Faith in Crisis -- New Thoughts on Acts 2

[Pastor Keith]

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.

The problem with the Baptism as a symbol is leftover Greek Philosophy that somehow got mingled into the church doctrines by those Scholars that came from that mindset.

Baptism is a physical act with great spiritual significance. Without faith it is only getting wet, but combined with faith in the operation of God, it brings tremendous deliverance, identification with Jesus (Romans 6) a burial of the old man, and washing away of sins in the legal sense.

I can't figure out why so many raised with this powerful doctrinal truth now down play it's significance.

Please buy David Pawson's The Normal Christian Birth, you will never view Baptism the same again, for that matter the Application of the New Birth.

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by Pastor Keith

The problem with the Baptism as a symbol is leftover Greek Philosophy that somehow got mingled into the church doctrines by those Scholars that came from that mindset.

Baptism is a physical act with great spiritual significance. Without faith it is only getting wet, but combined with faith in the operation of God, it brings tremendous deliverance, identification with Jesus (Romans 6) a burial of the old man, and washing away of sins in the legal sense.

I can't figure out why so many raised with this powerful doctrinal truth now down play it's significance.

Please buy David Pawson's The Normal Christian Birth, you will never view Baptism the same again, for that matter the Application of the New Birth.

Thanks, Keith.

And I'm not intending on downplaying anything. I'm just honestly searching and contemplating the scriptures. I will definitely do some reading on those who have studied baptism in the 1st Century, and do a re-post of my findings/conclusions.

Keith there is no doubt it's not a matter of spiritual significance and a requirement of Scripture, my question was in terms of initial salvation, which I'm learning more and more is a process and not some instantaneous event. We are all growing in faith, though conceived in the Spirit at repentance.

Keith, what do you believe Acts 2 intends with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit that was promised with repentance and baptism? There were no instructions to seek it, it was promised to be given, it seems conditional to repentance and baptism.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Is it biblically supported that if you don't receive the gift of the Holy Ghost you are not saved and will go to hell? You can repent and be baptized, but if you don't speak in tongues, you're still a goner?

That's what I've always been led to believe, but the more I study the more I'm not so sure.

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

Is it biblically supported that if you don't receive the gift of the Holy Ghost you are not saved and will go to hell? You can repent and be baptized, but if you don't speak in tongues, you're still a goner?

That's what I've always been led to believe, but the more I study the more I'm not so sure.

This is where I am.

The question, simply stated is:

Can one be born again without speaking in tongues?

or...

Is another Biblical proof of someone receiving the Holy Ghost without the initial evidence of tongues (hard one to prove, since the absence of a fact, does not mean it's neither included)? And After Christ, since we know of the cases in the OT, and of even John the Baptist.

or...

John 3:5, which seems to be referring to the Spirit with its metaphors of "water and spirit" -- can this be fulfilled without tongues?

Doctrine with tongues as initial evidence is made by observation of the NT Church without it ever being stated as a doctrine. In other words, our most core doctrine is based on implicit observation.

[Michael The Disciple]

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?

Acting on their belief would have been repenting, being baptized and receiving the Spirit. In doing so they would be born of water and spirit which would enable them to enter the kingdom of God.

The significance of baptism to the Church of the first century was indeed great. Just let whats written about it in the New Testament speak for itself.

It is identified with terms like remission of sins. Washing away of sins. Burying the old man. Destroying the old man. A circumcision (cutting away) of the old man and washing of regeneration.

I have no problem believing they repented were baptized and filled with the Spirit to become disciples. Thats in fact what I believe. Disciples and Christians are the same thing. Acts 11:26

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?

A model? It would be the only thing we can actually find except prophesying as in Acts 19. It seems reasonable that tongues normally followed the baptism of the Spirit. If one seeks a Biblical experience I think they would want to speak in tongues.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Even if tongues is indeed the initial sign of the Holy Ghost, always.... is the Holy Ghost a gift, a comforter, power? Or is it your ticket to Heaven?

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

Even if tongues is indeed the initial sign of the Holy Ghost, always.... is the Holy Ghost a gift, a comforter, power? Or is it your ticket to Heaven?

It is all of the above. If its really in a life there will be faith and a deep abiding in Christ. The Christian life is not possible without the Holy Ghost.

[Praxeas]

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.

that they did not say "to be saved" is irrelevant. They were guilty.Christ..ie salvation.. removes the guilt of sins.

If they were already saved then they already had the gift of the Holy Ghost

Peter did not say "and you need to get the Holy Ghost"

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

that they did not say "to be saved" is irrelevant. They were guilty.Christ..ie salvation.. removes the guilt of sins.

If they were already saved then they already had the gift of the Holy Ghost

Peter did not say "and you need to get the Holy Ghost"

Interesting Prax. So you believe after they've repented and have been baptized they are gifted with the Spirit?

I get your point about the "what must we do (to be saved)?" Though the text doesn't state the implied parentheses, it's clear they had guilt and asked for action for the guilt, which makes sense to be salvation.

Question: the disciples of John that the Apostle met, where he asked "have you received the power since you believed" -- does this support the Holy Ghost as an empowerment to witness or that the disciples of John were not saved?

[Michael The Disciple]

Question: the disciples of John that the Apostle met, where he asked "have you received the power since you believed" -- does this support the Holy Ghost as an empowerment to witness or that the disciples of John were not saved?

There is no such quote tho.