Acts 2:38 and Baptismal Regeneration Refuted

[oldhermit]

Must leave for now. I will be back around 7:30.

 

[RedTent]

All this intellectualizing about this is really fun, I am enjoying it. There is another way to read and think about this, though. It is through exploring all scripture has to say about each piece of what this scripture is saying.

Water as scripture tells of it's spiritual use, and how it relates to baptism, exploring all the ways it is used in scripture from the beginning is just as fascinating and fun as intellectualizing this scripture. So is exploring to see if there is a spiritual happening that can only be from the Lord when we are truly baptized, both in what we do and how we participate spiritually.

What takes all the fun out of it are posters who say they know all, can explain all, they are the final answer.

 

[mailmandan]

What this says is:"Πέτρος δὲ ἔφη πρὸς αὐτούς (third person plural acc.), Μετανοήσατε (second person plural, imperative) καὶ βαπτισθήτω (third person singular, imperative) ἕκαστος ὑμῶν (second person plural, gen.) ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν (nominative singular) ἁμαρτιῶν καὶ λήψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος." There is nothing remarkable or out of the ordinary about the grammatical syntax of this verse. He said the same thing to every one of those present laying down the same command to each one. Who was he speaking to? All of them, third person plural. Who did he command to repent? All of them, second person plural. Who did he command to be baptized? Every one of them second person plural. Although βαπτισθήτω is third person plural, imperative, it is modified by ἁμαρτιῶνwhich is second person plural, gen. Who would receive the remission of sins? Everyone who obeyed the imperatives to μετανοήσατε καὶ βαπτισθήτω. Who would receive the Holy Spirit as a gift? Everyone of them who obeyed the imperatives to μετανοήσατε καὶ βαπτισθήτω. The simple fact is that the reference point for the two imperatives and the future indicative produces exactly the same results at the same time.

E. Calvin Beisner - In Peter’s command, the verb repent (Greek metanohvsate, metanoēsate) is second-person plural. Adopting a Southern dialect for a moment, we can translate it “Y’all repent.” The verb be baptized (baptisqhvtw, baptisthētō), however, is third-person singular. We can translate it, for emphasis’ sake, “let him [or her] be baptized.” In the phrase for the forgiveness of your sins, the word your (uJmwÇn, humōn) is second-person plural again. In that Southern dialect, it would translate, “for the forgiveness of y’all’s sins.”

Some object to this reasoning by pointing out that be baptized is followed by every one of you (e”kastoV uJmwÇn, hekastos humōn), and that in that phrase you (uJmwÇn, humōn) is second-person plural. Wouldn’t it follow, then, that the connection is between this you and the forgiveness of your sins?

That ignores the grammar, too. In Greek, every one of you is comprised of the adjective for each (e”kastoV, hekastos), which is used as a noun here, and the partitive genitive pronoun for you (uJmwÇn, humōn). (That is, every one is part [hence partitive] of you [plural].) You identifies the class of which every one is a part. The command [let him] be baptized, moreover, is third-person singular, and its subject is not you but every one. For you to have been the subject of the command to be baptized, it would have to have been in the nominative, or subject, case (uJmeiæV, humeis), not in the genitive, or possessive, case (uJmwÇn, humōn), and the command be baptized would have to have been in the second-person plural (baptivsesqe, baptisesthe), not in the third-person singular (baptisqhvtw, baptistheitō).

In short, the most precise English translation of the relevant clauses, arranging them to reflect the switches in person and number of the verbs, would be, “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular)….” Or, to adopt our Southern dialect again, “Y’all repent for the forgiveness of y’all’s sins, and let each one of you be baptized….”

Does Acts 2:38 prove baptismal remission? No, it doesn’t even support it as part of a cumulative case. — E. Calvin Beisner

Greek scholar A. T. Robertson, was probably the greatest Greek scholar of his day. He authored a large Greek Grammar, as well as a six volume series entitled, Word Pictures in the New Testament. In his comments on Acts 2:38 he shows how the grammar of this verse can be used to support more than one interpretation of this text. He then reaches this conclusion: “One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received.” The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koin, generally (Robertson, Grammar, page 592).

Now please explain to me how your interpretation of Acts 2:38 (baptism obtains remission of sins) is in harmony with Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31.

 

[mailmandan]

Perhaps it would help if I understood you definition of work.

Is there more than one definition of work? Please answer my questions:

Since water baptism stood between Jesus fulfilling all righteousness and not fulfilling all righteousness, then what do we call the accomplished act? A work of righteousness or a work of unrighteousness?

Is work accomplished when one gets water baptized or is no work accomplished at all?

If water baptism is not a work, then what is it? Just a nothing?

 

[mailmandan]

Who would receive the remission of sins? Everyone who obeyed the imperatives to μετανοήσατε καὶ βαπτισθήτω. Who would receive the Holy Spirit as a gift? Everyone of them who obeyed the imperatives to μετανοήσατε καὶ βαπτισθήτω. The simple fact is that the reference point for the two imperatives and the future indicative produces exactly the same results at the same time.

I apologize for the confusion.

No problem. That's strange that Peter said (according to you) that water baptism obtains the remission of sins in Acts 2:38, yet in Acts 10:43, Peter said whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins. In Acts 10:45, Peter said they received the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) and this was before water baptism (Acts 10:47). Acts 11:17 says they received the gift when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ...verse 18 calls this repentance unto life. Acts 16:31 says believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. They believed on the Lord Jesus Christ and were saved prior to water baptism. Your interpretation of Acts 2:38 is not in harmony with Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31. Scripture must harmonize with scripture or else we have a contradiction.

Do you attend the church of Christ?

 

[iamsoandso]

I think that in acts chapter 2 there are several sets of "YOU'S" Peter is addressing(not that i think salvation is different from one to the other), But in the beginning of the chapter he(Peter) is addressing a group of people of mixed nationalities(acts 2;5-11) "but were they of different races?",,In (acts 2;5) it is pointed out that they were "JEWS,devout men out of every nation",,then they came together(Jews from different nations/spoke different languages?) or were they of several different races?,,In (Acts 2;14) Peter addresses(ye men of Judea AND all that dwell in Jerusalem).

Then in (Acts 2;22) he(Peter) shifts to "ye men of Israel) and begins speaking to only them about what "They did"(Acts 2;22-23),,,in verse(Acts 2;33) Peter uses the same "ye/you" directing his speech still toward the same group in (Acts 2;22),e.g."Ye men of Israel",,,In (Acts 2;36) he states "let all THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL" know something this is explained in (acts 2;36) also it is that they(house of Israel) "whom YE/YOU have crucified,both Lord and Christ".

Then in verse(Acts 2;37) the same group(ye/you/Israel) ask him what "they/Israel" should do,,,then Peter says to (THEY/THEM,ISRAEL Acts 2;38) "repent"from what,what he said they did in Acts 2;36(crucified the lord),,that is this is the direct conversation Peter and the Jews are having at this point in scripture. So he is saying in essence,,,,"repent of what you have done(rejecting the Messiah/crucifying him),and be Baptized in the name of Jesus,ect. for the REMISSION OF SINS and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost.

So he is addressing their direct question "we didn't know he was the Messiah an crucified him,what do we do?",,,in (Acts 2;38) and is specific only to them in this example. Now I do not think that others(Jews,Gentiles) are (immune) from being told to "repent,be Baptized in Jesus name ect." ,I'm saying that in this example he(Peter) is addressing them/those involved with the rejection/Crucifixion of Christ and telling them what they should do.,,,(e.g wash your hands of it/repent of it,as an example),,,and they/them,(those being addressed in 2;38) did understand and did repent and (those who received Peters message) did wash their hands of it "repented of it(ask forgiveness),were baptized(Acts 2;41),but the language,"They that gladly received his word,ect.",would reflect that they did not all "receive his word" but about 3000(Acts 2;41).

Now this example(Acts 2;38) is one of many in the scriptures of Baptism,but it is specific of those being addressed,, So what of all of the rest of us? We all are also guilty of different sins we should "repent and wash our selves of",,the same as the example found in (Acts 2;38),,but we have all done different things(we just have the example of what they did and needed to repent of in 2;38),,so we(all of us) should follow the same advice as given to the men of Israel(Acts 2;22),,,but each of us have committed different sins we need "repent of" in our lives,,that is the different sins we committed was the reasoning in the same the Lord was born and crucified. So whether those men who were involved in that day in rejecting Christ and his crucifixion need wash themselves of that,or we today who are sinners the same,we need repent and be baptized.

 

[oldhermit]

E. Calvin Beisner - In Peter’s command, the verb repent (Greek metanohvsate, metanoēsate) is second-person plural. Adopting a Southern dialect for a moment, we can translate it “Y’all repent.” The verb be baptized (baptisqhvtw, baptisthētō), however, is third-person singular. We can translate it, for emphasis’ sake, “let him [or her] be baptized.” In the phrase for the forgiveness of your sins, the word your (uJmwÇn, humōn) is second-person plural again. In that Southern dialect, it would translate, “for the forgiveness of y’all’s sins.”

Some object to this reasoning by pointing out that be baptized is followed by every one of you (e”kastoV uJmwÇn, hekastos humōn), and that in that phrase you (uJmwÇn, humōn) is second-person plural. Wouldn’t it follow, then, that the connection is between this you and the forgiveness of your sins?

That ignores the grammar, too. In Greek, every one of you is comprised of the adjective for each (e”kastoV, hekastos), which is used as a noun here, and the partitive genitive pronoun for you (uJmwÇn, humōn). (That is, every one is part [hence partitive] of you [plural].) You identifies the class of which every one is a part. The command [let him] be baptized, moreover, is third-person singular, and its subject is not you but every one. For you to have been the subject of the command to be baptized, it would have to have been in the nominative, or subject, case (uJmeiæV, humeis), not in the genitive, or possessive, case (uJmwÇn, humōn), and the command be baptized would have to have been in the second-person plural (baptivsesqe, baptisesthe), not in the third-person singular (baptisqhvtw, baptistheitō).

In short, the most precise English translation of the relevant clauses, arranging them to reflect the switches in person and number of the verbs, would be, “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular)….” Or, to adopt our Southern dialect again, “Y’all repent for the forgiveness of y’all’s sins, and let each one of you be baptized….”

Does Acts 2:38 prove baptismal remission? No, it doesn’t even support it as part of a cumulative case. — E. Calvin Beisner

Greek scholar A. T. Robertson, was probably the greatest Greek scholar of his day. He authored a large Greek Grammar, as well as a six volume series entitled, Word Pictures in the New Testament. In his comments on Acts 2:38 he shows how the grammar of this verse can be used to support more than one interpretation of this text. He then reaches this conclusion: “One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received.” The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koin, generally (Robertson, Grammar, page 592).

Now please explain to me how your interpretation of Acts 2:38 (baptism obtains remission of sins) is in harmony with Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31.

It is actually just as simple as this, grammatically, βαπτισθήτω cannot be separated as singular verb from its modifiers ἕκαστος ὑμῶν which are second person plural. The argument has been made that because βαπτισθήτω is third person and μετανοήσατε is second person this means Peter had to have been giving separate instruction to different groups with differing results. Beyond the obvious absurdity of this argument is the fact that ἕκαστος ὑμῶν renders the argument invalid. βαπτισθήτω can only be understood in connection with its second person plural modifiers. Therefore, all verbs under discussion are treated as second person imperatives both resulting int the same outcome - forgiveness of sin.

I am afraid I am unaquainted with Calvin Beisner but I do know that A. T. Robertson is considered one of the a greatest Grammarians of the Baptist community and since I do not regard myself as a Greek schollar, I would not presume to challenge his level of scholarship however, here is what one of Robertson's own coligues, Daniel Wallace has to say that I offer as a rebuttle of Robertson's position on Acts 2:38.

The NA 27 Greek text reads

The verb in the first clause is omitted but itis clear that Peter is speaking so the verb is then supplied. The verse then could be translated. Then Peter said to them "Repent each one of you and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." There are two imperatives that are probably taken as commands and considering the conjunction should be taken together.Barrett comments that baptism is an element of repentance.

In light of this it appears that the is a result or purpose of these two verbal commands. This verse is a part of Peter's Pentecostal sermon where he charges those listening Jews with crucifying their Messiah. The previous verse spoke of the fact that they were convicted and responded with the question of what they were to do next. Peter clearly responds to their question with this verse. Peter in essence tells them to identify with Christ as the baptismal formula indicates. To change their minds about Christ and respond by identifying with Him does in fact result in the forgiveness of sins. The act of baptism in this sense is connected to the idea of repentance and appears to be an outward expression of the repentance in view. It is best then to take them together and to view this idea within its historical setting. As I consider the fact that these are taken together the preposition does not cause as much confusion as it appears to. Bruce asserts that it would indeed be a mistake to link the words for the forgiveness of sins´ with the command be baptized´ to the exclusion of the prior command to repent. It is against the whole genius of biblical religion to suppose that the outward rite could have any value except in so far as it was accompanied by the work of grace with in. Therefore, the two commands should be read in connection with the idea of forgiveness. Furthermore, it is proper to understand that baptism is in fact some expression or manifestation of repentance. In considering Mantey's conclusions I think that he may have been sincere in how he sought to address the controversial issue that arises in Acts 2:38 as one considers the syntax. However, I think that he sought to reconcile the text with his own theology. In many ways he was reading his own understanding and the implications of baptism resulting in the forgiveness of sins´ into the text. If in fact baptism resulting in forgiveness´ or baptism for the purpose of forgiveness´ is conveyed in the text, it is easy for one to conclude that baptism was instrumental in the process of repentance or salvation. One could further conclude that salvation in some way was brought about by baptism or that it is meritorious. I think that the first-century readers did not dichotomize those works that came to be associated with salvation and belief. It is quite possible to them that repentance, baptism and forgiveness were inextricably bound and they associated the two together. I would take the use of εἰς in Acts 2:38 as that of purpose or result. Bock suggests that it is better to understand baptism as a response and take the use as that of result, where it would be understood as a response with a view to´ or on the basis of´ forgiveness. Repentance and baptism in a real sense go hand in hand. The result or purpose of these would be understood exegetically as the forgiveness of sins. The role and significance of prepositions to exegesis is immense. As one comes to terms with the general syntactical categories of prepositions, they should evaluate the usage on that basis. Exegesis and seeking to understand the text through First-Century eyes, ears, etc is not without difficulty. Acts 2:38 is a clear cut example of how one can encounter difficulty in.

F. F. Bruce,
The Book of the Acts
Rev. ed., The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1988)., 70
41
Darrell L. Bock,
Acts
Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.:Baker Academic, 2007)., 143exegesis.

The difficulty is in how one should classify the preposition εἰς in this verse. Mantey clearly sought to propose a category and overextended himself in the process. As previously stated, I take the use of εἰς here in a purpose or result sense. The difficulty for me is relieved as I take into consideration how the early Christians did not separate repentance and baptism along with the result or purpose of repentance and baptism which had forgiveness as a corollary. To take this usage in a causal sense to me is unwarranted on the basis of the data that is presented. I have examined the general uses of this preposition syntactically. In addition, I have dealt with pertinent passages which share similar concepts and grammar. And finally I have dealt with the grammatical and conceptual issues as it relates to Acts 2:38.

 

[oldhermit]

Is there more than one definition of work? Please answer my questions:

Since water baptism stood between Jesus fulfilling all righteousness and not fulfilling all righteousness, then what do we call the accomplished act? A work of righteousness or a work of unrighteousness?

Is work accomplished when one gets water baptized or is no work accomplished at all?

If water baptism is not a work, then what is it? Just a nothing?

I presume by this then that work refers to something that man does, or have I misunderstood you?

 

[IAm3rd]

For those of us who believe in salvation by grace through faith alone, the orthodox teaching is that we are saved when we respond to the gospel message and place our faith in Jesus Christ for salvation.

1. COC members believe nothing less than salvation by grace through faith... ( why do you add the word alone to scripture ? dangerous practice in my opinion )

2. Orthodox : conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved.

Interesting you say "orthodox" to describe your beliefs on this topic, yet it is exactly the opposite of the traditional christian view of baptism. Your view was unheard of until late reformation ( certainly not held by Luther )... so how exactly is your position the "orthodox one " ? lol

 

[IAm3rd]

In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus tells us about 2 groups of people. Both of them believe in Him, but only one group goes to heaven. It is the group that not only believes in Him, but obeys.

 

[oldhermit]

I think that in acts chapter 2 there are several sets of "YOU'S" Peter is addressing(not that i think salvation is different from one to the other), But in the beginning of the chapter he(Peter) is addressing a group of people of mixed nationalities(acts 2;5-11) "but were they of different races?",,In (acts 2;5) it is pointed out that they were "JEWS,devout men out of every nation",,then they came together(Jews from different nations/spoke different languages?) or were they of several different races?,,In (Acts 2;14) Peter addresses(ye men of Judea AND all that dwell in Jerusalem).

Then in (Acts 2;22) he(Peter) shifts to "ye men of Israel) and begins speaking to only them about what "They did"(Acts 2;22-23),,,in verse(Acts 2;33) Peter uses the same "ye/you" directing his speech still toward the same group in (Acts 2;22),e.g."Ye men of Israel",,,In (Acts 2;36) he states "let all THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL" know something this is explained in (acts 2;36) also it is that they(house of Israel) "whom YE/YOU have crucified,both Lord and Christ".

Then in verse(Acts 2;37) the same group(ye/you/Israel) ask him what "they/Israel" should do,,,then Peter says to (THEY/THEM,ISRAEL Acts 2;38) "repent"from what,what he said they did in Acts 2;36(crucified the lord),,that is this is the direct conversation Peter and the Jews are having at this point in scripture. So he is saying in essence,,,,"repent of what you have done(rejecting the Messiah/crucifying him),and be Baptized in the name of Jesus,ect. for the REMISSION OF SINS and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost.

So he is addressing their direct question "we didn't know he was the Messiah an crucified him,what do we do?",,,in (Acts 2;38) and is specific only to them in this example. Now I do not think that others(Jews,Gentiles) are (immune) from being told to "repent,be Baptized in Jesus name ect." ,I'm saying that in this example he(Peter) is addressing them/those involved with the rejection/Crucifixion of Christ and telling them what they should do.,,,(e.g wash your hands of it/repent of it,as an example),,,and they/them,(those being addressed in 2;38) did understand and did repent and (those who received Peters message) did wash their hands of it "repented of it(ask forgiveness),were baptized(Acts 2;41),but the language,"They that gladly received his word,ect.",would reflect that they did not all "receive his word" but about 3000(Acts 2;41).

Now this example(Acts 2;38) is one of many in the scriptures of Baptism,but it is specific of those being addressed,, So what of all of the rest of us? We all are also guilty of different sins we should "repent and wash our selves of",,the same as the example found in (Acts 2;38),,but we have all done different things(we just have the example of what they did and needed to repent of in 2;38),,so we(all of us) should follow the same advice as given to the men of Israel(Acts 2;22),,,but each of us have committed different sins we need "repent of" in our lives,,that is the different sins we committed was the reasoning in the same the Lord was born and crucified. So whether those men who were involved in that day in rejecting Christ and his crucifixion need wash themselves of that,or we today who are sinners the same,we need repent and be baptized.

This was very well stated but If you will notice in verse 14 he first addresses the nation of Judah, “Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words." He then rehearses for them the words of their own prophet Joel in verses 17-21. Then, in verse 22 he changes his attention the those Jews of the nation of Israel, “Men of Israel, listen to these words" and he offers them the words of David concerning the Messiah. Then in verse 36 he addresses both houses as one “Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ this Jesus whom you crucified.” Both groups then become the focus of everything Peter says after this point.

 

[JesusIsAll]

Sorry, but I am such a simpleton in ways, don't see what all this mountain of discourse is about. As I see it, just study God's word, starting at the river with John the Baptist, study the difference between water baptism of repentance and baptism of the Holy Spirit in the name of the Lord Jesus, which John could not do. Then study the Holy Spirit, how only the Holy Spirit regenerates the new man. How we must be born again of the Holy Spirit. Then consider whether John's baptism can wash away anything. Then maybe a little common sense of the truth that water washes away nothing, only the blood of Jesus Christ, or He would have never needed to go to the cross. Then perhaps consider if the thief on the cross was water baptized, or a soldier who finds faith on the battlefield and is killed, before water baptism, or a believer who dies for any reason, prior to having a chance at water baptism, and this in light of whether man operating with water can do anything to add to Christ's work, whether Christ needs man's dunking or sprinkling to finish His work, whether His blood is, therefore, not sufficient. This has always been enough for me, and I have had the Holy Spirit many years.

 

[tourist]

Sorry, but I am such a simpleton in ways, don't see what all this mountain of discourse is about. As I see it, just study God's word, starting at the river with John the Baptist, study the difference between water baptism of repentance and baptism of the Holy Spirit in the name of the Lord Jesus, which John could not do. Then study the Holy Spirit, how only the Holy Spirit regenerates the new man. How we must be born again of the Holy Spirit. Then consider whether John's baptism can wash away anything. Then maybe a little common sense of the truth that water washes away nothing, only the blood of Jesus Christ, or He would have never needed to go to the cross. Then perhaps consider if the thief on the cross was water baptized, or a soldier who finds faith on the battlefield and is killed, before water baptism, or a believer who dies for any reason, prior to having a chance at water baptism, and this in light of whether man operating with water can do anything to add to Christ's work, whether Christ needs man's dunking or sprinkling to finish His work, whether His blood is, therefore, not sufficient. This has always been enough for me, and I have had the Holy Spirit many years.

I have had the Holy Spirit for years also.

 

[JesusIsAll]

I have had the Holy Spirit for years also.

Amen! So I think you know there are some things just simple to see, which aren't that complicated or any raging debate. Honestly, maybe I'm just too intellectually stupid to even see what some controversies are over, beyond they seem to be convoluted confusion of our own making, not the Lord's. Bless you!

 

[iamsoandso]

This was very well stated but If you will notice in verse 14 he first addresses the nation of Judah, “Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words." He then rehearses for them the words of their own prophet Joel in verses 17-21. Then, in verse 22 he changes his attention the those Jews of the nation of Israel, “Men of Israel, listen to these words" and he offers them the words of David concerning the Messiah. Then in verse 36 he addresses both houses as one “Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ this Jesus whom you crucified.” Both groups then become the focus of everything Peter says after this point.

yes I agree he first begins his speech in acts 14 to "Ye men of Judea,,and (all) that dwell in Jerusalem". So then my take on it is from acts 2;5,,,"Jews,devout men,out of every nation under heaven",,then it list where these (dwell/dwellers) are from (acts 2;8-11),,in verse 10 is an odd statement "strangers of Rome,Jews,proselytes",,,

Why I say this is "odd" is that "strangers of Rome" is denoting who? is this a reference to Gentiles who were dwelling there at the time this took place? And then the word "proselytes",is this referring to "newly converted to Judaism,,or a new convert to Christianity"?,,,

In either case it is apparent that assembled their that day were a mixture of both Gentiles and Jews,,some who dwelt there,some from elsewhere who had traveled there. Some of the Jews were from there and some of them were Jews who lived in other nations and spoke different languages but were there when this took place.,,,

Now in (acts 11;15-17) Peter explains something of this experience that happened in (acts 2),,he realizes that the same Baptism is to the Gentiles as the Jew. In (Acts 11;19-20) the statement is made that the word was (not preached) to any but the (Jews only),,,"this scripture would not be correct if not for (Acts 2;14) as you point out",,,

So in (Acts 2;14) Peter addresses everyone who is standing there "Judea,and all that (dwell) in Jerusalem(Jews gentiles ect.) and makes the comment from (acts 2;14-21),,,then he addresses "ye men of Israel",,and continues from (acts 2;22-40),,,

So then what did Peter understand on the day the Holy Ghost fell on them(Acts ch.2)?,,,that is we would think he completely grasp all concerning chapter 2,,but in (acts 11;15-17) Peter makes a statement "THEN REMEMBERED I THE WORD OF THE LORD",,,so across the time span from chapter 2 through chapter 11;15-17,,,what was taking place Peter did not completely understand,or else it would not be pointed out in scripture that he "remembered it",,it being "THE HOLY GHOST FELL ON THEM AS ON US AT THE BEGINNING",,which if Peter referencing back to (Acts 2;2-4),,,


So then if Peter did not yet see that the Holy Ghost would preform this in the gentiles,then in Acts ch 2 he would break down his speech in two directions Acts 2;14-21(those he didn't yet see the Holy ghost entering),,,and from Acts 2;22-40(those who at the time of Acts ch. 2 he understood the Holy ghost would enter),,,,,but then from the conversion of Saul/Paul,,and then Peter understanding this onward(acts chapters 9,10,11),,,well then the rest we know,,,,

 

[oldhermit]

No problem. That's strange that Peter said (according to you) that water baptism obtains the remission of sins in Acts 2:38, yet in Acts 10:43, Peter said whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.

You are still not following the syntax. Grammatically, both repentance and baptism are linked to remission of sin by the simple conjunction καὶ.

In Acts 10:45, Peter said they received the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) and this was before water baptism (Acts 10:47)

.
No, that is not what was said. It was observed that the H.S. had been "poured out" on the Gentiles just as it was upon the Jews and this was confirmed in the fact that these Gentiles began to speak in tongues. When was the H.S. "poured out" on the Gentiles? Peter quotes from Joel in Acts 2:17 to confirm that the fulfillment of Joel's words were being fulfilled on that very day. This prophesy begins, "AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,’ God says,THAT I WILL POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT ON ALL MANKIND." This is why Peter then commanded them to be baptized. If, as you claim, these had already been "Holy Spirit baptized" then why would Peter command them to be baptized in water since there is only one baptism, NOT TWO?

Acts 11:17 says they received the gift when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ...verse 18 calls this repentance unto life.

The incident that Paul uses to confirm this is Acts 2 yet there, belief is not mentioned at all in verse 38. It should be obvious to you that repentance and baptism were part of this belief structure. This is why he had commanded those in chapter 10 to be baptized.

Acts 16:31 says believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. They believed on the Lord Jesus Christ and were saved prior to water baptism. Your interpretation of Acts 2:38 is not in harmony with Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31. Scripture must harmonize with scripture or else we have a contradiction.

You are trying to disconnect baptism from this belief structure. Scripture does not do this. If this is your argument, you must be consistent and remove repentance form the belief structure since as you suggest only belief is required. You are trying to pit one set of scriptures against another rather that trying to harmonize them. The salvation process is much more involved than any one of the things. There is a variety of elements the Bible speaks of as being part of the salvation process. These include:
A. Faith. “For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.”  Ephesians. 2:8.

B. Belief. “And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, and your house.”  Acts 16:31.

C. Confession. “For with the heart man believes unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”  Romans 10:10.

D. Baptism. “The like figure unto which even baptism does also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”  1Peter 3:2.

E. Hope. “For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man sees, why does he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.”  Romans 8:24-25.

F. Grace. “For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.” Ephesians. 2:8

G. The gospel. “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also you have received, and in which you stand; By which also you are saved, if you keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain.”  1Corinthians. 15:1-2.

H. And even fear. “and others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.” Jude 23. It is not intended that anyone simply choose one of these elements and disregard the others. One cannot for instance, choose to only believe without any regard for confessing Jesus as Lord and Christ and declare himself saved. One cannot simply choose to be baptized and disregard faith and declare himself saved. Jesus said, “man lives by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.”  Matthew 4:4.


Faith, belief, confession, baptism, hope, grace and fear all have their divinely appointed function within the framework of salvation. To disregard or marginalize the importance of any one these elements represents a disregard for what God tells us in scripture. Any one of these alone will save no one. The exercise of all of them will save anyone. God has ordained all of these things to work together so man can be reconciled to God.We must remember that God offers us salvation on HIS terms, not ours. If we choose to deviate from the terms and conditions God has provided we can not hope to receive the benefits that are connected to them.

 

[oldhermit]

Why I say this is "odd" is that "strangers of Rome" is denoting who? is this a reference to Gentiles who were dwelling there at the time this took place? And then the word "proselytes",is this referring to "newly converted to Judaism,,or a new convert to Christianity"?,,,

I would not think this to be referring to Gentiles because he does not say these are strangers to the Judaism rather, he says they are "strangers of ROME. In other words, he is including all those Jews who were present who had made this pilgrimage to Jerusalem from all over the world for this particular Passover.

In either case it is apparent that assembled their that day were a mixture of both Gentiles and Jews,,some who dwelt there,some from elsewhere who had traveled there. Some of the Jews were from there and some of them were Jews who lived in other nations and spoke different languages but were there when this took place.,,,

Yes, there are obviously Gentiles present but only those recognized as proselytes.

Now in (acts 11;15-17) Peter explains something of this experience that happened in (acts 2),,he realizes that the same Baptism is to the Gentiles as the Jew. In (Acts 11;19-20) the statement is made that the word was (not preached) to any but the (Jews only),,,"this scripture would not be correct if not for (Acts 2;14) as you point out",,,

True. The same requirements were made to the Gentiles of Acts 10 that were made to the Jews in Acts 2.

So in (Acts 2;14) Peter addresses everyone who is standing there "Judea,and all that (dwell) in Jerusalem(Jews gentiles ect.) and makes the comment from (acts 2;14-21),,,then he addresses "ye men of Israel",,and continues from (acts 2;22-40),,,. So then what did Peter understand on the day the Holy Ghost fell on them(Acts ch.2)?,,,that is we would think he completely grasp all concerning chapter 2,,but in (acts 11;15-17) Peter makes a statement "THEN REMEMBERED I THE WORD OF THE LORD",,,so across the time span from chapter 2 through chapter 11;15-17,,,what was taking place Peter did not completely understand,or else it would not be pointed out in scripture that he "remembered it",,it being "THE HOLY GHOST FELL ON THEM AS ON US AT THE BEGINNING",,which if Peter referencing back to (Acts 2;2-4),,,
So then if Peter did not yet see that the Holy Ghost would preform this in the gentiles,then in Acts ch 2 he would break down his speech in two directions Acts 2;14-21(those he didn't yet see the Holy ghost entering),,,and from Acts 2;22-40(those who at the time of Acts ch. 2 he understood the Holy ghost would enter),,,,,but then from the conversion of Saul/Paul,,and then Peter understanding this onward(acts chapters 9,10,11),,,well then the rest we know,,,,

The promise of the Holy Spirit was spoken of in three different terms by the Old Testament prophets. He speaks of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit. This will define availability, Isaiah 32:15, 44:3 and Joel 2:28. The indwelling will establish unification, Ezekiel 36:27 and 37:14, 26-27. The empowering determines functionality within the body, Joel 2:28-29. Both John and Jesus reaffirm the promise of the Holy Spirit. Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:28 and John 1:32-33.

There would be a baptism of the Holy Spirit of whom Jesus would be the administrator. The true sons of Abraham will be the recipients. Jesus promised that as a result, this baptism of the Holy Spirit would be accompanied by an indwelling, John 14:17-18. His disciples would be baptized with the Holy Spirit, Acts 1:4-5. In their case, they would also be empowered with the Holy Spirit, verse eight, to enable them to fulfill their appointed functions. There are some key phrases used in connection with the Holy Spirit that we need to understand. The phrase “came upon” is always associated with one being empowered by the Holy Spirit. We never see this expression used in connection with the baptism of the Holy Spirit or with the indwelling, only with the empowering. One purpose of the empowering was to establish the credibility of the apostles and others as messengers of God.

Acts 2 is the fulfillment of this promise. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit was a single, one time for all time event. The "pouring out upon ALL flesh" was God's making available of the Holy Spirit to all humanity. At a single point in time God granting access to the Holy Spirit to all men of all time.

The Empowering of the Holy Spirit was a visible manifestation of the presence of the Holy Spirit. This was symbolized by tongues of fire. This was demonstrated by men speaking in tongues. Notice how the pattern of this empowerment follows the outline of the Great Commission.
1. To the Jews, 1and 2

2. To the seven deacons at Jerusalem, 6:5-8

3. To the Samaritans – Jewish descendants of mixed blood, 8:14-19

4. To the Gentiles, 10:44-48 and 19:1-6

The Indwelling of the Holy Spirit is an act of God and is regarded as a gift, Acts 2:38. There was no way to obtain this under one’s own power. It is a fusion of the eternal and the natural, 1Corinthians 3:16, 6:19, Ephesians 2:22 and 4:5. This completely collapses the distances between the two worlds. God and man, the natural and the eternal have become one. Christ is in God, man is in Christ, and the Holy Spirit is within man.

 

[Veritas238]

All three Greek texts that I use have εἰς..........so......? And acts is clear...since your sins have been remitted for..be IMMERSED and be identified with Christ is the thought conveyed in my view as well!

In most Christian circles, if this were the proper interpretation intended by Luke.... wouldn't a person receive the Holy Spirit prior to baptism, since their sins were indeed remitted prior to baptism? If so, then why does Luke say Repent, be baptized, receive the holy spirit?

 

[Atwood]

1. COC members believe nothing less than salvation by grace through faith... ( why do you add the word alone to scripture ? dangerous practice in my opinion )

The only thing I know of which is God's Word, readily available to men on earth in general, is the Bible, scripture. If you think something else is Gods' word (readily available to men in general on earth), I invite you to prove it; bring forth your other documents & prove they are God's word.

Interesting you say "orthodox" to describe your beliefs on this topic, yet it is exactly the opposite of the traditional christian view of baptism. Your view was unheard of until late reformation ( certainly not held by Luther )... so how exactly is your position the "orthodox one " ? lol

Are you saying that the NT wasn't written until after Luther?

Salvation is offered in the Bible over & over for faith/belief alone, nothing else on man's part.

Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
(Acts 16): Believe on the Lord Jesus, & you shall be saved.

Do I need to plaster all the verses on this board? It takes at least 2 postings.

 

[Atwood]

Yes, that is why I did not parse it separately from ὑμῶν. Although ἕκαστος is in its self an adj. the fact that both ἕκαστος and ὑμῶν function as a modifier for βαπτισθήτω, I did not think it necessary to parse them separately. Do you this this was in error?

ἕκαστος is not a "modifier," it is the pronoun subject of the verb βαπτισθήτω. ἕκαστος can be an adjective, but it is not an adjective here; it is a pronoun. ὑμῶν is grammatically a modifier of ἕκαστος.