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.]

 

Parable of the Tares -- No Middle Ground

The story of the parable of the tares is found in Matt. 13:24-30 and explained by Jesus in verses 36-43. I quote the parable as follows:

"Another parable he put forth to them, saying: 'The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. So the servants of the owner came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?' He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him, 'Do you want us then to go and gather them up?' But he said, 'No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, 'First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.''" (Matt. 13:24-30 NKJV)

There has been debate over the years about this parable as to whether or not the kingdom referred to is the church or the entirety of the world, all of humanity, over which God rules. It is the world for in Jesus’ explanation of the parable he says as much, “The field is the world.” (Matt. 13:38 NKJV) The emphasis in the parable is the contrast between the wheat and the tares. There is no middle ground to be had. One is either a tare (a weed in the newer translations) or wheat and which one it is makes all the difference.

Let us say for the sake of argument the parable is a reference to people in the church. It is not but let us say for the moment it is. There is no middle ground there to reside in. You still have an either/or scenario. If the ungodly in the church are not to be saved then what hope does that leave for the ungodly outside the church? The answer is none. All outside the church are ungodly in that they have never obeyed the gospel and are sinners in God’s sight. If you have not obeyed the gospel and you are old enough to do so then you are still in your sins.

All the godly are in the church. One cannot be godly and be outside the church for the same process that saves a man (gospel obedience) makes him, by God’s grace, godly. God adds the saved, the godly ones, to the church. "And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved." (Acts 2:47 NKJV) The church is that which Jesus is the Savior of. "Christ is the head of the church; and he is the Savior of the body." (Eph. 5:23 NKJV) The "body" is the church. "And he put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church, which is his body." (Eph. 1:22-23 NKJV)

If a person is saved he is in the church, the body of Christ, but this does not mean once saved always saved for a Christian can fall away and become ungodly, even become a disbeliever, later in life.

In a practical sense as far as what will happen in the last day, the Day of Judgment, everyone is a tare who is not saved whether in the church or outside it. All outside the church are going to be gathered together to be burned along with any tares that are found in the church. Again, the parable is not about the ungodly in the church but those who are ungodly in the church will not be saved.

While Peter may have had (?) reference to the Roman invasion and destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 when he penned the following passage he nevertheless made a point we all need to give consideration to. He said, "For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?" (1 Peter 4:17 NKJV) What indeed? When one obeys the gospel the Lord adds that person to the body of Christ, the church, where the saved abide.

Paul talks of Jesus' second coming and says this, "When the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power, when he comes, in that day." (2 Thess. 1:7-10 NKJV) We see no middle ground. One has either obeyed the gospel or he has not.

It brings me great sadness to know people I care about and realize that to them gospel obedience and faithfulness is no big deal. What are they thinking? Do they think the Bible is a fairy tale and there is no judgment to come? Do they believe you cannot trust God's word, that all the talk about eternal fire and gnashing of teeth is just so much hyperbole? Have they followed hook, line, and sinker the common opinion that as long as you are a decent human being you will be saved? Do they think they are special and God is going to give them a free pass despite their shunning of him, disrespect, and lack of love for him? Or, is it that they are just so "this-worldly" that they cannot give spiritual matters the time of day? What are they thinking? I do not know but does it matter what the motive for disobedience is when the result is the same regardless?

They live their lives giving God little to no consideration. "The wicked in his proud countenance does not seek God; God is in none of his thoughts." (Psalms 10:4 NKJV) No, to you and me they do not seem "wicked" as we generally think of wicked people but we must remember we do not think as God thinks nor do we see or understand as he does. "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways," says the Lord." (Isa. 55:8 NKJV) Besides, if we are honest, and we stop and think about it, we know a person who does not seek God is proud in that he thinks he can do fine without giving God a primary place in his/her life.

If we don't care about God while living why should we think we shall be saved in the Day of Judgment? Whatever other lessons are to be found in the parable of the tares this one stands out to me -- there is no middle ground. One is either wheat or a tare, saved or lost, has obeyed the gospel or hasn't obeyed the gospel, loves God or does not love God. How we desire middle ground, if not for ourselves for others, but there is no middle ground to be had. It is finally heaven or hell.

"Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. The son of man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth." (Matt. 13:40-42 NKJV)

There is no middle ground but unlike in the physical realm where a species cannot help but be whatever it is in the spiritual realm a tare can be changed into wheat if the desire is there to make the change. God's desire is to save, not to cast into the furnace of fire. "The Lord … is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9 NKJV) "Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?" says the Lord God, "and not that he should turn from his ways and live?" (Ezek. 18:23 NKJV) "For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies," says the Lord God. "Therefore turn and live!" (Ezek. 18:32 NKJV)

Yes, turn and live for there is no middle ground.

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

 

Why Men Today Cannot Be Saved Like The Thief On The Cross

I once had an individual ask the question that if baptism is essential for the forgiveness of sins, Acts 2:38, then why did Jesus not tell the rich young ruler who came to him inquiring, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (Luke 18:18 NKJV) My inquirer asked the wrong question. Why? Because when Jesus was talking to the rich young ruler he was not talking to you and me. He was speaking directly to a specific individual at a specific time in history.

The only lessons in the account of the rich young ruler that could be made applicable to us today are (1) a man may be very religious but lost and (2) the danger of having a hidden idol in one's heart and putting that ahead of God.

Your salvation and mine do not depend on what Jesus did or did not tell a man living under the Law of Moses sometime before Jesus’ death on the cross. Our salvation depends on what Jesus says directly to you and me today under his law, the law of Christ, which began to be preached among men beginning on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. We live under God’s new covenant, not his old.

Jesus, in speaking to his disciples after the resurrection, said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high." (Luke 24:46-49 ESV)

Luke tells us they were ordered to not depart from Jerusalem, "He ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, 'you heard from me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.'" (Act 1:4-5 ESV)

In Acts 2 we see the arrival of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-4) clothing the apostles with power from on high. Peter's sermon that day and in that chapter fulfilled Jesus' earlier proclamation found in Luke 24 "that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem." (Luke 24:46-47 ESV)

This gives us a beginning point of both the time and place of the gospel message God has for us today. Those desiring to be saved the way the thief on the cross was saved (by faith without baptism) go back too far, past Jerusalem, past the beginning, back to the Law of Moses, and in doing so end up with another gospel if their goal is to be saved that way today. The only way to have the Jerusalem gospel is to preach what Peter did that day beginning in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost. Since hardly anyone is willing to do that today their gospel is another gospel.

A person who seeks to be saved in a way some individual may have been saved while Christ lived and walked upon the earth is rejecting the Jerusalem gospel--"repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem." That individual's gospel does not originate in Jerusalem and is thus not the gospel of Christ.

A big part of the problem that causes people to misunderstand God's plan of salvation for man is a failure to discern what we call the dispensations. There are 3 as follows: (1) the Patriarchal, (2) the Mosaical, and (3) the Christian. I will deal with the last two as they are relevant to this discussion.

Jesus lived and died under the Mosaical law. Jesus was in the fullness of time "born of a woman, born under the Law." (Gal. 4:4 NAS) When we say Jesus lived a sinless life what law did he keep perfectly? The Law of Moses. In what was the second to last utterance Jesus made on the cross he said, "It is finished!" (John 19:30 NAS) What was finished? What was finished was the fulfillment of the law and the Prophets (which included, of course, his sacrifice on the cross as prophesied, his mission on earth to make himself a sacrifice for the sins of man).

Hear Jesus in Matt. 5:17-18, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." (ESV) When Jesus drew his last breath on the cross the Law and the Prophets were fulfilled, either that or Jesus failed in his mission “to fulfill them.”

The law of Christ became binding on men as the old law was fulfilled and passed away. The old Law of Moses was nailed to the cross. (Col. 2:14) The Christian dispensation of time when men came to live under the law of Christ began when Jesus died. "For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives." (Heb 9:16-17 NKJV)

Jesus "has become a surety of a better covenant." (Heb. 7:22 NKJV) "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one (the Law of Moses--DS) obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." (Heb 8:13 NKJV) "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law." (Heb 7:12 NKJV)

Many take the thief on the cross as an example for all men regarding salvation (Luke 23:39-43) and say look at him. All he needed was faith. Was Jesus talking to you (or me) or was he talking to the thief on the cross beside him that day approximately 2,000 years ago? Did the thief live under the Christian dispensation or the Mosaical? Had the gospel that was to be preached beginning at Jerusalem yet been preached? Will you disregard the Jerusalem gospel? You will have to if you attempt to be saved as the thief on the cross was.

If Jesus forgave sins in the gospel accounts before his death in a way different from that which sins are forgiven today what has that to do with me? I live under the New Covenant.  So do you.

Speaking to the apostles Jesus said, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." (John 14:26 NAS) Did Jesus lie? Did the Holy Spirit fail to do this with Peter on the day of Pentecost? If you ever wanted to know when Jesus taught baptism for the remission of sins then Acts 2:38 is one of your answers. Peter spoke by the Holy Spirit but the Spirit spoke the words of Jesus.

Speaking to the apostles before his death Jesus said, "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He shall glorify Me; for He shall take of Mine, and shall disclose it to you." (John 16:12-14 NAS)

Today we have the completed revelation that Jesus has made to man. The law Jesus has for you and me has now been fully revealed to us. For us today to go back and say it was not always done this way is foolishness. What is that supposed to prove even if it is true which, by the way, I do not deny? What if the thief on the cross did not have to do what you or I do for salvation? What does that have to do with either you or me?

If we expect to be saved like the thief on the cross that is about the equivalent of giving Jesus a slap across the face. It is saying I don't care about your new covenant. You save me like you saved him. Instead of you obeying Jesus you would have him taking orders from you and obeying you. It does not work that way.

We are bound to live under and obey whatever law is in effect while we live, not when someone else lived. Our job is not to question God but to do as he has told us. No matter what someone else has done or not done in years gone by for salvation you have the gospel of Christ now, the new covenant, the law of Christ. You are bound to it, to believe and obey it, as am I.

I add a footnote here in closing for clarification. The thief on the cross was not saved because he lived under the Law of Moses or kept it in any fashion. He was saved because the Lord extended him grace. In our day the Lord’s grace is extended to us in the gospel. To reject the gospel is to reject God’s grace.  

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

 

More on Peter’s First Sermon – Calling On the Name Of The Lord

I wrote sometime in the past an article on Peter’s first sermon, the one recorded in Acts 2 delivered on the Day of Pentecost, the day the church was established, the first gospel sermon ever preached by man after Christ’s resurrection.  I titled that article “Receiving the Gospel.”  I thought it good to go back and look again at that sermon and expound a little more on it.

As you recall a crowd was drawn together that day in the city of Jerusalem by a noise that sounded like “a rushing mighty wind.” (Acts 2:2, 6 NKJV)  This was occasioned by the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles gathered together as a group (Acts 2:4).  Peter then begins his sermon starting with the explanation of the event by quoting the prophet Joel from Joel 2:28-32 and he says this is the fulfillment of that prophesy (Acts 2:16). 

The part I am interested in today for our purposes is the last quote from Joel (verse 32 in Joel 2, verse 21 as quoted by Peter in Acts 2), “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be save.” (Acts 2:21 NKJV)  Peter says that prophecy is now being fulfilled before you gathered here.  This was, is, and will forever be great news for all humanity as long as the earth shall stand.  It is God’s promise to all of us no matter how badly our lives have turned out otherwise.  The key word in this Holy Spirit inspired declaration is the word “whoever.”  Many translations use the word “everyone” (the ESV, NAS, NIV, NET, and the CSB).  The promise of God is that you will not be excluded.  It is “whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.” (Rev. 22:17 NKJV)  God is “not willing that any should perish.” (2 Peter 3:9 NKJV) 

The only stipulation is that a person calls on the name of the Lord.  So what is involved in that?  Well, we know it is not saying to Jesus “Lord, Lord” for Jesus himself says, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.” (Matt. 7:21 NKJV)

Do you suppose Peter in that first sermon might have told his audience what the Lord’s will for them was?  Yes, I think we would all agree upon that.  After he preached his sermon and it became evident many believed his message about Christ even to the point of asking what they could do about the sin they had committed against the Lord (Acts 2:37) Peter responded.  “Then Peter said to them, ‘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)

In doing what they were instructed to do they had called upon the name of the Lord.  They were saved.  The scripture says, “Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.” (Acts 2:41 NKJV)  Were they added to the saved or to the damned?  Let the reader answer.

Remember Peter earlier, in the beginning of his sermon, had told the crowd, “Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”  They are now saved.  Had they called on the name of the Lord?  What had they done?  Let the reader answer.  I ask this of the reader for it is easier to see the truth when we see it for ourselves versus someone else telling us what it is.  We need to reason it out for ourselves.

Calling on the name of the Lord means doing what God tells us to do with full faith that he will respond by doing what he told us he would do.  The people on the Day of Pentecost obeyed Peter’s spirit-inspired preaching of God’s will in faith that God would remit their sins if they would do so. (Acts 2:38)  God would do this for his spirit-inspired apostle said he would if they would do what he told them to do.

Paul’s own conversion experience is further confirmation of this truth.  Ananias in Acts 22:16 having been sent to Paul directly from God says to Paul, a man who because of his experience on the road to Damascus is already a believer and penitent, to “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” (Acts 22:16 NKJV) 

There are two very important points to be made here.  (1) Paul was not yet a saved man.  He still had sins to be washed away.  (2) He had not yet called upon the name of the Lord for if he had Peter told us in Acts 2 that all who do so are saved.

Ananias instructs Paul to call on the name of the Lord how -- by arising and being baptized.  If Ananias is correct that in being baptized Paul’s sins will be washed away making him sin-free Paul will then be a saved man.  If he is a saved man he is a man who has called on the name of the Lord.  God sent Ananias.  Ananias was not mistaken.

Neither Ananias nor Peter nor any other Christian believes there is anything magical in water to wash away sins.  There was no magic potent in the water of the Jordan River Naaman was instructed to bathe in to cure his leprosy in the Old Testament either.  The power lies in doing by faith what God tells you to do with faith believing if you do that God will do in turn what he promises as a result thereof.  Paul’s sins were washed away in water because of God’s promise.  “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” (Mark 16:16 NKJV)  Such a person has called upon the name of the Lord.

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

This article was written in late May of 2023.

  

Denominationalism’s Attitude Toward Peter

The apostle Peter has taken a beating among denominationalists.  I would feel sorry for him save for the fact that I would be feeling sorry for the wrong party seeing as how he was an inspired apostle of God and his antagonists are but mere men, men without inspiration. 

It was not always the way it is today.  For at least a few hundred years after his sermon in Acts 2 he was honored by those who proclaimed faith in God and belief in Christ as the Son of God.  Today, however, men who claim Christianity pretty much just ignore his sermon that day on Pentecost approximately two thousand years ago for they do not like what he said and they no longer believe it. 

Peter was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven by Jesus himself in Matt. 16:19, "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (NKJV)  He used those keys on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 for the first time, did so by preaching God's plan of salvation for man.  I have never heard anyone argue against that point.  

However, few to no denominationalists believe that what he said that day is bound in heaven thus fight against both Jesus and Peter as well as the Holy Spirit by which Peter spoke that day.  Wow!  Is there no one they will not take on? 

On that day in Acts 2 when those to whom Peter spoke "were cut to the heart (by Peter's sermon--DS), and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, 'Men and brethren, what shall we do'" (Act 2:37 NKJV) Peter responded to them by saying, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." (Act 2:38 NKJV)  Their faith was evident by their asking the question. 

Denominationalists say Peter could not have meant what the words he spoke seem to be saying--baptism is for the remission of sins.  Hmmm!  I thought he was inspired; I thought the Holy Spirit fell on him and the other apostles that day prior to the sermon.  If so, and I thought it was, I thought God was capable of saying what he meant to say.  Have I been wrong?  But then Jesus did say that "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mar 16:16 NKJV)  Did Jesus promise in this Mark passage that he who is not baptized will be saved?  Some seem to think so the way they talk.  The reality of Mark 16:16, according to their interpretation, is "he who believes and is not baptized will be saved."  

But they would object and say I am misrepresenting them.  They would say they never said that.  Aren't things that are equal to the same thing equal to each other?  If they say baptism does not save us, has no role in doing so, one can be saved without it, they are saying "he who believes and is not baptized will be saved" and they can object all day long if they desire but that is exactly where their doctrine leads them. 

Poor Peter never did get it right his whole life.  If only he could have received some counseling by today's Christians (?) who are in the know.  In Acts 10:48 he is again commanding people to be baptized at the house of Cornelius.  "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." (NKJV)  The gall of the man, commanding a non-essential, but then if memory recalls correctly I believe that man was inspired was he not?  Maybe it is not Peter who has the problem.  

Sadly, many years later (approximately 30) Peter is still preaching error according to denominationalists for he goes so far as to say now for a second time that baptism is for salvation (Acts 2:38 & 1 Peter 3:21).  He says, "There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 3:21 NKJV) 

I am in a minority but I think I will just go with Peter's misunderstanding and let the denominationalists go their own way.  If they are saving a seat for me this coming Sunday it will be free for someone else's use.  I am sure they are nice enough people and people who mean well but at my age I cannot afford to go along with the crowd.  I want to go with Peter.  I'll just take a chance that he knew what he was talking about and that God was able to use language plain and clear enough that a simpleton like me can understand.  I will take him at his word.

[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.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abraham's Faith (Faith Accounted for Righteousness)

Every person who truly believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is interested in having what we might term "saving faith."  The Bible is clear we need such faith in order to have salvation for Paul tells us "by grace you have been saved through faith." (Eph. 2:8 NKJV)  If you omit the faith you omit the grace.  We are “justified by faith." (Rom. 5:1 NKJV)

The only question then to be resolved is the nature of the faith that saves.  We know its object (Christ) but need to know the characteristics of saving faith.  In Rom. 4 Paul says Abraham "is the father of us all" with the reference to all who believe. (Rom. 4:16)  He says in Galatians, "only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham." (Gal. 3:7 NKJV)  And, then finally, "So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham." (Gal. 3:9 NKJV)  If we can learn the nature of Abraham's faith and then copy it in our own lives we too will be blessed.

In Romans 4:3 Paul talks about Abraham's faith quoting a scripture found in Gen. 15:6, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." (NKJV)  The context in Gen. 15 is God's promise to Abraham that "one who will come from your own body shall be your heir" (Gen. 15:4 NKJV) and that his descendants would be as the stars of heaven, impossible to count them for their number (Gen. 15:5).  Abraham believed that and it was "accounted to him for righteousness." (Gen. 15:6 NKJV)

It is easy here to be led astray by carelessness as a student of the Bible and come to the false conclusion that up to that point in time Abraham was a lost sinner and this is the first time God accounted to him his faith for righteousness.  This was not a conversion experience for Abraham. 

The truth is Abraham believed God, walked with God, and was in obedience to God long before this event, a thing which we now set out to affirm from scripture.  Bear with me for a few paragraphs for this is important.  Stephen in Acts 7 said, "The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia before he dwelt in Haran, and said to him, 'Get out of your country and from your relatives, and come to a land that I will show you.'" (Acts 7:2-3 NKJV)

Note that God had chosen Abraham for he could have just as well have appeared to any one of thousands of other men but he chose Abraham telling him, "I will make you a great nation; I will bless you and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing…in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." (Gen. 12:2-3 NKJV)

Note that God actually "appeared" to Abraham at that early stage of his historical record (Acts 7:2).  He was 75 years old when he departed Haran for Canaan (Gen. 12:4).  When he arrived in Canaan the Lord appeared to him again, promised to give the land to Abraham's descendants, and Abraham built an altar to the Lord there (Gen. 12:7).  From there he moved on to Bethel where it is said, "he built an altar to the Lord and called on the name of the Lord." (Gen. 12:8 NKJV)

Thereafter Abraham went to Egypt for a time and then returned to Canaan to the place of his first altar to the Lord and it is said at that time that again "Abram called on the name of the Lord." (Gen 13:4 NKJV)  After Lot had separated from Abraham the Lord God spoke again to Abraham and said, "All the land which you see I give to you and your descendants forever." (Gen. 13:15 NKJV)

We next read of Abraham building another altar after having moved to Hebron (Gen. 13:18) and then read of Lot's captivity and rescue by Abraham and later of his meeting with Melchizedek king of Salem ("priest of God Most High" – Gen. 14:18).

Finally, we come to chapter 15 where "the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision, saying, 'Do not be afraid, Abram.  I am your shield, your exceedingly great reward." (Gen. 15:1 NKJV)  Note that this is stated in Gen. 15:1 and is before Gen. 15:6.  This will be the vision where God tells Abraham that he shall have a son from his own body who will be his heir, that his descendants will be as the stars in multitude being impossible to count (Gen. 15:4-5), and where it is said, "And he believed in the Lord, and he accounted it to him for righteousness." (Gen. 15:6 NKJV)

What has been the point in following through all of this chronologically?  It is to point out that Abraham had long been a man of faith and had been so for years before it was ever said in Gen. 15:6 that Abraham's faith was accounted to him for righteousness. Abraham had been walking with God by faith and God had been communing with him, talking with him, and making promises to him for years.  I want to emphasize that and then ask a question.  Do you believe, based on your reading of Gen. 12, 13, and 14 and the first verse of Gen. 15 that Abraham was a lost sinner condemned in God's eyes before Gen. 15:6?

As the writer of the book of Hebrews said it was "by faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would afterward receive as an inheritance.  And he went out, not knowing where he was going.  By faith he sojourned in the land of promise as in a foreign country." (Heb. 11:8-9 NKJV)  By the time Isaac was born Abraham was 100 years old (Gen. 21:5).  He had left Haran at the age of 75.

When God said to him, "I am your shield, your exceedingly great reward" (Gen. 15:1 NKJV) that was before it was said of Abraham that God counted his faith for righteousness.

The point Paul was making was not that this was a conversion experience for Abraham in Gen. 15:6 but rather that Abraham was saved, as all are, by faith that God counts for righteousness.  That is true for a man or woman at any and all points of time in life if that person is a saved individual.  It was just as true of Abel, Enoch, and Noah (men before Abraham's time) as it was for Abraham.  All three of these men are listed along with Abraham in what we often call the Bible's hall of fame for faith chapter--Hebrews 11.

Does this mean that the promise of a son and Abraham's faith in that promise was of no particular importance?  Not at all!  Quite the contrary!

Abraham's faith was so strong that he believed God was able to do what appeared to man to be impossible.  The original promise to Abraham of a son (in Gen. 15) was made quite a number of years before Isaac, the son of promise, was born.  In the time between the promise and the birth of Isaac, Ishmael had been born and was at least 13 years old by the time of Isaac's birth.  Read Gen. 17.

God appeared to Abraham when he was 100 years old and again promised him a son (Gen. 17:15-21) and then appeared to him again only this time Sarah was within hearing distance and overheard the promise of a son also (Gen. 18).  She was 90. (Gen. 17:17)

By man's way of measuring the possible, it was an impossibility due to advanced age for Abraham and Sarah to have a son but Abraham believed God as did Sarah.  "By faith Sarah herself also received strength to conceive seed, and she bore a child when she was past the age, because she judged Him faithful who had promised.  Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born as many as the stars of the sky in multitude--innumerable as the sand which is by the seashore." (Heb. 11:11-12 NKJV)  Rom. 4:19 tells us Abraham "did not consider his own body, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah's womb." (Heb. 11:11-12 NKJV) 

A second instance of this man's faith in the impossible, believing only because God had spoken, is found in Heb. 11:17-19.

"By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, 'in Isaac your seed shall be called,' concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense." (NKJV)

God had spoken, God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), and thus Abraham's faith in God was so strong he was even willing to obey this command to offer up his son Isaac as a burnt offering (Gen. 22:2) while still maintaining faith in God's promise.  The promise was that in Isaac your seed shall be called meaning God would have to resurrect Isaac from the dead if he was going to be sacrificed as a burnt offering.  Abraham's faith in God keeping his promise was so strong he was going to sacrifice Isaac in full faith God would resurrect him from the dead.   

So what have we learned about this great man of faith that would be applicable to us today?  One lesson is that which we have just talked about--we ought to believe whatever God has said no matter what, no matter how incomprehensible or unreasonable to us the command or declaration he makes may be.

Faith requires obedience when a command is given.  A failure of faith always leads to a failure to obey which is the reason the children of Israel never entered the Promised Land.  "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." (Heb. 3:18-19 NKJV)  Had Abraham not obeyed would we be talking about his faith?  To ask is to answer.

What really matters for a man of faith is not what we think about what God has said but what he has said.  We can get to reasoning with the word of God to the point where we can convince ourselves that God did not really mean what he said in a commandment or in a statement.  Abraham just believed and obeyed no matter what.

A second lesson we learn is that faith comes by hearing God's word.  What Abraham believed was what he heard, what he was told by God.  He did not come to conclusions by way of human reasoning.   Men have faith today in all kinds of things not found in God's word and have convinced themselves it is of God.  What Abraham believed was what he heard.  What we are to believe today is what we read in the word of God--the New Testament.  That is how God talks to us today.  That is how we hear him today.

Personal opinion is passed off for faith in the time in which we live.  The "it seems to me" or "I can see no wrong in it" has replaced the book, chapter, and verse word of God in our lives and worship.  Again, this is not the faith of Abraham.  "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10:17 NKJV)  If there is no book, chapter, and verse for a practice it is opinion, not faith.

A last lesson I take from a study of Abraham's faith is that it was a perpetual faith.  It was not here today and gone tomorrow but was a continual walk with God throughout his life.  Sinless he was not for he was a man but he did believe God.

Many believe in God to save them but they don't believe God, don't believe parts of his word, don't believe some of the things he has said they should or should not do.  Is that faith like Abraham's?  When a person is like that can it honestly be said they believe in God if they don’t believe him, don’t believe his words? 

Faith in the case of Abraham was never a matter of does God exist.  He made himself known to the extent it was a matter of knowledge, not faith, as it related to his existence.  It was impossible to not believe that God was.   Faith came down to trust and obedience.  In the final analysis, is that not always the case?  Is that not the true measure of faith?

James says, "And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.'   And he was called the friend of God." (James 2:23 NKJV)  James referred back to the same passage Paul did in Rom. 4:3--the passage being Gen. 15:6.  Paul used the passage in reference to a time prior to Isaac's birth while James used it in reference to a time some think to have been around 30 years later--at the time Abraham was prepared to offer Isaac as a sacrifice.  Whatever the exact time there is no doubt there were many years in between the two points of reference.

Well, when was Abraham's faith accounted to him for righteousness?  Who was right--Paul or James?  Since they both wrote by inspiration it is obvious both were right.  At any point in time in a man's life when he is believes and obeys what God has required of him he is a saved-by-faith individual.  He is a person whose faith is accounted for righteousness.  However, when more is required more must be believed and obeyed.  Time moves and is not static.

Abraham was a saved man before he was required to sacrifice Isaac but what if he had failed to believe God and obey God when the command to offer Isaac was given?  A man can lose his salvation.  Our faith must always be strong enough to lead us to obedience to what we know God has commanded if it is to be accounted to us for righteousness.  Faith that will not obey is not saving faith.

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