All Trinitarians are Lost!!!!!!!!!!!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Who is denying this? That is without question. But the fact that God filled Cornelius with the Spirit before he was baptized blows away the idea that "the blood is applied at baptism". The blood was applied when "Christ entered in for us" according to the book of Hebrew. We simply embrace that work by faith through repentance/water baptism. But it is obvious here that God bent his own order out of necessity, to prove that he had shed his blood for Gentiles as well. In other words, God "saved" Cornelius before water baptism. This is a case of God "calling those things that are not as if though they were". Cornelius would not have gone to hell if he had dropped dead just before he reached the water. But again, this was the exception and not the rule. We have no right to pray for people to receive the Holy Ghost until they are baptized and the story of Cornelius is not a license to do so.

So ol' legalist Peter had the audacity to order Cornelius & his house to baptized in Jesus' name immediately....But he was already "saved"? The verb translated "command(ed)" denotes, "to make special haste" as defined by Greek grammarians.

Peter was guilty of "burying the living"??

Also, I can absolutely prove to the honest in heart right here that Cornelius was NOT saved at Spirit baptism alone (see John 3:3-5)!

Ready?

The angel specifically stated that Peter would tell Cornelius "words by which you will be saved" (Ac. 11.14).


Tell us, did Peter's command to be water baptized in Jesus' Name frame part of his "words" to Cornelius, yes or no:_____________?


If yes, then according to the heavenly messenger his "words" relative to "salvation" included a command to be water baptized in Jesus' name....Or will you tell us that biblical commandments are not necessary for salvation ??

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Originalist

So does the blood still literally exist today? Where is it? Does it have a storage place? Is it orbiting the planet waiting to dive bomb sinners who are getting baptized? Is it invisible? Do you literally believe that blood has come in contact with your soul?

When you answer me I'll answer you (I asked first).

From where in the Ac. 2.38 text are extracting that when one is Spirit baptized they have obeyed the fulness of said passage?

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by rdp

So ol' legalist Peter had the audacity to order Cornelius & his house to baptized in Jesus' name immediately....But he was already "saved"? The verb translated "command(ed)" denotes, "to make special haste" as defined by Greek grammarians.

Peter was guilty of "burying the living"??

Also, I can absolutely prove to the honest in heart right here that Cornelius was NOT saved at Spirit baptism alone (see John 3:3-5)!

Ready?

The angel specifically stated that Peter would tell Cornelius "words by which you will be saved" (Ac. 11.14).


Tell us, did Peter's command to be water baptized in Jesus' Name frame part of his "words" to Cornelius, yes or no:_____________?


If yes, then according to the heavenly messenger his "words" relative to "salvation" included a command to be water baptized in Jesus' name....Or will you tell us that biblical commandments are not necessary for salvation ??

The clincher!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:s antathumb

[Old Paths]

Looks like those trinity sympathizers done run out of snuff...

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Old Paths

Looks like those trinity sympathizers done run out of snuff...

Some of us work for a living.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Old Paths

Looks like those trinity sympathizers done run out of snuff...

Looks like these Trinitarian haters are snorting some funny stuff

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Old Paths

Question?

Act 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.


What would have happened had they NOT "continued" stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Titus 3:5 says...

"He saved us by washing of rebirth and renewal of the HOLY GHOST"

The blood of Jesus bought that gift.

If we are truly born again, we will bear fruit, some more than others. To "continue" means we continue to walk in our newness of life we received at Spirit baptism. But none us have arrived. ALL Apostolic, Spirit filled Christians are missing the boat on something . There is some area we are missing it. Both post-tribbers and pre-tribbers cannot be right. But being wrong on a point does not mean we are not "continuing in the Apostles' doctrine". It just means we are human.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by rdp

So ol' legalist Peter had the audacity to order Cornelius & his house to baptized in Jesus' name immediately....But he was already "saved"? The verb translated "command(ed)" denotes, "to make special haste" as defined by Greek grammarians.

Peter was guilty of "burying the living"??

Also, I can absolutely prove to the honest in heart right here that Cornelius was NOT saved at Spirit baptism alone (see John 3:3-5)!

Ready?

The angel specifically stated that Peter would tell Cornelius "words by which you will be saved" (Ac. 11.14).


Tell us, did Peter's command to be water baptized in Jesus' Name frame part of his "words" to Cornelius, yes or no:_____________?


If yes, then according to the heavenly messenger his "words" relative to "salvation" included a command to be water baptized in Jesus' name....Or will you tell us that biblical commandments are not necessary for salvation ??

Cornelius was a special case, which I've made abundantly clear. It can not be used as proof text that people are normally saved without baptism, or that we should pray for people to receive the Holy Ghost who have not been baptized.. And I've already explained why God did that in the case of Cornelius.
But the point I'm making is that you who say that Trinitarian Pentecostals who have the Holy Ghost have not been forgiven of their sins because the man who baptized them blew it on the wording. If you truly believe that baptism is for the remission of sins, and that the normative order is to have one's sins remitted and THEN receive the Holy Ghost, then you either have to say that these people have had their sins "washed in the blood" (figuratively) or that they really did not receive the Holy Ghost. You can't have it both ways. God will not dwell in someone who has not repented, and baptism is part of repentance.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by rdp

When you answer me I'll answer you (I asked first).

From where in the Ac. 2.38 text are extracting that when one is Spirit baptized they have obeyed the fulness of said passage?

I meant that in the context of Cornelius. In his case, God called those things that are not as though they are. I also meant that in the context of those who had some preacher use an incorrect formula while baptizing them. If God fills them with the Spirit after that baptism, then that means in God's eyes THEY have obeyed Acts 2;38. This does not mean i would not share with them the historical truth concerning invoking the name of Jesus at baptism. but if christ lives in them, they are our brother. Why because the one who bears the Name lives in them.

Now it's your turn. Please answer my question.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Cornelius was a special case, which I've made abundantly clear. It can not be used as proof text that people are normally saved without baptism, or that we should pray for people to receive the Holy Ghost who have not been baptized.. And I've already explained why God did that in the case of Cornelius.
But the point I'm making is that you who say that Trinitarian Pentecostals who have the Holy Ghost have not been forgiven of their sins because the man who baptized them blew it on the wording. If you truly believe that baptism is for the remission of sins, and that the normative order is to have one's sins remitted and THEN receive the Holy Ghost, then you either have to say that these people have had their sins "washed in the blood" (figuratively) or that they really did not receive the Holy Ghost. You can't have it both ways. God will not dwell in someone who has not repented, and baptism is part of repentance.

Then what was the "special case" below?

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed.

14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.

Notice, the Samaritans had believed in the Name of Jesus, seen miracles, deliverances, great joy (Acts 8.5-8), & even been water baptized. Despite of all of this, Peter & John had the audacity to "pray for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit"????

And, there is no doubt whether or not "baptism is for the remission of sins"....They Biblical data specifically states it is & I accept it as written!

I'll never understand why you folks fight the biblical plan of salvation so hard....Other than a misplaced loyalty to religion.

Sad..........