How To Understand : Acts 2:38

[LoveofTruth]

Why not answer the question better? It seems you are avoiding it.

Ok, Ill have to answer more detailed. Just a bit busy now hopefully later Lord willing.

 

[Aviel]

. I'm not one of those individuals that promotes a false water regeneration.

"false water regeneration".. that is "baptismal regeneration".

That comes from the Catholic Church, as their bible teaches that you are born again ="BY Water".

So, that is why its called "baptismal regeneration", and that is why you'll hear this... "water washes away your sin".

See all that? That is attributing to WATER, what only the Holy Spirit can do, through the Blood of Jesus.


Also, We were talking earlier about Jesus baptizing, and i told you one of the reasons that i teach what i teach.
And a few verses later, in John, it says that

John 4:1-2

"" The Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John ..though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but it was His disciples"..

So, i know you are not wanting to be "taught"....so, im just sharing this verse with you.

And now when we read that Paul said...>>"Christ sent me not to water baptize"... we can see that there is a connection.

 

[LoveofTruth]

That comes from the Catholic Church, as their bible teaches that you are born again ="BY Water".

and we hopefully can agree that this is not born of water referring to water baptism.

A child is born of water in the womb as Nicodemus asked Jesus,

“Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (John 3:4 KJV)

Notice that he mentions going into the mothers womb and being born /

Jesus had first said in the previous verse

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." 9 john 3:3 KJV)

he did not mention water in this. Then when Nicodemus asked about being born a second time in the mothers womb. Jesus then said

"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5 KJV)

notice now Jesus adds of water and the spirit. This is speaking of two different births. The very next berse Jesus defines what he is speaking about. He said,

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. " ( John 3:6 KJV)

Clearly Jesus is talking about two births, that of the flesh ( born of water) and that of the Spirit.

Jesus further defines the spiritual birth being like the wind you cannot see it. So if he was speaking of water baptism ( which he is not and mentions nothing of water baptism here) you could see it.

It is possible that Nicodemus thought he was saved by being a child of Abraham and part of Israel born of the flesh in the natural birth. But jesus said he must be born again of the spirit (from above)

So, that is why its called "baptismal regeneration", and that is why you'll hear this... "water washes away your sin".

without the shedding of blood there is no remission. Johns water baptism was a figure one of the many in the Ot. The Jordan river typifies decending unto death and rising into the new land following Christ or in the type the arc and Joshua.

“And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,” (Revelation 1"5 KJV)

“And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.” (Hebrews 9:22 KJV)

“For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” (Matthew 26:28 KJV)

“Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;” (Romans 3:25 KJV)

 

[Aviel]

without the shedding of blood there is no remission. Johns water baptism was a figure one of the many in the OT.

Exactly.

Water gets you wet.

The Blood Of Jesus gets you redeemed.

 

[Guojing]

Exactly.

Water gets you wet.

The Blood Of Jesus gets you redeemed.

Since you are not destined to be a priest in a holy nation (1 Peter 2:9-12), you are correct.

 

[Hawkins]

By Covenant (and Law), circumcision defines a Jew. By the same token, baptism may define a Christian who is a follower of Christ. You may skip it only when Jesus deems it fit. It is so because the whole Judgment of Covenant is a subjective judgment by a fair and just God. The Judgment of Law on the other hand, is an objective judgment. To simply put, you need to be baptized as required by the Covenant. However, if Jesus sees that you have a good reason to skip it, then you are fine.

So preaching "not to be baptized" is a dangerous act where your conscience (or the lack thereof) allows you to risk others' life or death.

That being said. A prophet is for God to put words in his mouth. By the same token, Peter may speak correctly when filled with the Spirit. Plus there's not a defined timing when Peter was awaken. He as a legit apostle, is subject to God instead of Paul.

 

[ARBITER01]

By Covenant (and Law), circumcision defines a Jew. By the same token, baptism may define a Christian who is a follower of Christ. You may skip it only when Jesus deems it fit. It is so because the whole Judgment of Covenant is a subjective judgment by a fair and just God. The Judgment of Law on the other hand, is an objective judgment. To simply put, you need to be baptized as required by the Covenant. However, if Jesus sees that you have a good reason to skip it, then you are fine.

So preaching "not to be baptized" is a dangerous act where your conscience (or the lack thereof) allows you to risk others' life or death.

That being said. A prophet is for God to put words in his mouth. By the same token, Peter may speak correctly when filled with the Spirit. Plus there's not a defined timing when Peter was awaken. He as a legit apostle, is subject to God instead of Paul.

Very well said.

 

[Guojing]

To simply put, you need to be baptized as required by the Covenant. However, if Jesus sees that you have a good reason to skip it, then you are fine.

Do you have scripture for these two claims?

 

[Dan Perez]

By Covenant (and Law), circumcision defines a Jew. By the same token, baptism may define a Christian who is a follower of Christ. You may skip it only when Jesus deems it fit. It is so because the whole Judgment of Covenant is a subjective judgment by a fair and just God. The Judgment of Law on the other hand, is an objective judgment. To simply put, you need to be baptized as required by the Covenant. However, if Jesus sees that you have a good reason to skip it, then you are fine.

So preaching "not to be baptized" is a dangerous act where your conscience (or the lack thereof) allows you to risk others' life or death.

That being said. A prophet is for God to put words in his mouth. By the same token, Peter may speak correctly when filled with the Spirit. Plus there's not a defined timing when Peter was awaken. He as a legit apostle, is subject to God instead of Paul.

Are you saying that Paul " WAS not Legit " ? And do you have a verse for that assumption ?

In 1 Cor 1:1 The Holy Spirit had Paul write , You become IMITATORS of Me , just as as I also am of Christ .

Then in 2 Peter 2: 16A the Holy Spirit had Peter write this about Paul , As also in ALL his EPISTLES speaking in them of these things in which are some things HARD to understood , which they that are UNLEARNED and UNSTABLE Wrest , as they do also the other scriptures unto their own destruction .

dan p

 

[keepitsimple144]

Reader,
There are some who teach that the "Gospel" is : Acts 2:38. Now let me show you a few things..
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.

It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. John 6:45

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....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.

Not to split hairs about who came to understand the grace of God in truth first,
but it was revealed to Peter by the Father, (Matthew 16:16-17) Son and Holy Spirit, (Matt 28:19)

The disciples were assembled and Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them, “Peace be with you.”...​

Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And ​

when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. John 20:19-23​

while Paul was still clinging to his pharisaical traditions persecuting the body of believers.
However, Paul did remind him later, that we are indeed made right with God by grace through faith in Christ. (Galatians 2:11-18)
“He who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith which he once tried to destroy.” Gal 1:23

 

[Guojing]

Not to split hairs about who came to understand the grace of God in truth first,
but it was revealed to Peter by the Father, (Matthew 16:16-17) Son and Holy Spirit, (Matt 28:19)

If it was revealed to Peter at that moment, then his reaction to Cornelius at Acts 10 would have been irrational.

 

[keepitsimple144]

If it was revealed to Peter at that moment, then his reaction to Cornelius at Acts 10 would have been irrational.

It was stated by another poster that Peter came to understand the gospel through Paul in Acts 15,
but as we know he was already proclaiming that the gift of the Spirit is granted though faith in Christ in Acts 2:38.

The account in Acts 10 in which he perceived that it was for both Jew and Gentile, was also by divine revelation.
Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. You know the word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all— Acts 10:34-36

He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead.
To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”
The Gift of the Holy Spirit was poured on the Gentiles
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit was poured on all those who heard the word. Acts 10:42-44

Again in Acts 11,
Peter Defends God’s Grace (NKJV)
If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?”
When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.” Acts 11:15-18

 

[Guojing]

It was stated by another poster that Peter came to understand the gospel through Paul in Acts 15,
but as we know he was already proclaiming that the gift of the Spirit is granted though faith in Christ in Acts 2:38.

I take it you are using the "Peter was stubborn and refuse to accept the change until Acts 15" reasoning?

 

[keepitsimple144]

It was stated by another poster that Peter came to understand the gospel through Paul in Acts 15,
but as we know he was already proclaiming that the gift of the Spirit is granted though faith in Christ in Acts 2:38.

The account in Acts 10 in which he perceived that it was for both Jew and Gentile, was also by divine revelation.
Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. You know the word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all— Acts 10:34-36

He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead.
To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”
The Gift of the Holy Spirit was poured on the Gentiles
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit was poured on all those who heard the word. Acts 10:42-44

Again in Acts 11,
Peter Defends God’s Grace (NKJV)
If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?”
When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.” Acts 11:15-18

I take it you are using the "Peter was stubborn and refuse to accept the change until Acts 15" reasoning?

Peter received the Spirit in Acts 2. Stubborn folks resist the Spirit and are uncircumcised in heart; They neither hear nor see.

Wait for the promised Spirit, Acts 1:4
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. Acts 2:33

And again in Acts 15,
Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Acts 15:7-9

 

[Guojing]

Peter received the Spirit in Acts 2. Stubborn folks resist the Spirit and are uncircumcised in heart; They neither hear nor see.

Wait for the promised Spirit, Acts 1:4
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. Acts 2:33

And again in Acts 15,
Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Acts 15:7-9

Is your answer to my question yes or no?

 

[keepitsimple144]

Is your answer to my question yes or no?

You didn't have a question, you just assumed and you know what happens when you assume.
The fact is that Peter was consistently proclaiming the good news of salvation.

We are His witnesses to the people. And we declare to you glad tidings—that promise which was made to the fathers. God has fulfilled
this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm:
‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. Acts 13:32-33
From that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. Hebrews 10:12-17

 

[keepitsimple144]

Is your answer to my question yes or no?

Your speculation was that Peter "refused to accept the change until Acts 15" while ignoring that he received the promised Spirit in Acts 2,

But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree. Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.” Acts 5:29-32

 

[Guojing]

Your speculation was that Peter "refused to accept the change until Acts 15" while ignoring that he received the promised Spirit in Acts 2,

But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree. Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.” Acts 5:29-32

My original point was to you was this

If it was revealed to Peter at that moment (Matthew 28 or Acts 2), then his reaction to Cornelius at Acts 10 would have been irrational.

 

[keepitsimple144]

My original point was to you was this

If it was revealed to Peter at that moment (Matthew 28 or Acts 2), then his reaction to Cornelius at Acts 10 would have been irrational.

It was addressed:

... as we know he was already proclaiming that the gift of the Spirit is granted though faith in Christ in Acts 2:38.
The account in Acts 10 in which he perceived that it was for both Jew and Gentile, was also by divine revelation.

Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. You know the word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all— Acts 10:34-36

To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: Grace and peace ...2 Peter 1:1-3

 

[Guojing]

It was addressed:

It was not, at the beginning of Acts 10, Peter was reluctant to go to Cornelius house and even told him its unlawful for Jews and gentiles to associate.

So Peter could not have received the same revelation Paul received during Acts 2. That is my point.