Revising Pentecostal history: 1908-1912

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Esaias

You don't know?

Well, let us look at it. He was either saved before... Or after...right? Those are the only options (unless he got saved while being spoken to? Doesn't look like it from the context...)

If it was BEFORE, then why was he still needing to wash away his sins? Can a person be saved... and yet still polluted by the stain of sins?

If it was AFTER, why was he told to be baptised? Isn't baptism for people who are already saved? I mean why tell an unsaved person to get baptised? Isn't that getting the cart begore the horse?

And either way, why is baptism linked to washing away sins the way it is? Shouldn't it be more natural to say "arise and wash away your sins, calling on the Lord, and then be baptised"?

Why does the Bible put it so differently? Does YOUR religion lead you to say things the way the apostles did? The way the early church did? Would YOU ever tell someone to get up and be baptised and wash away their sins, calling on the name of the Lord?

Would such a statement be a natural, logical result of your views on conversion, baptism, forgiveness, salvation?

The only retort I have gotten to questions like these since they will not answer these type of questions directly is to go to Acts 10, Ephesian 1:13 (in the ESV or another modern translation) and point to those who were filled with the Spirit before baptism and query how can the Holy Spirit indwell a person who is still in their sin. How do you respond to that?