Understanding : Acts 2:38

[Davy]

And not from Jesus's parting earthy words (Matt. 28:19-20)? What, was he deaf?

The tradition from men you appear to be pushing is HyperDispensationalism.

From Wikipedia:

"Hyperdispensationalists are not monolithic nor homogenous. There are two main positions: Acts 9 and Acts 13. Both see the dispensation of Grace, which is the church age, as beginning with the Apostle Paul. Also, within the movement is found King James only elements associated mainly with the teachings of Richard Jordan and Grace School of the Bible. While the Acts 2 position differs from other forms of dispensationalism, they are all true dispensationalists and fully evangelical still tending towards fundamentalism. Furthermore, the differences separating the Mid-Acts position from the Acts 28 position are just as great as those separating the Acts 2 position from the Mid-Acts dispensational position."​

Those are just confused doctrines of men.

Apostle Peter was shown by God that The Gospel would go to the Gentiles (Acts 10). So any claims that Peter learned that from Apostle Paul is false.

Furthermore, Christ told His disciple Ananias in Acts 9 that He was sending Saul (Paul) to him, and to put his hand on Saul so that he might receive his sight. And when Ananias complained, because he knew how Saul had been a great persecutor of the Church, Jesus then told Ananias that Saul was His "chosen vessel" to take The Gospel to the 1) the Gentiles, and 2) to kings, and 3) to the children of Israel (Acts 9:15).

So Christ's disciple Ananias even knew before Peter did, that The Gospel would also go to the Gentiles. So where's men's doctrine arguments on that? Thus men's traditions dreamed up are just silly things they come up with that most often is not taught in God's Word.

Those that do men's doctrines are like greedy academia in many universities that are itching to come up with some idea they can call their own, so they can write a book about it and become famous, or make money with.

 

[RedFan]

The tradition from men you appear to be pushing is HyperDispensationalism.

From Wikipedia:

"Hyperdispensationalists are not monolithic nor homogenous. There are two main positions: Acts 9 and Acts 13. Both see the dispensation of Grace, which is the church age, as beginning with the Apostle Paul. Also, within the movement is found King James only elements associated mainly with the teachings of Richard Jordan and Grace School of the Bible. While the Acts 2 position differs from other forms of dispensationalism, they are all true dispensationalists and fully evangelical still tending towards fundamentalism. Furthermore, the differences separating the Mid-Acts position from the Acts 28 position are just as great as those separating the Acts 2 position from the Mid-Acts dispensational position."​

Those are just confused doctrines of men.

Apostle Peter was shown by God that The Gospel would go to the Gentiles (Acts 10). So any claims that Peter learned that from Apostle Paul is false.

Furthermore, Christ told His disciple Ananias in Acts 9 that He was sending Saul (Paul) to him, and to put his hand on Saul so that he might receive his sight. And when Ananias complained, because he knew how Saul had been a great persecutor of the Church, Jesus then told Ananias that Saul was His "chosen vessel" to take The Gospel to the 1) the Gentiles, and 2) to kings, and 3) to the children of Israel (Acts 9:15).

So Christ's disciple Ananias even knew before Peter did, that The Gospel would also go to the Gentiles. So where's men's doctrine arguments on that? Thus men's traditions dreamed up are just silly things they come up with that most often is not taught in God's Word.

Those that do men's doctrines are like greedy academia in many universities that are itching to come up with some idea they can call their own, so they can write a book about it and become famous, or make money with.

What are you talking about? I'm not pushing ANYTHING. And I agree that Peter learned nothing from Paul about outreach to Gentiles. I'm just saying that the Great Commission recorded by Matthew instructed the apostles, Peter included, to reach out to the Gentiles. So Peter's coming to that conclusion from the vision referenced in Acts 10 rather than from Christ's own words needs some explanation.

 

[Davy]

I'm just saying that the Great Commission recorded by Matthew instructed the apostles, Peter included, to reach out to the Gentiles. So Peter's coming to that conclusion from the vision referenced in Acts 10 rather than from Christ's own words needs some explanation.

See there in bold, you did it again, with "So Peter's coming to that conclusion from the vision referenced in Acts 10 rather than from Christ's own words...".

Per the vision shown Peter in Acts 10, that vision and declaration WAS DIRECTLY CHRIST SPEAKING TO PETER.

 

[RedFan]

See there in bold, you did it again, with "So Peter's coming to that conclusion from the vision referenced in Acts 10 rather than from Christ's own words...".

Per the vision shown Peter in Acts 10, that vision and declaration WAS DIRECTLY CHRIST SPEAKING TO PETER.

Sure, for a second time. I'm not denying that the Acts 10 vision was Christ's own words too. But why the need for a refresher? Did Peter just forget what Christ had already told him at His ascension?

(I should have said "Christ's earlier words" rather than "Christ's own words.")

 

[Davy]

Sure, for a second time. I'm not denying that the Acts 10 vision was Christ's own words too. But why the need for a refresher? Did Peter just forget what Christ had already told him at His ascension?

(I should have said "Christ's earlier words" rather than "Christ's own words.")

It's just that some Dispensationalist churches try to claim that only Paul's Epistles are for the Church, which is not true. Darby in 1830s Britain who first preached the false pre-trib rapture is one of those who tried to separate the Gospel into two separate gospels, just because he pushed the lie that Jesus gathers the Church prior to the tribulation while the Jews remain to go through it, and then those of the Jews that believe are gathered at the 2nd coming after the tribulation. All Darby was doing was trying to drum support for his pre-trib rapture theory.

 

[rebuilder 454]

Reader,

There are some who teach that the "Gospel" is : Acts 2:38.

Now, if you are familiar with Christianity, then you know that everyone is invited to become a Christian......Jews, Gentiles,.........
>"The World"... = John 3:16.

So, one of the things we find out about the NT, is... = if an Apostle does not know something then they can't teach it until they know it.

And Peter, who was the Act 2:38 preacher, did not understand the Gospel of the Grace of God, until Acts 15. = Not until He was taught it by Paul.

Now, How is all that relevant to Paul? and Acts 2:38

Its like this reader, ... Many people and denominations consider Acts 2:38 as the Gospel... and these people are very strong proponents for "Water baptism"..
In Fact they are so into the water aspect that they read that "Noah was saved by water" and can't understand that Had NOAH and Family gotten out of that ARK, then Noah and Family, would have DIED in that FLOOD WATER JUDGEMENT.

See, it was the ARK that kept them OUT of the WATER, is why they LIVED.., as that wooden ARK is not just their Salvation from that water, but its symbolic of the Cross of Christ that was WOOD, (A TREE) , and Christ on it, is our ARK .
How?
Christ on that WOOD, takes the Judgement for our sin, just as Noah's Ark saved Noah and Family from the WATER that was God's Judgment.

Now let me show you a few things..

First, Peter was not water baptized in Acts 2:38. and you can read it for yourself.
So, we could stop right there, as that proves that WATER is not going to save anything, when the very person who is telling those JEWS to get in the water, was not himself water baptized that day.
But lets continue, as some of you, are waking up, and some of you are learning something you need to know.

= NONE in the "upper room" were water baptized in Acts 2:38, and you can read it for yourself.
And Peter and those same were speaking with tongues, yet none were water baptized., in Acts 2:38

Water Baptism, began before Jesus showed up, Reader.
Its a big part of the Jewish OT Situation, and you've read that John The Baptist.. (John the Water Baptizer) was baptizing Jews long before Jesus showed up, and this saved NONE of them.. It washed NONE of their sin away.
So, when The JEW = PETER........ was preaching in Acts 2:38, He preached all he knew, and that was for that day, but it is not for now, regarding water being necessary as a part of the process of God's Redemption.
it wasn't a part of it on that day... or Peter would have gotten water baptized and those in the upper room also..

See that?

So why did Peter Preach it? = Its because its ALL HE KNEW at that time., as at that time if you were a Jew, you repented and John the water Baptizer dunked you... it was a part of the law, and Jesus did it because as He said.>>"Let us fulfill all things".. all things related to the law, as Jesus was born under the Law.

ENTER... Paul the Apostle, who was sent to preach .. ""The preaching of the Cross is the power of God unto salvation, for everyone who Believes"".

And notice this verse.. ."Its pleased GOD by the foolishness of PREACHING.. to SAVE THOSE... who BELIEVE"... (not get in the water).

And "Save those who believe what"?

A.) Paul's gospel...>"The Gospel of the GRACE OF GOD" that is the "preaching of the Cross of Christ".

Now how do you know that Peter didnt know anything about the "Gospel of the Grace of God in Acts 2"?

Its because Peter didnt know that Gentiles could be saved, until 10 yrs after Jesus is back in Heaven.
So, if you dont KNOW that Jews and Gentiles can both be saved, then you dont understand God's Salvation, according to how PAUL was sent to teach it, by Revelation from JESUS Himself.

Read Acts of the Apostles... Chapter 10, written a decade after Jesus is back in Heaven., and discover that Peter didnt know that Gentiles could be saved... YET.. SO....= God had to give Peter a vision, to cause Him to UNDERSTAND this about Gentiles.
So, You can't preach the true Gospel, that includes GENTILES being saved.... if you dont yet know it.
And that is why Acts 2:38, is NOT The Gospel.

And here is one more.
Paul said...>"Christ sent me NOT to water baptize"........and that does not mean that we are not to be water baptized.
I was water baptized 11 yrs after i was born again. I was water baptized, about 5 yrs after i was called into the Ministry by the Holy Spirit.

See reader to understand the TRUE Gospel..... in "the time of the Gentiles".. and we are in it....
It means that the correct understanding of the process of Redemption, is not about water....its about the BLOOD OF JESUS and the CROSS of Christ and Faith that is counted by God as "righteousness", and water has no part in that, at all.

It was in Acts 15, that Peter learned what Paul knew, that Paul learned from Jesus, and from that point, all the Apostles understood "Paul's Gospel of the Grace of God" that is not related to water baptism.

No
Peter James and John all new the gospel of grace
it was Peter that received the revelation through the sheet that was lowered that the gospel was now given unto the Gentiles
Paul did not originate any of that it came from heaven and it was given to all the disciples
they all knew and understood the doctrine and gospel of grace
none of them tried to get under the law and preach salvation through keeping the law
that is just ridiculous
That the gospel was now given to the Gentiles came as a revelation from heaven first to Peter long before Paul ever got that revelation ,and so to think that only Paul knew the gospel of grace, and he had to teach it to the others ,it's just flat out wrong

 

[rebuilder 454]

Ive not stated that Peter was never water baptized.

What my Thread reveals, is that neither Peter, nor those in the Upper Room, in Acts 2, on the Day of Pentecost, were water baptized.

So, you find Peter and those in the Upper Room, given the #9 Spiritual Gift on Paul's List of Spiritual Gifts, and yet none of them were water baptized.

Also, my Thread is pointing out that Peter the Jew, who was talking to Jews, on THEIR Day of Pentecost, told them.

"You have slain your Messiah"....."repent and be water baptized"., and that is what John the Baptist told the Jews.

And Paul The Apostle, who came later, does not preach that message.... as that is not the "Gospel".

Here is the Gospel...>"The Preaching of.. THE CROSS.. is the POWER OF GOD... unto SALVATION for/to everyone who BELIEVES">

Paul's Gospel is the "Gospel of the GRACE of God"...... not water baptism + repent.

We have a Pauline guy and our men's bible study that mimics this exact same false teaching.
He brings up every single meeting the deficiencies, and how repulsed he is at first and second Peter ,James ,first and second John ,even Revelation .
he thinks they are somehow under the law. This is just flat out ridiculous.
All scripture is given by inspiration and is profitable for edification rebuke and exhortation.
The Pauline guy in our Bible study actually said that Paul's word should be in red and not Jesus's words.
Now I can't for the life of me see how if if I'm in such error by not strictly adhering to Pauline only, and basically despising Peter ,James, and John, that they were somehow under the law .....huh????
I can't for the life of me even began to understand how I would be so blessed and prosperous by jettisoning water baptism and all the the scripture of Peter ,James ,and John.
And what about the book of Hebrews? we're not even sure that Paul wrote it.
So I wonder what Pauline's do about that? do they just put a big question mark over every single page because they can't for sure trust it cuz it might not have come from Paul?
so they can't trust anything that doesn't come directly from Paul.
That is plain false.
All the disciples understood salvation as a free gift.
None of them sought to incorrectly revert to the law.
None of them taught salvation by works.
None of them

 

[rebuilder 454]

The reason that you can be water baptized 3 or 4 times, and die and go to hell..

The reason that thousands of Water Baptized people, died and went to hell , today..

Is because of this..

Jesus said. "you must be born again", and they were not...they were only water baptized and RELIGIOUS.

Now the WATER CULTS, they teach a "doctrine of Devils" (Hebrews 13:9) that teaches that WATER is required or God does not save.

Never belong to one of the Water Cults that teach that CATHOLIC "baptismal regeneration" lie, as that Lie insults the Cross of Christ and The Blood of Jesus.

You can also repeat any salvation prayer from any top believer and go to hell
Does that mean salvation is another bogey man?

 

[RedFan]

It's just that some Dispensationalist churches try to claim that only Paul's Epistles are for the Church, which is not true. Darby in 1830s Britain who first preached the false pre-trib rapture is one of those who tried to separate the Gospel into two separate gospels, just because he pushed the lie that Jesus gathers the Church prior to the tribulation while the Jews remain to go through it, and then those of the Jews that believe are gathered at the 2nd coming after the tribulation. All Darby was doing was trying to drum support for his pre-trib rapture theory.

I guess that's interesting. Meanwhile, to my point:

In Matt. 28:19 Christ reportedly commissions his apostles to spread the gospel to “all the nations.” The Greek word ethnē translated as “nations” here is universally interpreted to include Gentiles―making it a complete reversal of Christ’s earlier instruction to the apostles to reach out only to the Jews (Matt. 10:5-6) and of his prediction that the apostles won’t complete their mission to the Jews before his return (Matt. 10:23).

It strains logic to assume that his disciples could have understood Jesus’ last words to refer to other than Gentiles. So if Christ commissioned outreach to the Gentiles at his ascension, how are we to make sense of Acts 10 and 11? In these chapters Peter encounters Cornelius, a Gentile, and through a dream comes to the conclusion that the gospel is not to be restricted to Jews. He reports the dream and the conclusion to his Christian brethren in Jerusalem, who at first are quite critical of Peter, but then come to accept his explanation.

If Christ’s parting words to his disciples before His ascension instructed them to spread the gospel to the Gentiles, wouldn’t you think they’d remember it? Wouldn’t you think that Peter and the brethren in Jerusalem would have embraced rather than questioned the practice of reaching out to the Gentiles? Why, then, their surprise?

 

[Davy]

I guess that's interesting. Meanwhile, to my point:

In Matt. 28:19 Christ reportedly commissions his apostles to spread the gospel to “all the nations.” The Greek word ethnē translated as “nations” here is universally interpreted to include Gentiles―making it a complete reversal of Christ’s earlier instruction to the apostles to reach out only to the Jews (Matt. 10:5-6) and of his prediction that the apostles won’t complete their mission to the Jews before his return (Matt. 10:23).

If you just concentrate on Scripture that The Gospel was to go to the Gentiles it can become easy to just think about a Gentile Church, which idea is not even written by Apostle Paul (Gal.3:28).

When Jesus said the following to the Canaanite woman, He wasn't simply pointing to sending His disciples only to the Jews at the start of His Ministry. The meaning of the phrase "house of Israel" after the 1 Kings 11 split meant only... the ten scattered tribes of Israel that were scattered among the Gentiles to whom The Gospel would be taken to.

Matt 15:24
24 But He answered and said, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
KJV

So the actual meaning of what Jesus said there is that the Jews at Jerusalem/Judea would reject The Gospel, yet The Gospel was to be given to the "house of Israel" that was scattered and not there in the holy land anymore, but was among the Gentiles. And that is exactly... what happened per Christian history, The Gospel was accepted by both scattered Israelites among the Gentiles, and both would become Christ's early Church in the West. The Book of Hosea outlines some of that history about the ten tribes and the new covenant that would be given them, which is why Apostle Paul quoted from Hosea to Roman Gentile believers in Romans 9:25-26.

 

[RedFan]

Sure, but the Great Commission can't be reasonably interpreted as anything but a command of outreach to the Gentiles. Given that, what do you make of the Acts 10-11 story? Why was there ever any question in the minds of those who heard the final pre-ascension words of Christ recorded in Matthew that Gentiles were to receive salvation through Christ?

 

[Behold]

Peter was not water baptized in Acts 2:38. and you can read it for yourself.
So, we could stop right there, as that proves that WATER is not going to save anything, when the very person who is telling those JEWS to get in the water, was not himself water baptized that day.
But lets continue, as some of you, are waking up, and some of you are learning something you need to know.

= NONE in the "upper room" were water baptized in Acts 2:38, and you can read it for yourself.
And Peter and those same were speaking with tongues, yet none were water baptized., in Acts 2:38

Water Baptism, began before Jesus showed up, Reader.
Its a big part of the Jewish OT Situation, and you've read that John The Baptist.. (John the Water Baptizer) was baptizing Jews long before Jesus showed up, and this saved NONE of them.. It washed NONE of their sin away.
So, when The JEW = PETER........ was preaching in Acts 2:38, He preached all he knew, and that was for that day, but it is not for now, regarding water being necessary as a part of the process of God's Redemption.
it wasn't a part of it on that day... or Peter would have gotten water baptized and those in the upper room also..

See that?

So why did Peter Preach it? = Its because its ALL HE KNEW at that time., as at that time if you were a Jew, you repented and John the water Baptizer dunked you... it was a part of the law, and Jesus did it because as He said.>>"Let us fulfill all things".. all things related to the law, as Jesus was born under the Law.

ENTER... Paul the Apostle, who was sent to preach .. ""The preaching of the Cross is the power of God unto salvation, for everyone who Believes"".

And notice this verse.. ."Its pleased GOD by the foolishness of PREACHING.. to SAVE THOSE... who BELIEVE"... (not get in the water).

And "Save those who believe what"?

A.) Paul's gospel...>"The Gospel of the GRACE OF GOD" that is the "preaching of the Cross of Christ".

 

[Davy]

Sure, but the Great Commission can't be reasonably interpreted as anything but a command of outreach to the Gentiles. Given that, what do you make of the Acts 10-11 story? Why was there ever any question in the minds of those who heard the final pre-ascension words of Christ recorded in Matthew that Gentiles were to receive salvation through Christ?

Your first statement is simply incorrect. You apparently don't know about the Bible history of when God split the old kingdom of Israel into two separate kingdoms and houses. By the time of Christ's 1st coming, the northern ten tribes of Israel were not even there anymore. God had scattered them among the Gentiles, to Assyria and the lands of the Medes, never to return. They became the ten lost tribes.

Split of old Israel began in Solomon's day per 1 Kings 11. And by 2 Kings 17, God had removed the ten northern tribe "kingdom of Israel" captive to Assyria and the lands of the Medes, never to return. That wasn't about the Jews that remained in Jerusalem/Judea (see Book of Hosea about the ten tribe "house of Israel", the northern kingdom.)

So when Jesus said He was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the "house of Israel", the ten lost tribes scattered among the Gentiles is who He was talking about.

 

[RedFan]

Your first statement is simply incorrect. You apparently don't know about the Bible history of when God split the old kingdom of Israel into two separate kingdoms and houses. By the time of Christ's 1st coming, the northern ten tribes of Israel were not even there anymore. God had scattered them among the Gentiles, to Assyria and the lands of the Medes, never to return. They became the ten lost tribes.

Split of old Israel began in Solomon's day per 1 Kings 11. And by 2 Kings 17, God had removed the ten northern tribe "kingdom of Israel" captive to Assyria and the lands of the Medes, never to return. That wasn't about the Jews that remained in Jerusalem/Judea (see Book of Hosea about the ten tribe "house of Israel", the northern kingdom.)

So when Jesus said He was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the "house of Israel", the ten lost tribes scattered among the Gentiles is who He was talking about.

I disagree with your interpretation of Jesus' reference. Jesus was commissioning outreach to the Gentiles worldwide.

Mark 13:10 tells us that before the end arrives “The gospel must first be preached to all the nations,” while Mark 14:9 concludes the story of the anointing at Bethany with “Wherever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, what this woman hath done shall be also told, in memory of her,” and it seems unlikely in the extreme that the author intended only a world-wide outreach to Jews. By the time of John’s gospel, the issue is settled: John 1:29 has the Baptist saying “Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world;” John 3:16 admonishes that “God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son;” John 10:16 quotes Jesus as desiring to bring the “other sheep” into the one flock; John 12:20-21 has Greeks asking after Jesus; and so on.

 

[gpresdo]

Peter was not water baptized in Acts 2:38. and you can read it for yourself.
So, we could stop right there, as that proves that WATER is not going to save anything, when the very person who is telling those JEWS to get in the water, was not himself water baptized that day.
But lets continue, as some of you, are waking up, and some of you are learning something you need to know.

= NONE in the "upper room" were water baptized in Acts 2:38, and you can read it for yourself.
And Peter and those same were speaking with tongues, yet none were water baptized., in Acts 2:38

Water Baptism, began before Jesus showed up, Reader.
Its a big part of the Jewish OT Situation, and you've read that John The Baptist.. (John the Water Baptizer) was baptizing Jews long before Jesus showed up, and this saved NONE of them.. It washed NONE of their sin away.
So, when The JEW = PETER........ was preaching in Acts 2:38, He preached all he knew, and that was for that day, but it is not for now, regarding water being necessary as a part of the process of God's Redemption.
it wasn't a part of it on that day... or Peter would have gotten water baptized and those in the upper room also..

See that?

So why did Peter Preach it? = Its because its ALL HE KNEW at that time., as at that time if you were a Jew, you repented and John the water Baptizer dunked you... it was a part of the law, and Jesus did it because as He said.>>"Let us fulfill all things".. all things related to the law, as Jesus was born under the Law.

ENTER... Paul the Apostle, who was sent to preach .. ""The preaching of the Cross is the power of God unto salvation, for everyone who Believes"".

And notice this verse.. ."Its pleased GOD by the foolishness of PREACHING.. to SAVE THOSE... who BELIEVE"... (not get in the water).

And "Save those who believe what"?

A.) Paul's gospel...>"The Gospel of the GRACE OF GOD" that is the "preaching of the Cross of Christ".

That is not scripture.....baptism is for sin forgiveness repentance. Don't loose sight of God's commandments just because some special dispensation may have been extended by God as He can and may do. It does not change His commandments for others.

 

[GracePeace]

What are you talking about? I'm not pushing ANYTHING. And I agree that Peter learned nothing from Paul about outreach to Gentiles. I'm just saying that the Great Commission recorded by Matthew instructed the apostles, Peter included, to reach out to the Gentiles. So Peter's coming to that conclusion from the vision referenced in Acts 10 rather than from Christ's own words needs some explanation.

1. There were many instances where Christ said things that went completely over the Apostles' heads.
2. The Apostles may have thought Jesus meant--as the Pharisees misinterpreted, "'Where does this man intend to go that we will not find him? Does he intend to go to the Dispersion among the Greeks and teach the Greeks?'"--"Go into the nations in which the Jews are in diaspora and preach the Gospel to the Jews in diaspora."

 

[rebuilder 454]

Peter was not water baptized in Acts 2:38. and you can read it for yourself.
So, we could stop right there, as that proves that WATER is not going to save anything, when the very person who is telling those JEWS to get in the water, was not himself water baptized that day.
But lets continue, as some of you, are waking up, and some of you are learning something you need to know.

= NONE in the "upper room" were water baptized in Acts 2:38, and you can read it for yourself.
And Peter and those same were speaking with tongues, yet none were water baptized., in Acts 2:38

Water Baptism, began before Jesus showed up, Reader.
Its a big part of the Jewish OT Situation, and you've read that John The Baptist.. (John the Water Baptizer) was baptizing Jews long before Jesus showed up, and this saved NONE of them.. It washed NONE of their sin away.
So, when The JEW = PETER........ was preaching in Acts 2:38, He preached all he knew, and that was for that day, but it is not for now, regarding water being necessary as a part of the process of God's Redemption.
it wasn't a part of it on that day... or Peter would have gotten water baptized and those in the upper room also..

See that?

So why did Peter Preach it? = Its because its ALL HE KNEW at that time., as at that time if you were a Jew, you repented and John the water Baptizer dunked you... it was a part of the law, and Jesus did it because as He said.>>"Let us fulfill all things".. all things related to the law, as Jesus was born under the Law.

ENTER... Paul the Apostle, who was sent to preach .. ""The preaching of the Cross is the power of God unto salvation, for everyone who Believes"".

And notice this verse.. ."Its pleased GOD by the foolishness of PREACHING.. to SAVE THOSE... who BELIEVE"... (not get in the water).

And "Save those who believe what"?

A.) Paul's gospel...>"The Gospel of the GRACE OF GOD" that is the "preaching of the Cross of Christ".

Romans 6:4
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk innewness of
Colossians 2:12
Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead

Good Ole Paul explaining the spiritual insight behind the sound doctrine of water baptism

 

[Behold]

Romans 6:4
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death:

There are several ways to understand your verse.

First, lets look at PETER, explain water baptism...

1 Peter 3:21

""""""The like FIGURE whereunto even baptism doth also now save us"""""

See that word "FIGURE" ? = that is the literal context of the water baptism..

Peter is showing you that water baptism, is a FIGURE... its SYMBOLIC.....


Paul then says this..

"Christ sent me not to Water Baptize".... So, if water is required for Salvation, then Paul would never say he was not sent to water baptize.


Finally.

"There is one Lord, One Faith, and ONE Baptism".. .

And that Baptism, is Spiritual, were we are born again by the Spirit of God.... .not by water.

 

[rebuilder 454]

There are several ways to understand your verse.

First, lets look at PETER, explain water baptism...

1 Peter 3:21

""""""The like FIGURE whereunto even baptism doth also now save us"""""

See that word "FIGURE" ? = that is the literal context of the water baptism..

Peter is showing you that water baptism, is a FIGURE... its SYMBOLIC.....


Paul then says this..

"Christ sent me not to Water Baptize".... So, if water is required for Salvation, then Paul would never say he was not sent to water baptize.


Finally.

"There is one Lord, One Faith, and ONE Baptism".. .

And that Baptism, is Spiritual, were we are born again by the Spirit of God.... .not by water.

The spiritual dynamic Paul is conveying is that we identify with death when underwater, then identify with resurrection when coming up out of water.
No salvation in water baptism.
Never has been.
Nor is taught as salvation.
It is obedience,and bears witness to our born again new inward man.
That is WHY believers are so excited to be water baptised.

 

[Truther]

3000 were baptized in the name of Jesus and attitude to church in Acts chapter 2. What are you guys talking about?