Poll on what Acts 2:38 was intended to mean

[Cow Poke]

I wonder if there's a quick way to navigate to posts 93 and 94.

It goes to context, Jeff. When a verse is in dispute, particularly one WORD or phrase in a verse, it is wise to look at the Bible OVER ALL.... are there OTHER places where Salvation appears to be "had" or "obtainable" or "obtained" WITHOUT baptism? We showed you NUMEROUS such examples, but you managed to turn that into a "aha" event (drama) indicating, for example, that it's actually necessary to "BELIEVE" (gasp) before being saved, etc.

(drama added for effect )

That should get you in the neighborhood. (And, please note, this was almost a MONTH ago! )

[Brown Cat]

That should get you in the neighborhood. (And, please note, this was almost a MONTH ago! )

Yep, I know. A lot of times my work schedule keeps me from being here as often as I'd like. But I have been following this thread.

[nrajeff]

I believe I "pre-answered" that post in Post #93, Jeff.

Huh? Well, that WOULD go along with the

"Repent and be baptized BECAUSE I already forgave your sins" and

"Where the Bible says those who have faith and obey will get eternal life, it REALLY means that those who get eternal life will have faith and obey"

type of reverse logic that some Evangelicals employ to make sense of their Calvinistic soteriology....but I am not sure you actually did engage, in post 93, all the issues I raised in post 94.

How about if instead of me putting words in your mouth or taking away some, you list each issue I raised in post 94, alongside the rebuttal to that issue that you think you pre-emptively made in post 93?

[Cow Poke]

How about if instead of me putting words in your mouth or taking away some...

While that would be refreshing and appreciated, I can't really see any hope of civil dialogue with you on this, Jeff. So, I think I'll pass.

[Brown Cat]

"Repent and be baptized BECAUSE I already forgave your sins" and

Mind if I jump in?

Although I'm more inclined to JP Holding's take on the matter, I'm not going to necessarily say that option #1 in the poll is completely wrong, because it does reflect the consensus of NT passages regarding the relationship between water baptism and the new birth.

"Where the Bible says those who have faith and obey will get eternal life, it REALLY means that those who get eternal life will have faith and obey"

How do you explain the gift of the Holy Spirit falling on the household of Cornelius in Acts 10?

44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47“Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?

Nothing is said of any outward response, let alone baptism, on the part of the hearers before they received the Holy Spirit.

[nrajeff]

Mind if I jump in?

I don't mind at all you jumping, BC. I have been reading your posts on another site, and I think you address issues with decent manners.

Although I'm more inclined to JP Holding's take on the matter, I'm not going to necessarily say that option #1 in the poll is completely wrong, because it does reflect the consensus of NT passages regarding the relationship between water baptism and the new birth.

How do you explain the gift of the Holy Spirit falling on the household of Cornelius in Acts 10?
44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47“Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?

Nothing is said of any outward response, let alone baptism, on the part of the hearers before they received the Holy Spirit.

Good questions. I will address them when I have a little more time, before midnight hopefully.

[One Bad Pig]

Mind if I jump in?

Although I'm more inclined to JP Holding's take on the matter, I'm not going to necessarily say that option #1 in the poll is completely wrong, because it does reflect the consensus of NT passages regarding the relationship between water baptism and the new birth.



How do you explain the gift of the Holy Spirit falling on the household of Cornelius in Acts 10?

44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47“Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?

Nothing is said of any outward response, let alone baptism, on the part of the hearers before they received the Holy Spirit.

IMO you're confusing things a bit. We are to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, not "for the reception of the Holy Spirit;" that is mentioned separately. While receiving the Holy Spirit typically comes after baptism chronologically in the Biblical accounts, per the Semitic Totality Concept it should not be understood as strictly chronological. On the other hand, this was a special case where God showed the apostles unequivocally that Gentiles were to be part of His Church.

Also, consider John 3:5:

John 3:5 NKJV

Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Here baptism and being born of the Spirit are most likely mentioned separately. In the early Church, after the time of the apostles, the Holy Spirit was conferred upon converts by an anointing with oil, which was done before or after baptism (depending on local custom); in the Orthodox Church today, it is done after baptism.

Additionally, people in the Old Testament were indwelt, at least temporarily, with the Holy Spirit without baptism (including King Saul).

[Raphael]

IMO you're confusing things a bit. We are to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, not "for the reception of the Holy Spirit;" that is mentioned separately. While receiving the Holy Spirit typically comes after baptism chronologically in the Biblical accounts, per the Semitic Totality Concept it should not be understood as strictly chronological. On the other hand, this was a special case where God showed the apostles unequivocally that Gentiles were to be part of His Church.

Also, consider John 3:5:

John 3:5 NKJV

Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Here baptism and being born of the Spirit are most likely mentioned separately. In the early Church, after the time of the apostles, the Holy Spirit was conferred upon converts by an anointing with oil, which was done before or after baptism (depending on local custom); in the Orthodox Church today, it is done after baptism.

Additionally, people in the Old Testament were indwelt, at least temporarily, with the Holy Spirit without baptism (including King Saul).

I also know of people who live in areas where they haven't been able to be baptised as there is a certain element of risk (i.e. a public baptism gets you a free mob killing) who I would consider to be baptised by the Holy Spirit.

[nrajeff]

I also know of people who live in areas where they haven't been able to be baptised as there is a certain element of risk (i.e. a public baptism gets you a free mob killing) who I would consider to be baptised by the Holy Spirit.

That is an interesting observation, Raphael. Thanks for sharing it. IMO, such people have taken a very important step (baptism of the spirit) onto the path that leads to eternal life, and God won't hold their temporary inability to undergo the other baptism (baptism of the water) against them, since God is fair.

[nrajeff]

How do you explain the gift of the Holy Spirit falling on the household of Cornelius in Acts 10?

44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47“Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?

I am one of many who believe that such people receive the Holy Spirit, with those associated manifestations, before baptism, but they still must be baptized in order to get the gift of the Holy Spirit, which is something different.

And that perhaps explains Peter's comment in v.47.

Nothing is said of any outward response, let alone baptism, on the part of the hearers before they received the Holy Spirit.

Correct. What that tells me is that since the HS knows a person's heart, He can and does touch people whose hearts are prepared to receive His influence, even if they haven't given any outward indications that they have been humbled and are repentant and have accepted Christ and want to follow Him.

[Brown Cat]

IMO you're confusing things a bit. We are to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, not "for the reception of the Holy Spirit;" that is mentioned separately.

The point I was trying to make to Jeff was that Cornelius' household experienced an instantanteous and complete conversion experience prior to anything they had done. In my Southern Baptist view, the new birth happens in an instant of time though not everyone can pinpoint a specific time and place. But we agree that without repentance, baptism is meaningless and the one who really repents will want to be baptized.

While receiving the Holy Spirit typically comes after baptism chronologically in the Biblical accounts, per the Semitic Totality Concept it should not be understood as strictly chronological. On the other hand, this was a special case where God showed the apostles unequivocally that Gentiles were to be part of His Church.

I'm right with you, OBP. But I also believe that Cornelius' experience (minus the gift of tongues) of receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit upon conversion is now the norm for the church age.

Also, consider John 3:5:

John 3:5 NKJV

Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Here baptism and being born of the Spirit are most likely mentioned separately. In the early Church, after the time of the apostles, the Holy Spirit was conferred upon converts by an anointing with oil, which was done before or after baptism (depending on local custom); in the Orthodox Church today, it is done after baptism.

I know very little about Eastern Orthodoxy but I think to properly understand John 3:5 one needs to follow the conversation with Nicodemus down to verse 10.

5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

9 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can these things be?”10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?

Being "born of water and the Spirit" describes a single event, the new, spiritual birth. This has two essential components, the cleansing from sin and the creation of a new nature. According to Jesus, this was something Nicodemus should have picked up on. This looks back to the new birth prophesied in Ezekiel 36:24-27 with which Nicodemus was familiar with but didn't connect the dots that Jesus did:

For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land. 25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

Additionally, people in the Old Testament were indwelt, at least temporarily, with the Holy Spirit without baptism (including King Saul).

True, but one vital thing the New Covenant brought by Jesus was that the Holy Spirit Himself would come to indwell, and forever remain in, genuine believers.

16 I will ask the Father, and He will give you another [b] Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you. (Acts 4:16-17)

(All Scriptures references are from the NASB.)

[One Bad Pig]

The point I was trying to make to Jeff was that Cornelius' household experienced an instantanteous and complete conversion experience prior to anything they had done.

I don't think this is quite accurate. The were already God fearers beforehand, and after the Holy Spirit fell on them they were still baptized.

In my Southern Baptist view, the new birth happens in an instant of time though not everyone can pinpoint a specific time and place.

Yeah, that's the standard Southern Baptist view. IMO, however, it goes against both the Semitic Totality concept and what you say below regarding the new birth. And conversion, under Semitic Totality, is itself only a part of salvation.

But we agree that without repentance, baptism is meaningless and the one who really repents will want to be baptized.

I'm right with you, OBP. But I also believe that Cornelius' experience (minus the gift of tongues) of receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit upon conversion is now the norm for the church age.

That's the majority Protestant view, as far as I know, but it is only necessary due to rejection of the sacraments.

I know very little about Eastern Orthodoxy but I think to properly understand John 3:5 one needs to follow the conversation with Nicodemus down to verse 10.

5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

9 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can these things be?”10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?

Being "born of water and the Spirit" describes a single event, the new, spiritual birth. This has two essential components, the cleansing from sin and the creation of a new nature. According to Jesus, this was something Nicodemus should have picked up on. This looks back to the new birth prophesied in Ezekiel 36:24-27 with which Nicodemus was familiar with but didn't connect the dots that Jesus did:

For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land. 25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

Being born of water and the spirit is part of the conversion process, but few people believe it is the same event. Even you state above that you believe that receiving the Holy Spirit comes at the moment of conversion, not baptism (being born of water).

True, but one vital thing the New Covenant brought by Jesus was that the Holy Spirit Himself would come to indwell, and forever remain in, genuine believers.

16 I will ask the Father, and He will give you another [b] Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you. (Acts 4:16-17)

(All Scriptures references are from the NASB.)

I don't think the key difference is the permanent indwelling, but that it would happen to all genuine believers, not just prophets.