What Did Cornelius Do?
In a former issue of this paper, we pointed out the case of Cornelius, the first Gentile convert to Christianity, as an example to emphasize the fact that one may be a good moral person and still be in an unsaved condition. Cornelius, you remember, was "a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always .... A just man .. .. and of good report among all the nations of the Jews." (Acts 10:2, 22.) As he prayed an angel appeared unto him and told him to send to Joppa and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter, who "shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved." (Acts 11:13, 14.) So, here is a man with many splendid qualities, a man of sterling character, who was in a lost condition. Moral goodness alone was not sufficient to save him. If it had been sufficient, he would have had no need for Peter to tell him words by which to be saved. Those saved do not need words by which to be saved. Even though he was a good man, he was not a saved man. Now, what did he do in order to be saved that he had not already done? When Peter began his speech before the house of Cornelius, he said, "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." Cornelius respected or feared God and had worked some righteousness, but he had not completed his obedience unto the saving of his soul.
In order to be saved, Cornelius had to hear what Peter had to say, as the apostle was guided by the Holy Spirit. The angel said Peter would tell him words by which to be saved. Surely, then, he had to hear those words if Peter had to tell them to him. What did Peter preach? He began by telling these people that Jesus "was Lord of all." He preached the miraculous life of Christ. His sacrificial death, His victorious resurrection, and His ordination of God to be the Judge of the living and the dead. Then he called to their attention that remission of sins depended upon their belief in Him through His name. This was the sum of the message which Peter delivered on this occasion, but it wasn't all that he told them. Referring back to this occasion at a later time Peter said, "God put no difference between us (Jews) and them (Gentiles), purifying their hearts by (the) faith." (Acts 15:9.) The hearts of these Gentiles were not purified by just their belief. "Faith" of Acts 15:9 is the same as "faith" in Jude 3. In both passages "faith" is used to mean the gospel of Christ. Their hearts were purified by the gospel. When an honest person hears the gospel, the natural thing is to believe it. "Faith comes by hearing the word of God." (Rom. 10:17.) Cornelius and his house heard the word of God as preached by Peter. Peter called upon them to believe it if they expected remission of sins. (Acts 10:43.) Thus far the process has been, Peter's preaching, their hearing, which in turn produced faith. Alluding to the house of Cornelius, Acts 11:18 says, "God also to the Gentiles granted remission unto life." So, the house of Cornelius repented of sins unto life — in order to obtain life. If this is all that Peter told them to do, then they could have been saved by hearing, believing, and repenting. But if he told them to do something else, then it is essential that it be done in order for them to besaved, for he was to tell them words by which they were to be saved. In Acts 10:47, 48, Peter did tell them to do something something else: He asked, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." Peter did not suggest or advise them to be baptized. He COMMANDED them to be baptized. In telling them words by which to be saved, he commanded them to be baptized. Could they have been saved without obeying this command? If so, how many other commands could they have disobeyed and been saved? Could they have disobeyed the command to believe and been saved? If not, by what line of reasoning could one argue that they could disobey the command to be baptized and be saved? Did not the same preacher speak both commands? Why would his words commanding faith be essential and his words commanding baptism be non-essential?
In telling Cornelius and his house words by which to be saved, Peter preached Christ unto them and they believed his preaching, repented of their sins, and were baptized in the name of the Lord. This is what Cornelius needed to do that he had not already done. This was what was needed to make out of him a Christian, a child of God, in addition to his moral goodness. I feel sure that you are no better than Cornelius from a moral point of view. Therefore, if you refuse to obey the gospel, but go along trusting in your moral goodness to get you to heaven, you will remain in an unsaved condition and will be finally lost in eternity.