Christians and Jews are both anti Acts 2:38.

[robert derrick]

Salvation in water baptism by law of Christ, is receiving salvation by works of the law, and not by receiving the Spirit ministered to us by hearing of faith:

He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

The Spirit is recieved by hearing of faith, and salvation is with confession of faith by the Spirit, which always precedes water baptism.

Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness, before circumcision, so them that believe Jesus are imputed righteousness, before baptism.

No sinner without sins remitted are ever counted for righteousness of God.

The remission of sins is the moment we believe from the heart, that Jesus' paid for sin by His blood, which is when God sees it in the heart. And salvation follows with confession of Jesus as Lord and Saviour: the Lamb of God.

The saved souls cannot be forbidden water to be baptized in.

Circumcision was a sign and seal of the righteousness which was by faith of Abraham, and baptism is a sign and figure of the righteousness that is by faith of Jesus.

 

[Pythagorean12]

Sure! That's the point!


No, because otherwise they wouldn't be James's beloved brothers ~ his brothers in Christ. He wouldn't be able to call them his brothers.

Grace and peace to you.

James was a Jew. Jews would be his brothers. We're they to accept Jesus as savior they'd be his brothers in Christ.

The point being, we are never unsealed once we accept Christ as savior.

 

[robert derrick]

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. No remission before water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, not even a smidgin.

And so none of the apostles nor the rest of the 120 in the upper room ever had a smidgin of sin remission.

People who go to law in matters of grace through faith are just smidgins in matters of doctrine of Christ.

Their fervent efforts to proselytize people to themselves is just so obvious.

For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

 

[PinSeeker]

I feel very confident that Peter got himself baptized. Paul, too. John probably did it. But it really makes no difference whether they did or not; they were obviously born-again Christians, baptized by the Spirit with fire.

Jesus did no baptizing with water, because God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are, together, one. And the baptism of the Godhead, that effected by the Holy Spirit with fire, is not the mere sign but the real thing.

 

[robert derrick]

James was a Jew. Jews would be his brothers. We're they to accept Jesus as savior they'd be his brothers in Christ.

The point being, we are never unsealed once we accept Christ as savior.

If James were referring to his kinsmen after the flesh, he would have said so, even as Paul did, because the brethren of the Lord far outweigh anything of the flesh.

He was plainly speaking to Christians. Apostles of Christ did not write Scripture of doctrine of Christ to anyone but Christians: the only faith that works patience is the faith of Jesus, not of the Jews religion. That false faith works only condemnation, even as that of Mohammed.

Christians can become double-minded, and be hearers of the word only, as well as having faith that is dead, being alone without works.

The warning of James to the Christians is the same of Paul to those grafted in: be not highminded and so foolish as to think grace will keeping anyone from being broken off, even as them of old. (Rom 11:21)

I.e. unsealed. Circumcision of the flesh, which was a seal of the promise of righteousness by faith (Rom 4:11), became uncircumcision by transgression. (Rom 2:25)

Likewise, the seal of the Spirit, being circumcision of the heart, becomes uncircumcision by transgression unto unbelief.

To say we can never be unsealed, is to say we have eternal unconditional security of salvation, even if we return to the sins of old and resurrected the old man to life again, which is the beast rising out of the waters:

And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak.

The image of the beast is a dark shadow of what he once was in Christ. The false doctrine of unconditional salvation gives life to a beast, that ought not be alive at all: the old man of sin once crucified to sin in Christ Jesus.

He that was a Christian, and is not a Christian, and yet is said to be a Christian.

 

[PinSeeker]

James was a Jew. Jews would be his brothers.

Well, right, and Gentiles, too, who were in Christ. He was writing to all of them, his brothers in Christ, not merely his ethnic "brethren." This is precisely why James is just as relevant to us Gentiles today as ethnic Jews.

Actually, I agree with what you say here, but in the context of what Paul says in Romans 2:28-29, that the true Jew is not merely an outward (ethnic) Jew; true circumcision is not outward or physical. A Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. So yes, James was writing to Jews... true Jews, those of Israel, both ethnic Jew and Gentile.

The point being, we are never unsealed once we accept Christ as savior.

Agreed... except it's the other way around. :) We do certainly make a decision, and publicly. But once we are sealed with the Spirit ~ given new life in the Spirit ~ we cannot help but, and will not fail to, accept Christ as our Savior.

Grace and peace to you, P12.

 

[Pythagorean12]

If James were referring to his kinsmen after the flesh, he would have said so, even as Paul did, because the brethren of the Lord far outweigh anything of the flesh.

He was plainly speaking to Christians. Apostles of Christ did not write Scripture of doctrine of Christ to anyone but Christians: the only faith that works patience is the faith of Jesus, not of the Jews religion. That false faith works only condemnation, even as that of Mohammed.

Christians can become double-minded, and be hearers of the word only, as well as having faith that is dead, being alone without works.

The warning of James to the Christians is the same of Paul to those grafted in: be not highminded and so foolish as to think grace will keeping anyone from being broken off, even as them of old. (Rom 11:21)

I.e. unsealed. Circumcision of the flesh, which was a seal of the promise of righteousness by faith (Rom 4:11), became uncircumcision by transgression. (Rom 2:25)

Likewise, the seal of the Spirit, being circumcision of the heart, becomes uncircumcision by transgression unto unbelief.

To say we can never be unsealed, is to say we have eternal unconditional security of salvation, even if we return to the sins of old and resurrected the old man to life again, which is the beast rising out of the waters:

And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak.

The image of the beast is a dark shadow of what he once was in Christ. The false doctrine of unconditional salvation gives life to a beast, that ought not be alive at all: the old man of sin once crucified to sin in Christ Jesus.

He that was a Christian, and is not a Christian, and yet is said to be a Christian.

Well, right, and Gentiles, too, who were in Christ. He was writing to all of them, his brothers in Christ, not merely his ethnic "brethren." This is precisely why James is just as relevant to us Gentiles today as ethnic Jews.

Actually, I agree with what you say here, but in the context of what Paul says in Romans 2:28-29, that the true Jew is not merely an outward (ethnic) Jew; true circumcision is not outward or physical. A Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. So yes, James was writing to Jews... true Jews, those of Israel, both ethnic Jew and Gentile.


Agreed... except it's the other way around. :) We do certainly make a decision, and publicly. But once we are sealed with the Spirit ~ given new life in the Spirit ~ we cannot help but, and will not fail to, accept Christ as our Savior.

Grace and peace to you, P12.

At this point I prefer to leave it at, we'll agree to disagree.

Good talk.:)

 

[Truther]

Think of this outward water baptism as an act of thanks to God and faith in Him for what He has done ~ baptized by fire with the Holy Spirit ~ rather than something we do to somehow deserve this baptism by fire with the Holy Spirit. And for what He will do in bringing this work that He Himself began in us to completion at the day of Christ. This is exactly what Peter is calling on the men of Israel to do. And this promise is for them (us) and for their (our) children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself. as Peter says in the very next verse (39).

Grace and peace to you.

Peter was telling the 3000 to save themselves by being baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of their sins.

The promise of the Holy Ghost was not for the remission of their sins, but to seal them.

 

[Truther]

I guess Jesus himself, and Luke, were not as smart as Peter either, then:

"46And He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and in His name repentance and forgiveness of sins will be proclaimed to all nations" Luke 24:46-47​

What is the fulfillment of the verse?

Right, Acts 2:38.

 

[robert derrick]

I feel very confident that Peter got himself baptized. Paul, too. John probably did it. But it really makes no difference whether they did or not; they were obviously born-again Christians, baptized by the Spirit with fire.

Jesus did no baptizing with water, because God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are, together, one. And the baptism of the Godhead, that effected by the Holy Spirit with fire, is not the mere sign but the real thing.

Yes, the earliest disciples certainly did get themselves baptized by John, even as Jesus, which is where Jesus began to first call them. And they then began to baptize others with the baptism of John in Jesus' stead, so that many would be drawn unto His discipleship rather than John's.

And Scripture shows Paul was baptized with that of NT baptism by a disciple in Damascus.

How we feel about things, no matter how confidently, is not the what is important, but what we can certainly know by Scripture.

And as you say, it doesn't matter because they were certainly already saved and baptized with the Holy Ghost and then Peter preached the gospel, including that of NT baptism. The point of himself and the others not being baptized with NT baptism, is only useful to refute the false teachings of some 2:38 law for all believers of Christ, who also try to claim even them receiving the Spirit and being baptized with the Holy Ghost like the apostles, were still not 'remitted of sins', until they were baptized after the specific manner of 2:38.

The only place scripture shows the apostles being baptized, other than Paul, was at the Jordan by John.

And also as you say according to Scripture, Jesus Himself never baptized with water, because His baptism would only be that of the Holy Ghost after His resurrection.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

What is the fulfillment of the verse?

Right, Acts 2:38.

So you agree, then, that "in his name" is the same as "Jesus Christ".

 

[robert derrick]

Well, right, and Gentiles, too, who were in Christ. He was writing to all of them, his brothers in Christ, not merely his ethnic "brethren." This is precisely why James is just as relevant to us Gentiles today as ethnic Jews.

Actually, I agree with what you say here, but in the context of what Paul says in Romans 2:28-29, that the true Jew is not merely an outward (ethnic) Jew; true circumcision is not outward or physical. A Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. So yes, James was writing to Jews... true Jews, those of Israel, both ethnic Jew and Gentile.


Agreed... except it's the other way around. :) We do certainly make a decision, and publicly. But once we are sealed with the Spirit ~ given new life in the Spirit ~ we cannot help but, and will not fail to, accept Christ as our Savior.

Grace and peace to you, P12.

But once we are sealed with the Spirit ~ given new life in the Spirit ~ we cannot help but, and will not fail to, accept Christ as our Savior.

That is an interesting statement. We receive the Spirit by hearing of faith, and we make confession unto salvation.

And so we are sealed by the Spirit through faith from the heart in the word of the gospel. And we declare Him Lord and Saviour by confession of mouth and are saved.

God seals our hearts with the circumcision of Christ so soon as He sees the faith in our hearts, and so soon as He hears our confession, He reigns over us as Christ and Lord.

 

[robert derrick]

At this point I prefer to leave it at, we'll agree to disagree.

Good talk.:)

I must of course agree, that all epistles were written to all those in Christ, being those grafted into the olive tree of God, whether kinsmen after the flesh, or those of the nations.

I must have misunderstood that you believed James was writing only to his saved kinsmen, at least in some part of the epistle.

 

[robert derrick]

Peter was telling the 3000 to save themselves by being baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of their sins.

That is true, but they were not saved by the baptism, but by the repentance of faith, which they gladly recieved by hearing the gospel preached.

Otherwise, they truly would be saving themselves by work of obedience.

The Scripture as written is translated accurately in words:

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.

And the doctrine of Scripture confirms another accurate translation in sentence structure:

Repent for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.

Nevertheless, water baptism never saves the believer, though a believer can certainly be saved during it. Remission of sins is upon believing with repentance, and salvation is upon confession of faith.

 

[robert derrick]

It is the name that is spoken(Jesus) while baptism is taking place that is important(to remit one's sins). The water is only symbolic of our faith, but the name spoken, remits.

Most normal Christians would think the name of Jesus being spoken is the confession of the one being baptized, but in dealing with separatist sects, we can't be sure what they mean.

Is this statement saying that remission of sins is only after the one baptizing speaks the name of Jesus Christ?

In that case it is worse. Not only must a believer be baptized after their lawful manner, but also it is the one baptizing that has part in the salvation of the other, by a command of sorts made to God to remit that person's sins.

So, not only are they 'saving themselves' by water baptism, but the one baptizing has part saving them.

I suppose God still gets some of the glory for it, since He obeys the one speaking, and remits sins at their word.

 

[Truther]

So you agree, then, that "in his name" is the same as "Jesus Christ".

They interpreted "in his name" as "be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ".

Think forward to Acts, not backwards to the commission.

Don't be satisfied with the command only, but the fulfillment of it that is before your eyes.

Now you know what Peter was thinking at Pentecost(about the commission).

You need to get in line with the Acts interpretation of the Bible, not reverse, modern interpretation.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

You need to get in line with the Acts interpretation of the Bible, not reverse, modern interpretation.

I'm good, thank you.

God is not a legalist that sends people to hell for being baptized "in his name" rather than "in Jesus' name".
That's just more cold, dead 'religion'.

 

[robert derrick]

I'm good, thank you.

God is not a legalist that sends people to hell for being baptized "in his name" rather than "in Jesus' name".
That's just more cold, dead 'religion'.

The god of the 2:38 law is one such legalist.

Redemption and remission of sins is only through the blood of the Lamb, which was shed long ago. All that believe from the heart are washed in His blood and remitted of sins.

The water of this world has nothing to do with it. Nor does a baptizing speaker of the name of Jesus.

 

[Truther]

I'm good, thank you.

God is not a legalist that sends people to hell for being baptized "in his name" rather than "in Jesus' name".
That's just more cold, dead 'religion'.

God is very specific.

God is not a "whatever" God.

 

[Truther]

Also, I am not saying that anyone that is not baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of their sins is going to hell.

All I am saying is that they remain under the Law and must be judged according to their works per Rev 20.

They are gamblers, having their good and bad works put on a scale to be judged that way.

No thanks , not a risk taker. I am a big chicken.