I believe Cornelius was saved even before they heard them speak in tongues. OPs see the tongues as the moment one is saved... oh wait, only if they've also been water baptized in Jesus name too. So at any point during the three steps they are in spiritual limbo?
I believe in the numerous passages that say one is saved by faith, through faith, or by believing. To OPs those verses don't matter unless they've seen them water baptized and speaking in tongues.
True faith in Jesus saves. True faith will produce the signs OPs seek as the steps to salvation.
I do believe that the whole Gospel is important, but I don't believe the act of water baptism remits sins.
Did God pour out his spirit into an unclean vessel? Was Cornelius spiritually alive and spiritually dead at the same time?
Apparently God's view of Cornelius was greater than man's. I guess it's not possible to be saved by grace through faith, by having faith in Jesus, by calling on the name of the Lord, justification through faith, or having one's sins remitted through faith in Jesus.
God saw fit to pour out His spirit on Cornelius before he was water baptized.
So although "they didn't view anyone a clean vessel without all three elements involved" God must've thought otherwise.
Will anyone answer my question... Did GOD pour out His spirit into an unclean vessel?
A specific answer to your specific question is no.
Some, rather than answer your question, would choose to believe in holy ghost filled children of the devil.
I believe Cornelius was saved even before they heard them speak in tongues. OPs see the tongues as the moment one is saved... oh wait, only if they've also been water baptized in Jesus name too. So at any point during the three steps they are in spiritual limbo?
I believe in the numerous passages that say one is saved by faith, through faith, or by believing. To OPs those verses don't matter unless they've seen them water baptized and speaking in tongues.
True faith in Jesus saves. True faith will produce the signs OPs seek as the steps to salvation.
I do believe that the whole Gospel is important, but I don't believe the act of water baptism remits sins.
Did God pour out his spirit into an unclean vessel? Was Cornelius spiritually alive and spiritually dead at the same time?
Quote:
I do believe that the whole Gospel is important, but I don't believe the act of water baptism remits sins.
So I guess the Apostles were just blowing smoke when they speak, throughout the NT, on the subject of belief, repentance, baptism and the Holy Ghost/Spirit?
I believe Cornelius was saved even before they heard them speak in tongues. OPs see the tongues as the moment one is saved... oh wait, only if they've also been water baptized in Jesus name too. So at any point during the three steps they are in spiritual limbo?
I believe in the numerous passages that say one is saved by faith, through faith, or by believing. To OPs those verses don't matter unless they've seen them water baptized and speaking in tongues.
True faith in Jesus saves. True faith will produce the signs OPs seek as the steps to salvation.
I do believe that the whole Gospel is important, but I don't believe the act of water baptism remits sins.
Did God pour out his spirit into an unclean vessel? Was Cornelius spiritually alive and spiritually dead at the same time?
I believe to your specific question here, Paul addresses this in Romans 15:15-16 - "Yet I have written you quite boldly on some points to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles. He gave me the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified (made holy) by the Holy Spirit." (NIV)
Laying aside our particular views and terminology, Paul teaches nothing outside of the WHOLE Gospel. To say we are a clean vessel at any point without the WHOLE Gospel would be a misfortunate oversight on our part.
RJR,
the story of Cornelius' salvation actually blows holes into most OP views.
1. Peter tells them that their sins will be remitted when they put their faith in Jesus. This goes against the teaching that water baptism remits sins.
2. Cornelius was "fillled" with the Holy Ghost before he was baptized. (I say filled because I think salvational regeneration and a filling or empowerment are separate but can occur simultaneously as in this case) Either God gave someone the Holy Ghost before their sins were remitted, or their sins were remitted through faith prior to them receiving the Holy Ghost.
Most OPs believe that he was definitely saved AFTER he was baptized in Jesus name, probably or kinda saved after he spoke in tongues, but certainly not entirely saved before those. I believe that once he put his faith in Jesus (as Peter taught) his sins were remitted and he was spiritually reborn. We also see that in addition to his salvation he was empowered by a "filling" or manifestation of the Holy Ghost that showed to Peter and the others that they were also saved. All of this mind you, BEFORE they were water baptized. If they had not spoken in tongues, Peter may have doubted their conversion and may not have offered water baptism. The tongues were for a sign, not to Cornelius who believed, but to those who may not have believed that on the Gentiles was also poured out the Holy Ghost.
Did Jesus pour his spirit into a dirty, sinful, unclean vessel?
Or did Jesus pour his spirit into a vessel who's sins were remitted through faith in Jesus?
obriencp, I have just returned from attending a meeting after a 17 hour travel day.
In answer to above.
1) You must be referring to, Act 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
Faith is not an event as much as it is a process. Notice the believETH. Faith produces action, I believe I posted that already on this thread. It is not saying faith alone saves a man, the Bible teaches the polar opposite. While not dismissing the significance and essentiality of faith, in Mark 16:16 it was "he that believeth AND is baptized shall be saved." Was faith essential? Yes! Was or is faith alone? No! You must be inferring that faith without any repentance or change within a man would also save him. Do you think repentance is essential? Faith is what fuels any obedience to divine injunctions, whether repentance, baptism or any command. As a matter of fact, in Rom 10:17 faith and obedience is used interchangeably.
To get to the point, repentance is not salvation alone. No single act is salvation alone, I don't think it would be necessary to list all the passages that speaks concerning what saves. While each of them has their place and is indeed essential, it is a subject made up of individual ingredients and not a single element. It is obedience to each that results in the whole. Let me give a good example, repentance is essential, 2 Cor 7:10 speaks of godly sorrow WORKETH repentance TO salvation. While repentance is essential it is not salvation only in and of itself, but TO salvation.
Did you ever notice, the brethren and Apostles response to Peter's explanation of Cornelius and his household's experience.
Act 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
This was their affirmation of the totality of Cornelius' experience of (obviously) hearing the word, (you do realize there is more than one thing that cleanses don't you?) repentance, Holy Ghost outpouring, and obedience to the baptism command. It was after this, they exclaim.."Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." None of these individual parts, alone or by themselves, the sum total of Cornelius' experience. But at the conclusion they could say "God hath granted repentance UNTO life.
I believe there is a divine response to each act of compliance, however at any response we do not say it is over, and also we couple to this, the fact, that God also sees the end from the beginning. He knows whether a man or woman will act in faith to each divine imperative. It is obvious that even having received the Spirit, they were not excused from the water element of one's new birth, and that is they must be baptized.
The reason I ask is because you will find yourself in a dilemma no matter how you answer.
If Jesus poured his spirit into an unclean vessel then Cornelius was spiritually alive while at the same time spiritually dead in sin.
If Jesus can only pour out his spirit into a cleansed vessel, then Cornelius' sins were already remitted before he was water baptized.
obriencp, The dilemma is in your own mind. Remission of sins is preached in his name in both repentance and baptism. God has more than one cleansing mechanism in the Gospel, it is obedience to the message that begin the cleansing process. John 15:3 says they were cleansed by the Word that was spoken. Eph 5 says the church is sanctified and cleansed by the washing of the water by the word. Cleansing it would appear comes through one's obedience to the message rather than tying one's cleansing to a isolated or single event. Does the Bible speak of remission of sins being preached in his name? Sure does, but we know that remission of sins is made possible through the blood. Is it simply the fact that blood was shed that man has forgiveness of sins? No! If that were true everyman is saved and no one is lost. It is our obedience to the gospel that appropriates that blood to our life. 1 John 5:8
Thanks RJR and Pressing On for feedback. I like how RJRs recent posts address the fact that cleansing is not limited to water baptism in Jesus' name. There are many verses that address salvation, as mentioned. I'd also like to point out Titus 3:5 "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;" We all know that it's the spirit which regenerates or brings life, but here it's also used as a washing mechanism.
I think Cornelius was completely saved before he was baptized. I think God washed him and forgave him of his sins or else he wouldn't have given him the gift of the Spirit; life. But I do understand why Paul wanted him to be baptized so that everyone was on the same page. If God didn't withhold the Holy Ghost from the gentiles, who were they to withhold the commandment/ritual/rite of baptism from them either.
This thread started as a response to 65+ people being baptized. And though some might not be so judgmental, there are OPs who immediately judge them as being unsaved because they didn't speak in tongues yet and the view towards baptism was different than theirs. I believe the AofG churches and some others are just as saved and spirit filled as the UPC, PAW, ALJC, etc. It's unfortunate that all of the genuinely saved, born again sons of God are fighting each other to try to prove who's saved and who isn't.
This thread started as a response to 65+ people being baptized. And though some might not be so judgmental, there are OPs who immediately judge them as being unsaved because they didn't speak in tongues yet and the view towards baptism was different than theirs. I believe the AofG churches and some others are just as saved and spirit filled as the UPC, PAW, ALJC, etc. It's unfortunate that all of the genuinely saved, born again sons of God are fighting each other to try to prove who's saved and who isn't.
Hey, if you want me to agree with this, don't hold your breath.
I will NEVER agree with this statement:
Quote:
CC1 Said: "You are born of water in your natural birth and of the Spirit when you repent and accept Christ as your savior.
Linear Mode
