• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Marooncat79

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
In I Corinthians, Paul says “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Gaius and Crispus….”

if Baptism truly saves shouldnt Paul want to baptize as many as he could have?
 

LaGrange

Active Member
In I Corinthians, Paul says “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Gaius and Crispus….”
if Baptism truly saves shouldnt Paul want to baptize as many as he could have?

1 Cor 1:14-15 I give God thanks, that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Caius: 15 Lest any should say that you were baptized in my name.

My Comment: If Paul didn’t believe in Baptism he wouldn’t have even Baptized Gaius and Crispus. The baptized were forming schisms around which minister baptized them. Paul was saying they were all baptized in the NAME OF CHRIST and not in the name of a particular minister. This is implied in 1 Cor 1:13,15. Paul was saying you were not baptized in Paul’s name but Christ’s Name (implied in 1 Cor 1:13).
 

LaGrange

Active Member
Again in I Cor 1:17, Paul days that God did not send him to Baptize, but to preach the Gospel
Again in I Cor 1:17, Paul days that God did not send him to Baptize, but to preach the Gospel

It suppose it is an antiquated way of saying that Christ sent the apostles to first preach (Mark 3:14), and that was their main task, but also to Baptize (Matt 28:19). Their main vocation was first to preach. It’s not either preaching or baptism but both. It’s not an either/or situation but a both/and one. Paul concentrates on preaching and leaves Baptism to the other ministers. Evangelizing is teaching (teach = Matt 28:19) but Baptism follows.
 

canadyjd

Well-Known Member
1 Cor 1:14-15 I give God thanks, that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Caius: 15 Lest any should say that you were baptized in my name.

My Comment: If Paul didn’t believe in Baptism he wouldn’t have even Baptized Gaius and Crispus. The baptized were forming schisms around which minister baptized them. Paul was saying they were all baptized in the NAME OF CHRIST and not in the name of a particular minister. This is implied in 1 Cor 1:13,15. Paul was saying you were not baptized in Paul’s name but Christ’s Name (implied in 1 Cor 1:13).
So, Paul is saying it doesn’t really matter who baptizes you, as long as you get baptized, right?

The modern equivalent would be saying “I got baptized in a Baptist church” and so in so “got baptized in a Catholic Church” and so in so #2 got baptized in a Pentecostal Church” and so on.

peace to you
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
My Comment: So you are saying he was regenerated but there was no way to know that? So I guess each of us just decides whether another person is regenerated? You are judging based on someone’s outward actions.



My Comment: I agree but this doesn’t answer my question of how Cornelius was regenerated. I know what you said at the beginning when you said “scripture doesn’t say”.
I'd say he was regenerated when he accepted Peter's words about Jesus.
 

LaGrange

Active Member
So, Paul is saying it doesn’t really matter who baptizes you, as long as you get baptized, right?

The modern equivalent would be saying “I got baptized in a Baptist church” and so in so “got baptized in a Catholic Church” and so in so #2 got baptized in a Pentecostal Church” and so on.

peace to you

Good question. Actually the Catholic Church accepts water Baptism as legitimate in any denomination as long as the correct Form and Matter is used.
 

unprofitable

Active Member
LaGrange,

Isaiah 56:4 For thus sayeth the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and TAKE HOLD OF MY COVENANT.
Isaiah 56::5 Even unto them will I give in my house and within my walls, a place and a name better than of sons and daughters: I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.
Isaiah 56:6 Also the sons of the strangers, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, everyone that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, AND TAKETH HOLD OF MY COVENANT.

Cornelius was already regenerated as evidence by his righteous acts. When this happened is not revealed by the scripture, but we know how. He was saved in the same manner as we are today. Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is none other NAME under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." The NAME has been declared since and before the foundation of the world.

Psalms 9:16 "The Lord is known (THE NAME) by the judgment which he executeth.." Indeed, Cornelius already knew the name of the Lord, the righteous acts of Christ, in order for him to keep the righteous judgments/acts of THE COVENANT. His NAME is revealed in his judgment/commandments/covenant. Even though he was under the old covenant at that time, he saw/knew of Christ and his COVENANT/NAME.

As far as baptism saving, it is undoubtedly NO. The command to "go and sin no more" (John 8:11) could only be accomplished by the entering into the new covenant where we/they would no longer be under the types and shadows of the old covenant that could never take away sins. Baptism is the ordinance which places us in the NEW COVENANT where the true NAME (Jn 17:3) is expounded and reveal unto his people, the washing of water by the word. Ephesians 3:10 "...might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God."

If the act of baptism, not sprinkling or pouring, saves, then why did it not save the false brethren in Jude? Surely they thought they were saved and had made a profession of faith and were baptized. Yet Jude describes them accordingly, vs 12 "These are spots in your feasts of charity when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear, clouds they are without water (the Holy Spirit), carried about of winds, trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots."

Baptism puts you in covenant position where it will be revealed whether you will bring forth fruit or not and what manner it will be. Matthew 13:3-9
 

37818

Well-Known Member
Hi 37818,

My Comment: I think what you are saying is that the Old Testament prophets did things “In God’s Name”. Sure but very specifically in Acts 10:43 and Acts 2:38, the invoking of God’s Name is used directly in connection with Baptism. Just as Christ said to do in Matt 28:19, “ Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” I showed this in post #18. To answer you about God’s Name being used for other things than Baptism, I agree. Matter of fact, all of our sacraments are done “In the Name of Christ” or “In the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost”. It is never done in the name of the priest who performs the rite. By the way, when it says “in His name” in 1 John 5:13, it just means that there is no salvation under any other name than in Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12). Is 43:10-11 - I don’t see what you are saying about using God’s name here. Deut 18:19 - this has to do with a prophet speaking “in the Name” of God. This doesn’t take away from baptism being done invoking the Name of The Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Name meaning authority. Deuteronomy 18:15-19 is a prophecy about Christ.
So 1 John 5:9-13.
 

unprofitable

Active Member
Name meaning authority. Deuteronomy 18:15-19 is a prophecy about Christ.
So 1 John 5:9-13.

I agree. :). I once heard a message from a pastor who defined the word name as meaning, a definitive conspicuous position indicating character, power, authority, and position. That changed the meaning of many scriptures to me.
 

Attachments

  • coffee.png
    coffee.png
    876 bytes · Views: 0

RighteousnessTemperance&

Well-Known Member
One more thing. Getting back to my original question: when and how was Cornelius regenerated? I think I know the “How”. You would say by hearing and believing. How about WHEN?
My comments were only pointing out what the passage is portraying, and reflects the human aspect involved.

The how was addressed by others early on, namely by the Holy Spirit. Spiritual regeneration cannot occur any other way than by the hand of God.

The when, according to what the passage seems to reflect, is after he heard and believed.
 

RighteousnessTemperance&

Well-Known Member
I think you ought to read post #18. Maybe you could comment on it. Then we can talk.
Yes, #18, but also #19, which is where we really are. The believing is “in the Lord Jesus Christ”, Acts 11:17.

I understand the desire to add baptism as a necessary condition, but in this case, it is not so stated. Rather the problem is one of recognition of Gentile Christians by Jewish Christians.

Are these believers being saved going to be recognized as having been added to the church by the Lord? Or will they instead remain lower class Christians similar to uncircumcised God-fearers under Judaism?
 

Piper

Active Member
Site Supporter
I think we would all agree but how did he get it? In real time, when did he received this grace?
The text does not tell us. This is not a didactic text. It is a narrative. You interpret narrative, normally, by clearer didactic texts. Look at Eph 2 to determine how he and every person is regenerated. It is the gift of God.
 

LaGrange

Active Member
Isaiah 56:4 For thus sayeth the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and TAKE HOLD OF MY COVENANT.
Isaiah 56::5 Even unto them will I give in my house and within my walls, a place and a name better than of sons and daughters: I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.
Isaiah 56:6 Also the sons of the strangers, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, everyone that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, AND TAKETH HOLD OF MY COVENANT.

Cornelius was already regenerated as evidence by his righteous acts. When this happened is not revealed by the scripture, but we know how. He was saved in the same manner as we are today. Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is none other NAME under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." The NAME has been declared since and before the foundation of the world.

My Comment: OK. I think you are saying he was already regenerated before Acts 10. You say the evidence was his righteous acts. I say you can’t assume anything by someone’s righteous acts when you are talking about whether a man is regenerated or not. It’s too subjective. He could be doing all these good works but committing many terrible sins at the same time! Don’t think this doesn’t happen. What about the Pharisees? (Luke 18:10-11, Matt 23). Then you say Cornelius came in the same way we do today, that is, like in Acts 4:12, in the Name of Jesus. It couldn’t have been in the Name of Jesus before Peter preached Christ to him. He may have known about Christ but he didn’t know Christ. What does it mean to be saved in Christ’s NAME. Does it mean “Accepting Christ as Lord and Savior”? If you have to accept Him it has to be ALL the time and not just one time. I think all of this plays into understanding when Cornelius was regenerated.

Psalms 9:16 "The Lord is known (THE NAME) by the judgment which he executeth.." Indeed, Cornelius already knew the name of the Lord, the righteous acts of Christ, in order for him to keep the righteous judgments/acts of THE COVENANT. His NAME is revealed in his judgment/commandments/covenant. Even though he was under the old covenant at that time, he saw/knew of Christ and his COVENANT/NAME.

My Comment: Ps 9:11 (KJV Ps 9:10, Ps 91:14) brings that out. I think I see what you see in these verses. Cornelius was acting on the graces he had been given even though he didn’t really know Christ. Christ rewarded him for this (had mercy) by bringing him in touch with Peter to hear about Christ. We would describe these graces as Actual Graces. I will explain that more when I put my main post on this thread.

As far as baptism saving, it is undoubtedly NO. The command to "go and sin no more" (John 8:11) could only be accomplished by the entering into the new covenant where we/they would no longer be under the types and shadows of the old covenant that could never take away sins. Baptism is the ordinance which places us in the NEW COVENANT where the true NAME (Jn 17:3) is expounded and reveal unto his people, the washing of water by the word. Ephesians 3:10 "...might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of

My Comment: I agree that Baptism places us in the New Covenant by the washing of water and the word. The “Washing” and “Word” are present at Water Baptism (Eph 5:26). I was really inspired one day and found this. If you concentrate on Ex 2:1-6 and read the other verses I mention around it you’ll see it:
1 Pet 3:21 - This verse connects the “Ark” with “Baptism”.
Ex 2:1-6 - In these verses, you see the story of Moses as a baby escaping death by being put in a basket and floating down the river.
Notice:
Verses 3 & 5 the “Basket” is referred to as the “Ark”.
Verse 5 -Bulrushes - L scirpeam = Papyrus
Strongs #1572 - G Gome = Papyrus
Papyrus was used to write scripture (Word).
The “Water” was used to float the basket
Eph 5:26 - The “Water” and the “Word”
1 Pet 3:20 - The “Ark” is connected to “Water” - Same as Ex 2
THE BOTTOM LINE: Moses was saved by the “Water” and the “Word” - Baptism (Eph 5:26)

It’s so easy to tie everything to Water Baptism. There are so many proofs in scripture that Baptismal regeneration occurs with Water Baptism.

If the act of baptism, not sprinkling or pouring, saves, then why did it not save the false brethren in Jude? Surely they thought they were saved and had made a profession of faith and were baptized. Yet Jude describes them accordingly, vs 12 "These are spots in your feasts of charity when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear, clouds they are without water (the Holy Spirit), carried about of winds, trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots."

My Comment: This is a great question! Also it says the same thing in 2 Peter 2:13. This is speaking about heretics. You can fall away from the Faith. It’s a great question because it reminds me of a misunderstanding Protestants have with our understanding of justification. Many, many Protestants forget and think that Catholics believe they are saved “once and for all” by Water Baptism. Absolutely not true! We believe salvation is a process. Baptism is our “initial justification” (signed or sealed with the Holy Ghost). This is how we come into the family and receive the pledge of our inheritance (down payment)(Eph 1:13-14) but we can lose our inheritance (Eph 5:5). We must, therefore, remain “in Christ” (John 15:4-7, Rom 8:1). We believe in an “ongoing justification”. Confessing and repenting of sin is part of Perseverance. Trent called the Sacrament of Confession “a Second Plank after the shipwreck of lost grace” [Denziger’s, #807 (DS 1542)] The “Plank” was probably based on Acts 27:44. We are judged at the END of our life.

Baptism puts you in covenant position where it will be revealed whether you will bring forth fruit or not and what manner it will be. Matthew 13:3-9

My Comment: True but it is through Water Baptism that initially happens. To get in the Ark you have to pass through the Water! (1 Pet 3:20) Even Martin Luther believed in Baptismal Regeneration through Water Baptism.
 

LaGrange

Active Member
Name meaning authority. Deuteronomy 18:15-19 is a prophecy about Christ.
So 1 John 5:9-13.

I agree. We are water baptized with that same authority. We are baptized “In the NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”. So it’s in God’s Name.
 

LaGrange

Active Member
My comments were only pointing out what the passage is portraying, and reflects the human aspect involved.

The how was addressed by others early on, namely by the Holy Spirit. Spiritual regeneration cannot occur any other way than by the hand of God.

The when, according to what the passage seems to reflect, is after he heard and believed.

Ok. This is a middle of the road view. You may want to read my main post I will put on after I answer some more questions. Thanks for your post!
 

LaGrange

Active Member
Yes, #18, but also #19, which is where we really are. The believing is “in the Lord Jesus Christ”, Acts 11:17.

I understand the desire to add baptism as a necessary condition, but in this case, it is not so stated. Rather the problem is one of recognition of Gentile Christians by Jewish Christians.

Are these believers being saved going to be recognized as having been added to the church by the Lord? Or will they instead remain lower class Christians similar to uncircumcised God-fearers under Judaism?

My Comment: There is no such thing as “Saving Faith”. The term doesn’t exist. There is a “dead Faith” (James 2:19-20, 26). You could say there is a living Faith or a Working Faith, that is, a Faith that works in Charity (Gal 5:6), but not a “Saving Faith”. Faith Alone really doesn’t do anything by itself. You could use that term if you didn’t mean “Faith Alone”. As I’ve pointed out, the devils believed and had faith and trembled (James 2:19). Baptism IS stated. It is front and center. Acts 11:17 is referring back to Acts 10:47 which points directly to Baptism. In Acts 11:17, Peter repeats the same meaning that he said in Acts 10:47, “who was I, that could withstand God?” Acts 10:47 says “Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? These two phrases mean the same thing. You have to have Faith to be Baptized but Baptism is where the regeneration takes place. The power of Baptism comes from the side of Christ while He was on the cross (John 19:34). Water flowed from His side.
 

LaGrange

Active Member
The text does not tell us. This is not a didactic text. It is a narrative. You interpret narrative, normally, by clearer didactic texts. Look at Eph 2 to determine how he and every person is regenerated. It is the gift of God.

I agree regeneration is a gift. There is nothing we can do to get it. Again, this is why we baptize infants. But there is a time and place we receive it and how we receive it. Col 2:13 is a cross reference to Eph 2:5 which is baptism. Quickened comes from Baptism (Col 2:13). Sins are blotted out. Col 2:11 describes Baptism and Col 2:12 IS Baptism. I’m only criticizing to bring out some points.
 

Marooncat79

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
My Comment: There is no such thing as “Saving Faith”. The term doesn’t exist. There is a “dead Faith” (James 2:19-20, 26). You could say there is a living Faith or a Working Faith, that is, a Faith that works in Charity (Gal 5:6), but not a “Saving Faith”. Faith Alone really doesn’t do anything by itself. You could use that term if you didn’t mean “Faith Alone”. As I’ve pointed out, the devils believed and had faith and trembled (James 2:19). Baptism IS stated. It is front and center. Acts 11:17 is referring back to Acts 10:47 which points directly to Baptism. In Acts 11:17, Peter repeats the same meaning that he said in Acts 10:47, “who was I, that could withstand God?” Acts 10:47 says “Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? These two phrases mean the same thing. You have to have Faith to be Baptized but Baptism is where the regeneration takes place. The power of Baptism comes from the side of Christ while He was on the cross (John 19:34). Water flowed from His side.


Ahem ahem

the exact term may not exist, but I introduce you to Romans 12:3 “God has given to us the measure of faith”

Ie the exact amount of faith needed to believe the Gospel. It is the same measure of Paul, Abram, Moses, Calvin, Luther et al
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top