The Wrong Apostle:

[H. Richard]

It is believed, by many, that the grace church was started by Peter on the day of Pentecost. But if you look close all that is written in Acts, spoken by Peter, is to get the Jews (Israel) to accept Jesus as their Messiah and king so that He would return and setup the kingdom that was promised in the covenant God made with Abraham. This covenant was not made to the Gentiles.

Even in Acts 8 & 9 where we see Saul being converted it was still time for the Jews to accept Jesus as their king so that He could return and set up the promised kingdom.

Luke 13:6 10
The Parable of the Barren Fig Tree 6 He also spoke this parable: "A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none.
7 Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, 'Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down; why does it use up the ground?'
8 But he answered and said to him, 'Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it.
9 And if it bears fruit, well. But if not, after that you can cut it down.'"
NKJV

God set the Jewish nation aside and went to the Gentiles when He, in 70 AD, had the Temple destroyed.

We see that Saul/Paul was chosen by God to be THE apostle to the Gentiles. His gospel of the grace of God was hidden in God and revealed to him (Paul), not the 12.

The 12 were apostles to the Jews. No where in the scriptures do we see Jesus and the 12 rescinding the Law of Moses, yet Paul taught that we are no longer under the Law of Moses and are dead to it. No where in the preaching of Peter, in the book of Acts, do we see any mention of salvation by the shed blood of Jesus on the cross. The reason is very simple. It was not revealed to them until Jesus told it to Paul.

 

[Helen]

Amen...very good post.

~. ~

 

[Hidden In Him]

No where in the preaching of Peter, in the book of Acts, do we see any mention of salvation by the shed blood of Jesus on the cross. The reason is very simple. It was not revealed to them until Jesus told it to Paul.

Ummm... what do you do with Acts 2:38?

 

[Helen]

Ummm... what do you do with Acts 2:38?

That and the verses following are showing the gospel of repentance,baptism etc. Good word.

But I cant see why that negates what H.Richards wrote in the OP.
God gave Paul the good news of grace..
Def " God's ability in you to do what you can't do."

Grace to over come, grace to walk the walk...grace for everyday living.
How does that conflict with what Peter taught...the message to was given to Paul was not the same calling as Peter had. They knew their specific calling.

God doesn't give every minister the exact same facet to preach as each other. God is many faceted. Each has his place in the body.

This is the main reason I am totally against "one man ministry"
If Peter and Paul were preaching at the same meeting...the body of Christ would have a word that blended ...and more balanced.
A one man ministry is not 'the whole ball of wax. ' that is why some groups end up with tunnel vision. They just get the ministers main calling and word.

Just my two cents.

 

[Hidden In Him]

God gave Paul the good news of grace..
Def " God's ability in you to do what you can't do."

Grace to over come, grace to walk the walk...grace for everyday living.
How does that conflict with what Peter taught...the message to was given to Paul was not the same calling as Peter had. They knew their specific calling.

Well, I do think Paul was called primarily to the Gentiles and Peter primarily to the Jews. Only I think Paul's message applied just as much to the Jews (see Romans 4:1, and Romans 5:1-2, where he is specifically writing to Jewish Christians, not Gentile believers). That, and I think Peter likewise preached the same gospel, since he used the term several times himself (1 Peter 1:12, 1:25, 4:6, 4:17). But I fully agree with this:

I am totally against "one man ministry"
If Peter and Paul were preaching at the same meeting...the body of Christ would have a word that blended ...and more balanced.
A one man ministry is not 'the whole ball of wax. ' that is why some groups end up with tunnel vision. They just get the ministers main calling and word.

I think there are indeed many different perspectives by which we all approach any matter, and it is a mistake to adopt only one person's. Even a very good leader will be given a very specific calling and set of gifts, so his focus will be unique to him. Those who receive from him should take everything they can yet be true to themselves. If there are some things that just don't resonate with them, it might not be because either are "wrong" so much as just a failure on the leader's part to see the entirety of the issue from your perspective.

 

[H. Richard]

Ummm... what do you do with Acts 2:38?

***

Since you asked:

Peter's sermon on Pentecost:

I believe that Peter's sermon has been taken out of context and used as a blanket sermon about repenting and being water baptized. This article is my attempt to prove that it has to be read “IN CONTEXT.“

(was it to the Jews and the Gentiles, or just to the Jews?)

Acts 2:31 38 (NKJV)
31 he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption.
32 This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses.
33 Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.
34 "For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself:
'The Lord said to my Lord,
'Sit at My right hand,
35 Till I make Your enemies Your footstool."'

In the above Peter is testifying to the “”Jews”” that Jesus is the promised Christ.

36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

Peter tells the Jews they have crucified the Lord of Glory. The Jews wanted to know what they could do to atone """for crucifying Jesus."""

38 ""THEN"" Peter said to “”THEM,”” (them = the Jews) "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Note: Verse 36 is the verse that says who he is talking to, Verse 38 is a DIRECT answer to the question in verse 37. The Jews were to repent of rejecting Jesus and having Him crucified. NOTE: It was not to repent of sins of the sinful flesh. Nowhere in the context of these scriptures has sins of the sinful flesh been mentioned.

The Jews were to fulfill a Jewish ritual of water cleansing (water baptism), a ritual under the Law of Moses, and at the same time they were to 'acknowledge' Jesus as the Christ by performing a water cleansing ritual (baptism) in His name.

39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call." Note, the promises were made to the Jews only.

Peter's sermon included verse 39 which was taken from Joel 2:28 29 and was about the ""promise of the Holy Spirit"" that was to be “”given to the Jews.”” Verse 39 was to assure the Jews that their sin of rejecting Jesus would be forgiven and that they would also be given the Holy Spirit (see verse 38). Joel 2:28 3:1

Many theologians teach that Peter was including the Gentiles in verse 39. But how can that be true since it was necessary for God, at a later date, to give Peter a dream to teach him that the Gentiles were included. Acts 10:9 16.

I believe some people are brain dead when they refuse to connect the dots. In Acts 2 we see Peter preaching to the Jews. Some say it was to everyone. But covenant promises were only made to the Jews, not the Gentiles. ---- DOT #1

In Acts 10:9 we see God giving Peter a vision which said that what God has called clean let no man call unclean. Why? Didn't Peter already know it in Acts 2??---- DOT #2

Acts 10:45
45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. astonished!!!!! according to some Peter knew it in Acts 2. --- DOT #3

We see that Peter did not know the Gentiles were included until Acts 10:45 so how could Peter start the church in Acts 2 ????

Although it was the Gentiles that actually killed Jesus they did it because the Jews insisted. The Gentiles did not need to repent for what the Jews did. Jesus was not sent to the Gentiles therefore the Gentiles had not rejected Him. (Matt 10:5 7) (Matt 15:23 24) (Rom 15:8)

Matthew 27:24 25 (NKJV)
24 When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, "I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it."
Note this verse:
25 And all the people answered and said, "His blood be on us and on our children."

Verse 25 above is important.

Peter's sermon has been used as a blanket sermon about repenting and being water baptized in many of the Christian Religious churches. It has become a “FORMULA” to be repeated in order to be saved. This formula is stated as a commandment in their theological statement.

I know that some will reject this writing. But IMHO, I don't think Peter's sermon is appropriate or valid for this age of grace and those that use it are preaching a sermon that was preached to the Jews, those that had Christ crucified, as if it also applies to the Gentiles. IMHO, that is a blatant falsehood because it is not the truth. IMHO = In my honest opinion.

Then how is one saved in this age of God’s grace? Rom 10:8 13

8 But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith which we preach):
9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.
13 For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." NKJV

There is nothing in Rom 10:8 13 about an act of water baptism or repentance.

 

[Enoch111]

This covenant was not made to the Gentiles.

That is incorrect. The New Covenant includes both Jews and Gentiles, since believing Gentiles are grafted into the "good olive tree" of believing Israel (Rom 11:11-25).

The shed blood of Christ is called "the blood of the New Covenant" and the Lord's Supper is for BOTH Jews and Gentiles.

27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

28 For this is my blood of the new testament [covenant], which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. (Mt 26:27-29)

 

[Hidden In Him]

Note: Verse 36 is the verse that says who he is talking to, Verse 38 is a DIRECT answer to the question in verse 37. The Jews were to repent of rejecting Jesus and having Him crucified. NOTE: It was not to repent of sins of the sinful flesh. Nowhere in the context of these scriptures has sins of the sinful flesh been mentioned.

The Jews were to fulfill a Jewish ritual of water cleansing (water baptism), a ritual under the Law of Moses, and at the same time they were to 'acknowledge' Jesus as the Christ by performing a water cleansing ritual (baptism) in His name.

I read through your post, and I do agree with the parts about Peter not yet being cognizant that the promise he was quoting applied to Gentiles yet (though I believe through the Spirit he was speaking prophetically already).

But two problems arise from your post. First, you make no clear case here. This would create a second, inferior form of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ that only remits the sin of having crucified Him, which most would find untenable. And 3,000 of these men did receive this baptism and became the foundation of the church of Jesus Christ that day (Acts 2:41). As such, don't you think there would be mention made of them receiving a second baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of all their sins? Or do you think the Jews never participated in such a baptism?

There is nothing in Rom 10:8 13 about an act of water baptism or repentance.

If your contention is that Christian salvation need not involve water baptism or repentance, I can prove you wrong, especially on the latter. Is this what you are saying?

Blessings in Christ,
Hidden

 

[H. Richard]

That is incorrect. The New Covenant includes both Jews and Gentiles, since believing Gentiles are grafted into the "good olive tree" of believing Israel (Rom 11:11-25).

The shed blood of Christ is called "the blood of the New Covenant" and the Lord's Supper is for BOTH Jews and Gentiles.

27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

28 For this is my blood of the new testament [covenant], which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. (Mt 26:27-29)

***

The gospel of God's grace as was given to Paul is for the whole world. Not just to the Jews and not just to the Gentile but to the WHOLE world. The grace gospel leveled the field as far as salvation is concerned. As the scriptures say, salvation has been given to the ungodly.

Rom 4:5
5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,
NKJV

Rom 5:6-8
6 For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die.
8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
NKJV

In this age of grace God has created salvation that does not depend on the works of man but on the work of His Son on the cross where He, Jesus, paid for the sins of the whole world. It is a shame that those in religion can't come to terms with this. Only those who place their faith in Jesus' shed blood to atone, pay, for their sins will be saved.

People should understand that the Jews were still thinking they were under the law in Acts 21:20. Anyone that thinks Paul and James were teaching the same gospel has to look at what was happening at that time. They were going to kill Paul for what he was teaching but they were not going to kill James for his teaching so anyone with a brain knows they were certainly not teaching the same thing.

 

[H. Richard]

I read through your post, and I do agree with the parts about Peter not yet being cognizant that the promise he was quoting applied to Gentiles yet (though I believe through the Spirit he was speaking prophetically already).

But two problems arise from your post. First, you make no clear case here. This would create a second, inferior form of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ that only remits the sin of having crucified Him, which most would find untenable. And 3,000 of these men did receive this baptism and became the foundation of the church of Jesus Christ that day (Acts 2:41). As such, don't you think there would be mention made of them receiving a second baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of all their sins? Or do you think the Jews never participated in such a baptism?

If your contention is that Christian salvation need not involve water baptism or repentance, I can prove you wrong, especially on the latter. Is this what you are saying?

Blessings in Christ,
Hidden

***
All you can do is give the same religious ideas that Jesus and the 12 were teaching the same gospel. I have already shown on this forum that that is not true.

There was only ONE baptism that saves mankind and it was the One Jesus spoke of here=
Luke 12:49-50
49 "I came to send fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!
50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am till it is accomplished!
NKJV

Physical water baptism by men has no place in the grace gospel. In the gospel of grace only the work of Jesus on the cross where He paid for the sins of the whole world has any meaning. Why can't people of religion see it? To pay glory to the works of man takes it away from God's Son on the cross. Today, under grace, salvation is the work of God, not man and people had better believe it.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Physical water baptism by men has no place in the grace gospel. In the gospel of grace only the work of Jesus on the cross where He paid for the sins of the whole world has any meaning. Why can't people of religion see it? To pay glory to the works of man takes it away from God's Son on the cross. Today, under grace, salvation is the work of God, not man and people had better believe it.

Ok, wait a minute, LoL. The apostle Paul himself baptized in water. I don't believe it is necessary unto salvation, but it was certainly a commandment to be upheld nonetheless. What do you do with 1 Corinthians 1:13-17. Surely you don't think he was referring to some form of figurative baptism, no?

 

[H. Richard]

Ok, wait a minute, LoL. The apostle Paul himself baptized in water. I don't believe it is necessary unto salvation, but it was certainly a commandment to be upheld nonetheless. What do you do with 1 Corinthians 1:13-17. Surely you don't think he was referring to some form of figurative baptism, no?

***
If water baptism has any value at all then I guess Paul was wrong when he said he thanked God that He didn't baptize any of them.

Eph 4:3-5
3 endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling;
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
NKJV

Question for you, which baptism is Paul referencing, Water or spirit and don't say they are the same thing. I believe Paul was thinking of the cross.

1 Cor 6:11
11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
NKJV

There is nothing physical about faith. There is nothing physical about the spirit. Water is physical and has nothing to do with spiritual matters.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Question for you, which baptism is Paul referencing, Water or spirit and don't say they are the same thing.

Well of course I wouldn't say they were the same thing, LoL. But in answer to your question, water baptism, because Paul specifically asked them "were you baptized in the name of Paul?" It means he was baptizing them in a name here, and thus it is a reference to the water baptism Christ commanded them to cary out in Matthew 28:19.

If water baptism has any value at all then I guess Paul was wrong when he said he thanked God that He didn't baptize any of them.

No, you are making a jump here. His point was simply that water baptism could be carried out by others, preferably someone local. By "God did not send me to baptize," he was saying he had a higher calling than to be encumbered with baptizing people in water because he had other things to do. And by "I thank God I baptized none of you [except a few]" it was because they were turning who they got baptized by into some form of badge of honor.

There is nothing physical about faith. There is nothing physical about the spirit. Water is physical and has nothing to do with spiritual matters.

Ok, I'm starting to gather in your theology here, but you are going too far. YES, our faith is primarily a spiritual one, and the focus must be on fulfilling it spiritually rather than through outward rituals and ceremonies. BUT, the outward ceremonies that He did give us to observe are to be reflections of those spiritual realities, and they ARE supposed to therefore continue to be observed. Communion should still be observed because of what it represents. Water baptism should still be observed because of what it represents.

Has someone in organized religion burned you? You come off like someone who has a severe backlash going against ritualistic and ceremonial Christianity. Just curious, not that I'm trying to condemn you over it. Just wanting to know where all this is coming from.

 

[Heb 13:8]

No where in the preaching of Peter, in the book of Acts, do we see any mention of salvation by the shed blood of Jesus on the cross. The reason is very simple. It was not revealed to them until Jesus told it to Paul.

Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

 

[H. Richard]

Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

***

I said; """No where in the preaching of Peter, in the book of Acts"""

Your text was written by Paul. Paul's gospel of grace is the one that saves people because he taught that only faith is what Jesus did on the cross saves a person.