Axe and two 38's

[dwight92070]

Correct Doug. The Spirit falling upon Cornelius and his family only had the purpose to ratify to Peter AND the rest of the Jews that God has a plan for the Gentiles contrary to what they had been mistakenly taught by the Jewish leaders’ traditions of men.

Also as has been adequately stated, the work that occurs in baptism Is BY God. Water is spiritually inert. HE simply prescribed it. I might have done something totally different.

Some will NEVER accept or admit the difference in the indwelling Spirit and the Spirit UPON for witness.

Wrong, Peter speaks about the incident in Cornelius' house, when he was before the Jerusalem counsel in Acts 15:6-9:
"God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith." (Not by confession and baptism)

So Peter is clearly telling us when Cornelius' household and friends got saved - when they heard the word of the gospel and believed - and this was BEFORE the Holy Spirit fell on them. He goes on to say that God, who knows the heart, testified to them (that indeed they were saved) by giving them the Holy Spirit.

Peter even adds that their hearts were cleansed by faith - not by faith plus baptism or anything else - only faith.
He adds even more: But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus (he already mentioned faith, but notice he doesn't mention confession or baptism here), in the same way as they also are.

If there ever was a time when the apostles wanted to make it crystal clear (specifically for the Gentiles, but also for all men) how to be saved, it was at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. BUT THEY ONLY MENTION GRACE AND FAITH. THERE'S NO MENTION OF CONFESSING JESUS AS LORD OR WATER BAPTISM.

If confession and water baptism were indeed required for anyone to be saved, then NOT mentioning it here is essentially consigning ALL the believing Gentiles to hell. Not only did Peter NOT mention those things here (Acts 15:6-11) but James' final WRITTEN instructions to the Gentiles "who are turning to God" (through grace and faith) (Acts 15:19) ALSO DOES NOT MENTION THEM EITHER.

THESE FACTS ALONE SHOULD BE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT BAPTISMAL REGENERATION IS A FALSE AND EVEN HERETICAL DOCTRINE. May God have mercy on those who do not heed this warning.

In Acts 15 Judaizers were causing trouble in the church, saying that the believers among the Gentiles must be circumcised to be saved.
It's the same today, we have people on this forum, causing trouble in the church, who are saying that you must repent and believe AND confess Jesus as Lord AND be baptized or you cannot be saved.

It's the same sin as the Judaizers. God said that He hates "one who spreads strife among brothers" Proverbs 6:19. And that it is an abomination to Him.

 

[Jaime]

No he gave the Spirit upon to BOTH Cornelius and the disciples at Pentecost for a witness. The disciples to communicate with the diaspora of Jews gathered in Jerusalem for the Feast of Shavuot or Pentecost and to Cornelius to witness God’s plan for the Gentiles to the stiff necked Jews. Peter even said what then prevents water baptism to those who received the spirit upon just as we did. He obviously thought Water baptism was for forgiveness of sin AND the INDWELLING gift of the spirit as he preached in Acts 2. Peter was not confused and recognized two different manifestations of the Spirit. The salvation paradigm did not change with Cornelius. He and his family just got BOTH manifestations. The miraculous manifestation is ALWAYS for a witness. The indwelling gift helps us live as as Christ would have us live and act. God had a very specific purpose for his miraculous gift upon the disciples and upon Cornelius. In both incidences the purpose is made clear in the scripture passage, and unrelated to the indwelling gift and forgiveness of sin promised at baptism. Again not my prescription but God’s. The water is still inert H2O, but God’s miracle in the water has nothing to do with the water except by what God said we put him on in baptism, we identify with him in his death, burial and resurrection in the H2O of baptism. And we comenup out of the water a new creature, not because of a mystical reaction with the H2O, but because of what God himself does IN the watery grave of our former selves in baptism. The transformation is BY God IN the water, the inert substance chose by God to demonstrate what HE DOES. Taking our old selves we have died to and cleansing our sin stain by the blood of Christ, raising us up out of the watery grave ANEW to walk in newness of life as born anew creatures. It’s a picture, a demonstration to us of what HE did. All we donis drop our clenched fist of resistance and submit to His will and His work in us. Water is a prop chosen by God to enact physically HE does to us spiritually. The H2O has zero power. Christ’s blood has 100% of the power to wash is white as snow.

 

[FreeInChrist]

FreeinChrist, although I agree with your conclusion, I differ a bit on how you got there. If Jesus was referring to water baptism in John 3:5, He would have used the word baptism, or baptized since baptism was practiced both by John the Baptist and even Jesus' disciples. John 4:1 However His disciples baptized new believers into Jesus, not into John's baptism. So I differ a bit with you FreeinChrist - baptism was very prevalent at this time, both John's baptism, but also baptism into Jesus, which was a Christian baptism.

Also the context of Jesus' talk with Nicodemus is a reference to childbirth - using the word "born". Jesus Himself initiated that context when He said, "... unless one is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

After Jesus said that, what else would Nicodemus be thinking of but childbirth? And of course he was, because he said, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?"

Is Jesus going to totally change the subject now and speak about baptism? Of course not.
He picks up right where Nicodemus left off with the same topic of childbirth, only now He's contrasting between natural child birth and spiritual birth, and says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

So how do we know that when Jesus said "born of water" that He was referring to natural childbirth? Very simple, Jesus clarifies it in his next sentence: "That which is born of the flesh (natural childbirth) is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

Then He reiterates it once again: "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born from above.' "

This is not the only place where Jesus compares childbirth or natural birth with spiritual birth. Look at Luke 7:28:

"I say to you, among those born of women (natural childbirth) there is no one greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God (those who have been spiritually born) is greater than he."

This verse more than confirms the truth found in John 3, which we have already referred to.

Water baptism is not mentioned or even referred to in either passage. Not only that but water baptism is never referred to elsewhere in the Bible as being "born of water".

I can agree mostly with as you see things. It is the conclusion that matters.