JFJ Forums

Acts 2:38, well let's just see what all Peter has to say.
Peter did not preach and give an invitation for salvation just once in the Book of Acts. On 2 other occasions Peter preached on the message and salvation and issued an invitation. The first occurs in Acts 3 after he and John have just healed the man who had been lame since birth. After preaching about the life and ministry of Jesus, Peter then issues his invitation. This invitation is as important for what it does not say as for what it says. When it comes time for the invitation, 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.  continued

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).

This sequence of events kept Peter from getting thrown out of the church. When Peter returned to Jerusalem, he got into a lot of hot water with the conservative Christians. They attacked him because he had baptized someone who was not a Jew. Peter found himself on the defensive. The way he defended himself was by pointing to what the Holy Spirit had done. He informed them that the Holy Spirit had already come upon Cornelius and his household—God had already saved them! So who was he to deny them baptism? When the Jews realized that the Holy Spirit had come upon Cornelius before Peter had baptized him, they called off the dogs. They knew that if God had already saved Cornelius and proved it by giving him His Holy Spirit, then they were in no condition to deny Cornelius baptism. They didn’t like it; however, they knew they were up against God in this issue (Acts 11:1-18; see esp. verses 17 & 18).
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).
So how should we translate Acts 2:38. In light of the rest of the book of Acts and the other invitations Peter gave, we should probably translate it as: "Repent and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in light of the forgiveness of your sins (or because you have been forgiven), and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Next, John 3:5, take it INTO context already told you he didn't understand how to be reborn...clearly Jesus says FLESH IS OF FLESH, AND SPIRIT IS OF SPIRIT...what is he trying to say??? We need to be spiritually right with God, flesh can't be!!! Therefore, again, SPIRIT BAPTISM...nothing man can do can make us right!!!
In 2 passages in the NT, we are told that Jesus did not baptize (John 4:2) and that Paul was glad that he did not baptize many of the Christians in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:14-17). Paul goes on to say that God did not send him to baptize but to preach the gospel. If baptism is so necessary, then why didn’t Jesus baptize? Can you imagine any Christian believing that baptism was necessary for salvation and then glad that he did not baptize? This is totally inconsistent if baptism is truly necessary.

Again, Matthew 28:19...why do you fail to quote the whole scripture??? IT IS: Go ye therefore, and TEACH all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
20: TEACHING them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.Amen.
How are they to baptize?? By teaching all nations what Jesus told them...isn't this clearly what Paul was trying to say when he said he was glad he didn't baptize many? Wasn't this what John the Baptist preached when he said I baptize with water but Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit? Didn't the people receive the Holy Spirit before being baptized in water and this reminded them the word of the Lord about being baptized in the Spirit? If you take the whole Bible into context and read it in whole, and the whole chapter, and the whole scripture for that matter, you will see the truth.
I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed (Galatians 1:6-9).
"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" And Paul and Silas give the simple answer, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved" (Acts 16:31-32).
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law (Romans 3:28).
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them (Ephesians 2:8-10).

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (mk 16:16)


Wk I would doubt someone salvation If they came to believe in jesus and refuse baptism.







People who do not believe will not be baptism- damned but people who do believe and this belief is true-saved.

if there belief is true it will lead them to baptism not that baptism it self is saving them.

A.T Roberson a greek scholar said it is the result of one not believing that they shall be damned.


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.  (Acts 2:38)  Why tell people baptism is not necessary?


You probably heard the argument of the word For go back and forth but have you study The Historical position of this verse?

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/acts2v38.htm#VI




Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (Jn 3:5)  Why tell people baptism is not necessary?

again prophet try to answer this but failed How is water in this verse christian baptism when the Nt was not even in affect?

The thief was under the OT which a lot of  people who believe you must be baptism say so what about the person who Jesus was talking to?

prophet answer jesus was talking about the future Then I answer where is jesus talking in futuristic context?



“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” – The Great Commision

“Don’t feel like you need to be baptized.  It’s just a symbolic public expression of faith.”  - The Great Ommission

WK you need to understand we do not feel you do not have to be baptism but you HAVE TO.

its a command for obedience after the fact you are saved and Now follow Him.

when I was saved I pick up mind cross  I was baptism under matt 28:19 and still today do my best to follow him, I may fall but he there to pick me up when I mess up.


how my grammar is it little better?

You have me confused about what you are saying w.r.t. Acts 2:38.  Here is what you said: “acts 2:38 was only for JEWS to bring them out of t he OT and into The NT”.  If I understand you correctly now that you’ve tried to clarify your point, you are saying that Jews born under the Old Covenant had to be baptized to get them into the New Covenant.  But either Jew or Gentile, not born under the Old Covenant does not need to be baptized.  Is this what you are saying?  (Could you please respond to this in the “Baptism Debate” thread?)

The answer is In this article


http://www.learnthebible.org/acts-238.html



“Entire households” means exactly that – no exceptions.  In fact a “household” at that time looked very different than today and included grandparents, cousins, aunts/uncles, servants, and MANY children (children were properly understood as a blessing and not a curse and Jews did not try to stifle the Author of Life with birth control).  If age were a restriction on baptism, scripture would certainly have made a distinction or it would have been handed down by the Apostles The Jewish people were not accustomed to rejecting God’s grace until their children were “old enough”.  In fact, they were accustomed to their children being born into the faith of their fathers and being obedient to God’s command to circumcise.
(cont …)

and yet you reject the apostles clear understanding of baptism. they always had the one Confess and that what we have recording in scripture.

No one is born as a christian it a a choice.

what about people who are baptism as baby and grows up saying I never ever once in my life believe in jesus Nor do I think I need him. what do you do then? blame God?



Sugarman: 2. explain what Literal circumcision haves to do with baptism? paul puts it circumcision of the spirt and yet your trying to connect it with the OT and Not what it means Now in the NT.
Literal circumcision was the ante-type to literal baptism.  The Jews were commanded by God to circumcise on the eighth day, we are commanded to baptize.  The discussion of types and ante-types and the relationship between circumcision and baptism has already been discussed.  I find it fascinating and am willing to discuss it more, but can you bring it up in the “Debate about Baptism” thread?

Literal circumcision was in the OT paul means this to mean  circumcision of The heart. You need to deal with how paul used  circumcision Now in the heart instead of literal.

Krisi....too bad it doesn't end there or you would be right however
Acts 16:33 comes after Acts 16:32 and states quite clearly baptism

Act 16:33   And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed [their] stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

so your comment at best is misleading.

In the whole point because :

1) He hadn't gone to the cross

2) The Holy Ghost wasn't poured out yet

3) and there was no commandment concerning baptism

water and the Spirt....baptism and infilling of Holy Ghost which were given AFTER the LORD's resurrection.