Question about Acts 2:38

[drummerboy_dave]

Originally Posted by Timmy

So remission of sins, alone, is not enough?

OK, but again, the second part is not up to me. It's God's doing. So, if I do A and B (which I have), and if the promise is kept (and we must assume it is), I guess I'm in! (Except that being baptized in the name of the Father, the name of the Son, and the name of the Holy Spirit doesn't count, according to you guys. But that's another topic!)

Timmy, it's not according to "us guys", it's what's according to God's word. If you have done A and B, (which you haven't, but that's another subject) and have not recieved from God what is promised to you, why should you be satisfied? Remembering Acts 2:38, Acts 2:4, Acts 10:43-48, and the other scriptures I and others have quoted.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by drummerboy_dave

Timmy, it's not according to "us guys", it's what's according to God's word. If you have done A and B, (which you haven't, but that's another subject) and have not recieved from God what is promised to you, why should you be satisfied? Remembering Acts 2:38, Acts 2:4, Acts 10:43-48, and the other scriptures I and others have quoted.

I didn't say I haven't received the promise.

I also didn't say I'd be "satisfied" if the promise wasn't kept. I just said the keeping of the promise is up to God, not me.

I say "you guys" because you have an interpretation of scripture that is very different from other Christians. Regardless of which is right or wrong, you can't possibly claim that you aren't "interpreting" scripture. Can you?

E.g., consider these two scriptures addressing baptism. Matt 28:19 says (quoting Jesus) to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" and Acts 2:38 (quoting Peter) says to baptize "in the name of Jesus Christ". You say that it is Peter's command we must obey and not Jesus's command (directly). That is an interpretation, whether it's right or wrong.

If baptizing "in the titles" is not a valid baptism "according to God's word", as you say, can you show me the scripture that says that? Where does it say that we must not follow Jesus's instructions, and that Peter's way is now the only correct way?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Chan

Will you admit that some OPs do, in fact, believe that since receiving the baptism of the Holy Ghost is necessary for salvation, and that tongues is the initial evidence of this, that some OPs thus believe that speaking in tongues is necessary for salvation?

Some OPs do but that does not equate to them quoting Acts 2:38 with a 4th condition that is not there, which is why timmy claimed

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Timmy

So remission of sins, alone, is not enough?

Not enough for what?

OK, but again, the second part is not up to me. It's God's doing.

Do you forgive your own sins too? Isn't that God's doing also? That it is God that gives the Holy Ghost is a no brainier, but that does not mean he is just going to give it to you. Let's look at Acts 8, did God just give them the Holy Ghost?
Act 8:6 The crowds were paying attention with one mind to what Philip said, as they heard and saw the miraculous signs he was performing.
Act 8:7 For unclean spirits, crying with loud shrieks, were coming out of many who were possessed, and many paralyzed and lame people were healed.
Act 8:8 So there was great joy in that city.
Act 8:9 Now in that city was a man named Simon, who had been practicing magic and amazing the people of Samaria, claiming to be someone great.
Act 8:10 All the people, from the least to the greatest, paid close attention to him, saying, "This man is the power of God that is called 'Great.' "
Act 8:11 And they paid close attention to him because he had amazed them for a long time with his magic.
Act 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he was proclaiming the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they began to be baptized, both men and women.
Act 8:13 Even Simon himself believed, and after he was baptized, he stayed close to Philip constantly, and when he saw the signs and great miracles that were occurring, he was amazed.
Act 8:14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them.
Act 8:15 These two went down and prayed for them so that they would receive the Holy Spirit.
Act 8:16 (For the Spirit had not yet come upon any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

So, if I do A and B (which I have), and if the promise is kept (and we must assume it is), I guess I'm in! (Except that being baptized in the name of the Father, the name of the Son, and the name of the Holy Spirit doesn't count, according to you guys. But that's another topic!)

Faith is the necessary component to receiving anything, including the Spirit. It is assumed by Acts 2:38 that one genuinely has faith and genuinely has repented that they "shall receive the gift of the HOly Ghost"

Let me try this another way...if I said "you shall go to heaven" would you then expect to instantly be taken up to heaven?

To take that yet even further, Acts 10 has people receiving this gift before baptism

Act 10:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all those who heard the message.
Act 10:45 The circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were greatly astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles,
Act 10:46 for they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said,
Act 10:47 "No one can withhold the water for these people to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?"
Act 10:48 So he gave orders to have them baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay for several days.

And Luke records Jesus saying
Luk 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Also the bible mentions prayer with being saved when Peter says
Act 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

The bible mentions healing by laying on hands, yet not everyone is healed by that method only. I might ask here too, how did they know those Samaritans did not receive the Spirit yet?

[drummerboy_dave]

Timmy, just look at the text. Jesus told them to baptise folks in the name of. Peter told them to be baptised in the name of. What is the name? Paul told us; And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him. Col. 3:17 Since when does baptism not fall under the phrase "do all"?

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by drummerboy_dave

Timmy, just look at the text. Jesus told them to baptise folks in the name of. Peter told them to be baptised in the name of. What is the name? Paul told us; And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him. Col. 3:17 Since when does baptism not fall under the phrase "do all"?

OK, that's part of it. You have explained why it is valid to baptize in the name of Jesus. Not that I have disagreed with that. But you have not explained why it is wrong to baptize using the phrase that Jesus used.

Let me back up, a bit. Maybe I have you guys pegged wrong. But it's my understanding that when someone is baptized in water, if the words spoken were "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost", that baptism is not valid, and that person is not really saved. Is that your belief or not?

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Not enough for what?

For salvation. To enter the kingdom of God.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Timmy

But how do they see "receive the HGB" as a command?

"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."

Not all of us see it as a command. Some of us see it as a promise to those who are saved. We are called one-steppers.

Others who believe in a three-step salvation have to see it as a command in order to fit their doctrine.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by drummerboy_dave

...
Your questions, Chan, are quite silly to me. They require nothing more than simply recognizing what happened on the day of pentecost.

What DID happen on the day of Pentecost?
Did 120 sinners get saved when they spoke with tongues (Acts 2:1-4)
or
Did 120 saved folks (disciples and apostles) receive an experience called the HGB so they could more effectively serve the One who had previously saved them and commissioned them to preach the Gospel, heal the sick, and cast out demons?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Michlow

For a long time my Mom actually thought that the verse read "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, with the initial evidence of speaking in other tongues"

Because that is how she always heard it quoted!

And how many of us have heard Acts 2:37 (mis)quoted as "...what shall we do to be saved?" when it does not say that. Only one time do we read where someone asked, "what must I do to be saved?" and that is in Acts 16:30. The answer to that question (and the way to be saved in this NT dispensation) is given in Acts 16:31.