• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The way to understand Acts 2:38

Discussion in 'Baptists' started by JLR1300, Nov 27, 2014.

  1. mikedsjr

    mikedsjr Master Newbie

    981
    +195
    Baptist
    Married
    deacondean, name me a respected Bible version that doesn't tie "repent" and "baptized" to "for the remission of sins".

    As for Luke 24:47 similarity, yes the similarity is there. It's also translated differently between the respected translations between "and" & "for". Either way doesn't affect me. Acts is not divided as to what it says.
     
  2. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,491
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Now earlier, you connected 1 John and Acts 2:38.

    So which is it?

    Jesus' blood, 1 John, or is it the act of baptism Acts 2:38?

    It can't be both. Thats Catholicism and Lutheranism.

    This is the baptist area mind you.

    God Bless

    Till all are one.
     
  3. JLR1300

    JLR1300 Newbie

    341
    +36
    Christian
    Married
    Actually we don't need to wonder whether the Apostles really mean that water baptism saves us or whether it just sometimes sounds like it does.... because in other places they stop to explain that they don't actually mean what it might sound like

    notice 1st Peter 3:21

    21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

    Notice here that the Apostle Peter says that Baptism saves us... but then he stops himself and interjects an explanation so that we don't get the wrong idea. He says that He isn't actually suggesting that the washing of the flesh with water saves us but that it is the renewal of the mind and conscience that saves. (In other words repentance and faith) and that comes because of the work of Jesus in His death and resurrection from the dead.

    Sometimes Jesus gives a parable in one gospel and doesn't explain it. However it is silly to wonder what the parable means when in another gospel He both gives the parable and offers more information about it which explains it. In the same way it is silly to wonder what the Apostles mean by talking about baptism and the remission of sins when in another place the Apostle Peter purposely stops himself in the middle of that teaching and explains that we are not to understand the actual water baptism as the thing that saves but rather the new mind and conscience (Faith).
     
  4. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,491
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Mike, I'm soory but there is no other way to explain it but this way.

    Indeed, if one uses Mk. 16:16 as the basis behind Acts 2:38, then the death of Jesus is meaningless.

    For in Mk. 16:16, there is the condition of being "baptized" that is added to believing to bring about salvation.

    I have given you sufficent evidence as to why baptism does not bring about the "forgiveness of sins".

    You don't believe me, fine.

    But to keep on insisting that it does is against Baptist distinctives and teaching. And therefore, I must ask you to refrain from it.

    Link

    May God bless you in your Lutheran convictioins.

    God Bless

    Till all are one.
     
  5. JLR1300

    JLR1300 Newbie

    341
    +36
    Christian
    Married
    Deacon Dean

    I must say that you have totally proved your case and then some. Those who say that baptism is what washes away our sins have been completely overthrown and utterly defeated by your last post. You have done a bang up job... so congratulations!
     
  6. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,491
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Republican
    My apologies for somewhat detracting from the threads original purpose.

    I also would like to add that the book of Acts, the todays Christian, is a "history" of the Primative church.

    Not only was baptism an item of disagreement, but one of the biggest things in early Christianity, was the influx and influence of Gnosticism.

    Since Gentiles were now alllowed into the fold, how could a gentle balance be kept between Jewish Christians and Gentiles when "mixed" services were held.

    What part(s) of the "law" were applicable to Gentiles.

    Just more points to ponder.

    God Bless

    Till all are one.
     
  7. mikedsjr

    mikedsjr Master Newbie

    981
    +195
    Baptist
    Married
    deacondean, I will concede you don't want me to dive into the subject anymore. I have no idea how I'm supposed to learn how I am just missing context of Scripture demonstrating the Baptist position on this particular subject if it can't be discussed, even within the framework here. It seems you are more willing to fight for a Baptist flag than to discuss the issue from Scripture. However, I would concede my statements don't necessarily go with the original post and we seem to be at an impasse. I hoped to understand reasoning, but I'm not allowed to play on this playground (this thread) obviously. I still see holes. There the same type of holes other denominations use for their positions. Adding words not in the context. If I have learned anything from Dr. James White, Reformed Baptist theologian, it is to keep closely to context. Don't add. Don't subtract. I've yet to hear anyone claim I didn't do that. I've just heard people say the word in the Bible doesn't mean what it says.

    I do appreciate the conversation and the insight. I'll keep examining the subject in light of this. Maybe I change my mind back someday. I just want to be consistent to Scripture and rocking a boat to understand reasons behind a dogma is a difficult thing to do.
     
  8. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,491
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Mike, with all due respect, I have done everything I know to get you to understand.

    I have appealed to a number of competent sources, Greek lexicons, commentaries, Greek, Greek grammer, recognized authorities in Greek word morphology, and even the most basic of Baptist beliefs.

    I love my KJV bible, but just because the KJV has Acts 2:38 the way it does, does not make it 100% correct.

    Fact: You are never ever baptized to receive the "remission of sins". You are baptized because you have already received the "remission of sins".

    The principle of Sola Scriptura is one I hold very dear to my heart. But the fact is, doctrines based on questionable scripture should never be taught as truth.

    I do not know what else to do other than throw up my hands and "seeing and see not".

    So all I can do is say may the Lord bless you in your struggle and search for the truth.

    God Bless

    Till all are one.
     
  9. skypair

    skypair Member

    265
    +10
    Baptist
    Married
    The way I divide the 2 is that 2:38 speaks of spiritual things — repentance, Spirit baptism, receiving the Spirit.

    Then we know that Peter gave another instruction in 2:40 — "save yourselves from this untoward generation." The response to that is 2:41 — baptism in water.

    Here's a couple of passages that I think might help you: 1) Acts 3:19 where the phrase "be baptiized" is replaced by "be converted." Do you see that? You are not converted physically but spiritually. 2) Acts 10:42-43 — And [Jesus - in the Great Commission] commanded us to preach … that through His name whosoever believes in Him shall receive remission of sins." Not whoever we baptize but whoever believes .. which is in perfect agreement with Acts 2:38. 3) Lk 24:47 — as you might suspect, Luke's version is very much like what Peter said in Acts 10:42-43 .. "Thus it is written … that repentance and remission of sins [Acts 2:38] should be preached in His name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem," Pentecost, right?

    These, I believe, should remove all doubt as to whether the performance of water baptism has some spiritual significance .. it doesn't. The baptism with spiritual significance comes upon our prayer of repentance calling of the name of the Lord for salvation.

    skypair
     
  10. skypair

    skypair Member

    265
    +10
    Baptist
    Married
    That's a very good attitude, mike! A 1Cor 14:29-32 attitude whereby all may learn and all be comforted and the saints subject their beliefs to the other saints — which usually results in the manifestation of the truth, 1Cor 11:19.

    Right here you have your side which, for whatever reason, you feel led to believe. But this is new to you. Perhaps you will see that your new thought is not really manifestly true in the Baptist church or in most circles.

    In fact, the Lutherans probably believe that infant baptism saves while it also adds one to the church.

    skypair
     
  11. skypair

    skypair Member

    265
    +10
    Baptist
    Married
    Actually, it was Canaan .. named after Noah's grandson, the son of Ham. You seem to have gotten on the "Palestinian train" a little too early. :)

    Here's a little different way to understand this: Judaism was both a religion and a government (political). When Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed, there was no basis for the religion or for the government in Israel anymore.

    In judges there is this description: Samson took 300 foxes, tied their tails together with torches, and burned "the standing grain [wheat], the vineyard, and the olives." Which is to say that in 70 AD, the government of the nation, the religion of the people, and the spirit of Judaism, the old covenant. were destroyed.

    skypair
     
  12. skypair

    skypair Member

    265
    +10
    Baptist
    Married
    No, sir! Repentance in faith is the ONE thing that is true across the entire Bible! Whether face-to-face with God like Adam or Abraham or Job or the thief on the cross — or whether a publican who simply prays with his head bowed, "God, be merciful to me a sinner," repentance is the ONLY way to salvation in Christ! If you say that it isn't, then you have already cut off the only means by which you can be saved.

    skypair
     
  13. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,491
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Republican
    According to Hebrews, a new covenant was established at the cross with the death of our Savior.

    And again, untill May 1948, the nation of Israel did not exist.

    Judaism has always been practiced.

    The only thing that stopped in AD 70 was the sacrifices. The Israelites have no place to sacrifice.

    God Bless

    Till all are one.
     
  14. JLR1300

    JLR1300 Newbie

    341
    +36
    Christian
    Married
    Well I really wouldn't say that the ONLY thing that stopped in 70 a.d. was the sacrifices. The Priesthood was stopped. There seem to be no more Pharisees per se. No more Prophets. No more Sadducees. Remember King Herod? Where were Judah's Kings for 2000 years? No Temple. Like you said no sacrifices. No Jewish population left in the land to speak of ... Over one million Jews slaughtered in Jerusalem by the Roman army. The rest either taken captive or scattered among all nations. The Old Covenant which Judaism was based on passed away and was replaced by the New Covenant. (that's the part which messed them up the most... ) In world war II America had a population of maybe 140 million...almost as big as the entire population of the world in Jesus' day and yet we only lost 250,000 men in that terrible war. Jerusalem had over one million people killed (four times as much) but their entire population was around two million or so. America has around 300 million people nowadays..... for us to lose as many people in a war as Israel (Judah) did we would have to lose about 150 million people. So it was destruction and disaster like we can't imagine. And that was just the ones killed. When we add in those taken captive and those scattered virtually no Jews were left. So yes, I am aware that the Jews who got scattered into different countries were still trying to keep the old covenant (i.e. still trying to practice Judaism)... not being aware that the old covenant has passed away. Sad.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2014
  15. skypair

    skypair Member

    265
    +10
    Baptist
    Married
    Sure, and Paul said in Hebrews 8:13 (circa 55 AD) that the old covenant was "waxen old and ready to vanish" .. not had vanished, yet. And no nation (wheat) and not spirit — which Spirit was given to the church.

    It is impossible to do so without the Temple in Jerusalem. Why do you think that the Jews are preparing already to rebuild it (in the tribulation)? Because they cannot carry out the sacrifices anywhere else.

    skypair
     
Loading...