Was Cornelius Saved Before Baptism?

In the last few posts we have been dealing with the subject of obeying the gospel in the first century and what that consisted of.  This is another installment dealing with the same subject.  Why do so?  Because there is absolutely no possibility that Holy Spirit inspired men, some apostles, could have gotten it wrong. 

The case of Cornelius is unique in the respect that he appears to have been a godly man even prior to his conversion.  In Acts 10:2 the Bible says of him that he was "a devout man, and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people, and prayed to God continually." (NAS) 

If there was ever a man so good as to be able to be saved on his own merits we suppose Cornelius would have been that man.  And, yet God's angel instructs him to send for Peter.  Why?  Might it not be that even a good man like Cornelius needed the gospel?  If a man can be saved without the gospel why bother to preach it, why did Jesus die on the cross, why the great commission?  You can read 2 Thess. 1:8-9 to see what will happen to those who do not obey the gospel.  Cornelius needed the gospel. 

Peter in reporting what had happened at Cornelius' house once he gets back to Jerusalem throws more light on why Cornelius, by the angel's direction, had been instructed to send for him.  The angel had told Cornelius that "he (reference to Peter - DS) shall speak words to you by which you will be saved." (Acts 11:14 NAS)  So there were words Cornelius needed to hear in order to be saved?  What were those words?  

Was it not the same words Peter had preached on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2?  Was it not the same words spoken by Philip in Samaria and before the Ethiopian eunuch?  Was it not the same words spoken to Saul by Ananias?  Is there more than one gospel that will save? 

We have already shown in previous posts that in every instance the preaching by these inspired men immediately led to baptism on the part of those who accepted the preaching.  Baptism was a part of the message.  Is it any different this time with Cornelius?  No! 

Hear Peter, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized" (Acts 10:47 NAS) then "he ordered them to be baptized." (Acts 10:48 NAS)  What is another word for "ordered"?  If you check other translations you will see the word "commanded" rather than "ordered."  But why command baptism? 

Because you cannot obey the gospel and thus cannot be saved, not in the first century and not now, without being baptized "for the remission of sins." (Acts 2:38 NAS)  What Peter preached in one locality he preached everywhere.  Was Peter an apostle?  Did he know what he was talking about?  How about Philip?  How about Ananias?  Remember that Cornelius was to be saved by the words Peter would speak to him (Acts 11:14) and that word ended with the command to be baptized. 

Cornelius and his companions had the Holy Spirit descend upon them prior to their baptism leading many to think they were saved at that point.  Not so.  Why not?  Because Cornelius was to be saved by the message he received from Peter (Acts 11:14) and not by a miraculous manifestation from heaven.  Peter had not gotten a good start on delivering that message when the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius for he says in Acts 11:15 "as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them." (NAS)   It was necessary for Peter to complete that message which included baptism. 

But let us look at it from another point of view.  What if Cornelius had told Peter "no thanks I have been saved by faith and grace.  I believe in Jesus.  I think I will just pass on the baptism."  Would he have been saved?  Many preach today that he would have for the gospel they preach has no water in it unlike Peter's gospel.  

He would not have been saved by grace and faith for the simple reason he would have lacked faith in the message Peter preached.  He would not have believed the Holy Spirit by which Peter spoke for Peter commanded baptism. 

I would also remind the reader of what he already knows if he will think about it.  The fact the Holy Spirit is upon one does not mean he is God approved as he is in his present state.  If so Caiaphas, the high priest and one of the ringleaders in bringing about the crucifixion of Jesus, was a saved man.  Read about his prophesying in John 11:49-51.   Add to that the fact that even inspired men could and did sin, even Peter. (Gal. 2:11-12) 

This author of this Article has choosen to make this article available with free reprint rights.
Click here to copy this article.

►Reprint Rights◄

Log in to become a member of Denny Smith's Fan Club!

Comments on this article:

» left by Teresa Ortiz ^(4,776)
Teresa Ortiz (99 days 20 hours ago.)

Hello Denny, you laid your points out well. You say that just because the Holy Spirit falls upon someone does not mean they are saved--where do you find this in Scripture, this is a bold statement. Yet I'll I give you this as your understanding. But as it relates to Cornelius, the Spirit not only fell upon them, they received the gift of tongues, thereby receiving the Holy Spirit within them. How can you say that someone who has received the spirit of God in their spirit is not saved? I respect your position on this issue and do not wish to argue the point. We are told over in over again that when we receive Christ we are sealed with His holy Spirit and then His spirit gives gifts. This does not happen until after you are saved. And the fact that Cornelius was anxious and ready to be baptized is evidence of true salvation and the desire to be obedient.

 

Please provide passages to support your teaching that cornelius was not saved until after he was batized and how then did he speak in tongues before he was saved as you are saying here.

 

Again, not to argue, but to understand. Thanks for your time. If you haven't read my articles on this issue, it might help to give you a fuller understanding of where I am coming from. It is the series on the Seven Baptisms taught in the Bible. Looking forward to your response.

Respond to this comment

» left by Denny Smith ⁽⁶⁰³⁾ (99 days 18 hours ago.)

Teresa, good to hear from you. I will do the best I can in the exceedingly short amount of space I have here to answer. It is said I am long winded and probably true but I will try. (By the way I am not a preacher.)

 

 

Yes, the fact that someone has the Holy Spirit does not mean they are saved. I gave you one example - Caiaphas the high priest who prophesied of Jesus' death in John 11:49 - 51. He one upped Cornelius for Paul says in 1 Cor. 14:5 "greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues." Neither of us believes this man was saved yet he prophesied.

 

 

Peter, the apostle, had the Holy Spirit but Paul says in Gal. 2:11 "I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned." Reference to a particular point in time in his Christian life. Yet, he was an inspired spirit filled man.

 

 

Balaam, the Old Testament prophet, of whom the bible says "the Spirit of God came upon him" (Numbers 24:2) was not a saved man. Read what Peter said about him (2 Peter 2:15), what Jude says (Jude 1:11), what Jesus himself says (Rev. 2:14).

 

 

Read Gal. 3:1-5. Are these people of whom Paul says that God had provided "with the Spirit and works miracles among you" (Gal 3:5) perfectly safe in view of the fact they have the Holy Spirit? If so why is Paul writing to them??? Much the same could be said about his writing to the Corinthians. The possession of the Holy Spirit was not a guarantee of salvation.

 

 

Moving on it is your idea that salvation comes at the point of faith without baptism. I have several articles on Searchwarp where I contradict that. In reading through the book of Acts I have written an article and posted it on every conversion account up to where we are at now. Read in order Receiving the Gospel, Is Baptism a Part of the Gospel?, Preaching Jesus Means Preaching Baptism, and Saul's Conversion - A Lesson For Today.

 

 

Let me then address the issue of how I know Cornelius was not saved until he was baptized. We both would agree that salvation is found in Christ, not out of him? How does one get into Christ? Paul says, "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.' (Gal. 3:27)

 

 

"For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body ...." (1 Cor. 12:13) That body is the body of Christ (the spiritual body). Jesus is "the Savior of the body." (Eph. 5:23) With baptism you enter that body, without it you stay outside the body.

 

 

We are saved by the blood of Jesus. We would both agree I am sure. Are you aware of the fact that Jesus shed his blood in his death? He was already dead when "one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and immediately there came out blood and water." (John 19:33-34)

 

 

Paul says, "do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?" (Rom. 6:3) Why is that important? Because that is where Jesus' blood is spiritually speaking, the blood that cleanses from sin.

 

 

Then there are passages like Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21, and so on. We are either going to believe those passages or we are not.

 

 

I want to be kind for I believe you have a good heart. After all you are here reading a religious article and that says something about who you are. We have been as a people led astray by those who claim to be preachers. They have told us for generations that we are saved by faith but never seem to clearly identify the kind of faith that saves and that is one that takes God at his word. When I read a passage that is clear and plain as can be I am under obligation to believe it. You could not pay most preachers today to preach Peter's Pentecost sermon in Acts 2 for the simple reason that they do not believe it. That is not the faith that saves. The old hymn says words to the effect believe and obey for there is no other way. Truer words were never spoken by an uninspired man.

 

 

I wish you the very best for I am persuaded you are a seeker after truth as was Cornelius and as I hope I am too.

Respond to this comment

» left by Marc Taylor from Philippines (30 days 12 hours ago.)

1. Your citation of Caiaphas and Balaam must be viewed with John 7:39 in mind. Before Christ was glorified the Holy Spirit empowered both the saved and the unsaved. After Christ was glorified only a Christian possessed the Holy Spirit (1 John 4:13). Such was the case of Cornelius before he was water baptized.

 

2. Galatians 3:27 refers to being baptized with the Holy Spriit - with water baptism simply being its picture. Cornelius was "in Christ" since he was alreaedy baptized with the Holy Spriit (Acts 11:17) - Again this took place before his water baptism.

Respond to this comment

» left by Denny Smith ⁽⁶⁰³⁾ (29 days 18 hours ago.)

Marc, I just clicked a wrong key and lost all of my work in responding to your comment above so am not real happy right now and thus will make my comments brief.

 

You assume as fact that which you have yet to prove when you say "After Christ was glorified only a Christian possessed the Holy Spirit (1 John 4:13). Such was the case of Cornelius before he was water baptized."  You assume that which you have yet to prove.

 

You say Gal. 3:27 "refers to being baptized with the Holy Spriit - with water baptism simply being its picture."  Where in the scriptures do you get that?  Book, chapter, and verse will do and nothing else will do.  

 

Here, briefly, is a problem or two with your position.  Paul said in Eph. 4:5 that there is "one baptism."  Prior to this time, time of the writing, there had been two - Holy Spirit baptism and water baptism - now Paul says there is but one.  Which one had ceased?  If you say water baptism then you take issue with Jesus who said to us all that "unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."  (John 3:5)  You have taken the water out of Jesus' commandment and made it of none effect.

 

Secondly, no man can obey a command to be be baptized with the Holy Spirit for God does that directly himself.  Yet, we are all commanded to be baptized.  I can be baptized in water.  Thus if God commanded baptism, and he has, then it is water baptism that is commanded. 

 

Reread in the scriptures who was promised the baptism of the Holy Spirit.  When you do, paying close attention to the context, to whom Jesus was speaking, you will find Holy Spirit baptism not to be a command but a promise and that only to the apostles.   

Respond to this comment

» left by Marc Taylor from Philippines (29 days 13 hours ago.)

1. There is no assumption on my part. In fact, I even cited 1 John 4:13 in which you chose to ignore. How does one know that they abide in God?

 

Answer: Because He has given us of His Spirit.

 

The Gentiles were "given" the Holy Spirit before they were water baptized (Acts 11:17) therefore the Gentiles abode in God before they were water baptized.

 

2. Romans 6:3, Galatains 3:27 and Colossians 2:12 all describe the same baptism. This baptism is with the Holy Spirit. In his discussion of "baptism" in Colossians 2 Paul mentions about about being circumcised with Christ. Those who are circumcised with Christ are Christians. Philippians 3:3 informs us that the true circumcision worships God in the Spirit. Christians, not the unsaved, can worship God in the Spirit. This we find the Gentiles doing in Acts 10:44-7. These Gentiles after receiving the Holy Spirit were worshiping God in the Spirit (Acts 10:46). Thus they were already part of the circumcision Paul describes both in Philippians 3 and Colossians 2. Water baptism is entirely ruled out. A.T. Robertson is correct when he states that baptism is a "picture" (See his comments in 1 Peter 3:21).

 

There is only one baptism that places a person into the body of Christ - Holy Spirit baptism. Water baptism is its picture.

 

3. The problem with your position is you assume that baptism with the Holy Spirit has ceased. This is an entirely untenable position to hold to in light of the fact of what Scripture delcares. In Acts 10:45 and Acts 11:16 having the Holy Spirit "poured" (ekxew) on you and being baptized with the Holy Spirit is the same thing. But Paul tells us in Titus 3:6 that all who are Christians have had the Holy Spirit "poured" (ekxew) on them. Thus since all Christians have had the Holy Spirit poured on them so too all Christians have been baptized with the Holy Spirit.

 

a. Acts 10:45 and Acts 11:16 coupled with Titus 3:6 proves that baptism with the Holy Spirit is still taking place.

 

b. The fact that the Gentiles were worshipping in the Spirit (Acts 10:46) demonstrates that they were part of the circumcision Paul speaks of in Philippinans 3:3 and Colossians 2:11. What took place in Acts 10:46 occurred before their water baptism in Acts 10:48.

 

In John 3:5 water does not refer to Christian baptism in the name of the Lord. Prove that it does.

Respond to this comment

» left by Denny Smith ⁽⁶⁰³⁾ (29 days 8 hours ago.)

Marc, I just checked in long enough to see what you wrote and I will respond but it will be late in the week as there is no time to do so now.  We are drilling a deep well today, trenching tomorrow, and add moving in the last batch of stuff, and add to that my son coming home, and it is just not possible for me to get to your post right away.  Denny

Respond to this comment

» left by Marc Taylor from Philippines (29 days 7 hours ago.)

OK Denny thanks for the update.

Respond to this comment

» left by Denny Smith ⁽⁶⁰³⁾ (23 days 19 hours ago.)

Marc, you will find  a partial response on Searchwarp now to your comments that due to matters at hand I had no time to reply to earlier.  I have responded by writing two new articles, the first which is being posted on Searchwarp tonight entitled "The Case of Cornelius and the Holy Spirit."  There will be a second entitled "Is Holy Spirit Baptism The Baptism That Saves?"  It is already written but will not be posted to Searchwarp yet for a few days.  I thought if I was going to go to all this time and effort I ought to write for the many rather than the few so put my response in the form of two new articles.  Your name is not mentioned in neither.

 

Now please do not respond until you have seen and read both articles.  I say that for I fully understand that in this first article of the two article set I have not answered all of your questions nor dealt with all your comments or concerns.  If you respond you will just be telling me things I already know in that regards. 

Respond to this comment

» left by Marc Taylor from Philippines (23 days 12 hours ago.)

Hello Denny,

 

Before I read this I already responded to "The Case of Cornelius and the Holy Spirit". I'm not sure why but it has not yet been posted. I do have it saved though.

 

- Marc

Respond to this comment

Was this article helpful to you? Leave a Public Comment or Question: