Do you have to be baptized to achieve salvation?

[Asyncritus]

There has been an inordinate amount of concentration in this discussion on what happened to Cornelius.

The perfectly good reason for the inverted order of the events - the Spirit falling on them, and then their baptism - is that here was the first Gentile to be accepted into the church of God.

The Jewish brethren would certainly not have accepted that they should accept the Gentiles into the church without some extremely strong compulsion, which God landed on them in this remarkable way.

There could be no argument after that. Gentiles were in, like it or not.

Be that as it may - we are completely missing what is the most gigantic fact of this kind in the Acts.

Pentecost.

The Holy Spirit fell on the 120 disciples in the form of cloven tongues of fire, as we all know, and they spoke in tongues and received gifts of healing and the ability to speak the word fearlessly and inspiredly.

BUT THESE WERE ALL BAPTISED MEN AND PRESUMABLY, WOMEN.

They had all been baptised by John, and some perhaps by Jesus Himself as already shown in Jn 3 and 4.

This is the divine order of things - and only extremely important amd significant circumstances could cause God to vary the procedure.

And this we have very clearly in the matter of the admission of the Gentiles into the church.

That the Jewish brethren resented and were extremely perturbed by Peter's actions is shown by their first remark to him when he returned to Jerusalem:

11.1 ¶ And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.
2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,
3 Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.

Nothing, I say, besides extreme circumstances could have moved God to do things this way.

Peter himself wouldn't have gone in the front door, if he hadn't received the vision of eating unclean creatures. His very first, ungracious remark shows this unambiguously:

10.28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
29 Therefore came I unto you without gainsaying, as soon as I was sent for: I ask therefore for what intent ye have sent for me?

There's no need to belabour the point further, because it is perfectly obvious why things happened as they did.

Pentecost shows that it was first being taught, then being baptised, then the outpouring of the Spirit.

It happened again in

4.31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.

These were baptised believers too.

So why are we arguing so wastefully about this?

 

[dadof10]

As I said, I did many faithful things before I actually placed my trust in the blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins. They were indeed motivated by faith in the truth of the gospel. But it is only when I placed my trust in the blood of Christ that I was forever and totally made perfect and declared righteous (justified) before God in regard to sin guilt and saved. Doing righteous things does not forgive sins. Only the blood of Christ can do that.

So it was with Abraham. He did faithful things before he actually was declared righteous by his faith in the promise of a son God made to him. Paul's teaching in Romans about justification by faith is the very specific instruction we have by which the less specific chapter in Hebrews about faith is to be understood. He uses Abraham to show us it is faith in the promise of Christ and the forgiveness of sin, all by itself, that justifies. What we do only shows us to have accepted that forgiveness and made righteous by that faith.

Amazing. Could you please point to the place and time where Cornelius "placed his trust in the Blood of Christ"?

"By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go."

Abraham has faith, true faith that obeys (what you consider "saving faith"), and he is NOT saved by it? Cornelius, who did not place his "trust in the blood of Christ" but was a "a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms liberally to the people, and prayed constantly to God" (as Abraham was), was saved? Is this about right?

To make the claim that Hebrews 11 is NOT about real, true "saving faith" is to deny reality.

 

[zeke]

Like I say, just be prepared when God doesn't obey his own supposed hard and fast, legalistic rule for being saved.

God can and will do as he pleases regarding salvation but He specifically has baptism in the Book and I will take Him at His word. I hardly think God disobeys/contradicts His own command regarding baptism. Do you really think He does?

It just didn't work that way for Cornelius. What this means is we are not to be dogmatic about it.

Again – like those Jews on the day of Pentecost, Cornelius was not completely and finally saved until he heard the message from Peter preached including the command to be baptized in water for the remission of sins and that took place (sequentially) after the Holy Spirit had already fallen upon him.

It's a stupid, meaningless argument to insist that God only saves in and through water baptism. Teach baptism, but let God decide when and where he bestows the sign and seal of salvation, the Holy Spirit.

You are mistaken - it is neither stupid nor meaningless my friend – it is an argument based on sound Scripture. The word of God states the only way to be found “in Christ†is to be baptized into Christ. If there is a back door somewhere as you suggest then it is not revealed in the Bible.

Using your logic we are being "dogmatic" when we tell the lost that the only way to God is via the blood of Christ. God can certainly save one who chooses to reject Christ but I will certainly not tell the lost sinner to take that notion to the bank. I will, however present the full gospel to that lost and that gospel has always included the requirement to be baptism in water. If you choose to tell the lost that baptism is not necessary “in some remote cases†then be prepared to explain your rationale to God. The promise of salvation has always been to the one who believes and is baptized per Jesus Christ.

How did you personally come to be “in Christ� Were you “baptized into Christ†as you "put on Christ"---calling on His name or did the Holy Spirit fall upon you before you heard the complete gospel message delivered as was the case with Cornelius?

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
(Gal 3:27 NKJV)​

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

After Peter took the gospel to the Jews in Acts 2 and Gentiles in Acts 10, Peter said in Acts 15:11 "But we believe that we (Jews) shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in like manner as they (Gentiles)." Since Jews and Gentiles are saved "in like manner", all we have to do is look to Acts 2 and Acts 10 to find the like manner way in which the Jews and Gentiles were saved. We can find from the contexts that water baptism in the name of the Lord was (1) commanded and (2) for remission of sins. The fact it was commanded made it essential for disobeying God's command is sin and not being baptized is the same as rejecting Peter's gospel message. Remission of sins is equivalent to being saved and no one can be saved without having sins remitted. [Water baptism saves as Peter said in 1 Pet 3:21]. So it becomes obvious that water baptism in the name of the Lord is the 'like manner' way Jews and Gentiles are saved.

On the other hand, baptism with the Holy Ghost was never commanded to anyone so it is not something that Jew or Gentile could obey therefore it was not a necessity or responsibility placed upon Jews or Gentiles as water baptism. Nor does any context say that baptism with the Holy Ghost remits sins/saves. Also, Peter's Jewish listeners in Acts 2 were not baptized with the Holy Ghost as the eunuch was not baptized with the Holy Ghost but water baptized. Only the apostles were baptized with the Holy Ghost in Acts 2. So this eliminates baptism with the Holy Ghost as the 'like manner way' Jew and Gntile are saved.


Lastly, water baptism has been commanded to me so I have the ability and responsibilty to choose to be water baptized or not. If I am not, then it would be my fault for failing to be water baptized. Being baptized with the Holy Ghost is totally and completely out of my ability, out of my control therefore out of my responsibility. If you argue people must be baptized with the Holy Ghost to be saved, yet they are not (as I have not been baptized with the HG), then that is God's fault and failure and God becomes culpable for the lost. Otherwise you have God failing to baptize me with the Holy Ghost then eternally punishing me for a failure and fault on God's part not mine.

 

[Stan53]

First you quote a verse in the NT gospel from Rom 10:9;10 but then you go back to Lk 7 when the OT law was still in effect and the NT gospel, including Rom 10, was not yet in effect. Did you notice Rom 10:9 says "believe in your heart that God raised (past tense) him from the dead, you will be saved."? The woman in Lk 7 could not have the kind of faith Rom 10:9 requires for Christ had not yet died much less been raised from the dead. So Lk 7 is NOT an example of NT gospel salvation just as the thief on the cross is NOT an example of NT salvation. The church began at Acts 2 with the first recorded gospel sermon made by Peter, you would have to begin here where the gospel came into effect to show examples of NT salvation.

Oh, I see...Paul's writings supercede Jesus' and nothing Jesus said about salvation is true? Be careful you don't go to far out on that branch, the fall could be deadly.

 

[Stan53]

"By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go."

1) Since Heb. 11 is all about "saving faith", we see that Abraham was justified, or saved, when he left Haran.

2) Paul says he was justified, or declared righteous, when he "believed God".

3) James says he was justified or declared righteous, when he "offered Isaac on the altar".

Abraham was justified three times, that we know of.

I don't see the word 'justification', anywhere in these verses. Maybe you can explain how you arrive at this understanding?

 

[Stan53]

If Cornelius did not gain salvation in Acts 10, then where in Acts did he and how did he?

Doesn't matter.

 

[Webb]

Stan53 on post 665 writes: ''OH, I SEE --- PAUL'S WRITINGS SUPERCEDE JESUS' AND NOTHING JESUS SAID ABOUT SALVATION IS TRUE? BE CAREFUL YOU DON'T GO TO FAR OUT ON THAT BRANCH, THE FALL COULD BE DEADLY.''

The above argument failed before it even climbed the tree to fall off the branch resulting in your deadly fall. Note please, Paul got his teaching from none other than Christ Himself: "But I certify your brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ" Galatians 1:11,12.

Paul got his teaching from who? Christ. What did Christ say? "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved", Mark 1616. All your talk about ''PAUL'S WRITINGS SUPERCEDE JESUS'" is the language of Ashdod.

On a previous post you asked whether or not I had personally asked you to join me on the one-on-one forum on this subject. If not, I do now, and promise to amply cover (among other things) the validity of Mark 16:15,16.

 

[Stan53]

Where does Peter say this? It's not in the text. Eisegesis...

Typification is throughout the Bible. If you limit yourself to what Peter says in a particular verse then you limit your understanding of the context of ALL scripture.

I never called you a heretic, I said the doctrine of sola-fide was heretical. Don't you feel the same way about what you would consider "works salvation"? How about the doctrine of salvific baptism? Don't you consider both of these heretical? Is your skin really this thin or are you simply looking for an excuse to beg off?

So saying I believe in heresy is NOT calling me a heretic? Do you know what this doctrine of sola-fide is, or implies? I don't believe in salvic baptism for infants or adults, hence my responses to this OP. Your denomination considers ALL Protestant denominations to be heretical. This is a man made concept and NOT used in the Bible. We are of course warned against false prophets and teachers, and Paul identifies two such people in 2 Tim 2:17.

The plain words say "baptism, which now saves you". I don't have to twist my brain into a pretzel to in an attempt to make them fit my preconceived man-made notions. I can just accept the entire NT at face value.

Yes, as it suites your belief you accept these plain words, yet other plain words you ignore and don't even address. These words that Peter wrote seem to be ALL you base your belief on. How about words he wrote before these? Like
1 Peter 1:9; for you are receiving the end result of your faith, the salvation of your souls. and 18-19; For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. or verse 23; For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.
Not ONE word about water being necessary for salvation.

You seem to have a different set of rules for yourself and others. When you bring up single verses that speak of salvation by faith, that's called "rightly dividing the word of truth", when I, or others, bring up verses that teach salvation by good deeds done in faith, you cry "cherry pick"!!!

Yes because these verses finalize the context and instead of dealing with them as I have done with yours, you create another straw-man to deflect from the issue.

Where do any of these verses teach salvation by faith alone? Where do they tell us we are not justified by baptism? Keeping the commandments? Acts of charity? They say we are saved by faith, not faith alone. And they say NOTHING about what is required of the believer going forward or whether we can lose that initial justification.

I'll answer these questions, when you answer the ones I posted, that elicited your questions instead of answers, in an obvious attempt to deflect.

Should I get indignant about this "condescension"?

Well if it was condescension, then you could I guess. I actually thought your response was funny.

If you're looking for the context of Paul's "faith vs works" teachings, you need to read Acts 15. The first heresy within the early Church was that there were "Judaizers" who were teaching GENTILES they had to be CIRCUMCISED according to the LAW OF MOSES. It was such a problem, the Church called a council to deal with it and Paul went and pleaded his case. He (rightly) taught that circumcision (or the Law) didn't save, faith did. For Paul to be teaching this, had NOTHING to do with whether the Gentiles "understood" the Law or not. All they needed to understand was there were people who thought that they needed to become Jews before they could become Christians.

Exactly WHAT teachings of Paul are those? So you agree that faith saves? Why all this disputing then?
This was a Faith plus Works fallacy that had already infected the Church and even Paul and Peter had a hard time diffusing it.

"Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands -- 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ."

Yes, Paul is reminding them this is NOT the old Judaic religion even though it is the same God. God has changed the rules, in that, there are NO more rules. Only faith to believe in the Christ and that the Jews were being treated the same way, under their New Covenant.

As I said, this, LIKE ALL THE OTHERS (except one), is in the DIRECT CONTEXT of circumcision. Paul's teaching has NOTHING to do with baptism. Again, you are reading your man-made doctrine into the text.

Circumcision is NOT the only point of the Mosaic Laws that early Judaic believers were trying to inflict on the early church. Read Acts 15:5; Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.â€
You may think it is limited to circumcision, but it wasn't.

My avatar is the Blessed Virgin Mary, I think you can tell by that, I'm Catholic. More condescension... You can attempt to frame the argument as "works to accomplish their salvation", but that would be a straw-man, as the Catholic Church teaches salvation by Grace alone. This is why we believe that infant baptism saves. Grace alone. You sola-fide advocates are the ones who believe in "works salvation", after all, you MUST "accept Jesus" or "confess with your lips", or whatever, to be saved. How is this NOT a "work" when EVERYTHING ELSE IS?

Just checking. I did think you were RC based on your avatar. What I was stating is that Mormons and JWs teach salvation BY works, NOT grace. The BIBLE teaches Grace through FAITH, NOT Grace alone. But fi you do believe in GRACE alone, then why are you arguing FOR salvic baptism? How can a sola-fide advocate believe in works salvation, when the Bible says NOT by works? I guess you need to understand what exactly a WORK is and what ISN'T. Doesn't seem you do.
Did I ever mention I was born and raised RC?

Don't see much about water in Eph. 2:8-10 either, but that didn't stop you from bringing it up. Different rules and more erroneous complaints.
What you are responding to here is Matt. 12:37,38 which says:
"I tell you, on the day of judgement men will render account for every careless word they utter; 37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." (Matt. 12:37,38)
This is typical of your "exegesis", Stan. You ignore HALF of the teaching. Jesus says by your words you will be justified, ans by your words you will be condemned. Not by your lack of words, not by NOT confessing Jesus as Lord, by your actual words. The words you speak effect your salvation, for good OR BAD. So, how will you twist to get out of this one?

Yes well you did bring this up before to imply a forthcoming judgement on me so I guess we'll have to wait and see.

I find it very interesting that you don't use the quote feature properly to keep these discussions in context. You'll notice I give your exact quote so you can go back to it and you pick apart my quotes which doesn't allow me to view your comments within context or to see if they even are. You are very good at obfuscating and deflecting and NOT responding to direct questions other than by asking more questions.

I do admit however that I have exhausted my interest in this subject and it is very apparent that you will not be persuaded differently, so I'll leave you to your fantasies.

 

[Stan53]

Stan53 on post 665 writes: ''OH, I SEE --- PAUL'S WRITINGS SUPERCEDE JESUS' AND NOTHING JESUS SAID ABOUT SALVATION IS TRUE? BE CAREFUL YOU DON'T GO TO FAR OUT ON THAT BRANCH, THE FALL COULD BE DEADLY.''

The above argument failed before it even climbed the tree to fall off the branch resulting in your deadly fall. Note please, Paul got his teaching from none other than Christ Himself: "But I certify your brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ" Galatians 1:11,12.

Paul got his teaching from who? Christ. What did Christ say? "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved", Mark 1616. All your talk about ''PAUL'S WRITINGS SUPERCEDE JESUS'" is the language of Ashdod.

On a previous post you asked whether or not I had personally asked you to join me on the one-on-one forum on this subject. If not, I do now, and promise to amply cover (among other things) the validity of Mark 16:15,16.

Yes Jesus did reveal Himself to Paul, on the road to Damascus as shown in Acts 9.
He also spent 14 years studying and learning and I'm sure the Holy Spirit had a lot to do with Paul's understanding. You make it sound like Paul sat under Jesus. That is not what he actually conveys in Gal 2. My response was to someone else's comment. Thanks for butting in and muddying up the waters though.

As far as one-on-one is concerned, go ahead and make the proposal to the applicable moderator and they will decide. You can pick whatever topic you want to and they will make the rules. It won't be a free-for-all where you can deflect and obfuscate.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Doesn't matter.

Sure it matters. You cannot argue that Cornelius was not saved through water baptism if you are unable to show where, when, how he was saved.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Oh, I see...Paul's writings supercede Jesus' and nothing Jesus said about salvation is true? Be careful you don't go to far out on that branch, the fall could be deadly.

All I said was you simply cannot use an example of OT salvation as proof as to how people are saved under the NT gospel. Rom 10:9 was not part of the OT which was still in effect in Lk 7. Rom 10:9 would not come in effect till Acts 2 cf Heb 9:16,17. You did not show how that woman in Lk 7 could have the type of saving faith the NT requires in Rom 10:9. It would be impossible for her to have the faith Rom 10:9 requires.

 

[Webb]

Stan53 on post 670 writes: "---I'M SURE THE HOLY SPIRIT HAD A LOT TO DO WITH PAUL'S UNDERSTANDING. YOU MAKE IT SOUND LIKE PAUL SAT UNDER JESUS. THAT IS NOT WHAT HE ACTUALLY CONVEYS IN GAL."

The Holy Spirit just didn't have "a lot to do with Pau's understanding" He had everthing to do with it as Paul was not "one whit" behind any of the apostles. As for your charge that I "make itsound like Paul sat under Jesus", all I did was quote Gal.1:11,12 without elaboration of any mechanics of how the revelation from Christ to Paul was conveyed. If you think you have exact insight how it was revealed to Paul tell us.

As per your suggestion I shall contact a moderater regardling the one-on-one.

 

[dadof10]

I don't see the word 'justification', anywhere in these verses. Maybe you can explain how you arrive at this understanding?

Sorry, I assumed you had read another thread and my posts to Jethro Bodine (duh, I'm getting old). I'll clarify.

You have rightfully said that Hebrews 11 concerns saving faith. The OT prophets performed their deeds by this saving faith, not by the Law. The author is making the case that from the beginning faith has been what saves. In Heb. 11 we read:

"By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go."

The author of Hebrews is referencing Gen. 12 when God told Abram to leave Haran.

"So Abram went, as the LORD had told him; and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran."

Abraham had a "saving faith" in Gen.12 when he left Haran, therefore he was justified.

Paul says in Romans that when Abraham "believed God" (had "saving faith") it was "reckoned to him as righteousness":

For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." 4 Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due. 5 And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. 6 So also David pronounces a blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: 7 "Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not reckon his sin."
9 Is this blessing pronounced only upon the circumcised, or also upon the uncircumcised? We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness.

This episode in Abraham's life happened in Gen. 15, long after gen. 12:

"And he brought him outside and said, "Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them." Then he said to him, "So shall your descendants be." 6 And he believed the LORD; and he reckoned it to him as righteousness."

Therefore, he was justified a second time.

James says that he was justified when he offered Isaac on the altar:

"Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?"

This corresponds (not symbolizes ) to Gen 22:

"When they came to the place of which God had told him, Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar, upon the wood."

That makes three. As you can see in the example of Abraham, justification is a lifelong process, not a one time event.

 

[dadof10]

I find it very interesting that you don't use the quote feature properly to keep these discussions in context. You'll notice I give your exact quote so you can go back to it and you pick apart my quotes which doesn't allow me to view your comments within context or to see if they even are. You are very good at obfuscating and deflecting and NOT responding to direct questions other than by asking more questions.

I do admit however that I have exhausted my interest in this subject and it is very apparent that you will not be persuaded differently, so I'll leave you to your fantasies.

I don't understand your beef here. I use the "quote feature" the same as I always have with everyone else here. No one has complained before. How am I misquoting you?

You seem to be getting frustrated with me, Stan, and we seem to be getting bogged down. I didn't mean for that to happen. I'll try to explain my position on justification as succinctly as possible so you can "pick it apart" if you want to.

We are justified, are being justified and will be justified. I posted a few verses that referenced this fact a couple of posts ago. The major error, as I see it, with the Protestant view on justification, is that they (you) look at is as a one time event by faith alone. Scripture doesn't teach that. It teaches "we are (past tense) saved", yes, but that's not the end of the story. We are also "being (present tense, ongoing) saved" and "will be (future tense) saved". Once you look at it from this angle, it's easy to see that justification can be lost and, therefore, we have to be "re-justified" or brought back into a right relationship with God, or we will not be saved.

You complained that I ignored verses that you posted about "faith vs works". I thought I dealt with them when I said that all but one of the faith vs. works teachings are in the context of circumcision or "the Law", NOT good deeds, baptism, charitable works, etc. Maybe I was vague on that too. I'll continue. It seems a HUGE stretch to assume Paul means baptism, good deeds, etc. when he uses the word "works". I think this contention should be proved, and it can't be, because Paul never draws the connection. It's logical to assume, then, that when he says "works" he is speaking specifically about works of the law, unless otherwise stated.

Paul (or any other NT writer) doesn't directly say or even vaguely allude to the notion that baptism or any other good deed is a "work" and therefore non-salvific When Scripture actually says things like "baptism, which now saves you" and "woman is saved by childbearing", we should give the plain words of Scripture the benefit of the doubt. Since Paul is not speaking of these things when he uses the word "works", to believe that baptism is salvific does NOT contradict Paul, or any other NT writer.

Anyway, that's all I have time for and that's about it in a nutshell. Have at it.

 

[Stan53]

I have unsubscribed from this thread. No sense in repeating myself.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Amazing. Could you please point to the place and time where Cornelius "placed his trust in the Blood of Christ"?

When he received the Holy Spirit:

"And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit..." (Ephesians 1:13 NIV1984)

 

[Jethro Bodine]

"By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go."

Abraham has faith, true faith that obeys (what you consider "saving faith"), and he is NOT saved by it?

Paul tells us when he was justified by his faith, and what the object of his faith was that justified. I'd be adding to scripture to say anything else.

One Sunday morning I got out of bed and went to a local church because I wanted to be saved. I was acting entirely by faith in the conviction of the Holy Spirit. But I was not justified by my faith until months later when my will broke inside of me and I accepted God's forgiveness offered to me in the blood of Christ. THAT is when I was justified by my faith, when my faith put me face to face with the Promise of the Son of God and I broke.

Cornelius, who did not place his "trust in the blood of Christ" but was a "a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms liberally to the people, and prayed constantly to God" (as Abraham was), was saved? Is this about right?

He was saved when Peter began to speak the message God sent him to deliver to them "through which you and all your household will be saved" (Acts 11:14 NIV1984). We know when this happened by the giving of the Holy Spirit--the sign and seal of God's redemption.

To make the claim that Hebrews 11 is NOT about real, true "saving faith" is to deny reality.

It is a passage about persevering in faith to the very end. We know from the rest of scripture that for us the very specific object of faith that saves is faith in Jesus Christ. Hebrews 11 is a chapater full of examples of persevering in faith. I don't know where and at what specific time any one of them were actually justified by their faith except for Abraham because the Bible tells us.

 

[zeke]

He was saved when Peter began to speak the message God sent him to deliver to them "through which you and all your household will be saved" (Acts 11:14 NIV1984).

You are mistaken. Like those Jews on the day of Pentecost, Cornelius and his household were not saved until they heard the "words" by which they would be saved. Peter delivered those words, including the command to be baptized in water for the remission of sins sequentially after the Holy Spirit had already fallen upon him.

Cornelius, like all who have been saved this side of the Cross was not finally saved until he was "born again" - "born of water and the Spirit" and that new birth has always included the water of baptism and the renewing influence of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
(Joh 3:5 NKJV)​

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You are mistaken. Like those Jews on the day of Pentecost, Cornelius and his household were not saved until they heard the "words" by which they would be saved. Peter delivered those words, including the command to be baptized in water for the remission of sins sequentially after the Holy Spirit had already fallen upon him.

Cornelius, like all who have been saved this side of the Cross was not finally saved until he was "born again" - "born of water and the Spirit" and that new birth has always included the water of baptism and the renewing influence of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
(Joh 3:5 NKJV)​

The Holy Spirit is how we know he was saved and belonged to God. I showed you where the Spirit is taught as being the sign and seal of salvation.

And we simply do not know what Jesus meant by 'water' in John 3. We really don't. In context it seems to mean natural birth. In a larger context he might be speaking of water baptism. I think there's an answer that means both (but not water baptism as you understand it, nor physical birth as that is argued). But as I say, we simply do not know.

I think the real key to all this is to understand baptism the way it was understood in the first century. Scripture shows us baptism was synonomous with repentance. They were not two separate things as we make them out to be. Water baptism was how you repented. If you didn't repent you didn't get water baptized. If you repented you got water baptized (in accordance with the command to do so through John's ministry). To be repentant meant the same as you being baptized. Scripturally, it seems the theoretical position of having repented but not having been water baptized was just that...theoretical. That's why we have such a difficult time understanding it.