I have written a series of articles on the subject of obeying the gospel in the first century based on the history given in the book of Acts. This is another dealing with the same subject. Why do so? Because there is absolutely no possibility that Holy Spirit inspired men, some of whom were apostles, could have gotten the gospel message wrong.
The case of Cornelius is somewhat unique in the respect that he appears to have been a very godly man even prior to his conversion. In Acts 10:2, the Bible says of him that he was "a devout man, and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people, and prayed to God continually." (NAS) Of course, there were others like him in that regard – Saul of Tarsus and the Ethiopian eunuch come to mind. A man may be devout and yet ill-informed and in religious error.
As for Cornelius, if there was ever a man so good as to be saved on his own merits, we suppose Cornelius would have been that man. And yet God's angel instructs him to send for Peter. Why? Might it not be that even a good man like Cornelius needed the gospel? If a man can be saved without the gospel, why bother to preach it to him, why did Jesus die on the cross, why the great commission? You can read 2 Thess. 1:8-9 to see what will happen to those who do not obey the gospel. It is a serious matter to not obey the gospel. Cornelius needed the gospel. He was a man in need of salvation from his sins for no man is so perfect as to have never sinned.
Peter, in reporting what had happened at Cornelius' house, when he arrives back in Jerusalem, throws more light on why Cornelius, by the angel's direction, had been instructed to send for him. The angel had told Cornelius that "he (a reference to Peter--DS) shall speak words to you by which you will be saved." (Acts 11:14 NAS) So, there were words Cornelius needed to hear to be saved? What were those words?
Were they not the same words Peter had preached on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2? Were they not the same words spoken by Philip in Samaria and before the Ethiopian eunuch? Were they not the same words spoken to Saul by Ananias? Is there more than one gospel that will save? Is it this gospel in one place, another gospel in another place? The gospel is the gospel. It does not differ day by day, from city to city, or from one person to another person.
It has already been shown in previous articles that baptism was a part of the gospel message. Is it any different this time with Cornelius? No!
Hear Peter, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized" (Acts 10:47 NAS) then "he ordered them to be baptized." (Acts 10:48 NAS) What is another word for "ordered"? If you check other translations, you will see the word "commanded" rather than "ordered." But why command baptism?
The answer is because you cannot obey the gospel and thus cannot be saved, not in the first century and not now, without being baptized "for the remission of sins." (Acts 2:38 NAS) What Peter preached in one locality, he preached everywhere. Was Peter an apostle? Did he know what he was talking about? How about Philip? How about Ananias? Remember that Cornelius was to be saved by the words Peter would speak to him (Acts 11:14) and those words ended with the command to be baptized.
Cornelius and his companions had the Holy Spirit descend upon them prior to their baptism leading many to think they were saved at that point. Not so. Why not?
Because Cornelius was to be saved by the message he received from Peter (Acts 11:14) and not by a miraculous manifestation from heaven. Peter had not gotten a good start on delivering that message when the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius for he says in Acts 11:15 "as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them." (NAS) It was necessary for Peter to complete that message which included baptism.
But let us look at it from another point of view. What if Cornelius had told Peter, "No thanks, I have been saved by faith and grace. I believe in Jesus. I think I will just pass on baptism." Would he have been saved? Many preach today that he would have been for the gospel they preach has no water in it unlike Peter's gospel.
He would not have been saved by grace and faith for the simple reason that he would have lacked faith in the message Peter preached. He would not have believed the Holy Spirit by which Peter spoke for Peter, by the Holy Spirit, commanded baptism. It would have been as if he said, "I know you were to speak words by which I might be saved but I do not believe this word about baptism."
I would also remind the reader of what he already knows if he will think about it. The fact the Holy Spirit is upon one does not mean he is God-approved, not necessarily. If so, Caiaphas, the high priest and one of the ringleaders in bringing about the crucifixion of Jesus, was a saved man. Read about his prophesying in John 11:49-51. Add to that the fact that even inspired men could and did sin, even Peter. (Gal. 2:11-12)
If it was the Holy Spirit falling on Cornelius and his household that saved them, then the following things are true. (1) The angel was mistaken when he spoke to Cornelius to send for Peter for Peter was not needed. The Holy Spirit could fall on Cornelius and his household whether Peter was present or not. (2) The angel was mistaken again when he said "he shall speak words to you by which you will be saved." (Acts 11:14 NAS) No words were needed for Cornelius and his household to be saved if the Holy Spirit falling on them did the job.
The sincere inquirer to what saved Cornelius and his own must decide, based on the scripture, what the saving agent was in Cornelius and in his family's salvation. Was it the descent of the Holy Spirit upon them or was it, as the angel said, Peter's speaking "words to you by which you will be saved"? (Acts 11:14 NAS)
For more on this subject, see another article I have written discussing it further titled "Cornelius' Conversion and Holy Spirit Baptism."
[To download this article or print it out click here.]
No comments:
Post a Comment