Folks are tired of a reformation and hunger for a transformation, which Acts 2:38 will provide
- Thread starter Truther
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I find it interesting in Acts 2:38 Peter says "let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" Peter is saying that baptism is a necessary process and we have to assume he is talking about water baptism since he was not enlightened about receiving the Holy Spirit without water baptism until Acts 10. Things changed after Peter said this in Acts 2, water baptism is not necessary in order to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit and I think it's possible that Cornelius spoke in tongues as a sign MORE for Peter and the Apostles so they would know and understand salvation is by repentance and faith alone without water baptism. Prior to Cornelius, it's safe to assume Peter was having converts water baptized so they could receive remission of sins and the Holy Spirit. Water baptism then became an outward expression and testimony of their faith.
We know Cornelius was saved and baptized by the Holy Spirit without water baptism. Being baptized by the Holy Spirit is a result of faith and getting wet has nothing to do with obtaining salvation.
I will offer anyone $1000.00 if they can find me anyone in the NT Church that was baptized in the titles in the Bible.
Likewise, I hope they will offer me something if I can find someone baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
Jesus told Nicodemus he had to be born of his mother and break her water(amniotic fluid)to be saved?
We know?
Are you sure?
Peter demanded immediate Acts 2:38 style water baptism in the passage.
Could it be that folks get the Holy Ghost to lead them to water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins per Acts 2:38?
Think about it.
Jesus said John baptized in water, I come to baptize in the Holy Spirit. Can't be any more clear than Jesus's own words. You have to do a lot of assuming to correlate that the Holy Ghost requires water baptism for salvation. We do not need an action item after salvation to prove it. Baptism of the Holy Spirit is sufficient. Paul makes this abundantly clear.
If water baptism was necessary for salvation then 1000's of soldiers who were led to Christ by Chaplins in war zones during battle are doomed not to mention the most likely millions of hospital patients and elderly converts who could never get wet.
Read Acts 11:16-18. The light came on for Peter and the other Apostles. Notice Acts 11 is after Acts 2:38:)
Acts 2:38 is our part(repentance and water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of our sins) and God's part(Spirit infilling) combined.
Skipping Acts 2:38 is flat out lazy.
Acts skippers have a phobia of water and the name of Jesus Christ.
Some even say repentance is unnecessary to be saved.
I don't say that the unbaptized are all going to hell, but that the Acts 2:38 adherers get the salvation insurance plan.
Don't die uninsured.
So, Peter repented for telling the 3000 murderers of Jesus in Acts 2:38 to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins?
By Acts 11, "men and brethren, what shall we do", would have now become "just accept Jesus and you're saved", by Peter?
Peter failed in Acts 2:38 or is someone in modern Christendom's got their scriptural wires crossed?
I think most Christians desire to be baptized in water post Salvation as an outward confession of their faith and born-again experience. A good thing. The wheels come off though when folks try to twist the scriptures to require water baptism for salvation. I think when looking at the period of time between Jesus's ascension to Heaven and Peter's experience with Cornelius Peter along with the other Apostles charged with taking the Gospel to the JEWS preached to their brethren water baptism just like John the Baptist. I have to wonder if God gave the experience with Cornelius to open Peter and the other Apostles' eyes that water baptism is not the "event" that matters. It's all about the Holy Spirit. The Jews were accustomed to water cleansing under the old covenant so there was the transition within the commission to the Jews.
Desire Of All Nations
Well-Known Member
The word "remission" itself implies the cancellation of a debt, charge, or penalty. In Christian terms, Peter was clearly telling that crowd at Pentecost to be baptized if they wanted God to forget about the sins they committed. It's a whole lot easier and better in the long run if you simply learn how to accept what the Bible says instead of reading personal ideas into the text.
When the biblical narrative shows God giving Gentiles the Holy Spirit before they were baptized, it was to show they were chosen to be in His Church and that the minister/evangelist on the scene shouldn't refuse them entry on account of their physical ethnicity. It was not however, done to show water baptism was not necessary.
What you conveniently fail to mention is what Acts 10:47-48 shows: "“Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." The narrative clearly shows those people were still baptized in water, and this was after God temporarily gave them the Spirit as a sign that they were chosen to be in His Church. Contrary to your claim, the narrative certainly doesn't show Peter saying believing in Christ's existence is the only thing that was required of them.
In my KJV and NKJV in Acts 2:38 there is no mention of water baptism. Only baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. To ignore Acts 11 and somehow understand it as a requirement of salvation is twisting the scripture. They believed and received the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues. Peter was shocked. Salvation and proof of salvation were just like others Peter witnessed except without water baptism. The question was WHAT NOW? Should we now baptize them with water? It was a big deal so much so Peter took it up with the other Apostles in Jerusalem where Peter then remembered that what Jesus said. He comes to baptize in the Holy Spirit different than John does with water.
In Paul's epistles, there are numerous accounts of salvation without water baptism. Paul clearly teaches that we are baptized by the Holy Spirit at the moment of our repentance and faith given by God's grace. Paul even asks in his letter to the Galatians "did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law or by hearing with faith" Gal 3:2. Paul is clear when you believe and with faith, you are filled with the Holy Spirit just like what happened to Cornelius with Peter as a witness. Any action post receiving the Holy Spirit by faith to obtain salvation would be a works. Repent and be baptized in the Holy Spirit is all it takes.
I have to disagree. The Holy Spirit is not given to you temporarily. You're making up your own belief that God used Cornelius in that manner alone. The plain reading of the bible tells us that salvation and receiving the Holy Spirit do not require water baptism. You're not partly saved until you find some water. You are saved period. To think otherwise you need to remove all of Pauls's epistles from the scriptures and you have to discount Jesus's own words when he clearly says that John baptized in water but he came to baptize in the Holy Spirit. An 8th grader can tell these are two different ways. It's faith, not finding a lake or stream. Many a soldier, many a person in the hospital or nursing home has found salvation without water.
That's immersion into Jesus to be precise. Something done spiritually by God as we believe and receive.
Much love!
Jewish tradition continued water baptism, however, it is not taught for the church. Baptism is into Christ, which joins us to Him in His death and resurrection, and that saves us.
Much love!
Similar threads
