Faith in Crisis -- New Thoughts on Acts 2

GrowingPains · #1 07-06-2009, 02:32 PM

Today I read Acts 2, looking at the story for every nuance. What happened has rattled me. I'll explain:

In the NT time, baptism was a symbol of discipleship (I already knew this). When I read what happened in Acts, followed by a sermon from Peter, the response is "What do we do now?" NOTE: most seem to think this says "what must I do to be saved" which would change some of the mechanics of Acts 2:38. Instead of a point-by-point salvation plan, Peter replied to do 2 things for the forgiveness of sins: Repent and become a disciple of Christ (through the symbol of water baptism). Turning to Christ, our sins are remitted. He then said the Holy Spirit was promised thereafter, with no mention of tongues at this point. Now, I can't reconcile that many that received the baptism of the Holy Ghost, also spoke in tongues, so I'm not ready to go there just yet. But what it did do was rattle a passage I've known for years and now look at differently, finding that it matches the sayings of Jesus a lot better.

That day 3,000 were added to the church --- what happened? They became disciples of Christ through baptism!

I don't want to start a 3-step vs. 1-step debate (I'm a life long 3-stepper who now is stepping back on the rhetoric), but I surely would like to discuss Acts 2, and what you see in it. Is it a plan for salvation, or the Apostle's response on what they should do with the guilt they felt after that sermon? Can the HG be commanded for a person to get, when Christ said He gives it freely, with promise?

These are mysteries I don't clearly understand in all my years of Bible School.

Michael The Disciple · #2 07-06-2009, 03:51 PM

I think that is minimizing the truth of baptism. Yeshua did not say he that believeth and is baptized will be a disciple. Altho he could have. But he said he who believes and is baptized will be saved.

In my opinion you are not a Christian apart from being a disciple. They are the same thing. Peter said baptism saves in 1 Peter 3:21 So yes thats what he meant in Acts 2:38

Digging4Truth · #3 07-06-2009, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

Today I read Acts 2, looking at the story for every nuance. What happened has rattled me. I'll explain:

In the NT time, baptism was a symbol of discipleship (I already knew this). When I read what happened in Acts, followed by a sermon from Peter, the response is "What do we do now?" NOTE: most seem to think this says "what must I do to be saved" which would change some of the mechanics of Acts 2:38. Instead of a point-by-point salvation plan, Peter replied to do 2 things for the forgiveness of sins: Repent and become a disciple of Christ (through the symbol of water baptism). Turning to Christ, our sins are remitted. He then said the Holy Spirit was promised thereafter, with no mention of tongues at this point. Now, I can't reconcile that many that received the baptism of the Holy Ghost, also spoke in tongues, so I'm not ready to go there just yet. But what it did do was rattle a passage I've known for years and now look at differently, finding that it matches the sayings of Jesus a lot better.

That day 3,000 were added to the church --- what happened? They became disciples of Christ through baptism!

I don't want to start a 3-step vs. 1-step debate (I'm a life long 3-stepper who now is stepping back on the rhetoric), but I surely would like to discuss Acts 2, and what you see in it. Is it a plan for salvation, or the Apostle's response on what they should do with the guilt they felt after that sermon? Can the HG be commanded for a person to get, when Christ said He gives it freely, with promise?

These are mysteries I don't clearly understand in all my years of Bible School.

I have no comment on your post as a whole at this point but I will say this.

The only hope any of us have of finding real truth is learning how to "step back from the rhetoric"

So few ever learn how to do that.

RandyWayne · #4 07-06-2009, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

I have no comment on your post as a whole at this point but I will say this.

The only hope any of us have of finding real truth is learning how to "step back from the rhetoric"

So few ever learn how to do that.

It is all about playing a sort of mental game were you pretend you have never read or heard what you are about to read.... the "read it for the first time". Often what you read and learn will be vastly different then what you have always heard others say it says.

GrowingPains · #5 07-06-2009, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

It is all about playing a sort of mental game were you pretend you have never read or heard what you are about to read.... the "read it for the first time". Often what you read and learn will be vastly different then what you have always heard others say it says.

Randy, that's exactly what happened.

GrowingPains · #6 07-06-2009, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

I think that is minimizing the truth of baptism. Yeshua did not say he that believeth and is baptized will be a disciple. Altho he could have. But he said he who believes and is baptized will be saved.

In my opinion you are not a Christian apart from being a disciple. They are the same thing. Peter said baptism saves in 1 Peter 3:21 So yes thats what he meant in Acts 2:38

You can say Jesus, instead of Yeshua, since I speak English

I appreciate your post and response and really took thought on this.

Are we saved by becoming a disciple of Christ? Why wouldn't we? To be a disciple, we take His name on us, we follow Him, we listen to and obey His teachings, etc... Do you believe Acts 2:38 was to establish baptism as a command for salvation? It seems baptism has beautiful symbolism to the Temple, to the Ark and even another metaphor as a "new circumcision." I definitely see it as the believers response to the Gospel. My point was not that we shouldn't teach baptism, but if Acts 2 was not a response to salvation -- but rather, "what do we do now?", can we say baptism removes sin? O maybe, it's fith in Christ (by becoming a disciple) and repentance that removes sin, which is what the baptism is all about?

Thanks for challenging my thought. It's helpful.

TheLegalist · #7 07-06-2009, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

Randy, that's exactly what happened.

Why do the mechanics change?

Michael The Disciple · #8 07-06-2009, 04:21 PM

My point is that Acts 2:38 was given to people who were not saved who had just asked "what must we do". Do about what? None of them were disciples at that point. None of them were saved at that point.

Note that being a Christian and being a disciple are one thing.

26: And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. Acts 11:26

At first they were simply "disciples of Yeshua". Later they were called Christians.

GrowingPains · #9 07-06-2009, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

Why do the mechanics change?

I don't understand your question.

GrowingPains · #10 07-06-2009, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

My point is that Acts 2:38 was given to people who were not saved who had just asked "what must we do". Do about what? None of them were disciples at that point. None of them were saved at that point.

Note that being a Christian and being a disciple are one thing.

26: And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. Acts 11:26

At first they were simply "disciples of Yeshua". Later they were called Christians.

Well, they were called "Christians" or "Christ-Imitators" as a sort of name-calling. We saw it as enduring.

So, for you, this verse means baptism saves us? Or is it a response to the Good News. What do we do now? They obviously believed! They were ready to act on their belief through baptism. But how do we reconcile the significance of what baptism represented in the 1st Century? It had great significance about discipleship. I see "repent and be baptized" as one action, a sign of their change of heart was baptism, and that's how sin was forgiven.

That's what I appreciate about this forum. The ability to be vulnerable and open about ideas/things, and capable people who also have ideas that help ground us.

I guess the only other thing about this story would be the promise of the Holy Spirit. How can God judge and condemn a man for not having what He so generously promised? And, because tongues accompanied the baptism of the Holy Ghost in Acts, do we use that as a model for all who receive the Spirit? What say you?