I don't think you really understand the meaning of "saved" since you just contradicted Acts 16:31. That's what happens when people don't understand water baptism either.You are correct. Cornelius and his weren't saved when they believed nor was or is anyone. When they believed they were still in sin he certainly the need for baptism into Christ at which time their sins were remitted, they received the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, and they were added to the body of Christ which is his church, exactly what the Jews did on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38-47).
That's true, but at the same time I wouldn't expect much patience from most people when you continue to repeat this same [false] premise-If memory serves forbearance and faithfulness are good.
-as the details of the account have crucial bearing on how the question is understood.The account has no bearing on what the actual question reveals
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.can you show me where in the bible it says it is a process?...
The point was specific to Paul's question, not what followed. The question indicates that believing does not automatically, in and of itself, result in a person being indwelt by the Holy Ghost.1. They were disciples of John the Baptist., not yet under jesus' saving grace
2. They did not know the full gospel.
3. Acts 19 doesn't give us all the conversation details.
Paul, by God's providence crossed paths with some of Johns disciples, they hadn't even heard of the Holy spirit v2;3.
Althoigh this sequence is written as fast paced, I am sure Paul explained to the 12 men the full gospel as we have a snippet of it from v4 and 5 - note careful as luke tells us the men 'on hearing this' where then given a christian baptism and paul laid hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.. They obviously believed Pauls telling of the gospel. (if you read Acts 18 appolos was the same. We see luke joing the 'john the baptist' theme with appolos and the dozen men being taught the full gospel).
We could say here we have a mini pentecost as the gospel spreads. Just like the great comission from jerusalem, all judea, samria and into the world.
The book of Acts follows the pattern of the great comission. And at each stage we see this public demonstration from the Apostles. Acts 2, Acts 8, Acts 10 and then 19.
So this is not about water baptism (saves), nor is it about a very modern concept of a second spiritual experince as in the charismatic baptism of the spirit.
But the spread of the gospel displayed publicly in power. The power and authority of jesus delegated to the apostles.
Whether you see it or not, the truth is in that question. I keep bringing it up because whether or not a person is indwelt with the Holy Ghost is such a crucial point; there are eternal consequences.That's true, but at the same time I wouldn't expect much patience from most people when you continue to repeat this same [false] premise-
-as the details of the account have crucial bearing on how the question is understood.
My point was that you are presently demonstrating the same stubbornness that you were attributing to other people by insisting on this false premise- how are you gonna tell people what to focus on when you have this kind of plank in your eye?
... and while I'm here; I might as well bring this up- Luke 24 says:
....And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
"Should be" is not the same as "would be". This is actually one of the instances where the KJV is better than other translations; so, I don't know how you come to the conclusion that this is some prediction about a new water baptism on Pentecost- when it's not even a prediction at all; it's an imperative. He didn't say "Baptism in my name will begin at Jerusalem" or even "remission of sins will begin at Jerusalem"- Jesus had been preaching repentance and remission of sins his entire ministry. He's saying "Now you guys go preach theT gospel to the world- starting with Jerusalem".
The point was specific to Paul's question, not what followed. The question indicates that believing does not automatically, in and of itself, result in a person being indwelt by the Holy Ghost.
The Samaritan conversion reveals this truth as well. See Acts 8:12-18. Note specifically verses 15, 17, and 18. The group received the Holy Ghost days after they believed the gospel message and were baptized in water in the name of Jesus.
I read the scriptures when you initially responded. But I did not feel like responding to each specific scripture. This is because some relate to receiving the actual indwelling of the Holy Ghost, while others pertain to the operation of spiritual gifts after a person has already been indwelt.Read the scriptural references at the end of my note to you. And you receive the Holy Ghost per Acts 2:38. The gift of the Holy Ghost not gifts of or from the Holy Ghost. It's singular not plural. I don't care what you believe. Follow the language of the scriptures to where it leads which us what I do. See below repost which presents the scriptures noted regarding laying on of the apostle's hands which resulted in the manifestation of the Spirit.
REPOST
Stephen was already a baptized believer, so according to Acts 2:38, he had already received the gift not gifts, which are the miraculous manifestation of the Spirit. It wasn't until they (the apostles) laid their hands on him, verse 6, that he was able to do the wonders as noted in verse 8
"5And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: 6Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.
7And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.
8And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people."
Also to corroborate the fact that it was the laying on of the apostle's hands that enabled the gifts (manifestations of the Spirit, those listed in 1Cor 12:8-10), see the other scriptures I previously listed in my post 31.
Acts 5:12
12And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch.
Acts 8:14-17
14Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
Acts 8:18-19
18And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, 19Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.
Acts 19:6
6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
2 Tim 1:6-7
6Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. 7For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
Pretty clear when you look at ALL the pertinent scriptures, the MANIFISTATION of the Spirit, which Spirit was within the baptized believers in biblical times per Acts 2:38, was the result of the laying on of the apostle's hands.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
You are correct. Cornelius and his weren't saved when they believed nor was or is anyone. When they believed they were still in sin he certainly the need for baptism into Christ at which time their sins were remitted, they received the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, and they were added to the body of Christ which is his church, exactly what the Jews did on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38-47).
So, one scripture ignoring all rest that establish additional requirements forms the basis for your belief? Lots of luck with that.“Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.”
1 John 5:1 ESV
https://bible.com/bible/59/1jn.5.1.ESV
Philip was an apostle. He presented the gospel message to the Samaritans. His message included the need to be baptized in water in the name of Jesus. One must ask themselves how he and others knew the group had not received the Holy Ghost. Other biblical records detail individuals spoke in tongues upon receiving the indwelling presence of the Holy Ghost.Acts 8 is the gospel moving from jerusalem/judea to the Samaritans (this was another mini pentecost event inline with the great comission (which the book of Acts follows as the gospels spread just like the imperative given by Jesus).
The Apostles hearing of this arrive on the scene bearing public witness with their delegated power and authority from Christ, that now the samritans are also included into the covenant people... Acts 10 etc demonstrates the same. Mini pentecost event with the gentiles.
And now 'all people' or all the world are in the covenat if they believe.
There is now no waiting for an apostle to publicly verify that a people group is now 'in'.
People now come to faith as we see in the rest of acts (ch 16,17,18) and the rest of the NT by the work of the Holy Spirit... Both by an outward call (the gospel) and an inward renewing (new birth) both these actions bring a response of faith.
Acts 19 can be seen as jew and gentile xoming together as 1 people of God, as the apostle paul reiterates not a few times in his letters. Luke being an associate of Paul would have known this.
Again, water baptism does not regenerate nor save. I would stipulate that it is extremely important as water baptism is a sign and seal of the new covenant but in and of itself does not save.
One must ask themselves how he and others knew the group had not received the Holy Ghost.
Philip was an apostle. He presented the gospel message to the Samaritans. His message included the need to be baptized in water in the name of Jesus. One must ask themselves how he and others knew the group had not received the Holy Ghost. Other biblical records detail individuals spoke in tongues upon receiving the indwelling presence of the Holy Ghost.
The idea that conversions were only carried out that way to evidence peoples of all nations were approved of God is not so. The Acts 19 account reveals that the same message and obedience to the associated commands that bring about the NT rebirth apply to all individuals in general. Keep in mind that it was already understood that Jews were accepted, yet the same message was again presented to the 12 Ephesians. The account reveals the individuals were baptized by John indicating they were of Jewish heritage.
The kjv says "since you believed" and the Greek in the interlinear says "having believed" which in both cases is a different connotation than "when you believed" which implies it happens or happened immediately and upon belief only which it didn't. Note that in verse 6 of 19, even after they were baptized in the Lord's name,the Holy Ghost still didn't fall on them immediately, but it required the laying on of Paul's hands, an apostle, to impart the manifestation of the Spirit. Upon their baptism however, they would have received the gift of the Holy Ghost consistent with Acts 2:38, but not the miraculous manifestation of the Spirit, a gift or gifts of the Spirit, but just it's indwelling.one must recognize that they asked.
Acts 19:2
he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
Do you think that He is not perfect? What that verse means is that we will be made perfect when we see Jesus return for His people. Our bodies will be transformed. Paul says, "Now we see but a dim reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."
Do you really think Christ is or should be referred to as a "that"??? Christ is not a "that". Referring to him in such a manner is ridiculous and this is not what is meant by "when that which is perfect is come". Below is a part of a study and commentary on spiritual gifts which also addresses this topic. I've previously posted this here and elsewhereDo you think that He is not perfect? What that verse means is that we will be made perfect when we see Jesus return for His people. Our bodies will be transformed. Paul says, "Now we see but a dim reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."
Paul realised that we can't know all things in this lifetime. So no, the canon of scripture is not the perfection that eliminates the need for the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Why did the Holy Ghost fall on those in Caesarea prior to baptism and the laying on of the apostle's hands? Was this the norm, or a highly unique event and not the norm? The same holds true for acts 2 when the Holy Ghost fell on the apostles. A bit different in terms of persons but not different in terms of the reason it fell unilaterally without the laying on of hands as was the case and requirement in all other instances except the aforementioned acts 10. These 2 instances were not the norm. Itsvery clear that all miraculous manifestations of the Holy Ghost required the laying on of the apostle's hands as noted below, so once again you have to ask yourself why not in Acts 2 and 10? There was a very special reason that you and others need to figure out so you may understand the truth of the gifts and how or if they relate to us today.
To corroborate the fact that it was the laying on of the apostle's hands that enabled the gifts (manifestations of the Spirit, those listed in 1Cor 12:8-10) see below.
Acts 5:12
12And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch.
Acts 8:14-17
14Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
Acts 8:18-19
18And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, 19Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.
Acts 19:6
6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
2 Tim 1:6-7
6Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. 7For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
Pretty clear when you look at ALL the pertinent scriptures, the MANIFISTATION of the Spirit, which Spirit was within the baptized believers in biblical times per Acts 2:38, was the result of the laying on of the apostle's hands.
Please read the post again. The comment I made was not in reference to Acts 19.one must recognize that they asked.
Acts 19:2
he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
Yes, upon study of the specific references you make I would have to agree. Thank you so much for sharing!“And Saul approved of his execution. And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.”
Acts 8:1 ESV
https://bible.com/bible/59/act.8.1.ESV
“Now those who were scattered went about preaching the word. Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed to them the Christ.”
Acts 8:4-5 ESV
https://bible.com/bible/59/act.8.4-5.ESV
Doesn’t this indicate that the Philip who went to Samaria wasn’t Philip the apostle? Couldn’t this have been Philip who was one of the 7 chosen in Acts 6?