Could you say the same?

[bmerr]

To All,

bmerr here. Each and every one of us on these boards would undoubtably say that they are faithfully proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ as we debate various points of doctrine. I certainly don't believe that any of us would deliberately post things that we knew were not true.

Several on these boards regularly, or at least occasionally stand before groups of people and preach about sin and its consequences, the righteousness of God, and the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ which purchased redemption for every man.

I dare say it would not be uncommon to hear from one of us a sermon that followed a pattern similar to that preached by Peter in Acts 2.

At least until we got to the end.

In that first ever gospel sermon, those who were pricked in their hearts asked "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Peter, who was speaking by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, 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."

My question to each of you is, "Could you say the same?"

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Bmerr: In that first ever gospel sermon, those who were pricked in their hearts asked "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Peter, who was speaking by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, 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."

My question to each of you is, "Could you say the same?"

HP: To get us started in the right direction could you tell us if in fact Peter was telling them that they needed to repent and be ‘water baptized’ in order to be saved, and then subsequent to having done those things they would be filled with the Holy Spirit? Is that what you gather from his words?

 

[Tazman]

I would preach it just as it were given. no apology is needed for someone who wants to know "brothers, what shall we do?"

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Bmerr: “Could you say the same?"

HP: Possibly it should be asked this way. “WOULD you say the same?”

Given the confusion and misrepresentation of Peter’s words in the church today, I would say no. I would word it differently, again due to the confusion and misrepresentation of the conditions of salvation that some have misled others to believe that they claim are shown by this passage.

 

[Snitzelhoff]

It would not be uncommon today for people to be the situation of Paul and Silas in Acts 16; that is, being asked, "What must I do to be saved?" Paul said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved." Could YOU say the same?

Michael

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Snhf: It would not be uncommon today for people to be the situation of Paul and Silas in Acts 16, wherein one might be asked, "What must I do to be saved?" Paul said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved." Could YOU say the same?

HP: Again due to the confusion within the church today I for one would most likely not limit my instructions to such wording as you mention here either. I personally would start with the words of our Lord as He started His ministry, and instruct the individual to first repent and then to believe that God has made an atonement for sin that must be accepted by faith.

I am sure that God can and does work effectively in the lives when any of the above words are mentioned, if in fact the heart is honestly seeeking Him with their whole heart.

 

[Tazman]

It would not be uncommon today for people to be the situation of Paul and Silas in Acts 16; that is, being asked, "What must I do to be saved?" Paul said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved." Could YOU say the same?

Michael

Absolutely!:thumbs:

I can say this as well and administer the baptism that quickly followed after they were taught "33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized."

However, considering that this was just an extension of what took place in chaper 2, both are in solid agreement.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Tazman: I can say this as well and administer the baptism that quickly followed after they were taught "33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized."

HP: Was the baptism spoken of with Holy Ghost and fire, a baptism into Christ, or water baptism? (Just to mention three of many baptisms in Scripture)

 

[tragic_pizza]

I think the context of the passage suggests a water baptism; however, in consideration of the location it may or may not have been by immersion.

Help an ignorant liberal out here. What's the underlying question here? Is this an argument over the baptism in the Holy Spirit, the neccesity of baptism for salvation, or what?

 

[Darron Steele]

To All,

bmerr here. Each and every one of us on these boards would undoubtably say that they are faithfully proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ as we debate various points of doctrine. I certainly don't believe that any of us would deliberately post things that we knew were not true.

Several on these boards regularly, or at least occasionally stand before groups of people and preach about sin and its consequences, the righteousness of God, and the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ which purchased redemption for every man.

I dare say it would not be uncommon to hear from one of us a sermon that followed a pattern similar to that preached by Peter in Acts 2.

At least until we got to the end.

In that first ever gospel sermon, those who were pricked in their hearts asked "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Peter, who was speaking by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, 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."

My question to each of you is, "Could you say the same?"

In Christ,

bmerr

Yes I could. However, it would be more along the lines of a more accurate translation of the nuances of the Greek recorded at Acts 2:38a

“Arrependei-vos, e seja batizado cada um de vós em nome de Jesus Cristo, para | remissão dos vossos pecados” (DA ERC|DA ERA).
="You-people-must-repent-yourselves, and-so let-s/he-be baptized each one of you in name of Jesus Christ, in-order-for remission of-the your sins."

Strong imperative for "You-people-must-repent-yourselves," and obligatory subjunctive for "let-s/he-be baptized." I would tell people to repent for the remission of their sins, and that they were obligated by any such repentance to be baptized.

I would also teach Acts 16:30b-31a "what must I do to be saved? And they said Believe on the Lord Jesus|, and you will be saved’” (ASV|NASB). Of course, when we genuinely believe Jesus to be Lord, we repent of our self-governed living. This genuine faith results in salvation. I would also follow the example of the following verses, and baptize new converts even before the convenience of eating.

 

[Snitzelhoff]

Absolutely!:thumbs:

I can say this as well and administer the baptism that quickly followed after they were taught "33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized."

However, considering that this was just an extension of what took place in chaper 2, both are in solid agreement.

I'm glad to see that you would actually say to a person, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." Actually, though, I doubt you'd put it like that. See, according to the way that's worded, Philippian Jailer and Family were saved before they were baptized, ya know, since they believed and that was the only condition given for their salvation.

I agree that it's in solid agreement with Acts 2. Darron does an excellent job exegeting that verse and showing how, exactly, Peter's audience would have heard it. Repentance being connected with remission of sins with baptism as a reflection of that happens to be in perfect harmony with "repentance and remission of sins" being preached (Luke 24:47).

The big question is: are repentance and faith really separate conditions? II Timothy 2:25 would say no; repentance is "to the acknowledging of the truth". Thus, the Biblical model is that salvation (justification, remission of sins, receiving of the Holy Spirit) is based on faith/repentance, of which baptism is a reflection.

Not that you'll agree, of course, but I do like to stick with what the Bible says, and when challenged with the implication that my doctrine is unbiblical, my first instinct is to defend the Biblical view if I have it, or learn the Biblical view if I don't.

It will be interesting discussing this subject with all of you again.

Michael

 

[johnk48]

I tend to use the following at the end of the Romans Road --
Romans 10:9,10,13 (NASB)

9that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

10for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.


13for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED."

Are there Baptist out there that buy into baptismal regeneration?

 

[D28guy]

"In that first ever gospel sermon, those who were pricked in their hearts asked "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Peter, who was speaking by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, 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."

My question to each of you is, "Could you say the same?""

I certainly could say the same thing.

A person is Holy Spirit "baptized" into the body of Christ by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Afterwords, the water baptism is a wonderful picture of what has already occured at the new birth.

The old man died, while a new man came into being.

God bless,

Mike

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Snhf: The big question is: are repentance and faith really separate conditions? II Timothy 2:25 would say no; repentance is "to the acknowledging of the truth". Thus, the Biblical model is that salvation (justification, remission of sins, receiving of the Holy Spirit) is based on faith/repentance, of which baptism is a reflection.

2Ti 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

HP: How do you get that from this verse? If one thing leads to another, by the indication in this verse of the word ‘to,’ how does that state that repentance and acknowledging the truth are 'one condition?'

One can acknowledge the truth without ever repenting. The drunk can acknowledge the truth about him being a drunk and never be repentant, The thief can know he is a thief without ever returning the money in repentance. The devils can acknowledge the truth about Jesus and who is, but never come to repentance. The list is endless. Are you sure about what you are saying in your post?

 

[bmerr]

HP: Was the baptism spoken of with Holy Ghost and fire, a baptism into Christ, or water baptism? (Just to mention three of many baptisms in Scripture)

HP,

bmerr here. Given that Acts 2 is the beginning of the apostles' carrying out of the Great Commission, in which they were told to make disciples by baptizing them and teaching them to observe the things that Jesus had commanded, we must conclude that the baptism being commanded in Acts 2:38 is one which can be administered by men, and which will continue to be administered by men "...unto the end of the world".

This will be the "one baptism" of Eph 4:5, which is the baptism "into Christ" (Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27).

Of the baptisms you mentioned, the baptism of the Holy Spirit was to be administered by Jesus (Mark 1:8, etc), and the baptism of fire will be administered by Christ at the Judgement to those who have not obeyed the gospel (2 Thes 1:8).

My conclusion is that the baptism commanded by Peter in Acts 2 is a baptism in water for, or unto the remission of sins, which is where one comes "into Christ" where all spiritual blessings are (Eph 1:3), including salvation.

If one compares the rest of the conversion accounts in Acts, one will see that the pattern of hearing, belief, repentance, confession, and baptism is present, though not all aspects are specifically mentioned in each account.

Though there have been several different baptisms, as of the writing of Paul's letter to the Ephesians, there is only one in effect until the end of the world. Only water baptism meets the necessary criteria of being administered by men.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

I certainly could say the same thing.

A person is Holy Spirit "baptized" into the body of Christ by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Afterwords, the water baptism is a wonderful picture of what has already occured at the new birth.

The old man died, while a new man came into being.

God bless,

Mike

Mike,

bmerr here. One glaring problem with this view is that you are holding to two baptisms, whereas Paul states in no uncertain terms that there is only "one baptism" in Eph 4:5.

Another is the fact that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was never commanded of all men, but only promised to the apostles (Acts 1:5, etc), and poured out on the apostles (Acts 2:1-4), and Cornelius and household, thus fulfilling the "all flesh" (Jew and Gentile) aspect of Joel's prophecy (Acts 2:17).

The only baptism we see being commanded in the NT is a baptism in water (Acts 10:47), which can be administered by men.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

I tend to use the following at the end of the Romans Road --
Romans 10:9,10,13 (NASB)

John,

bmerr here. It is true that "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved". Peter told his audience the same thing in Acts 2:21, and yet, at the end of his sermon, they asked, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

Certianly if crying out, "Jesus save me", or praying the "sinner's prayer" was the way one is to call upon the name of the Lord, they could have done so, or Peter could have instructed them to do so. It is reasonable to conclude that they were asking how to call on the name of the Lord, wouldn't you say? I don't think that's much of a stretch.

But what did Peter tell them to do? He "...said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ [there's the name of the Lord] for [unto] the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost".

Are there Baptist out there that buy into baptismal regeneration?

I don't know if I'm advocating "baptismal regeneration", but when I offered Peter's invitation from a Baptist pulpit, they were less than pleased.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

It would not be uncommon today for people to be the situation of Paul and Silas in Acts 16; that is, being asked, "What must I do to be saved?" Paul said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved." Could YOU say the same?

Michael

Mike,

bmerr here. I suppose that if I were asked that question by a person who had likely never heard the name of Jesus Christ, or of His death, burial, and resurrection, as is the case with PJ (phillipian jailor), then yes, I could start where Paul started and say, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved..."

Before you respond, investigate Acts 16:16-30, keeping in mind that the gospel was just then coming to Phillipi, and see if you can determine what PJ might have heard/known that would have prompted his question. let me know what you find.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

Given the...confusion and misrepresentation of the conditions of salvation...

HP,

bmerr here. Taking into consideration God's unfathomable love for us, do you think He would leave us in confusion about His conditions for our salvation?

Where has the confusion come from, then, since God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor 14:33)? It has come from men, who, though undoubtably sincere, have either added to, or taken from God's plan of salvation.

Martin Luther, for all that he was a sincere man who recognized and tried to correct things which were unquestionably wrong, came up with the idea of salvation by "faith only", even though the only place in Scripture one can find the phrase "faith only" is in James 2:24, where we find that man is justified by works, and "not by faith only".

But even Luther did not reject the essentiality of baptism.

If God did not think baptism was important for the remission, or washing away of sins, why would He inspire men to write verses like Acts 2:38, or 22:16? That would be confusing!

Perhaps it's time to take a fresh look at Scripture, resolving that regardless of what we've believed, or for how long, the Bible is right, and men are prone to error.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Snitzelhoff]

2Ti 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

HP: How do you get that from this verse? If one thing leads to another, by the indication in this verse of the word ‘to,’ how does that state that repentance and acknowledging the truth are 'one condition?'

One can acknowledge the truth without ever repenting. The drunk can acknowledge the truth about him being a drunk and never be repentant, The thief can know he is a thief without ever returning the money in repentance. The devils can acknowledge the truth about Jesus and who is, but never come to repentance. The list is endless. Are you sure about what you are saying in your post?

Repentance and faith (acknowledging of the truth) are inseparably bound together in that verse. Repentance, by its nature, is a turning away from dependence on "dead works" (see Hebrews 6:1). Faith is, by its nature, a turning toward dependence on God. One must accompany the other, and that is clearly expressed in the phrase "repentance to the acknowledging of the truth."

Your statements about the drunk and the thief are irrelevant. You know that it's not the "truth" of the sinful state I'm speaking of, but the truth of the Gospel as a whole. One cannot truly embrace the Gospel without repentance. That is, it is impossible to turn to God in faith unaccompanied by repentance from dead works.

The two are inseparable enough to make them into one dynamic, upon which salvation is conditioned.

One glaring problem with this view is that you are holding to two baptisms, whereas Paul states in no uncertain terms that there is only "one baptism" in Eph 4:5.

Let's take a look at Ephesians 4:4-5, without beginning it with the words that simply aren't in the Greek: "One body and one spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism."

What's missing here? The "There is" you like to emphasize. That's right: it's not in the Greek. Is Paul proclaiming the existence of only one baptism? Well, is Paul proclaiming the existence of only one faith, lord, or body? Think about that. There exists more than one faith. I have faith that you will disagree with me, that the sun won't fall out of the sky today, etc. But there is only one faith in which I am unified with all my brothers and sisters in Christ. As for lords, there are and were many. "Kurios" was the title used for slave-masters and people in authority. But there is only one Lord in which all Christians are united.

Now, baptism. First, the existence of a baptism beyond merely water baptism is clearly expressed in I Corinthians 12:13, where "by/in one Spirit we were all baptized into one Body." Furthermore, the fact that there exists more than one baptism is expressed in Hebrews 6:2--"the doctrine of baptisms."

Paul nowhere claims the existence of only one baptism, but rather issues a call to unity, saying in Ephesians 4 that we are all unified by one baptism (and one Lord and one faith). What is that one baptism? Remember I Corinthians 12:13? "By/In one spirit we were ALL baptized into one Body..."

An honest look at Ephesians 4:5 doesn't help your case for baptismal salvation one bit.

Michael