And you actually though what you wrote above is an argument, eh?
Baptism; After Salvation
- Thread starter Saxon
- Start date
Go back and read my post. A Christian does sin but as long as that Christian continues to walk in the light (1 Jn 1:7) then the blood of Christ cleanses away ALL sins leaving the Christian without sin before God.
And Cornelius and the Gentiles with him continued to walk in the light after their salvation by being water baptized.
"The beginning" refers back to Pentecost (Acts 2) when the HS fell upon the Apostles. There was several years (possibly 8-10 years) that passed by between Acts 2 and Acts 10. Peter therefore had to go back several years back to Pentecost to find a similar event of the HS falling upon men as in Acts 10. If baptism with the HS was a common occurrence, then Peter could have picked out any numerous conversion that happened between Acts 2 and Acts 10. Therefore the logical implication is baptism with the HS was NOT occurring between Acts 2 and Acts 10 and Acts 2 would be the only other occurrence.
Secondly, Acts 11:4 says Peter "expounded the matter unto them in order" so Peter explicitly gave the Jews in Acts 11 the events of Acts 10 IN ORDER.
The order of events has Peter as he BEGAN to speak those saving words the HS fell upon them. That means Peter had not told them those saving words (gospel) at the time the HS fell upon the Gentiles. The word 'began' "Indicates that a thing was but just begun when it was interrupted by something else ... Acts 11:15” (Thayer). The context says the Gentiles would be saved by "words" not by having the HS fall upon them for they were still in a lost state when the HS fell upon them having not heard those saving words, therefore having believed saving words they had not heard, not obeyed the command to be water baptized. Again, the eunuch and all other conversions in Acts were water baptism, none of those converted were baptized with the HS for baptism with the HS has nothing to do with salvation. If Cornelius can be saved apart from water baptism then he could be saved apart from believing for he had not yet heard those saving words when the HS fell upon him. Yet Jesus said he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.
Third, as I posted earlier, it was God's plan that salvation of the gospel go first to the Jews then the Gentiles. The Jews would object it going to the Gentiles hence God gave Peter a vision and baptized the Gentiles with the HS to prove the Gentiles were clean and salvation was to go to the Gentiles. When Peter says "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized..." (v47) the meaning of this is if Jews tried to forbid the Gentiles from being water baptized, they would be trying to thwart God's will in salvation going to the Gentiles for God has chosen water baptism as the means by which he saves by Jew and Gentile in a "like manner" way, Acts 15:11 and the reason water baptism was commanded. The Gentiles were still lost in their sins as was Saul (Acts 22:16) for not having yet obeyed the gospel by being water baptized. The Gentiles, Saul, the Romans would all be saved the same way by obeying from the heart (being water baptized) then be freed from sin/justified. One must obey.."worketh righteousness" to be accepted with God Acts 10:35. Baptism with the HS is not man working righteousness.
Fourth, those Samaritans in Acts 8 were first water baptized but then later they received the HS by laying on of hands of the Apostles. This is the exact opposite of what happened to Cornelius which puts a kink in the narrative you are trying to create for Cornelius. Reception of the HS was for different purposes in Acts 8 from Acts 10. Reception of the HS in neither case had to do with salvation.
Lastly, Caiaphas was a wicked person, yet he was able to prophesy yet he "spake not on his own" but the Spirit speaking through him. So there is no proof a person is saved because the HS speaks through them.
No conversion in Acts has one saved before being water baptized.
Our Lord's God
Well-known member
They always miss the significance of that part.
This was already refuted here:
https://forums.carm.org/threads/baptism-does-not-atone-for-sin.4807/page-6#post-620266
kathexēs is also used in Luke 1:3 but the events recorded in Luke 3:18-21 demonstrate that it is not to be understood in strict chronological order. John is preaching which is followed by Herod reproving him. John is then imprisoned. Afterwards the baptism of the Lord Jesus (performed by John) occurs. Luke's account is orderly (logical) but not strictly chronological.
BDAG (3rd Edition): sequence in time, space, or logic (kathexēs, page 490).
This was already addressed here:
https://forums.carm.org/threads/baptism-after-salvation.5614/page-61#post-792207
Incorrect. The Jews should accept them as equal members in the church and not forbid them to be water baptized since God had already saved them.
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT): Reception of the pneuma distinguishes Christians from the world (Jn. 14:17) and so unequivocally constitutes them Christians that (in Ac.) the answer to the question whether there has been reception of the Spirit determines absolutely whether a man is a Christian or not (Ac. 10:47; 19:2) (4:7, lambanō, Delling)
Incorrect.
According to Romans 8:9 to not have the Spirit means one is not a Christian. Furthermore, the case of the Samaritans proves your assertion wrong in that they were water baptized and didn't receive the Holy Spirit in/upon water baptism as the Jews in Acts 2:38. Acts 8 and Acts 19 do not apply today.
Whereas the Holy Spirit worked through both believers (1 Samuel 16:13) and unbelievers (Numbers 24:2) during the Old Covenant era, John 7:39 teaches that during the New Testament Church era He would "enter into and become the life of the believer, producing in him the life of Jesus” (S.H. Hooke, NTS, 9, 1962-63, page 380). Thus when the NT Church began (Acts 2:4) only saved (Christian) people possessed Him (Romans 8:9; 1 John 3:24, 4:13).
Last edited:
Cornelius and the Gentiles with him were saved before their water baptism.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/baptism-after-salvation.5614/page-62#post-793247
Which Cornelius and the Gentiles with him did by being water baptized after they became Christians.
That would mean they would have been saved BEFORE they heard the saving words BEFORE they believed, BEFORE they had their sins remitted which makes salvation before water baptism impossible.
Again, Peter in Acts 15:11 said Jews and Gentiles are saved in 'like 'manner' which is by obeying the command to be water baptized in the name of the Lord for emission of sins (Acts 2:38; Acts 10:47-48)
Your confusion was already addressed in my second link in post 1247.
Just as Peter and the others with him "received" the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8) which placed them into the NT Church (Acts 2:4), so too with Cornelius and the Gentiles with him (Acts 10:47) - and this took place before their water baptism.
Peter did give the events "in order"
Albert Barnes:
"And expounded it - Explained it; stated it as it actually occurred.
In order - One event after another, as they happened."
Expounded" "Explained the facts to them as they had occurred" (TCNT).
Expounded (εξετιθετο). Imperfect middle of εκτιθημ, to set forth, old verb, but in the N.T. only in Acts (Acts 7:21; Acts 11:4; Acts 18:26; Acts 28:23), a deliberate and detailed narrative "in order" (καθεξης). Old word for in succession. In the N.T. (AT Robertson)
If the vents were not given in order, then you can only give speculation about at point they were saved. Yet the FACT remains Jew and Gentile are saved in like manner and that is by water baptism in the name of the Lord for remission of sins.
---Mark 16:16 "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" therefore per Christ's own words those Samaritans were saved when they believed and were baptized (Acts 8:12) and that is receiving salvation BEFORE having the Apostles lay hands on them (Acts 8:16-18). So a miraculous reception of the HS and speaking in tongues had NOTHING to to with the personal salvation of the Apostles in Acts 2 nor the Samaritans of Acts 8 or Gentiles in Acts 10. The Jews in Acts 2, the eunuch Acts 8 among other conversions in Acts did not receive baptism with the HS and speak in tongues for it had nothing to do with the personal salvation of men. Romans 8:9 is NOT speaking about a miraculous baptism with the HS followed by tongue speaking. Miracles have ceased (1 Cor 13: Eph 4) and baptism with the HS was a prophecy of Joel that was fulfilled, cease, ended. The context plainly says Cornelius would be saved by WORDS (the gospel commanding him to be water baptized) not saved by being baptized with the HS.
The "one baptism" of Christ's great commission saves; it is commanded. it is to be taught; it is administered by disciples (humans) and last till the end of time. NONE of these things are true of baptism with the HS for that was, as I posted earlier, a prophecy of Joel that fulfilled, ended, ceased some 2000 years ago. There are not 2 baptisms in effect today, just one and that is water baptism by which Jew and Gentile are saved in like manner.
He did give the events in order, but "began" in Acts 11:15 is not to be taken so strictly. I already cited a lexicon that affirms this. There are other sources that affirm the same thing. Even Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (which you previously quoted from) says this "Acts 11:15 (cf. Acts 10:44)."
In fact, Peter affirms these Gentiles did hear the message of the gospel and were given the Holy Spirit according to Acts 15:7-8.
Acts 1 Jesus was promising only the Apostles they would receive the Comforter (HS) and it was only the Apostles in Acts 2 who recieved the HS and spoke in tongues, not anyone else. Meaning those Jews in Acts 2 received only water baptism for water baptism was commanded (making it essential to their salvation) to them in the name of the Lord for remission of sins just in the like manner way salvation came to the Gentiles in Acts 10. Baptism with the HS had nothing to do with the personal salvation of Jews In Acts 2 or Gentiles Acts 10.
You have not proven Peter did not give the events in order.
Acts 10:44 says
"While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word."
While does not give specifically WHEN the HS fell upon. The HS could have fell upon the when he began to speak, in the middle of his speech or end of his speech.
Acts 15:11 And as I began (archomai - first to do) to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning (at the first).... which destroys your narrative. Therefore you cannot have the events placed in order for biased theological reasons and not based upon anything in the context.
Incorrect.
In Acts 2:1 the pronoun "they" refers back to the others as well.
Luke is not as grammatically stringent as those who make such an assertion would like to believe. For if Luke was this precise then we would have the chief priests and rulers of the Jewish people as the ones who physically crucified Christ and not the Romans (Luke 23:13, 25, 26, 33).
1. Peter addresses them in the upper room (Acts 1:15-22).
2. They appointed two men to replace Judas (Acts 1:23).
3. They prayed (Acts 1:24).
4. They gave forth lots (Acts 1:26).
5. They were all in one room (Acts 2:1).
The original text did not have either chapter or verses. One just read straight through without any kind of "breaks". When reading the events that took place without the numbers of the chapters or verses one would see that Luke intends to convey that the 120 were included.
1. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT): ...at Pentecost the Spirit was outpoured on a company of men and women who had not received Christian baptism (i.e. baptism in the name of Jesus), and we do not know how many of them had received any other baptism (1:148, Baptism, G.R. Beasley-Murray).
2. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT): "...the Spirit was poured out on the 120 (1:15) without baptism" (6:413, pneuma, Schweizer).
The same "gift of the Holy Spirit" that the Jews received (cf. Acts 2:38) is the same "gift of the Holy Spirit" that the Gentiles received (Acts 10:45) before their water baptism (Acts 10:48).
1. BDAG (3rd Edition): receive the Spirit as a gift Ac. 2:38; cp. 10:45 (dōrea, page 266).
2. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (EDNT): The usage of dōrea in the NT is concentrated on the gracious gift which has already been given by God, namely, Christ (John 4:10), the Spirit (Acts 2:38; 8:20; 10:45; 11:17), or "righteousness" (Rom. 5:15, 17) (1:364, dōrea, G. Schneider).
3. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT): In Ac. the Spirit is called the dōrea of God in 2:38; 8:20; 10:45; 11:17 (2:167, dōrea, Buchsel).
4. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: with an epexegetical gen. of the thing given, the Holy Ghost, Ac 2:38, 10:45 (dōrea, page 161).
5. Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words: In Acts 2:38 "the gift of the Holy Ghost", the clause is epexegetical, the gift being the Holy Ghost Himself; cf. 10:45; 11:17 (Gift - dōrea, page 477)
6. A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament: gen. of that in which the gift consists; Acts 2:38 and 10:45 (dōrea, page 196).
Last edited:
Because I already affirmed he did. See my first seven words of post 1253.
We know the Holy Spirit did after they heard the gospel (Acts 15:7).
They heard the gospel before He fell.
Not at all.
You have to ignore Acts 15:7-8.
Incorrect.
There still remained a “baptism” (Mark 10:35-39) for the Apostle John to undergo (i.e., his death) years after Ephesians was written.
There is more than one baptism, but the baptism that places a person into the body of Christ is the baptism with the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 4:5).
Last edited:
By the time Paul penned his Ephesian epistle there was "one baptism" in effect, (Eph 4:5), in this present dispensation.
The baptism Christ spoke of was figurative of His suffering and that the Apostles would be baptized with persecution and hatred from those who hated truth which they all experienced. The 'one baptism' in effect in this present gospel dispensation is a literal immersion administered by humans in water, is commanded to all men, saves, is to be taught and lasts till the end of time.....none of which are true of any other baptism spoken about in the NT. Paul said "one Lord. one faith, one baptism" and in Mark 16:16 we have the one Lord speaking of the one faith and the one baptism that saves. In all the conversions in Acts the "one baptism" that all received was water baptism.
There are not 3 baptisms in effect today just as there are not 3 Gods, 3 Lords, 3 bodies or 3 Spirits.
There is a baptism of fire the lost will experience at judgment day but it is not the one baptism in effect in this present dispensation either.
"Seven baptisms are mentioned in the New Testament........ They are:
1. The baptism unto Moses (1 Corinthians 10:2).
2. The baptism of sufferings (Mark 10:38,39).
3. The baptism for the dead (1 Corinthians 15:29).
4. The baptism of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11, see above).
5. The baptism of fire (Matthew 3:11, see above).
6. The baptism of John the Baptist (Acts 19:3).
7. The baptism of the Great Commission (Mark 16:15,16; Matthew 28:18-20).
In spite of the fact that all these baptisms find mention in the New Testament, there is, nevertheless, but ONE baptism in force. See Ephesians 4:4. To determine which baptism is in force, or which one is IT, one only needs to observe these facts: No. 1, above, applied only to Jews. No. 2 is altogether figurative, being in no sense a ceremony. No. 3 was a practice of non-Christians as witnessed by the third person pronouns and was never connected in any way with the Christian religion. Nos. 4,5 are both promises of what God will do and cannot be obeyed in any sense. No. 6, John's baptism, was clearly and categorically set aside by the baptism of him that is greater than John, even Christ. See Acts 19:3. Thus, the ONE baptism of Ephesians can be none other than the baptism of the Great Commission." Coffman Comm.
There still remained a “baptism” (Mark 10:35-39) for the Apostle John to undergo (i.e., his death) years after Ephesians was written.
John would be baptized "with the baptism" with which Jesus was to undergo. This refers to His death.
Mark 10:38-39
(38) But Jesus said to them, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?"
(39) They said to Him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, The cup that I drink you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized. (NASB)
1. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT): According to Mk. 10:38f.; Luke 12:50, Jesus described His own death as a baptisthēnai (1:538, baptō, Oepke)
2. BDAG (3rd Edition) states that the baptism in Mark 10:38 is "of martyrdom" (baptizō, page 165)
3. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT): Jesus' death as a baptism (Mk. 10:38 f. baptisma; Lk. 12:50) (1:144, baptism, G.R. Beasley-Murray.)
John would be baptized "with the baptism" with which Jesus was to undergo. This refers to His death.
Mark 10:38-39
(38) But Jesus said to them, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?"
(39) They said to Him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, The cup that I drink you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized. (NASB)
1. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT): According to Mk. 10:38f.; Luke 12:50, Jesus described His own death as a baptisthēnai (1:538, baptō, Oepke)
2. BDAG (3rd Edition) states that the baptism in Mark 10:38 is "of martyrdom" (baptizō, page 165)
3. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT): Jesus' death as a baptism (Mk. 10:38 f. baptisma; Lk. 12:50) (1:144, baptism, G.R. Beasley-Murray.)
Last edited: