Axe and two 38's
- Thread starter Weyoun
- Start date
Isn’t anything in the New Testament about baptism or salvation from history, with the exception of the Book of Revelation, cconcernkng future events? Even Paul was commanded by Ananias to quickly arise and be baptized in Acts 22 to wash away his sins calling upon the Lord. This was AFTER Paul’s face to face encounter with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. It seems to me Acts is just as relevant as any New Testiment Book, maybe more so. I would like to hear more of your thoughts on this. Thanks!
Revelation.
dwight92070
Active Member
James, at the Jerusalem council meeting, gave direct commands to the Gentiles in Acts 15: 19-20. Should I, as a Gentile today, obey those? I think I should. In my thinking, James just made those commands part of the New Covenant.
F. F. Bruce: The sequence of the component elements in Christian initiation varies from one occasion to another in Acts. Peter's hearers in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost repent, are baptized, and receive the Spirit (2:38, 41); the Samaritans evangelized by Philip believed and are baptized "into the name of the Lord Jesus", but do not receive the Spirit until apostolic hands are laid on them (8:12, 14-17); Cornelius and his household receive the Spirit while they are still listening to the message and are then baptized
(Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, page 280, chapter 25, Baptism and the Lord's Supper in Pauline Thought).
(Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, page 280, chapter 25, Baptism and the Lord's Supper in Pauline Thought).
Last edited:
Rockerduck
Active Member
I thought the heading was a joke about the lady who come home from a Holy Spirit revival and found a burglar in her house. She yelled "Acts 2:38 repent and be baptized for the remission of sins." The burglar stopped in his tracks and sat on the couch. When the police showed up and asked him why he gave up so easily. The burglar replied " the crazy lady yelled she has an axe and two 38''s. I wasn't gonna chance it.
Runningman
Active Member
The whole Bible is for Jews. The New Covenant was given to Jews to replacement their Old Covenant. I think sometimes people think Christianity is a new religion, but really isn't just the New Covenant, which does also invite Gentiles.
dwight92070
Active Member
Paul tells us that it is the word of the cross, the gospel message, that saves, not getting baptized. 1 Cor. 1:17-18 He tells us that Christ did not send him to baptize, but to preach the gospel. This makes it abundantly clear that baptizing is not preaching the gospel. Baptism follows the acceptance of the gospel. Pauls says: "I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name." If baptism was required for salvation, Paul would have rejoiced that he had the honor of baptizing any and all persons - he would not be thanking God that he did not baptize a large number of the Corinthians. If baptism was required for salvation, he would be thrilled to baptize all of them.
No, Paul tells us there why he was glad he didn’t baotize but two of them- “so that o one woild say you were baotized in my name”. His job was to oreach, anyone could do the baptizing.
dwight92070
Active Member
In the 10 places in Acts where baptism(s) occur, all of them are preceded by repentance or belief, and forgiveness of sins. In Acts 2:38, it appears that Peter is suggesting that baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sins, but that can't be true. That would mean that people are saved by doing the work of baptism, but no one is saved by works.
It's possible that the translators got the order of the words wrong. Another possibility is that "for (eis in the Greek) the forgiveness of sins" could be translated "with a view to forgiveness of sins", which is the way the Greek interlinear translates it - not that water baptism causes forgiveness of sins. Forgiveness of sins comes from repentance, which is the first word in the verse - Repent.
We know that this is true because Peter states it clearly in Acts 3:19: "Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away. Baptism never has brought forgiveness of sins. Biblically, it's always repentance and faith or belief in Jesus that brings forgiveness of sins.
Acts 10:43 says: "Of Him (Jesus) all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins." Here Peter is making it clear that believing in Jesus is equivalent to repentance. We know that to be true because one of the first words out of Jesus' mouth was, "Repent", and if someone believes in Him, then they obviously will repent.
It's possible that the translators got the order of the words wrong. Another possibility is that "for (eis in the Greek) the forgiveness of sins" could be translated "with a view to forgiveness of sins", which is the way the Greek interlinear translates it - not that water baptism causes forgiveness of sins. Forgiveness of sins comes from repentance, which is the first word in the verse - Repent.
We know that this is true because Peter states it clearly in Acts 3:19: "Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away. Baptism never has brought forgiveness of sins. Biblically, it's always repentance and faith or belief in Jesus that brings forgiveness of sins.
Acts 10:43 says: "Of Him (Jesus) all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins." Here Peter is making it clear that believing in Jesus is equivalent to repentance. We know that to be true because one of the first words out of Jesus' mouth was, "Repent", and if someone believes in Him, then they obviously will repent.
dwight92070
Active Member
True, but the takeaway is still the same. If baptism brought salvation, then he wouldn't have been glad that he only baptized a few. He would've wished that he baptized all the Corinthians, thereby guaranteeing their salvation - whether people thought they were baptized in his name or not.
dwight92070
Active Member
Another misunderstood passage is Acts 22:12-16. Ananias appears to be saying that if Saul gets baptized, his sins will be washed away. Once again, that can't be true, because no work washes away sins. Ananias knew that Saul had already believed in Jesus, which is why he called him "Brother Saul". I suppose it's possible that Saul had not yet been converted on the road, but highly unlikely. Anyway, Ananias' words "calling on His (Jesus') name" is what could have saved him, if he was not already saved.
Salvation is an ALL of the above proposition. If one doesn’t believe, they just get wet, if they don’t repent, they just get wet, etc etc.
The 3000 in Acts 2 were cut to the heart and that led to Godly Sorrow, which lead to repentence, and repentence leads to salvation that is bestowed in baptism by God with foregiveness of sin and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Baptism without the rest is simply a ceremonial wetting to no avail.
Scripture must be taken cummilatively. There is NO alpha salvation scipture.
ALS9, per 1 Peter 3:21, baptism is not like washing dirt off the body, but it IS the Calling Upon the Lord…….:
21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
The 3000 in Acts 2 were cut to the heart and that led to Godly Sorrow, which lead to repentence, and repentence leads to salvation that is bestowed in baptism by God with foregiveness of sin and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Baptism without the rest is simply a ceremonial wetting to no avail.
Scripture must be taken cummilatively. There is NO alpha salvation scipture.
ALS9, per 1 Peter 3:21, baptism is not like washing dirt off the body, but it IS the Calling Upon the Lord…….:
21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Last edited:
No, Ananias, the one chosen by God told Paul to arise and be baptized washing away his sin calling on the Lord. Paul had a face to face with the risen Christ and had his sins still to his tally prior to his sunmitting. If he was saved prior why would he have his sins to deal with? And as I said earlier, per 1Peter 3:21 says baptism IS the calling upon the Lord. Ananias calling him brother meant no more than me saying to you, Hey buddy, or hey my man …….
Paul wasn’t saved until his sins were washed away by whatever means BY God and when he recieved the gift of the Holy spirit from God. Baptism was God’s prescription not man’s concoction. God does 100% of the free gift of saving regardless of how we accept that free gift. All God, none of us. Paul didn’t earn or merit one scintilla of his salvation when he arose and was baptized as Ananias told him, and God obviously had communicated that admonition to Ananias somehow to pass on to Paul who had just spoke face to face with the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus.
Last edited:
dwight92070
Active Member
Baptism is never equated with "calling on the Lord" as you suggest. Nor is salvation bestowed in baptism with the forgiveness of sins. Peter himself tells us that forgiveness of sins comes from repenting and returning - Acts 3:19 - no mention here of baptism - and believing - Acts 10:43, not from being baptized.
Also Paul tells us that Jesus had a lot to say to him after he had fallen to the ground on the road to Damascus. Acts 26:14-18 It's beyond belief that Jesus is telling Saul that He is sending him to the Gentiles "to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me." - and yet Saul himself had not yet received forgiveness of sin.
So Jesus is commissioning an unforgiven, committed to darkness, Satan-dominated, unsaved man, sending him to save Gentiles? Not likely.
No, as soon as Saul found out who it was who appeared to him, and blinded him, he obviously repented and was forgiven on the spot.
Ananias knew what a brother was - a believer. Jesus said His brother and sister and mother were those who do the will of God. The blood of Jesus cleanses from all sin, not water baptism. It appears that Ananias had a mistaken view of baptism, just like many today.
Also Paul tells us that Jesus had a lot to say to him after he had fallen to the ground on the road to Damascus. Acts 26:14-18 It's beyond belief that Jesus is telling Saul that He is sending him to the Gentiles "to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me." - and yet Saul himself had not yet received forgiveness of sin.
So Jesus is commissioning an unforgiven, committed to darkness, Satan-dominated, unsaved man, sending him to save Gentiles? Not likely.
No, as soon as Saul found out who it was who appeared to him, and blinded him, he obviously repented and was forgiven on the spot.
Ananias knew what a brother was - a believer. Jesus said His brother and sister and mother were those who do the will of God. The blood of Jesus cleanses from all sin, not water baptism. It appears that Ananias had a mistaken view of baptism, just like many today.
I didn’t suggest it Peter did in 1 Peter 3:21: (ESV)
21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Is an appeal to God NOT calling on the Lord???
Also I doubt an inspired writer such as Luke in Acts would have included a faulty statement from Ananias for all of posterity. But that’ just me. And of course Jesus’ blood cleanses us when we are obedient and drop our clenched fists of resistance and submit to God’s will in Baptism as Ananias said. The work of baptism is what God does IN it. HIS way not mine.
Just as with Naaman in the Old Testament, he wasn’t healed by the “magical” 7th dipping in the Jordan River, and I have said multiple times water is spiritually inert, but the mode prescribed by God. God healed Naaman as promised by the prophet because of his obedience when he dropped his clinched fists of resistance and submitted to God’s prescription for healing his disease. Why did God prescribe it that way? Doesn’t matter, it was his perogative. I use this example not because it involved water, but it perfectly describes how stubborn man can be when it comes to God’s will and his prescribed methods. Naaman at first wanted “Burger King healing” or in other words he initially wanted it HIS Way, and not God’s way.
Last edited:
@Jaime
I'm marking this so I can come back later today or tomorrow, and post. So far what I have read from the start is one confused mess of thoughts from the opening post onward.
Dwight, I do enjoy reading your work on the sonship of Christ, but not here on this subject.
Later, I'm leaving to go out of town, for a few hours.
Good morning Jaime,
I'm marking this so I can come back later today or tomorrow, and post. So far what I have read from the start is one confused mess of thoughts from the opening post onward.
Really? The word of God was indeed were written by the Jews, over all, with maybe a very few limited places, but that is neither here, or there, and means very little. The word of God is strictly for the true Jew, one that is one inwardly, that of the heart in the spirit, whose praise is of men, but of God.
Romans 2:29
“For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”@dwight92070 what are you attempting to say, your words shows you don't know why we have Acts 2:38, no pun intended, but you have said not one word that could prove your position is correct, you just added confusion to confusion.
Dwight, I do enjoy reading your work on the sonship of Christ, but not here on this subject.
Later, I'm leaving to go out of town, for a few hours.
dwight92070
Active Member
Where does the Bible say that Jesus' blood cleanses us from sin, but only when we get baptized? My Bible says His blood cleanses us from sin when we repent and believe in Jesus?
I have counted 213 verses from Acts to Jude where salvation is mentioned, but baptism is not. If we are lost for all eternity because we repented and believed in Jesus, but have not been baptized, wouldn't you expect that every single one of those verses would include a warning - DANGER! BEWARE! Repenting and believing in Jesus isn't good enough to be saved. You must also be baptized. In fact, you can't be saved unless you are baptized.
The vast majority of those verses speak of FAITH in Jesus as the requirement to be saved. Not baptism. Without faith it is impossible to please Him (God).
How many times is salvation mentioned in Acts WITH baptism? 10 times How many times is salvation mentioned in Acts WITHOUT baptism? 23 times
So in your opinion, are all of us who were born again, saved, but were baptized later - for me it was 2 weeks later - are we eternally lost?
Similar threads
