Water Baptism

[percho]

Is it your notion that the baptism noted in Mark 10:39 negates the Lord's command to be baptized in water? What about you percho - is the baptism of the "Great Commission" instituted and commanded by Jesus in Mark 16:16 baptism in water?

I believe the baptism in Matthew 28:19 is water baptism just from the context, however I am not so sure about Mark for the same reason. I do believe we should be baptized per the Lord's command but I do not think it saves us. I am not sure that Mark 16:16 isn't relative to the baptism of Mark 10:39 per my thoughts and question of post429 which I'll re-post here:



He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.
Truer words were never spoken.

Question? When is the ultimate fulfillment of that above in bold? When do we receive all that God has in store for us? We are spoken of as heirs. When shall we be inheritors? Mathew, Mark, Luke and the rich young man/ruler may have/inherit eternal life-Jesus equates to keeping the commandments, follow me, enter into the kingdom of God, those that heard equated that said before to being saved, Jesus then equates all this to in the regeneration and eternal life in Matthew and in Mark and Luke the world to come eternal life. Also in Luke 20 the world to come is equated to the resurrection.

shall be saved??? Maybe our baptism hasn't been completed. Following the rich young man in Mark we read.

Mark 10:38,39 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:

What say you all?

See post 395

[thedee]

You miss Peter's point - the water of the Flood separated the righteous from the unrighteous. Without the water the unrighteous would have survived. Do you think Peter was in error when he said eight souls were saved through water and the antitype which is baptism - now saves us? Do you think the baptism of Mark 16:16 is baptism in water?

Notice it is the antitype not the type. My advice to you would be if you live in a flood zone area and if a flood occurs get in a boat and do not jump in the pool.

[losthorizon]

Notice it is the antitype not the type. My advice to you would be if you live in a flood zone area and if a flood occurs get in a boat and do not jump in the pool.

I suppose that is good advice but what does it have to do with the discussion at hand? Do you think Peter was in error when he said eight souls were saved through water and the antitype which is baptism - now saves us? Do you think the baptism of Mark 16:16 is baptism in water?

[losthorizon]

I believe the baptism in Matthew 28:19 is water baptism just from the context, however I am not so sure about Mark for the same reason.

But the baptism in Matthew 28:19 (water baptism) is the same baptism noted by the Lord in Mark 16:16. Both passages are referring to the baptism of the commission from Jesus to ...go...preach...baptize...until He comes again. Wouldn't you agree? Does the NT know of an unbaptized Christian?

I do believe we should be baptized per the Lord's command but I do not think it saves us.

What do you think Peter meant when he said eight souls were saved through water and the antitype which is baptism - now saves us?

Question? When is the ultimate fulfillment of that above in bold?

Well, one is saved when s/he believes and is baptized - i.e., one has been saved at conversion - one is being saved today through His blood - and one shall be saved in the end when He comes again if one is faithful until death.

[percho]

losthorizon

Edited my post 395

This is what the baptism of Jesus pointed to.

John asked. Matt 3:14 I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
Jesus answered. Matt 3:15 Suffer [it to be so] now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.
Then John. Then he suffered him. (Baptized him)
Now was this water baptism what fulfilled all righteousness or was it a symbol of the reality? Lets look at it.
The symbol: Jesus going down into and under the water. The reality: The death the shed blood of the Word made flesh Jesus the Christ. Rev. 1;5 John 1:7
The symbol: Jesus coming up out of the water. The reality: The resurrection from the dead of Jesus receiving back his life. John 10:17
The symbol: A dove descending from heaven and lighting upon him. The reality: The Spirit of God being given him. Acts 2:33
The symbol: A voice from heaven declaring him his beloved son. The reality: The firstfruits of them that slept, the first born from the dead. 1 Cor 15:20 Col 1:18

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done,(not by what we do or shall do includes baptism) but according to his mercy he saved us,(because he loved us John 3:16 which includes the following in he gave his only son) (the following is what the water baptism of Jesus pointed to and was done to him not to us) by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; (However if I understand Mark 10:39 correct we also will need to actually die and be resurrected and or be changed at his coming which begins with verse 6) Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; (It was renewed to Jesus and is shed on us See Acts 2:33 says the same thing) Romans 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. ( When for we are still presently flesh and blood and cannot inherit the kingdom of God as so)

[Slug1]

Slug my friend – you argue from your own ignorance – the baptism of the Great Commission as noted by the Lord in Mark 16:16 is baptism in water. There is no need for you to continue arguing – your argument is self-defeated because you fail to understand God’s word. I feel sorry for you.

You have falsely accused me of being a false prophet which I consider to be a blunder on your part. I want to get your accusation on the record one more time. I believe Jesus tells us in Mark 16:16 that the one who will believe and submit to baptism in water calling on the name of the Lord is the one who will be saved. In your mind, am I a false prophet when I present this truth from God’s word? Be careful how you answer as God is our witness.

Please note the words of Charles Spurgeon below. Spurgeon was a committed Calvinist but he understood the essential nature of baptism in water to God's gospel of grace and he certainly understood the baptism of Mark 16:16 as being an immersion in water...something you continue to trip over.

Baptism Essential to Obedience
Charles Spurgeon

Now, in the second place, a little CONCERNING BAPTISM—“He who believes and is baptized shall be saved.” Please observe that I did not make the text. Perhaps if I had made it, I should have left out that piece about Baptism— but I have had no hand in making the Bible—I am obliged to take God’s Word as I find it. And here I read these words of our Lord Jesus Christ, “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved.” “Do not dwell on the Baptism,” says one—“leave that out.” That is what you say, my dear Sir. I cannot see your face, but I do not believe that you are my master. My Master is the Lord who taught holy men to write this Book and I can only go by the Book! The Book has the Baptism in it, so I must stick to the Truth of God as it is in the Book—“He who believes and is baptized shall be saved.” First, let me remind you that our Savior’s words teach us that Baptism follows faith—“He who believes and is baptized.” Never neglect the order of things in the Bible! If God puts them one, two, three—do not you put them three, two, one. You never had a servant, I hope, who twisted your orders out of order...

Now, a great many in the Christian Church at the present day have put it thus—“He that is baptized and believes.” I am not one of those maidservants. I dare not turn my Master’s orders upside down! You have no right to baptize people till they have believed in Christ as their Savior. Remember how Philip put it to the Ethiopian eunuch when that worthy man said, “See, here is water; what does hinder me to be baptized?” Philip answered, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And if you do not believe with all your heart, you ought not to be baptized—you have no right to this ordinance of Christ unless you are a Christian! “He who believes and is baptized”—that is the Scriptural order. Read the New Testament impartially and you will always find that those who were baptized were Believers. They believed in the Lord Jesus Christ and then they were baptized into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

I see that lik eyou, he also omits all the scripture that the Bible contains about Jesus' baptism that saves and that the water baptism is then for a proclamation of faith.

As a matter of fact, all the "man" quotes you produce don't use scripture to support what they think.

You still won't address all my points, you still only use surgically halved scriptures, you still won't address all the scriptures I post, you still ignore the full counsel of God's Word because you hold your false doctrine over God's truth in His Word.

The thief was saved, Cornelius and his family and his freinds were all saved and even though the theif never had the opportunity to be baptized, we know that he is with Jesus. By Cornelius' fruit, he was clearly saved and his fruit was used to convict Peter as well who didn't even have to finish speaking the Gospel to them. He didn't even have to ask Cornelius, his family nor any of his friends present of they accept Jesus as their Savior to confirm they understood the Gospel. They all were already saved, we even know this at the beginning of Acts 10 when God sends an angel to him with a message. Anyway, their fruit is evidence of this fact so all Peter could do after that was tell them to do their first act of faith and be baptized in water to proclaim they are Christians.

Oh, by the way... Acts 10 has one of those critical scriptures you ignore and refuse to address:

v43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”

It's BELIEF my friend that saves us and by belief, our sins are washed away as we accept Jesus by this belief.

[CFJ]

It's BELIEF my friend that saves us and by belief, our sins are washed away as we accept Jesus by this belief.

Hi Slug1,

True, there is no other point in salvation, than the faith needed for it. If water baptism is a central part of this (where the cross is the central part in our faith and ultimately our salvation), then Paul and others have lied with these half-truths..., and the worst of all, Jesus have lied too,

and they said, `Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved--thou and thy house;'
(Act 16:31 YLT)

that if thou mayest confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and mayest believe in thy heart that God did raise him out of the dead, thou shalt be saved,
(Rom 10:9 YLT)

and Jesus having heard, answered him, saying, `Be not afraid, only believe, and she shall be saved.'
(Luk 8:50 YLT)

but, through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, even as also they.'
(Act 15:11 YLT)

The truth behind this all is the cross, that when anyone came to the cross, you can only do it when you've died in yourself, whereby Jesus will stand up in you the monent you enters His body. When faith comes, it will always be when one enters the body of Christ. What else can clean our sins better than His blood shed at the cross? It is for this very reason that I truly believe in the baptism at the cross (believers entering or immersed into Christ's body) and it is not that difficult to see this in Scripture.

My believe is that losthorizon's main problem in understanding baptism, is that he cannot see the power of God = the cross of Christ. It can never be water baptism, because if it was, Scripture needs to emphasize this on a consistant basis, which is not the case. However, if this baptism is the baptism at the cross, it is consistant with all other scenarios in the Bible...

[Slug1]

Hi Slug1,

True, there is no other point in salvation, than the faith needed for it. If water baptism is a central part of this (where the cross is the central part in our faith and ultimately our salvation), then Paul and others have lied with these half-truths..., and the worst of all, Jesus have lied too,

and they said, `Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved--thou and thy house;'

(Act 16:31 YLT)

that if thou mayest confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and mayest believe in thy heart that God did raise him out of the dead, thou shalt be saved,
(Rom 10:9 YLT)

and Jesus having heard, answered him, saying, `Be not afraid, only believe, and she shall be saved.'
(Luk 8:50 YLT)

but, through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, even as also they.'
(Act 15:11 YLT)

The truth behind this all is the cross, that when anyone came to the cross, you can only do it when you've died in yourself, whereby Jesus will stand up in you the monent you enters His body. When faith comes, it will always be when one enters the body of Christ. What else can clean our sins better than His blood shed at the cross? It is for this very reason that I truly believe in the baptism at the cross (believers entering or immersed into Christ's body) and it is not that difficult to see this in Scripture.

My believe is that losthorizon's main problem in understanding baptism, is that he cannot see the power of God = the cross of Christ. It can never be water baptism, because if it was, Scripture needs to emphasize this on a consistant basis, which is not the case. However, if this baptism is the baptism at the cross, it is consistant with all other scenarios in the Bible...

Amen brother... God is consistant and unchanging and that is the truth!! We have too many examples of those not baptized in water bearing MUCH fruit of a fully saved person, fully a member of the Body of Christ... thus FULLY saved even before or never having been baptized in water.

That scripture you brought out from ACTS 16 is such a critical scripture. Paul answered as we all should answer that question... the answer is "believe on... Christ".

LH is the only one in this thread I believe, that would add to that answer due to the doctrine he'd rather follow... instead of the truth and consitency of scripture.

People can be saved right on the streets, JUST AS those 3000 were saved when Peter emerged from the upper room and preached in the streets. The scripture says (in truth and the consistancy of the full counsel of God's Word) that those 3000 were "ADDED" to the Body of Christ... no mention of any "water" baptism at all. The only baptism in the scripture is the one that Jesus does. This same baptism also of Mk 16:16.

LH would say they are not saved and would not say they were added until "after" a water baptism... this counters scripture.

Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

v41 Then those who gladly[g] received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.

In the consistancy of all the scriptures that I've been posting about Jesus baptizing with the Holy Spirit and of fire (always ignored by LH by evidence of never addressing all those scriptures)... once a person has "accepted" Jesus which is an act of surrender to the truth, giving to Him our sin (repenting), He saves us at that moment and we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit as Peter explained to the people asking him the question that they did.

All this was done on the streets as Peter emerged from the upper room. All those listening... all they did was "receive" his word, IOW's accepted Jesus and this baptized them. About 3000 received the Gospel as truth (were cut to the heart v37) and by their belief, were saved and added to the Body of Christ v41.

This baptizm is consistant with Mk 16:16.

This baptism is by their belief and their accepting Jesus as their Savior and immediately Jesus baptizes by the Holy Spirit and fire.

We all, who spread the Gospel, as Peter did on the streets near the upper room... as we do this today and a person accepts Jesus, we pray as they are baptized BY JESUS... which is "IN HIS" name.

They are now, IN CHRIST, HE in them!

They are saved.

A water baptism is a step of proclamation of faith in Christ and a visual symbol of the fact that they are washed clean. Through Jesus' blood, sin has been washed away (Acts 10:43), which is the remission of sin by belief and acceptance of Christ as their Savior.

[John146]

Well you can play semantic games until the cows come home

I'm not playing semantic games, I'm showing you how you falsely interpret the text with the silly conclusion that they were saved by the water even though it couldn't be more clear that it was the ark that saved them from the destructive flood waters, which killed everyone else.

Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

but Peter is clear - eight souls were "saved through water" which figure baptism in water now also saves us. Noah’s flood was a type of which the ordnance of water baptism is the antitype or fulfillment. How do you think baptism now saves us?

... eight souls, were saved through water. There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
(1 Peter 3:20-21 NKJV)

When scripture speaks of an antitype or like figure it usually speaks of a physical event typifying a spiritual event. The like figure or antitype to Noah and his family being saved from the destructive flood waters by entering the door and being on the ark is people putting their faith in Christ (the door - John 10:9) and entering the kingdom of God and being saved from hell. When people put their faith in Christ they are then baptized with the Holy Spirit and placed into the body of Christ, the church. The baptism that saves is the baptism with the Holy Spirit that Jesus performs (Matt 3:11, Acts 1:5).

1 Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

If you think Peter was saying that the flood waters saved Noah and the like figure to that is water baptism then why is there no correlation between Noah's experience with the flood waters and water baptism? He didn't go under the flood waters and then come up out of them. How exactly would the flood waters be related to water used for baptism? It doesn't follow. The flood waters killed people and didn't save anyone.

Questions for you – is the baptism noted by Jesus in Mark 16:16 a baptism in water?

I'd say it is probably speaking of water baptism though it's possible it could be speaking of the baptism that you deny even exists any longer, which is the baptism with the Holy Spirit. But I also believe that it's highly debatable as to whether Mark 16:9-20 is genuine scripture or not.

Regardless, can you tell me what that verse says about those who have repented and put their faith and trust in Christ and haven't been baptized yet? How can you think such people are not saved just because they have not yet performed a certain physical act? What if they are in situations where it's not possible for them to get water baptized for a few days? As soon as they are able they have to rush as soon as they can to get water baptized in order to ensure their salvation? Really? That seems preposterous to me. Cornelius and his household believed the gospel that Peter preached to them in Acts 10:34-43 and received the Spirit, all before being water baptized. Do you actually believe that unsaved people can receive the Spirit and manifest gifts of the Spirit while remaining unsaved? If so I believe you are sadly mistaken. Your contention that people aren't saved without first being water baptized is not supported by scripture as a whole, including Acts 10:34-48. It's easy to take verses here and there and form a doctrine out of them but you have to be able to reconcile your doctrine with all of scripture and you're not able to do that.

When you baptize believers in water do you baptize them “for the remission of sins” as noted by Peter in Acts 2:38?

First, you have to answer the question as to what it means to be baptized "for the remission of sins"? Scripture says that John's baptism was "for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4). I've already asked you this a few times with no response but I'll ask again: were people's sins remitted when they were baptized with John's baptism?

[John146]

You once again misunderstand clear teaching –

You once again made an authoritative comment despite having no authority to do so. You might as well just say "Blah blah blah" because it would mean about the same to me.

being born from your mother’s womb is common to all men and it has nothing to do with the “new birth”. Whatever the new birth is it has two elements – (1) water and (2) Spirit and water is the water of baptism.

Water baptism is water baptism, not water birth. It is ludicrous to think that water baptism would be referred to as being born of water. Let me clue you in on something. Whenever Jesus and anyone else in scripture referred to water baptism they called it, not being born of water, but...get this...baptism. Isn't that something? If Jesus meant to refer to water baptism in John 3:5 He would have said "Except a man be baptized in water and born of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.". But He didn't. If Jesus was referring to water baptism in John 3:5 then why wouldn't He have said "He who believes and is born of water shall be saved" in Mark 16:16?

The church of God has taught this truth for over 2000 years.

People in the church have taught false doctrine for over 2,000 years. Surely, you knew that, right?

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not implying that I think you are a grievous wolf like those deceivers mentioned here, I'm just showing that false teaching has been in the church from the beginning. Sometimes it's been on purpose and sometimes it's just out of ignorance, as in your case.

Your notion of amniotic fluid doesn't work and never has.

But it fits the context. Jesus contrasts natural birth with spiritual birth in John 3:6, does He not? I believe that in John 3:6 Jesus was reiterating what He said in John 3:5. Also, do you notice that water is not mentioned in John 3:6 and John 3:8 and it only refers to being born of the Spirit? Is that a mistake, in your opinion? Should those verses instead say "born of water and of the Spirit" or do those verses show that being born again is to be born of the Spirit, which is contrasted with being born from the mother's womb/of water/of the flesh?

Joh 3:5
Be born of water - By “water,” here, is evidently signified “baptism.” Thus the word is used in Eph_5:26; Tit_3:5. Baptism was practiced by the Jews in receiving a Gentile as a proselyte. It was practiced by John among the Jews; and Jesus here says that it is an ordinance of his religion, and the sign and seal of the renewing influences of his Spirit. So he said Mar_16:16, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” ~ Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible

John 3:5. Already had the symbol of water been embodied in an initiatory ordinance, in the baptism of the Jewish expectants of Messiah by the Baptist, not to speak of the baptism of Gentile proselytes before that; and in the Christian Church it was soon to become the great visible door of entrance into “the kingdom of God,” the reality being the sole work of the Holy Ghost (Tit_3:5). ~ Commentary on the Old and New Testaments by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown

It is highly amusing that you repeatedly choose to quote Calvinists to support your view of water baptism. Very highly amusing. You don't seriously think I'm going to care what those guys who were wrong about a number of things had to say about water baptism, right?

[RabbiKnife]

"Water" doesn't always mean "water."

For instance, when on the cross, Jesus was stabbed in the side, Scripture said that "blood and water" flowed out. We all know, with our current medical knowledge, that what flowed out was blood and either pericardial fluid and/or collect serum from the drowned lungs. We don't believe that H20 flowed.

Same with "born of water" in John 3. Amniotic fluid would have been commonly called "water." Matter of fact, every pregnant woman I have ever known doesn't say "Oh, honey, we have to get to the hospital, my amniotic sac just broke and I feel amniotic fluid running down my leg." No, she says "Honey, grab the bag. My water just broke."

[percho]

Jesus is also the fulfillment of the ashes of the red heifer and the living water which I think the reference in Ephesians 5:26 is about 1 John 5:7 He came by water and blood. He is the living water. 1 Peter 3:21 is the same as I have tried to show through what the water baptism of Jesus was a symbol. This was something done to Jesus not something we do. It's telling us how we are saved. Jesus dying for our sins had a good conscience toward God and God raised him from the dead. Romans 3:25 says the same thing Jesus, through faith in his blood (had a good conscience) God set him forth a propitiation (mercy seat)(but according to his mercy he saved us) to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past. That is what Peter means being saved by baptism. It was the Mark 10:39 baptism of Christ that saves us.

[divaD]

Acts 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
7 And all the men were about twelve.


Here we see some were baptized first Unto John's baptism. Then after that, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, then the Holy Ghost came on them. What does that then mean?

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.


This means this baptism is not water baptism, since Acts 19 seems to prove that. where in Acts 2 does it ever mention water?

But in the following passage we see this.

Acts 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, 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.)
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.



Here they were already baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, yet thay hadn't received the Holy Ghost.

In these passages alone, it seems like there are at least 3 forms of baptism, and that they're not the same. There is water baptism. There's baptizing in the name of Jesus. And there's baptizing in the name of Jesus with apostles laying their hands upon others.


Acts 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. (water baptism.)

Acts 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) (baptizing in the name of Jesus.)

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. (baptizing in the name of Jesus with apostles laying their hands upon others.)

So the question is, which baptism is Mark 16:16 referring to? And why does it have to automatically be water baptism?

[RabbiKnife]

Assuming Mark 16:16 is even in the original autograph.

[divaD]

The thief was saved, Cornelius and his family and his freinds were all saved and even though the theif never had the opportunity to be baptized, we know that he is with Jesus. By Cornelius' fruit, he was clearly saved and his fruit was used to convict Peter as well who didn't even have to finish speaking the Gospel to them. He didn't even have to ask Cornelius, his family nor any of his friends present of they accept Jesus as their Savior to confirm they understood the Gospel. They all were already saved, we even know this at the beginning of Acts 10 when God sends an angel to him with a message. Anyway, their fruit is evidence of this fact so all Peter could do after that was tell them to do their first act of faith and be baptized in water to proclaim they are Christians.

I'll put it to you this way. If you're understanding what I have quoted, incorrectly, then so am I, since I understand it pretty much the same as you. Excellent points you brought out here.