The Reason Cornelius Received the HS in Acts 10. (moved from soteriology)

[Apollos1]

Acts 10: Why did Cornelius and household receive the Holy Spirit BEFORE being baptized with water?

The HS was given to Cornelius (& family) to CONFIRM God’s word that the Gentiles were to receive salvation - not to save them!
Now I will prove just this…

The affirmation of this is found in Acts 15:7-9…

Verse 7 - …that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word and believe.
(FAITH comes by hearing the WORD !! The reason Cornelius sent for Peter – to HEAR words. Cf. Acts 10:22,33,44, 11:14.)

Verse 8 – And God – bare them WITNESS, giving them the HS…
By giving the Gentiles the HS (a miracle), God gave His witness to Peter and those Jews with him that the words Cornelius said in Acts 10:30-33 were true ! This is God’s confirmation of His word!

God already used a miracle (the vision) 3 times in Acts 10:9-16 in an attempt to confirm to Peter His truth that the Gentiles also were to receive salvation. (Please compare to Heb. 2:3-4, Acts 14:3, & Acts 2:22.)

Verse 9 – There is no distinction between Jew and Gentile. God has cleansed their (Gentile) hearts by faith – the same faith that cleansed the Jews.

It was this faith that caused Cornelius & household to be obedient to the COMMAND of Peter as read in Acts 10:47-48 – BAPTISM in the name (by the authority) of Jesus Christ – which is in water, and for the remission of sins – Acts 2:38.

Cornelius’ receiving of the HS was not to save him – it was to confirm God’s word, just as other miracles did in NT times.

Additional:

Acts 11:15 we learn from Peter that the HS fell on Cornelius “as I began to speak” – this was at the beginning of Peter’s words to Cornelius. Was Cornelius saved BEFORE he had faith, because faith comes from hearing the word! So if he was saved when Cornelius received the HS, he was saved BEFORE hearing God’s word, BEFORE he had faith, and BEFORE water baptism. Who can believe such?

 

[Van]

I for one certainly do not believe such as is presented in the opening post.

This is yet another well worn argument that has been discredited many times. In Acts 11:15, Peter is relating what was described in more detail in chapter 10. So the phrase "as I was beginning to speak" does not mean before Peter presented the gospel message, but simply that Peter had much more to say.

Turning now to the before faith argument, since Peter had presented the gospel as described in Chapter 10, the HS fell on them after they believed, just as the HS fell on the Jewish believers. Note scripture says in the same way, not in a different way.

All this effort to rewrite scripture is in the service of trying to maintain the falsehood that water baptism is necessary for salvation.
The thief on the cross was not water baptized, yet Jesus took him to Paradise the day Jesus died. In Acts Chapter 10, we have folks who received the "Helper" just as the Apostles did, prior to water baptism. John baptized with water, Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit and Fire.

 

[Ormly]

Acts 10: Why did Cornelius and household receive the Holy Spirit BEFORE being baptized with water?

The HS was given to Cornelius (& family) to CONFIRM God’s word that the Gentiles were to receive salvation - not to save them!
Now I will prove just this…

The affirmation of this is found in Acts 15:7-9…

Verse 7 - …that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word and believe.
(FAITH comes by hearing the WORD !! The reason Cornelius sent for Peter – to HEAR words. Cf. Acts 10:22,33,44, 11:14.)

Verse 8 – And God – bare them WITNESS, giving them the HS…
By giving the Gentiles the HS (a miracle), God gave His witness to Peter and those Jews with him that the words Cornelius said in Acts 10:30-33 were true ! This is God’s confirmation of His word!

God already used a miracle (the vision) 3 times in Acts 10:9-16 in an attempt to confirm to Peter His truth that the Gentiles also were to receive salvation. (Please compare to Heb. 2:3-4, Acts 14:3, & Acts 2:22.)

Verse 9 – There is no distinction between Jew and Gentile. God has cleansed their (Gentile) hearts by faith – the same faith that cleansed the Jews.

It was this faith that caused Cornelius & household to be obedient to the COMMAND of Peter as read in Acts 10:47-48 – BAPTISM in the name (by the authority) of Jesus Christ – which is in water, and for the remission of sins – Acts 2:38.

Cornelius’ receiving of the HS was not to save him – it was to confirm God’s word, just as other miracles did in NT times.

Additional:

Acts 11:15 we learn from Peter that the HS fell on Cornelius “as I began to speak” – this was at the beginning of Peter’s words to Cornelius. Was Cornelius saved BEFORE he had faith, because faith comes from hearing the word! So if he was saved when Cornelius received the HS, he was saved BEFORE hearing God’s word, BEFORE he had faith, and BEFORE water baptism. Who can believe such?

What a distortion, and to protect a religious bent.

 

[Apollos1]

Ormly -

Thanks for the well articulated and detailed refutation of what I presented. I know the weight of it will be felt by all who read it........NOT !

 

[Apollos1]

Van said - This is yet another well worn argument that has been discredited many times. In Acts 11:15, Peter is relating what was described in more detail in chapter 10. So the phrase "as I was beginning to speak" does not mean before Peter presented the gospel message, but simply that Peter had much more to say.


Hey Van -

You pick&choose what you will comment on. I think you should answer ALL of my argument above - not just the parts you think you can deal with...

I have noticed that “well worn” arguments are the ones that are never adequately answered.

Let’s look even closer at Acts 11:15 – “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning.”

As I “began” – Greek word “archomai” meaning - to begin, make a beginning – Thayer.

Oops – not looking good for those who will not accept the truth about WHY the HS fell upon Cornelius. It is not amusing to see someone change a simple meaning of a verse to fit their preconceived ideas.

The truth is – the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius at the BEGINNING of Peter’s speaking. Thus those that claim that Cornelius was saved by this HS baptism have Cornelius saved BEFORE receiving the word, BEFORE Cornelius could have had faith, BEFORE any obedience by Cornelius, and BEFORE Peter could do what he was sent there for.

The main thrust of my post was to show that the PURPOSE of the HS baptism upon Cornelius was to CONFIRM THE WORD OF GOD.

NOTHING was said about that – was it Van?

 

[Ormly]

Ormly -

Thanks for the well articulated and detailed refutation of what I presented. I know the weight of it will be felt by all who read it........NOT !

I wouldn't waste anymore of my time on the subject. If one doesn't get it, thats his problem, not mine.

 

[Ormly]

Van said - This is yet another well worn argument that has been discredited many times. In Acts 11:15, Peter is relating what was described in more detail in chapter 10. So the phrase "as I was beginning to speak" does not mean before Peter presented the gospel message, but simply that Peter had much more to say.


Hey Van -

You pick&choose what you will comment on. I think you should answer ALL of my argument above - not just the parts you think you can deal with...

I have noticed that “well worn” arguments are the ones that are never adequately answered.

Let’s look even closer at Acts 11:15 – “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning.”

As I “began” – Greek word “archomai” meaning - to begin, make a beginning – Thayer.

Oops – not looking good for those who will not accept the truth about WHY the HS fell upon Cornelius. It is not amusing to see someone change a simple meaning of a verse to fit their preconceived ideas.

The truth is – the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius at the BEGINNING of Peter’s speaking. Thus those that claim that Cornelius was saved by this HS baptism have Cornelius saved BEFORE receiving the word, BEFORE Cornelius could have had faith, BEFORE any obedience by Cornelius, and BEFORE Peter could do what he was sent there for.

The main thrust of my post was to show that the PURPOSE of the HS baptism upon Cornelius was to CONFIRM THE WORD OF GOD.

NOTHING was said about that – was it Van?

Corneilus was saved before Peter ever got there. You lack Biblical sense as well as common.

 

[nobdysfool]

My, my...it seems that Ormly and Van are so much more "spiritual" that the rest of us, that they can belittle and dismiss those who post what contradicts their particular biases. And, Ormly and Van don't even agree!

How helpful to be told "if one doesn't get it, that's his problem, not mine", and "This is yet another well worn argument that has been discredited many times.". That clears so much up....

Discredited by whom? Notice that no proof or quotes are offered. It''s just empty rhetoric, dismissal without support. And, the "if one doesn't get it" argument, is empty rhetoric as well, for "it" is not defined. In both cases, the posters want to make statements without support, and belittle any who would ask for that support, or challenge them.

2Ti 2:24-25 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, (25) In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

Lack of strife, gentle, apt to teach, patient, with meekness.....there is a lack of those qualities being manifested here, and not just by these two posters, but by many here. That's why I have backed off, and been more of a lurker, because I have found myself not abiding by this passage of scripture. So, before any protests are lodged, realize that I include myself in the admonishment.

Let those for whom it convicts, receive it.

 

[Van]

Nothing has been said concerning my question in the entire thread. Beginning to speak could refer to the first word spoken word or the first part of what Peter may have said or was planning to say. The text (Acts 11:15) does not say. But since this verse is relating what occurred in chapter 10, we know the context which is Peter was still speaking and therefore the HS fell during the first part of what Peter was going to say.

Cornelius was a devout God fearing man, so he had heard and learned from the Father. Acts 10:2. In Acts 10:22 we learn that Cornelius was divinely directed to hear a message from Peter. In Acts 10:28 Peter addresses "them" referring to Cornelius, his relations and his close friends (verse 25). In verse 33, Cornelius asks Peter to speak, so they all can hear what the Lord has commanded Peter to present.

Peter then speaks to Cornelius, verses 34 through 43, giving the gospel message. and while Peter was still speaking these words, the HS fell on those listening, which included Cornelius.

 

[nobdysfool]

Nothing has been said concerning my question in the entire thread. Beginning to speak could refer to the first word spoken word or the first part of what Peter may have said or was planning to say. The text (Romans 11:15) does not say. But since this verse is relating what occurred in chapter 10, we know the context which is Peter was still speaking and therefore the HS fell during the first part of what Peter was going to say.

Cornelius was a devout God fearing man, so he had heard and learned from the Father. Acts 10:2. In Acts 10:22 we learn that Cornelius was divinely directed to hear a message from Peter. In Acts 10:28 Peter addresses "them" referring to Cornelius, his relations and his close friends (verse 25). In verse 33, Cornelius asks Peter to speak, so they all can hear what the Lord has commanded Peter to present.

Peter then speaks to Cornelius, verses 34 through 43, giving the gospel message. and while Peter was still speaking these words, the HS fell on those listening, which included Cornelius.

All quite true, as far as I can see. That does not necessarily negate what Apollos1 has said, however. The point is, baptism in water does not initiate salvation, as evidenced by the household of Cornelius, because the HS does not indwell unregenerate people. They were saved before they were baptized, as in fact most people are saved nowadays. Water baptism does not save, it is a public witness to an already accomplished fact, when done scripturally.

 

[Apollos1]

Ormly - Corneilus was saved before Peter ever got there. You lack Biblical sense as well as common.

Before Peter got there??? LOL !

Acts 11:13-14 - “Send to Joppa, and fetch Simon, whose surname is Peter; who shall speak unto thee words,
whereby thou shalt be saved, thou and all thy house.”

Peter says it was to be by the WORDS he spoke whereby Cornelius would be saved – NOT the Holy Spirit!!!

For you to “speak” otherwise would be… senseless! Lol.

Van - Nothing has been said concerning my question in the entire thread. Beginning to speak could refer to the first word spoken word or the first part of what Peter may have said or was planning to say.

I answered this with the Greek word “archomai”. The HS fell on Cornelius when Peter BEGAN to speak.

The text (Romans 11:15) does not say.

Ahem… the text is ACTS 11:15 – lol.

Cornelius was a devout God fearing man, so he had heard and learned from the Father. Acts 10:2.

This verse does not say this. What did he learn?

In Acts 10:22 we learn that Cornelius was divinely directed to hear a message from Peter. In Acts 10:28 Peter addresses "them" referring to Cornelius, his relations and his close friends (verse 25). In verse 33, Cornelius asks Peter to speak, so they all can hear what the Lord has commanded Peter to present.
Okay.

Peter then speaks to Cornelius, verses 34 through 43, giving the gospel message. and while Peter was still speaking these words, the HS fell on those listening, which included Cornelius.
Okay – but it is in Acts 11:15 that we learn WHEN the HS fell on Cornelius – and Peter says it was at the (archomai) beginning. You won’t accept it because it shoots your theory down.

Btw – “nothing has been said concerning” my points about WHY the HS fell on Cornelius being to REVEAL and CONFIRM the word of God. Avoid the rcuh, accept the truth now!

Nobdysfool - The point is, baptism in water does not initiate salvation…

I disagree as water baptism is the means selected by God through which man appropriates the salvation that God offers to man by His grace. However, let’s not debate water baptism, but rather let’s discuss WHY the HS fell upon Cornelius.

Was it a miracle to confirm God’s message that the Gentiles also were granted “ilfe unto repentance” or was the HS falling on Cornelius for the purpose of saving him/ revealing he was saved? I say, and have supported above that this was a miracle to confirm to the Jews that the Gentiles also were subjects for salvation.

…as evidenced by the household of Cornelius, because the HS does not indwell unregenerate people.

Now I appreciate the attitude you displayed above and I hope I can emulate it as well. But you, Ormly, and Van must prove YOUR side of the discussion.

-You must prove what HS baptism is and what the indwelling of the HS is. Are these the SAME type of thing? If so, prove that! You must do this in order to prove what it is that Cornelius really had. Did he have HS baptism, the indwelling of the HS, or something else or both??
-You must prove that the HS indwells in the believer and HOW/in what way does the HS indwell in the believer.

-Can you prove that the HS does not/would not/never miraculously “indwelled” in a non-believer – such as Balaam’s ass – see above!

Water baptism does not save, it is a public witness to an already accomplished fact, when done scripturally.

You will not be able to produce one scripture to support your “public witness” opinion – but let’s stick to Cornelius for now. Thankx!

 

[Ormly]

Ormly - Corneilus was saved before Peter ever got there. You lack Biblical sense as well as common.

Before Peter got there??? LOL ! [/quote]


Laugh but you can't conclude otherwise if you know your Bible.

Righteuousness, Faith in God --- Justfication

Shed Blood of the Lamb --- peace made with God

Perhaps hearing of the word, not unlike Saul of Tarsus--- more faith

Appearance of an angel of the Lord ---- favor demonstrated by God's personal witness to them

Ergo, the appearance of Peter was not for salvation but for their own Pentecostal experience; the 'unction to function' in their gentile world. . . . a further spreading of the gospel of the kingdom.

Tell me they weren't saved and demonstrate your willful ignorance.

 

[nobdysfool]

The point is, baptism in water does not initiate salvation

I disagree as water baptism is the means selected by God through which man appropriates the salvation that God offers to man by His grace. However, let’s not debate water baptism, but rather let’s discuss WHY the HS fell upon Cornelius.

Was it a miracle to confirm God’s message that the Gentiles also were granted “ilfe unto repentance” or was the HS falling on Cornelius for the purpose of saving him/ revealing he was saved? I say, and have supported above that this was a miracle to confirm to the Jews that the Gentiles also were subjects for salvation

That may have been one of the reasons, but it also gives us a picture of how men are saved. Cornelius was stated to be a man who feared God, yet he did not know of Jesus as Savior. Peter was sent to him to reveal that fact. Cornelius wasn't saved in the Christian sense until Peter came and spoke the words to Cornelius and his household. Upon hearing the Gospel, the Holy Spirit fell on them, prior to water baptism. Simple logic will show that if the Holy Spirit fell on them, then they were already justified in God's sight, by the hearing of the Word and faith. Several events happened in quick succession.

You don't want to look at water baptism in this passage, because this passage actually shows your view to be wrong. But, it is important to note that Cornelius and his household were saved prior to them being water baptized, and this actually lends support to the Calvinist view of the ordo salutis. Of course, there will be those who will vigorously decry such a notion, but I would counsel you to ignore their rhetoric, and consider.

as evidenced by the household of Cornelius, because the HS does not indwell unregenerate people.

Now I appreciate the attitude you displayed above and I hope I can emulate it as well. But you, Ormly, and Van must prove YOUR side of the discussion.

Do we not have the same right to demand that you prove yours? You are the one making the claims. Therefore, it falls to you to prove your view first. then we can examine it and present proof of the alternative(s)

-You must prove what HS baptism is and what the indwelling of the HS is. Are these the SAME type of thing? If so, prove that! You must do this in order to prove what it is that Cornelius really had. Did he have HS baptism, the indwelling of the HS, or something else or both??

You're asking us, in effect, to try and prove a negative, which is a fool's mission. You're asking us to disprove something you haven't even truly explained, that is, what you belief is about this, and why. Shrewd debate tactic, but unworkable.

You must prove that the HS indwells in the believer and HOW/in what way does the HS indwell in the believer.

Can you prove that the HS does not/would not/never miraculously “indwelled” in a non-believer – such as Balaam’s ass – see above!

You can't be serious! As for the Balaam's ass, the believer/nonbeliever paradigm does not apply, as Balaam's ass was an animal,. not a human.

Water baptism does not save, it is a public witness to an already accomplished fact, when done scripturally.

You will not be able to produce one scripture to support your “public witness” opinion – but let’s stick to Cornelius for now. Thankx!

Funny how you want to limit the debate, in order to eliminate the very things that will show you position to be wrong....Given the number of times where believers were baptized after their conversion, it argues strongly for the act of obedience in baptism to serve as the public witness and affirmation of an already accomplished fact, i.e. salvation through regeneration, faith and justification by God .

 

[Ormly]

Corneilus didn't have a chance to hear the "word of faith" before the fire fell.

He was saved by scriptural standards before Peter arrived. Simply he was justified by faith and the Blood had been shed that made peace with God on his behalf. Such is the case with righteous folk all over the world who have yet to hear the gospel preached. Having stated that ask, 'what then is the gospel for'?

 

[nobdysfool]

Corneilus didn't have a chance to hear the "word of faith" before the fire fell.

He was saved by scriptural standards before Peter arrived. Simply he was justified by faith and the Blood had been shed that made peace with God on his behalf. Such is the case with righteous folk all over the world who have yet to hear the gospel preached. Having stated that ask, 'what then is the gospel for'?

What you are arguing for is salvation apart from the Gospel. The Gospel, the Good News, is that Christ came into the world to save sinners. There is salvation in no other, for there is no other name given whereby we must be saved. Salvation apart from the Gospel and Christ, and righteousness apart from Him? Impossible!

With all of Cornelius' works and fearing God, he lacked the one essential element: Christ. That is what Peter was sent to preach, and the result was nearly instantaneous. Had Peter not gone, Cornelius and his house would not have been saved. They weren't saved until they heard the Gospel. The result of believing Peter's words (the Gospel) was an immediate infilling of the Holy Spirit, which Peter said was "as on us at the beginning", which means tongues as a manifestation of that infilling. They were then afterward baptized in water according to the command of Christ, not to BE saved, but because they were ALREADY saved, upon hearing the Gospel.

 

[jmacvols]

In Acts 15:11 ASV, Peter says that the Jews would be saved in like manner as the Gentiles.

In Acts 2:38, Peter commanded the Jews to be water baptized in the name of the Lord...

in like manner...

In Acts 10:47,48 Peter commanded the Gentiles to be water baptized in the name of the Lord.

--Peter's listeners in Acts 2 were not baptized with the Holy SPirit, yet they would be saved in "like manner" as the Gentiles. So the "like manner" event among both Jew and Gentile was water baptism, thus baptism with the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with the personal salvation of Cornelius.

--in both cases water baptism was commanded (imperative mood in Acts 2:38). Since it was commanded, that makes it necessary. Baptism with the Holy Spirit was never commanded to anyone, it was only promised to the apostles (Acts 1:1-4). Yet again, baptism with the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with Cornelius' personal salvation.

 

[nobdysfool]

Baptismal salvation is not biblical. no matter how many times you repeat it.

 

[jmacvols]

Baptismal salvation is not biblical. no matter how many times you repeat it.

Then the book of Acts (among others) is not biblical.

 

[jmacvols]

Turning now to the before faith argument, since Peter had presented the gospel as described in Chapter 10, the HS fell on them after they believed, just as the HS fell on the Jewish believers. Note scripture says in the same way, not in a different way.

THe Holy Ghost did not fall upon the Jewish believers in Acts 2, just the apostles.

 

[jmacvols]

All this effort to rewrite scripture is in the service of trying to maintain the falsehood that water baptism is necessary for salvation.

Water baptism was commanded, that in and of itself makes it necessary. Water baptism (1)remits sins, Acts 2:38 (2)puts one in Christ, Gal 3:27 (3)justifies so one can walk in newness of life, Rom 6:1-7. If water baptism is not necessary, then 1-3 above are not necessary.

The thief on the cross was not water baptized, yet Jesus took him to Paradise the day Jesus died.

First, the thief lived under the OT law and is not an example of NT salvation. The baptism of the great commission, Acts 2:38, did not begin until many weeks after the thief had died, so he was not accountable to it.
Secondly, you say "the thief on the cross was not water baptized..." Can you prove this thief had never been baptized? The bible does not say one way or the other about this, so no one can say with 100% certainty that this thief had not been baptized.

In Acts Chapter 10, we have folks who received the "Helper" just as the Apostles did, prior to water baptism. John baptized with water, Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit and Fire.

The Lord baptized the apostles (Jews) in Act 2 and Gentiles in Acts 10, this fulfilled Joel's prophecy about "all flesh" [Jew & Gentile] being baptized with the Holy Spirit, thus baptism with the Holy Spirit is an obsolete, fulfilled baptism.