Expert: John Fields - 12/11/2009

Question
QUESTION: Hello,
The Gentiles (Acts 10) were saved before they were water baptized.
    1. 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. Unless the context clearly dictates otherwise belief is understood as saving faith. 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 heartknower, bore witness to their belief by giving them the Holy Spirit.
Both Danker (page 817) and Thayer (page 512) classify this belief as saving faith. In fact, Kittel tells us that:
In Peter's speech in 15:7 "to believe" is used in the sense "to be converted" (TDNT 7:728, epistrephw).
     2. In Acts 15:8 (cf. Acts 11:17) Peter states that these Gentiles were "given" (didwmi) the Holy Spirit. According to 1 John 4:13 if one has been "given" (didwmi) the Holy Spirit then they dwell in God. Thus since the Gentiles were "given" the Holy Spirit before they were water baptized they were dwelling in God before they were water baptized. If one dwells in God that describes a saved person.
     3. According to Acts 10:45 these Gentiles already possessed "the gift of the Holy Spirit" before they were water baptized. I can cite at least 5 Greek lexicons that state if a person has the gift of the Holy Spirit (the Holy Spirit Himself) such an individual is saved. I would like to see any lexicons that state one can have the gift of the Holy Spirit and be lost.
         ---------------------  
Here are my questions:
1. Can you cite any lexicon that states that the "believe" as used in Acts 15:7 is non-salvific?
2. If one dwells in God are they saved?
3. Can you cite any lexicon that states one can have the gift of the Holy Spirit and be lost?

Thank you

ANSWER: To start, I want to commend your use of the scripture, it is CERTAINLY understandable that you could come to the conclusion you have. If there were no other verses or passages which entered into the discussion this would definitely come very close to proving your point. But there are other passages which come to bear into the discussion.

One of the bedrock principles of the scripture's integrity and the confidence that we have in it that it is God's own Word and not the words of mere men is that it cannot and does not contradict. If the word of God contradicts it ceases to be the perfect Word of a perfect being and we lose our confidence.

Here are your questions and my answers to them:
1. Can you cite any lexicon that states that the "believe" as used in Acts 15:7 is non-salvific? No.
2. If one dwells in God are they saved? Every clear example we have in scripture shows that a person dwelling in God is saved.
3. Can you cite any lexicon that states one can have the gift of the Holy Spirit and be lost? I can only show examples of people who by implication HAD the Holy Spirit and were LATER lost, having fallen away. There are none who were lost while still having the Spirit.

Revelation 3:5 'He who overcomes will thus be clothed in white garments; and I will not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.

The Lamb's Book of Life is the book in which are written the names of the saved. Why would God speak of erasing someone's name from the Book of Life if it could not be done in ANY context? One who is saved has the Holy Spirit. If their name is erased from the Book of Life they lost His Holy Spirit.

Now that I have answered your questions, I hope you won't mind my commenting further. We serve a loving and gracious God who is not willing that any should perish, but that ALL should reach repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)

From the way your questions were asked I think it is safe to say that you do not believe that baptism is salvific and that you believe that the events surrounding Cornelius prove that faith saves before and apart from baptism.

You have drawn up a respectable and believable sounding premise for your belief. I have ALWAYS thought that those who believed in prayer for salvation were VERY close to truth. I have also never thought that it sounded like much of a stretch when anyone who knew their beliefs well made these arguments. Especially when they draw upon Cornelius and from the Romans 10:8-14 passage. Those things said I find myself in the unenviable position of putting forward a very implausible sounding argument to bolster a truth I KNOW to be so because of what I know from other scriptures.

I have always struggled with the Cornelius passage. What we see there is unprecedented. In no other place in the New Testament do we see unbaptized believers receiving the Holy Spirit, yet, that is what we have here. What you have pointed out about the Holy Spirit being proof of salvation in other passages is granted here. So, does one passage in God's Word cancel out dozens of others that have a bearing on the meaning or implications? No it doesn't.

There are three passages that show different aspects of the Cornelius conversion story: Acts 10, Acts 11:3-18, Acts 15:7-9. First we look for an overall back-ground context. It has been a number of years since Jesus made the Great Commission to go into the whole world to make disciples of ALL the nations. The Jews, to this point, missed the Gentile part of the salvation equation, incorrectly assuming that He meant all the Jews of every nation. The proof is that they had continued as practicing Jews in other ways. They still observed kosher food laws, the Sabbath, and any number of other Jewish rituals and traditions. One that they observed, having no dealings with the Gentiles, put the old way of doing things above Jesus' own teaching. The Gentiles STILL had not been preached to.

In Acts 10:9-16 Peter is told through a vision that what God declares clean should no longer be considered unclean. We see in Acts 10:28 that the meaning of the vision was that the Jews should no longer consider any man unclean or unholy.  

Acts 10:28 And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.

Peter has traveled to where Cornelius and his household are, taking some Jewish Christians with him. We know from the book of Galatians the later problem of Jews trying to make Gentiles become circumcised to adhere to the law of Moses as a prerequisite to the gospel. This was a HUGE problem which impacted salvation. Paul condemned Peter to his face for separating himself from the Gentile brethren when the Jewish brethren came to visit (Galatians 2:11-14). Remember, this happened AFTER God had declared them clean. Paul said a person submitting to circumcision to be saved became subject again to the yoke of the law and would be lost. Jesus wouldn't benefit them.

Galatians 5:1-4(1) It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. 2 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen


To add anything, such as the law or circumcision, to the work that Jesus did on the cross was to change and invalidate the Gospel. It brought the curse of law rather than the blessing of Jesus.

Galatians 1:6-9 (6) I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

So when we see the later problems with the conflict between Jewish and Gentile cultures and how serious the problem was, even impacting upon salvation, we see a RADICAL problem which required a RADICAL solution.

Peter has come to the Gentiles and brought some Jews along, likely skeptical. Perhaps Peter is even now holding himself somewhat aloof, wondering if he had actually seen a vision or if he was somehow mistaken. God sees the situation, with the gravity of lost souls bearing heavily on it, and does something completely radical and without precedent. He gives the Gentiles the Holy Spirit. This is done in ADVANCE of faith and baptism and even BEFORE the gospel is preached (something we'll shortly explore). Once and for all the Jewish Christians accept that Gentiles were to be included in the Kingdom of God. They can refuse the Gentiles AND God no longer.

Were they saved when they received the Holy Spirit? Normally that would be indicated. It could even have possibly been the case here (though I don't think so). I am aware of what the scriptures say and how much they look like they are saying that these people received the Holy Spirit AFTER they believed. I will not be looking at these individually as I believe there is no need to. Whether they were saved or if this was not the case was this special occasion the standard protocol? Is it a good proof text for those who believe that saving faith does NOT include baptism? Even with the extremely unique circumstances still more things come to bear.

Undeniable facts:
1) Peter was sent to preach the message (words) to them by which they would be saved. Showing that they were obviously not saved PRIOR to his coming.
Acts 11:13-14 (13) "And he reported to us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, 'Send to Joppa and have Simon, who is also called Peter, brought here; 14 and he will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.'
2) Peter had NOT YET spoken the words to them BY WHICH they would be saved when they received the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit fell on them at the beginning of the message while Peter was still speaking it.
Acts 10:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message.
Acts 11:15 "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning.
3) Since he had only begun speaking the words by which they would be saved they had not yet heard the Gospel when the Holy Spirit fell upon them.
4) Since Paul had not yet spoken the words by which they would be saved, if they were saved PRIOR to the words God contradicted Himself since the angel had told them that they would be saved by the message which Peter preached.
5) If sets a precedent for salvation apart from baptism, it also sets a precedent for salvation apart from faith as well, since they had not heard the message.
6) Peter had to go back to what Jesus said for a frame of reference for what he was seeing. So this was obviously not an everyday example for salvation.
Acts 11:15-16 (15) "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning. 16 "And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'
7) Peter said that he was chosen so the Gentiles would hear the gospel THEN believe.
Acts 15:7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.
8) Since they'd not heard the gospel yet, they couldn't have faith in the usual sense.  

There are other things to consider. In order for this to be an example of salvation by faith without baptism MANY contradictions would have to occur.

Jesus said belief AND baptism were needed to be saved.
Mark 16:16 "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

Forgiveness of sins happens at baptism.
Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Baptism was brought up and taught in the middle of the desert with no witnesses to speak of when it was administered. Why? Thus, when the gospel of Jesus was preached, so was baptism. Why?
Acts 8:35-36 (35) Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him. 36 As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?"

Sins are washed away at baptism.
Acts 22:16 'Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.'

At baptism we die, are buried, and are resurrected with Christ.
Romans 6:3-4 (3) Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

We are added to the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit at baptism.
1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

We are clothed with Christ at baptism. It is also an act of faith through which we become sons.
Galatians 3:26-27 (26) For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

Baptism is a work of God to save us, not a work we do to save ourselves.
Titus 3:5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

Baptism is said to save through Jesus (His work to save us not as our own work to save ourselves)
1 Peter 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

This BY FAR is not an exhaustive list of verses on baptism and salvation.

In order for salvation by faith WITHOUT baptism to be true, more than 16 verses would say in different ways, but would not mean, that baptism is a part of salvation. If faith without baptism is salvific, the verses on baptism are not true. It would create a contradiction where none exist.

If we are saved at baptism, faith is STILL salvific. No contradiction occurs.

I have studied the New Testament two times with the intent of disproving what I have been taught about baptism. If it could be proven that baptism is not essential to salvation, more people would be saved. That would be a good thing. My study did not weaken my beliefs but strengthened them.

Finally, the time of Acts was the recorded history of the church moving from infancy to maturity. It was a transitional period in which many non-standard things were happening. In Acts 2:38 it said that whoever repents and is baptized in the name of Jesus Christ will be forgiven and will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. With Cornelius and his household they received the Holy Spirit and THEN believed and were baptized. With the Samaritans, they had believed and had been baptized but had NOT received the Holy Spirit. If the presence of the Holy Spirit showed irrefutably that a person was saved, did this mean that this group of Samaritans had not been saved when they believed and had been baptized? A lot of special situations were occurring as the way to the truth was being taught and ironed out. We now have the benefit of the completed works of the bible, the completed word of Jesus.

I realize that we may not come to agreement on this. Yet, I want you to understand that just as you have honestly come to your conclusions on the matter so have I and many of my brethren. While I respectfully disagree with the conclusions you have drawn, I understand how you got there.

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Thank you for your reply.
I would like to stick with the conversion of the Gentiles. Romans 6:3, 1 Corinthians 12:13, Galatains 3:27, Colossians 2:12 and Titus 3:5, 6 refer primarily to the baptism with the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38 as well as Acts 22:16 apply only to the Jews of this time period. I intend to address these at a later date (Lord willing).

I would like to focus on Acts 11:15
Arxomai (began) can have a looser meaning than some may wish to allow:
       1. Abbot-Smith: (a) absol.,...(b) relatively -> included is Acts 11:15 (A Manuel Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, arxee, page 62).
       2. Brown: It is often almost superfluous, and can be omitted in the Eng. translation without affecting the meaning (e.g. Matt. 4:17; 11:7, 20; 26:22; Mk. 6:7; Lk. 3:8; 15:14; Jn. 13:5; Acts 1:1; 11:4, 15) (NIDNTT 1:167, Beginning).
       3. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: Often used also, not for the absolute beginning, but, relatively, for the starting-point of some important movement (1 John 2:7, 24; Acts 11:15; Philippians 4:15, Begin).
       4. Kittel: Pleonastically it usually serves to draw attention to a particular element in the story. The best course is simply to render by some such word as "moreover" or "indeed," or by even freer expressions suggested by the context, such as "were so bold" or "were forced to" (TDNT 1:478, 479, arxw).
         - Freer: Loose, not confined to usual rules, not exact (Webster's New World Dictionary and Thesaurus, Second Edition, pages 254 and 255).
       5. Robertson: In the beginning to speak as to me (Acts 11:15) (Word Pictures in the New Testament).

If my preacher was describing a previous sermon by saying, "As I began to preach the Holy Spirit convicted the congregation" it would be perfectly plausible to believe that he was emphasizing the abruptness of the Holy Spirit's conviction. What my preacher said during his sermon was secondary. He wanted to underscore what the Holy Spirit did more than what he preached on. The same holds true with Luke's record of Peter's defense in Acts 11. Luke does not repeat everything that Peter said in Acts 10 but instead he focused on what the Holy Spirit accomplished. -> "He rests his defence, not on what he said, but in what God did" (Robertson, quoting Furneaux).

According to Acts 15:7, 8 these Gentiles heard the word of the gospel, they believed and upon that belief they were given the Holy Spirit so they in fact did hear Peter's message before receiving the Holy Spirit.

In terms of an absolute use of "began" and when the Christian life begins Galatians 3:3 reads, Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
    1. Danker: Abs. you who have made a beginning (in your Christian life) spirit-wise (or, in spirit fashion) Gal 3:3 (s. pneuma 5dB) (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, enarxomai, page 331).
    2. EDNT: begin
         once you have made a beginning in the Spirit (EDNT 1:449, enarxomai).
    3. Louw/Nida: to begin in a particular state or relationship - 'to begin, to commence.' 'you began by (God's) Spirit' Ga 3.3 (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 68.3, enarxomai, page 655).
    4. Thayer: to begin, make a beginning (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, enarxomai, page 213).
    5. Vine: used in Gal. 3:3 ("having begun in the Spirit"), to refer to the time of conversion (Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Begin - enarxomai, page 103).



ANSWER: I actually did not find a question here. But I'll answer what I think your thrust is.

I see no reason for contextually saying that began did not mean exactly what Peter said about it here in these passages. In looking at the same verse in twenty different versions they ALL said the same thing, "As Peter BEGAN preaching, the Holy Spirit fell on them." Other than that I see nothing new to address with what you bring up about Cornelius.

You said: "Romans 6:3, 1 Corinthians 12:13, Galatians 3:27, Colossians 2:12 and Titus 3:5, 6 refer primarily to the baptism with the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38 as well as Acts 22:16 apply only to the Jews of this time period."

So when a verse has compelling evidence to show that baptism IS a normative requirement in salvation it is either said to be referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, thus no water involved, or that others only applied to Jews of the time period (I've NEVER heard that before).

We can look at the Romans 6:3 passage and see that it PROVES that SOME kind of BAPTISM is a part of the plan and is salvational. You say this is the baptism of the Holy Spirit apart from water, the context says that isn't the case. When did we die to sin? At baptism. Can we live in Christ without first dying to sin? No. Therefore, whatever this baptism is, it is shown to be salvational, since in it, we die to sin. Holy Spirit baptism was administered from on high or through the laying on of the apostles' hands. It was NOT something which could be obeyed but instead something which could only be received through promise. You can't obey a promise.

Let's look at Romans 6:16-18 16) Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

NOT dying to sin and obeying sin means we are slaves to it and are lost. Paul thanks God that these he is writing to have obeyed a particular form of teaching. In obeying this teaching they became free from sin and were made slaves to righteousness. The scripture already said that they died, were buried, and were resurrected in the baptism mentioned earlier, and thus, had died to sin and been saved. So in one place it says their obedience freed them from their sin and in the other it said that in baptism they had died to sin. It is obvious that baptism is the form their obedience took and that it COULD NOT have been Holy Spirit baptism since THAT could not be obeyed.

Don't mistake what happens at baptism. It is not a water or works based salvation. It is when a person actively comes to passively receive baptism, at which time they are forgiven. A person does not baptise themselves or take forgiveness upon themselves, therefore it is not a work done BY them but a work done TO them and FOR them. Now you and I agree on one thing. It is the Holy Spirit who washes away our sins. Unlike you, I do not believe that the Holy Spirit washes away our sins at a time separate from baptism. He does not do it before our baptism nor by anything that the water does. But He washes away our sins while we are IN the water acting out our obedience in the way the Lord prescribed.

At the time that Paul was writing these things upon baptism in the different letters, there was ONE baptism as shown in Ephesians 4:4-6 (4) There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

If you have a wet and nonsalvific water baptism and a separate dry and salvific Holy Spirit baptism you have TWO baptisms represented. This would clearly go against what is taught.

One explanation creates difficulties to outright contradictions while the biblical one is reconciled to the truth. I know the baptism I will be sticking with.

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: I already wrote that I intended to address the other passsages (Lord willing) so please stick with the subject at hand.
You insist that these Gentiles were still unsaved before they were water baptized but:
a. No Greek lexicons can be found that say "believe" is used in any other way but salvifically in Acts 15:7 despite your claim that they still were not saved.
b. There is no refutation that according to 1 John 4:13 if one has been "given" (didwmi) the Holy Spirit then they dwell in God - and that is exactly the case of the Gentiles. According to Acts 15:8 (cf. Acts 11:17) they were "given" (didwmi) the Holy Spirit before they were water baptized. Thus they already dwelt in God before they were water baptized.
c. No Greek lexicons can be found that say one can have the gift of the Holy Spirit and still be lost (cf. Acts 10:45) despite your claim that they still were not saved.
d. I have cited several lexicons that say arxomai can have a looser meaning but you say no. Again it is mere speculation on your part. In fact, Acts 15:7 teaches they did indeed hear the word of the gospel before they were given the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:8).

So my question is despite all the evidence thus far concerning these Gentiles do you still believe they were still unsaved before they were water baptized?

Answer
Whether intentionally done or by accident I feel you misspoke what I said. I would respectfully ask that you be careful not to misstate my position. I'm not interested in being right or in winning debates. I hope this is all about the truth and our pursuit to obtain it. Let's be careful that we engage honorably.

My a,b,c,d corresponding to your own.

a. I never said that "believe" was being used in a non-salvific way. I said that they believed AFTER they received the Holy Spirit.

b. I do not refute that this is NORMALLY the case but believe that something out of the ordinary is occurring here (a repeat of what I have already said).

c. It is not found in lexicons NOR any other place in the Bible, as far as I can see which is why I honestly acknowledged the difficulty. Again, my claim was that I BELIEVED them to not be saved prior to baptism. I try to never state my opinion as fact.

d. I'm lined up with every major Bible translation in my "speculation" as to when the Holy Spirit came relative to them hearing the message that would save them. I'm confident that in believing no looser meaning should be in view here that I am in good company.

Because of all of the scriptural evidence that I presented that supports baptism being salvational and does not support a faith only conclusion, which apparently you thought was off topic, I do not believe they were saved prior to their baptism in water.

I'm sorry we don't agree, but there is MUCH MUCH more that goes into my belief that baptism is salvific. One solitary instance that MAY be an exception to the rule, in which circumstances indicate some extenuating circumstances are present, does not change my mind.