Christians and Jews are both anti Acts 2:38.

[Truther]

No, I quoted directly from the dictionary, Truther. Now you're making up your own definitions... :) Again, an exhortation is an address or communication emphatically urging someone to do something (and is quite serious indeed). It is not a suggestion. A suggestion is (again quoting the dictionary) an idea or plan put forward for consideration, which suggests not knowing if what is being suggested is the correct course of action or not, and that's utterly ridiculous. Peter is quite sure of what he is saying in Acts 2. The dictionary cannot be rewritten... and neither can the Bible. :)


Right, but the consequences are exacted by the one issuing the commandment. In this case, there are no consequences exacted by Peter (or any of the apostles, or any other person) for not being baptized. You're just dancing, now Truther. It's an exhortation.


Thank you, at least, for actually using the term 'exhortation' this time. It is optional in the sense that his hearers can either do it or not (be baptized; themselves and their households).

Aren't you tired yet of getting beat up? Not that I'm intentionally doing that, but my goodness. :)

Grace and peace to you.

So, when you say "Acts 2:38 is an exhortation", do you think it was a command by Peter?

Or, is Acts 2:38 optional?

 

[PinSeeker]

So, when you say "Acts 2:38 is an exhortation", do you think it was a command by Peter? Or, is Acts 2:38 optional?

I've been crystal clear about this in several posts, now, Truther. In order, no, and no.

However, one is not disqualified from being saved and entering God's kingdom at the end of the age if one does not undergo man's work of water baptism. Peter is not saying what you suppose him to be saying. You are taking him completely out of his context on that point. In his sermon in Acts 2, he is exhorting all those of Israel to respond ~ publicly, for the benefit of all, not just of themselves ~ to God's mercy and His subsequent work of baptism of water and the Spirit ~ new birth of the spirit by the Spirit ~ that has occurred in them. It is in the same light as what Peter says in his epistles, which were written very shortly after what happened here in Acts 2, namely, telling them that they have been "born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 1:3) and calling on all them, and us by extension, to "be all the more diligent to confirm our calling and election" (2 Peter 1:10).

I'm done going in your little circles on this.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Truther]

I've been crystal clear about this in several posts, now, Truther. In order, no, and no.

However, one is not disqualified from being saved and entering God's kingdom at the end of the age if one does not undergo man's work of water baptism. Peter is not saying what you suppose him to be saying. You are taking him completely out of his context on that point. In his sermon in Acts 2, he is exhorting all those of Israel to respond ~ publically, for the benefit of all, not just of themselves ~ to God's mercy and His subsequent work of baptism of water and the Spirit ~ new birth of the spirit by the Spirit ~ that has occurred in them. It is in the same light as what Peter says in his epistles, which were written very shortly after what happened here in Acts 2, namely, telling them that they have been "born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 1:3) and calling on all them, and us by extension, to "be all the more diligent to confirm our calling and election" (2 Peter 1:10).

I'm done going in your little circles on this.

Grace and peace to you.

Was Acts 2:38 "mans work of water baptism"?....


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.


Or, was it of God?

 

[Phoneman777]

A contractor cannot think and still get paid at the job's end?

Thinking is not part of the job performance?

C'mon man!

Nobody gets paid to choose to do a job. They get paid to DO the job. In the same way, our choice to surrender our will to God's will is as unprofitable as when a man chooses to accept clients for business, but doesn't get paid until he actually does something for them.

 

[Phoneman777]

I'm not even sure what to make of all this, Phoneman, to be quite honest. No Calvinist denies people making or not making choices of all kinds, and, experientially speaking, perfectly freely.

At the very heart of Calvinism is the idea that man has no free will choice ability. Not sure what brand you subscribe to, but I've never heard of it.

 

[Truther]

Nobody gets paid to choose to do a job. They get paid to DO the job. In the same way, our choice to surrender our will to God's will is as unprofitable as when a man chooses to accept clients for business, but doesn't get paid until he actually does something for them.

Even blue collar workers must engage their brain before starting their body.

 

[PinSeeker]

At the very heart of Calvinism is the idea that man has no free will choice ability.

Not at all. That's a false perception. I understand why that perception is out there, and it's very common, but false it is.

Above and beyond John Calvin or Calvinism, salvation is not "of the Lord and of man," but rather of the Lord... it belongs to Him ("Salvation belongs to the Lord" ~ Psalm 3:8, 62:1). God's complete sovereignty and man's will both exist, and neither can be denied or soft-pedalled at all; neither invalidates the other. So, somehow, there has to be a correct reconciliation between the two, and there is.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Phoneman777]

Even blue collar workers must engage their brain before starting their body.

Let's keep things straight:

There's a difference between using your brain to choose to work, and using your brain to do the work.

You paid for the latter, NOT THE FORMER.

 

[Phoneman777]

Not at all. That's a false perception. I understand why that perception is out there, and it's very common, but false it is.

Above and beyond John Calvin or Calvinism, salvation is not "of the Lord and of man," but rather of the Lord... it belongs to Him ("Salvation belongs to the Lord" ~ Psalm 3:8, 62:1). God's complete sovereignty and man's will both exist, and neither can be denied or soft-pedalled at all; neither invalidates the other. So, somehow, there has to be a correct reconciliation between the two, and there is.

Grace and peace to you.

I think we're splitting hairs here.

Calvinism doesn't deny our free will choice to get fries or onion rings...it denies we have free will choice to accept or decline salvation. That's not Biblical - else the Biblel wouldn't have included all those verses about our responsibility to choose wisely.

 

[Truther]

Let's keep things straight:

There's a difference between using your brain to choose to work, and using your brain to do the work.

You paid for the latter, NOT THE FORMER.

So thinking is not work?

The scientist is not paid to think?

 

[pleaseforgiveme]

That's not Biblical - else the Biblel wouldn't have included all those verses about our responsibility to choose wisely.

I am not sure where you are going with this. Maybe I misunderstood the reasoning in your post. The bible is full of verses that instructs one to do moral things and live a morally conscious life.
Luke 6:31
New International Version
31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.
.,.,..,..,.,.,.,.,,.,.,.,.,.,,,.,
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” is also known as the "Golden Rule”.
The actual quote from the Bible is from Luke 6:31, “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.”

Simply put, this phrase means to treat others the way we want them to treat us.”
(:-

 

[pleaseforgiveme]

The scientist is not paid to think?

Please define the word “think” as used in your post.

No animosity intended or implied.
(:-

 

[Jim B]

Acts 2:38, "Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." NET v2.1

Why does the OP say that "both Christians and Jews" are both anti this verse? This may apply to unconverted Jews but doesn't apply to any believers regardless of their earthly origin (Jew or Gentile). Are you just looking for an argument?

 

[Truther]

Please define the word “think” as used in your post.

No animosity intended or implied.
:)-

Think is our brain at work.

 

[PinSeeker]

I think we're splitting hairs here.

I disagree. I think it's a very important distinction to make.

Calvinism doesn't deny our free will choice to get fries or onion rings...

Right...

...it denies we have free will choice to accept or decline salvation.

No, it doesn't. Let me ask you, Phoneman. What drives the will. Or, to pose that question slightly differently, why, at the root, do we make the choices that we make? Regarding anything, wise or not?

That's not Biblical - else the Bible wouldn't have included all those verses about our responsibility to choose wisely.

Right, I agree ~ the idea that we do not have "free will" is not Biblical. John Calvin would have said the very same thing. So see my question above. And I reserve the right to ask a follow-up question or two, based on how you answer. :)

Grace and peace to you!

 

[Rich R]

I see many Christians attacking the Jewish beliefs for rejecting Christ but the reality is, that Christians that do not obey Acts 2:38 are as disobedient as the Jews that rejected Peter in the first century.

There is no difference to God.

We are either part of the 1st century church via Acts 2:38 obedience or we are not via disobedience to Acts 2:38.

If we disobey it, we are not of the 3000 at Pentecost, but we are as the Sanhedrin and it's "followers of God".

There is no grey area with God. Peter provided no grey area to the murderers of Jesus, nor to us in the modern world.

I am amazed at the voluntary blindness I see towards the solution to the sinners of Acts these days.

It would be a cold day in hell when most modern Christians would get baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins as Peter commanded them in Acts 2:38.

Peter has been shunned by the Christian community right before the return of Christ, in these days.

Blindness in part has not just happened to Israel as per Romans 11, but to Christians also.

I think many Christians believed what Jesus said just before ascending into the clouds. I know I'm one of 'em.

Acts 1:5,

For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
​

"But" sets that which follows (baptism in holy spirit) with that which went before (baptism in water). Water is fine, but the power is in the gift of holy spirit.

Acts 1:8,

But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
​

It doesn't say, "But ye shall receive power, after that water is come upon you..."

It is helpful to remember that the entire book of Acts is a transition between the Old and the New. The First Christians were pretty much all Jews. They continued in the same way as they did in the OT. It was only gradually that Paul wrote his letters which turned the OT doctrine upside down.

 

[user]

Acts 1:8,

But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
​

It doesn't say, "But ye shall receive power, after that water is come upon you..."

It is helpful to remember that the entire book of Acts is a transition between the Old and the New. The First Christians were pretty much all Jews. They continued in the same way as they did in the OT. It was only gradually that Paul wrote his letters which turned the OT doctrine upside down.

And, How do you suppose we receive the Holy Ghost...

Acts 2:38 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.

 

[Behold]

If we disobey it, we are not of the 3000 at Pentecost, but we are as the Sanhedrin and it's "followers of God".

Here is a riddle for you to try to decipher.

Of the 3000 that were added to the church, in Act's 2:38,.... all those in the upper room, including Peter, were not water baptized.

Notice that Peter is preaching and is given the "gift of Tongues"?
Yet, he was not water baptized that day before he preached, or given that Gift.

Why?
Because water is not necessary for Salvation.
This is why Paul told you that "Christ sent me not to water baptize".

And why did he say that?
Its to show you that water is not a part of Salvation......its only a part of discipleship that FOLLOWS Salvation.

 

[Rich R]

And, How do you suppose we receive the Holy Ghost...

Acts 2:38 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.

There was no water in the original outpouring of the holy spirit (Acts 2:1-4). There's no water in acts 2:38 either. It's a great verse, but no water.

Heb 9:8-10,

8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

9 Which [was] a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

10 [Which stood] only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed [on them] until the time of reformation.​

Water never made any of John the Baptist's followers perfect. It was only after the Day of Pentecost that those who confess Jesus as Lord could be made perfect (Heb 10:12-14) and it didn't require water. Nothing wrong with water, but not required. There are probably many who, on a whim, got water baptized but never actually accepted Jesus. Water is simply not the criteria for the new birth. That would actually be Romans 10:9-10, and no water in that verse either.

God bless.

 

[Behold]

9 Which [was] a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;​

True.

The law and commandments, can not impart righteousness, and they can not get rid of sin consciousness.
The perfect life under the law that Christ lived and the blood of Jesus and death of Christ resolves the curse of the law, for us who are born again.
The Grace of God, given as the new covenant written in the blood of Jesus, resolves what the commandments and law could not do under the old covenant.
And by being born into THE Spiritual Kingdom, as "born again", we are "Not under the law, but under Grace".​