What is easy believism?

Yeah, I know. Your fairy tale notion that it isn't the Holy Spirit Himself being referred to in Acts 10:44-45, 47; 11:15-17 and Acts 15:8 despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Greek-English lexicons teach that these passages do refer to the Holy Spirit (not just His 'miraculous gifts' - that's your charade and deception), but hey, you love playing make believe with how the words of the Bible are properly defined in order to defend your
No, I did not say that Cornelius did not receive the Holy Spirit. I said, as Scripture does, that Cornelius only received the miraculous works of the Holy Spirit (the Spirit fell on him), not the saving forgiveness of sins from the Holy Spirit. There is a very big difference between having the Holy Spirit fall on you, and the Holy Spirit indwell you.
Acts 10:44 - "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message."

heresy.

It's really pathetic.
You like to throw around the "heresy" title a lot, but you don't seem to know what it means. Even Jesus would have been considered a heretic because His views did not correspond with the orthodox views of His day.
heresy - belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine
orthodox - conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true
 
No, I did not say that Cornelius did not receive the Holy Spirit. I said, as Scripture does, that Cornelius only received the miraculous works of the Holy Spirit

The above is your confusion which no Greek-English lexicon supports.
This is because it is pure fantasy on our part.

This is what Scripture says:
Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he? (Acts 10:47)

But you come bumbling along affirming that they "only received the miraculous works of the Holy Spirit." What a disgusting lie.
 
Last edited:
The above is your confusion which no Greek-English lexicon supports.
This is because it is pure fantasy on our part.

This is what Scripture says:
Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he? (Acts 10:47)

But you come bumbling along affirming that they "only received the miraculous works of the Holy Spirit." What a disgusting lie.
For it to be a lie, I would have to know the truth and still claim a falsehood as the truth.
lie - an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive
But since I believe what I have said is the truth, it cannot be a lie.

Further, as I have already said, what I believe agrees more with Scripture than what you believe. Cornelius did receive the Holy Spirit, I am not debating that. But the Holy Spirit can be received in many ways, with many gifts, and not all of them require that the person be saved. The fact that you cannot see that does not change the fact that Cornelius was not saved when the Spirit fell on him while Peter was preaching to him.

Answer me honestly:
Can a person be saved without repenting?
Can a person be saved without claiming Jesus as their Lord?
 
Since you can't seem to answer a question unless that is the only thing in the post:

Can a person be saved without repenting?
Can a person be saved without claiming Jesus as their Lord?

You are dodging the evidence that these Gentiles were saved before their water baptism.

No need to discuss other details. This must be addressed first.
 
You are dodging the evidence that these Gentiles were saved before their water baptism.

No need to discuss other details. This must be addressed first.
Not dodging anything. Answer the questions. Because if you are honest, the answers completely destroy your argument.
 
Not dodging anything.

Yes you are. You are dodging the fact that these Gentiles received the Holy Spirit (yes, the Holy Spirit Himself, not just His miraculous gifts) before their water baptism.

Answer the questions. Because if you are honest, the answers completely destroy your argument.

Will do when you admit these Gentiles were saved before their water baptism.

I am not going to get into other aspects of salvation when you still erroneously think they were not saved until they were water baptized.
 
Yes you are. You are dodging the fact that these Gentiles received the Holy Spirit (yes, the Holy Spirit Himself, not just His miraculous gifts) before their water baptism.
Yes, they received the Holy Spirit. I have said that already. Man cannot do miraculous wonders without the Spirit to empower him. But that does not mean that they were saved. It does not mean that their sins were forgiven. Our sins are not forgiven until we, in obedience to God's command, submit to Him in repentance, confession of His name, and baptism.
Will do when you admit these Gentiles were saved before their water baptism.
Absolutely not, because to admit that would be to lie.
I am not going to get into other aspects of salvation when you still erroneously think they were not saved until they were water baptized.
Then you fail completely to understand Scripture. Because we cannot take one part of Scripture and form our doctrine from it, and ignore all the rest of Scripture that does not agree with what we (you) personally believe. The facts that we cannot be saved without repentance (as Acts 3:19 says), and we cannot be saved without confessing Jesus as our Lord (as Rom 10:9-10 says), do not take a back seat to your claim that Cornelius (who had not confessed Jesus as his Lord, nor had he repented of his sins) was not saved when the Spirit fell on him in Acts 10:44. He was not saved until he was baptized in water in Acts 10:48 just as Mark 16:16, Matt 28:19, Acts 22:19, and many other passages tell us.
 
These Gentiles received the same "saving power of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 10:45) as those in Acts 2:38.
https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/eli-insurance-policy.589/page-3#post-25287
I am guessing that you meant Acts 2:3-4, because the gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38 was the result of water baptism. But if you notice the difference between Acts 2:3-4 and Acts 10:44, you will see that on Pentecost the they were "filled with the Spirit", but the Spirit "fell on" Cornelius; he was not "filled with the Spirit". Any way you cut it, the Spirit falling on Cornelius was not an indication of salvation at that point. They were baptized in water immediately, and that is the point at which they were saved.
 
I am guessing that you meant Acts 2:3-4,

No, I meant Acts 2:38.

Just as possessing the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38 demonstrates these people were saved, so too does possessing the gift of the Holy Spirit by the Gentiles (Acts 10:45) prove they were saved - before their water baptism (Acts 10:48).
 
But if you notice the difference between Acts 2:3-4 and Acts 10:44, you will see that on Pentecost the they were "filled with the Spirit", but the Spirit "fell on" Cornelius; he was not "filled with the Spirit".

Yes, he was.

To have the Spirit fall upon a person is to be filled with the Holy Spirit.

Peter, in Acts 15:8, says these Gentiles were given the Holy Spirit by God "just as He also did to us" - which points back to Acts 2:4.
 
No, I meant Acts 2:38.

Just as possessing the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38 demonstrates these people were saved, so too does possessing the gift of the Holy Spirit by the Gentiles (Acts 10:45) prove they were saved - before their water baptism (Acts 10:48).
My apologies. But then as I said, Acts 2:38 puts the reception of the Holy Spirit's indwelling as the result of having been water baptized. Possessing the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit does not indicate salvation, possessing the indwelling does. Cornelius had neither repented of his sins, nor had he confessed Jesus as Lord (both of which are prerequisites to receiving salvation, and water baptism is the prerequisite to receiving the indwelling). The Holy Spirit's falling on the people in the upper room in Acts 2:4 did not constitute salvation either.
Yes, he was.

To have the Spirit fall upon a person is to be filled with the Holy Spirit.

Peter, in Acts 15:8, says these Gentiles were given the Holy Spirit by God "just as He also did to us" - which points back to Acts 2:4.
Yes, the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit's miraculous works in Acts 10:44-45 just as the Jews did in Acts 2:4, and then received the indwelling of the Spirit in Acts 10:48 just as the Jews did in Acts 2:38. Same gifts received in the same manner.
 
Possessing the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit does not indicate salvation, possessing the indwelling does.

Which is described in Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:45.


The Holy Spirit's falling on the people in the upper room in Acts 2:4 did not constitute salvation either.

This event placed them into the NT Church.
The same with the Gentiles...before their water baptism.
 
Cornelius had neither repented of his sins, nor had he confessed Jesus as Lord

You don't know that.

In Acts 4:4 the word "believed" is used to describe those who became Christians. Neither of what you wrote about (repentance and confession) is specifically stated. Thus, "believed" can be used as a synecdoche.

The same holds true for Cornelius and the other Gentiles with him.
Acts 15:7
And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

In Acts 15:7 the word "believe" is used by Peter in describing the response of Cornelius and the other Gentiles after hearing the word of the gospel. If you insist that this kind of belief as used in Acts 15:7 is not saving faith then it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate your position as to why it isn't especially in light of the fact that God, the heart-knower, bore witness to their belief by giving them the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 15:8).

1. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: I became a believer, a Christian...Acts 15:7 (pisteuō, page 512).
2. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT): In Peter's speech in 15:7 "to believe" is used in the sense "to be converted" (7:728, epistrephō, Bertram).
 
Last edited:
Which is described in Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:45.
No, Acts 2:38 is not the same as Acts 10:45, it is the same as Acts 10:48. Acts 10:45 corresponds to Acts 2:4.
This event placed them into the NT Church.
The same with the Gentiles...before their water baptism.
No, the coming of the Holy Spirit on them in the upper room did not put them into the Church. They were added to the Church when they were baptized (in water) into Christ (Gal 3:26).
You don't know that.
Yes, I do, and you would too if you would read what Scripture says.
"While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message"
Peter had not yet told them to confess Jesus as Lord, he had not yet mentioned repentance, he had not mentioned baptism except for a reference to John's baptism. Cornelius had not done anything that Scripture says is a prerequisite to receiving salvation except hearing the Gospel preached. He had not yet "called on the Lord", so the Spirit falling on him was NOT indicative of salvation.
In Acts 4:4 the word "believed" is used to describe those who became Christians. Neither of what you wrote about is specifically stated. Thus, "believed" can be used as a synecdoche.
Absolutely, there are many places where only part of what is required to become a Christ follower is listed. Acts 2:38 is the closest to including everything and even it does not state it all in that one passage. For that very reason, passages like John 3:16 cannot be taken as meaning that all we have to do is "believe" (intellectual assent) to be saved. Every passage of Scripture that says something leads to salvation must be fulfilled in order to receive salvation. Thus, repentance, confession of Jesus as Lord, and baptism in water (the only three things that Scripture says "lead to salvation") must all be done or salvation is not received.
 
No, Acts 2:38 is not the same as Acts 10:45


The gift of the Holy Spirit is the same in both passages.
https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/eli-insurance-policy.589/page-3#post-25287

No, the coming of the Holy Spirit on them in the upper room did not put them into the Church. They were added to the Church when they were baptized (in water) into Christ (Gal 3:26).

No, that would mean they were not part of the Church when the proclamation of the gospel took place later in Acts 2.


More passages are being cited and reference to Greek-English lexicons continue to refute your false teaching.
 
Last edited:
You keep saying that, but it is not true. But you go right ahead and keep believing it if it makes you happy.
No, that would mean they were not part of the Church when the proclamation of the gospel took place later in Acts 2.
The Apostles most certainly were part of the Church, seeing as how they all repented after Jesus was resurrected, they all confessed that He was their Lord during His life, and they were all baptized into Him during His life. But the coming of the Holy Spirit on them in Acts 2:4 did not impart, nor signify salvation of them in any way.
More passages are being cited and reference to Greek-English lexicons continue to refute your false teaching.
You seem to think that "Greek-English lexicons" are Scripture, and you are basing your salvation on them. Why is that? Are the writers of these lexicons God or God's Apostles? Hmmm?
 
You keep saying that, but it is not true. But you go right ahead and keep believing it if it makes you happy.

Keep believing in your mythological definitions for how the Greek words of the New Testament are properly defined.
Remember, not just one or two Greek-English lexicons refute your misunderstanding.

You seem to think that "Greek-English lexicons" are Scripture,

You seem to think that your make-believe ideas are the correct meanings to the Greek words of the New Testament.

Time for you to depart from your fairy tales.
 
Back
Top Bottom