexed as to why until God showed him through the outward sign of the Holy Spirit falling upon Cornelius and guests.
December 2, 2008 at 2:20 am
Truth
Corey, you are wrong when you say Cornelius and his household didn’t hear about Jesus.
Acts 10:33-44
“So I sent to you immediately, and you have done well to come. Now therefore, we are all present before God, to hear all the things commanded you by God.”
“Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ–He is Lord of all– that word you know, which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed by hanging on a tree. Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly, not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins. that whoeverWhile Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.”
Peter spoke about Jesus in the first part and all the way through. You are wrong to say they didn’t hear about Jesus. You cannot say at what exact moment as Peter began to speak that they recieved the Holy Spirit, but Jesus has the authority to:
“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.
“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.”
“He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live.”
“And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die.”
December 2, 2008 at 5:09 pm
coreydavis
“Truth” – I don’t know where I said Cornelius didn’t know about Jesus. If I did say that, I was wrong. However, there is a huge difference between knowing about Jesus (having some vague information) and actually knowing Him as your savior. Can we agree on that?
If Cornelius was already saved then we have some big problems:
*Why would Peter be sent to him to preach what he already knew?
*Why would Cornelius fall at Peter’s feet and worship him if he knew that only God is worthy of worship?
*Why would Peter be told to preach “words by which they might be saved”?
So clearly Cornelius wasn’t saved until Peter preached to him. Cornelius knew of Jesus, but didn’t know all he needed to know. You said:
Peter spoke about Jesus in the first part and all the way through.
This isn’t totally accurate. Peter’s sermon was interrupted at the very beginning by the falling of the Holy Spirit. The words you read Peter preaching in chapter 10 were not given until after they were baptized with the Holy Spirit. Acts 11:15 tells us this.
The verses you give are wonderful, but they don’t give the whole picture:
John 12:42 Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue;
These people weren’t saved because they wouldn’t confess Him. Their belief wasn’t good enough without full submission to the commandments of God. They were in direct violation of Romans 10:9-10. Furthermore:
James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!
Surely you don’t believe the demons are saved do you?
December 3, 2008 at 1:56 am
Truth
Corey, because of your bias that someone has to be baptized to be saved you conclude that God cannot know a person’s heart and save them because you say He can’t when God says that He can, Acts 15:7-8 “And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us.” Your bias brings you to conclude that Cornelius’ household wasn’t saved before they were baptized even though the Bible shows that they were. I know I can say, along with others, that a person can begin to tell another person something and, though interrupted, the person listening can know and understand what they were saying, even though the person talking didn’t say everything they wanted to yet. Sorry, but your argument does not in any way mean anything. And anyway Peter himself said in Acts 10:44 “While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.” Peter says here that “the Holy Spirit fell upon all those WHO HEARD THE WORD.” Also Peter said in Acts 11:17 “If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?” Peter said “God gave them the same gift as He gave us when WE BELIEVED on the Lord Jesus Christ” speaking about when those who HEARD THE WORD and received the Holy Spirit. Peter knew that they understood what he had told them even though he hadn’t finished what he was saying when the Holy Spirit fell upon them. And you choose to withstand God where Peter said he wouldn’t.
December 3, 2008 at 3:01 am
Truth
I didn’t word it right about Acts 10:44. In Acts 10:44 it was Peter’s brethren who went with him to Cornelius’ house that told about what happened there. Acts 11:17 was what Peter said. It’s been a long day and sometimes I’m doing too much at once. And still your argument does not hold up. Here it is again corrected.
Corey, because of your bias that someone has to be baptized to be saved you conclude that God cannot know a person’s heart and save them because you say He can’t when God says that He can, Acts 15:7-8 “And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us.” Your bias brings you to conclude that Cornelius’ household wasn’t saved before they were baptized even though the Bible shows that they were. I know I can say, along with others, that a person can begin to tell another person something and, though interrupted, the person listening can know and understand what they were saying, even though the person talking didn’t say everything they wanted to yet. Sorry, but your argument does not in any way mean anything. In Acts 10:44 “While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.” Peter says here that “the Holy Spirit fell upon all those WHO HEARD THE WORD.” Also Peter said in Acts 11:17 “If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?” Peter said “God gave them the same gift as He gave us when WE BELIEVED on the Lord Jesus Christ” speaking about when those who HEARD THE WORD and received the Holy Spirit. Peter knew that they understood what he had told them even though he hadn’t finished what he was saying when the Holy Spirit fell upon them. And you choose to withstand God where Peter said he wouldn’t.
December 3, 2008 at 3:34 am
Truth
Please do excuse my typing.
December 3, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Truth
Not as busy today, so maybe my typing will be better.
You say that Cornelius and his household didn’t hear the word when they received the Holy Spirit. That’s what you say, but not what the Bible says!
Now, let’s walk again through what happened at Cornelius’ house.
•Peter spoke to those at Cornelius’ house:
Acts 10:34-43
“Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ–He is Lord of all– that word you know, which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed by hanging on a tree. Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly, not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”
•Gentiles receive the Holy Spirit and are saved:
Acts 10:44-45
“While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.”
“And all those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.”
Notice here it says while Peter was still speaking the Holy Spirit fell upon all those that heard the word, so obviously they heard something spoken that made them believe Jesus was their Savior.
•Peter tells about what happened at Cornelius’s household:
Acts11:15-17
“And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning.”
“Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, “John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”
“If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?”
Peter knew that upon their believing in the Lord Jesus the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit and were saved.
•Peter again recalls what happened and verifies that the Gentiles were saved when they received the Holy Spirit.
Acts 15:7-9
“And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.”
“So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us,”
“and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.”
Notice Peter said that the Gentiles heard the word and believed. Peter said God knows the heart, and that He accepted them giving them the Holy Spirit, their faith in believing in the Lord Jesus saved them.
“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.”
December 3, 2008 at 4:09 pm
coreydavis
We seem to just be re-hashing the same arguments that have already been made here. My blog is not going to be a place for pointless arguing – you need to know that. Since the discussions I’ve had on this subject were not with you I’m going to try to show you some of the important points again, but I will not go over this endlessly.
You said:
Peter spoke to those at Cornelius’ house:
Yes, but when? Acts 11:15 tells us that the statement of Acts 10 was interrupted at the very beginning. Keep in mind Acts 11:4:
But Peter began speaking and proceeded to explain to them in orderly sequence, saying
This means that the correct sequence of events is listed in Acts 11, not Acts 10 – this is key to our understanding.
Gentiles receive the Holy Spirit and are saved:
No mention is made of them being saved by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I’ll ask you what I’ve asked others – were the apostles not saved until they were baptized with the Holy Spirit in Acts 2? Certainly you wouldn’t say that. So, if the Spirit was given to Cornelius in the same way as the apostles (Acts 11:15) then it wasn’t given to save, but as a sign. Remember the apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit as a sign that they had authority and power from God. Cornelius was baptized with the Holy Spirit as a sign to the Jewish Christians that Gentiles were to be accepted as brethren (Acts 11:18).
Peter knew that upon their believing in the Lord Jesus the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit and were saved.
No such thing is stated or implied. In fact, Peter immediately commanded them to be baptized in water (Acts 10:47-48), just as he had the Jews on Pentecost in chapter 2. If Peter’s words were those by which Cornelius might be saved, then all of his instructions would be needed for them to be saved. This includes the commandment to be baptized in water.
I don’t want you to think that I elevate baptism over faith, but it is required to have our sins remitted. Without faith repentance accomplishes nothing. Without faith confession of Christ is a lie. Without faith baptism is just getting wet. All that God has commanded of us is an extension of our faith, but without obedience to all God requires of us, our faith is worthless (James 2:14-26).
December 3, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Truth
Corey said:My blog is not going to be a place for pointless arguing – you need to know that.
I’m just stating what I believe, which I believe my opinion is just as legitimate as yours. Just because you don’t agree, you don’t need to get mad.
December 3, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Truth
I also noticed you didn’t have anything to say about Acts 15 and what Peter said in verses 7-9.
December 3, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Truth
I believe when the apostles recieved the Holy Spirit, that their salvation was sealed by the Holy Spirit as God had planned from the beginning.
The Holy Spirit is our guarantee of the promise God made with us that we are saved.
Ephesians 1:13-14
“In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.”
December 3, 2008 at 4:48 pm
coreydavis
I’m just stating what I believe, which I believe my opinion is just as legitimate as yours. Just because you don’t agree, you don’t need to get mad.
I’m not mad – I’m simply stating a fact. At Nathan’s blog (and now “walkinginlove”’s blog) the same people have the same old arguments over and over. If they want to do that it is their business. I just want you to know I’m not going to do that.
I also noticed you didn’t have anything to say about Acts 15 and what Peter said in verses 7-9.
verse 7: After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe
This lets us know that they needed to hear the message to believe – as I’ve said multiple times now, they didn’t hear it until after the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
verse 8: God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us.
Just as I said above, this was done as a sign of acceptance for the Jews, not as a sign of salvation. God showed the Jews that He would accept the Gentiles by baptizing them with the Holy Spirit.
verse 9: He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.
Again, it is about showing that there was no longer to be a distinction between Jew and Gentile. I’ve already discussed the importance of faith.
Here is the problem with trying to use Cornelius as your example of how we’re saved – is this what happened with you? I believe you said you were in a denomination that said if you didn’t speak with tongues you weren’t saved. Assuming I’m correct, I applaud you for not giving in to the pressure and falsely manufacturing this supposed gift like all Pentecostals who say they’ve spoken in tongues do.
So, if you didn’t have the Holy Spirit fall on you and give you the gift of tongues before you ever heard the gospel preached, then your experience is not the same as Cornelius. Since this was not your experience, then you should go to the non-miraculous conversions in the book of Acts and see what they say. Acts 2 is a prime example – they simply heard, believed, repented and were baptized for the remission of sins. Nothing miraculous (on the part of the converts) happened. Over and over in the book of Acts this is what we see. The conversion of Cornelius and his household is a completely unique occurrence. If it is the norm, and not an special circumstance, then you should have experienced the same.
December 3, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Truth
Corey said: verse 8: God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us.
Just as I said above, this was done as a sign of acceptance for the Jews, not as a sign of salvation. God showed the Jews that He would accept the Gentiles by baptizing them with the Holy Spirit.
That verse in no way says that the Holy Spirit showed that the Jews accepted them, but that God accepted them. When we are saved that means God accepts us.
Thank you Corey.
December 3, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Truth
Corey said: This lets us know that they needed to hear the message to believe – as I’ve said multiple times now, they didn’t hear it until after the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
“they didn’t hear it until after the baptism of the Holy Spirit.”
Reply:
“While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.”
“the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.”
What you say does not match up with what the Bible says. And surely you don’t think this verse should be taken out of the Bible.
December 3, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Truth
Corey said: verse 8: God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us.
Just as I said above, this was done as a sign of acceptance for the Jews, not as a sign of salvation. God showed the Jews that He would accept the Gentiles by baptizing them with the Holy Spirit.
Reply:
That verse in no way says that the Holy Spirit showed that the Jews accepted them, but that God accepted them. When we are saved that means God accepts us.
I would truly like to see your response on this.
December 3, 2008 at 5:52 pm
coreydavis
That verse in no way says that the Holy Spirit showed that the Jews accepted them, but that God accepted them. When we are saved that means God accepts us.
Microsoft is accepting applications for a job opening – does this mean that everyone who applies gets the job? In fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham the kingdom of God is open to all who will obey, but not all will. The conversion of Cornelius showed that God would accept Gentiles into His church.
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.”
“the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.”
What you say does not match up with what the Bible says. And surely you don’t think this verse should be taken out of the Bible.
You’re being obtuse. The book of Acts wasn’t written as it happened. Cornelius heard the word, albeit after the baptism of the Holy Spirit. When writing of something that happened earlier, Luke says the Holy Spirit fell on those who heard the word (which He did). As we read his account it is clear that Cornelius is one who heard the word. Look at this example:
statement one: Prizes were given to everyone who participated in the game.
statement two: After the rules were explained, many chose to play the game. Everyone who participated got a prize.
Now, were the rules explained first?
December 3, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Truth
Corey said:
The conversion of Cornelius showed that God would accept Gentiles into His church.
Reply:
So you agree that when Cornelius received the Holy Spirit he was accepted into His church, which is the same as being added to His church. So seeing they were added to His church they were saved. You certainly have shown that you believe the people in Acts 2 who were added were saved.
Thanks again Corey.
December 3, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Truth
Corey, No matter how hard you try to stretch to twist it into what you want it to say the fact is God sealed them with the Holy Spirit and added them to His Church and saved them, before they were baptized.
December 3, 2008 at 7:01 pm
coreydavis
There is a huge difference in saying God WOULD accept Cornelius into His church and saying God DID accept Cornelius into His church. The baptism of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius proved that God WOULD add Cornelius (and all Gentiles) to the church not that He HAD accepted him into the church at that point.
Neither Acts 10 or 11 says that they were “sealed” with the Holy Spirit. It says that they were baptized with the Holy Spirit, like the apostles (who were saved PRIOR to their baptism of the Holy Spirit). The text does not say what you want it to say.
If the people of Acts 2 were saved upon belief then why were they commanded to repent? When we’re saved our past sins are taken away. By your doctrine they should have been cleansed upon belief, yet you have Peter denying that by commanding them to repent and be baptized.
December 3, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Truth
Corey said:
The book of Acts wasn’t written as it happened.
I never thought it was nor did I ever say it was. And actually from what you have said on another post you believe that “the perfect” in 1 Cor. 13:10 is the Bible, when clearly it’s not. Paul even spoke that the perfect had not even come to him yet. The Bible did not exist at all then or anytime in Paul’s lifetime. But yet you insist that the perfect there is talking about the Bible??
But that is another topic, so I’ll just leave it at that.
December 3, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Truth
Corey said:
There is a huge difference in saying God WOULD accept Cornelius into His church and saying God DID accept Cornelius into His church. The baptism of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius proved that God WOULD add Cornelius (and all Gentiles) to the church not that He HAD accepted him into the church at that point.
Still stretching the truth there Corey.
Reply:
“So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us”
It says “acknowledged” the same as “accepted” which means Cornelius and the others were accpted by God when they received the Holy Spirit.
Corey said:
Neither Acts 10 or 11 says that they were “sealed” with the Holy Spirit. It says that they were baptized with the Holy Spirit, like the apostles (who were saved PRIOR to their baptism of the Holy Spirit). The text does not say what you want it to say.
Reply:
Ephesians 1:13-14
“In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.”
It says “having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.” Obviously we are sealed with the Holy Spirit when we are baptized with the Holy Spirit.
And again it is obvious Cornelius and the others heard something spoken that made them believe Jesus was their Savior upon receiving the Holy Spirit.
December 3, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Truth
I do have to go for a bit. I’ll probably be back later. Bye.
December 3, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Truth
Corey said:
The book of Acts wasn’t written as it happened.
Reply:
I never thought it was nor did I ever say it was. And actually from what you have said on another post you believe that “the perfect” in 1 Cor. 13:10 is the Bible, when clearly it’s not. Paul even spoke that the perfect had not even come to him yet. The Bible did not exist at all then or anytime in Paul’s lifetime. But yet you insist that the perfect there is talking about the Bible??
Paul even spoke that the perfect had not even come to him YET.
In 1 Cor. 13:11 Paul says that he only knew in part, then he says but then he will know just as he is known, meaning when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away with. And since the “perfect” to come is also for Paul to see face to face, I know the “perfect” he is speaking about is not the Bible, because the Bible did not exist at all then or anytime in Paul’s lifetime.
Like I said, it’s another topic, so I’ll leave it at that.
Corey, I’ll check back and see if you want to discuss the topic at hand anymore. Later.
December 3, 2008 at 11:12 pm
churchesofchrist
“If the people of Acts 2 were saved upon belief then why were they commanded to repent? When we’re saved our past sins are taken away. By your doctrine they should have been cleansed upon belief, yet you have Peter denying that by commanding them to repent and be baptized.”
- TRUTH and I have went over this too many times to even count. Peter did not preach salvation one way in Acts 2 then another way to others. TRUTH has yet to explain how the people in Acts 2 were saved upon belief and then were commanded to repent and be baptized in response to the question they ask “what shall we do”. Today, many preachers say we do nothing but believe, when Peter clearly states that belief only will not suffice. TRUTH, please explain how the men were saved upon belief, but still commanded to repent and be baptized -eis- unto, toward the forgiveness of sins.
December 3, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Truth
Randy, Peter was speaking to thousands of people. Peter was not God and did not know who had repented and who hadn’t. Peter was wanting ALL of them to repent and change their BELIEF toward Jesus. Peter believed that they also should be baptized, and I too believe all Christians should be baptized. The account of the Ephesians baptism in Acts 18:24-28 and Acts 19:1-10 shows that they were not saved when they were baptized for the remission of sins and makes it clear that the baptism in Acts 2 did not in any way save them.
God knows a person’s heart and in Acts 15:8 it shows that by that God can and will save them.
December 4, 2008 at 12:00 am
Truth
God knows a person’s heart and in Acts 15:8 it shows that by that God can and will save them.
It should have read:
God knows a person’s heart and in Acts 15:8 it shows that by that God can and did save them.
The Bible clearly shows here that Cornelius and the others were saved when they recieved the Holy Spirit.
December 4, 2008 at 11:59 am
Randy
Peter just didnt believe they should be baptized – he commanded them to be repent and be baptized AFTER they already had faith in Christ. This is Coreys blog and I will pull back and let him address you.
December 4, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Randy
My point TRUTH, is that you need to prove that the people in Acts 2 were saved upon belief and faith PRIOR to asking Peter what they needed to do. Anyways, take care. I will read the comments between you and Corey.
December 4, 2008 at 3:13 pm
coreydavis
Randy,
I’m not going to be a dog chasing his tail. We’re just going in circles. I ask questions and give examples and “Truth” just ignores them or jumps to something else. You can continue to “discuss” (and I use that term loosely) with him here if you want, but it looks like there is nothing I can say to one whose conscience is seared as with a hot iron.
December 4, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Truth
You guy’s want to call other people names and belittle them, which that doesn’t bother me, I just think of what Jesus said:
“Blessed are the poor in spirit, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, For they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, For they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, For they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful, For they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, For they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake.
Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”
Randy said: My point TRUTH, is that you need to prove that the people in Acts 2 were saved upon belief and faith PRIOR to asking Peter what they needed to do. Anyways, take care. I will read the comments between you and Corey.
Reply:
I’ll say again, Peter was speaking to thousands of people. Peter was not God and did not know who had repented and who hadn’t. Peter wanted ALL of them to repent and change their BELIEF toward Jesus. Peter believed that they also should be baptized, and I too believe all Christians should be baptized.
I’m not God either and I will not play God and say that I know that ALL the thousands of people there that day had All changed their belief yet.
If I were talking about Jesus and a non-believer was to hear me talking and tell me they heard me and were to ask me what they need to do, and it is easier to see sometimes when someone is touched but it doesn’t mean we know everything that is inside of them. Knowing this I would tell them to believe that Jesus is their Savior, to repent, and of course I would speak more to them than what I can show on here. And keep in mind that Peter was speaking to thousands of people.
The people in Acts 2 were baptized for the remission of sins, ah but so were the Ephesians in Acts 18 & 19, they too were baptized for the remission of sins, but they were not saved. And Paul baptized them again and when he laid his hands on them to baptize them they received the Holy Spirit. Paul even tried to explain to them that it is not baptism that saves it is when they believe on Christ Jesus they are saved. This also explains what happened in Acts 8 and the people of Samaria. These people like many others thought that they had to be baptized to be saved, when that is not true.
December 4, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Randy
TRUTH, you really are avoiding the context of Acts 2. You know from the context that they believed and had faith evidenced by them being pricked in their hearts and asking “what shall we do”, but they were not forgiven at that point. Peter told them the point they are forgiven…you just wont accept what he says.
I think you see the connection when you read Acts 2, but refuse to accept it. We have also went over 1 Peter 3:21 a few times. You wish to make the” filth of the flesh” in that context as a reference to sin, making the verse read, “not the removal of sin, but an appeal to God for a good conscience.”
For starters, nobody is saying sin is washed away by water. When Paul was told — “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name…the water didn’t clean his sins, but was a pledge of a good conscience toward God. Peter clearly states in 1 peter 3:21 that baptism saves us by the resurrection of Christ. In other words, baptism is far more than some empty ritual or outward rite. Unless our innermost being calls out to our God, from a pure heart and motives, truly seeking a new walk with Him, baptism is of no worth.
Peter wanted to be sure his readers did not wrongfully perceive baptism legalistically or ritualistically, he was careful to state that it was “not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience” (1 Pet. 3:21). In other words, this had nothing to do with the many Jewish ceremonial rites of cleansing, which largely consisted of external washings. Genuine baptism was a heart matter (internal), rather than a body matter (external). “Peter says it does not concern an external washing from filth but relates to the conscience.
December 4, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Truth
“not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God”
Notice it says “OF A good conscience”, it doesn’t say FOR A good conscience as you want it to say.
God’s word tells us that baptism does not take away sins but baptism comes from a good conscience that already exists in the state of saved by grace.
Also Randy, you didn’t show how it all happened to Paul.
Acts 9:17-18
“And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized.”
Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit and received his sight then he was baptized. Paul was saved before he was baptized.
I also notice that you didn’t have anything to say about Acts 18 & 19 or Acts 8 that shows they were not saved when they were baptized.
December 4, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Truth
Gotta go for now. I’ll check back later.
December 4, 2008 at 6:04 pm
churchesofChrist
“not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God”
When one acts in concert with their properly educated conscience (taught by God’s word), they have the “answer of a good conscience toward God.” In the particular of Peter’s reference, the matter is baptism. Baptism is commanded of God (Acts 2: 38). Baptism is for the remission of sin and is universal in its application. Therefore, when the non-Christian submits to scriptural baptism, they have the “answer of a good conscience toward God.” Their conscience (properly taught) approves of their obedience. When a person refuses to obey God (they refuse to be scripturally baptized), their conscience condemns them, assuming the conscience has been correctly educated.
December 4, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Truth
Randy we obviously don’t agree on this. And you still haven’t had anything to say about Acts 18 & 19 and Acts 8.
I will try to check back.
December 4, 2008 at 7:25 pm
churchesofChrist
The order of events was 1) Saul received his sight, 2) Saul was filled with the Holy Spirit, and 3) Saul was baptized. You claim that at point 2 Saul was saved, but you offered no proof. This passage does not state precisely when Saul was saved from his sins. In retelling the events Paul recalled Ananias stating, “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). If Paul was saved when he was filled with the Holy Spirit, then he would have had no sins to wash away in baptism. Since he still had sins prior to his baptism, we must conclude that being filled with the Holy Spirit, in and of itself, is not the means to be saved from sin.
December 4, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Truth
Ananias told Paul when he recieved his sight he would recieve the Holy Spirit. It was the Holy Spirit who gave Paul his sight not Ananias.
Paul was saved when he recieved his sight before he was baptized.
This is no different than Corey’s argument about Cornelius. Corey tries to get around the verse that says “While Peter was still speaking the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.”
You guys will accept what Peter said in Acts 2 because you can try to make it fit into your doctrine. But you ignore other verses in other Chapters and try to twist (notice I say try) what they are saying to try to make it fit your doctrine, when in all honesty it doesn’t.
Like Corey your bias that someone has to be baptized to be saved makes you blind to these verses
And you have totally avoided having anything to say about Acts 18 & 19 and Acts 8.
December 4, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Truth
Randy said: we must conclude that being filled with the Holy Spirit, in and of itself, is not the means to be saved from sin.
Ephesians 1:13-14
“In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.”
I conclude that the Holy Spirit seals our salvation.
December 4, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Truth
And Randy before you go any further on this you may want to consider what else the Bible says about the Holy Spirit.
“Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.”
December 4, 2008 at 11:35 pm
churchesofchrist
“Like Corey your bias that someone has to be baptized to be saved makes you blind to these verses”
- dude, you have no idea what youre talking about. I was just like you years ago, using the same arguments as you. I was bent towards proving the church of Christ wrong and though much study, I could not get around Acts 2, and neither can you. And 1 Peter 3:21 is a great one too. Gal 3:27 aint bad either.
Are you saying everytime a person is filled with the Holy Spirit, that he is sealed. Are you sure you want to take this position? Also, what does the word “filled” mean? Do you know?
I dont plan to reply anymore on this right now. Please address Corey.
December 8, 2008 at 3:00 am
lee
could any one please give me an explaination of this verse?
Joh 13:35 ByG1722 thisG5129 shall allG3956 men knowG1097 thatG3754 ye areG2075 myG1698 disciples,G3101 ifG1437 ye haveG2192 loveG26 one to another.G240 G1722
thanks
lee
December 8, 2008 at 5:52 am
Truth
Randy said :
I was just like you years ago, using the same arguments as you. I was bent towards proving the church of Christ wrong and though much study, I could not get around Acts 2, and neither can you.
Reply:
Randy you do not know me. I’m not bent on proving any church wrong. Seems you guys are the one’s who are bent on trying to prove others wrong. I am just responding. And I never tried to get around Acts 2, I answered your question more than once, you just obviously don’t agree with my answer.
Corey insists as you do that someone has to be baptized to be saved, I don’t agree. John the Baptist said he baptized with water but Jesus will baptize us with the Holy Spirit. The “one” baptism that saves us is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. If you want to believe water baptism saves, that’s you. I believe the baptism of the Holy Spirit saves. Cornelius and his household received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized with water, and the Bible says “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” So when did Jesus change?? Corey chooses to call this “The Curious Case of Cornelius’ Conversion” I choose to call it the grace of God. Corey wants to set aside the verse that says “While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.” I choose to believe what Luke said. In Acts 8 the Samaritan’s baptism and in Acts 18 & 19 the Ephesian’s baptism the Bible make’s it clear that water baptism did not in any way save them. And let’s not forget Paul who also was saved before he was baptized. Also Corey wants to insist that someone who believes that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is the “one” baptism should not be baptized with water. This is a weak argument since the Bible shows us that being baptized with water does please God, and I would encourage anyone who believes Christ as their Savior to be baptized, there is nothing wrong with Christian’s being baptized with water.
Jesus said “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” Again, when did Jesus change??
December 9, 2008 at 5:22 pm
coreydavis
could any one please give me an explaination of this verse?
Joh 13:35 ByG1722 thisG5129 shall allG3956 men knowG1097 thatG3754 ye areG2075 myG1698 disciples,G3101 ifG1437 ye haveG2192 loveG26 one to another.G240 G1722
thanks
lee
What a convicting verse, Lee. Jesus gives us the standard by which the world ought to be able to distinguish His disciples – that they have such great love for one another. I can’t think of any group that calls themselves Christians that can claim this as the standard by which the world knows them.
You a great sermon on this very thing. Go here:
http://www.morristownchurchofchrist.com/Sermons/Sermons.html
Go down to sermons by Keith Parker. Click on “May I Borrow Your Glasses”. I think you’ll enjoy it.
December 9, 2008 at 11:22 pm
lee
if i read right then you can change the word disciple for christian.
did i come to the correct conclusion?
thanks cory
lee
December 10, 2008 at 2:13 pm
coreydavis
Yes, Lee, you could substitute “Christian” for “disciple”. I’m confident you knew that. Could you just tell me what you’re getting at?
One thing I will point out – Luke 11:13 says, “If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!”
In other words, even evil individuals can show great love to their own, so while great love for one another should be the primary identification of Christians, it wouldn’t be exclusive to them.
December 11, 2008 at 1:38 am
lee
Act 19:1 AndG1161 it came to pass,G1096 that, while ApollosG625 wasG1511 atG1722 Corinth,G2882 PaulG3972 having passed throughG1330 theG3588 upperG510 coastsG3313 cameG2064 toG1519 Ephesus:G2181 andG2532 findingG2147 certainG5100 disciples,G3101
Act 19:2 He saidG2036 untoG4314 them,G846 Have(G1487) ye receivedG2983 the HolyG40 GhostG4151 since ye believed?G4100 AndG1161 theyG3588 saidG2036 untoG4314 him,G846 We have not so much asG235 G3761 heardG191 whetherG1487 there beG2076 any HolyG40 Ghost.G4151
Act 19:3 AndG5037 he saidG2036 untoG4314 them,G846 UntoG1519 whatG5101 thenG3767 were ye baptized?G907 AndG1161 theyG3588 said,G2036 UntoG1519 John’sG2491 baptism.G908
Act 19:4 ThenG1161 saidG2036 Paul,G3972 JohnG2491 verilyG3303 baptizedG907 with the baptismG908 of repentance,G3341 sayingG3004 unto theG3588 people,G2992 thatG2443 they should believeG4100 onG1519 him which should comeG2064 afterG3326 him,G846 that is,G5123 onG1519 ChristG5547 Jesus.G2424
Act 19:5 WhenG1161 they heardG191 this, they were baptizedG907 inG1519 theG3588 nameG3686 of theG3588 LordG2962 Jesus.G2424
corey…….you are right sir………
here are disciples at least paul thought so.
he asked them this question and im sure it wasnt out of the blue.
he said “since you believed”. please notice i didnt leave out any of the passage.
yes they were baptized in jesus name later. no problem there.
but paul seems to have been convinced of their conversion.
thats how it reads to me.
December 11, 2008 at 2:33 pm
coreydavis
So, Lee, are you saying a person can be a Christian without even knowing of the third member of the Godhead? Those men didn’t even know there was a Holy Spirit.
Certainly they were disciples of someone. Certainly they believed. The question is whose disciples were they and what did they believe?
Since they were baptized with John’s baptism and didn’t even know about the Holy Spirit doesn’t it stand to reason that they were taught John the Baptizer’s message (that the Christ was to come soon and that they should be baptized as a sign of repentance for the remission of sins)?
December 11, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Truth
It is clear the people were taught by Apolls the things of the things of the Lord (Acts 18:25) “This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John.” Apollos only knew about the baptism of John the Baptist, water baptism. Apollos was teaching about the traditional baptism of water, he wasn’t teaching anything about the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Aquila and Priscilla realizing Apollos error in what he was teaching they taught him the way more accurately (Acts 18:26) “So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.” And when Apollos learned it was by Gods grace alone we are saved, he then went to help other disciples who believed it is by Gods grace we are saved (Acts 18:27) “And when he desired to cross to Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him; and when he arrived, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace.”
When Paul came to Ephesus he saw that some had been taught about Jesus, not realizing yet that they had not been taught accurately the whole gospel, Paul was excited and wanted to hear their testimony about how they received the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:1-2) “And finding some disciples he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” I believe Paul was blown away by the fact that they had not been taught anything about the Holy Spirit knowing that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is essential and seals our salvation, as shown in Ephesians 1:13-14, and Paul immediately asked them what baptism they received and the people told him they were baptized with John’s baptism which was water baptism (Acts 19:3) “And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?” So they said, “Into John’s baptism.” Paul then began to tell them that it is not traditional baptism of water that saves us it is Jesus Christ who saves us. The baptism of the Holy Spirit given by God to all who believe comes through the sacrifice Jesus gave for our sins on the cross. It is by God’s grace through faith we are saved, not in any way does water baptism save us (Acts 19:4) “Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” I believe the people here were taught very little about the gospel of Christ, as some say babes in Christ, I believe these people were more like infants in Christ. I believe in a way they had an idea who Jesus was but hadn’t heard the whole gospel of Christ, and that’s exactly what Paul was trying to explain to them. And the people wanted Paul to baptize them and when Paul laid his hands on them to baptize them, because of their belief in the gospel they heard, they received the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:5-7) “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. Now the men were about twelve in all.”
The Bible says there is “one” baptism (Ephesians 4:4-5) “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” The baptism of the Holy Spirit is the “one” baptism that saves as shown with the Ephesians in Acts 18 & 19. Paul knew the Holy Spirit seals our salvation and that it was essential for them to receive the Holy Spirit. Paul also says in (1 Corinthians 12:13) “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body–whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free–and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.” Paul makes it very clear here that the “one” baptism is the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
December 11, 2008 at 7:17 pm
lee
So, Lee, are you saying a person can be a Christian without even knowing of the third member of the Godhead? Those men didn’t even know there was a Holy Spirit.
let me answer as best i can.
im not sure why not. paul thought you could…as i read what he said.
Certainly they were disciples of someone. Certainly they believed. The question is whose disciples were they and what did they believe?
yes……yes……paul seemed to think they were christs disciples.
i dont think he would have asked them if they had received the holy ghost
if he believed they were johns disciples……..right?
tell me, do coc preachers tell new converts about the holy ghost before
they are saved?
lee
December 11, 2008 at 7:33 pm
coreydavis
yes……yes……paul seemed to think they were christs disciples.
i dont think he would have asked them if they had received the holy ghost
if he believed they were johns disciples……..right?
The fact that they are called disciples is information from Luke, not something Paul said. I think asking them about the Holy Spirit was an easy way of determining right away whether they were disciples of Christ or of John. I really can’t say why he asked that – I’m confident we don’t have the whole conversation recorded. All I know is:
*They were disciples of someone
*They were baptized with John’s baptism
*They didn’t even know about the Holy Spirit
These facts lead me to believe they were John’s disciples, likely taught by Apollos.
tell me, do coc preachers tell new converts about the holy ghost before
they are saved?
lee
Of course. Could you convert someone by only telling them of the Son but not the Father or the Spirit? They wouldn’t even know who they were becoming followers of without that information.
December 11, 2008 at 7:53 pm
lee
thank you corey.
i still have the same position.
lee
December 11, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Truth
I believe the people here in Ephesus had been taught about Jesus, but were taught very little about the gospel of Jesus. And when Paul came and saw this he explained the gospel to them more accurately.
December 11, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Truth
The fact that they are called disciples is information from Luke, not something Paul said.
Corey, where did Luke get this information?
December 11, 2008 at 8:30 pm
coreydavis
Where he got the information is ultimately irrelevant since it was confirmed by the Holy Spirit who inspired him to write it. That still doesn’t tell us whose disciples they were – for that information we have to go to the context. When I take only the facts, and don’t try to make it say what I want, I am forced to conclude that they were disciples of John.
We should note that these individuals were baptized in water for a SECOND time, which destroys the notion that water baptism (and understanding its purpose) isn’t essential. It was after their second immersion that Paul laid his hands upon them to impart the miraculous gifts. Relative to the subject of Cornelius, we should note that from this point on no one is recorded as being baptized with the Holy Spirit – those who received those gifts got them by the laying on of an apostle’s hands (just like the Ephesians in question).
December 11, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Truth
Corey said:
It was after their second immersion that Paul laid his hands upon them to impart the miraculous gifts.
That’s not what the Bible says.
“When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.”
It doesn’t say and THEN Paul HAD laid hands on them, that makes absolutely no sense.
It says and WHEN Paul HAD laid hands on them.
Paul had to lay his hands on them to baptize them.
December 11, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Truth
And Corey if you say the gifts cease after Cornelius then you have to dismiss all books written after the Corinthians since the knowledge from the Spirit would be gone also!
December 11, 2008 at 9:28 pm
coreydavis
So what you really want the text to say is “Paul laid his hands upon them to baptize them, which caused the Holy Spirit to come upon them, and then they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus”.
Sorry, that isn’t the sequence of events.
December 11, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Truth
It sure doesn’t say then Paul had laid hands on them like you really want it to say.
I believe Paul had to lay his hands on them to baptize them and I believe they received the Holy Spirit when Paul HAD laid his hands on them.
December 11, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Truth
According to you after Cornelius and his household in the book of Acts receive the Holy Spirit the gifts cease. You then would have to dismiss all the books written after this besides Corinthians, which tell us when the gifts cease, and have to say they are invalid since the knowledge of the Spirit would be gone??
Sorry, but I do not believe that.
December 11, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Truth
Corey, I will check back later, to see if you have any other comments on the confusion you are creating, because the Bible says “For God is not the author of confusion.”
December 11, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Truth
I would like to see your response to this:
According to you after Cornelius and his household in the book of Acts receive the Holy Spirit the gifts cease. You then would have to dismiss all the books written after this besides Corinthians, which tell us when the gifts cease, and would have to say they are invalid since the knowledge from the Spirit would be gone.
December 12, 2008 at 4:31 am
Truth
Corey said:
We should note that these individuals were baptized in water for a SECOND time, which destroys the notion that water baptism (and understanding its purpose) isn’t essential.
Reply:
The Ephesians received the Holy Spirit when Paul laid his hands on them to baptize them. Also the first time they were baptized it was for the remission of sins and that sure didn’t save them, and the people in Acts 2 were also baptized for the remission of sins.
Also Cornelius and all those with him received the Holy Spirit and were saved before they were baptized. And Jesus has not changed, Hebrews 13:8 “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.”
The people of Samaria in Acts 8 were not saved when they were baptized “For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” And they were not baptized again, they recieved the Holy Spirit when Peter and John laid their hands on them “Then they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.”
The Bible says there is “one” baptism, Ephesians 4:4-5 “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” And 1 Corinthians 12:13 Paul makes it very clear that the “one” baptism is the baptism of the Holy Spirit “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body–whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free–and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.”
And in Ephesians 1:13-14 tells us we are sealed by the baptism of the Holy Spirit “In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.”
There is only “one” baptism that is essential for salvation, that is the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
December 12, 2008 at 2:22 pm
coreydavis
According to you after Cornelius and his household in the book of Acts receive the Holy Spirit the gifts cease. You then would have to dismiss all the books written after this besides Corinthians, which tell us when the gifts cease, and have to say they are invalid since the knowledge of the Spirit would be gone??
I never said that. I said that the baptism of the Holy Spirit never happened again. I clearly stated, in this very topic, that the gifts did continue. The Bible is clear that they were given only by the laying on of the apostles hands after the conversion of Cornelius. As to the one baptism being the baptism of the Holy Spirit, I’ve already addressed that on my post “The One Baptism of Ephesians 4:5″.
We’ve been over all of these things now and you seem content with your erroneous views. That is your choice. You are done posting on this topic – any other posts will be deleted. I told you at the start that my blog is not like Nathan’s for endless contentious arguments. If you want to argue these things without end you’ll just have to find someplace else to do it.
December 12, 2008 at 8:06 pm
lee
what was wrong with my post corey?
December 12, 2008 at 9:30 pm
coreydavis
The conversation has run its course. Your comment offered nothing to the discussion.
December 12, 2008 at 9:55 pm
lee
easy big fella.
me friend.
lee
December 15, 2008 at 2:22 pm
coreydavis
No problems Lee. There are just some changes in the works for this blog.
December 16, 2008 at 1:07 am
lee
my point of view is different as is apparently truths.
but why call it erroneous?
simple enough to just say “your view”
dont you think?
lee
December 16, 2008 at 2:20 pm
coreydavis
I believe the scriptures to teach “Truth’s” views to be false, which is the same as “erroneous” or “wrong”. This is not a simple matter of opinion, but an incredibly important subject so I can’t just say I’ll agree to disagree on this.
December 16, 2008 at 4:08 pm
lee
it seems you want conversation with no arguments.
and that is fine but no one wants to be dismissed because they
disagree. not you or me.
it is not a sign of weakness to be kind to people you believe to be
wrong. in fact it is just the opposite.
i have followed yours and other coc conversations for a long time now.
is it at least possible that we in the denominations have a deep and
abiding love for the lord jesus as your self?
is it possible that we keep his commandments as we understand them?
” by this shall all men know”
we must love………..now love is rarely a feeling but a choice.
i do believe we should be firm about some things but flexable where
allowed.
there are many things i see that i dont like and i make it known.
but i am learning that sometimes its just my problem.everyone is
not like me.
i am often wrong…..no suprise there.
but what i will say to you is this, in my own life i have seen how god has
guided my path from birth till now.
from an adoption at two years of age into the home of a alcholic.
i grew up living next door to grand parents who made sure i went to
church every sunday and wed.
two people who were uneducated but made jesus first in their home.
pentacostals, who served god with all they knew.
that was my example to watch. and how privilaged i was.
but since i have been an adult i am responsible for my spiritual life.
i have seen nothing to convince me to disavow the training.
i know god through his word but i feel him through my life.
i hope this is true for you.
his plan for us is not a cold lesson without feeling.
if you love christ as you seem to, i say glory
but so do i and that would make us ……….
well you know.
lee
,
December 16, 2008 at 5:19 pm
coreydavis
Lee, what I want is conversation, not arguments. “Truth” keeps jumping from topic to topic, mostly ignoring the answers I give him. If a person’s mind is made up that I am wrong, and they have no intention of changing, they have that right – I, however, am not bound to argue endlessly about these things. Jesus commanded His followers to shake the dust from their feet in those cities where they were rejected – that is essentially what I’m doing. You have every right to not like the way I run this blog, but since it is mine, I will do with it as I see best.
I am certain that the majority of folks you worship with are good people who love and desire to follow the Lord. I know that the Baptist church I grew up in was filled with such. That said, it doesn’t mean that all those good people teach or practice is Biblical or pleasing in the eyes of God. I guess my big problem comes in when people who say they love the Lord are shown how they’ve deviated from His word and they begin arguing and fighting with those who attempt to teach them. I’m not saying you should instantly give up what you’ve held to be true most of your life, but when we rely on our feelings to justify our practices then there is a problem. Saul of Tarsus persecuted the church of Christ with a clean conscience.
I enjoy discussing with you because I feel you are a reasonable man. I do not enjoy it with those who seemingly want only to spam me with a barrage of questions or great deal of words only for the sake of arguing. I will not permit that here. If that seems heavy handed, so be it.
December 16, 2008 at 6:40 pm
lee
if you love christ as you seem to, i say glory
but so do i and that would make us ……….
well you know.
lee
i know you didnt ignor the last part.
listen….i said there were things i didnt agree with.
i meant in my own experiences.
but what im saying is that alone dosent make them sin.
if a man tells me he is a christian i dont ask for
id.
who he really is will be apparent soon enough. amen?you know
“be wise as serpents and harmless as doves”
can i call you brother?
lee
December 16, 2008 at 8:34 pm
coreydavis
i said there were things i didnt agree with.
i meant in my own experiences.
but what im saying is that alone dosent make them sin.
What makes things sin?
Romans 14:23 …for whatever is not from faith is sin.
And where does faith come from?
Romans 10:17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
In other words, if it is contrary to the word of God then it is sin. If it is sin it cannot be overlooked.
if a man tells me he is a christian i dont ask for
id.
who he really is will be apparent soon enough. amen?
This sounds nice, but I can’t “amen” it. Look at this:
Matthew 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
When we choose to sit back and let people into our midst without finding out what they believe/teach we are inviting wolves into our midst. If we don’t “ask for id” we may find the church in chaos because we weren’t on guard.
can i call you brother?
The great preacher Marshall Keeble called everyone, even from denominations, “brother”. One man called him on it saying, “see, you know we’re (referring to his denomination) Christians. You called me ‘brother’”!
Keeble replied, “Hold on. I ‘brothered’ you in Adam. I didn’t ‘brother’ you in Christ”. So, in that sense, you can call me brother. I truly wish you’d come out of the Pentecostal religion and join me in Christ. I wish I lived near you and we could actually sit down face-to-face and study the issues that divide us. I fear that what we do here will never accomplish anything productive.
December 16, 2008 at 9:19 pm
lee
i am already here.
June 16, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Randy
Corey, the more I look at the account of Cornelius and his household, the more I am persuaded that they were forgiven prior to being baptized.
The Bible says in Acts 5:32 that only those who obey God may receive the Holy Ghost – so what did those in Acts 10 do to obey and receive the Holy prior to being baptized?
Simon Peter said their hearts were “purified by faith” (Acts 15:9) and that we are saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ like they were (Acts 15:11); that is, before and without water baptism.
June 16, 2009 at 4:10 pm
coreydavis
Then do you also believe that they were forgiven without hearing (Acts 11:15)? Do you believe that this same man who had fallen down and worshiped Peter minutes earlier didn’t need to hear the words by which he & his house would be saved?
Let us pretend for a moment that they were saved prior to immersion in water – is this the same type of conversion experience that you had? That anyone you know had? If not, then this clearly isn’t something that we can use as our model (much like the thief on the cross).
Acts 15:11 does not, in any way, negate our response in faith. Where is repentance or confession in Peter’s speech in Acts 15? They aren’t there – but that does not negate their necessity.
Remember that Peter said that they Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius “as he had come on us at the beginning.” (Acts 11:15). Were the apostles unsaved until Acts 2? The Holy Spirit fell upon the apostles as a sign to those who they were preaching to – not to save them. The Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius in the same manner as the apostles – not to save, but as a sign (to the Jews who wouldn’t accept the Gentiles).
In the end, if your experience doesn’t mirror Cornelius’, then you have to go elsewhere to see what you must do.
June 16, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Randy
“Let us pretend for a moment that they were saved prior to immersion in water – is this the same type of conversion experience that you had? That anyone you know had? If not, then this clearly isn’t something that we can use as our model (much like the thief on the cross).”
RE: I am not saying Cornelius is “our model” but one could say that too about Acts 2:38. Nor do I suggest we are saved per the thief on the cross model. In all of these cases, God done the saving – who am I to put him in a box stating he cant act outside of that box?
Even the Old Testament has examples of God acting outside of “the model.”
God made a covenant with Abraham under which Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. God promised his favor to all
Abraham’s descendants (Gen. 12:1-3, 7; 13:14-17; 15:6,22).
Melchizedek was not a descendant of Abraham and was not part of the Patriarchal Dispensation. Melchizedek did not receive the promises made to the Jews. And yet he was a priest of God. He was accepted outside the covenant then in effect.
When David committed adultery with Bathsheba and had her husband, Uriah, killed, did God act outside of the sacrificial, tabernacle plan?
While Jesus walked this earth, he freely forgave sins, based on faith—but without the baptism of John and without compliance with the sacrifices demanded by the Law of Moses. Even on the cross, Jesus forgave the sins of the thief (Luke 23:40-43), saving him based on faith. Once again, God was forgiving outside the covenant.
June 16, 2009 at 5:13 pm
coreydavis
Melchizedek was not a descendant of Abraham and was not part of the Patriarchal Dispensation. Melchizedek did not receive the promises made to the Jews. And yet he was a priest of God. He was accepted outside the covenant then in effect.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure Melchizedek was a priest prior to the covenant with Abraham, making him a priest during the patriarchal dispensation. That would mean his priesthood was appointed by God, and not subject to the Levitical regulations (which wouldn’t come along until Moses anyway).
As to your other examples, I acknowledge what you say as truth. I will say this though – it is unwise to rely on mercy to cover ignorance or disobedience. Let me put it like this – if you could show me a verse that said that I had to hop on one leg and repeat the 2nd Psalm in order to be saved, then I’m going to do it. If there is something that I’m shown that I have missed that God has asked of me, I’m just going to do it. I’m not going to rely on mercy to cover my ignorance or disobedience – I’m going to make the changes as I grow in knowledge, and that is what I plead for others to do as well.
I will rely upon that which is certain rather than hoping that an exception will be made for me.
June 16, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Randy
I wont beat around the bush, Corey – I do believe baptism is “for the remission of sins” but when a Baptist person or some other denominational person trust in Jesus and they simply fail to grasp everything about baptism, that you and I supposedly have understood – I can not play God any longer and tell these people that they are headed to hell….God be their Judge, not me. If God acted outside of the model in the Old Testament, who can honestly say he cant now? We often paint these people as disobedient sinners because they failed to understand baptism as we do….when they come to God with just as much faith in Jesus as we.
June 16, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Randy
“I’m not going to rely on mercy to cover my ignorance or disobedience”
RE: I strongly disagree with this statement, seeing we do not know everything, nor are we always 100% obedient, so I think I will reply on Gods Mercy to cover my ignorance or disobedience. If one trust in his own knowledge and his own righteousness, I feel so bad for that person. This is where the Church is straying off track and replying own self and not Christ. If we could live up to such standards – why do we even need Jesus and His blood? On the flip side, I see your point, but it seems many are looking past Grace and replying on self righteousness. I’m sure you didn’t mean this, but many will take it that way.
Well, I will check back in couple of days. Take care.
June 16, 2009 at 5:32 pm
coreydavis
Randy – you seem to misunderstand what I’m saying. I’m talking about those instances where there is clear revelation. If God has made something clear, He has made it so I can understand it. In those instances I shouldn’t have to rely upon mercy to be obedient – I should just do what I’m told.
There are some instances where we don’t understand exactly what is meant, and we must do our best (erring on the side of caution IMO), but beyond that, there is little we can do. Those aren’t the instances I’m referring to.
For example – let’s look at those Baptists you referred to. What happens when, like Apollos, they are shown the truth fully? What happens when they say, “well, I know I’m saved, so I don’t have to do that”? I’m not talking about those that have never heard the full truth – I’m talking about those that have, yet reject it.
June 16, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Randy
Okay, this is my last one today – for real this time
Corey – I understood what you said. I know the arguments we use regarding Apollos and that just doesn’t apply to those today we so often condemn. I don’t know too many Baptist people living prior to the cross as Apollos, who was obviously looking towards the cross and obviously didn’t know Jesus died for his sins. I have a feeling Priscilla and Aquila proclaimed to him the gospel – “the way of God more adequately”, but there is no mention of rebaptism. Either Apollos was never baptized into Christ or Luke felt it was unnecessary to so state..so, I don’t think this to be a strong argument, seeing it has too many holes. No doubt Apollos accepted the message that Jesus died and rose again – but nothing is implied that he was re-baptized. Acts contains so many baptism accounts that it surely seems odd that Luke would have skipped the re-baptism of Apollos. This argument just doesn’t hold “water”
I agree, we must show others fully what we perceive to be truth, but does this mean we have it all FULLY figured out? It is not that these Baptist folk and others are “rejecting” truth or what we believe to be truth. They all accept the gospel just as we do and just as Apollos done. We just jump down their throats when they fail to understand baptism as we despite their clear understanding of the work of Jesus and despite their faith and penitence…we look past this and push them in hell because they lack our supposed understanding of baptism.
God clearly made exceptions in the Old Testament and I think he will today – don’t know why He wouldn’t. Is the age of exceptions over? Did God make these exceptions for a limited purpose? Or is it God’s nature to make exceptions?
In each dispensation God has establish a well-defined covenant as to how he will forgive the sins of those with faith in him — and in each dispensation God has repeatedly made exceptions, frequently granting forgiveness to those with penitent faith outside the specific terms of His covenant.
Has God ever rejected anyone who came to him with faith and penitence?
June 17, 2009 at 5:43 pm
coreydavis
We just jump down their throats when they fail to understand baptism as we despite their clear understanding of the work of Jesus and despite their faith and penitence…we look past this and push them in hell because they lack our supposed understanding of baptism.
I am neither jumping down anyone’s throat or pushing anyone to hell…I’m just trying to persuade people to give up man-made religion and return to the word of God.
It is never a good idea, be it with denominations or the church of Christ, to paint everyone with the same broad brush. The extreme tactics and disposition of some does not mean that they are representative of the whole. I try to remember that when discussing with those in denominations and I would hope that the same could be afforded the churches of Christ.
June 17, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Randy
Well stated and agreed.
I should have stated my wording more carefully. I didn’t mean you and I practice such behavior. I mean that “some” in the church of Christ jump down the throats of others and push them to hell….
But, I do know you pretty much line up with the same mentality as those with such views. I mean by this, that you also consider “denominational” people on the road to hell, even though you aren’t aggressive as some in the church of Christ. I really line up with Clint’s views…someone in the middle. I am fearful of the conservatives for excluding every other denomination and I am fearful of the progressives who almost seem to invite every denomination.
I know I have went off the trail on this post, so I will keep quite for a while ( I will try anyways )