Why Acts 2:38?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Sherri

I think it was crafted to help those who are sinners and don't have a clue how to pray to a living God. It's effective if the person repeating it is sincere in his heart. But the prayer alone won't save anyone, if they don't genuinely repent.

I have seen people weep as they repeated a sinner's prayer. Some people really DO repent this way.

Some people only know how to repent this way its all they've heard. When I began to come to God, I was 18 years old and laying on the couch watching TV. They were talking about the Y2K scare (it was like Novemeber of 1999) and I repented there on the couch. It was a genuine repentance. I struggled over the next 6 months to live a christian life since I wasn't in church, moved out on my own, and was still a teenager. All such circumstances which are not condusive to Christian growth. It was in fact over the next 6 months of my life that I was involved in some of the worst sins of my life, but even though I didn't know how to live for God, and failed Him MISERABLEY (and I mean failed God bad--I didn;t know the bible if someone would have brought 1 Corinhians 5-6 to me I could have believed it was written specifically to me (not all of it, but the shoe fit on alot of that material--disclaimer: not the incest part ). But my point is I was bad off, but that seed of repentance flourished into what I have become today.

I don't endorse the sinners prayer, and I've never used it myself as a means of conversion. when I go do jail ministry some of the other ministers use it at the conclusion, and it makes me cringe. I DO believe in justification by faith and I think the sinners prayer is a [big] step in that direction, but I certainly don't think the sinners prayer in and of itself brings salvation.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Phil Stearns

Speculation and misdirection.

Not at all. This thread was opened as a knee jerk reaction against a matter that wasn't even thought out. Since it attacks that good ol' whipping boy known as "The Sinner's Prayer" a predictable response may have been anticipated.

I'm just calling y'alls bluff here.

What is it about a "Sinner's Prayer" - and SPECIFICALLY the one linked to earlier that offends you so? The link Mizzie gave emphatically said that any prayer must come from the heart.

I think that's just what bothers some folks. They can't admit that anyone other than OP's are truly sincere about faith. And then, when they get shamed by this sort of arrogance (see Borat again) they just sort of fluster away.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Acts 2:38 contains only TWO commands/instructions to the hearers, the third "command" is not a command or insturction to obey at all, but is a gift from God. These commands are things that we can actually do within our own power of choice, or reject to do, namely 1)repent and 2)be baptized.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by pelathais

In the words that Mizzie linked to and called a "sinner's prayer" - what indicates to you that this is not representative of a "change of mind and direction?"

I mean, if the Three Steppers are happy with "Borat's" repentance and satisfied with that performance - what's wrong with a sincere person praying these other words?

This is a GREAT point Pel.

Lets consider a hypothetical. Lets say Borat goes into the meeting and instead of "I aint no monkey" type thing being preached the true love of God was preached, and in spite of the fact he went to mock, conviction gripped his heart he went to the altar and He genuinely repented. Left quietly, decided not to finish his film, and we never hear of Him again. Many there would not have accepted such as salvation, but would have the impression he left there lost, that He hadn't truly repented because when at the alter God did not fill him with the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tonuges.

Instead, He goes down there completely unrepentant with full intenet to mock, and fakes receiving the Holy Ghost acts half way like a fool (some would say completely like a fool) and what happens? The congregation is going nuts, and the "superstar" evangelist cannot seemingly even tell he is being mocked-despite the cameras that are filming the entire episode.

WE (and I really ought to begin distancing myself from OP's as my doctrine is moving me further out of their camp) can't accept anything as genuinely from God without some crazy outward manifestation, no matter how disorderly. It is no wonder Borat came to a OP meeting rather than say a Baptist conference. We open ourselves up to those things, and the saddest thing of all is, he could have gone to a baptist meeting, been genuinely touched by God, and they would have ACCEPTED him for it. If He had genuinely been touched by God at the camp meeting, (and had not faked the tongues episode) He would have been rejected, with the very best encouragement being "you ALMOST go it."

Our theology needs some real re-examining!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I don't know what you are talking about, Pel?


I reworded my statement in the original post. I didn't think the sinner's prayer would confuse you. I want to know why Peter chose the exact words he chose in Acts 2:38 in response to the men who asked "What shall we do?" Peter could have told them to recite the sinner's prayer or something like it but he didn't. Why did he chose to answer them the way he did?

I agree but Peter didn't say those words.

Did Peter use those words anywhere else in books he wrote?
Pel, my post was not about the sinner's prayer. It is truly about me wondering why Peter chose the exact words he did in Acts 2:38 instead of some other words. I used the sinner's prayer as an example of "other words". I have no idea what the "Borat approved method" you are talking about is!

Jesus' death on the cross is all that is needed to atone for our sins but appropriating the gift (righteousness) is more than just believing that Christ died on the cross for our sins, at least that is what I hear Peter saying to these men on the day of Pentecost who asked what they should do and he told them to repent, be baptized, and receive the Holy Spirit.

We can hear how to "appropriate" the righteousness of Jesus Christ by rolling the tape back to Acts 2:21. When Peter does use the word "saved" why doesn't he tell people to be baptized or to do anything else other than to "call upon the Lord?"

The "...what shall we do..." later in Acts 2:37, wasn't just a question about how to join a particular religious society. It was said in response to the claim, "that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ."

There was more than a question about individual salvation involved. There were questions about national identity, corporate and communal guilty over the injustice of crucifying an innocent man and the fact that the Messiah had been enthroned thus potentially affecting the Temple ministry and service.

There was a lot to digest just then. Where to start? How about by following God's own example and enthroning Jesus Christ as the King - but now of their individual lives? Thus, they are exhorted to become disciples - not of Peter! - but of the risen Lord (baptism in His name). When accompanied by sincere repentance (which obviously involves a "sinner" praying somehow) there is a promise that will be given.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Not at all. This thread was opened as a knee jerk reaction against a matter that wasn't even thought out. Since it attacks that good ol' whipping boy known as "The Sinner's Prayer" a predictable response may have been anticipated.

I'm just calling y'alls bluff here.

What is it about a "Sinner's Prayer" - and SPECIFICALLY the one linked to earlier that offends you so? The link Mizzie gave emphatically said that any prayer must come from the heart.

I think that's just what bothers some folks. They can't admit that anyone other than OP's are truly sincere about faith. And then, when they get shamed by this sort of arrogance (see Borat again) they just sort of fluster away.

Pel, I don't have a problem with the sinner's prayer being uttered from a sincere, repentent heart but that is not why I started this thread even though you may think it is.

Pel, I'm going to be very transparent with you here because you are wrong as to why I started this thread. I was sitting at my computer and thinking that what I believe is not believed by many folks who call themselves Christian. Many don't believe that what Peter said in Acts 2:38 is the new birth and is the initial "how" of salvation.

So I asked myself, "what if I'm wrong? What if my interpretation of the Bible is incorrect?" How then would I explain the words of Peter in Acts 2:38? Why did he respond the way he did?

And then I thought of "other things" that Peter could have said. Things that folks now-a-days say when the gospel is delivered and those that hear and are convicted want to know what they need to do. I thought immediately of the sinner's prayer and added that to my post. Obviously it threw you off from my main question and reason for starting this thread which is, Why did Peter respond with the words he spoke in Acts 2:38?

Sometimes, Pel, you get on a hobby horse and can't get diverted from it. Do you think you could answer my question without going on about Borat?

[Michael The Disciple]

So amazing how people scatter at the reading of Acts 2:38. They can reason all day long APART FROM IT. But they cannot explain why Peter responded as he did to the question.

[pastorrick1959]

yes mizpeh.. he meant what he said and he said what he meant.. words are easy to say ,,but htese direction were from the holy ghost to peter telling them what they needed to do to be saved.

it works ,, changesd my life and many thru the years . the message of acts 2 ;38 is still alive and god is still moveing no matter how many try to water it down today!

[Questioner]

On the same note... why DIDN'T Peter mention speaking in tongues in response to the question?

[Baron1710]

The problem is that OP want to take Acts 2:38 and place it in a vacuum. They don't recognize that Peter had many other things to say during that sermon, (As is evident by Mizpeh thinking he was speaking to someone else two verses later)

They discard clear statement that contain direct questions on salvation, even in the book of Acts (Jailer asking, "What must I do to be saved"). They explain away Paul's writings as being written to those already saved (I guess God could not see far enough into the future to know that his Word would be read by sinners.)

The overwhelming evidence in Scripture about salvation is clear and unmistakable, faith alone.