Questions on Acts

If I can, I'll come back and do a better job of adressing these. But for this post let me ask you to read these passages again with the idea that Peter is talking about the power of the Holy Spirit because He knows and says that God has already called them. He's telling them that sin is keeping them from the empowerment of indewlling of the holy Spirit.

I can't do a proper responce today but hopfully others will or I can come back to it tonight.

God Bless,
Mike

If you repent of sin and accept Christ, but refuse to get baptised, then aren't you sinning by rebellion? It would be hard to believe someone is truly saved if their first act as a Christian is disobedence.

TwinCrier said:

If you repent of sin and accept Christ, but refuse to get baptised, .

Click to expand...

I don't think the issue is with Acts 2:38 is rebellion. Many equate this passage mistakenly to imply that the act of baptism somehow effects the fogiveness of "washing away" of sins. There is however very little conclusive Biblical evidence that water baptism actually "does" something (i.e. literally saves/forgives/washes sins away).

I know most likely I am preaching to the choir here in the Baptist forum.

Questions on Acts

Hi guys!

I've been reading Acts and I had a few questions that I thought I would post here in the hopes that someone could help me with the answers. Please note, I'm using NIV.

Acts 2:38-39
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call."

Q1: This passage seems to indicate that we can only receive the gift of the Holy Spirit if we first repent and become baptized. Acts 8:15-17 seems to back this up: "15When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into[1] the name of the Lord Jesus. 17Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit."

Click to expand...

I will say the sins talked about during Acts were “national” sins. The gospel of the Kingdom was being preached sense John the Baptist came on the scene… His, was a message of repentance. Just like Jesus’ message, and just like the one preached in Acts by Peter…
What “sins” did Israel commit prior to Acts that they might need to repent from? What exactly was God’s plan for Israel?

Now, the “promise” of the Spirit was yet another OT prophesy being fulfilled… There was one condition prior to Acts for Israel, repent and believe for the remission of sins. This “belief” was on the Messiah and the coming messianic kingdom… What was the reason for the gifting of the Spirit?
So they (Israel) could be proper witnesses of the kingdom, this “power” was given and the signs followed.
Today we are simply “sealed” with the HS the moment we believe.
In a symbolic way you do need to be baptized and repent to receive the HS. There is ONE baptism which takes place AT salvation, by which the Old man is buried WITH Christ and the NEW Man is raised, and seated with Him in the heavenlies. We DO receive this through repentance.

Acts 1:5 also seems to support this"5For John baptized with[1] water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.""
However...Acts 10:47 "47Then Peter said, "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have."" seems to contradict the first set of vs's.

Click to expand...

John baptism was a baptism of repentance ON the person to come after him (Jesus Christ)… In acts 10 Cornelius received the HS at the moment he believed… He was a Gentile (and a proselyte). There is NO contradiction because the “promise” of power to witness was only given to Israel, which required baptism and repentance as you noted…

Q2: I thought Levites couldn't own land; see Numbers 18:20-21.
However, in Acts 4:36-37, we have the following statement:
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles' feet.

Click to expand...

Weird,, I would say (this is a BIG assumption). Priests (who previously came from the tribe of Levi) could not own land. One to ponder.

Q3: Based on Exodus 4:10, "10 Moses said to the LORD , "O Lord, I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor since you have spoken to your servant. I am slow of speech and tongue."", we know that Moses had some kind of problem speaking...however, Acts 7:22 says "22Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in speech and action."
Perhaps I'm interpreting "Powerfull" incorrectly. My only thought is that maybe it's the meaning of the words that were powerful instead of the speaker.

Click to expand...

We tend to speak wisely and with great confidence about that which we are educated on. I would say that’s all it meant. A powerfull speaker would also be one who REALLY knows what he’s talking about.

Q4: When and where did Moses have his two sons??? Acts 7:29 "29When Moses heard this, he fled to Midian, where he settled as a foreigner and had two sons."
When we look at Ex 4:25, we see something different: 25 But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son's foreskin and touched {Moses'} feet with it. [1] "Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me," she said. This passage implies that there is only one son, not two. My only thought is that Moses only took one son and left the other behind.
I am not inclined to believe that the scriptures can contradict themselves, however, I'm currently at a loss for answers. I'd be interested in hearing anyone's opinion...please back it up with scripture.
Thanks!

Click to expand...

Hope that helps!!