What does Acts 2:38 really mean ??

[Thinkingstuff]

You make a good politician. What does it explain to you. What does it "mean" to you? Does it mean to you that you must be baptized in order to receive remission of sins? And if so, what does that mean to YOU?

I think Peter meant what he said. Do you think he meant something different? At this point I don't think Peter is thinking deep theological points but following the Great commission and trying to pursuade the crowd. But honestly that is my view and I won't add it to scripture since it doesn't say what Peter was thinking at that point.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I think Peter meant what he said. Do you think he meant something different? At this point I don't think Peter is thinking deep theological points but following the Great commission and trying to pursuade the crowd. But honestly that is my view and I won't add it to scripture since it doesn't say what Peter was thinking at that point.

You are not telling me what you think Peter "meant"? The Greek term "eis" has various applications and "because of" is one defendable application. However, for the sake of argument, let's assume "in order to" or "with a view toward" is the correct view, however, does he mean in order to obtain LITERAL remission of sins OR to obtain FIGURATIVE remission of sins since the same Peter does use the words "like FIGURE" when speaking of baptism (I Pet. 3:21).

Just telling me that Peter means what he says is really saying NOTHING!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You are not telling me what you think Peter "meant"? The Greek term "eis" has various applications and "because of" is one defendable application. However, for the sake of argument, let's assume "in order to" or "with a view toward" is the correct view, however, does he mean in order to obtain LITERAL remission of sins OR to obtain FIGURATIVE remission of sins since the same Peter does use the words "like FIGURE" when speaking of baptism (I Pet. 3:21).

Just telling me that Peter means what he says is really saying NOTHING!

So your application of this scripture is that Peter is really saying nothing?

 

[Dr. Walter]

So your application of this scripture is that Peter is really saying nothing?

Who cares about my application! I am asking about your application? I am more than ready to defend what I believe Peter is saying, but that is not the question. The question I have put forth to you is what do you believe he is saying and you refuse to answer that question so far. The inference of your responses is that you believe Peter is saying that literal remission of sins and reception of the indwelling Spirit of God is insepable from the act of baptism. Such an inference demands baptismal regeneration as regeneration cannot exist without remission of sins and the indwelling Spirit of God.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Who cares about my application! I am asking about your application? I am more than ready to defend what I believe Peter is saying, but that is not the question. The question I have put forth to you is what do you believe he is saying and you refuse to answer that question so far. The inference of your responses is that you believe Peter is saying that literal remission of sins and reception of the indwelling Spirit of God is insepable from the act of baptism. Such an inference demands baptismal regeneration as regeneration cannot exist without remission of sins and the indwelling Spirit of God.

I care about your application! In fact, aren't you trying to find out what I believe Peter said? Well, he said

38πετρος δε προς αυτους μετανοησατε και βαπτισθητω εκαστος υμων εν τω ονοματι ιησου χριστου εις αφεσιν των αμαρτιων υμων και λημψεσθε την δωρεαν του αγιου πνευματος

Which is pretty much what he meant.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I care about your application! In fact, aren't you trying to find out what I believe Peter said? Well, he said Which is pretty much what he meant.

So you do believe that LITERAL remission of sins and impartation of the indwelling Spirit of God occurs in baptism instead of at the point of faith in the Gospel. You do not believe in justification by faith without works.

 

[Robert Snow]

I'm not sure what anyone here is saying. Too many questions, not enough answers.

I may be wrong, but it sounds like some here are saying that baptism is a requirement to believe the Gospel of Christ. Is this assumption correct?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So you do believe that LITERAL remission of sins and impartation of the indwelling Spirit of God occurs in baptism instead of at the point of faith in the Gospel. You do not believe in justification by faith without works.

Wow, all I said is I believe Peter said what he meant and you make some theological dogma out of it. Didn't I say I didn't think Peter was having an in depth theological thought going on but was fulfilling the great commission by asking the men to reprent and be baptized? However, If you believe that Peter was saying, by the greek, in a literal remission of sins and impartation of the indwelling of the Spirit of God why haven't you taken that more seriously? If you believe that is what he is saying why act or believe contrary to it?

 

[Dr. Walter]

I'm not sure what anyone here is saying. Too many questions, not enough answers.

I may be wrong, but it sounds like some here are saying that baptism is a requirement to believe the Gospel of Christ. Is this assumption correct?

No! No one is arguing that one must first be baptized in order to believe in the gospel truth. It appears that Thinkingstuff is interpreting Acts 2:38 to teach that literal remission of sins and the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit is aquired in baptism. Of course where there is no indwelling Holy Spirit there is no regeneration and so such a position requires no regeneration until baptism as well. Thus, he is teaching baptismal regeneration.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Wow, all I said is I believe Peter said what he meant and you make some theological dogma out of it. Didn't I say I didn't think Peter was having an in depth theological thought going on but was fulfilling the great commission by asking the men to reprent and be baptized? However, If you believe that Peter was saying, by the greek, in a literal remission of sins and impartation of the indwelling of the Spirit of God why haven't you taken that more seriously? If you believe that is what he is saying why act or believe contrary to it?

Look, everyone can see what you are doing! You will not tell us what application you draw from Peter's words. Instead you make the stupid comment that he means what he says when we all know every text of scripture must be exegeted or it means NOTHING. You will not answer a very simple question - "do you believe Peter is teaching in Acts 2:38 that literal remission of sins and indwelling of the Holy Spirit is obtained in baptism"??

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Look, everyone can see what you are doing! You will not tell us what application you draw from Peter's words. Instead you make the stupid comment that he means what he says when we all know every text of scripture must be exegeted or it means NOTHING. You will not answer a very simple question - "do you believe Peter is teaching in Acts 2:38 that literal remission of sins and indwelling of the Holy Spirit is obtained in baptism"??

What do you believe he's saying? BTW It's not a stupid comment that he means what he says. A foundational point of the reformation is that average man could read and understand the bible. You are falling into the Catholic Trap saying that every text must be exegeted to make sense or it means nothing. Next you'll be saying there are 5 senses in which to understand scripture 1)The literal sense 2)The literal sense 3)anagogical sense 4)The allegorical sense 5)tropological sense. And that simple men like me who don't have Phd can't understand scripture.

 

[Dr. Walter]

What do you believe he's saying? BTW It's not a stupid comment that he means what he says. A foundational point of the reformation is that average man could read and understand the bible. You are falling into the Catholic Trap saying that every text must be exegeted to make sense or it means nothing. Next you'll be saying there are 5 senses in which to understand scripture 1)The literal sense 2)The literal sense 3)anagogical sense 4)The allegorical sense 5)tropological sense. And that simple men like me who don't have Phd can't understand scripture.

The scriptures mean what they say but have you ever heard of eisgesis versus exegesis??? The exegete READS OUT what the writer WROTE IN whereas eisgete READS INTO what the writer never WROTE IN.

You are the one who rebuked all and said that Peter simply meant what he said. So it is not unfair to ask you what do YOU THINK Peter meant by what he said. Isn't that the very question you keep asking me ("What do you believe he is saying?") but the very question YOU WILL NOT ANSWER??????

So again, WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE Peter meant by those words? Do you think he meant that you must be baptized IN ORDER TO receive literal remission of sins and IN ORDER TO receive the indwelling Spirit of God???? Since I have already denied that I believe this is what Peter meant, then I can only assume that your attack upon my position is a defense of baptismal regeneration since there can be no regenerate condition where there is no remission of sins or indwelling Spirit and if that occurs in baptism and then the person must be unregenerate, still in sin and without the Holy Spirit prior to baptism.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The scriptures mean what they say

That's what I've been trying to say

but have you ever heard of eisgesis versus exegesis???

In fact as stupid as I am I have heard those terms. Now let me spit my tabacco into my spitoon and wipe my hands on my overalls because this next part requires and

ejumicationThe exegete READS OUT what the writer WROTE IN whereas eisgete READS INTO what the writer never WROTE IN.

And what part he said what he means not a part of exegeting scripture?

You are the one who rebuked all and said that Peter simply meant what he said.

He did.

So it is not unfair to ask you what do YOU THINK Peter meant by what he said. Isn't that the very question you keep asking me ("What do you believe he is saying?") but the very question YOU WILL NOT ANSWER??????

you sound frustrated.

So again, WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE Peter meant by those words? Do you think he meant that you must be baptized IN ORDER TO receive literal remission of sins and IN ORDER TO receive the indwelling Spirit of God????

I've told you already. What do you believe?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

BTW Dr. Walter are you still teaching? I would like to take your class. You'll end up giving me an F I'm certain but I would like to make class a bit more interesting for you.

 

[Dr. Walter]

That's what I've been trying to say In fact as stupid as I am I have heard those terms. Now let me spit my tabacco into my spitoon and wipe my hands on my overalls because this next part requires and And what part he said what he means not a part of exegeting scripture?
He did. you sound frustrated.
I've told you already. What do you believe?

Alright, I take it from your response that you believe Peter is teaching regeneration occurs in baptism, meaning, that prior to baptism a believer in the gospel of Christ is still in his sins, thus still unjustified before God, still without the indwelling Spirit of God until he is baptized.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Alright, I take it from your response that you believe Peter is teaching regeneration occurs in baptism, meaning, that prior to baptism a believer in the gospel of Christ is still in his sins, thus still unjustified before God, still without the indwelling Spirit of God until he is baptized.

Thats not what I said. What do you believe Peter is saying? Do you believe that is what Peter is saying and if so why?

 

[DHK]

Acts 2:38 teaches that baptism precedes the remission of sins. John's baptism also preceded the remission of sins.

You are not dealing with the text. John's baptism doesn't even mention the remission of sins. Deal with the text! Look again:

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance:

The Greek word for "unto" is eis; the same word in Acts 2:38 translated "for."

This time instead of "remission of sins" it says "repentance."
John was baptizing "unto repentance."
Answer the question again.
Was John baptizing because they had repented, or
Was John baptizing in order that they would receive repentance.

If you pick the latter of the two choices, you believe in heresy.
No one gains repentance through baptism.
John baptized because they had repented.
Earlier John said to them:

Matthew 3:8 Therefore bring forth fruit worthy of repentance! (WEB)
--On the basis of the fruits of repentance he would baptize them. Not until he saw the repentance would he baptize them.

Thus the verse:
Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you in water for repentance, but he who comes after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit. (WEB)
--"for" is eis, and means because of or on the basis of, and looks back just as it does in Acts 2:38

 

[Dr. Walter]

Thats not what I said. What do you believe Peter is saying? Do you believe that is what Peter is saying and if so why?

You are asking of me what you will not do yourself, even though you were asked FIRST and asked repeatedly.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You are asking of me what you will not do yourself, even though you were asked FIRST and asked repeatedly.

I answered. Does great commission ring a bell? You still refuse to answer the question. and I've asked you repeatedly.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The Old Testament covers about 4000 years and God established the use of EXTERNAL rites right from the beginning used consistently between Genesis 3 to the introduction of the EXTERNAL rite of circumicsion with Abraham in Genesis 17:11. These EXTERNAL rites continued to Exodus 12 and the institution of the Passover under Moses and then a variety of EXTERNAL rites were added under the ceremonial law including the EXTERNAL rite of the Nazerine. The continuing use of EXTERNAL rites continued under the Mosaic law right to the book of Acts where Paul took the Nazerite vow in Jerusalem.

The design and intent of the EXTERNAL sacrificial rites has a consistency between Genesis and Acts. Jesus provides the intent in the healing of the leper in Luke 5:13-14:

13 And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him.
14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

A. When did the LITERAL cleansing occur? - v. 13 "immediately the leprosy departed from him"

B. Why was he told to shew himself to the Priest? - v. 14

1. "offer for thy cleansing"
2. "for a testimony unto them"

Now, was he sent to the preist IN ORDER that He might be LITERALLY cleansed of leprosy or to obtain FIGURATIVE ceremonial cleansing?

What was the design of this ceremonial cleansing? "For a TESTIMONY unto them".

Likewise, the writer of Hebrews and Colossians comments upon the literal versus figurative design and intent of external divine rites:

Heb. 10:1-4 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Col. 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
16 ¶ Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

If you turn your back to the sun you can see YOUR shadow that is cast on the ground. Now, a truck can run over your shadow and not hurt you at all. However, if the truck ran over you it would hurt you. So your shadow is not you.
These EXTERNAL rites were as a "shadow" but the reality was Christ and his finished work. These "shadow" rites could NEVER LITERALLY REMOVE SIN but nevertheless the langauge of redemption was attached to them as they were commanded to offer up the sacrifices "for sin" and "for thy cleansing."
Literal remission of sins occurred in believing in the promised Christ of which these were all but Shadows:

"To him give ALL THE PROPHETS WITNESS that whosoever beleived in his name shall receive remission of sins" - Acts 10:43

Absolute proof that justification by faith (imputed righteousness and remission of sins - Rom. 4:6-8) occurred at the point of faith BEFORE submitting or offering such "shadow" type EXTERNAL ordinances is given in Romans 4:12 with Abraham as "THE FATHER OF ALL WHO BELIEVE" or the role model for all who are of faith.

Hence, the EXTERNAL rite whether sacrifices, circumcision, cleansing of the leper, nazerite vow, etc. were all "SHADOW" ordinances that remove sin FIGURATIVELY or CEREMONIALLY but NEVER LITERALLY.

Baptism is comparable to circumcision as an EXTERNAL rite just as the Lord's Supper is comparable to the passover as an EXTERNAL rite both of which are characterized by redemptive language that was attached to previous EXTERNAL rites "for the remission of sins" or "for sin."

God has not changed his design or intent for EXTERNAL divine rites as they only CEREMONIALLY cleanse beleivers from sins but NEVER LITERALLY REMOVE SIN as that is confusing the "shadow" with the "reality."

Hence, we should expect the same kind of redemptive language used with all other redemptive rites to be used with baptism and the Lord's Supper.

In Acts 2:38 "for remission of sins" is explained in keeping with the common language of all EXTERNAL redemptive ceremonial rites to be a "FIGURE" of what saves and remits sin, which is the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ - just as the Ark in Noah's day was a "LIKE FIGURE" of the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ "by water" as it lifted up the ark and all that were therein saving them from the flood. However, 100 years before the flood the Bible says "Noah found GRACE in the eyes of the Lord" just as 14 years before circumcision Abraham was already justified by faith, had imputed righteousness and remission of sins (Rom. 4:6-12).