When Peter explained the Gospel to the family of Cornelius, he stated: "To him [Christ] give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins" (10:43). That verse is extremely clear and simple. And the same person who spoke
Acts 2:38 spoke
Acts 10:43. Peter, thus, is his own best interpreter. When Cornelius' family heard those gracious words, they believed, received divine forgiveness, and were filled with the Holy Spirit (v. 44). These divine blessings came as a result of a faith-only experience. Although Cornelius and his house were baptized later, they were not baptized to receive the remission of sins. They already had that spiritual reality.
I see what you think now....
You think Acts 10 is a clarification of Acts 2:38.
You think Peter knew he blew it with requiring baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of the Jew's sins, so he dropped the requirement in Acts 10 to just "believe only".
Fact is....
whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren,
what shall we do?
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....
Next...
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he
commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord....
Commanded or suggested?
If they were commanded to be baptized like the 3000 in Acts 2, was it still relevant?
Do you command folks to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins or tell them "don't worry about it"?
If someone asks you "what shall I do"...what do YOU tell them???