Was Cornelius Saved Before Baptism

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 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, 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, once 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 location? The gospel is the gospel. It does not differ day by day, from city to city, or from person to person.

It has already been shown in previous articles, as taken in chronological order, that in every instance the preaching by the apostles and inspired men of the first century immediately led to baptism by those who accepted the preaching. Baptism was a part of the 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 that word 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.”

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 as he is in his present state. 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)  

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

 

Cornelius' Conversion and Holy Spirit Baptism

The idea is in vogue in some quarters that Cornelius was saved when the Holy Spirit fell upon him (Acts 10:44) without any further action on his part.  One of the verses used to support this idea is 1 John 4:13, "By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit." (NKJV)  So, it is said, that settles it. 

Go take a look at that verse and read it in context.  Verse 12 just before it reads, "If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us." (NKJV)  Two verses down I read this, "Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God." (1 John 4:15 NKJV)  In a broader context, but still in the book of 1 John, it is said if we keep his word we abide in him and he in us. (1 John 2:5, 1 John 3:24)  Thus we have a series of items being listed by which we can measure whether or not we are in a faithful relationship with God.  John is writing to fellow Christians thus he uses the word “we.” 

In the passage, 1 John 4:13, John is not talking about initial obedience to God, gospel obedience.  It is speaking to those who are already Christians as are the other verses in context round about it. 

There can be no obedience to what is cast upon you, the Holy Spirit.  Cornelius and his household obeyed nothing when they miraculously received the Holy Spirit.  They were passive in that. 

Receiving the Holy Spirit is not equivalent to obeying the gospel.  If receiving the Holy Spirit is equivalent to obeying the gospel for salvation then there is nothing to obey.  Why say that?  Only Jesus could baptize one with the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit is a gift, a gift from God.  The individual is passive in the matter.  The giving of the gift is up to God, not to the individual.  Had Cornelius obeyed the gospel?  No! 

Paul said, concerning the matter of salvation in Rom. 6:17-18, "But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you ­obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness." (NKJV)  There is then something to obey, not something to just passively receive.  The gospel must be obeyed. 

The Bible says when Jesus returns he will be “taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (2 Thess. 1:8 NKJV)  So, we see again the gospel is something to be obeyed. 

What is the nature of that obedience?  The answer is to be found in the command of Peter to Cornelius and those gathered with him, "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." (Acts 10:48 NKJV)  

Let the reader note that obedience from the heart spoken of above (Rom. 6:17) necessarily implies faith or else how can it be from the heart, thus the obedience being spoken of is in addition to faith and it is something they must do for themselves--not God do for them or to them. 

I do not know of a case in the Bible where it is said or implied that the Holy Spirit was ever said to be given to a man for the purpose of saving him.  Do you?  Yes, a person has the Spirit if he is saved but is that the reason it was given to him--to save him?  That is what needs to be shown. 

There is an interesting passage in 1 Cor. 14:22 about the very thing Cornelius received.  It reads as follows:  "Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe." (1 Cor. 14:22 NKJV)  This has an application to the case of Cornelius.  Remember the evidence that Cornelius and those with him received the Holy Spirit was their speaking in tongues. 

Without convincing the Jews that God was willing and desirous of saving the Gentiles, as well as themselves, the gospel never would have been preached to the Gentiles.  The Jews were so biased against the Gentiles it was going to take something special and unusual to convince them that God had any interest in Gentiles.  Ten years had gone by since Jesus' ascension back into heaven and yet there had been no preaching to the Gentiles.  The Jews up to this point in time did not believe God had an interest in the salvation of Gentiles. 

It took a miracle to convince the Jewish Christians otherwise.  "And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also." (Acts 10:45 NKJV)  This was the event that convinced the Jews that it was not only okay but the will of God that the Gentiles also have access to eternal life through the gospel.  "When they (the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem--DS) heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, 'Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.' " (Acts 11:18 NKJV)  Tongues served for a sign to the Jewish Christians with regards to the Gentile Cornelius and thus to all Gentiles concerning God's will for them. 

This whole episode at the house of Cornelius of being baptized in the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with gospel obedience or conversion.  Let us say the Holy Spirit had not fallen upon Cornelius that day.  Do you think Cornelius would have been disobedient to, and an unbeliever of, the things Peter was teaching him?  Do you think Peter would have left Cornelius as an unsaved man?  You know better.  With or without the baptism of the Holy Spirit Cornelius was going to obey the gospel that day and be saved.  Remember his conversion began with an appearance of an angel in a vision telling him to send for Peter and in doing so he would be told “words by which you and all your household will be saved.” (Acts 11:14 NKJV)  It was the message believed and obeyed that saved them, not the miracle that happened to them. 

One needs to be careful lest he take the exception to the rule and make it the general rule.  We do not do that in life and we should not do it in Bible study.  We do not say that the Lord appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus therefore unless the Lord appears to you personally you cannot be converted.  There was a reason Jesus appeared to Saul and that reason is not applicable to either you or me.  We understand this.  We need to understand the same principle as it relates to the conversion of Cornelius and his household.  It was a one-time event for a special purpose. 

It is the gospel that saves people “for it is the power of God to salvation.” (Rom. 1:16 NKJV)  It must be believed and obeyed. 

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

The Way Into Christ

It is only human nature to want the way to heaven to be as broad and all-inclusive as possible thus the more ways into Christ that can be found the better from a human perspective.  We have people we want to see saved and yet we are pretty sure they are not due to either the way they are living or to the beliefs they hold thus a broad gate and a wide way to heaven would suit us just fine.  But it goes without saying that our love for one who does not walk in the light of truth cannot change the truth itself.  No man is saved “unconditionally” which is to say saved regardless of belief, character, and conduct.  God saves sinners, true enough, but not while they actively engage in the practice of sin unrepentantly.

The fact remains that no matter how much we desire another’s salvation it is up to them to bring their life into accord with God’s will for neither you nor I can broaden the gate.  “Narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life and there are few who find it.” (Matt. 7:14 NKJV)

Salvation is found only in Christ.  “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12 NKJV)  Jesus said he was “the way, the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6 NKJV)  Again, he says, “I am the door.  If anyone enters by me, he will be saved.” (John 10:9 NKJV)

The point I want to drive home is that salvation is found “in Christ” and not “out of Christ.”  Paul speaks of “the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.” (2 Tim. 2:10 NKJV)  Redemption “is in Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 3:24 NKJV)  Elsewhere Paul says Christ “is the Savior of the body.” (Eph. 5:23 NKJV)  The body of which he is the Savior is his spiritual body, the church, for the church is his body (Eph. 1:22-23, Col. 1:18) which makes being “in Christ” essential.  We must be in that which Christ is going to save.  “If anyone is in Christ he is a new creation,” (2 Cor. 5:17 NKJV) emphasis on “in Christ” and not out of him.  Thus it is essential to be “in Christ” for that is where “every spiritual blessing” is found (Eph. 1:3 NKJV) which, of course, includes salvation itself. 

Having firmly established that salvation is found “in Christ” how then does one enter into Christ?  How many ways are there?  The Bible teaches there are conditions for entering into Christ, prerequisites if you will, namely faith, repentance, and confession all of which are absolutely essential to salvation but none of those things by themselves or even taken collectively will put you “into Christ.”  Only baptism is said to do that--no not baptism by itself  but baptism that is built on faith accompanied by repentance with a willingness to confess Christ.  Baptism is the final step one takes to enter Christ and find salvation in him.

Hear the language Paul uses:  “Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus” (Rom. 6:3 NKJV), “as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27 NKJV), “for by one spirit we were all baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13 NKJV) speaking of the body of Christ.  Baptism puts one into Christ where salvation is found.

How does this accord with the examples of conversions as we find them in Acts?  In Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost when the first gospel sermon was preached that was ever preached and that by inspiration of the apostle Peter (the Holy Spirit speaking through Peter) people were made believers.  Were they saved?  God did not consider them saved for his command to them through Peter was “repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” (Acts 2:38 NKJV)  Denominationalism would say they were saved after faith and repentance and the rest of God’s command to them that day (be baptized) was not needed for salvation.  Well, who are you going to believe?  We ought to believe Peter and the Holy Spirit and not our denominational pastors.

Peter said, “Every one of you.”  There were to be and are to be no exceptions.  This brings to mind Paul’s statement to the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 12:13, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” (NKJV)  Note here again the phrase “we were all”--that is every one of us.  No, Paul did not do a lot of baptizing personally but that it was done as a result of his preaching and by those working with him there is no doubt for “many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.” (Acts 18:8 NKJV)  No one was considered as “one of them” who was not baptized either on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem (Acts 2:38) or at Corinth (1 Cor. 12:13).

Paul himself was made a believer and repented when Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus.  Was he saved?  Jesus told him directly, “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”   The Lord sent Ananias to tell him what he must do.  What did Ananias tell him?  “Now why are you waiting?  Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins.” (Acts 22:16 NKJV)  When a man’s sins are gone, washed away, he is “in Christ.”  So no, Paul was not saved on the road to Damascus even though he came to faith and repentance there, not if the word “must” means must.

Paul equates baptism into Christ with putting on Christ.  “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal. 3:27 NKJV)  When I put on a coat I am in the coat.  When I put on Christ I am in Christ.  That is where I need to be for that is where salvation is found.  Can one be in Christ who has not put on Christ?

We need to always remember Jesus himself commanded baptism (Matt. 28:18-20 NKJV)--the Great Commission.  Why did he do so if it does not matter to him and is non-essential for salvation?  Put yourself for a short moment of time into the apostles' shoes who received this commission (verse 20 teaches we have received that commission as well for it has been handed down to us).  Jesus tells them to make disciples (learners, those who will follow one’s teaching) of all nations baptizing them (Matt. 28:19).  That is a command.  There is no choice about it.

Question--how do you do that in today’s world where people have swallowed the denominational line that you need not be baptized?  We are commanded to baptize those made disciples yet they refuse thinking it unnecessary even though Jesus commanded it.  It ought to be obvious that discipleship ends at that point where one bulks at a command and refuses obedience.

I have said nothing on Mark 16:16, the words of Jesus, “he who believes and is baptized will be saved” but do I need to?  I do not think so.  If words mean anything it is self-explanatory.

I want to deal with some objections.  There are many passages in the Bible that if one wants to be a careless scholar he can lead himself astray.  For example, take a passage like Rom. 5:1-2, written by Paul, “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand.” (NKJV)  Or, here is another, “even the righteousness of God which is through faith in Jesus Christ to all and on all who believe.” (Rom. 3:22 NKJV)  A careless scholar takes these passages and many similar ones found throughout the New Testament and says “see, here it is, salvation is by faith and baptism has nothing to do with it.”

Some things are obvious about this kind of scholarship.  For one thing, it pits the writer, Paul, against himself not only in other books of the Bible but in this very same book itself--the book of Romans.  If the reader will just read on to chapter 6 he will find baptism.

“Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we were buried with him through baptism into death that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.  For if we have been united together in the likeness of his death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of his resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.  For he who has died has been freed from sin.  Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him.” (Rom. 6:3-8 NKJV)

How about the person who has not been baptized into Christ’s death?  What if you have not been “united together in the likeness of his death?” (Rom. 6:5)  The text says “if we have.” (Rom. 6:5)  It does not say “if we have not.”  Baptism is into Christ (Rom. 6:3) and that being the case it is also into the benefits or blessings of Christ’s death.  You only walk in newness of life, a new creature, a new creation, when you arise as such from the waters of baptism for “our old man was crucified with him.” (Rom. 6:6)  Crucifixion means death.  We were baptized “into death.” (Rom. 6:4)  We arise from the baptismal waters to “walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4) because “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.” (2 Cor. 5: 17 NKJV)  The text says “If we died with Christ.” (Rom. 6:8)  It does not say “if we do not die with Christ.”  We need to read and reason as we do so.

“Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (Jesus speaking, John 3:3, NKJV)  “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (Jesus, John 3:5 NKJV)

A man is saved by faith, the Bible teaches that, but it is a faith that truly believes and thus acts.  That is why on the Day of Pentecost when God told the people, speaking through Peter, to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins the people did it.  Why, because they believed God’s message.  That is why Paul, then known as Saul, was baptized when God speaking through Ananias told him to arise and be baptized and wash away his sins.  Why?  Because he believed what God’s messenger Ananias told him.

Faith or belief has been perverted today.  Thus today you cannot read Peter’s sermon as delivered on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2, believe it, and be accepted as a man of faith by the majority in Christendom.  Why, because the consensus is today that you do not have to believe what Peter said to do for the remission of sins and if you do believe it that is heresy.  Thus there can be no faith in what Peter preached as a command to the people that day.  Faith today thus means no faith.  Yes, it is strange and hard to reason out (maybe because there is no reason to it).  It is a perversion of faith.  Scriptural faith means you believe what Peter preached, not disbelieve it.

In the Bible when it comes to salvation faith and obedience are so linked together that there can be no saving faith without the obedience that proceeds from it.  Here is a perfect example.  Heb. 3:18-19, “And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who did not obey?  So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.” (NKJV)  Why did the children of Israel under Moses’ leadership not enter the land of Canaan, the land of rest?  Because they heard God’s command to go take the land but they did not believe God (did not believe he would give them the power to overcome the inhabitants) and not believing they would not obey.  That is where most of Christendom is today with baptism.  They know what the Bible clearly says about it but they are unwilling to obey because they do not believe plain statements of scripture concerning baptism’s function and purpose.

One thing that would help men greatly in understanding faith is if they would learn what a synecdoche is.  A synecdoche is a figure of speech “by which we speak of the whole by a part, or a part by using a term denoting the whole…This is many times the case with the salvation of sinners.  The whole number of conditions is indicated by the use of one.  Generally the first one is mentioned-that of faith-because without it nothing else could follow.” (Prof. D. R. Dungan, Hermeneutics, Pages 300-305)  We should not read the Bible, come across the word faith, and think without giving it thought that it necessarily means mental assent alone.  Be a scholar and study it out and see based on the context and the totality of New Testament teaching on the subject what the word means where it is located.

I want to deal with one other passage and that by Peter before closing.  In Acts 10:43 Peter is at the house of Cornelius preaching and says this, “To him all the prophets witness that, through his name, whoever believes in him will receive remission of sins.” (NKJV)  This is the same Peter who preached on the Day of Pentecost that those there must repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.  Has he now changed his tune in chapter 10, at a later date, and is he now preaching another gospel?

No, for in the New Testament faith and baptism fit together as a unit.  It is simple, if you believe, if you truly believe, you are baptized.  Again, did Peter change his tune here versus what he taught on the Day of Pentecost, no not at all.  The text says five verses later, speaking of Peter addressing Cornelius and his household, “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” (Acts 10:48 NKJV)  One who believes in Jesus believes what Jesus said and what Jesus said was “he who believes and is baptized will be saved.” (Mark 16:16 NKJV)  What Jesus said was, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5 NKJV)  Yes, even Cornelius had to be baptized and was “commanded” to do it.

Baptism is a test of the purity or sincerity of faith.  It is not whether you believe me but whether you believe Jesus and his apostles.  Yes, there is only one way into Christ but man has sought out many inventions to try and circumvent the way of the Lord. 

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

    

The Case of Cornelius and the Holy Spirit

There are many who believe beyond doubt that Cornelius was saved at the time the Holy Spirit came upon him and his household.  It is a topic that ought to be discussed.  While I have written once before on this subject more needs to be said as there has been some objection to what was written. 

I know of no person who claims to be a Christian who would deny the fact that the very first gospel sermon ever preached after Christ's death, burial, and resurrection was in the city of Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts chapter two.  Neither do I know a man who would deny but what the words spoken by Peter were given by the Holy Spirit. 

The reader ought to note and carefully digest what the Holy Spirit, speaking through Peter, said on that occasion in response to those who asked "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" (Acts 2:37 NKJV)  They had heard the sermon Peter preached, believed it, and now these men who were "cut to the heart" (Acts 2:37 NKJV) find themselves in need of forgiveness.  What is Peter's reply speaking by the Holy Spirit?  It is "Repent and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38 NKJV) 

Now note, when does the Holy Spirit speaking through Peter promise these believers they will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit?  Is it before repentance and baptism for the remission of sins or after?  The answer is evident.  This raises a question.  Is there one gospel in one location and another in a different location so that we can never really know what the gospel is?  Does the Holy Spirit preach one message concerning salvation in one location but a different one elsewhere?  Does God show partiality toward some?  Are some saved one way and others in a different way?  The Bible says, "there is no partiality with God" (Rom 2:11 NKJV) and Paul says there is but "one faith" (Eph. 4:4) while saying also of one who preaches another gospel "let him be accursed." (Gal. 1:8). 

All of this being the case then how does one account for the fact that in the account of Cornelius' conversion we have the Holy Spirit arriving before, rather than after, baptism?  Has the Holy Spirit suddenly changed his mind on repentance and baptism being for the forgiveness of sins as he formerly taught?  And, if he has changed his mind this one time is it possible he may change his mind again?  Has he changed his mind on there even being but one gospel? 

The answer is obviously no.  What the Holy Spirit taught on the day of Pentecost he also taught approximately 10 years later at the household of Cornelius.  Repentance and baptism still retain the same position in God's plan of salvation for man as they did on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. 

How then does one account for the Spirit arriving before baptism in the case of Cornelius?  If one reads carefully all of Acts 10 and 11 he will see God's reason.  The gospel was meant to be preached to all men of all races and nationalities.  And, yet, quite a number of years have gone by since Pentecost and where are we at?  We are still at the point where the vast majority of Jewish Christians cannot believe the gospel is for Gentiles as well as Jews.  Judaism, out of which they came, had been an exclusive religion to the Jewish race.  Yes, there were proselytes to it but there was never a Great Commission in Judaism to go out into the world and make converts of the Gentiles. 

Even Peter, an apostle, though inspired so he could teach and preach without the possibility of error, does not fully comprehend the meaning of the message Christ taught in Matt. 28:18-19--the Great Commission.  This was nothing new for prophets often did not know the full import of the inspired words they spoke. (see 1 Peter 1:10-12) 

In reading Acts 10 one learns by seeing Peter's initial reaction to the heavenly sent vision he had that Peter was still observing as law the dietary restrictions found under the Law of Moses all the while living under the law of Christ.  Then in verse 28 of chapter 10 he says, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation.  But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean."  This was the purpose of the vision—to bring about a change in Peter's attitude toward going to the Gentiles. 

Note the word "unlawful" in that verse.  Up until the time of this vision Peter was lacking a full understanding of how the Law of Moses had now been completely done away with.  He was still, up to this time, concerned about dietary commands and keeping a distance from Gentiles.  It took the vision of the sheet let down from heaven and the Spirit speaking to him directly (Acts 10:19-20) to convince Peter it was God's will to go to the Gentiles and preach. 

Why did the Holy Spirit fall upon Cornelius and his household before baptism for the remission of sins?  Was it because that was the means of salvation or because Cornelius was already a saved man without repentance and baptism?  No.  It was because it was going to take a miracle, not now so much for Peter because he seems to be getting the idea, but in order for the whole Jewish Christian body to come to an understanding that the gospel was for all and not just for Jews and to get them out preaching and teaching the Gentiles.  In fact, when the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius and his household the Bible says of those Jews who had traveled with Peter that they were "astonished" that this had happened, that God would grant this to Gentiles. (Acts 10:45) 

When Peter went back to Jerusalem, to show you and me how great the prejudice was against the Gentiles, the Bible says, and it is speaking of Jewish Christians (read the context), that "those of the circumcision contended with him." (Acts 11:2 NKJV)  Peter had to rehearse the whole account of what had happened to silence his critics but having done so they realize for the first time that "God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life." (Acts 11:18)  The world has now changed in that henceforth the gospel will be preached to all men everywhere as God intended but it took a miracle to get the job done.  They, the Jewish Christians, would never have been convinced without it.  They now confess, "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life." (Acts 11:18 NKJV) 

Thus we have the real reason the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius and his household prior to baptism.  It was not for the forgiveness of sins for the gospel had not changed.  Peter still needed to "command them to be baptized." (Acts 10:48)  But, who really commanded them to be baptized?  Was it Peter the man or the Holy Spirit?  If the Holy Spirit commanded it why did he do so?  

I know one who argues that Cornelius and his household were already saved having received the Holy Spirit.  Yet, the Holy Spirit commands them to be baptized.  Is this baptism to be for some other reason than what the Holy Spirit first said in Peter's inspired sermon in Acts 2:38?  Is baptism for one reason or purpose at one time and place but then for another reason in another time and place? 

God granted, in the case of Cornelius and his household, the Spirit prior to baptism (baptism for the remission of sins which the Spirit taught in Acts 2:38) for a special reason but the reader must bear in mind that God knows our hearts and what we will do before we do it.  God knew Cornelius would obey the command and be baptized for the very reason those on the day of Pentecost were--because they believed every word Peter spoke and part of that word was baptism for the remission of sins (or to be saved which is one and the same thing).  This is as it was on the day of Pentecost for the message never changed.  What was preached in one place was preached in every place. 

They were the things the angel said Peter would tell them--"tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved." (Acts 11:14 NKJV)  An essential part of that word that we know Peter spoke was baptism for the text says "he commanded them to be baptized."  (Acts 10:48 NKJV)  Without preaching on that topic Cornelius and his household would have no idea of what, why, or how. 

Yes, some say baptism is just a symbol or a picture and is meaningless other than as a symbol.  Tell Peter that.  Better yet tell the Holy Spirit he did not know what he was talking about in Acts 2:38 on the day of Pentecost.  If those in the audience on the day of Pentecost were saved without baptism they did not know it for they are asking what they must do after they had already come to faith.  Furthermore, Peter did not know it for he told them what to do.  That is pretty much the end of the story. 

Yes, the case of Cornelius was unique and an exception to the rule but it is not the only such case for when God has seen a need he has acted for the specific purpose he had in mind.  Saul was converted and became the apostle Paul but not because he heard the gospel in the normal way and responded.  We doubt that would ever have happened with Saul left to his own devices with the attitude he had.  But, God acted directly and the Lord appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus.  Why, because he had a special reason for doing so.  The case of Cornelius is similar in that regards. 

I close with this.  One who has objected to my position has said that 1 John 4:13 means Cornelius was saved before baptism.  I deny that.  1 John 4:13 is the word of God and truth.  But, the case of Cornelius and his household, like the case of Saul in his conversion, was a special act of God for a specific purpose God had in mind but neither set aside the commands God himself had given.  Cornelius still had to be baptized for the remission of sins and Saul still had to do the same (Acts 22:16).  God is not in a battle with his own law.  

I might add this as I close.  What if Cornelius that day after receiving the Holy Spirit had responded to Peter's command to be baptized by refusing to do it?  Would he have been saved?  The Holy Spirit does not force a man to do right against his will.  What if Cornelius had said no?  If he was already saved and baptism does not matter, as so many teach, it is hard to see how a refusal would have mattered.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]