New Birth
 

Do you believe that Acts 2:38 as the New Birth experience is the only hope for salvation?


That repentance from sin is necessary for salvation and a prerequisite of a genuine Holy Ghost baptism?

That baptism must be performed by total immersion in water with the name of Jesus Christ being spoken over the individual being baptized,and that it is for the remission of sins?

That the baptism of the Holy Ghost is ALWAYS accompanied by speaking in other tongues,and is absolutely essential for salvation?

That unless you have obeyed Acts 2:38 in this manner then you are not a part of God's church, that this is the only door of entrance into the Kingdom of God?

Re: New Birth
 

For the record....I intended to make this a public poll. My vote of course was "Yes, that's the only way!"

Re: New Birth
 

5) No.

Re: New Birth
 

I can't vote "that's not the only way," but rather, "that's not the way."

Re: New Birth
 

I have issues with the original post. Where do you get tongues is a must just by reading Acts 2:38???

Re: New Birth
 

This question implies that even if a person does everything right IAW your understanding of Acts 2:38, they could still be lost.

"Now that I have given up smoking. I've given up whore-hopping, I have stopped cursing. I've stopped beating my wife and kids. Now will you please save me God?"

You get saved and then your life changes. The Bible does not prescribe that you change your life so that you can get saved.


because we have to make sure that our belief system allows absolutely no Grace for situations where full immersion is not a possibility for the person who is calling on the Name of the Lord.


Your qualifier actually contradicts one of the commands of scripture (at least as it is translated) for us. Who should call on the Name of Jesus when getting baptized-- the baptizer or the baptize?

Baptism saves in the fact that it is a reflection of a good conscience towards the Lord-- something that a person can't have UNLESS THEY ARE ALREADY SAVED.


No. These signs shall follow them that believe. "Believing" is the point of salvation and the Bible plainly states that there will be multiple signs that follow those who believe.


Speaking in other tongues is just as essential as handling poisonous serpents. Neither one are ESSENTIAL for salvation, but both are signs that will follow the believer, in certain circumstances.

Wrong.


Again, all other Christians are lost EXCEPT the ones who believe the report of a guy who had a vision in the middle of the night at a camp meeting somewhere in California near the beginning of the 20th century...

Re: New Birth
 

JD - sort of strange how Peter seemed to believe it differently than you.
"Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
" For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord."

And Paul as well,
"He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

They did not command them to go handle snakes...

Re: New Birth
 

There are three parts to repentance

1. Repent - “To Care,” “Be Concerned”:
The term μεταμέλομαι, metamélomai, literally signifies to have a feeling or care, concern or regret; like nāḥam, it expresses the emotional aspect of repentance. The feeling indicated by the word may issue in genuine repentance, or it may degenerate into mere remorse (Mat_21:29, Mat_21:32; Mat_27:3). Judas repented only in the sense of regret, remorse, and not in the sense of the abandonment of sin. The word is used with reference to Paul's feeling concerning a certain course of conduct, and with reference to God in His attitude toward His purposes of grace (2Co_7:8 the King James Version; Heb_7:21).

2. Repent - “To Change the Mind”:
The word μετανοέω, metanoéō, expresses the true New Testament idea of the spiritual change implied in a sinner's return to God. The term signifies “to have another mind,” to change the opinion or purpose with regard to sin. It is equivalent to the Old Testament word “turn.” Thus, it is employed by John the Baptist, Jesus, and the apostles (Mat_3:2; Mar_1:15; Act_2:38). The idea expressed by the word is intimately associated with different aspects of spiritual transformation and of Christian life, with the process in which the agency of man is prominent, as faith (Act_20:21), and as conversion (Act_3:19); also with those experiences and blessings of which God alone is the author, as remission and forgiveness of sin (Luk_24:47; Act_5:31). It is sometimes conjoined with baptism, which as an overt public act proclaims a changed relation to sin and God (Mar_1:4; Luk_3:3; Act_13:24; Act_19:4). As a vital experience, repentance is to manifest its reality by producing good fruits appropriate to the new spiritual life (Mat_3:8).

3. Repent - “To Turn over,” “To Turn upon,” “To Turn Unto”:
The word έπιστρέφω, epistréphō, is used to bring out more clearly the distinct change wrought in repentance. It is employed quite frequently in Acts to express the positive side of a change involved in New Testament repentance, or to indicate the return to God of which the turning from sin is the negative aspect. The two conceptions are inseparable and complementary. The word is used to express the spiritual transition from sin to God (Act_9:35; 1Th_1:9); to strengthen the idea of faith (Act_11:21); and to complete and emphasize the change required by New Testament repentance (Act_26:20).

When Peter said to repent, the Jews did not go away for a week and see if they could stop sinning, then return to be baptized.

They had a change of heart, a conscious willful change to do things God's way

Yes that is a prerequisite

Re: New Birth
 

So, JD, a person can get saved - they are now a child of God - but they're still cheating on their spouse. So they can honest to goodness believe they are bound for glory - even though they haven't stopped cheating on their spouse. "Oh, someday... when the good Lord gets around to that particular aspect of my life...but until then, I'm saaaaaaavvvveeeddddd!!!!!!!"

Uh, I don't THINK so.

Homey don't play dat.

Re: New Birth
 

Thanks for this posting. In fact, if you didn't understand what I was getting at, you never would have explained repentance.

I've witnessed and experienced that most people's lives don't instantly change in the course of one church service. While blatant sins may stop immediately, there are other sins that don't stop right away. I've also seen where saved people, through unwise decisions, open the door for a sin to get a hold of their life again. It shouldn't happen, but it does happen.

It takes patience and grace to walk this road-- patience with yourself and grace for your brother.

I believe the Bible teaches that a person who is coming to saving faith in Christ will reflect a sorrow for their sins and a desire to please their GOD and Savior.

Re: New Birth
 

JD, you're teaching works based salvation. No where does the Bible say a person has to "feel" anything to be saved. Otherwise, you'd never know if you felt correctly or sufficiently.

Re: New Birth
 

JD, how does baptism save us after we're already saved?

Re: New Birth
 

JD, did you ever find those tails that got cut off? I haven't been able to locate them...

Re: New Birth
 

It is possible for a person to repent, get baptized, be filled with the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in other tongues and still have an inclination to sin that may lead that person to sin again after the initial "emotional high" that God graciously allows to accompany a new convert's salvation.

When that new convert falls, you don't encourage that new convert to do everything all over again. You encourage the new convert to dust themselves off and keep walking forward.



By the way, I now realize that we are both so 1990's!

Re: New Birth
 

lol

Re: New Birth
 

Nothing I have said reflects a works-based salvation.

I have looked for it. Is there something I said in another thread that you might be referring to?

Re: New Birth
 

That entire scripture shows that it isn't the act of going down in the water but it is the good conscience from which the act comes from. That good conscience is a reflection of a conversion that has already happened (within the context of this scripture).

Re: New Birth
 

It was a pretty outrageous claim-- I admit.

However, it is a claim that I intend to find again and back up on AFF. I wasn't just making it up.

There was a brutal battle in the Old Testament where after the battle, the Israelites emasculated their enemies.

It still says baptism saves.

Re: New Birth
 

Is this what you are talking about?

I am pretty sure that repentance includes a certain amount of contrition...

Re: New Birth
 

I know, but only if you stop at that part of the verse would one get the notion that baptism saves. If you read the whole verse, you will see that Bible explains that the act of going into the water isn't what is saving.

Re: New Birth
 

God ordained baptism as THE public testimony of the new Christian.

Re: New Birth
 

Neither was anyone commanded to speak in tongues.

Re: New Birth
 

The biggest dent for water baptism being for literal remission of sins is acts 10 when gentiles got the Spirit before water baptism.

I disagree. It's part of what saves. Really there's no way around it. I've looked at it from every angle. Since he says it saves, we cannot remove it from part of salvation.

The eunuch had no audience and neither did the philippian jailer.

There's only one way to be saved.

Repentance from sin and faith in Christ. A true repentance and a living faith will produce many of the things y'all think you have to manufacture.

Re: New Birth
 

Faith produces true repentance.
It's not the other way around. Repentance does not produce faith, for "Faith
comes by hearing...". A person repents upon hearing the gospel, and that
only AFTER the Holy Spirit begins to call and draw the person to the Lord. The
Holy Spirit DRAWS man to the Lord by bringing him to a place, or to a believer,
to hear the gospel.

Basically, preaching is an invitation to believe and obey the gospel: a person may
choose to believe, or not! Too often, however, a person is not hearing the full
gospel, only a portion. There are denoms preaching only repentance; some,
only baptism; some, only faith; and others who preach denominationalism.

Jesus said, "Repent and believe the gospel."

Re: New Birth
 

JD you must have missed my post on page 1.
In response to your claim that no one was commanded to speak in tongues, how about "have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed"?
Sounds like a command to me.

Re: New Birth
 

1Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
1Pe 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
1Pe 3:21 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:

Baptism includes the act of going down in the water. Without going down in the water it isn't baptism. Peter drew the parallel between Noah and family being saved, and our being saved, and the connecting point is the water. He specifically points out Noah and family were 'saved by water'. Then he says 'the like figure whereunto', that is to say, the 'antitype' that corresponds to Noah and family being saved by water is baptism. He also says 'baptism doth also now save us'. To suggest that the going down into the water is not 'the act' under consideration is completely contrary to what Peter says.


Peter continues after stating that baptism now saves us: 'not the putting away of the filth of the flesh'. This does not equate to 'not the going down into the water'. It states that salvation in baptism is not a washing of dirt off the body, but the 'answer of a good conscience toward God.' You have read into his words something that simply isn't there. He did not say 'not the going down into the water'. In fact, he specifically pointed to the water as the common denominator between Noah and family being saved, and us being saved. He denies that baptism is a simple mikvah or lustration, like the various ceremonial washings performed under the law (for the cleansing of lepers or women after their menstrual cycle, for example) or like any regular bathing (as in washing dirt off your body). Instead, baptism is the answer of a good conscience towards God.

The response or answer of a good conscience towards God is nothing else than the proper pious or godly response to the Gospel. Just as Noah believed God and built and entered into the ark, and was saved by water, so we believe God and are saved by baptism.

No matter how who slice it, dice it, or spin it, Peter said 'baptism saves us'. Your view however has us being saved before baptism, and again I ask, 'How does baptism save us if we have already been saved?'

Note on translation: The term translated 'answer' could also be translated 'request'.

1Pe 3:21 which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ; (American Standard Version)

1Pe 3:21 also to which an antitype doth now save us--baptism, (not a putting away of the filth of flesh, but the question of a good conscience in regard to God,) through the rising again of Jesus Christ, (Young's Literal translation)

1Pe 3:21 A la figura de la cual el bautismo que ahora corresponde nos salva (no quitando las inmundicias de la carne, sino como demanda de una buena conciencia delante de Dios,) por la resurrección de Jesucristo: (Reina-Valera)

1Pe 3:21 quod et vos nunc similis formae salvos facit baptisma non carnis depositio sordium sed conscientiae bonae interrogatio in Deum per resurrectionem Iesu Christi (Vulgate)

1Pe 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (ESV)

1Pe 3:21 Whereof the baptisme that nowe is, answering that figure, (which is not a putting away of the filth of the flesh, but a confident demaunding which a good conscience maketh to God) saueth vs also by the resurrection of Iesus Christ, (1599 Geneva)

1Pe 3:21 Whereunto baptism, being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but, the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (Douay-Rheims tranlsation)

1Pe 3:21 ὃ καὶ ὑμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦν σώζει βάπτισμα, οὐ σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου, ἀλλὰ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς Θεόν, δι᾿ ἀναστάσεως ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ,

The word in question is 'eperotema' (underlined in all the examples above). Some have translated it as 'answer', some have chosen 'confident demanding', 'appeal', 'question', etc. The Spanish uses the term 'demanda' (demanding), and the Latin uses 'interrogatio' (questioning, interrogation). The Greek eperotema is defined by Thayer as follows:

ἐπερώτημα
eperōtēma
Thayer Definition:
1) an enquiry, a question
2) a demand
3) earnestly seeking
3a) craving, an intense desire
Part of Speech: noun neuter
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G1905
Citing in TDNT: 2:688, 262

All three definitions indicate a demanding, seeking, or desiring.

Liddell-Scott has this for a definition:

ἐπερώτ-ημα, Ion. ἐπειρ-ώτημα, ατος, τό, question, Hdt. 6.67, Th.3.53,68, Epicur.Sent.Vat.71.
2. answer to inquiry put to higher authority: hence, sanction, κατὰ τὸ ἐ. τῶν Ἀρεοπαγιτῶν SIG 856.6 (ii A.D.), cf. 1008.4 (iii A.D.).
3. = Lat. stipulatio, PCair. Preis.1.16 (ii A.D.), Cod.Just.8.10.12.3 (pl.): hence prob., pledge, συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐ. εἰς θεόν 1 Ep.Pet.3.21.

Liddell-Scott claims the correspondence with Latin 'stipulatio' is how it should be understood in the verse in question, although they offer no reasoning for it, and even indicate 'probably', not definitively. The other primary definitions, that is 'question' and 'response to an inquiry given to a higher authority' seem more likely.

So then Peter is saying that baptism is the 'answer to inquiry put to higher authority' which saves us. It is 'of a good conscience' (some say 'for a good conscience'), obviously. But to suggest that it is something that happens after being saved creates a contradiction and an absurdity: We are saved, and then give our answer to God in baptism, which saves us????

The straightforward meaning of the text is that baptism saves us, thus we are not saved prior to baptism. Further, that this involves water is undeniable, since Peter brought it up specifically as an antitype to Noah being saved by water.

Now, was Noah saved apart from faith? Of course not. Without faith, Noah would have perished along with the rest of the unbelieving world. But his salvation took place 'by water', that is, in the Deluge, which is a type that has it's correlation in baptism, which saves us now. Just so, we today are saved 'by faith', but that salvation occurs in baptism.

Baptism is no mere washing of dirt off the body. It is the answer of a good conscience towards God. Notice, baptism is the answer. It does not say baptism is an outward sign of an inward answer, but it says that baptism itself is the expected answer of a good conscience towards God.

First of all, 'conversion' can mean a lot of things, and does not necessarily mean 'the moment in time when a person is saved'. A person who is about to be baptised most certainly has been 'converted'. That, after all, is what repentance is all about - converting from a life of sin and unbelief to a life of obedience faith. But nowhere does the Bible say that 'conversion saves us', nor does it anywhere say 'repentance saves us'. It does however say that 'baptism saves us'.

Jesus said this:

He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16:16a) He did not say 'he that believeth and is saved shall be baptised'. If I told you 'Whoever believes me and comes on down will get a free new car, but if you don't believe me you won't get the car', what do you think needs to happen for you to get the new car? Would you say 'Oh, he must have meant if I believe what he's saying and get a new car, I'll come on down'? Only if you were missing both a full six pack and the little plastic thingy that holds it together.

Nobody argues that merely being dunked in water is efficient to save. Such a thing is not even baptism. Baptism, however, saves us.

Re: New Birth
 

There are several instances of salvations described in Acts. Only one of them involved people receiving the Spirit prior to being baptised. The others have people being baptised prior to receiving the Spirit. This should tell us that the Gentile experience in Acts 10 is unique. In fact, it IS unique because it breaks from the pattern Luke established in Acts 2 and 8.

It is also unique in that these were Gentiles. God had to sovereignly and directly intervene just to get a preacher to even talk to the Gentiles. The preacher and his ministry team had no expectation of any conversions taking place. They were absolutely astonished that the Gentiles received the Spirit. Up to that point all Christians thought that Gentiles would have to be Jews (ie cease being Gentiles, and be circumcised and enter the 'covenant') before Messiah would do them any good ie before they could be saved.

So God had to go outside what the church was willing to do. By giving them the Spirit, the church had no way to deny that Gentiles could be saved apart from being circumcised. Peter then asked 'can any man forbid water that they should be baptised?' All of those who came with Peter would have forbade such a thing, if they had not witnessed the Holy Spirit being given to uncircumcised (in flesh) Gentiles. Seeing that nobody had anything to say, Peter 'commanded them to be baptised in the name of the Lord.'

Thus, the one single time in scripture where people received the Spirit prior to being baptised in water, is a singularly unique event, with unique and extraordinary circumstances. Extreme situations call for extreme measures. The situation was extreme, for no Christians would bring the gospel to uncicumcised Gentiles to be saved. So God had to act. God poured out his Spirit on these Gentiles, proving they did not have to become Jews in order to be saved, but that God was willing to take them as they were.

And what exactly were they? Devout people. Cornelius loved YHVH so much, prayed so much, gave alms, lived a righteous life in the fear of the one true God, and God sent an angel to him to tell him his alms and prayers had come up as a memorial before God. He got God's attention! And God sent Peter some visions to seal the deal.

To use this as somehow doctrinally normative for an ordo salutis is the epitome of 'spoof texting' and ignoring both the immediate and the larger contexts of the narrative.

That people do indeed receive the Spirit prior to baptism says more about our methods of evangelism than it does about God's plan of salvation.

Re: New Birth
 

I'm not sure that 2 instances make a pattern?

Now there is a different pattern that isn't mentioned very often. It's a real pattern and is present in every example. In every case of someone receiving the Holy Ghost in the book of Acts an apostle was present.

Re: New Birth
 

Two witnesses? There's also Acts 19 and the disciples of John at Ephesus, that makes a third. Other than the Gentiles in Acts 10 and the original disciples in Acts 2 (who had already been baptised previously anyway) there are no records of anyone receiving the Holy Spirit in Acts. So, out of 4 cases, three follow a pattern of baptism then Holy Spirit, and one is reversed - the extraordinary case of Acts 10.


Did Paul give the Spirit to himself?

Act 9:17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

Was Ananias an apostle?

Re: New Birth
 

I received the Holy Spirit in my apartment with a sister in the Lord present.

Re: New Birth
 

Why didn't you include the case of Paul in the list of examples of people receiving the Spirit in Acts? Is it because if he is included as an example of someone receiving the Holy Spirit then it's an example where tongues are absent. Or is it because Saul appears to have received the Holy Spirit before baptism in that passage. We can't say definitively but if we are to believe that Saul received the Holy Spirit in the Acts 9 passage then there is a much stronger case of saying it happened before baptism than after baptism.

In other words, you can't use Paul's example to prove apostles weren't present in every biblical example of someone receiving the Holy Spirit without also giving me an example where someone didn't speak in tongues upon receiving the Holy Spirit. Or without giving me even more evidence that receiving the Holy Spirit can come before baptism just as easily as after.

In fact, even if Paul is included as an example I'd have 4/5 examples where an apostle is present and 1/5 where he isn't. Judging by your previous thoughts that should count as a pattern. Paul's case can be viewed as special given his conversion and apostleship hinged upon it. So out of 5 cases where someone receives the Holy Spirit an apostle was present at 4 and only one is different - the extraordinary conversion of Paul.

Basically I can make a much stronger case that the Holy Spirit normally only comes when an apostle is present than you can make for it normally only coming after baptism or even normally only coming with tongues.

Re: New Birth
 

But was that the biblical way of doing it? Shouldn't an apostle have been present to make your conversion experience more like those in the book of Acts? Isn't that what being apostolic is about? Trying to believe and practice everything the same way the early church believed and practiced it?

Since you are telling me it happened different for you than the pattern in the book of Acts would indicate, next you will be telling me that apostles aren't the only unimportant part of the pattern. Next you will be saying that tongues are also as unimportant as apostles when it comes to receiving the Holy Spirit.

Re: New Birth
 

Mr Frog, there are four cases in the book of Acts wherein is described people receiving the Spirit. Acts 2 (Pentecost), Acts 8 (Samaritans), Acts 10 (Gentiles), and Acts 19 (disciples of John Baptist). There are simply no other descriptions of people receiving the Spirit in the book of Acts.

Out of those four descriptions, three follow the pattern of water baptism and then Spirit baptism. Only one is reversed, the special case of the Gentiles (which is an extraordinary case for reasons I outlined previously).

As for Paul, his actual reception of the Spirit is not described. However, Ananias said he was sent by the Lord to Paul to minister recovery of his sight and that he might be filled with the Spirit.

Therefore, the idea that an apostle was present in every instance of people receiving the Spirit is simply not true. Unless you want to prove Ananias was an apostle?

Re: New Birth
 

1. If the moment of Paul receiving the spirit is not recorded then you cannot say an apostle was not present. So in every case where someone was recorded as receiving the Holy Spirit an apostle was present.

2. Even if Paul received the spirit without an apostle present the pattern is established in the other cases and he is an exception due to his miraculous conversion experience.

Re: New Birth
 

jf - so what is your end game with this?
That the Holy Ghost with tongues was only given during the time of the apostles?

Re: New Birth
 

Esaias is making a good point about Paul's Spirit baptism. Was Ananias an apostle?

Another obvious point could be made that Philip, the evangelist, should have sent for the apostles from the moment he started preaching to the Samaritans if it was a rule that no one could receive the Spirit except by laying on of hands of an apostle. No one should have gone out to win the lost without an apostle with them.

no, I won't be telling you that because I don't think that you have proved your point about the apostles and the baptism of the Holy Spirit.