Understanding : Acts 2:38

[rebuilder 454]

Yes, baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins clears the conscience which gives us a clean conscience before God as per your verse.

That was under the law.
Pre cross and resurrection.
Peter eventually got it right.

I already pointed out. That if baptism was for sin, then get a pool.
Because you will be needing it several times a day.
In no way is baptism to remove sin under the NT.
Totally false.

 

[Behold]

The Holy Spirit has been given to you to lead you to water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

Water baptism gets you wet... nothing else.


Let me show you again.

In Acts 2:36, the Jews were told that "you've slain (crucified) your messiah".. and they (the Jews) said.. "what must we do".

A.) repent and get wet.

So, that is not the Gospel.. That is "john the baptist's water dunk, that was happening to Jews, before Jesus was crucified.
And Peter taught THAT, because that is all he knew at the time.
In Acts 15, He met Paul, and learned : "The Gospel of the Grace of God", ... and that is "the preaching of the Cross.

That's the "GOSPEL"............not, "repent and get wet".

Notice, Paul's Gospel, that Paul said that HIS the only gospel, and any other is "cursed"... : Galatians 1:8

And Paul did not preach "repent and get wet"...

He Preached THIS Gospel.........."The Preaching of THE CROSS....Is the POWER OF GOD.... unto SALVATiON, for everyone who BELIEVES".

That is not... "you've killed your messiah, now repent and get wet"/.

Be sure you notice this reader, as there are a lot of "Acts 2:38" false gospel people found on forums and in Pulpits, and in ROME... who dont care about the real Gospel.

Make sure you notice them... and avoid them.

 

[rebuilder 454]

What others? If you want definition look at the OT which defines it...complete covering under water....then for body cleansing. Under the NT ...for sin cleansing.

Show us a verse ( outside Peter ,who made a statement, not understanding ,we had moved on from JTB's office.)
Hello....you guys are preaching EXACTLY the JTB doctrine.
Huh?????
No red flags?????

 

[rebuilder 454]

Many say many things that are nor scriptural.
Baptism is part of the repentance process just as..... repent...is part. To suggest baptism is not required.....is to suggest repent...is not required.
The Bible is very clear...baptism is required.
We must stay with God's word and reject ...new age religion teachings.

Not saying "not required "
I'm saying your extra-biblical camp is taking it and exalting it above the cross.

You guys have actually left the good news, a person , and invented an alternative.

 

[Truther]

Again exalting a component into an all encompassing truth.
Defaulting away from the actual work of the cross.
James and 1John give no such remedy for sin.
Baptism is a new believers act of obedience.
Identifying publicly his profession and identity to a person and the ALREADY PRESENT work done inside the believer PRIOR TO water baptism

Salvation, it's work and removal of sin, is NOT A DOCTRINE.
Pssssst....it is a person.
YOU HAVE TRADED A PERSON. JESUS, FOR A DOCTRINE.
....and that doctrine is way off.

Men and their weird obsession with getting things messed up.

The work of the cross is fulfilled in water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

 

[Truther]

Ok
This is either pentecostal oneness. Or church of Christ.
Both take a component of Christianity, and exalt it above the whole of scripture, and make a legalistic deity of a component.

No, the second chapter of Acts. That was 2000 years ago. They always and Only baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Oneness religion and church of Christ has nothing to do with it.

 

[Truther]

That was under the law.
Pre cross and resurrection.
Peter eventually got it right.

I already pointed out. That if baptism was for sin, then get a pool.
Because you will be needing it several times a day.
In no way is baptism to remove sin under the NT.
Totally false.

So Acts 2:38 is law and not grace?

 

[Truther]

Water baptism gets you wet... nothing else.


Let me show you again.

In Acts 2:36, the Jews were told that "you've slain (crucified) your messiah".. and they (the Jews) said.. "what must we do".

A.) repent and get wet.

So, that is not the Gospel.. That is "john the baptist's water dunk, that was happening to Jews, before Jesus was crucified.
And Peter taught THAT, because that is all he knew at the time.
In Acts 15, He met Paul, and learned : "The Gospel of the Grace of God", ... and that is "the preaching of the Cross.

That's the "GOSPEL"............not, "repent and get wet".

Notice, Paul's Gospel, that Paul said that HIS the only gospel, and any other is "cursed"... : Galatians 1:8

And Paul did not preach "repent and get wet"...

He Preached THIS Gospel.........."The Preaching of THE CROSS....Is the POWER OF GOD.... unto SALVATiON, for everyone who BELIEVES".

That is not... "you've killed your messiah, now repent and get wet"/.

Be sure you notice this reader, as there are a lot of "Acts 2:38" false gospel people found on forums and in Pulpits, and in ROME... who dont care about the real Gospel.

Make sure you notice them... and avoid them.

Water baptism gives you a clean conscience before God. It is also known as the remission of sins. Although it always, and Only was done in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

 

[Behold]

Water baptism gives you a clean conscience before God.

Your Shower head, .. when you take a shower.........its water.
When you are baptized in a pool.. .. Its water

The only difference, is that a water cult teaches that there is magic power in a baptism pool.

Dont believe it.

Water, is just water. It gets you wet, and nothing else.

 

[Truther]

Water baptism gets you wet... nothing else.


Let me show you again.

In Acts 2:36, the Jews were told that "you've slain (crucified) your messiah".. and they (the Jews) said.. "what must we do".

A.) repent and get wet.

So, that is not the Gospel.. That is "john the baptist's water dunk, that was happening to Jews, before Jesus was crucified.
And Peter taught THAT, because that is all he knew at the time.
In Acts 15, He met Paul, and learned : "The Gospel of the Grace of God", ... and that is "the preaching of the Cross.

That's the "GOSPEL"............not, "repent and get wet".

Notice, Paul's Gospel, that Paul said that HIS the only gospel, and any other is "cursed"... : Galatians 1:8

And Paul did not preach "repent and get wet"...

He Preached THIS Gospel.........."The Preaching of THE CROSS....Is the POWER OF GOD.... unto SALVATiON, for everyone who BELIEVES".

That is not... "you've killed your messiah, now repent and get wet"/.

Be sure you notice this reader, as there are a lot of "Acts 2:38" false gospel people found on forums and in Pulpits, and in ROME... who dont care about the real Gospel.

Make sure you notice them... and avoid them.

Water baptism buries us with Jesus Christ. When we are baptized in the name of Jesus, we are baptized into his death. The Holy Spirit does not do that. What you’re doing is looking at Rome and you think forward instead of backward. You think that Rome started baptizing in the name of Jesus by water, but you were dreadfully wrong. Rome perverted it.

 

[Truther]

Your Shower head, .. when you take a shower.........its water.
When you are baptized in a pool.. .. Its water

The only difference, is that a water cult teaches that there is magic power in a baptism pool.

Dont believe it.

Water, is just water. It gets you wet, and nothing else.

Of course, water is only water unless you immerse someone saying the name of Jesus. At that point, you are buried with Jesus in baptism. You need to learn that. If you have not been baptized in the name of Jesus, your dead and don’t know it. You are like a chicken with his head cut off still flopping… You need to be buried.

 

[JunChosen]

The reference of Jesus' saving the thief on the cross without him being baptized is such a tired old argument. The thief did not live under the New Covenant. The New Covenant with it's attention to faith-baptism was not even instituted yet. Christ had not at the time yet died and been raised. Whether he was or was not baptized is moot. The entire company of OT saints were saved without baptism.

You are in error!! Your opinion is just that...an opinion. Most professing Christians like you do not understand Bible doctrines nor it's interpretations, and thereby come away with incorrect interpretations.
In the Old Testament, the norm for the Jews for their atonement of sins were animal sacrifices.
However, the efficacy of the cross goes all the way back from the beginning. In fact, before the foundation of the world as we read in Revelation 13:8-9....
8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.

So we learn from Scriptures that the thief at the cross did not have to be baptize with water because right in front of us our great Savior is in progress to save him.

Those who want to teach must also learn how to be taught or they will fall under the warning of Hosea 4:6.

To God Be The Glory

 

[JBO]

You are in error!! Your opinion is just that...an opinion. Most professing Christians like you do not understand Bible doctrines nor it's interpretations, and thereby come away with incorrect interpretations.
In the Old Testament, the norm for the Jews for their atonement of sins were animal sacrifices.
However, the efficacy of the cross goes all the way back from the beginning. In fact, before the foundation of the world as we read in Revelation 13:8-9....
8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.

So we learn from Scriptures that the thief at the cross did not have to be baptize with water because right in front of us our great Savior is in progress to save him.

Those who want to teach must also learn how to be taught or they will fall under the warning of Hosea 4:6.

To God Be The Glory

Where in the Old Testament do you read about anyone being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit?

Yes, the death of Jesus on the Cross was retroactive back to the very beginning as the punishment for the sins of the world, both before and after His death. But not until after the cross, specifically at Pentecost was the New Covenant inaugurated setting up baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sin and for the receiving of the gift of the Holy Spirit. That could not and did not apply to the thief. Even more than that, Jesus personally had the power to save that thief for his acceptance and confession at that time on the cross independent of whatever the thief might have done before then.

So again, I say that the whole point of the thief on the cross is moot in any discussion of how the rest of us are saved.

And by the way, I will put my understanding of Bible doctrines and interpretations up against yours any day. It would seem that you don't even understand the distinctions between the Old and New Covenants.

 

[Truther]

You are in error!! Your opinion is just that...an opinion. Most professing Christians like you do not understand Bible doctrines nor it's interpretations, and thereby come away with incorrect interpretations.
In the Old Testament, the norm for the Jews for their atonement of sins were animal sacrifices.
However, the efficacy of the cross goes all the way back from the beginning. In fact, before the foundation of the world as we read in Revelation 13:8-9....
8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.

So we learn from Scriptures that the thief at the cross did not have to be baptize with water because right in front of us our great Savior is in progress to save him.

Those who want to teach must also learn how to be taught or they will fall under the warning of Hosea 4:6.

To God Be The Glory

The thief on the cross was an old Testament situation. Water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ did not begin until Pentecost. The thief on the cross was prior to that.

Now, when it comes to the old testament, we have an altar sacrifice. Jesus died and we die or repent.

The priest would wash in the laver, Jesus was baptized, and we must be baptized,

the priest went into the holy of Holies , Jesus passed the veil, and we received the Holy Ghost.

That is what the tabernacle types and shadows have to do with us today.

aActs 2:38 is precisely how we follow Jesus through his death, burial, and resurrection. You can’t skip it just like the priest could not skip any of these details in the tabernacle. Or else…

 

[JunChosen]

Where in the Old Testament do you read about anyone being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit?

There are no such wordings that can be found in the Old Testament, however; can you explain the words uttered by David in Psalms 51:11-13:
11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me [with thy] free spirit.
13 [Then] will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee.

But not until after the cross, specifically at Pentecost was the New Covenant inaugurated setting up baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sin and for the receiving of the gift of the Holy Spirit. That could not and did not apply to the thief.

Pentecost must be read in light of Acts 1:4-8:
"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."
You see, Pentecost was the day God began to evangelize the world!!

And by the way, I will put my understanding of Bible doctrines and interpretations up against yours any day. It would seem that you don't even understand the distinctions between the Old and New Covenants.

I don't really like to debate a fellow Christian because we know in part and prophesy in part, and especially because of Titus 3:8-11:
8 [This is] a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.
9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

However; I will engage a fellow Christian if I believe his doctrines to be false. Just as many do not understand Pentecost and John 3:16.

To God Be The Glory

 

[JBO]

There are no such wordings that can be found in the Old Testament, however; can you explain the words uttered by David in Psalms 51:11-13:
11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me [with thy] free spirit.
13 [Then] will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee.

There were selected individuals written about in the Old Testament who were chosen by God for special roles who were given special assistance through the Holy Spirit. But there is no indication that it was at all universal to the faithful as it is under His New Covenant.

Pentecost must be read in light of Acts 1:4-8:
"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."
You see, Pentecost was the day God began to evangelize the world!!

That was the prophecy that we see fulfilled in Acts 2:2-4. It concerned the gift of the empowering Holy Spirit; that is evidenced by the miracle of their speaking in other languages.

I don't really like to debate a fellow Christian because we know in part and prophesy in part, and especially because of Titus 3:8-11:
8 [This is] a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.
9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

However; I will engage a fellow Christian if I believe his doctrines to be false. Just as many do not understand Pentecost and John 3:16.

To God Be The Glory

Pentecost was the inauguration of the New Covenant. It was the establishment of Jesus' church; the church He spoke of in Matt 16:18. Clearly, it is you who do not understand Pentecost.

 

[RedFan]

Pentecost was the inauguration of the New Covenant. It was the establishment of Jesus' church; the church He spoke of in Matt 16:18.

True, except that in Matt. 16:18 Jesus would not have used any Aramaic or Hebrew word that could fairly be translated into Greek as ἐκκλησίᾳ -- used in the LXX to refer to the assembly of Israel. The word is almost always translated in the NT as “church,” but it literally means “assembly” or “gathering,” typically of a governing body (like a legislature or an official group of decisionmakers) culled out from among the general populace (hence the “ἐκ” in ἐκκλησίᾳ).

After Pentecost the word quickly gained currency as referring to either the entire body of Christian believers or to a particular congregation a particular locale – and we see it used that way in Acts and in Paul’s letters many times. Matthew mentions the word “church” (ἐκκλησίᾳ) twice, in Matt. 16:18 and Matt. 18:17. No other appearance of the word is found in any other gospel.

Is it likely that Jesus would have used such a word to describe an assembly of the faithful, in either verse (16:18 as a reference to the Church writ large, 18:17 as a reference to a given congregation)? Such pre-Pentecost usage by Jesus is hard for me to imagine, as is his listeners understanding it that way. Once Christianity was established, of course, the word took on all the trappings we now associate with it. That's the audience Matthew was writing for, which is why he used ἐκκλησίᾳ.

 

[JBO]

True, except that in Matt. 16:18 Jesus would not have used any Aramaic or Hebrew word that could fairly be translated into Greek as ἐκκλησίᾳ -- used in the LXX to refer to the assembly of Israel. The word is almost always translated in the NT as “church,” but it literally means “assembly” or “gathering,” typically of a governing body (like a legislature or an official group of decisionmakers) culled out from among the general populace (hence the “ἐκ” in ἐκκλησίᾳ).

After Pentecost the word quickly gained currency as referring to either the entire body of Christian believers or to a particular congregation a particular locale – and we see it used that way in Acts and in Paul’s letters many times. Matthew mentions the word “church” (ἐκκλησίᾳ) twice, in Matt. 16:18 and Matt. 18:17. No other appearance of the word is found in any other gospel.

Is it likely that Jesus would have used such a word to describe an assembly of the faithful, in either verse (16:18 as a reference to the Church writ large, 18:17 as a reference to a given congregation)? Such pre-Pentecost usage by Jesus is hard for me to imagine, as is his listeners understanding it that way. Once Christianity was established, of course, the word took on all the trappings we now associate with it. That's the audience Matthew was writing for, which is why he used ἐκκλησίᾳ.

Yes, but I am not sure that I understand your point. Matthew has provided the explanation of whatever it was that Jesus intended.

 

[RedFan]

Yes, but I am not sure that I understand your point. Matthew has provided the explanation of whatever it was that Jesus intended.

I see it as Matthew putting a spin on whatever word Jesus used (probably "ladoth") in order to connote what Matthew (and his audience) thought of as the community of all believers, the Body of Christ if you will -- when Jesus may actually have meant to appoint Peter as simply the high priest of the governing body of the "Church." (Note the alliterative play on words Jesus used when renaming Simon, "Kephas" vs. "Caiaphas.")

 

[JBO]

I see it as Matthew putting a spin on whatever word Jesus used (probably "ladoth") in order to connote what Matthew (and his audience) thought of as the community of all believers, the Body of Christ if you will -- when Jesus may actually have meant to appoint Peter as simply the high priest of the governing body of the "Church." (Note the alliterative play on words Jesus used when renaming Simon, "Kephas" vs. "Caiaphas.")

I think you are introducing some RCC contrived philosophy into this. There is no indication in the whole rest of he NT that there is any "high priest" of the church other than Jesus Christ. And throughout the entire Bible, the "rock", when not referring to the mineral material, nearly always refers to the divine being of God.

While there are a number of theological issues on which I could contend with the RCC, the most serious one is the inappropriate formation of the earthly "governing body" that the RCC has imposed upon the church of Jesus Christ. There are no popes, no cardinals, no priests, and no RCC variety of bishops in the body of the New Covenant believers in the NT.

Just my thoughts.