FOR or BECAUSE OF the forgiveness of your sins, (Acts 2:38)

[BillyBob65]

I'm back praise the Lord I missed talking with you all. Now where were we? I have a lot to ketch up on lol.

 

[BillyBob65]

God basis to save anyone has always been the Cross of Christ

Yes but that did not answer the questions. That is a careful played dodge to not rightly divide the word of truth.

 

[BillyBob65]

Those gentiles who heard preaching of peter received the Holy Ghost in middle of the sermon, were then saved, and then water baptized

That is not what scriptures teach though that is missing many points that scripture was showing.

 

[BillyBob65]

So, what you were saying (in a now-deleted post) is that the new covenant and how to enter it—responding rightly to the gospel message—did not happen until after the cross.

This is biblically correct in one sense, namely, the new covenant began with the cross of Christ. However, responding rightly to the message of the gospel (i.e., faith) is not what puts a person in the new covenant. Faith is the instrument by which we receive Christ; it is not the cause of covenant inclusion.

Let’s walk through this carefully. The cross of Christ established the new covenant (Luke 22:20; Heb 9:15-17). This new covenant, as the historical administration of the one covenant of grace, is objectively ratified by his blood and now exists as a reality.

But how does one enter that covenant relation? Through union with Christ. Every spiritual blessing of the new covenant—election, redemption, forgiveness, inheritance, etc.—is located “in Christ” (Eph 1:3–14). There are no covenant benefits distributed independently of union with Christ. To be in Christ is to be in the covenant; those not in Christ are outside the covenant.

So, how does union with Christ happen? Scripture is explicit that this union is wrought by the Holy Spirit. As Paul tells us, it is by one Spirit that we are all baptized into one body (1 Cor 12:13), and anyone who doesn’t have the Spirit does not belong to Christ (Rom 8:9). It is by the Spirit that we are incorporated into Christ’s body. Belonging to Christ is covenant membership, which is effected by the Holy Spirit. It is not a matter of human assent or moral resolve.

Entrance into the new-covenant kingdom presupposes regeneration. “Unless a person is born of water and Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” According to Old Testament passages which Nicodemus should have known (e.g., Isa 44:3-5; Ezek 36:25-27; 37:9-10), both water and wind function as figures that represent the regenerating work of the Spirit. The same causal order appears in Johannine theology more broadly. “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God” (1 John 5:1). The Greek grammar makes it clear: believing is the evidential expression of divine begetting, not its cause. “The one who belongs to God listens and responds to God’s words. You don’t listen and respond, because you don’t belong to God” (John 8:47).

This, then, is the biblical sequence: Christ establishes the covenant and all its benefits in himself (Eph 1:3; Heb 9), the Spirit regenerates the elect sinner, creating new life in union with Christ (John 1:13; John 3:3-8; Eph 2:5; Titus 3:5; 1 Cor 12:13; Rom 8:9-11), and that new life expresses itself in faith, which receives and rests in Christ (John 6:37; Phil 1:29; Heb 4:10) and all the salvific benefits in Christ (Rom 6:3-5; 1 Cor 1:30; Eph 1:3-7).

Faith does not put one in the new covenant; it lays hold of the One in whom that covenant relationship already exists, a union effected by the Holy Spirit in everyone the Father gives to the Son. Apart from union with Christ, faith would never arise, for faith is the expression of divine begetting.

If responding rightly to the gospel is made the condition that puts one in the covenant, several problems follow, the thorniest of which is that it implies old-covenant saints were not united to Christ—an error that you explicitly affirm (“[In Acts 2] the doors to the church opened for the first time”). Scripture does not allow this. Abraham believed the gospel beforehand (Gal 3:8), was justified by faith, and shared in the same covenant of grace. What changed at the cross was not the way sinners are united to Christ, but the historical completion of the work to which their faith pointed. (The covenant signs changed, too. Old covenant signs were typological and promissory, prefiguring Christ who was to come, whereas new covenant signs are sacramental and participatory, proclaiming Christ until he returns.)

If I may quote something you said, “I am really surprised that I have to explain this. I thought this was elementary.”

Verse 13
For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit.

In one Spirit were we all baptized ... Throughout the New Testament, Christian baptism is revealed to be one of the two essential elements of the new birth, without which no man may see the kingdom of God. These are: obedience to the ordinance of baptism and the reception of the Holy Spirit. Jesus joined these two essential elements by his requirement that people be "born of the water and of the Spirit" (John 3:5ff). Peter joined them on Pentecost by the command that all people should "repent and be baptized ... and ... receive the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38ff). There is no doubt whatever that Paul's words here refer to the same twin essentials of the new birth, the same being a prior condition of participation in the body of Christ.

In one Spirit ... As Kelcy said, `This is actually `by one Spirit,' making the Holy Spirit the agent or administrator of baptism."19 In a similar way, Christ was named as the actual administrator of the rite of baptism, even though his disciples actually did the baptizing (John 4:1,2). The unity of the godhead makes it correct to refer any action ordained and commanded by God, to the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit; and when the action is obeyed, it is proper to say that any one of them did it. This truth does not exclude the reception of the indwelling Spirit in Christian hearts, as Paul dogmatically emphasized that in the very next clause, "made to drink of one Spirit."

We were all baptized ... and were all made to drink of one Spirit ... As Metz correctly noted, "the word `baptized' relates to the actual act of baptism."20 The mention of the Spirit as the administrator of baptism in this verse provoked Hodge to declare that the baptism in view, therefore, is "the baptism of the Holy Ghost!"21 If that is true, it would make Paul here declare that all of the Corinthians were baptized in the Holy Ghost, or had received the Holy Spirit baptism! Who could believe such a thing? It is true of course that all of them had themselves baptized, and in consequence had all received the gift ordinary of the Holy Spirit, common to all Christians; but to suppose that those carnal Corinthians had "all" participated in the baptism of the Holy Spirit is impossible. Of course, the design of many scholars is to get water baptism out of this text altogether; but that is also impossible.

All made to drink of one Spirit ... This refers to the reception of the ordinary gift of the indwelling Spirit by the Corinthians in consequence of primary obedience to the gospel. "There is no evidence that all the disciples at Corinth, or any of them, had been baptized in the Holy Spirit."22

---

From Coffman's commentary on the bible located online in Studylight.org

 

[John Bauer]

Note for the readers:​

He was quoting from James Burton Coffman, a Church of Christ preacher, not a biblical scholar in the critical sense. His multi-volume Commentary on the Bible is popular in Restorationist / Campbell movement circles.

Throughout the New Testament, Christian baptism is revealed to be one of the two essential elements of the new birth, without which no man may see the kingdom of God. These are: obedience to the ordinance of baptism and the reception of the Holy Spirit.

Where in the New Testament?

Jesus joined these two essential elements by his requirement that people be "born of the water and of the Spirit" (John 3:5).

This completely ignores my argument on exactly that subject.

Peter joined them on Pentecost by the command that all people should "repent and be baptized ... and ... receive the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38).

It appears that you think this establishes an ordo salutis of repent → be baptized → receive the Spirit.

If so, then you have a problem: Luke himself repeatedly shows that this sequence is not fixed:

• first Spirit, then baptism (Acts 10:44-48).
  
  ​
• first baptism, then Spirit (Acts 8:12-17).
  
  ​
• first belief, then baptism (Acts 16:31-34; 19:1-6).

Luke intentionally presents no fixed sacramental sequence. What is constant is not baptismal order but the role of the Spirit and faith in relation to Christ.

The reality is that Acts 2:38 describes what Peter commanded that crowd to do in that historical moment. It was not an ontological mechanism of covenant entry, which Scripture explicitly lays out elsewhere (as my post covered).

There is no doubt whatever that Paul's words here refer to the same twin essentials of the new birth, the same being a prior condition of participation in the body of Christ.

There is plenty of doubt to be had—since Coffman invented this so-called “twin essentials of the new birth” and then started filtering biblical texts through that.

And I am smelling a dispensational denial that old covenant saints were united to Christ—which destroys the consistent witness of Scripture. If Abraham was justified apart from union with Christ, then justification itself is severed from Christ.

The mention of the Spirit as the administrator of baptism in this verse provoked Hodge to declare that the baptism in view, therefore, is "the baptism of the Holy Ghost!" If that is true, it would make Paul here declare that all of the Corinthians were baptized in the Holy Ghost, or had received the Holy Spirit baptism! Who could believe such a thing?

Who could believe such a thing? Paul could, and did—as do I.

Paul is not talking about charismatic empowerment (cf. Acts 2, Acts 10). He is talking about incorporation into Christ. All believers are united to Christ. This is the biblical distinction you refuse to make:

• Spirit baptism means incorporation into Christ (Rom 8:9; Gal 3:27; 1 Cor 12:13);
  
  ​
• charismatic outpourings means empowerment for witness (Acts 1:8; 4:8, 31; 1 Cor 12:4-11).

Note, too, that Paul doesn’t say we were baptized with water or by human administrators. He says that “in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” That is union-with-Christ language, not description of a ritual.

 

[JesusFan]

That is not what scriptures teach though that is missing many points that scripture was showing.

How about this from the greatest Apostle of them all?
I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius 1 Cor 1:14

 

[mailmandan]

Repent ye (μετανοησατε). First aorist (ingressive) active imperative. Change your mind and your life. Turn right about and do it now. You crucified this Jesus. Now crown him in your hearts as Lord and Christ. This first.

And be baptized every one of you (κα βαπτισθητω εκαστος υμων). Rather, "And let each one of you be baptized." Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed "in the name of Jesus Christ" (εν τω ονοματ Ιησου Χριστου). In accordance with the command of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 (εις το ονομα). No distinction is to be insisted on between εις το ονομα and εν τω ονοματ with βαπτιζω since εις and εν are really the same word in origin. In Acts 10:48 εν τω ονοματ Ιησου Χριστου occurs, but εις to ονομα in Acts 8:16; Acts 19:5. The use of ονομα means in the name or with the authority of one as εις ονομα προφητου (Matthew 10:41) as a prophet, in the name of a prophet. In the Acts the full name of the Trinity does not occur in baptism as in Matthew 28:19, but this does not show that it was not used. The name of Jesus Christ is the distinctive one in Christian baptism and really involves the Father and the Spirit. See on Matthew 28:19 for discussion of this point. "Luke does not give the form of words used in baptism by the Apostles, but merely states the fact that they baptized those who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah or as Lord" (Page).

Unto the remission of your sins (εις αφεσιν των αμαρτιων υμων). This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of εις does exist as in 1 Corinthians 2:7 εις δοξαν ημων (for our glory). But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of εις for aim or purpose. It is seen in Matthew 10:41 in three examples εις ονομα προφητου, δικαιου, μαθητου where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Matthew 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah (εις το κηρυγμα Ιωνα). They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koine generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). 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.

Acts 2 - Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

 

[JesusFan]

Repent ye (μετανοησατε). First aorist (ingressive) active imperative. Change your mind and your life. Turn right about and do it now. You crucified this Jesus. Now crown him in your hearts as Lord and Christ. This first.

And be baptized every one of you (κα βαπτισθητω εκαστος υμων). Rather, "And let each one of you be baptized." Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed "in the name of Jesus Christ" (εν τω ονοματ Ιησου Χριστου). In accordance with the command of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 (εις το ονομα). No distinction is to be insisted on between εις το ονομα and εν τω ονοματ with βαπτιζω since εις and εν are really the same word in origin. In Acts 10:48 εν τω ονοματ Ιησου Χριστου occurs, but εις to ονομα in Acts 8:16; Acts 19:5. The use of ονομα means in the name or with the authority of one as εις ονομα προφητου (Matthew 10:41) as a prophet, in the name of a prophet. In the Acts the full name of the Trinity does not occur in baptism as in Matthew 28:19, but this does not show that it was not used. The name of Jesus Christ is the distinctive one in Christian baptism and really involves the Father and the Spirit. See on Matthew 28:19 for discussion of this point. "Luke does not give the form of words used in baptism by the Apostles, but merely states the fact that they baptized those who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah or as Lord" (Page).

Unto the remission of your sins (εις αφεσιν των αμαρτιων υμων). This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of εις does exist as in 1 Corinthians 2:7 εις δοξαν ημων (for our glory). But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of εις for aim or purpose. It is seen in Matthew 10:41 in three examples εις ονομα προφητου, δικαιου, μαθητου where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Matthew 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah (εις το κηρυγμα Ιωνα). They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koine generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). 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.

Acts 2 - Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

Could very well also refer to being water baptism into Jesus, as he would be the very source of how their sins had been remitted

 

[JesusFan]

Could very well also refer to being water baptism into Jesus, as he would be the very source of how their sins had been remitted

Key is that remission of sin is His shed blood washing us, NOT the water soaking us

 

[BillyBob65]

Key is that remission of sin is His shed blood washing us, NOT the water soaking us

Yes isn't that what Paul is saying in Romans 6 It is in baptism in the name of Christ where we are baptized into his death (cleansed by the blood)

 

[makesends]

Yes but that did not answer the questions. That is a careful played dodge to not rightly divide the word of truth.

What makes you think that your way of looking at things is the valid one? You talk of rightly dividing as if you know what that means. Really?

 

[mailmandan]

Acts 2:38 must be read alongside verses like (Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 13:38-39; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18) where forgiveness is explicitly tied to repentance/belief/faith and not the baptism itself. Water baptism is a sign of that reality but not the source of it.

Luke 24:47 - and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. *What happened to baptism?

Acts 3:19 - Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord. *What happened to baptism?

Acts 5:31 - Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. *What happened to baptism?

Acts 10:43 - Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins. *What happened to baptism?

Acts 11:17 - If therefore God gave them the same gift (Holy Spirit) as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?” 18 When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life.” *What happened to baptism?

Acts 13:38 - Therefore, let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; 39 and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses. *What happened to baptism?

Acts 15:7 - And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. *What happened to baptism?

Acts 16:30 - And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” *What happened to baptism?

Acts 26:18 - to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

So, the only logical and Biblical conclusion when properly harmonizing scripture with scripture is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 13:38-39; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18) Perfect Harmony

 

[Arial]

What makes you think that your way of looking at things is the valid one? You talk of rightly dividing as if you know what that means. Really?

Maybe he is literalistic and thinks it means it is ok to divide the word of God as long as you do it rightly. Therefore, contradictions are irrelevant and interpretive opinion can rule the day. Or divide it so that what he believes is the deciding factor in meaning, and the rest can be ignored.

 

[John Bauer]

Maybe he is literalistic and thinks it means it is ok to divide the word of God as long as you do it rightly. Therefore, contradictions are irrelevant and interpretive opinion can rule the day. Or divide it so that what he believes is the deciding factor in meaning, and the rest can be ignored.

To those who use the expression, "rightly dividing" usually means correctly dissecting and applying the Bible's teachings.

 

[BillyBob65]

To those who use the expression, "rightly dividing" usually means correctly dissecting and applying the Bible's teachings.

Yes kinda like you do to that I agree

 

[makesends]

Maybe he is literalistic and thinks it means it is ok to divide the word of God as long as you do it rightly. Therefore, contradictions are irrelevant and interpretive opinion can rule the day. Or divide it so that what he believes is the deciding factor in meaning, and the rest can be ignored.

Maybe, but I bet he would disagree with the logically necessary implication that would make —that only some of the Bible is the word of God, denying plenary verbal inspiration. May as well be RCC if scripture bows to the authority of the reader.

 

[Arial]

To those who use the expression, "rightly dividing" usually means correctly dissecting and applying the Bible's teachings.

The word translated "divide" in the KJV had a different meaning from what it does today. Loosely it meant "cut a straight furrow" an agricultural term. So yes, to your post. The better translation into modern language is rightly handling the word of God. If that is done there will be no contradictions. It aligns with letting scripture interpret scripture.

So @BillyBob65 if there are scriptures that show salvation and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit before water baptism (Acts 10:44,47); if the Bible shows baptism following belief and repentance (Acts2:37,41); if it shows that biblical figures have believed and not been immediately baptized (Thomas, John 20:28-29;John 12:42-no mention of baptism); if scripture declares that the way of eternal life is believing and does not mention baptism in those same scriptures (Acts 16:30-31); if Scriptures tells us that when we believed we were sealed by the Holy Spirit and no baptism is mentioned (Eph 1:13}

then

“And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’”

cannot mean that water baptism is when our sins are forgiven (saved) and receive the Holy Spirit. Rightly handling the word of God will solve the "riddle" Give it a go.

 

[BillyBob65]

Maybe, but I bet he would disagree with the logically necessary implication that would make —that only some of the Bible is the word of God, denying plenary verbal inspiration. May as well be RCC if scripture bows to the authority of the reader.

The word translated "divide" in the KJV had a different meaning from what it does today. Loosely it meant "cut a straight furrow" an agricultural term. So yes, to your post. The better translation into modern language is rightly handling the word of God. If that is done there will be no contradictions. It aligns with letting scripture interpret scripture.

So @BillyBob65 if there are scriptures that show salvation and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit before water baptism (Acts 10:44,47); if the Bible shows baptism following belief and repentance (Acts2:37,41); if it shows that biblical figures have believed and not been immediately baptized (Thomas, John 20:28-29;John 12:42-no mention of baptism); if scripture declares that the way of eternal life is believing and does not mention baptism in those same scriptures (Acts 16:30-31); if Scriptures tells us that when we believed we were sealed by the Holy Spirit and no baptism is mentioned (Eph 1:13}

then

“And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’”

cannot mean that water baptism is when our sins are forgiven (saved) and receive the Holy Spirit. Rightly handling the word of God will solve the "riddle" Give it a go.

And then you say I don't rightly divide it you're the one that's changed the whole meaning of it just cuz it don't fit your meaning you say they can't be so even though it says exactly that

 

[makesends]

The word translated "divide" in the KJV had a different meaning from what it does today. Loosely it meant "cut a straight furrow" an agricultural term. So yes, to your post. The better translation into modern language is rightly handling the word of God. If that is done there will be no contradictions. It aligns with letting scripture interpret scripture.

So @BillyBob65 if there are scriptures that show salvation and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit before water baptism (Acts 10:44,47); if the Bible shows baptism following belief and repentance (Acts2:37,41); if it shows that biblical figures have believed and not been immediately baptized (Thomas, John 20:28-29;John 12:42-no mention of baptism); if scripture declares that the way of eternal life is believing and does not mention baptism in those same scriptures (Acts 16:30-31); if Scriptures tells us that when we believed we were sealed by the Holy Spirit and no baptism is mentioned (Eph 1:13}

then

“And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’”

cannot mean that water baptism is when our sins are forgiven (saved) and receive the Holy Spirit. Rightly handling the word of God will solve the "riddle" Give it a go.

And then you say I don't rightly divide it you're the one that's changed the whole meaning of it just cuz it don't fit your meaning you say they can't be so even though it says exactly that

@Arial did not say you don't "rightly divide".

As she indicated, the Interlinear (literal meaning, 'phrase by phrase'/'word for word') doesn't even use the word, "divide". It is not there in the Greek. Do you, perhaps, think the KJV more inspired than the originals (or alternately, as I have heard the KJV-only proponents put it, to be the only valid translation (as proven by God's blessing and use of it))?

Etymology might give you indications of how the ancient Greek language worked, but it doesn't give a valid modern translation.

 

[Arial]

And then you say I don't rightly divide it you're the one that's changed the whole meaning of it just cuz it don't fit your meaning you say they can't be so even though it says exactly that

If you will look at the scriptures I gave and the conclusion that came from those scriptures, you will notice I did not give one single interpretation of any scripture. I let the scriptures speak for themselves. It has nothing to do with anything fitting my meaning. Nice try.

Now, answer this question. Given the scriptures I gave, not my opinion or my interpretation, scriptures alone, if Acts 2 38 means that forgiveness and the Holy Spirit are given at/through baptism---would that contradict what we clearly see in the scriptures I ref to support my premise and my example of rightly handling the word of God?
Yes or no.