37818
Well-Known Member
The notion of "sacraments" is a no go. I don't even accept the easiest post reformation Baptist use of term to refer to the rites of the believer's immersion or the Lord's table of the remembrance.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Acts 10 - Cornelius - Question - Continued
- Thread starter LaGrange
- Start date
37818
Well-Known Member
The gifts of the Spirit are only given to the saved. And I am of the persuasion that gift of languages ceased with the book Revelation of Jesus Christ given to the churches.
My Comment: You then have two baptisms in error. Acts 10 says Cornelius was just (Acts 10:2,22) and he also had a vision “before” hearing the Word (Acts 10:3-6). A vision is also an extraordinary grace just like Tongues (1 Cor 12:10). It was the Gift of Miracles (1 Cor 12:10). Same verse. The prophets in the OT prophecied (another charismatic gift - 1 Cor 12:10) but they were obviously not saved by the Gift of Prophecy. Also in the same verse (1 Cor 12:10). Based on the same logic as Tongues (Acts 10:46) you could say Cornelius was saved when he had the vision. This vision was both before Cornelius heard Peter preach and before Water Baptism. It’s true that Tongues usually comes after regeneration but I still think this was another sign given to Peter to convince him that he was to bring the gentiles into the church. If you don’t accept that then you are going to have two baptisms. Tongues was another sign just like the vision of the sheet and unclean animals Peter had (Acts 10:9-15) to convince him to bring the gentiles into the church. Peter was astonished by this (Acts 10:45). This would retain ONE baptism (Eph 4:5). As Catholics we can say Cornelius was regenerated before Water baptism in this unusual case, as I said in post #1 and 2, but it is not for the same logic you use. If it was to be by preaching alone that everyone would be saved in the future, then whoever hears someone preach would be saved and we know this is not true. This is the problem I have with with your answer.
The problem I have with your answer in particular is that you chose that place for regeneration ONLY because Peter was preaching. That is wrong. Preaching alone does not regenerate. Baptism alone DOES REGENERATE. Preaching is a grace (preaching comes unders Apostles = 1 Cor 12:28) but it is not sanctifying grace. Sanctifying Grace saves or regenerates. Sanctifying Grace is Charity = the agape (1 Cor 13:1) (agape = strongs G26). Preaching is the grace (Gift) of charisma (gift = 1 Cor 12:4)(strongs = G5486). Preaching alone does not save, Baptism alone saves. That is, Baptism is the exact spot where regeneration occurs. You need to be taught so you have faith to go along with baptism. Baptism was so important that the jailer was baptized immediately at midnight (Acts 16:30-33). The jailer was preached to and then baptized. This is the constant process: Teach and Baptize (Matt 28:19). Peter began preaching in Acts 2:14 and preached baptism. He speaks of baptism specifically in Acts 2:17,18,21,33. Peter then PREACHED BAPTISM in Acts 2:38: “But Peter said to them: Do penance: and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Peter continued preaching in Acts 2:39-40 and THEN BAPTIZED them in Acts 2:41: “They therefore that received his word were baptized: and there were added in that day about three thousand souls.” So Peter preached Baptism and THEN Baptized. Same process. ONE Baptism, not two (Eph 4:5).
Also, as a side issue, scripture never says any of the gifts ended. Where does it say any of the gifts ended in scripture?
All you are doing is making an assertion here. No input.
The Baptist post reformation ordinance of immersion and the Lord’s table means nothing to me either. That is not what a sacrament is.
37818
Well-Known Member
That is your view.
Baptists have different understandings on the baptisms.
I am stating my persuasions.
There is one teaching of baptisms per Hebrews 6:2. Christians are divied on Hebrews 6:1-2 whether Old Covenant or New. I believe to be of the New.
In Luke 3:16-17 three bapisms, water, the Holy Spirit and fire. Christians are divided here.
I understand the one baptism in Ephesians 4:5, to mean water baptism. Other Christians believe it to be the Holy Spirit there.
Hi 37818,
Tongues. You made a good point when you said no one speaks in Tongues unless they are saved. I agree that is normal and I had already thought about that, however, unless an unbeliever, in this case, spoke in Tongues, you are not going to be able to maintain one Baptism. I am determined to uphold the integrity of Baptism. I could still be right that Cornelius (as an unbeliever) was regenerated with Water Baptism and spoke in Tongues prior to being regenerated and believe it was just another unusual occurrence. That is the way I look at it. God can do anything He wants. That is one solution, however, you could look at it the other way too. The conversion of Cornelius remains an enigma.
From our discussion I learned that these two things must be taken in account. These are the parameters:
1. Tongues
2. One Baptism
I thought I would show a possible solution but first, here’s the two propositions that must be solved:
Proposition #1: Cornelius was saved by Baptism of Desire.
This means he was saved prior to Water Baptism. This would take into account Cornelius “speaking in Tongues” prior to Water Baptism, however, it doesn’t take into account the “one baptism” problem (Eph 4:5). You still have two baptisms: Baptism of Desire and Water Baptism. You have Water Baptism to deal with because Peter commanded Water Baptism of Cornelius (Acts 10:48).
Changing the names of Baptism - You cannot change the name of Baptism of Desire to Immersion of the Spirit or something like that to solve the problem. Changing names doesn’t solve it. You still have two baptisms. Some try to do that. Some may call Baptism of Desire simply “receiving the Holy Spirit” or something like that. This doesn’t work.
Proposition #2: Cornelius was saved by Water Baptism.
This doesn’t take into account that Cornelius spoke in Tongues prior to being regenerated at Water Baptism
How could these two baptisms be solved and you end up with one baptism?
Aquinas’ Solution
I haven’t researched this enough so I may be wrong on all of this. This is my interpretation so far. I am just thinking out loud.
“So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Ps. 22:2, He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment, a gloss says: He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism.” (Aquinas, STh., III q.69 a.4)
“…man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment.” (Aquinas, STh., III q.69 a.4)
Aquinas said Cornelius received some sanctifying grace prior to Water Baptism and some at Water Baptism. Here’s what I said in Post #2: “ I think where some get confused is when Aquinas says Cornelius had the Baptism of Desire before he received Water Baptism (STh., III q.69 a.4). In Aquinas’ time they did not use the term “preparatory graces”…” I said a little more after that. I think I was wrong on the “preparatory graces” because it looks like St. Thomas Aquinas is saying that Cornelius was receiving the “same grace”, that is, sanctifying grace with baptism of desire and Water Baptism. Preparatory graces are not sanctifying Grace. Sanctifying graces regenerates and saves. In every other case other than Cornelius, “preparatory Grace” would be correct.
Here’s the understanding of Baptism of Desire in this case:
Solution: Baptism of Desire absorbed into Water Baptism
In hindsight with Cornelius, we know Baptism of Desire actually lead to Water Baptism. This means that, since Cornelius actually received both baptisms, the two Baptisms became one baptism. That’s my interpretation. Cornelius received sanctifying grace at both. Had he died before receiving Water Baptism, you could say he was baptized with the Baptism of Desire. But since he didn’t die, Cornelius receive more sanctifying grace at Water Baptism (see quote above - I need to research on this receiving sanctifying grace at both baptisms. Article 1 of q. 69 explains more on this). He received remission of sin at baptism of Desire but a fuller remission of sin at Water Baptism (I don’t fully understand that part yet). It’s really that simple.
Here’s one more interesting thing Aquinas said:
I cannot find the exact quote but Aquinas said that after God commanded Circumcision to be done, if you were a jew and had Faith in God, but refused circumcision, you would not go to heaven. Aquinas said Circumcision conferred grace (STh., III q.70 a.4) and was the seal of Faith (Rom 4:11). So there was a necessity of circumcision. Aquinas said Circumcision was a “type” of Baptism (STh., I-II q.102 a.5) which means that if Circumcision confers grace and is necessary for salvation, much more so does baptism confer grace and is necessary. Aquinas said Baptism is the seal of faith (2 Cor 1:21-22) (STh., III q.63 a.1). This means that if you had Faith in God but “refused” Water Baptism, you would not be saved (excluding the usual exceptions).
Getting back to Cornelius. If he had Faith and spoken in Tongues and didn’t die right after that, but then refused Water Baptism, he would not have gone to heaven. He would not have been regenerated. I know this seems strange to say he was regenerated and then not be regenerated a few minutes later but that’s the way it looks. That also shows that the two baptisms really do become one baptism. This is all my interpretation only. I’m just thinking out loud.
Other things you mentioned
Heb 6:2 - The Sacrament of Confirmation - we’ll have to talk about that some other time.
Luke 3:16-17 - I disagree with that interpretation. I think I mentioned this.
Closing
37818, I just want to say that I really enjoyed this discussion with you. We may disagree but I believe the Holy Ghost was working and we all learned something. I think it was done in Charity (1 Pet 3:15-16). That’s what it is all about.
May God bless and Merry Christmas!
37818
Well-Known Member
This interpertation is not explicitly found in the Biblical use of the term meaning immersion.
He and those with him were saved before water baptism. Ephesians 1:12-14, ". . . Christ . . .
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. . . ."
I know you made other arguments.
While I argued three types of immersions in Luke 3:16-17 the text explicily mentions two immerionists, John the speaker and Jesus, ". . . John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost . . . ."
In the Judgement the lost will be cast into a lake of fire. That is effectively an immersion in fire. Revelation 20:15, Revelation 21:8.
Last edited:
My Comment: I said already that it doesn’t matter what you call it. When you receive the Holy Ghost, whenever that happens, it is a “Baptism”. Scripture called it the “Baptism of the Holy Ghost” in the verse you quote below (Luke 3:16).
My Comment: This is the effect of Water Baptism. I have quoted these verses in connection with baptism in many posts.
My Comment: Luke 3:16 is a parallel verse to Matt 3:11. In Matt 3:11 John is speaking about Water Baptism where his prediction became fulfilled in Matt 3:16 in which the Holy Ghost became present. It can also refer to Pentecost in Acts 2 in which it would be referring to the Sacrament of Confirmation. This is a “strengthening” of the Holy Ghost.
My Comment: To my knowledge this doesn’t have anything to do with baptism and the Holy Ghost. There are other verses which refer to a cleansing of fire in connection to Purgatory. This is sort of a Baptism of Fire.
37818
Well-Known Member
A merry Christmas to you and your family.
Last edited: