“`html
body { font-family: ‘Times New Roman’, serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 20px; }
h1, h2, h3 { color: #333; }
h2 { border-bottom: 1px solid #ccc; padding-bottom: 5px; }
blockquote { background-color: #f9f9f9; border-left: 5px solid #ccc; margin: 1.5em 10px; padding: 0.5em 10px; }
b { font-weight: bold; }
i { font-style: italic; }
ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 20px; }
li { margin-bottom: 5px; }
An Exegetical Analysis of Acts 2:38: Grammatical Nuances and Theological Implications
This exegetical study of Acts 2:38: Which translation? is based on a b-greek discussion from December 22, 1999. The initial inquiry posed questions regarding various English translations of Acts 2:38, specifically contrasting Williams’ rendering—which interpolates “and as an expression of it” to link repentance and baptism to sin forgiveness—with Beck’s more direct translation. The core issue raised was whether different translations reflect mere doctrinal preferences concerning whether Acts 2:38 teaches sin remission through repentance and baptism, or solely through repentance, assuming faith in either case.
Further contributions to the discussion highlighted criticisms of highly interpretive translations, advocating for a more literal approach to the Greek text before engaging in theological exposition. Specifically, it was noted that Williams’ inclusion of phrases not present in the original Greek constitutes paraphrase, not translation. Questions also arose regarding the grammatical function of the Greek phrase εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν, debating whether it should be considered parenthetical or how its singular/plural agreement relates to the preceding verbs. A recurring point of debate centered on whether to translate the clause literally as “for the remission of sins” or idiomatically as “so that your sins will be forgiven,” exposing underlying concerns about the causal relationship between the commanded actions and the resultant forgiveness. Later discussion also explored the nuances of pronominal agreement (e.g., ἕκαστος ὑμῶν vs. αὐτοῦ) and the nature of the passive imperative in βαπτισθήτω.
The main exegetical issue at the heart of this discussion concerns the precise grammatical and semantic relationship between the two imperative commands—μετανοήσατε (repent) and βαπτισθήτω (be baptized)—and the prepositional phrase εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν (for the forgiveness of your sins). This relationship profoundly impacts the theological interpretation of Acts 2:38, particularly regarding the conditions for sin remission and the reception of the Holy Spirit. Key questions involve the exact force of the preposition εἰς (purpose, result, or something else), the agreement of plural and singular elements within the verse (e.g., plural μετανοήσατε, singular βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος, and plural ὑμῶν), and the implications of the middle-passive voice for baptism. Furthermore, the discussion touches upon the broader interpretative challenge of balancing individual agency with communal identity in the Hellenistic cultural context.
Πέτρος δὲ πρὸς αὐτούς· Μετανοήσατε, καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν καὶ λήμψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος. (Nestle 1904)
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- The SBLGNT (2010) text includes [φησίν] in square brackets after μετανοήσατε, indicating it is an interpolation or of doubtful originality. The Nestle 1904 text does not include this word.
- SBLGNT uses quotation marks around Peter’s speech (e.g., “Μετανοήσατε,” […] “πνεύματος.”), which are not present in the Nestle 1904 text.
Textual criticism (NA28), lexical notes (KITTEL, BDAG):
The critical editions, such as NA28/UBS5, bracket [φησίν], suggesting it is likely a secondary addition for clarification, though it does not fundamentally alter the meaning or grammatical structure of the sentence. Its presence or absence mainly impacts the directness of Peter’s address after the command to repent.
- μετανοέω (μετανοήσατε): KITTEL (TDNT) traces this verb from its classical Greek sense of changing one’s mind (often with regret) to its biblical meaning of a fundamental change of heart, a turning away from sin towards God. BDAG defines it as to change one’s mind, repent, be converted, emphasizing a shift in moral and spiritual orientation.
- βαπτίζω (βαπτισθήτω): KITTEL (TDNT) extensively covers its usage, noting its origins in immersion for various purposes (dyeing, purification) and its development into the distinctive Christian ritual signifying identification with Christ’s death and resurrection. BDAG offers to dip, immerse, plunge and specifically to baptize, indicating a comprehensive submergence.
- ἕκαστος (ἕκαστος): BDAG defines this pronoun as each, every. In this context, it functions substantivally as the subject of βαπτισθήτω, emphasizing the individual nature of the command despite being addressed to a crowd.
- εἰς (εἰς ἄφεσιν): KITTEL (TDNT) discusses the wide semantic range of this preposition, including movement into, purpose (“in order to”), and result (“with the result of”). BDAG provides definitions such as into, to, toward, for the purpose of, with a view to. The specific nuance of εἰς here is central to the exegetical debate, as it can imply either a purpose that baptism *achieves* or a result that *follows* from the commanded actions.
- ἄφεσις (ἄφεσιν): KITTEL (TDNT) highlights its meaning as release, remission, forgiveness, often in the context of debt or sin. BDAG confirms this as release, pardon, forgiveness.
- ἁμαρτία (ἁμαρτιῶν): KITTEL (TDNT) traces its development from “missing the mark” to the theological concept of *sin* against God. BDAG defines it as that which is contrary to the divine will, sin.
- λαμβάνω (λήμψεσθε): KITTEL (TDNT) covers its general meaning of to take, receive, grasp. BDAG notes it as to take, receive, grasp. The future middle voice here (λήμψεσθε) indicates that the subjects will personally *receive for themselves* or *experience the reception of* the Holy Spirit, emphasizing their involvement in the outcome.
Translation Variants
The linguistic structure of Acts 2:38 presents several critical points for grammatical and rhetorical analysis, leading to diverse translations and interpretations. Peter’s address begins with a plural aorist imperative, Μετανοήσατε (“Repent, all of you”), directed to the collective audience. This is followed by a singular aorist passive imperative, βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν (“let each one of you be baptized”). The shift from a collective plural command to an individualized singular command, immediately qualified by the partitive plural genitive ὑμῶν (“of you”), is rhetorically powerful. As noted in the discussion, this is an instance of constructio ad sensum, where the grammar aligns with the intended sense rather than strict formal agreement. Carl Conrad suggests this emphasizes the personal commitment inherent in baptism, even when addressed to a group. Yet, the subsequent use of the plural pronoun ὑμῶν with τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν and the plural future middle verb λήμψεσθε maintains the communal address, implying that both individual and collective responses are in view.
The most significant point of contention revolves around the prepositional phrase εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν (“for the forgiveness of your sins”). The force of εἰς is key. It can denote purpose (“in order to obtain forgiveness”), result (“with the result of forgiveness”), or a more general directional sense (“with a view to forgiveness” or “unto forgiveness”). Grammatically, this phrase is in close proximity to the command to be baptized (βαπτισθήτω), leading some to connect it primarily with baptism. However, the plural genitive ὑμῶν naturally aligns with the plural imperative μετανοήσατε, suggesting a connection to both actions. The question of whether this phrase functions as a parenthetical explanation for baptism, as some have suggested, is generally dismissed by scholars who affirm ἕκαστος ὑμῶν as the clear subject of the verb, indicating baptism is an integral commanded action, not an optional aside.
Theological implications stemming from these grammatical nuances are substantial. If εἰς denotes strict purpose, it might suggest that both repentance and baptism are necessary prerequisites for forgiveness. If it denotes result, it suggests forgiveness is the consequence of these actions. The debate also considers the logical relationship: whether these actions are merely sufficient conditions for forgiveness (if A and B, then C) or necessary conditions (only if A and B, then C). The shift in person and number (plural for repentance, singular for baptism, plural for forgiveness/Spirit reception) is sometimes interpreted to decouple the actions, allowing for forgiveness upon repentance alone, with baptism following as an expression or symbolic act. Conversely, others argue that the seamless flow and inclusive plural pronouns indicate Peter understood repentance and baptism as a unified, comprehensive response to the Gospel, both directed toward the remission of sins and the reception of the Spirit. The passive voice of βαπτισθήτω (“be baptized”) highlights that the action is performed by an external agent, but the middle voice interpretation (“get baptized” or “have yourselves baptized”) underscores the individual’s volitional participation in this divinely-ordained act.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
Based on the preceding analysis, Acts 2:38 presents a complex yet coherent call to action, where grammatical shifts contribute to a holistic understanding rather than implying disjunction. The two imperatives, μετανοήσατε and βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν, represent a unified command for individual response within a communal context. The prepositional phrase εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν functions most plausibly to indicate the purpose or aim of this composite action. The future middle λήμψεσθε reinforces the certain outcome for those who comply. The use of the plural ὑμῶν throughout the latter part of the verse, despite the singular subject for baptism, links the entire sequence to the collective audience, demonstrating that the benefits are for all who respond individually.
Here are three suggested translations that attempt to capture the nuanced grammatical and rhetorical aspects:
-
“Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the purpose of the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
This translation emphasizes the purposive force of εἰς, portraying both repentance and baptism as intentional steps taken to achieve sin forgiveness. It highlights the direct causal link as perceived by Peter. -
“Repent, and let each one of you get baptized in the name of Jesus Christ with a view to the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
This option uses “get baptized” to reflect the middle voice implications of βαπτισθήτω, suggesting active participation in being baptized. “With a view to” offers a slightly broader interpretation of εἰς, encompassing purpose and intended outcome without strictly implying necessity. -
“Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ resulting in the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
This translation leans towards a resultant understanding of εἰς, indicating that forgiveness is the outcome that naturally follows the acts of repentance and baptism. It emphasizes the consequence rather than solely the intention.
“`
Take it away Walter Polasik A very Pentecostal verse here
Troy Day, all: First of all, Acts 2:38 is not stated in classic “if, then” terms like, say, 2 Tim. 2:11-13 which speak of our trusting in Christ (continually) as a condition for salvation. (Same as Romans 11:23; Hebrews 3:6,14). In Acts 2:38 the reception of the Holy Spirit follows the believing. 1.) We should note, right off the bat (for our UPCI friends) that water baptism, while mentioned here as a following action of belief, is not NECESSARY for reception of the Spirit as ably demonstrated by Acts 9:17 and 10:44-48 (11:15-18). 2.) In apology to some AG, other Pentecostal friends it must be pointed out that the reception of “the gift of the Holy Ghost” included much more than empowerment and tongues-speaking as evidence. Reception of the Spirit here spoke about the work of the New Covenant. (Matt. 3:11; Mk. 1:8; Lk. 3:16; Jn. 1:33). This verse also tears apart Calvinist concept of the Spirit’s work in regeneration. Calvinists believe that in order to repent and turn to Christ a person (already marked as the “elect”) already has the Spirit inside. In other words, they are already said to have been regenerated because the Spirit then leads them to repent. They are ALREADY thought to have received the Spirit Who then makes them repent. Does this sound like the order presented in Acts 2:38?
How should we understand the future λήμψεσθε, combined with the aorist imperatives?
And finally, this passage dispels the myth that in order to have the work of the Holy Spirit in your life, with the empowerment and gifting (what is traditionally regarded as the Baptism in the Spirit) a believer has to fulfill a series of requirements moving towards holiness in order to receive. This, again, is a holdover from Nazarene and Holiness traditions which made reception of the Baptism requisite on an almost legalistic basis. But as Peter plainly says, the Holy Ghost is a GIFT, therefore not in any way earned. He comes upon SOVEREIGNLY, as He wills. This is why REVIVALISM doesn’t work because it works on the same principles: “If you do X and Y, then Z will happen. But ‘z’ is something that God gives out of love and as the gift to the redeemed (which, again, ought to be deemed holy enough because of POSITIONAL standing, not expected to legalistically “produce” their holiness). So the “steps to Spirit-baptism” and “steps to revival” model fails. Just look at Acts 4:31; 8:19; 10:44.
Troy Day: Concerning the Greek, I will readily confess ignorance as far as the ability to read the language. I have some knowledge of what some of the tenses imply and, because I speak two other languages (Polish, French) know something of how such grammar works. I could check in to helps on that and even ask a good friend, Frank Luke, (an AG pastor in Iowa and knowledgeable in the Greek). I don’t claim creds where I don’t have them. 😉
Maybe someday I’ll fill that void in my biblical understanding.
heard that before
Take it away Walter Polasik A very Pentecostal verse here
Troy Day, all: First of all, Acts 2:38 is not stated in classic “if, then” terms like, say, 2 Tim. 2:11-13 which speak of our trusting in Christ (continually) as a condition for salvation. (Same as Romans 11:23; Hebrews 3:6,14). In Acts 2:38 the reception of the Holy Spirit follows the believing. 1.) We should note, right off the bat (for our UPCI friends) that water baptism, while mentioned here as a following action of belief, is not NECESSARY for reception of the Spirit as ably demonstrated by Acts 9:17 and 10:44-48 (11:15-18). 2.) In apology to some AG, other Pentecostal friends it must be pointed out that the reception of “the gift of the Holy Ghost” included much more than empowerment and tongues-speaking as evidence. Reception of the Spirit here spoke about the work of the New Covenant. (Matt. 3:11; Mk. 1:8; Lk. 3:16; Jn. 1:33). This verse also tears apart Calvinist concept of the Spirit’s work in regeneration. Calvinists believe that in order to repent and turn to Christ a person (already marked as the “elect”) already has the Spirit inside. In other words, they are already said to have been regenerated because the Spirit then leads them to repent. They are ALREADY thought to have received the Spirit Who then makes them repent. Does this sound like the order presented in Acts 2:38?
How should we understand the future λήμψεσθε, combined with the aorist imperatives?
And finally, this passage dispels the myth that in order to have the work of the Holy Spirit in your life, with the empowerment and gifting (what is traditionally regarded as the Baptism in the Spirit) a believer has to fulfill a series of requirements moving towards holiness in order to receive. This, again, is a holdover from Nazarene and Holiness traditions which made reception of the Baptism requisite on an almost legalistic basis. But as Peter plainly says, the Holy Ghost is a GIFT, therefore not in any way earned. He comes upon SOVEREIGNLY, as He wills. This is why REVIVALISM doesn’t work because it works on the same principles: “If you do X and Y, then Z will happen. But ‘z’ is something that God gives out of love and as the gift to the redeemed (which, again, ought to be deemed holy enough because of POSITIONAL standing, not expected to legalistically “produce” their holiness). So the “steps to Spirit-baptism” and “steps to revival” model fails. Just look at Acts 4:31; 8:19; 10:44.
Troy Day: Concerning the Greek, I will readily confess ignorance as far as the ability to read the language. I have some knowledge of what some of the tenses imply and, because I speak two other languages (Polish, French) know something of how such grammar works. I could check in to helps on that and even ask a good friend, Frank Luke, (an AG pastor in Iowa and knowledgeable in the Greek). I don’t claim creds where I don’t have them. ?
Maybe someday I’ll fill that void in my biblical understanding.
heard that before
David Chambers Grover Katzmarek Sr Acts 2:38 teaches sin remission through repentance and baptism, or just repentance? I’m assuming faith is involved in either case.
Should then the clause, “eis aphesin ton hamartion hymon” be held as parenthetical because it makes a distinction between singular and plural verbs and nouns (example:
The verb for “repent” is plural and so is the pronoun “your”)?
Therefore the verb repent goes with the noun yours.
On the other hand, the imperative “be baptized” is singular, thus sets off the rest of the sentence?
The jews asked what shall ww do
Peter replied repent and be baptized for the forgivness of sins and you and your houshold should be saved
Acts 2:38. Because of the use of UMWN to modify hAMARTIWN, I wonder if it would not be proper to view the verse like this: “All of you repent–and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ–for the remission of your sins…” I find this to be consistent with Mark 1:4–…BAPTISMA METANOIAS EIS AFESIN hAMARTIWN. (excuse my sometimes poor transliterations; I haven’t done much of that). The remission of sins is connected closely with the repentance.
Ok troy day
How can a command be directed toward something being done tooneself. I am speaking of “be baptized”. If it is in the imperativemood, this suggest that something is to be done yet if it is a passiveverb it suggest that something is done to the subject. It seems contraryhow can a subject both do and have done to themself the same thing? Imean how can a person follow the command to be baptized passively? Isimply do not understand an imperative passive verb.
Act 17 arise and be baptized washing away your sins calling on the name of the lord
Did you mean Acts 22:16?
I get messed up were sometimes im a avangilist so i carve many verses on my heart
Bbl im cooking dinner for the wife brother
The relevant words are BAPTISQHTW hEKASTOS hUMWNOne of the notions I’ve attempted to inject into the discussion of the QH”passive” forms is that (even for active verbs such as BAPTIZW) we shouldunderstand those -QH- aorists and futures as MIDDLE-PASSIVE rather thanjust passive. The above 3rd-person imperative could be conveyed simply as”each of you should be baptized” and you could call it truly passive, butif you understand it as “each of you should get baptized” you really dohave a verb suggesting that, although the ritual of baptism may beperformed by another, it is the will and determination of the personundergoing baptism that is at least as important as the ritual performed bythe agent. The MIDDLE force of these -QH- forms finds pretty satisfactoryexpression in the English of our period by using “get” as an auxiliary andthe English passive participle as the complement of a periphrasticconstruction.
Brother thats way to complicated for me i keep it simple
David Chambers Grover Katzmarek Sr Acts 2:38 teaches sin remission through repentance and baptism, or just repentance? I’m assuming faith is involved in either case.
Should then the clause, “eis aphesin ton hamartion hymon” be held as parenthetical because it makes a distinction between singular and plural verbs and nouns (example:
The verb for “repent” is plural and so is the pronoun “your”)?
Therefore the verb repent goes with the noun yours.
On the other hand, the imperative “be baptized” is singular, thus sets off the rest of the sentence?
The jews asked what shall ww do
Peter replied repent and be baptized for the forgivness of sins and you and your houshold should be saved
Acts 2:38. Because of the use of UMWN to modify hAMARTIWN, I wonder if it would not be proper to view the verse like this: “All of you repent–and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ–for the remission of your sins…” I find this to be consistent with Mark 1:4–…BAPTISMA METANOIAS EIS AFESIN hAMARTIWN. (excuse my sometimes poor transliterations; I haven’t done much of that). The remission of sins is connected closely with the repentance.
Ok troy day
How can a command be directed toward something being done tooneself. I am speaking of “be baptized”. If it is in the imperativemood, this suggest that something is to be done yet if it is a passiveverb it suggest that something is done to the subject. It seems contraryhow can a subject both do and have done to themself the same thing? Imean how can a person follow the command to be baptized passively? Isimply do not understand an imperative passive verb.
Act 17 arise and be baptized washing away your sins calling on the name of the lord
Did you mean Acts 22:16?
I get messed up were sometimes im a avangilist so i carve many verses on my heart
Bbl im cooking dinner for the wife brother
The relevant words are BAPTISQHTW hEKASTOS hUMWNOne of the notions I’ve attempted to inject into the discussion of the QH”passive” forms is that (even for active verbs such as BAPTIZW) we shouldunderstand those -QH- aorists and futures as MIDDLE-PASSIVE rather thanjust passive. The above 3rd-person imperative could be conveyed simply as”each of you should be baptized” and you could call it truly passive, butif you understand it as “each of you should get baptized” you really dohave a verb suggesting that, although the ritual of baptism may beperformed by another, it is the will and determination of the personundergoing baptism that is at least as important as the ritual performed bythe agent. The MIDDLE force of these -QH- forms finds pretty satisfactoryexpression in the English of our period by using “get” as an auxiliary andthe English passive participle as the complement of a periphrasticconstruction.
Brother thats way to complicated for me i keep it simple
I completely understand Scott Phillips Should we follow the oneness position blindly OR should we read Acts 2:38 in the original Greek so we can understand what it actually says? I think the answer is clear. One @Levi Allen Goff tried to make that same argument few years back to NO avail https://www.facebook.com/groups/pentecostaltheologygroup/permalink/899625403425809/
So the reading of scripture and obeying it is relegated to a particular sect?
When one uses greek to simply deconstruct, obfuscate to plant doubt in scripture is a sad state of affairs.
There are many scriptures that connect baptism to the forgiveness of Sins and specifically being critical. Specifically in Jesus Name.
If everyone recorded in Acts were Baptized following the Acts 2:38 pattern, why not just believe and obey the pattern rather than reject it because it is contrary to the tradition of Catholicism.
simple answer,
Is Acts 2:38 true? Yes. Yes. Yes. Believe it, Obey it, Experience it.
If you don’t believe it to be true, that is the problem. To further disseminate that to hungry souls, This does not make great company.
I completely understand Scott Phillips Should we follow the oneness position blindly OR should we read Acts 2:38 in the original Greek so we can understand what it actually says? I think the answer is clear. One @Levi Allen Goff tried to make that same argument few years back to NO avail https://www.facebook.com/groups/pentecostaltheologygroup/permalink/899625403425809/
So the reading of scripture and obeying it is relegated to a particular sect?
When one uses greek to simply deconstruct, obfuscate to plant doubt in scripture is a sad state of affairs.
There are many scriptures that connect baptism to the forgiveness of Sins and specifically being critical. Specifically in Jesus Name.
If everyone recorded in Acts were Baptized following the Acts 2:38 pattern, why not just believe and obey the pattern rather than reject it because it is contrary to the tradition of Catholicism.
simple answer,
Is Acts 2:38 true? Yes. Yes. Yes. Believe it, Obey it, Experience it.
If you don’t believe it to be true, that is the problem. To further disseminate that to hungry souls, This does not make great company.
Scott Phillips what does Act 2:38 say in your opinion ?
“38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”
Conviction gripped their heart concerning Jesus being both Jehovah and Messiah, they asked, “What shall we do?”
Peter answered their question.
Repent. – What does that mean?
Every one of you be immersed in water in the name of Jesus Christ
There is a promise and benefit to doing those two things, forgiveness of sin.
And you will receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost.
This promise is to you, your kids and beyond.
If you will repent, be baptized in Jesus Name,
You will receive the Gift of the HOly Ghost and the forgiveness of your sins.
It’s really not complicated, except that it is contrary to the tradition of denominations the world over.
Scott Phillips I have to agree with Paul Hughes on this one Baptismal regeneration is distinctly non-Pentecostal, We are saved by faith alone.
We are not saved by taking sacraments, either. The Greek of the verse proves that “Repent and be baptized” actually implies that the person who repents will go on and demonstrate that repentance by going through the demonstration of cleansing which is water baptism.
Saved by faith alone is not a biblical doctrine.
To use this to discount directly stated scripture truth.
Through tradition dismissing the word of God.
I believe you are in error Scott Phillips and hence your erroneous interpretation of Acts 2:38
We are saved by faith,
Yes.
Alone?
No
That’s pelagianism bro Scott ref Joseph D. Absher This may be one thing where classic Pentecostals and oneness folk differ Joseph Kidwell Shall we look at the actual Greek of the verse?
Saved by Faith Alone … the only scripture you will find those two words together, Faith alone, speaks against this heresy.
OF course, it’s easier to keep tradition than to break with it.
Jesus did not teach Faith Alone.
Neither did Paul.
Nor Peter.
Faith Alone is a twisting with a familiar origin. Genesis 3. God’s Word don’t really mean what it says. God will not really judge you for your deeds.
Batting Labels around rather than dealing with the plainly stated truth is the nature of Tradition that seeks to dismiss the Word of God.
Nothing to see here, move right along.
So the answer to your question,
Acts 2:38 don’t mean what it says because of a doctrine born out of Martin Luther.
The Bible does say we are saved by faith…. it does not say ALONE.
It’s safe to say no one person represents a denomination or even a doctrine. But an idea might be a different story. The idea that faith in Jesus Christ is the only thing that can save is is a well trodden path albeit narrow. Obedience to God and good works can only come from a pure heart. That is definitely post surrender to Christ!
Surrender to Christ ! Daily. Regularly. In Faith.
Proof of that surrender? Obedience to the Word of God.
Proof of not surrendered? Disobedience to the Word of God.
Daily, Regularly in doubt and disobedience.
Faith EVERYTHING is how we are saved.
In everything in Faith.
The sentiment communicated in Faith Alone is not a Biblical principle.
You did well what hindered you? Why make such wonderful statements and throw in, “faith alone is not biblical.” Was Paul saved on the road to Damascus? Yes. Did the house of Cornelius get wonderfully saved and filled with the Holy Spirit. Yes.
I haven’t been a part of this conversation because I don’t know enough about it. For example the modulist and oneness views could be different. I have seen some gross abuses of scripture. But that’s true of any denomination. For example a belief that people are not saved unless they speak in tongues. I have some Christian friends that love the Lord Jesus Christ and they are “Apostolic” so while I’m trying read these comments and consider these things I’m not willing to dismiss my brethren so easily.
I think it is up the the poster to prove the cult accusation.
Most definetely pelagian
Going from Jesus only vs Jesus+
We believe in faith alone
You may believe in Faith alone, but your faith is not a Biblically supported belief.
Jesus did not teach faith alone. Read his parables. Study his teaching.
Peter and Paul as all Epistles teach a neccessity for many things in addition to faith.
To dismiss this is to dismiss how much of scripture?
In favor of a mantra from Luther?
Really sad that “Pentecostals” claim such things.
“He that heareth and doeth….”
Ephesians 2:9 not by works, so that no one can boast ~Paul
You did well what hindered you? Why make such wonderful statements and throw in, “faith alone is not biblical.” Was Paul saved on the road to Damascus? Yes. Did the house of Cornelius get wonderfully saved and filled with the Holy Spirit. Yes.
I haven’t been a part of this conversation because I don’t know enough about it. For example the modulist and oneness views could be different. I have seen some gross abuses of scripture. But that’s true of any denomination. For example a belief that people are not saved unless they speak in tongues. I have some Christian friends that love the Lord Jesus Christ and they are “Apostolic” so while I’m trying read these comments and consider these things I’m not willing to dismiss my brethren so easily.
Scott Phillips what does Act 2:38 say in your opinion ?
“38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”
Conviction gripped their heart concerning Jesus being both Jehovah and Messiah, they asked, “What shall we do?”
Peter answered their question.
Repent. – What does that mean?
Every one of you be immersed in water in the name of Jesus Christ
There is a promise and benefit to doing those two things, forgiveness of sin.
And you will receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost.
This promise is to you, your kids and beyond.
If you will repent, be baptized in Jesus Name,
You will receive the Gift of the HOly Ghost and the forgiveness of your sins.
It’s really not complicated, except that it is contrary to the tradition of denominations the world over.
Scott Phillips I have to agree with Paul Hughes on this one Baptismal regeneration is distinctly non-Pentecostal, We are saved by faith alone.
We are not saved by taking sacraments, either. The Greek of the verse proves that “Repent and be baptized” actually implies that the person who repents will go on and demonstrate that repentance by going through the demonstration of cleansing which is water baptism.
Saved by faith alone is not a biblical doctrine.
To use this to discount directly stated scripture truth.
Through tradition dismissing the word of God.
I believe you are in error Scott Phillips and hence your erroneous interpretation of Acts 2:38
We are saved by faith,
Yes.
Alone?
No
That’s pelagianism bro Scott ref Joseph D. Absher This may be one thing where classic Pentecostals and oneness folk differ Joseph Kidwell Shall we look at the actual Greek of the verse?
Saved by Faith Alone … the only scripture you will find those two words together, Faith alone, speaks against this heresy.
OF course, it’s easier to keep tradition than to break with it.
Jesus did not teach Faith Alone.
Neither did Paul.
Nor Peter.
Faith Alone is a twisting with a familiar origin. Genesis 3. God’s Word don’t really mean what it says. God will not really judge you for your deeds.
Batting Labels around rather than dealing with the plainly stated truth is the nature of Tradition that seeks to dismiss the Word of God.
Nothing to see here, move right along.
So the answer to your question,
Acts 2:38 don’t mean what it says because of a doctrine born out of Martin Luther.
The Bible does say we are saved by faith…. it does not say ALONE.
It’s safe to say no one person represents a denomination or even a doctrine. But an idea might be a different story. The idea that faith in Jesus Christ is the only thing that can save is is a well trodden path albeit narrow. Obedience to God and good works can only come from a pure heart. That is definitely post surrender to Christ!
Surrender to Christ ! Daily. Regularly. In Faith.
Proof of that surrender? Obedience to the Word of God.
Proof of not surrendered? Disobedience to the Word of God.
Daily, Regularly in doubt and disobedience.
Faith EVERYTHING is how we are saved.
In everything in Faith.
The sentiment communicated in Faith Alone is not a Biblical principle.
You did well what hindered you? Why make such wonderful statements and throw in, “faith alone is not biblical.” Was Paul saved on the road to Damascus? Yes. Did the house of Cornelius get wonderfully saved and filled with the Holy Spirit. Yes.
I haven’t been a part of this conversation because I don’t know enough about it. For example the modulist and oneness views could be different. I have seen some gross abuses of scripture. But that’s true of any denomination. For example a belief that people are not saved unless they speak in tongues. I have some Christian friends that love the Lord Jesus Christ and they are “Apostolic” so while I’m trying read these comments and consider these things I’m not willing to dismiss my brethren so easily.
I think it is up the the poster to prove the cult accusation.
Most definetely pelagian
Going from Jesus only vs Jesus+
We believe in faith alone
You may believe in Faith alone, but your faith is not a Biblically supported belief.
Jesus did not teach faith alone. Read his parables. Study his teaching.
Peter and Paul as all Epistles teach a neccessity for many things in addition to faith.
To dismiss this is to dismiss how much of scripture?
In favor of a mantra from Luther?
Really sad that “Pentecostals” claim such things.
“He that heareth and doeth….”
Ephesians 2:9 not by works, so that no one can boast ~Paul
You did well what hindered you? Why make such wonderful statements and throw in, “faith alone is not biblical.” Was Paul saved on the road to Damascus? Yes. Did the house of Cornelius get wonderfully saved and filled with the Holy Spirit. Yes.
I haven’t been a part of this conversation because I don’t know enough about it. For example the modulist and oneness views could be different. I have seen some gross abuses of scripture. But that’s true of any denomination. For example a belief that people are not saved unless they speak in tongues. I have some Christian friends that love the Lord Jesus Christ and they are “Apostolic” so while I’m trying read these comments and consider these things I’m not willing to dismiss my brethren so easily.
Jevan Little what is your take on the translation ?
Jevan Little what is your take on the translation ?
These believed and received the Holy Spirit with speaking in tongues — BEFORE they were baptized! No one who is not “saved” receives Spirit Baptism.
Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. 44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.
These believed and received the Holy Spirit with speaking in tongues — BEFORE they were baptized! No one who is not “saved” receives Spirit Baptism.
Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. 44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.
Troy Day, I believe that we are saved when we repent of our sins. According to Rom. 5:1, we are justified by faith. I baptize in Jesus name according to Acts 2:38, but water baptism is an outward testimony of what God has already done on the inside of the believer and is not salvific. The infilling of the Holy Ghost is for those who are already children of God according to Lk. 11:13. It is a mistake and doctrinal error to confuse regeneration which happens when one repents, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost. The infilling of the Holy Ghost is subsequent to the new birth.. With the exception of the baptism formula, I believe that I hold you’re position.
Joseph Kidwell I am only interested in the actual Greek of the Bible As far as I can read it it is clear: repent to be saved and be baptized in water
That is what it says, Troy. I read the Bible and I am assured that your assumption is the correct one.
I don’t read Greek, Troy Day. However, that’s what it’s saying in English!
Some interpret it that one needs to repent and be baptized to be saved. The Greek does not say that
Troy Day I accept that. Even when you compare scripture with scripture in the NT, it’s obvious that that scripture is not teaching baptismal regeneration.
Troy Day, I believe that we are saved when we repent of our sins. According to Rom. 5:1, we are justified by faith. I baptize in Jesus name according to Acts 2:38, but water baptism is an outward testimony of what God has already done on the inside of the believer and is not salvific. The infilling of the Holy Ghost is for those who are already children of God according to Lk. 11:13. It is a mistake and doctrinal error to confuse regeneration which happens when one repents, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost. The infilling of the Holy Ghost is subsequent to the new birth.. With the exception of the baptism formula, I believe that I hold you’re position.
Joseph Kidwell I am only interested in the actual Greek of the Bible As far as I can read it it is clear: repent to be saved and be baptized in water
That is what it says, Troy. I read the Bible and I am assured that your assumption is the correct one.
I don’t read Greek, Troy Day. However, that’s what it’s saying in English!
Some interpret it that one needs to repent and be baptized to be saved. The Greek does not say that
Troy Day I accept that. Even when you compare scripture with scripture in the NT, it’s obvious that that scripture is not teaching baptismal regeneration.
Alden Lopez Salguero Jared Cheshire I have to agree with Link Hudson on this one I JUST dont see the baptism as a salvific requirement It just doesnt read that way in the Greek
1 Tim 1:20
What about it Jared Cheshire
If baptsim isn’t a salvific requirement, why does Peter call it the baptisim that saves?
I think Link Hudson already answered that
Troy Day I didn’t see his comment. I have been busy today with the family. From what I see in the Greek, and your comment, I doubt I agree. I will look latter.
Please do because if you dont agree with the greek of the Bible it may be impossible to determine true interpretation Link Hudson already tried with no success
I agree with the Greek. I just don’t know how he is interpreting it. Eating dinner. Get back to you before bed.
dinner or supper? whats on the menu? coming over
Troy Day my Barbacoa is on the way. ?
not kosher? Tom Steele 🙂
Troy Day barbacoa is beef. Carnitas is pork
what the Lord has cleaned… Tom Steele
Troy Day I’m not going to sit here and repeat the context of that statement for the millionth time.
you do that while I thank Jesus and eat my food 🙂
Troy Day I do not disagree with the Greek pof the Bible. I just do not read every link to walls of fine print text and web pages with no relevant content you post.
Troy Day I apologize I have taken so long. It has been a very tiring but rewarding day. I am off to bed for about 10 hours of coma, so that I can function tomorrow evening. I haven’t had time to go though all the post or the link, but here is a likely translation for 1Pete 1:21 (I was off a verse in my exhausted state) It is, I feel, a expounding by Peter on why it is important to baptize.
Jared Cheshire which version is v21 quoted from? Link Hudson just read the quote to see why you need the Greek
Your statement – I am not gonna sit and read 🙂
is the start of ignorance
I am pretty sure you sat and read everything about economix to earn your degree So you are gonna have to sit and read the Greek if you want to understand the Bible – that simple
Troy Day I have got to support a family, too. I cannot read every tag and probably read too many. One article about which variant on tongues you posted did not seem to have much to do with the overall meaning of the passage– but you had to wade through a lot to see that.
You learned some Greek. That’s great. There is plenty saints can learn from reading translations, and reading the narrative, prophecies with the help of the Holy Spirit. You are in a denomination with roots in another denomination where a lot of the preachers do not know Greek or got just enough to make it sound like they knew something. If you tell preachers they cannot know the Bible unless they know Greek in your own denomination, you might discourage some of them. I also think you should examine your heart as to whether these types of comments are meant to exalt yourself in others peoples eyes.
Also if these posts are designed to get pisters to learn Greek, it isvprobably not the best method peagalogically.
Troy Day, I use a multitude. Byzantine, Alexandria, textus receptis, etc. When their seems to be a conflict, I don’t just go with what is convienent. I dig! Sometimes the conflict is only the tense, but that matters as much as the words. The above wasn’t a quote, but an interpretation of what the texts seemed most likey to be saying. Too many are concerned with a literal translation, but anyone who has interpreted for a speaker knows that with idiom and colloquialism, that a direct translation leaves understanding Lost in Translation.
1 Pete 3:21 for clarification. I apologize for my mistake.
I do not recall stating a belief one way or another on that topic in this forum.
WHO then wrote this if not you Link Hudson? https://www.facebook.com/groups/pentecostaltheologygroup/permalink/1893207217400951/?comment_id=1894233793964960&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R0%22%7D
I think you are going beyond what I wrote.
But you wrote it right? Just wanna make sure
If someone wants to get saved, I encourage them to repent, believe, and be baptized. I do not tell people they are damned if they are not baptized. If I preach an evangelistic sermon, I encourage people to be baptized. If I were to set up some kind of crusade myself in the future… if the Lord took me down that path.. I would strongly consider having some sort of facilities there for baptism in water.
I believe we should follow apostolic example, especially when there is so much doctrinal teaching on the matter in the Bible as there is with water baptism.
How was this different than what I sent just above?