Why Acts 2:38?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Hilarious?



Sorry, Cornelius was demanded to be baptized, and baptism is part of salvation according to Peter and Jesus. Case closed. (That pesky Peter. And JESUS?).

Originally Posted by mfblume

Sister, he did not say "DEMANDED", though, did he. Pel said DEMANDED.

You're losing track, Bro. YOU said "demanded" and I put it in quotes because I was quoting YOU.

Got a smiley for that?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Sister, he did not say "DEMANDED", though, did he. Pel said DEMANDED.

LOL!

According to the Greek, command (prostasso) is an orderly arrangement derived from the root "tasso" - to arrange in an orderly manner, assign or dispose, appoint, ordain and determine.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Who was he "commanding?" The context appears to indicate that the people who had come with Peter from Jerusalem were the incalcitrant ones.

Brother, that is stretching it to say the least. You said this before, but that is absolutely wrong.

Act 10:46-48 KJV 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 [PETER] [NOT "THEY"]commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

The context says HE, and that refers to the person who just spoke the words of verse 47, who is said to be peter in verse 46. You have to read your doctrine into the text to say it was not Peter, especially when it says it was Peter.

Cornelius comes off as meek and willing to follow whatever instructions he is given by the apostles.

And, just when was Cornelius "saved?" If he was "saved" before the words in Acts 10:48, were spoken then he was not "commanded" to be baptized "to be saved." He was baptized BECAUSE he was already saved.

You did not read my explanation I gave in my longer post recently.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

You're losing track, Bro. YOU said "demanded" and I put it in quotes because I was quoting YOU.

Got a smiley for that?

You missed the humour. In my estimation, DEMANDED is the same as COMMANDED. But the only way you could be correct, is for you take my term DEMANDED and say that term was not found in the text, and COMMANDED was alone, as though the two terms did not mean the same thing.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by KWSS1976

Come on guys even the baptist baptise why are we even discussing the issue even they know it has to be done........lol

[KWSS1976]

But I will say the water does not save...lol...it is just a followthrough or a showmanship on your belief to others in the congregation and your family...

[BroGary]

Originally Posted by DAII

The Pelagians want us to re-enact the gospel ... since fully relying on His sufficient work is not enough....

Even Blume denies this analogy ... agree that Romans 6 tells us that all 3 "steps of the gospel" are conveyed in our baptism.

Again, the Bible says we must OBEY the gospel, that denotes action in response to our faith. Such action does not mean we we are not relying on His sufficient work, but it is how the Bible says His sufficient work can be applied to our individual benefit.

Obeying Acts 2:38 is not works to EARN salvation, it is obeying what the Bible says is required to benefit from the salvation that Jesus already paid for.

Repentence is a must and it requires action in that we stop doing things contrary to what God says in His Word.

Baptism is something that is done to us in obedience to His Word.

Receiving the Holy Ghost is when the Spirit of God given to dwell within us.

All three are required according to the scriptures.

Luke 13:5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

John 3:5 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.

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

Acts 2:38 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.

Other individual scriptures you try to use to reason away the necessity of water baptism does not negate what the above scriptures clearly say, those other scriptures may focus on another aspect of salvation, but can not negate what the Bible already said was a "MUST".

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Brad Murphy

But should religion be based on assumptions?

no, that's why we look at the entire body of writing on a particular subject to see what it says and not just one verse.

[Brad Murphy]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

no, that's why we look at the entire body of writing on a particular subject to see what it says and not just one verse.

But even with all of the examples, there isn't a scripture that says you must speak in tongues to be saved, so you have to make an assumption that it is a requirement.

If I write a story and describe several cars in the story, but they all happen to be grey, you could assume that all cars in the "story world" are grey, but that does not mean that there were not other colors, those are just the only ones I happened to describe...

and if I even threw in a few examples of cars with cloven tongues of fire on top of them we can just ignore those right?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Brad Murphy

But even with all of the examples, there isn't a scripture that says you must speak in tongues to be saved, so you have to make an assumption that it is a requirement.

If I write a story and describe several cars in the story, but they all happen to be grey, you could assume that all cars in the "story world" are grey, but that does not mean that there were not other colors, those are just the only ones I happened to describe...

and if I even threw in a few examples of cars with cloven tongues of fire on top of them we can just ignore those right?

Brad,
How do we escape what is actually going on in Acts 2?

At the beginning it says that the a sound comes from heaven and they all began to speak in tongues (Acts 2:4), the people observing ask questions because they are confounded by it (Acts 2:7; 2:8; 2:12).

Peter explains to them, using the OT, beginning in Acts 2:14 to Acts 2:33 identifying that what they have just witnessed is true, coming from the Father and is the promise of the Holy Ghost that they are now seeing and hearing.

He gives them more information from the scripture concerning what David said in Psalms and then they ask, "What shall we do?" Acts 2:37

They are in effect saying, "I want this. What do I have to do to receive it?"

Not much different than Simon the Sorcerer. Although, they didn't want it for selfish gain. At least, the scripture appears to show they were sincere in the asking.

Why is this so hard and not just beautiful?