The Apostle Paul's referenes to Holy Spirit baptism

No need.

They are not contradictory. Mark 16:16 does not say `those who believe yet are not baptized will be condemned' -- that is your inference.

Now, you still need to do what I told you that you need to do. Once again, rather than deal with Acts 10:43 itself directly, you pointed to another passage.

Why?

I have indulged you and indulged you and indulged you in your calls to focus on other passages. It is your turn to address one of them.

Emphasis mine

I repeat: it is past time for you to do so.

The passage says of Jesus Christ at 10:43 "everyone that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV).

You say that this was not meant be a `normative' statement? How can "everyone" not be normative? No way.

Also, the New Testament church made a major decision based on the events of Acts 10:34-8 in Acts 15. Looks like they thought it was normative to me!

I accuse you of no such thing.

I believe you are not making a distinction between human inference and explicit statement. I did not say that you were trying to make us believe something you know Scripture does not teach. I believe you really and truly think your human inferences are valid.

There is no passage that states the likes of `Everyone who faileth to be baptized shall be condemned.' These passages do not.

I have shown that those passages can be understood in ways that do not teach your position, and which do not contradict the explicit statement of Acts 10:43. Again, human inference is not correct when it discords with an explicit statement of Scripture. There is no passage that states states the likes of `Everyone who faileth to be baptized shall be condemned' as you teach.

Yes, these discussions do annoy me. I do not enjoy them.

Do you really think I come to the Internet and think `I want to debate with someone today'? I do not.

This subject has been covered over and over and over again on this board. Further, the same arguments are used. Do you think I come to the Internet and think `I want to argue with someone today, about the same subject I have done over and over and over again?' No way.

Still, I know how your position must be resisted. First of all, Christians die unbaptized all the time; I do not want people worrying that deceased loved Christians face eternal barbecue. Second, it disrupts the unity of the Lord's church, because Christians who buy your error will not even acknowledge unbaptized Christians. Your position, if unresisted, spreads, so I usually take on the task, despite my wishes it would just go away.

As for your other statement, I accused you of no dishonesty. Period.

Further, I am not avoiding any of your points. If I was to give my full heed to even your most trivial proposals, things I need to do in real life would be neglected. Therefore, I stick to main points.

For now, YES.

You deny that a person is saved unless s/he is baptized. If a person believes on Jesus Christ, yet for some reason fails to be baptized, s/he remains condemned in sin.

You need to explain how "Everyone that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV) can be true -- and at the same time, your position to the contrary can be harmonious with that passage.

 

An angel told Cornelius that Peter "will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved." (Acts 11:13-14).

The angel said Simon Peter will "tell you what you must do." (Acts 10:6).

Cornelius and his household were ready to hear Peter's commands (Acts 10:33).

The only thing Peter commanded them to do was to be baptized. (Acts 2:47-48).

Therefore, when Cornelius did what Peter said and was baptized, he was saved.



Peter said, "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them...." (Acts 11:15). According to the apostle, the Spirit came on the Gentiles at the beginning of his sermon.

This was before he finished providing proofs that Jesus is Lord. This was before Cornelius and company came to believe in Jesus.

Notice that Peter doesn't mention belief in Jesus until the very end of the sermon:

"To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins." (Acts 10:43).

If only Christians received the Spirit, and Cornelius received the Spirit as Peter began to speak (Acts 11:15), then, people could become Christians without believing in Christ.

If Peter's words and commands were necessary toward Cornelius' salvation (Acts 10:6; 11:13-14), and Cornelius received the Spirit before Peter detailed the evidences concerning Christ and gave a command to Cornelius, then Cornelius received the Spirit before his salvation.

It is also interesting to notice that in the case of the twelve men at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7), they received the Spirit and spoke in tongues after they were baptized in water. That's different from the order upon which your position depends.

 

Yes it may not have to, yet it may since it is pointed out to us.

They were given the Holy Spirit just like the Apostles did in the beginning, did the H.S. fall on the Apostles for salvation sake, does this mean that they (Apostles) were all lost before Pentecost?

Were the Jews in Acts 2:38 saved when the Holy Spirit fell upon them before water baptism?

I may still be trying to understand how all these passages go together, but even you and your baptist friends do not agree with each other. Do they know that you teach two different Gospels? Peter was saved differently then Cornelius, right? So if I struggle because I know there is one Gospel for all man. I need to be able to see how the summtion of scripture fits together. So right know I am looking at how Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:34 can fit together.

 

Are you serious? Never mind; I am sure you are.

This is one of the most extreme cases of reading suppositions into texts very alien to the texts that I have EVER seen ANYWHERE.

Common Church of Christ teaching is that God will not save anyone without the person having done some bodily act to completion. I understand that this probably conditioned you to look for a deed to be done to secure salvation, and I suspect that when you saw a specific bodily deed commanded finally at Acts 10:48, you assumed that this was what was required to be saved.

Problem: the text does not remotely state any such thing. The text of Scripture includes the exact opposite -- see below.

It looks like you have made a mistake.

Peter may have had a whole long sermon intended, but the Lord acted before he got very far. Where did you get the idea that these people did not even believe on Jesus Christ? Evidently, supposition. It is certainly not the text. I have more on this below.

You just said -- same post -- it was in the beginning of his sermon. You were right back then.

Now it is the beginning again. I think you have even got yourself confused! Yes, it was the beginning of the sermon Peter intended to preach.

Let me help you out. Peter was beginning his sermon, as Acts 11:15 indicates. However, the Scriptures provide detail:

Act 10:42 And he charged us to preach unto the people, and to testify that this is he who is ordained of God to be the Judge of the living and the dead.
Act 10:43 To him bear all the prophets witness, that through his name every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins.
Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word" (ASV|ESV|ASV).​

When Peter mentioned faith on Jesus Christ, and how "every one that believeth on him receives remission of sins," those who "heard the word" this received the Holy Spirit.

They were believers; Peter stated at Acts 15:9 about this that God "made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith” (ASV). They already had faith; they "heard the word" in a believing way.

Yeah, it was interesting to Paul too. He thought it was strange that they had not received the Holy Spirit when they "believed" (ASV). The norm was that they would have had the Holy Spirit as believers.

Also interesting was how the Scriptures never show Apollos of Acts 18 being given Christian baptism. It appears that sometimes, it was fitting to re-baptize Christians who had John's baptism, and sometimes it was not.

The idea of what was a "norm" just came up. According to Acts 15, the Cornelius episode was considered quite normative, as the church leadership made a major decision based upon it. The Cornelius episode involved the converts receiving the Holy Spirit upon faith in Jesus Christ, and being baptized as soon as it was clear that they were believers. As Acts 15 shows, the church considered this episode such an indication of how salvation works that they made an important decision due to it.

My position does not depend on any "order," but comes directly from an explicit statement of Scripture.

Acts 10:43 says explicitly of Jesus Christ "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV). My position is EXACTLY that.

Your position denies that premise. Your position is that if a person believes upon Jesus Christ, yet fails to be baptized, then does not receive remission of sins. In other words, `NOT everyone that believeth on him receives remission of sins.'

I repeat, yet again, my challenge to you: show how, if your position is correct, Acts 10:43 is not bogus.

So far, you have responded to the challenge in ways that did not involve actually trying to do so. I believe you are blind to the contradiction, and cannot see it to even try to do so.

There is no way that a person can deny that "everyone that believeth on him receives remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV) and still be `square' with this passage. A premise and its direct negation cannot simultaneously be true. Your position asserts the direct negation of this passage.

If your position is correct, then Acts 10:43 is bogus, and the Bible is not trustworthy about salvation. Because the Bible is true about every subject it addresses, Acts 10:43 is to be believed, and your negating position is wrong. Through the Name of Jesus Christ, "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV) -- baptized or not, whatever or not.

 

I would be a fool to not agree what this passage teaches. The difference between you me on this passage is that I do not believe it says that we are saved by belief alone apart from other commands of God in order to receive remission of sins.

There are other passages that teach the remission of sins is acquired or received in manners not specifically stated in this verse.

Which leads me to understand that "Believe" is the foundation of obedience.

The passage says nothing about repentance but we know that God granted them repentance.

Acts 11:17-18

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?"

18 When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying,"Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life."


I believe repentance is not the same as belief, but one will repent when they develop Godly sorrow, which will come way of hearing God's word. So Cornelius and his household certainly repented as well. So when I read this verse (Acts 10:43) I conclude that there is more than just believing involved.

The new birth is of water and Spirit, was Cornelius born of water and Spirit?

If Cornelius was saved by faith alone, then he did not repent.

Why was Corneliius baptized? Was it an outward sign of an inward grace? Was not the H.S. falling upon him a witness enough that he was acceptable for the gospel to go to the Gentiles?

 

Then you would have to hold that if a person
a) believes on Jesus Christ as Lord,
b) yet for whatever reason fails to be baptized,
then s/he still receives remission of sins.

As long as you hold that a person
a) who believes on Jesus Christ
b) can be unsaved
then you hold the direct negation of this passage. You do not agree with what the passage teaches.

This is true of anyone on any subject. If a person holds that there is ANY scenario where a believer on Jesus Christ does not receive remission of sins, then s/he denies what this passage teaches.

I also dispute your stripping of "believe" of any meaning. Any person who truly believes on Jesus Christ knows it always carries a cost. Holding that "believes on Jesus Christ" need not involve repentance and describing it as "just believing" strips it of any value and meaning.

You hold that a person can be a believer on Jesus Christ and yet not receive remission of sins. Therefore, you hold the direct negation of this passage.

I realize that you have other things you wanted to talk about, but I intend to keep the focus on this issue.

 

I agree, I also believe that the meaning of "believe" encompasses confession and baptism as well.

Do you believe that "Belief" encompasses being baptized with the Holy Spirit, I do? We are born of water and Spirit.

Were they not commanded to be baptized? Are we not commanded to be baptized?

NT:4367
prostasso (pros-tas'-so); from NT:4314 and NT:5021; to arrange towards, i.e. (figuratively) enjoin:
KJV - bid, command.

You cannot take one passage and set up a whole doctrine on that one passage. It is the summation of the New Testament that declares the way we are saved. If you can infer that "believe" means to repent also, then why can it not be inferred through other passages that confession and baptism also mean "believe".

Since I am restricted by your rules of staying right here with this verse I will not quote any of those passages that refer to salvation and remission of sins in conjunction with confession and baptism.

In fact what you are demanding of me with this passage, to take it for what it says, is the very thing that I tried to get you to do with Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16 and Mark 16:15, 16 and so on.

 

How?

The Greek word translated "believe" does not include these external bodily deeds. Sorry.

They are separate deeds. When a person believes that Jesus Christ is Lord, s/he repents at exactly the same moment. A person cannot believe on Jesus Christ as Lord without repentance -- I think you just agreed.

Oral confession and baptism must be done at a time subsequent to believing on Jesus Christ as Lord.

These are separate in at least three important ways:
1) Greek terminology, AND
2) in part of body they originate in, AND
3) time.

You evidently do not sometimes.

Once again, you are being inconsistent depending on the circumstances. You did the same thing in regard to the Cornelius episode and made the exact same thing the "began" and then "end" then "began" again of the sermon.

One time, you separate repentance and believing -- then you say you do not. Which is it?

I am very familiar with this strategy, which is to allege that people who disagree with you on baptism's role in salvation deny that we should be baptized. No one is denying the command to be baptized. Please do not resort to this strategy.

No; none of the passages states the likes of
a) `those who fail to be baptized shall be unsaved' or
b) `unless a person is baptized, then s/he shall not be saved, or
c) `even if a person believes on Jesus Christ, if s/he is not baptized, then s/he shall not be saved.'
There is no passage that states any such thing. You take those passages and infer things from them that they do not actually say, when those inferences are not the only ones possible.

Acts 10:43 explicitly states about Jesus Christ "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV).

Further, my real challenge is exactly as I said.

You hold that a person
a) who believes on Jesus Christ
b) can be unsaved.
Therefore, you hold the direct negation of this passage.

You hold that a person can be a believer on Jesus Christ and yet not receive remission of sins. Therefore, you hold the direct negation of this passage.

 

Where is your basis for this statement? Scripture?

I hold to that a believer is someone who obeys what is commanded to recieve the remission of sins.

Acts 16:34

34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.
NKJV

This was a man who believed in God who had been baptized as well as repented and had faith, the statement in 34 declares that believed encompasses all the things that he had done up to that point.

 

Common sense.

What is your basis for challenging it?

Now you challenge it. You switched back.

Why? Inconvenience?

What Scripture do you have that belief on Jesus Christ is so meaningless? What Scriptures do you have to support a belief that a person can believe on Jesus Christ and yet not immediately change from the person's sinful direction?

Garbage. Faith on Jesus Christ is never, ever meaningless.

Well, you believe these things without any Scripture. Also, if consistent, you would have to hold that "believe" includes "set food before" the people who led him and his family to faith.

Here are the parts of your post that are made without Scriptural support.

1) "I hold to that a believer is someone who obeys what is commanded to recieve the remission of sins."
2) "the statement in 34 declares that believed encompasses all the things that he had done up to that point."​

Even if you exclude "set food before" them, it certainly does not.

Acts 16:34 says "Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household" (NKJV).

The Greek noun and verb translated "faith" and "believe" do not include bodily things that have to be done outside the mind. You can look them up in Greek lexicons and you will find the same. You cannot make ancient Greek terms mean things they did not.

Acts 10:43 explicitly states about Jesus Christ "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV).

Your position asserts the direct negation of this passage. You hold that a person can be a believer on Jesus Christ and yet not receive remission of sins. Therefore, you hold the direct negation of this passage.

 

Acts 10:43

43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins."
NKJV

He who believes in Him will receive remission of sins? T or F

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;
NKJV

He who believed in Him will receive remission of sins? T or F

He who believes in him and will not confess Christ will receive remission of sins? T or F

Rom 10:9-10

9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
NKJV

True or false "Confession is made with the mouth unto salvation"?
True or false "Confession and believe are the same condition unto salvation?

True or false "Confession made with the mouth is done outside of the mind"?

 

I am familiar with the "True or False" game.

I would like to think you are above that. Either way, I will not slum to that level.

You will have to do better if you want this `denominationalist' to indulge you.

Back up we go.

Acts 10:43 explicitly states about Jesus Christ "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV).

Your position asserts the direct negation of this passage. You hold that a person can be a believer on Jesus Christ and yet not receive remission of sins.

No Scripture teaches the negation of this passage. Whatever passage you want to cite and make inference on, no passage states the likes of
a) `even if a person believes on Jesus Christ, s/he does not have remission of sins,' or
b) `not everyone that believeth on Jesus Christ receives remission of sins.'
If any stated such, or had teaching such as a correct inference, the Bible would contradict itself, and would be untrustworthy on salvation.

Of course, the Bible is entirely accurate on any subject it addresses.

 

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;
NKJV

Did these men (rulers) receive the remission of sins when they believed in Him?
Did they receive the H.S. when they believed?

 

This was before the New Covenant was in effect; Christ had not yet shed the blood of the New Covenant. The Holy Spirit was not being granted to followers of Christ yet. You are stretching in your efforts to push the direct negation of a passage of Scripture, and have now reached back to even before the arrest of Jesus Christ.

Here is what I think you are trying to do. You want to push the idea that believers on Jesus Christ remain unsaved unless they get themselves baptized. Therefore, you must convince us that `not every one that believeth on him receives remission of sins' -- the direct negation of Acts 10:43. You are evidently trying to convince us that there are Scriptures that teach the direct negation of Acts 10:43, and unwittingly that Scripture contradicts itself on salvation. You then expect that we will still trust the Scriptures as you try to promote your mistaken belief that Scripture teaches `salvation upon baptism.'

These arguments work okay in Church of Christ circles where you `amen' each other about virtually any argument favoring salvation by baptism. It is a much celebrated feeling that `We are right, and better yet, we are right while everyone else is wrong.' The people are very motivated to `amen' these types of arguments. I sit courteously silent, but nevertheless astounded, as they overlook even glaring contradictions in Scripture they unwittingly suggest. However, away from the Churches of Christ, we are not motivated to accept these arguments, so these arguments will have an unintended and very harmful effect.

Here is the problem with your approach. Convincing us that Scripture contradicts itself is more likely to make us into doubters that Scripture is always to be trusted. In this case, if you then make a case to us based on Scripture, we will not trust the basis on which you are making your case. Your effort to
a) make Scripture appear to contradict itself, in order to
b) push an argument based on Scripture,
is self-defeating.

Fact is, Acts 10:43 explicitly states about Jesus Christ "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV). The only effort you have made to deal with this text without attempting to create a contradiction is to propose that the ancient Greek words translated "believe"/"faith" in Scripture had meanings they did not. Since we cannot make an ancient language mean things it did not and stay in the real world, that did not work. Therefore, you are evidently back to trying to create apparent contradictions.

You are evidently totally unaware that if you are able to convince us that Scripture teaches a premise and simultaneously its direct negation, it would have a contradiction. It would not be entirely trustworthy. That is all you would convince me of: that Scripture is not trustworthy.

However, Scripture does not contradict itself; your suggested apparent contradictions are not real. Scripture is trustworthy. It is fully trustworthy at Acts 10:43, where it explicitly states about Jesus Christ "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV) -- baptized or not, whatever or not.

 

Originally Posted by JSM17
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;
NKJV

Did these men (rulers) receive the remission of sins when they believed in Him?
Did they receive the H.S. when they believed?

Yes or no?

My point is not in baptism as you assume, but to show that through inspiration John declares that these men believed and according to your usage or interpretation on Acts 10:43 this means that they are saved. Were there none saved from the time of John the baptist to the day of Pentecost, is that reaching to far back as well?

I do not see Acts 10:43 speaking of merely belief or faith alone, that is what you see. But faith all by itself cannot save anyone certainly not these who believed but would not confess. Next will be declaring that they really did not have faith at all even though the text says they did, yet it was a faith that could not save them, because it was dead.

 

I have already addressed this. It is immaterial to the discussion over how Christians are saved.

If your argument hinges on this passage, then you confirm that your position depends on a serious misunderstanding of Scripture. I will repeat:

If you want to discuss how salvation occurred before the New Covenant, and before the Holy Spirit was being given en masse, this passage might be relevant. We are discussing salvation of Christians under the New Covenant.

Now, to the relevant material.

For the reader: Acts 10:43 explicitly states about Jesus Christ "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV). JSM17's main approach up to now has been trying to place passages against it, and make them appear to teach the direct negation: that `not every one that believeth on him receives remission of sins.' Of course, if this was rightly doable, then Scripture would contradict itself. None of the proposed negating passages actually teach the direct negation of Acts 10:43.

Now, for JSM17:

If your argument depends on making Scripture appear to contradict itself, then you depend on eliminating people's trust in Scripture. If it is worth that to you, that is most unfortunate. Some arguments are just not worth the costs. You can drop it here, and silently go back to airing your views solely in the Churches of Christ where they will `amen' everything you have posted here, and no harm is done to outsiders' trust in Scripture. You can rest assured that I would silently let it be dropped.

I am not going to let your teachings about baptism go unresisted. I do not resist every religious precept that is errant according to Scripture, but this one has consequences that are too great for me to leave unresisted. Your position is that if a person believes on Jesus Christ, yet fails to get baptized, s/he remains unsaved. That position, when adopted, has three effects that I will not stand by for. First, it has potential to cause unmerited anguish in families having deceased unbaptized Christians. Second, it hurts unity in the church, as many church groups do not practice baptism properly, and refusal to acknowledge unbaptized Christians hurts unity in the church. Third, anyone who notices the apparent contradictions in Scripture your group creates, and fails to realize that they are only apparent, is likely to stop believing the Bible.

Acts 10:43 explicitly states about Jesus Christ "every one that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV). If there is any situation where a believer on Jesus Christ is left with sins unremitted, then Scripture contradicts itself. There is no way Acts 10:43 and its direct negation can both be true; one or both is false. Acts 10:43, as part of Scripture, is true.

 

Not to butt in, BUT, just wanted you to know how much I appreciate your debate. You may not ever change each others minds on Baptism or Salvation, but you are certainly teaching me and making me think. I thank you, and sure hope you continue.

 

You focusing on one verse and forcing it to apply to your faith alone presuppositions does not mean that I do not believe what it says, I just do not hold it mean what you assume it means, salvation by faith alone.

Do you hold to the idea that men where saved in a different manner in the O.T. than in the N.T.?

How about the Apostles who were baptized by John which was a baptism of repentance in water for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3
). Where they saved then or were they not saved until the day of Pentecost when they received the Holy Spirit just as Cornelius did?

If baptism was not essential for Cornelius why does Peter "COMMAND" them to be baptized? Since people go two years without being baptized why does Peter make it so important that they obey the "COMMAND" then?

One scripture does not reveal all there is to know about salvation.