your argument in that post refutes your own assertion.
'words' is not the rite of H2O immersion
'grace' is not the rite of H2O immersion
those at Cornelius' house were clearly already justified and approved by God before they ever got near a river or mikveh.
that is the only explanation consistent with Peter's reaction.
their subsequent H2O immersion wasn't a trigger point for becoming saved ((which is an eternal hence timeless property so the whole idea of assigning a time reference to it is ridiculous anyway)). their subsequent H2O immersion was a testimony of what God had already done.
Peter said they would be saved by words and those words included the command to be water baptism. Peter did not say they would be saved by faith alone nor by being baptized with the Holy Ghost. The fact water baptism was commanded makes it essential if for no other reason.
--Peter said Cornelius would be saved by words
--the HS fell upon Cornelius as Peter
began to speak those saving words
--faith comes by hearing the word of God Rom 10:17
--so the HS fell upon Cornelius
before he heard,
before he could believe/have faith
--so you would have men saved
BEFORE they have faith/believe in Christ/gospel
Also;
"
Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved."
--Cornelius would be saved by words
--faith comes by hearing the word of God
--the HS fell upon him BEFORE he heard those words, before he could believe the gospel/Christ
--the verb saved is future tense so he would be saved AFTER hearing those words
--so he could only be saved in the future AFTER the HS fell upon him, that being AFTER he heard those saving words and obeyed them
And;
--Whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved
--when Saul was water baptized he was calling upon the name of the Lord, Acts 22:16
--you would have Cornelius saved
BEFORE he called upon the name of the Lord
and;
--God
purified Jew and Gentile hearts
by faith Acts 15:9
--Peter says 'ye have
purified your souls in
obeying the truth' 1 Peter 1:22
--since there is just one way to be saved/purified, then
Cornelius faith MUST have included "obeying the truth" in being baptized
--baptism with the HS had
nothing to do with Jew or Gentile obeying the truth or their being purified because saving, purifying faith
INCLUDES obedience.
Peter says in Acts 10 to be accepted by God requires one to "
worketh righteousness". Again being baptized with the HS was not working righteousness yet obeying the command to be baptized was working God's righteousness. They were therefore not accepted by God/saved until they obeyed by being baptized/working righteousness. 1 John 3:10 as long as one continues to not do righteousness one continues to not be of God. Again baptism with the HS is not working righteousness on man's part.
and;
Romans 10:9-10 confession is
unto salvation. The HS fell upon Cornelius before he had faith or confessed. If Cornelius "proves" water baptism is not essential then it proves confession is not essential to salvation contradicting Rom 10:10, Matt 10:32-33.
and;
If the HS falling upon one is "proof" they are already saved, but those in Acts 19:1-6 were water baptized
BEFORE the HS fell upon them,
BEFORE they spake in tongues which is the
exact opposite of your position you depend upon. Acts 19 should prove your point, but does not. Also, if speaking in tongues is proof one is saved, yet 1 Corinthians 12:28-30 says not all Christians spake in tongues. So speaking in tongues is not even necessary in being saved. We have also seen being given miraculous powers (as tongues) might come
before or after one is saved/forgiven. Therefore being given miraculous powers by the HS cannot be proof of one's salvation.
It become obvious baptism with the HS had nothing to do with the personal salvation of Cornelius or those Ephesians in Acts 19