Why Acts 2:38?

[Jermyn Davidson]

The more I think about this subject and subjects related to it, the more I relaize that "the split" was necessary.

Maybe the merger was never even a good idea to start.



Yes, faith without works is dead. Yes, since we believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, we are to OBEY THE BIBLICAL COMMANDS of repentance and water baptism.


The infilling of the Holy Ghost, "evidenced" by speaking in tongues is NOT something we can do, not something we can manufacture.

It is a PROMISE from our Father and we are solely dependent on Him for the fulfillment of His Promise to us.


So when we make speaking in tongues a requirement, something that we must do, we change the spirit of the Gospel all together.

The Holy Ghost is a PROMISE, not a command.


If speaking in tongues was absolutely necessary for salvation, explain away the Ethiopian, the jailer and the book of Romans!


If speaking in tongues is necessary for salvation, so is walking on scorpions and every other sign that Jesus said would follow them that believe. You can't have one without all the others-- the language of the scripture does not allow one to single out tongues only for signs of salvation, if you want to to take the words of Jesus Christ out of context and demand tongue-talking to confirm someone's salvation.

[Aquila]

I believe that one must be born of water and Spirit to enter the kingdom of God. Tongues is the "initial evidence". But I'm cautious. Sometimes something can be present without "evidence". A man can still be a murderer...though no evidence can be presented against him.

That being said, I do believe that the message is repentance, water baptism, and the promise of the Holy Ghost. I believe that the baptism of the Holy Ghost is normative and is God's will for every believer.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Great post. Another way of asking this is "IF THE QUESTION HAS NOT CHANGED, WHY CHANGE THE ANSWER?"

Christianity in general doesn't feel that they have changed the answer.

Repent - check
Be baptized - check
God will fill you with his spirit - check

That's mainstream belief. They're not ignoring, or changing, the answer to the question.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by DAII

Every Christian I know believes and has obeyed Acts 2:38. They believe all of the Word.

The misdirection comes from those who believe their monopolistic paradigm to be an exclusive members-only card.

I find subsequent sermons and "first hand" accounts by Peter where he preaches or summarized the Gospel in Acts 3, 4, and 10, 11, and 15 ...

I even find Peter in Acts 3:19 EXPLICITLY CLARIFYING when our sins our washed:
Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out ...

I don't find the 20th century devised template repeated in the same manner subsequently either.

And yet nowhere also do I find the following:

- A doctrine of essential and efficacious baptismal invocation ...

nor that a proper baptism must be precise and have the right verbal formulation to be saved.

But rather a clear bible-based understanding that "in the name of the Lord" is not a line to be parroted but by the authority and power of the person, Jesus Christ ... (who is mighty to save).

Titles invoked of the SAME multi-faceted God or the transliterated proper name of Iesous verbalized ... or not ... they have all been baptized in His name upon the confession of their faith in Him. Salvation does not hang on a 3rd party witness or officiator of baptism. Salvation hung on the Cross.

- Nor that glossalia must accompany the gift of the Holy Ghost (which is eternal life)

IN ORDER TO BE SAVED.

That given ... the denial that the Acts 2:38 Water and Spirit doctrine has become an automated, mass-produced process is VERY EVIDENT IN THE BORAT CASE ...

The man repeated after Godwin ... and then spoke in the tongues he was instructed to ... while some rejoiced to his salvation with unbridled, wild ecstasy.

I've been around Oneness Pentecost for over three decades and saw this type of UNBIBLICAL forced "birthing" too many times ....

To deny that altars have become a three step "soul wash" with little concern to the genuine article, but rather a trophy of accumulated soul widgets, is evident every time I get on Facebook on a Sunday evening with posts like:

12 HG and 8 H20

is to deny the reckless arrogance of those drunk with their religious exclusivity ... parading their circumcision and pedigree.

In the Apostolic letters, I find the apostles not reporting salvations in this way .... not once ... WHY NOT?????

This is not the how the 1st century church taught or spoke about salvation. It's re-packaged judaizing.

Demand and require all the outward you like to the letter of your law ... but that does not change the Word or how God has approached His children:

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Brilliant statement.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by mfblume

It must be. The context continue sot say that WITH MANY OTHER WORDS Peter told them to save themselves from that untoward generation. That means the words already cited, along with others, regarded salvation.

Act 2:40 KJV And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

What we have recorded is the SUMMARY of how to be "saved".

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown:

Act 2:40
with many other words did he testify and exhort — Thus we have here but a summary of Peter’s discourse; though from the next words it would seem that only the more practical parts, the home appeals, are omitted.

Save yourselves from this untoward generation — as if Peter already foresaw the hopeless impenitence of the nation at large, and would have his hearers hasten in for themselves and secure their own salvation.

How incredibly sad to build your entire theology, doctrine, even your life, around an assumption. Hermeneutical butchery at it's best. Or worst.

[RevDWW]

Act 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, Act 19:2 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. Act 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Act 19:4 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. Act 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. Act 19:7 And all the men were about twelve.

Apparently believing is not the same as receiving.....

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

Christianity in general doesn't feel that they have changed the answer.

Repent - check
Be baptized - check
God will fill you with his spirit - check

That's mainstream belief. They're not ignoring, or changing, the answer to the question.

Some are, though. They distinctly say that Acts 2:38 is NOT necessary. They have told me that, and they are the ones I referred to.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

How incredibly sad to build your entire theology, doctrine, even your life, around an assumption. Hermeneutical butchery at it's best. Or worst.

It is no assumption. MUST means a definite. Does YE MUST BE BORN AGAIN mean one assumes to be born again?

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Some are, though. They distinctly say that Acts 2:38 is NOT necessary. They have told me that, and they are the ones I referred to.

Which part do they feel is not necessary?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

Which part do they feel is not necessary?

Water Baptism and Spirit baptism. I know of one man who said repentance was not necessary.