Acts 10

[Josheb]

You see it is post like this that is hard to accept..............

Forgive me for not making myself clear. Since I've been repeatedly personally criticized and, despite the repetition, the facts in evidence haven't been acknowledge and addressed relevant to the op, and a growing disinterest in discussing these matters with me was expressed, I'm taking you at your word and deciding not to trade posts further with you. Any further comments I make about the op will be for the benefit of others and discussion with those who can stick to the topic without making things personal. I won't be engaging with you in the dialogue of this op further. I will, however, look forward to trading posts with you in the next op, where I hope there will be less ad hominem.


Make note of my handle. Everyone here has challenges with the way I post at one time or another. I take a presuppositional approach to topics, typically using a Socratic method of what I always hope will be collaborative inquiry, and I use scripture rather than doctrinal or denominational sources and perspectives. I always endeavor to affirm that which bears consistency with whole scripture (as I have done here in this thread), ask questions about what I either don't adequately understand or that which is not clear (as I have done in this thread), and refute that which does not bear consistency with whole scripture (as I have done in this thread). I prefer to build incrementally from consensus (as I've attempted to do here in this thread) but that's often challenging given the diversity of thought, doctrine, sectarian affiliation, and practice in any internet forum. You'll get used to my "style." I will also add there are multiple intelligent, well-reasoning, experienced, well-read, and/or educated members in this forum. It's a great place for the teachable to learn, so never think you know something the other person also doesn't already know (and on the occasion your brain says otherwise, never say that in a post). Most of us have been trading posts with one another in one forum or another for more than a decade. We're like married people who both love and tolerate each other .




.

You said In the life of a Christian there is never the Spirit upon without the Spirit within.

Well, you're wrong.

I am just wore out....

I do not care.

Internet discussion is often vigorous, especially for those authoring an op and placing themselves on the defending end of multiple conversations, and vigor is often tiring and tiresome. I assume you were invited from another forum and have prior experience with discussion boards. If so, then you'll make the necessary adjustments to this forum, and we will all benefit. Personally, I think the Acts 10 account of God's work in Peter and God's work in Cornelius is fodder for a very rich and lengthy conversation, and that text covers matters other than the "in" and "on" of the Holy Spirit. The op isn't very well organized (despite evidence the attempt was made), but, given the depth of Acts 10's content that is understandable. Given your investment in this op I suspect the topic will come up in other threads. We'll all have plenty of opportunity to revisit this with you. I look forward to doing so.

Just not in this thread.

Ephesians 4:29 ESV
Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.

The best threads bless everyone, even those holding different viewpoints. Method is just as important as content.





The op-relevant fact is the New Testament provides us with several examples of conversion to Christ and few of them look alike. This diversity becomes even more apparent when the examples of the Spirit's work among those of faith from the Old Testament are considered. Using one single example to define a matter as enormous as the Spirit's work in salvation was unlikely to work (that's why I asked about that at the beginning). It is my opinion, therefore, that at least a modicum of caution be applied to the premise of categorizing the work of the Holy Spirit into some kind of standardized operating procedure. I understand why certain denominations and cults assert fixed doctrines on these matters, but that rigidity is not defensible. This thread proved at least that much.

See you in the next op.

 

[BillyBob65]

Testing 1 2 4

 

[EarlyActs]

You see it is post like this that is hard to accept. You insinuate that it is me that has every thing wrong and I do not consider others thoughts and input when I feel it is me that is being treated this way. I post scripture which should have a clear meaning and follow it up with other scripture that verifies that they are saying the same thing but it is rejected and goes back to that can't be so because it is not faith alone. Maybe faith alone is not biblical just because one or two verses say believe and you will be saved. It then needs to be told what to believe and it is all God's word. But then I am told even though the Apostles are led by the spirit to record the things pertaining to salvation I am told that is not the case it is not all .
I try to politely discuss the word and am constantly told I know not what I am talking about . I respond the best I can to every post and am told I am not.

You said In the life of a Christian there is never the Spirit upon without the Spirit within. I see it different I see the word has many occasions where the spirit came upon with out the indwelling spirit. Most all but 2 were in the old testament. I say the word says that the spirit was never given until after Pentecost and you say that is not true but the bible makes it clear that is a fact.I can post the scripture that say that. I show with scripture backing scripture that baptism is for the remission of sin and you refuse to accept the clear writing of the passages. I show you where the Ephesians were baptized with Johns baptism then Paul re baptized them and you say that never has been recorded in history of he bible. I can go on and on where you can't see the teaching because you say I don't know hat I am talking about . With all of that just how am I suppose to go any further if I am not being heard.

I am just wore out of trying to get you to see why I see it the way I do as you are tired of me not agreeing with what you are teaching.I really do not know how to proceed.

Surely there is no other event like Pentecost that catapulted mission work, right? So there is a basis for saying that something unique took place and for a mass of believers and in fulfillment of a period that the prophets foresaw.

 

[BillyBob65]

Surely there is no other event like Pentecost that catapulted mission work, right? So there is a basis for saying that something unique took place and for a mass of believers and in fulfillment of a period that the prophets foresaw.

Sorry I really do not understand your question can you please elaborate

 

[Arial]

Maybe faith alone is not biblical just because one or two verses say believe and you will be saved. It then needs to be told what to believe and it is all God's word. But then I am told even though the Apostles are led by the spirit to record the things pertaining to salvation I am told that is not the case it is not all .

Faith alone is not being supported by only one or two scriptures. And those that are being used----and it goes all the way back to Abraham in the OT---are not being thrown out there in isolation but include the use of hermeneutics, exegesis, exposition, and consider the full counsel of God, (none of which exists in your supportive passages). The fact that you ignore it all without engaging with it in the slightest is your failure, not ours. But pal, you are not just arguing against a couple of people here. You are denying the doctrine of "faith alone" of the entire Protestant Reformation and all the reformers and the consensus of the Christian religion from its incepting within the pages of the NT until the RCC corrupted it. It is the Reformation that brought it back and it once again is the consensus of the entirety of true Christendom, and they did so FROM the pages of scripture---not just a couple of isolated scriptures.

Your belief on baptism is far more in line with the RCC than it is Protestantism.

 

[BillyBob65]

Faith alone is not being supported by only one or two scriptures. And those that are being used----and it goes all the way back to Abraham in the OT---are not being thrown out there in isolation but include the use of hermeneutics, exegesis, exposition, and consider the full counsel of God, (none of which exists in your supportive passages). The fact that you ignore it all without engaging with it in the slightest is your failure, not ours. But pal, you are not just arguing against a couple of people here. You are denying the doctrine of "faith alone" of the entire Protestant Reformation and all the reformers and the consensus of the Christian religion from its incepting within the pages of the NT until the RCC corrupted it. It is the Reformation that brought it back and it once again is the consensus of the entirety of true Christendom, and they did so FROM the pages of scripture---not just a couple of isolated scriptures.

Your belief on baptism is far more in line with the RCC than it is Protestantism.

Look dude I was trying to be as nice as I can but your insisting that I am ignoring scripture is false and an attack on my character where as I can say the same thing about you . I have never said one must not have faith I just disagree with your false teaching that it is faith alone as you describe it. I have shown you with scripture where that is not aligned with scripture and it is you that refuse to see it and twist it around saying it is not what scripture is saying because it does not align with your thought on faith alone.

I have shown you that the baptism in Christ name is for the remission of sin just as it was recorded and given you more biblical scripture to confirm that is what God meant but you want to dismiss it with it has to mean because of but like I said scripture discredits that but it doesn't matter to you.

I have shown you how all the scriptures you have given to try to discredit Gods teaching on baptism supports God view rather than the way you miss understand and try to pit them against Gods view on baptism. I have not had to say one time that the scripture don't mean what was recorded but has a different view. I have engaged in all scripture you have provide just because I did not see it your way does not mean I did not engage. You keep trying to belittle m and I have endure it but now I am done . I will leave you to your belief for you are set in your way and feel you have all truth and can have no error in your Protestant Reformation even though show there may be contradictions with the word that we are to be confirmed with not a denominational view.

 

[Josheb]

Look dude...

ROTFLMBO!

@Arial is female.

.....I was trying to be as nice as I can but your insisting that I am ignoring scripture is false and an attack on my character where as I can say the same thing about you

Welll...... you did start it.

And, for the record, she's correct. These posts do read as a works-based salvation that is not consistent with Reformed theology but is more consistent with the RCC. Multiple posters who come from a variety of perspectives have observed this so give what we've said some thought.

You have been saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8).
You have not been saved by being baptized prior to salvation. That's the definition of works.

 

[BillyBob65]

ROTFLMBO!

@Arial is female.

Welll...... you did start it.

And, for the record, she's correct. These posts do read as a works-based salvation that is not consistent with Reformed theology but is more consistent with the RCC. Multiple posters who come from a variety of perspectives have observed this so give what we've said some thought.

You have been saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8).
You have not been saved by being baptized prior to salvation. That's the definition of works.

That is not what the bible teach but the words of Calvin but you chose for yourself it makes me no difference if you Chose Gods written words concerning salvation or Calvin's.The truth will set you free but only the truth not mans truth.

 

[Arial]

I have never said one must not have faith I just disagree with your false teaching that it is faith alone as you describe it.

I never said that you disagreed that one must have faith. I said you denied faith alone which you do again above.

 

[Arial]

That is not what the bible teach but the words of Calvin but you chose for yourself it makes me no difference if you Chose Gods written words concerning salvation or Calvin's.The truth will set you free but only the truth not mans truth.

Eph 2:8 is actually in the Bible. But what you are attributing to Calvin was not Calvin alone and was first stated by Luther. And "faith alone" is not unique to Calvinism or Reformed theology which you know or should know since I presented it to you before. It was a part of Christendom before from the NT days until the RCC corrupted it. It was reinstated as a part of Christian doctrine during the Reformation and remains today. That is why you are being warned as per rule 3.2

3.2. Avoid promoting heretical views (e.g., denying core Christian doctrines like the Trinity). These forums uphold essential Christian beliefs, including the deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith, and the authority of Scripture. While discussions on various theological perspectives are welcome, any post challenging core Christian doctrines must include biblical and expositional support. Additionally, those presenting opposing views must substantively engage with rebuttals rather than merely repeating assertions. Posts failing to meet this standard may be removed.

Here it is again:

Shared Protestant Foundations (Both Calvinist & Arminian)​

Both traditions affirm salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Core requirements agreed upon:

1. The grace of God is the ultimate source of salvation
   
   • Ephesians 2:8–9
2. Faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior
   
   • John 3:16; Romans 10:9–10
3. Christ’s atoning death and resurrection as sufficient for salvation
   
   • 1 Corinthians 15:3–4
4. Justification by faith, not by works
   
   • Romans 3:28; Galatians 2:16
5. Regeneration by the Holy Spirit (new birth)
   
   • John 3:3–8; Titus 3:5
6. Good works are the fruit, not the cause, of salvation
   
   • Ephesians 2:10; James 2:17

No Protestant tradition teaches salvation by sacraments, moral effort, or merit.

---

 

[EarlyActs]

Sorry I really do not understand your question can you please elaborate

Do you think the prophets looked forward to an entirely unique work of the Spirit (creating a mission to the nations), that did not occur in the past?

 

[BillyBob65]

Do you think the prophets looked forward to an entirely unique work of the Spirit (creating a mission to the nations), that did not occur in the past?

If you are asking me if I think that the Peter was expecting the event of Cornelius it would be no. If you are asking about the prophets like in Joel then I would say yes I really do not know which prophets you are asking about and what the "unique work of the Spirit (creating a mission to the nations)" is referring to unless it refers to the out pouring of the spirit upon the Jews and the gentiles. Sorry am having such a hard time understanding your question.

 

[EarlyActs]

If you are asking me if I think that the Peter was expecting the event of Cornelius it would be no. If you are asking about the prophets like in Joel then I would say yes I really do not know which prophets you are asking about and what the "unique work of the Spirit (creating a mission to the nations)" is referring to unless it refers to the out pouring of the spirit upon the Jews and the gentiles. Sorry am having such a hard time understanding your question.

Yes I mean Joel and the launch of the mission stage that Israel was intended to do. Some other prophets too.

Why wouldn’t Peter expect something? When a new thing is to take place, there is often an initial sign though it is not meant to keep happening.

Actually another unusual thing did happen—the vision of the sheet.

I don’t think you are having trouble!

 

[Josheb]

That is not what the bible teach but the words of Calvin...

Calvin did not write Ephesians 2:8.

You, therefore, cannot avoid the problem by accusing any of us of having a greater allegiance to Calvin than we do scripture. That would be nonsense. Perhaps part of the problem lays in the wording of your posts but if you truly believe baptism is causally instrumental in salvation then that is a works-based soteriology, and the Protestant Church (regardless of sectarian affiliation) has rejected all forms of works-based salvation. That is true of monergists just as much as it is synergist Prots. Even Baptists do not believe baptism is a work of salvation, or a work that in any way causes salvation. Baptists teach baptism is a crucially necessary event or ritual in which the declaration of the faith through which a person is saved is made.

This entire thread might be resolvable with the answer to one, single question: Is it the unsaved that gets baptized, or the saved person?

Answer that question for me.

but you chose for yourself it makes me no difference if you Chose Gods written words concerning salvation or Calvin's. The truth will set you free but only the truth not mans truth.

And there is another completely unnecessary and completely inappropriate personal comment that undermines your argument and makes you look foolish. Just keep the posts about the posts and not the posters and ALL the conversations will improve (and possibly be more successful).

When you read scripture is it saved people or unsaved people that get baptized. When scripture states, "believe and be baptized," is salvation occurring at the point prior to belief, after belief but prior to baptism, or only after both belief and baptism? In Mark 16:16 when Jesus instructs his disciples to preach, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved," is it the belief, the baptism, or both that saves a person? IIs Jesus describing a sequence or a correlation? Is he implying baptism causes salvation? Acts 8:13 has the Ethiopian believing and then being baptized. Was the Ethiopian saved when he believed, or when he participated in the action his baptism? If he'd suddenly had a heart attack after believing but just before getting baptized would he have been saved? When Paul exhorts, "Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins by calling on His name," is it faith that saves or is it baptism? Paul says wash away sins by calling on Christ's name. He does not attribute salvation to getting immersed in water. When Peter writes, "this baptism that now saves you," is he writing to unsaved people or already-saved people?

The reason these questions are critically important is because none of those examples and no verse in the entire Bible can or should ever be read in conflict with Ephesians 2:4-10 (not even those in Acts 10).

Ephesians 2:4-10
4But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

Salvation is by grace. That is what scripture states, what it explicitly states. No one is saved by baptism. What scripture states is salvation is...

by grace,
through faith,
for works.

Salvation is noy by faith. Salvation is through faith, not by it. Justification is by faith, but justification is not synonymous with salvation (unless a person is Roman Catholic). That "for works" part is a function having been created in Christ. Salvific works come after having been created in Christ, not before. It all boils down to a single simple question.....


Is it the unsaved that gets baptized, or the saved person?


So think. Have you intended to defend the position an unsaved person becomes saved by getting baptized? If not, then you should realize that's how your posts read. If that's not intended, then a simple statement of clarification will clear things up for all the readers (and probably help reduce a lot of your frustration with these conversations). If you do actually mean to say the work, the action, of getting baptized in water is what causes an unsaved person's salvation then that is a very serious problem because that is a works-based salvation, and not only a works-based salvation but a works-of-the-law-based salvation. Ritual baptism in water had its roots in the Mosaic Law. Was Cornelius saved when he believed and professed faith in Christ, or did his profession have no value until after he was baptized? No answer that contradicts Ephesians 2 is correct. This is one of the reasons I asked you if you thought Acts 10 was the text that defines all other texts. Acts 10 cannot be read in contradiction with Ephesians 2 and whether you intended to do so or not, that's how these posts read. You are defending salvation by works if you're saying baptism is causal to salvation.


Is it the unsaved that gets baptized, or the saved person?



.

 

[Arial]

Calvin did not write Ephesians 2:8.

You, therefore, cannot avoid the problem by accusing any of us of having a greater allegiance to Calvin than we do scripture. That would be nonsense. Perhaps part of the problem lays in the wording of your posts but if you truly believe baptism is causally instrumental in salvation then that is a works-based soteriology, and the Protestant Church (regardless of sectarian affiliation) has rejected all forms of works-based salvation. That is true of monergists just as much as it is synergist Prots. Even Baptists do not believe baptism is a work of salvation, or a work that in any way causes salvation. Baptists teach baptism is a crucially necessary event or ritual in which the declaration of the faith through which a person is saved is made.

This entire thread might be resolvable with the answer to one, single question: Is it the unsaved that gets baptized, or the saved person?

Answer that question for me.

And there is another completely unnecessary and completely inappropriate personal comment that undermines your argument and makes you look foolish. Just keep the posts about the posts and not the posters and ALL the conversations will improve (and possibly be more successful).

When you read scripture is it saved people or unsaved people that get baptized. When scripture states, "believe and be baptized," is salvation occurring at the point prior to belief, after belief but prior to baptism, or only after both belief and baptism? In Mark 16:16 when Jesus instructs his disciples to preach, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved," is it the belief, the baptism, or both that saves a person? IIs Jesus describing a sequence or a correlation? Is he implying baptism causes salvation? Acts 8:13 has the Ethiopian believing and then being baptized. Was the Ethiopian saved when he believed, or when he participated in the action his baptism? If he'd suddenly had a heart attack after believing but just before getting baptized would he have been saved? When Paul exhorts, "Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins by calling on His name," is it faith that saves or is it baptism? Paul says wash away sins by calling on Christ's name. He does not attribute salvation to getting immersed in water. When Peter writes, "this baptism that now saves you," is he writing to unsaved people or already-saved people?

The reason these questions are critically important is because none of those examples and no verse in the entire Bible can or should ever be read in conflict with Ephesians 2:4-10 (not even those in Acts 10).

Ephesians 2:4-10
4But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

Salvation is by grace. That is what scripture states, what it explicitly states. No one is saved by baptism. What scripture states is salvation is...

by grace,
through faith,
for works.

Salvation is noy by faith. Salvation is through faith, not by it. Justification is by faith, but justification is not synonymous with salvation (unless a person is Roman Catholic). That "for works" part is a function having been created in Christ. Salvific works come after having been created in Christ, not before. It all boils down to a single simple question.....


Is it the unsaved that gets baptized, or the saved person?


So think. Have you intended to defend the position an unsaved person becomes saved by getting baptized? If not, then you should realize that's how your posts read. If that's not intended, then a simple statement of clarification will clear things up for all the readers (and probably help reduce a lot of your frustration with these conversations). If you do actually mean to say the work, the action, of getting baptized in water is what causes an unsaved person's salvation then that is a very serious problem because that is a works-based salvation, and not only a works-based salvation but a works-of-the-law-based salvation. Ritual baptism in water had its roots in the Mosaic Law. Was Cornelius saved when he believed and professed faith in Christ, or did his profession have no value until after he was baptized? No answer that contradicts Ephesians 2 is correct. This is one of the reasons I asked you if you thought Acts 10 was the text that defines all other texts. Acts 10 cannot be read in contradiction with Ephesians 2 and whether you intended to do so or not, that's how these posts read. You are defending salvation by works if you're saying baptism is causal to salvation.


Is it the unsaved that gets baptized, or the saved person?



.

@BillyBob65 , no matter how he words it specificaly and explicitly denies salvation by faith alone.

I just disagree with your false teaching that it is faith alone as you describe it.

Since he slighly qualiified the statement as "as you describe it" I will ask him how I describe it. Though I have little hope that he will respond as I think that was likely just him covering his bases.

 

[Arial]

I just disagree with your false teaching that it is faith alone as you describe it.

How do I describe it?

 

[JesusFan]

Look dude I was trying to be as nice as I can but your insisting that I am ignoring scripture is false and an attack on my character where as I can say the same thing about you . I have never said one must not have faith I just disagree with your false teaching that it is faith alone as you describe it. I have shown you with scripture where that is not aligned with scripture and it is you that refuse to see it and twist it around saying it is not what scripture is saying because it does not align with your thought on faith alone.

I have shown you that the baptism in Christ name is for the remission of sin just as it was recorded and given you more biblical scripture to confirm that is what God meant but you want to dismiss it with it has to mean because of but like I said scripture discredits that but it doesn't matter to you.

I have shown you how all the scriptures you have given to try to discredit Gods teaching on baptism supports God view rather than the way you miss understand and try to pit them against Gods view on baptism. I have not had to say one time that the scripture don't mean what was recorded but has a different view. I have engaged in all scripture you have provide just because I did not see it your way does not mean I did not engage. You keep trying to belittle m and I have endure it but now I am done . I will leave you to your belief for you are set in your way and feel you have all truth and can have no error in your Protestant Reformation even though show there may be contradictions with the word that we are to be confirmed with not a denominational view.

The problem is that the Greek text as constructed and inspired by the Holy Spirit will not allow for Baptismal regeneration as you are espousing here

 

[CrowCross]

The problem is that the Greek text as constructed and inspired by the Holy Spirit will not allow for Baptismal regeneration as you are espousing here

Nor does the text instruct people on how to be baptized. Yet, some claim it is a requirement.

 

[JesusFan]

Nor does the text instruct people on how to be baptized. Yet, some claim it is a requirement.

They are adding works to grace, a false gospel

 

[CrowCross]

They are adding works to grace, a false gospel

They're adding more than works....they're saying Christ death and payment on the cross wasn't sufficient...and water must be used as some sort of vessel to remove the sin.