Why Acts 2:38?

[Pressing-On]

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.

When they say that, aren't they actually saying, "Tongues is not the only sign you have been filled?"

Isn't that the disconnect with Acts 2:38?

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by mfblume

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

But don't you agree that the majority of mainstream Christianity believes that repentance and baptism is necessary?

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by mfblume

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

Grammatically, you used "Must" in the context of "What else could it mean?", which is, an assumption. Regardless of how bad you want this verse to mean something, you can't force it to speak as you wish. You can only take it for what it is. But of course, if you do that, your entire theology is ripped to shreds.

[pelathais]

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.

You've either missed or ignored yesterday's discussions. Peter told the people "how to be saved" in Acts 2:21. He then went on to advise them that the Messiah had come and gone and that this nation (Israel) has crucified the One that God had made "both Lord and Christ."

It was at that point that the question came up, "What must we do?"

If the question had been "What must we do to be saved?" Peter would have told them to clean out their ears and pay attention... "I already told you that!" (Acts 2:21). He even uses the word "saved" here to clear up any misconceptions of the issue.

To insert the word "saved" later does harm to Peter's who point about the nation of Israel and the corporate "guilt" concerning the death of this innocent man (Jesus).

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Acts 2:40 says to "save yourselves", I don't think that heaven or hell salvation is ever spoken of anywhere else in the bible with the term "save yourself." So what does it mean to save yourselves from this untoward generation?

Peter already told us: Acts 2:21.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

It is a manner of speaking, and regards salvation nonetheless.

They must secure their own salvation. That does not mean we are saved by works, but means we must secure to ourselves the salvation God provided by grace through faith by doing our part in the covenant. Every covenant has a part for both parties to play. This manner of speaking simply focused on the listeners' part.

Would you claim it is not about salvation? Why?

Abraham was justified and declared "righteous" BEFORE he entered into the covenant (Genesis 15:6). The covenant wasn't even introduced until two chapters later: Genesis 17:10.

The covenant is as you describe - it requires action on both parts. Salvation however, is a free gift. Romans 5:15 and Romans 6:23.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Peter already told us: Acts 2:21.

Wasn't his point made more plain in the ensuing verses? He tells them that they must call on His name to be saved and then goes on to explain and confirm of whom he is particularly speaking of. He reaches back in scripture to prove his point. What God himself had set forth.

The beauty is when he says in verse, 2:33 "Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear."

They THEN asked, "What shall we do?"

A question begs an answer.

Acts 2:38. No way around that one. Toe torry! LOL!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Wasn't his point made more plain in the ensuing verses? He tells them that they must call on His name to be saved and then goes on to explain and confirm of whom he is particularly speaking of. He reaches back in scripture to prove his point. What God himself had set forth.

The beauty is when he says in verse, 2:33 "Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear."

They THEN asked, "What shall we do?"

A question begs an answer.

Acts 2:38. No way around that one. Toe torry! LOL!

As it has already been stated, every Christian on the planet believes and obeys Acts 2:38. The only "problem" that arises is when people insert words into Peter's mouth (Like 'quoting' Acts 2:37, as "What must we do to be saved?").

Peter already told them how to be saved. Salvation is a gift for all of those who call upon the Lord in faith. The seal of the covenant comes after salvation (See the experience of Abraham again that the NT apostles keep making a big deal out of).

The question does beg an answer. But you've got the wrong question inserted here. LOL.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by pelathais

As it has already been stated, every Christian on the planet believes and obeys Acts 2:38. The only "problem" that arises is when people insert words into Peter's mouth (Like 'quoting' Acts 2:37, as "What must we do to be saved?").

Peter already told them how to be saved. Salvation is a gift for all of those who call upon the Lord in faith. The seal of the covenant comes after salvation (See the experience of Abraham again that the NT apostles keep making a big deal out of).

The question does beg an answer. But you've got the wrong question inserted here. LOL.

No I dooonnn't.

Well, not everyone understands nor does everyone obey Acts 2:38 when they think that the Holy Ghost is identified by any other means than tongues. Part of obedience is understanding and opening yourself up to receiving His Spirit, i.e., (Acts 19:2). Christ in you, the hope of glory. (Col 1:27)

Now, I believe that "they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled." Matthew 5:6. I believe even if taught in error, the hungry shall be filled. We see that in some of the Catholic Churches, etc.

I believe that when a person truly repents, you will see a change. That is not evidence of the Holy Ghost infilling. You can determine to go on a diet and you will change your lifestyle and see fruit of your labor.

We have the rich young ruler who by all accounts was doing everything right, BUT he didn't want to give his all. Not a good judge of salvation, an outward appearance or show of things. Just because someone appears to be good, doesn't make him always saved. We can also look to Cornelius who was a devout man in need of the truth of the Gospel.

We have more proof of the evidence of having received the Spirit of God as tongues than not. And we have Romans 8:9 saying that you cannot and do not belong to Christ if the Holy Ghost is not dwelling in you. So, the argument is moot for me, Pel. I cannot see it any other way.

Now, I must log out. We are passing around a funny video of Rush saying that "tomorrow is Obama's birthday, although, we have no proof of that." LOL! Esther will love that! LOL!

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

The problem is NOT Acts 2:38. Acts 2:38 is a legetimate call to repentance and instruction of the action should IMMEDIATELY follow repentance, namely water baptism. The point of reception of the Holy Ghost in this verse can be debated. As some think it happens afters steps one and two (hence the name three steppers) while others don't see this as a three-fold formula, but rather than the promise of the Spirit is given to those who obey Peter's command (namely to repent AND be baptized). I would say, that in the context all 3,000 that repented at Peters preaching followed that repentance with water baptism. However if we attempt to force tongues into their response (see Acts 2:41) that is indeed a stretch, which at the very best is an assumption based on Acts 2:1-4, but not necessarily supported by the text. However, I digress........

Almost anything we say about Acts 2:41 is a stretch since we aren't given the exact wording. The only things worth commenting on is "Save yourselves" and "perverse generation".

Back to what I wanted to say....the problem is NOT Acts 2:38 it is our interpretation of it, which seeks to force tongues into the passage. There is nothing wrong with using the words of Peter to appeal to sinners who need salvation, but Acts 2:38 doesn't contradict other passages where direct appeals are made to those who are in need of salvation. Furthermore if someone is willing to assume that the 3,000 DID all speak with tongues (about which the passage is silent) are they (you) also willing to make the same claim about the 5,000 in Acts 4? Furthermore, the results spoken of in Acts 4:4 don't seem to be very popular preaching material:

I haven't heard anyone say that Acts 2:38 teaches that speaking with tongues is the initial sign that a believer has received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I'm certainly not forcing tongues into that verse.

1) I like to harmonize the scriptures since they are inspired by God I don't see any possible way that they could contradict one another.

2) I also think that the apostles all taught the same gospel. They all stood up on the day of Pentecost with Peter, in effect a tacit agreement with the words that Peter spoke when he explained what was happening. Though Paul received his revelation of Christ and the gospel independently of the twelve, Paul compared the gospel he preached with that of the twelve to make sure he was "orthodox".

3) I also understand Acts 2 to be a watershed account. An inauguration of the new covenant. The birth of the church. It's where we find the first message of salvation through Christ being taught to others. We should expect to hear the entire message, the full gospel (not bits and pieces that need harmonization). It's where the normative practice of the church is laid out.

Acts 2:38 contains only TWO commands/instructions to the hearers, the third "command" is not a command or instruction 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.

Why do you think these are the first commands (repent, be baptized) given to unbelievers if they don't play some part in our salvation?

Receiving the Spirit may not be a command but it is definitely distinct from repentance and baptism. IOW, one should not expect to receive the Spirit AT repentance nor should one expect to receive the Spirit AT water baptism although it might happen at those times. Peter is saying do this (repent) and do that (be baptized) and you shall receive the baptism of the Spirit. He is not saying you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit when you repent or when you are baptized. Peter is also not teaching that the baptism of the Holy Spirit happens at faith since it is obvious that those hearers who were pricked in their hearts BELIEVED what Peter had just told them.

I guess the bigger question is, can we prove that God DOESN'T give the Holy Spirit to the truly repentant sinner?

Of course God gives the Spirit to a truly repentant sinner but the question is when.