Question about Acts 2:38

Originally Posted by Timmy

To me, Acts 2:38 looks like a promise (the gift of the Holy Ghost) with two conditions (repent and be baptized). Oneness Pentecostals apparently see it as the way (the only way) to be saved, with four items in the list of requirements: repent, be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost, and speak in tongues (somehow implicit to the verse, but that's another topic!).

Can you explain how you get four (or even three) commands from it? Again, to me it looks like two commands, and a result of following the commands. And the promised result is a "gift". How can receiving a gift be considered a command? It's up to the giver of the gift to fulfill that part, not the recipient!

“… Repent and let every one of you be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” (Acts 2:38b, NKJV).


The problem here Timmy is that some people attempt to link repentance with water baptism as something which is necessary for salvation! An immediate problem arises, in that Peter in his subsequent sermons in Acts, makes no further references to baptism in his gospel presentations. So if baptism were necessary for salvation, then why doesn’t Peter directly link salvation to repentance, when preaching in Solomon’s porch (Acts 3:19)?

Grammatically the Greek verb translated “repent” is a second person plural in the active voice, and the Greek verb translated “be baptised” is a third person singular in the passive voice. Furthermore the Greek pronoun translated “your” (re; “remission of your sins”) is a second person plural. Therefore the grammatical connection is between “repent” and for the “remission of your sins”, because both of these are plurals. The verse does not read in the Greek “repent and be baptised … for the remission of your sins,” as it is a grammatical impossibility to link two verbs; a plural and also singular verb to a plural subject.

Originally Posted by drummerboy_dave

Like it or not, being filled with the Holy Ghost is neccassary to recieving salvation. Like it or not, speaking in tongues is the first evidence a person has that they have indeed recieved this gift. God, who does not show favoritism, will give the gift of the Holy Ghost to anyone who is willing to recieve it. It is all within the book.

Like I said, God bless you.

Drummerboy Dave, this cannot be so, for five reasons;

Firstly, most of the claims for tongues today is nothing more than simply babbling, and has absolutely nothing to do with the genuine gifts as recorded in Scripture. According to the “Dictionary of Charismatic and Pentecostal Movements” over 90 Million tongues people are Roman Catholic. This provokes me to ask this question, is the Holy Spirit blessing people who 'worship' Mary? Also what about those Muslim, Mormon and weird Hindu sects who also babble in tongues, as also do the various anti-Trinitarian sects such as Unitarian tongues speakers who also speak in tongues and do so by the claimed power of the Holy Spirit. But is the Holy Spirit really inspiring such diverse tongues groups, each of whom has a radically different Christ and completely different gospel from the other tongues speaking groups? Is God inspiring such confusion.

Secondly, so much of the modern Tongues movement simply dishonours God, and brings Christianity into disrepute before the unbelieving world. Lion roaring and other Toronto manifestations simply prove how gullible and foolish many Charismatics are. I feel sorry for so many tongues advocates whom I meet, as they seem on the whole to have little personal maturity and Godliness as Christians, and so many tend to make idols out of their spiritual gifts, and peruse such gifts (of their own making) rather than a deeper knowledge of Christ. I don't deny that God sometimes does heal and bless people, but it would be foolish for me to accept all of the tomfoolery in the 'Church' today, much of which often unintentionally simply ridicules name of Christ before an unbelieving world.

Thirdly, Within the book of Acts, only 12 people spoke in other languages on the actual day of Pentecost. Those who spoke in tongues numbered 12 see Acts 2:14 which doesn’t read: ‘But Peter standing up with the hundred and nineteen.’ And also men not men and women, as with the 120, see verse 13 in the KJV. Lastly, tongues are a sign to the unbelievers according to 1st Corinthians 14:21-22. My answer to clinch it is Acts 2:43, which tells us that the 'Apostles' alone (who numbered twelve) performed the wonders and signs on that day, and so I can only conclude that the 3,000 who were saved on that day did not speak in tongues. I've addressed this issue in another post elsewhere dave.

Fourthly, The Greek ‘ma pantes’ (are all) which always expects a negative reply, is used for instance at 1st Corinthians 1: 13, where Paul states: ‘was Paul crucified for you?’ naturally the only possibly reply is, ‘no he was not.’ This same Greek construction is again used at 1st Corinthians 12:29-30, where ‘ma pantes’ precedes a number of questions, each of which necessities a negative reply: ‘Are all apostles?’ The answer Dave is of course no! But then at verse 30 Paul against using ‘ma pentes’ asks ‘Do all speak with tongues,’ to which the only reply is no.

Finally, Dave where does the Bible say that all Christians must speak in tongues in order to be saved, if this is indeed truly necessary for salvation? The onus is upon you to prove this from the Bible, as it’s you who’s challenging the commonly held view. Paul at 1st Corinthians 14:5 tell us that not all of the Corinthians spoke in tongues: “I wish you all spoke with tongues,” however at 1st Corinthians 12:13, he also states that all those who are saved, including these Corinthians have already been baptised with the Holy Spirit. So Paul himself is admitting that there were many Corinthian believers who were truly saved, but who had never spoken in tongues.

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?

yes that's standard Oneenss theology which most OP's teach and which the UPCI & PAW has also held to in public debates with Trinitarians.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

[B][I]
...
Grammatically the Greek verb translated “repent” is a second person plural in the active voice, and the Greek verb translated “be baptised” is a third person singular in the passive voice. Furthermore the Greek pronoun translated “your” (re; “remission of your sins”) is a second person plural. Therefore the grammatical connection is between “repent” and for the “remission of your sins”, because both of these are plurals. The verse does not read in the Greek “repent and be baptised … for the remission of your sins,” as it is a grammatical impossibility to link two verbs; a plural and also singular verb to a plural subject.

So, are you saying that in the original Greek it says:

"Repent for the forgiveness/remission of you sins, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ..."?

Originally Posted by Sam

So, are you saying that in the original Greek it says:

"Repent for the forgiveness/remission of you sins, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ..."?

I don't see how he could come up with something like that. I would agree that the passage should be translated "for the forgiveness of sins" instead of "for the remission of sins" (whether it's "for" or "into" or something else is subject to debate) but to say that "for the forgiveness of sins" comes after repent and not after "be baptized," well, I'm not convinced.

[Praxeas]

They are plural maybe because he was not speaking to one person but many

Originally Posted by drummerboy_dave

Like it or not, being filled with the Holy Ghost is neccassary to recieving salvation. Like it or not, speaking in tongues is the first evidence a person has that they have indeed recieved this gift. God, who does not show favoritism, will give the gift of the Holy Ghost to anyone who is willing to recieve it. It is all within the book.

Like I said, God bless you.

I can’t agree with Drummer Boy’s claims, for firstly he’s consequently making Luther, Spurgeon, Wesley, Bunyan and all of the other greats of the Christian faith unsaved, as none of them spoke in tongues and we know that for certain, for in many cases; for their deaths were observed. None of these make made death-bed repentances stating just before they died that the Trinity was pagan, Modalism was true and one must be rebaptised with a new formula and speak in tongues!

Secondly, at (1st Corinthians 12:29-30); ‘Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Do all have gifts of healings? Do all interpret? The Greek ‘ma pantes’ (are all) always expects a negative reply, and is used for instance at 1st Corinthians 1:13, where Paul states: ‘was Paul crucified for you?’ naturally the only possibly reply is, ‘no he was not.’ This same Greek construction is then used again at 1st Corinthians 12:29-30, where ‘ma pantes’ here precedes a number of questions, each of which necessities the negative reply. So the response to the question ‘Are all apostles?’ is of course not, no! But then at verse 30 Paul again uses ‘ma pentes’ asking; ‘Do all speak with tongues,’ to which the only linguistically possible reply is no.

Thirdly, the filling of the Holy Spirit is a completely different event from the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. The filling is an oft repeatable event, which is a pos6t-salvation experience, as seen at Acts 4:8 and 4:31 where Peter was twice filled with the Holy Spirit within a short space of time. However, Christ baptises us only once with the Holy Spirit, into the body of Christ 1st Corinthians 12:13, at our conversions.

Fourthly, there are several examples of people who didn’t speak in tongues but were still saved. One of the best examples would be the 3,000 converts to the Church; Acts 2:41, who this verse states ‘were added to them’ implying salvation, and yet on the day of Pentecost we read two verses later that only the Apostles spoke in tongues on that day for we read; "many wonders and signs were done through the Apostles." Now if these 3,000 converts had spoken in tongues then we’d have instead read that the 3,120 or the 3,012 did many signs and wonders. So these 3,000 were saved, but without tongues speaking in languages (tongues) on that particular day, I wouldn’t deny that some of them might have spoken in tongues after that day. Another example of a saved man who didn’t speak in tongues was the thief on the cross, who dying after Jesus had already died (John 19:31-34) was the first man to die under the New Testament (covenant); which was instituted by Christ’s death Hebrews 9:16.

Finally, Dave the Drummer will you please show me a verse which states words to the effect that in order to be saved I must speak in tongues; I find this claim unbiblical.

Originally Posted by drummerboy_dave

I can agree, that this is what the bible says. Does it not also say, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. A man who has done only A and B has not and can not enter the kingdom of God according to John 3:5

Drummer, this passage wasn’t written in the future tense, as if it were a prophetic passage. The verb forms in John 3:3-6 are present and not future tenses, and so Nicodemus isn’t here being told by Jesus to get himself saved by being baptised; as this was a command given in a year’s time only after Christ's resurrection! Rather Nicodemus is here told to get saved right now! This is why the verb “lego” (I say) in verse 5 is a present tense (indicative, present and active). Jesus is here commanding Nicodemus to do so something right now, and not in the distant future to secure his salvation.

So if John 3:5 indeed refers to Jesus name baptism, as some have supposed, then Nicodemus is being told to do something which was not yet given to the church! Christian baptism wasn’t given to the church until after Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection from the dead (Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:16) which it signifies by the way. But how Nicodemus could get saved by doing something, which was not yet given as you claim? And so how does the verb at John 3:5, which is a present tense, really refer to a future and as yet still prophetic (future) action as your implying Drummer?

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"?

‘And whatsoever you do in word and deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by Him.’ (Colossians 3:17, KJV).

Drummer has applied Colossians 3:17 to water baptism, but this is a passage which was written by the apostle Paul to believers who were already saved, and thus who had already been baptised, some of them a long time ago as this is a later epistle. So Paul could not have been here telling the Colossians to get themselves baptised all over again, as we are only baptised once, and the Corinthians, being a local Church were saved and so had already been baptised.

Also in baptism, we are plunged under the water by somebody else who is to recite the baptismal formula … would you agree? In which case, how on earth could Colossians 3:17 possibly be referring to somebody baptising themselves in ‘Jesus’ name? For Paul doesn’t say; ‘go and find somebody else to baptise you with the Jesus only formula.’ Please will you notice, that Paul is here telling them to do all THEMSELVES, in the name of the Lord Jesus and so as people don’t baptise themselves, the command to ‘do all’ can’t be referring to water baptism.

So I must conclude that the word ‘name,’ which is “onoma” in Greek, here applies to the authority of Christ. So Paul is simply telling the Colossians who are already saved and have already been baptised, to do all of their spiritual duties upon the authority of Christ himself. It’s ridiculous to claim that Paul is here telling saved Christians who have already been baptised, to get themselves baptised all over again!

Originally Posted by drummerboy_dave

I'm not bothered in the least.

Yes, you are getting it straight. It is my view, based on scripture, that all people should be baptized in the name of Jesus. Period. Those who get baptized (or do any other thing for that matter) in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, have applied titles to their deed and not a name. Therefore their deed is not fully supported by the entirety of the scriptures covering this topic. Is it safe to trust something that is not supported by all the biblical evidence? I say, no. It is not safe, nor is it wise. Not supported by scripture, suggests to me that it would be unacceptable to God.

Finally, from my understanding and discernment of scriptures, being baptized in titles does not bring a person into obedience of God's plan of salvation. However, I am a man, not God. It is not my salvation to grant unto anyone. I honestly don't see where it is profitable for anyone to be proclaiming others as "saved" or "unsaved".

It is our job to live and represent the word. Others must decide for themselves whether they will follow the guidence of the scriptures or not.

Be blessed.

But Drummer, there is not one verse anywhere in the NT where anyone was baptised using the 'Lord Jesus Christ foirmula.' I challenge you to find such a verse. That the exact wordings, and even the Greek prepositions differ widely between the so called baptismal proof texts found at Acts 2, 8, 10, and 19 is obviously devastating to your position. In Acts 2 we read “in (epi) the name Jesus Christ,” at Acts 8 and 19 “in (eis) the name Lord Jesus,” and lastly at Acts 10 where we read “in (ev) the name Lord.” If a baptismal formula were really being given here, then it would not differ so widely between its various usages in Acts 2, 8, 10 and 19.

The only explanation, is that the word “name” (onoma) means “authority,” as in “stop in the name of the law,” and that this is how Luke is using the term “onoma.” Notice that “name” (onoma) is used this way by Luke in Acts 4:7, where it is juxtaposed with the word “power.”