The Biblical response to ACTS 2:38

[missourimary]

Originally Posted by snicker1986

Come on....we all KNOW that God read the sign in front of the church. He sees you seeking, hears you praying, and then looks at the sign...

If it says UPC or Apostolic - BAM here's the Holy ghost...

If it says AOG, or worse, baptist or methodist or something else....too bad....no HG for you!!

*sigh*
And of course, the ones saying that people of a certain persuasion can't have gotten the real Holy Ghost wouldn't be causing division, or have any strife or divisions among them, would they? Of course not! Never! For awhile I was drawn into that mindset a little bit. But I get real uncomfortable when someone starts saying who has the real Holy Ghost and who doesn't. What if they're wrong? Doesn't that border on... blasphemy?

[Jason B]

Bump to get us back on track. Any comments on Acts 2:41. especially in light of the other verses I posted?

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

What is the Biblical response to Acts 2:38 & the rite of entry into the Chrisitan church, aka the body of Christ? Let us enter into a challenging and scriptural debate concerning these things. And yes, I do believe in tongues. My question is how do some force their rigid interpretation of Acts 2:38 (meaning if one hasn't spoken in tongues, they are damned, no matter what else) into the following verses? Please feel free to answer question by question, or verse by verse.

What was the BIBLICAL RESPONSE to Peter's preaching on the day of Pentecost in Acts chapter two? And what was the result of that response?

Answer, verse 41.

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

#1)they were baptized (an act which follows repentance in the normative New testament pattern)

#2)they were added to the church

Question, where are tongues present or even implied in this passage?

In Acts 2:37 the people ask Peter a question, "What shall WE do?"
Peter's reply:
"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. " Acts 2:38

Please correct me if I'm reading it wrong, did not Peter give them 2 specific commands? 1)repent 2)be baptized these are things that we choose to do, or not to do. The third thing is something that God only can do. Is it impossible that God would give the gift of the Holy Ghost to those who obey what Peter preached? Yet, as I mentioned, where are tongues present in the passage? Only as a means to preach the gospel between verses 4-11.

When they followed Peter's two commands, does not the Bible say they were added unto them (verse 41)?

Did not Luke quote Jesus in Luke 24:47 "And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. "

Where does remission of sins take place, and entry into the Christian faith?
Furthermore, can your sins be forgiven and washed away, and you still be lost? On what account would you be damned, if you were to stand before God sinless?

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Acts 22:16

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Romans 6:3-5

How can someone be baptized INTO Christ, and enter into newness of life, and still be lost (for not speaking in tonuges)? Can you be IN CHRIST, and be lost all at the same time?

For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Galatians 3:27

In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses Colossians 2:11-13

Again, how can you be buried with Him, and risen with Him, and forgiven all, and be lost?

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: 1 Peter 3:21

or, quoted without Paul's explaination- The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 1 Peter 3:21

Now, I personally believe Paul's explaination is needed so that one doesn't teach baptismal regeneration. I am in no way promoting a view that the water does anything special in and of itself, but suggesting that it is our response to the gospel, and the command to be baptized that brings about the result. In other words faith in God and the blood of Jesus is the means upon which we recieve regeneration. And such faith is demonstrated in responding to the gospel through repentance and water baptism.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:16

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Matthew 28:19

One thing I notice when studying tongues in the gospel, especially the great commission, is that tongues are not mentioned in Matthew's account. Mentioned in Mark account, not with salvation, but rather as signs that will foloow believers, but not necessarily for ALL believers (unless one suggest all believers are required to cast out devils, drink poisonous things,etc). And Luke speaks of the promise of the Father, but doesn't link it to salvation (mentioned in 24:47) but in the smae manner as Mark, as more of an "empowerment" given to the church to fulfill the mission of Christ. (Luke 24:49)

That enough to get us started.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Bump to get us back on track. Any comments on Acts 2:41. especially in light of the other verses I posted?

"Back on track?" That's the first heretical thing I've heard you say Jason; and I must say that I am disappointed in you!



But seriously, what you have shared here is really good.

I see and appreciate your qualifying statement near the end about, "I personally believe Paul's explanation is needed so that one doesn't teach baptismal regeneration..." and etc. What you've said provides a balanced view of water baptism, IMHO.

We are saved in baptism by Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21). Jesus Christ is the Savior and NOT our works of righteousness (2 Timothy 1:9).

Preach on!

[Aquila]

Jason, I think the important thing to ask is...what constitutes "baptism"? If I'm correct you're speaking of baptism in the sense of "water baptism" with distinction from the Holy Ghost baptism.

There is another perspective. Jesus said,

(John 3:5 KJV)
(5) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

If "water" is meaning "water baptism" please note that Jesus said, "and of the Spirit". The connotation is that man's entire person must be baptized. You see our bodies are water baptized and our spirits are cleansed and empowered by the baptism of the Spirit. This would indicate that "Baptism" has two parts to a whole...water and Spirit. Thus while one might be water baptized, unless they have been baptized with the Holy Ghost they have not yet experienced the fullness of baptism, i.e., being born again.

Just a few thoughts I thought I'd throw your way.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Jason, I think the important thing to ask is...what constitutes "baptism"? If I'm correct you're speaking of baptism in the sense of "water baptism" with distinction from the Holy Ghost baptism.

There is another perspective. Jesus said,

(John 3:5 KJV)
(5) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

If "water" is meaning "water baptism" please note that Jesus said, "and of the Spirit". The connotation is that man's entire person must be baptized. You see our bodies are water baptized and our spirits are cleansed and empowered by the baptism of the Spirit. This would indicate that "Baptism" has two parts to a whole...water and Spirit. Thus while one might be water baptized, unless they have been baptized with the Holy Ghost they have not yet experienced the fullness of baptism, i.e., being born again.

Just a few thoughts I thought I'd throw your way.

Bro. Chris, I don't know if your not understanding what I'm saying, or baiting me into opening up the topic a little more. I tend the think the latter.

Basically what I'm wanting us to evaluate is the "initial evidence" doctrine. I am not saying anyone can be saved without the Spirit of God in them. I think that is quite evident from the scripture you quoted along with Romans 8:9.

However, if (as the scriptures I posted seem to suggest) repentance coupled with water baptism is the complete entrance into the body of Christ, then the Spirit of God is present in the believers life, minus the manifestation of tongues.

Point being if tonuges is the ONLY initial evidence, then it is all but absolutely impossible than ANYONE could be saved without speaking in tongues. If true then indeed Luther, Wesley, Huss, Tyndale,Spurgeon, Campbell, Newton, and millions more who claimed the christian faith, and made huge impacts for Christ's sake while on earth, are indeed (as my friend EB put it) burning, snap crackle, and pop.

BUT if the believers responsibility is simply to repent and be baptized (as we see the response to Peter's preaching in Acts 2:41) then the experience we value so much is not salvational, but subsequential to salvation, or complimentary. Thus, not every "christian" over the last 1700 years is burning in hell, minus a very small, undocumented, mysterious "remnant".



I've got alot to interject into the conversation, and it will be pretty controversial.

What I don't believe is you can have two gospels or two ways of salvation.

I don't think you can say "I believe it is essential that someone repents, is baptized in JN, and recieved the HG with tongues to be saved BUT it is possible that John wesley (for example) was saved."

No its one or the other, not both. That is my contention. Either
1)everyone who hasn't been baptized in JN and spoken in tongues is damned OR
2)if someone HAS been saved without doing either of those things, then our doctrine in incorrect.

Again, there aren't TWO gospels. There aren't two ways of salvation. I can't accept light doctrine as it is basically one foot on each side of the fence. I believe its got to be one or the other.

At this point, I am simply asking questions aloud. I lean towards an individual being saved through repentance and water baptism by the blood of Christ being applied to their life. However, I can't accept that view until I explore the issues of tongues as the initial evidence or as a gift for empowerment and work in the church.

I am simply posing the questions to based on things I've been studying, I have not changed my three stepper views. I am simply re-evaluating. And any truly beneficial study deals with the tough questions, not a bunch of softballs.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Bro. Chris, I don't know if your not understanding what I'm saying, or baiting me into opening up the topic a little more. I tend the think the latter.

Basically what I'm wanting us to evaluate is the "initial evidence" doctrine. I am not saying anyone can be saved without the Spirit of God in them. I think that is quite evident from the scripture you quoted along with Romans 8:9.

However, if (as the scriptures I posted seem to suggest) repentance coupled with water baptism is the complete entrance into the body of Christ, then the Spirit of God is present in the believers life, minus the manifestation of tongues.

Point being if tonuges is the ONLY initial evidence, then it is all but absolutely impossible than ANYONE could be saved without speaking in tongues. If true then indeed Luther, Wesley, Huss, Tyndale,Spurgeon, Campbell, Newton, and millions more who claimed the christian faith, and made huge impacts for Christ's sake while on earth, are indeed (as my friend EB put it) burning, snap crackle, and pop.

BUT if the believers responsibility is simply to repent and be baptized (as we see the response to Peter's preaching in Acts 2:41) then the experience we value so much is not salvational, but subsequential to salvation, or complimentary. Thus, not every "christian" over the last 1700 years is burning in hell, minus a very small, undocumented, mysterious "remnant".



I've got alot to interject into the conversation, and it will be pretty controversial.

What I don't believe is you can have two gospels or two ways of salvation.

I don't think you can say "I believe it is essential that someone repents, is baptized in JN, and recieved the HG with tongues to be saved BUT it is possible that John wesley (for example) was saved."

No its one or the other, not both. That is my contention. Either
1)no one who hasn't been baptized in JN and spoken in tongues is damned OR
2)if someone HAS been saved without doing either of those things, then our doctrine in incorrect.

Again, there aren't TWO gospels. There aren't two ways of salvation. I can't accept light doctrine as it is basically one foot on each side of the fence. I believe its got to be one or the other.

At this point, I am simply asking questions aloud. I lean towards an individual being saved through repentance and water baptism by the blood of Christ being applied to their life. However, I can't accept that view until I explore the issues of tongues as the initial evidence or as a gift for empowerment and work in the church.

I am simply posing the questions to based on things I've been studying, I have not changed my three stepper views. I am simply re-evaluating. And any truly beneficial study deals with the tough questions, not a bunch of softballs.

I agree with you I've nearly always believed that that much of our "Apostolic" doctrine isn't "Apostolic". First of all there isn't a "formula" for baptism in Scripture. People called on the name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of sins at their baptism, as they were baptized in the name of Jesus... it's not about words spoken over you. Secondly, the baptism of the Holy Ghost produces "tongues"... but many have "stammering lips" or other manifestations of the Spirit's infilling, yet because they don't know to speak out or perhaps they don't understand what's happening to them never "speak in tongues" as we define it. Therefore, it's my conviction that if one is repentant of their sins and is water baptized, calling on Jesus, and experiencing the baptism of the Spirit they are saved.

Again, many Reformers and Christians down through history have repented of their sins. Most were water baptized, calling upon the Lord Jesus for their salvation. Most experienced deep unexplainable spiritual ecstasy while in prayer. I can't automatically assume that they were lost.

[Jason B]

N.O.W?

[Jason B]

Thread BUMP for legalist, Ohio Pastor, Chicago Pastor, Steve Epley, RKS, we declare crowd, or any others who teach one is damned if they don't speak in tongues. Please address post #1 of this thread.

[Jason B]

[corvet786c]

So are you saying we dont need to speak in tongues and still be saved or we do need to speak in tongues to be saved?