Derail thread: Is repentance necessary for salvation?

[foudroyant]

Peter in Acts 15 was referring to the events of Acts 10
a. TDNT: On the other hand, in 15:7 the comparatively distant days of the first community in and around Jerusalem are intended, i.e., the time of the conversion of Cornelius, which is shown to be particularly venerable by use of arxomai (1:487, arxaios, Delling).
b. Robertson: It was probably a dozen years since God "made choice" (exelexato) to speak by Peter's mouth to
Cornelius and the other Gentiles in Caesarea (Robertson's New Testament Word Studies, Acts 15:7).
http://www.studylight.org/commentari...gi?bk=43&ch=15

[tabibito]

Yes - it does show a long time past, and it is referring to Cornelius' group. 12 years isn't unlikely.
So - assuming for the sake of argument that the Holy Spirit did in fact reside in the members of the group prior to their baptism ... is the presence of the Holy Spirit conclusive proof, of and by itself, that the person is in God?

How do you read 1 John 4:13 in context with verses 15 and 16? Is only one or two of the three essential, or are all of them essential to show that God abides in a person? Which of the three is dispensable?

[foudroyant]

confession is made unto salvation (Romans 10:10)
so when one confesses they are saved...of course this would include repentance

one can only abide in God's love if they have the Holy Spirit..if not they are the children of wrath.

[tabibito]

confession is made unto salvation (Romans 10:10)
so when one confesses they are saved...of course this would include repentance

one can only abide in God's love if they have the Holy Spirit..if not they are the children of wrath.

So - a person is saved if he confesses, even if he does not have the Holy Spirit or abide in love?

[foudroyant]

when one confesses they are given the Holy Spirit so thus they abide in love.

[tabibito]

Again - is it only one, perhaps two, or all three that signify that a person abides in God? or perhaps, are these three not the complete list?

What does baptism into Christ achieve? Is baptism into Christ the same thing as baptism into the Holy Spirit?

[foudroyant]

all three
more too i think...late here so too tired to look

[tabibito]

There are indeed more. And it is so late here that it is early.

[foudroyant]

2:45am here

just hanging out

[Obsidian]

Huh? Assuming that the reference to praising God in tongues refers to a confession of Jesus, how could they even start talking in tongues if they hadn't already gotten saved? The order is clear from the passage. Peter started preaching. They got the Holy Spirit -- right after Peter mentioned the part about believing. They (arguably) confessed. They got baptized.

Your argument would make better sense if the text said that they praised God (which you are equating with confession) in their normal language, and then started speaking in tongues. Honestly, I think that praising God may not even refer to confession. They weren't praising God in order to get saved; they were praising God for the fact that they were already saved.

[foudroyant]

When they were praising God they were already saved (Acts 10:46).
They also confessed prior to the reception of the Holy Spirit otherwise they would not have been saved (Romans 10:10).

[Obsidian]

So basically, you just make up facts and add them to the text to suit your doctrine.

[Truthseeker]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1745[/ATTACH]

tabibito, this is what I saw. Clicking on that turns up an error message. Probably a copyright issue.

[37818]

If one does not confess they are not saved.
Paul did give the full gospel.

You base this whole argument on one solitary text found only in the letter to the Roman church?

". . . That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. . . ."

When the whole of the new covenant teaches that salvation is through faith alone.

[foudroyant]

So basically, you just make up facts and add them to the text to suit your doctrine.

Proof?