02-06-2009, 03:26 AM
02-06-2009, 09:16 AM
It is maintained by some that verse 37 indicates that the Jews had already come to saving faith because of the phrase 'what shall we do' which they declare indicates that they have reacted with remorse in realizing their guilt in crucifying their Messiah and have already accepted by faith the message of Peter: that Jesus Christ was indeed the Messiah Whom they crucified. Furthermore there is the insistence that the word "brothers" spoken in verse 37 corroborates this concept by signifying Christian "brothers" rather than Jewish 'brothers'. So by this reasoning some conclude that the phrase, 'Brothers what shall we do?' in verse 37 indicates that the Jews were already saved "Christian brothers" and now wanted to address their guilt of supporting the crucifixion of Christ through confession and repentance/change of lifestyle and as Peter commanded, water baptism. The view is that if national Israel does not repent of complicity at Calvary then God will judge her severely. Since national Israel did not repent, it is maintained that the destruction of Jerusalem and further scattering of Israel in AD 70 was the result. So the command to repent is to be an act of a repentant believer then water baptism to receive forgiveness of sins relative to national Israel's complicity at Calvary not an action to be saved unto eternal life.
http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/acts2v38.htm
http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/acts2v38.htm
02-06-2009, 11:48 AM
I completely disagree that you have to be water baptized for several reasons. For one, in 1 Corinthians, the church was argueing over who was with Paul, who was with Jesus...and he stated aren't we all of the same body of Christ...he stated he was glad he didn't baptize, he said he was not sent to baptize but he was sent to preach the gospel. Think about it, when missionaries go to preach the word, they PREACH. God doesn't make it hard to be saved, he doesn't say ok now you believe, but there is one more thing you have to do. It is by his grace NOT BY A DEED/WORK. Repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus (you have to realize you are unworthy and need Jesus before you can be saved..that's the first step in accepting him as your Savior; after that, you can turn to him, believe, and turn your life over to him, and the Holy Spirit baptizes you in the name of Jesus Christ...just as John the Baptist says it would)....that's why it goes on to say you shall receive the GIFT of the Holy Spirit. When you are reborn, it is by the spirit and this helps you to walk in the new life (your old self dies and your new eyes/life began anew). He that believe and is baptized (this shows it is automatic...you believe and you are baptized); he that believe not shall be damned. If this statement referred to water baptism then why would it not tell what happens to one that believes and is not baptized?...it's because it is automatic with the rebirth of the Spirit (it just happens). Also, how can you explain the fact that the theif who died on the cross was saved...they didn't take him down to be water baptized so he could be saved; but Jesus himself clarified that he was saved. Once you place a work attatched to you having to be saved, then you are saying that through Jesus Christ death/blood sacrifice it is not good enough, there is one more thing you have to do...this is not the case. He died for us so that he that believes shall be saved...several passages state just that.
02-06-2009, 01:22 PM
Another thing I just thought of...in Acts 8:35-38 what does Phillip tell him he has to do before being baptized in water? Believe with all your heart...so for those who are children who don't have the knowledge to believe with all their heart....then how are they to be baptized in water??? It's against scripture...and do you honestly think that the children who aren't baptized in water (because they don't have the knowledge to make a decision for themselves, which is what needs to be done) will go to hell?? I don't...I think the child has the right to make their own decision...the parents decision won't save the child. I'm sure there have been many who were baptized in water as a child and grew up not believing and not saved.....
02-06-2009, 04:47 PM
Sugarman stated:So the command to repent is to be an act of a repentant believer then water baptism to receive forgiveness of sins relative to national Israel's complicity at Calvary not an action to be saved unto eternal life.
I agree with most of what you said except, "then water baptism to receive forgiveness of sins"...I say nothing but the blood of Jesus is what we receive forgiveness of our sins for; otherwise what did his death accomplish? As 1 Corinthians 1:17 states "For Christ sent me NOT to baptize, but to PREACH the gospel:not with widsom of words, LEST THE CROSS OF CHRIST BE MADE OF NOE EFFECT." Then verse 21 goes on to say...For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of PREACHING to SAVE them that BELIEVE. Anytime we add a deed/work/task, we are saying that man has to do something for us that God did not/could not fulfill....this is like a slap in the face.
Look though at Romans 4. There Paul teaches that faith as the only right response to God’s gift of salvation is based upon the belief that God is consistent. Paul’s opponents were basically teaching the same thing the sacramentalists teach—faith in God is necessary for salvation; however, in order to complete salvation you must be circumcised! Paul’s opponents simply substituted circumcision for baptism. Paul uses Abraham—the father of our faith—as the primary reason why circumcision (and therefore baptism) is not necessary to complete salvation. Abraham was saved years before he was ever circumcised. Abraham was saved in Gen. 15 (v. 6); however, he was circumcised at least 13 years later in Gen. 17. According to Paul circumcision was nothing more than the sign that Abraham was saved. It did not save him; it simply showed to the world that he was saved (Rom. 4:9-12). Now if we are truly Abraham’s spiritual children, then we too must be saved in the same way he was saved—through faith in God. Adding anything else or subtracting any of this would disqualify us as being Abraham’s spiritual children and moreover would accuse God as being faithless or inconsistent. continued...
I agree with most of what you said except, "then water baptism to receive forgiveness of sins"...I say nothing but the blood of Jesus is what we receive forgiveness of our sins for; otherwise what did his death accomplish? As 1 Corinthians 1:17 states "For Christ sent me NOT to baptize, but to PREACH the gospel:not with widsom of words, LEST THE CROSS OF CHRIST BE MADE OF NOE EFFECT." Then verse 21 goes on to say...For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of PREACHING to SAVE them that BELIEVE. Anytime we add a deed/work/task, we are saying that man has to do something for us that God did not/could not fulfill....this is like a slap in the face.
Look though at Romans 4. There Paul teaches that faith as the only right response to God’s gift of salvation is based upon the belief that God is consistent. Paul’s opponents were basically teaching the same thing the sacramentalists teach—faith in God is necessary for salvation; however, in order to complete salvation you must be circumcised! Paul’s opponents simply substituted circumcision for baptism. Paul uses Abraham—the father of our faith—as the primary reason why circumcision (and therefore baptism) is not necessary to complete salvation. Abraham was saved years before he was ever circumcised. Abraham was saved in Gen. 15 (v. 6); however, he was circumcised at least 13 years later in Gen. 17. According to Paul circumcision was nothing more than the sign that Abraham was saved. It did not save him; it simply showed to the world that he was saved (Rom. 4:9-12). Now if we are truly Abraham’s spiritual children, then we too must be saved in the same way he was saved—through faith in God. Adding anything else or subtracting any of this would disqualify us as being Abraham’s spiritual children and moreover would accuse God as being faithless or inconsistent. continued...
02-06-2009, 04:52 PM
Peter cries out: "Repent, therefore and return, that your sins may be wiped away; in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord" (Acts 3:19). We find in this invitation once more the command to repent. What we do not find is the command to be baptized. Now if baptism is so necessary for salvation, then Peter did the people a tremendous injustice by not commanding them to be baptized. Either he was being careless (which I sincerely doubt), he was being misleading (which I outright deny), or else he did not believe baptism was necessary for salvation.
The same holds true for our next episode involving Cornelius. Most of us know the story of Cornelius, how an angel appeared to him and instructed him to send for Peter to come preach to him and his household. While the messengers were on their way to get Peter, Peter receives a vision 3 times instructing him to kill and eat unclean animals. After the vision is over, Peter receives the messengers and goes back with them to Cornelius. When he arrives at the home of Cornelius, he preaches the gospel to Cornelius and the group he has assembled. While Peter is preaching and before Amazing Grace is sung, even before the invitation is given, Cornelius and the rest of the assembly start speaking in tongues. After Peter sees this happening, he asks his Jewish associates the rhetorical question of who would deny baptism to these people. When they respond that no one would, Peter then baptizes them. Now what is significant about this is that (1) Peter does not mention that a person has to be baptized in order to be saved (10:43—is he careless, misleading, or doesn’t believe baptism is necessary?) and (2) that the speaking in tongues occurred before baptism. Why is the sequence of events significant—speaking in tongues before baptism? Because a person can speak in tongues only if the Holy Spirit lives in that person. Their speaking in tongues proves that the Holy Spirit had already come into them before they had been baptized. In other words, they had already been saved before they were baptized, otherwise they would not have had the Holy Spirit living in them. (See also Acts 16:32—another important verse coming from Acts, a salvation formula which again does not mention baptism).
Finally, this sequence of events also proved to be to Paul’s benefit as well. After Paul had preached the gospel throughout Asia Minor and Cyprus, the conservative element of the church again called Paul on the carpet. (This brought about the first great church conference). Just who was he to be bring Gentiles into the church without circumcising them? Peter once more goes back to what happened with Cornelius to prove that belief alone was necessary (Acts 15:7-11).
The same holds true for our next episode involving Cornelius. Most of us know the story of Cornelius, how an angel appeared to him and instructed him to send for Peter to come preach to him and his household. While the messengers were on their way to get Peter, Peter receives a vision 3 times instructing him to kill and eat unclean animals. After the vision is over, Peter receives the messengers and goes back with them to Cornelius. When he arrives at the home of Cornelius, he preaches the gospel to Cornelius and the group he has assembled. While Peter is preaching and before Amazing Grace is sung, even before the invitation is given, Cornelius and the rest of the assembly start speaking in tongues. After Peter sees this happening, he asks his Jewish associates the rhetorical question of who would deny baptism to these people. When they respond that no one would, Peter then baptizes them. Now what is significant about this is that (1) Peter does not mention that a person has to be baptized in order to be saved (10:43—is he careless, misleading, or doesn’t believe baptism is necessary?) and (2) that the speaking in tongues occurred before baptism. Why is the sequence of events significant—speaking in tongues before baptism? Because a person can speak in tongues only if the Holy Spirit lives in that person. Their speaking in tongues proves that the Holy Spirit had already come into them before they had been baptized. In other words, they had already been saved before they were baptized, otherwise they would not have had the Holy Spirit living in them. (See also Acts 16:32—another important verse coming from Acts, a salvation formula which again does not mention baptism).
Finally, this sequence of events also proved to be to Paul’s benefit as well. After Paul had preached the gospel throughout Asia Minor and Cyprus, the conservative element of the church again called Paul on the carpet. (This brought about the first great church conference). Just who was he to be bring Gentiles into the church without circumcising them? Peter once more goes back to what happened with Cornelius to prove that belief alone was necessary (Acts 15:7-11).
02-07-2009, 02:16 AM
krisi~
Arguing with prophet is an effort in futility. He has another gospel (of works), from another Jesus (the Holy Spirit filled man, not the Eternal Son- literally "God With Us"), a god that changes (first Father, then Son -as a man only-, then Holy Spirit), and a language of nonsense to wrap it all up in (which is why there is no reasoning with him; God says "apples", he reads "oranges").
I will most likely agree with whatever you have to say on the subject of baptism, but will not enter into a discussion with prophet.
Just another FYI from me.
Arguing with prophet is an effort in futility. He has another gospel (of works), from another Jesus (the Holy Spirit filled man, not the Eternal Son- literally "God With Us"), a god that changes (first Father, then Son -as a man only-, then Holy Spirit), and a language of nonsense to wrap it all up in (which is why there is no reasoning with him; God says "apples", he reads "oranges").
I will most likely agree with whatever you have to say on the subject of baptism, but will not enter into a discussion with prophet.
Just another FYI from me.
02-07-2009, 04:18 PM
krisi Wrote:
Sugarman stated:So the command to repent is to be an act of a repentant believer then water baptism to receive forgiveness of sins relative to national Israel's complicity at Calvary not an action to be saved unto eternal life.
I agree with most of what you said except, "then water baptism to receive forgiveness of sins"...I say nothing but the blood of Jesus is what we receive forgiveness of our sins for; otherwise what did his death accomplish? As 1 Corinthians 1:17 states "For Christ sent me NOT to baptize, but to PREACH the gospel:not with widsom of words, LEST THE CROSS OF CHRIST BE MADE OF NOE EFFECT." Then verse 21 goes on to say...For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of PREACHING to SAVE them that BELIEVE. Anytime we add a deed/work/task, we are saying that man has to do something for us that God did not/could not fulfill....this is like a slap in the face.
Look though at Romans 4. There Paul teaches that faith as the only right response to God’s gift of salvation is based upon the belief that God is consistent. Paul’s opponents were basically teaching the same thing the sacramentalists teach—faith in God is necessary for salvation; however, in order to complete salvation you must be circumcised! Paul’s opponents simply substituted circumcision for baptism. Paul uses Abraham—the father of our faith—as the primary reason why circumcision (and therefore baptism) is not necessary to complete salvation. Abraham was saved years before he was ever circumcised. Abraham was saved in Gen. 15 (v. 6); however, he was circumcised at least 13 years later in Gen. 17. According to Paul circumcision was nothing more than the sign that Abraham was saved. It did not save him; it simply showed to the world that he was saved (Rom. 4:9-12). Now if we are truly Abraham’s spiritual children, then we too must be saved in the same way he was saved—through faith in God. Adding anything else or subtracting any of this would disqualify us as being Abraham’s spiritual children and moreover would accuse God as being faithless or inconsistent. continued...
kris you need to read The site it not meaning that we have to be baptism for The forgiveness of sins.
I try to be more clear with you.
If you read The Site you find that acts 2:38 was just for jews. Only jews were in concern in that verse no gentiles.
acts 2:38 was a command for people still under The Old Law this was a command for The jews under The OT.
since no one today is born under the Ot acts 2:38 is not in view today as means for salvation.
All you have to do is Believe and truly repent and follow what Christ says.
02-07-2009, 10:56 PM
“If you want to be baptized in water that is fine, but don't feel like you have to be.”
“Did he really say you have to be born of water and spirit? Nah! If you want to fine, but don’t feel like you have to be”. Not sure who whispered this advice. Sounds like someone who proclaims authority to decide who will and will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Problem is, I can’t find that one in scripture.
We can have a scripture volley until the second coming, each providing biblical evidence to support their position. This is where the man-made tradition of Sola-Scriptura takes us. But scripture itself tells us that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. The Church has Jesus Christ as her cornerstone and the Apostles as her foundation. Well then, what exactly did Jesus teach his Apostles and what did they pass down? This “baptism is just a public symbolic expression of your faith” is a NEW teaching! According to writings of the early church, regenerative baptism was professed uncontested until sometime after the reformation. I’m still waiting for someone to show me any evidence that the early church held the view that Baptists/some Presbyterians/Evangelical Protestants profess today. There is none! Did the Bride of Christ, whom Jesus promised to be with until the end of time, get baptism wrong for 1500 years?
“Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations; baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teach them to observe all the commands I gave you. And look, I am with you always; yes, to the end of time.” The Great Commission
“If you want to be baptized in water that is fine, but don’t feel like you have to be.” The Great Omission
“Did he really say you have to be born of water and spirit? Nah! If you want to fine, but don’t feel like you have to be”. Not sure who whispered this advice. Sounds like someone who proclaims authority to decide who will and will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Problem is, I can’t find that one in scripture.
We can have a scripture volley until the second coming, each providing biblical evidence to support their position. This is where the man-made tradition of Sola-Scriptura takes us. But scripture itself tells us that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. The Church has Jesus Christ as her cornerstone and the Apostles as her foundation. Well then, what exactly did Jesus teach his Apostles and what did they pass down? This “baptism is just a public symbolic expression of your faith” is a NEW teaching! According to writings of the early church, regenerative baptism was professed uncontested until sometime after the reformation. I’m still waiting for someone to show me any evidence that the early church held the view that Baptists/some Presbyterians/Evangelical Protestants profess today. There is none! Did the Bride of Christ, whom Jesus promised to be with until the end of time, get baptism wrong for 1500 years?
“Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations; baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teach them to observe all the commands I gave you. And look, I am with you always; yes, to the end of time.” The Great Commission
“If you want to be baptized in water that is fine, but don’t feel like you have to be.” The Great Omission
02-07-2009, 11:05 PM
Remeber the title of this thread???? It is "Baptism in Scripture AND the Early Church". Personal interpretations of scripture have been discussed AD NAUSEUM in other threads. I started this thread as a discussion for what the early church believed. I've provided evidence that the Apostles handed down the teaching that baptism is regenerative and I've asked everyone to provide evidence to the contrary. No one has risen to the challenge. I would like to steer this thread back in the direction of what the early church believed.