Was Cornelius Saved Before Baptism

I have written a series of articles on the subject of obeying the gospel in the first century based on the history given in the book of Acts. This is another dealing with the same subject. Why do so? Because there is absolutely no possibility that Holy Spirit inspired men, some apostles, could have gotten the gospel message wrong.

The case of Cornelius is somewhat unique in the respect that he appears to have been a very godly man even prior to his conversion. In Acts 10:2, the Bible says of him that he was "a devout man, and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people, and prayed to God continually." (NAS) Of course, there were others like him in that regard – Saul of Tarsus and the Ethiopian eunuch come to mind. A man may be devout and yet ill-informed, in religious error.

As for Cornelius, if there was ever a man so good as to be saved on his own merits we suppose Cornelius would have been that man. And yet God's angel instructs him to send for Peter. Why? Might it not be that even a good man like Cornelius needed the gospel? If a man can be saved without the gospel why bother to preach it to him, why did Jesus die on the cross, why the great commission? You can read 2 Thess. 1:8-9 to see what will happen to those who do not obey the gospel. It is a serious matter to not obey the gospel. Cornelius needed the gospel. He was a man in need of salvation from his sins for no man is so perfect as to have never sinned.

Peter, in reporting what had happened at Cornelius' house, once he arrives back in Jerusalem, throws more light on why Cornelius, by the angel's direction, had been instructed to send for him. The angel had told Cornelius that "he (a reference to Peter - DS) shall speak words to you by which you will be saved." (Acts 11:14 NAS) So, there were words Cornelius needed to hear to be saved? What were those words?  

Were they not the same words Peter had preached on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2? Were they not the same words spoken by Philip in Samaria and before the Ethiopian eunuch? Were they not the same words spoken to Saul by Ananias? Is there more than one gospel that will save? Is it this gospel in one place, another gospel in another location? The gospel is the gospel. It does not differ day by day, from city to city, or from person to person.

It has already been shown in previous articles, as taken in chronological order, that in every instance the preaching by the apostles and inspired men of the first century immediately led to baptism by those who accepted the preaching. Baptism was a part of the message. Is it any different this time with Cornelius? No!

Hear Peter, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized" (Acts 10:47 NAS) then "he ordered them to be baptized." (Acts 10:48 NAS) What is another word for "ordered?" If you check other translations you will see the word "commanded" rather than "ordered." But why command baptism?

The answer is because you cannot obey the gospel and thus cannot be saved, not in the first century and not now, without being baptized "for the remission of sins." (Acts 2:38 NAS) What Peter preached in one locality he preached everywhere. Was Peter an apostle? Did he know what he was talking about? How about Philip? How about Ananias? Remember that Cornelius was to be saved by the words Peter would speak to him (Acts 11:14) and that word ended with the command to be baptized.

Cornelius and his companions had the Holy Spirit descend upon them prior to their baptism leading many to think they were saved at that point. Not so. Why not? 

Because Cornelius was to be saved by the message he received from Peter (Acts 11:14) and not by a miraculous manifestation from heaven. Peter had not gotten a good start on delivering that message when the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius for he says in Acts 11:15 "as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them." (NAS) It was necessary for Peter to complete that message which included baptism.

But let us look at it from another point of view. What if Cornelius had told Peter, "No thanks, I have been saved by faith and grace. I believe in Jesus. I think I will just pass on baptism." Would he have been saved? Many preach today that he would have been for the gospel they preach has no water in it unlike Peter's gospel. 

He would not have been saved by grace and faith for the simple reason that he would have lacked faith in the message Peter preached. He would not have believed the Holy Spirit by which Peter spoke for Peter by the Holy Spirit commanded baptism. It would have been as if he said, “I know you were to speak words by which I might be saved but I do not believe this word.”

I would also remind the reader of what he already knows if he will think about it. The fact the Holy Spirit is upon one does not mean he is God-approved as he is in his present state. If so Caiaphas, the high priest and one of the ringleaders in bringing about the crucifixion of Jesus, was a saved man. Read about his prophesying in John 11:49-51. Add to that the fact that even inspired men could and did sin, even Peter. (Gal. 2:11-12)  

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

 

Why Men Today Cannot Be Saved Like The Thief On The Cross

I once had an individual ask the question that if baptism is essential for the forgiveness of sins, Acts 2:38, then why did Jesus not tell the rich young ruler who came to him inquiring, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (Luke 18:18 NKJV) My inquirer asked the wrong question. Why? Because when Jesus was talking to the rich young ruler he was not talking to you and me. He was speaking directly to a specific individual at a specific time in history.

The only lessons in the account of the rich young ruler that could be made applicable to us today are (1) a man may be very religious but lost and (2) the danger of having a hidden idol in one's heart and putting that ahead of God.

Your salvation and mine do not depend on what Jesus did or did not tell a man living under the Law of Moses sometime before Jesus’ death on the cross. Our salvation depends on what Jesus says directly to you and me today under his law, the law of Christ, which began to be preached among men beginning on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. We live under God’s new covenant, not his old.

Jesus, in speaking to his disciples after the resurrection, said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high." (Luke 24:46-49 ESV)

Luke tells us they were ordered to not depart from Jerusalem, "He ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, 'you heard from me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.'" (Act 1:4-5 ESV)

In Acts 2 we see the arrival of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-4) clothing the apostles with power from on high. Peter's sermon that day and in that chapter fulfilled Jesus' earlier proclamation found in Luke 24 "that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem." (Luke 24:46-47 ESV)

This gives us a beginning point of both the time and place of the gospel message God has for us today. Those desiring to be saved the way the thief on the cross was saved (by faith without baptism) go back too far, past Jerusalem, past the beginning, back to the Law of Moses, and in doing so end up with another gospel if their goal is to be saved that way today. The only way to have the Jerusalem gospel is to preach what Peter did that day beginning in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost. Since hardly anyone is willing to do that today their gospel is another gospel.

A person who seeks to be saved in a way some individual may have been saved while Christ lived and walked upon the earth is rejecting the Jerusalem gospel--"repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem." That individual's gospel does not originate in Jerusalem and is thus not the gospel of Christ.

A big part of the problem that causes people to misunderstand God's plan of salvation for man is a failure to discern what we call the dispensations. There are 3 as follows: (1) the Patriarchal, (2) the Mosaical, and (3) the Christian. I will deal with the last two as they are relevant to this discussion.

Jesus lived and died under the Mosaical law. Jesus was in the fullness of time "born of a woman, born under the Law." (Gal. 4:4 NAS) When we say Jesus lived a sinless life what law did he keep perfectly? The Law of Moses. In what was the second to last utterance Jesus made on the cross he said, "It is finished!" (John 19:30 NAS) What was finished? What was finished was the fulfillment of the law and the Prophets (which included, of course, his sacrifice on the cross as prophesied, his mission on earth to make himself a sacrifice for the sins of man).

Hear Jesus in Matt. 5:17-18, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." (ESV) When Jesus drew his last breath on the cross the Law and the Prophets were fulfilled, either that or Jesus failed in his mission “to fulfill them.”

The law of Christ became binding on men as the old law was fulfilled and passed away. The old Law of Moses was nailed to the cross. (Col. 2:14) The Christian dispensation of time when men came to live under the law of Christ began when Jesus died. "For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives." (Heb 9:16-17 NKJV)

Jesus "has become a surety of a better covenant." (Heb. 7:22 NKJV) "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one (the Law of Moses--DS) obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." (Heb 8:13 NKJV) "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law." (Heb 7:12 NKJV)

Many take the thief on the cross as an example for all men regarding salvation (Luke 23:39-43) and say look at him. All he needed was faith. Was Jesus talking to you (or me) or was he talking to the thief on the cross beside him that day approximately 2,000 years ago? Did the thief live under the Christian dispensation or the Mosaical? Had the gospel that was to be preached beginning at Jerusalem yet been preached? Will you disregard the Jerusalem gospel? You will have to if you attempt to be saved as the thief on the cross was.

If Jesus forgave sins in the gospel accounts before his death in a way different from that which sins are forgiven today what has that to do with me? I live under the New Covenant.  So do you.

Speaking to the apostles Jesus said, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." (John 14:26 NAS) Did Jesus lie? Did the Holy Spirit fail to do this with Peter on the day of Pentecost? If you ever wanted to know when Jesus taught baptism for the remission of sins then Acts 2:38 is one of your answers. Peter spoke by the Holy Spirit but the Spirit spoke the words of Jesus.

Speaking to the apostles before his death Jesus said, "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He shall glorify Me; for He shall take of Mine, and shall disclose it to you." (John 16:12-14 NAS)

Today we have the completed revelation that Jesus has made to man. The law Jesus has for you and me has now been fully revealed to us. For us today to go back and say it was not always done this way is foolishness. What is that supposed to prove even if it is true which, by the way, I do not deny? What if the thief on the cross did not have to do what you or I do for salvation? What does that have to do with either you or me?

If we expect to be saved like the thief on the cross that is about the equivalent of giving Jesus a slap across the face. It is saying I don't care about your new covenant. You save me like you saved him. Instead of you obeying Jesus you would have him taking orders from you and obeying you. It does not work that way.

We are bound to live under and obey whatever law is in effect while we live, not when someone else lived. Our job is not to question God but to do as he has told us. No matter what someone else has done or not done in years gone by for salvation you have the gospel of Christ now, the new covenant, the law of Christ. You are bound to it, to believe and obey it, as am I.

I add a footnote here in closing for clarification. The thief on the cross was not saved because he lived under the Law of Moses or kept it in any fashion. He was saved because the Lord extended him grace. In our day the Lord’s grace is extended to us in the gospel. To reject the gospel is to reject God’s grace.  

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

 

Preaching Jesus Means Preaching Baptism

The text for this article is taken from Acts 8:26-39, the account of the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch.  He seems to have been a proselyte to the Jewish religion for he had been to Jerusalem to worship when Philip, at the behest of the Holy Spirit, met him on his trip back to his homeland on the road to Gaza and proclaimed Jesus to him.

"And Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture (Isa. 53:7-8– DS) he preached Jesus to him.  And as they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, ‘Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?’" (Acts 8:35-36 NAS)

This shows us that when Jesus was preached baptism was preached as a part of preaching Jesus to an alien sinner.  When the preaching was received (Acts 2:41) or believed (Acts 8:12) it resulted in people being baptized.  The case of the Ethiopian eunuch was no exception.

Why would the eunuch request baptism if Philip had not taught him it?  Furthermore, why would he request it unless he felt some urgency about it, unless he felt there was a need?

Philip taught the eunuch baptism because as Peter said on the Day of Pentecost baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).  Without the remission of one’s sins a person cannot be saved.  

When Philip preached in the city of Samaria the Bible says he preached "the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 8:12 NAS) with the result being that men and women "were being baptized" (Acts 8:12 NAS).  Here in Acts 8:35-36, he has an audience of only one man and in a different location but we still see him preaching with the same result - baptism.  This time it is just said that "he preached Jesus to him." 

In the book of Acts up to this chapter we have had two Holy Spirit inspired men preaching - first Peter and now Philip.  In each case, baptism was a part of what was preached.  They preached it because the Holy Spirit by which they spoke required it.  Either that or they just spoke whatever they wanted.  Which do you believe?

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

Catholicism’s Denial of The Holy Spirit’s Teaching

If the teaching of the Holy Spirit in the pages of the New Testament is truth then whatever denies that truth is false, is false teaching and error.  The thesis of this article is that the Roman Catholic Church has rejected the Holy Spirit’s teaching that there was an all-sufficiency of doctrine given in the first century sufficient to save the souls of humanity across all time to come.

I am sure the Catholic Church would deny this but how can they?  Reason says that if everything needed to save mankind's souls was given in the first century there is no reason or need for additional doctrines in the centuries following.  Yet the Catholic Church has piled new doctrine upon new doctrine seemingly without end down through the ages until our own time, and on and on it goes.

The Catholic Church has no set doctrine.  The best that can be said is that it is set for a time. But, time flies by and new doctrine is added.  What once was is history, is past, and the new replaces the old.  The old Catholic Church is revised with each newly added teaching and thus becomes the newest edition of the church.  In doing so it differs from the old and is therefore not the old.

One can go online and do a search and readily find when various doctrines came to be added to the Catholic Church.  Do not think for a moment that the Catholic Church of the 21st century is the same as the one in earlier centuries; it has been and continues to be a transforming institution compounding doctrines.  God does not change (Malachi 3:6), the Catholic Church does.  This continual addition of new teachings flies in the face of the teaching of scripture.

 

Jude says as clearly as language can make it that “the faith...was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 3 NKJV)  When?  Then!  Then in the first century.  Everything needed for salvation from the hand of God was delivered to mankind “then.”  The faith Jude speaks of is that body of doctrine given through Christ and his apostles and prophets in the first century, in Jude’s lifetime.  It was once for all delivered meaning it was complete then and there.  There was nothing to be added to it.  That means that the Catholic Church has nothing to offer to mankind today that is of value as far as salvation goes.  That was all provided for in the first century.  We also must remember Jude wrote by inspiration.  The book of Jude is the Holy Spirit’s writing.

But, Jude is not alone.  Peter says, “His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness.” (2 Peter 1:3 NKJV)  When?  Then!  If so what does Catholicism’s additional doctrines added down through the ages profit us?  Does “all things” mean all things?  Again, we have the Holy Spirit writing through human agency, through the inspired apostle Peter.  If “all” means all then we need no more than what was available in the first century and available to us in scripture.

James says in the first century the implanted word was able to save their souls (James 1:21), in that time.  Are we to believe it is not able to do so in our time?  What weakened it?  They had the implanted word available in James' time.  There was no need to wait for the development of Catholic doctrine.  James’ words were the Spirit’s words.

Paul speaking to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20 commended them “to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.” (Acts 20:32 NKJV)  When?  Then!  They did not need additional doctrines for salvation handed down centuries later.

Writing by inspiration Paul says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for … that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:16-17 NKJV)  He wrote that in the first century.  Paul said “scripture” made a man complete, not scripture plus church tradition.  Here again, you have the element of time.  You could become complete in the first century.  There was no need to wait for generations to come until you could get the full deposit of Catholic Church doctrine which is impossible anyway for there is no end to its additions.  

Paul told Timothy that “the Holy Scriptures...are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (2 Tim. 3:15 NKJV)  Not so if a man must believe any of the added Catholic doctrines down through the ages.  Paul said by inspiration “the Holy Scriptures,” not scripture plus tradition.

Were the people on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 saved when they obeyed Peter’s preaching?  Not if you must believe any of the added Catholic doctrines for salvation. You can say the same thing about all the others who believed and obeyed the gospel recorded in the book of Acts.

How is it that under Catholicism a man or woman can be saved at one time and yet at a later time another individual must believe additional doctrine to achieve the same end? If that is the case then does not that make multiple gospels versus just one?  I use the term gospel in the sense of the body of faith one must believe for salvation.

The Bible teaches there is “one faith” (Eph. 4:5), one body of truth to be believed. Which one is it in Roman Catholicism?  Is it the truth of 800 A.D., 1300 A.D., 1900 A.D., or 2025 A.D.?  Or, set your own dates.  You will readily see things have changed and who can believe we have seen the end of it?

The Bible teaches that the gospel of Christ is the power of God to salvation (Rom. 1:16), that was taught in the first century, but that was before Catholic tradition kicked in during the later centuries.  Did not Paul, the writer of that Roman passage, foresee that later Catholic tradition when translated into doctrine was essential?

In the book of Acts much is written about “the word” of God being preached, heard, believed, and obeyed.  Here is a question for all who have an open mind.  Did that word include any of the Marian dogmas Catholics teach today?  Even one word?  Did it include teaching on Peter being the rock the church was being built upon?  Did it include teaching on the rosary, indulgences, transubstantiation, and the list could go on and on?  An honest person knows the answer.

One might argue the book of Acts only records examples of initial gospel obedience, evangelizing.  I respond, Paul spent 3 years in Ephesus, as an example, did he never preach Christian doctrine during that entire time?  Several of the books he wrote were written to places he had evangelized – Corinth, Ephesus, Galatia, Colossae, Philippi, and Thessalonica.  Did Paul preach Catholic doctrine in those locations?  Be honest with yourself.

Paul, by inspiration, wrote Second Thessalonians in which he wrote of a future “falling away” (2 Thess. 2:3), other translations use the words “rebellion” or “apostasy.”  The Roman Catholic Church claims to be the one true church.  If so when is it going to fall away or has it already?  If it has or if it will can it be said it is the true church?  One must think long and hard about that.  If I as an individual fall away from a marriage, a team, a business, or an institution of any kind I was involved in then I am no longer a part of it. If the church becomes apostate it is no longer the church. It becomes something entirely different which is exactly where the Roman Catholic Church is today.  Do not claim to be what you once were if you are no longer what you once were.

I believe the Roman Catholic Church grew out of the original church of the New Testament.  That one church in its apostasy evolved into the Catholic Church.  Paul taught that the original church would fall away (2 Thess. 2:3).  If it is not what it once was then it is not the church of the New Testament, not any longer, not in its fallen state.

The Roman Catholic Church of today is no longer similar to the church one reads about on the pages of scripture; it is not that church.  As a result of its innovations, it is as much separate from true Christianity as Islam, Buddhism, or any other non-related religion.  The Catholic Church readily admits scripture is not enough for them.  They have their tradition and it trumps scripture when push comes to shove.  What was good enough for people in the first century is not good enough for them.  They will have more and more but one must always remember that whether having more of a thing is good or bad depends on what that thing is.  More of self-will and less of God’s will is not good.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

  

Cornelius' Conversion and Holy Spirit Baptism

The idea is in vogue in some quarters that Cornelius was saved when the Holy Spirit fell upon him (Acts 10:44) without any further action on his part.  One of the verses used to support this idea is 1 John 4:13, "By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit." (NKJV)  So, it is said, that settles it. 

Go take a look at that verse and read it in context.  Verse 12 just before it reads, "If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us." (NKJV)  Two verses down I read this, "Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God." (1 John 4:15 NKJV)  In a broader context, but still in the book of 1 John, it is said if we keep his word we abide in him and he in us. (1 John 2:5, 1 John 3:24)  Thus we have a series of items being listed by which we can measure whether or not we are in a faithful relationship with God.  John is writing to fellow Christians thus he uses the word “we.” 

In the passage, 1 John 4:13, John is not talking about initial obedience to God, gospel obedience.  It is speaking to those who are already Christians as are the other verses in context round about it. 

There can be no obedience to what is cast upon you, the Holy Spirit.  Cornelius and his household obeyed nothing when they miraculously received the Holy Spirit.  They were passive in that. 

Receiving the Holy Spirit is not equivalent to obeying the gospel.  If receiving the Holy Spirit is equivalent to obeying the gospel for salvation then there is nothing to obey.  Why say that?  Only Jesus could baptize one with the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit is a gift, a gift from God.  The individual is passive in the matter.  The giving of the gift is up to God, not to the individual.  Had Cornelius obeyed the gospel?  No! 

Paul said, concerning the matter of salvation in Rom. 6:17-18, "But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you ­obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness." (NKJV)  There is then something to obey, not something to just passively receive.  The gospel must be obeyed. 

The Bible says when Jesus returns he will be “taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (2 Thess. 1:8 NKJV)  So, we see again the gospel is something to be obeyed. 

What is the nature of that obedience?  The answer is to be found in the command of Peter to Cornelius and those gathered with him, "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." (Acts 10:48 NKJV)  

Let the reader note that obedience from the heart spoken of above (Rom. 6:17) necessarily implies faith or else how can it be from the heart, thus the obedience being spoken of is in addition to faith and it is something they must do for themselves--not God do for them or to them. 

I do not know of a case in the Bible where it is said or implied that the Holy Spirit was ever said to be given to a man for the purpose of saving him.  Do you?  Yes, a person has the Spirit if he is saved but is that the reason it was given to him--to save him?  That is what needs to be shown. 

There is an interesting passage in 1 Cor. 14:22 about the very thing Cornelius received.  It reads as follows:  "Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe." (1 Cor. 14:22 NKJV)  This has an application to the case of Cornelius.  Remember the evidence that Cornelius and those with him received the Holy Spirit was their speaking in tongues. 

Without convincing the Jews that God was willing and desirous of saving the Gentiles, as well as themselves, the gospel never would have been preached to the Gentiles.  The Jews were so biased against the Gentiles it was going to take something special and unusual to convince them that God had any interest in Gentiles.  Ten years had gone by since Jesus' ascension back into heaven and yet there had been no preaching to the Gentiles.  The Jews up to this point in time did not believe God had an interest in the salvation of Gentiles. 

It took a miracle to convince the Jewish Christians otherwise.  "And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also." (Acts 10:45 NKJV)  This was the event that convinced the Jews that it was not only okay but the will of God that the Gentiles also have access to eternal life through the gospel.  "When they (the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem--DS) heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, 'Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.' " (Acts 11:18 NKJV)  Tongues served for a sign to the Jewish Christians with regards to the Gentile Cornelius and thus to all Gentiles concerning God's will for them. 

This whole episode at the house of Cornelius of being baptized in the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with gospel obedience or conversion.  Let us say the Holy Spirit had not fallen upon Cornelius that day.  Do you think Cornelius would have been disobedient to, and an unbeliever of, the things Peter was teaching him?  Do you think Peter would have left Cornelius as an unsaved man?  You know better.  With or without the baptism of the Holy Spirit Cornelius was going to obey the gospel that day and be saved.  Remember his conversion began with an appearance of an angel in a vision telling him to send for Peter and in doing so he would be told “words by which you and all your household will be saved.” (Acts 11:14 NKJV)  It was the message believed and obeyed that saved them, not the miracle that happened to them. 

One needs to be careful lest he take the exception to the rule and make it the general rule.  We do not do that in life and we should not do it in Bible study.  We do not say that the Lord appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus therefore unless the Lord appears to you personally you cannot be converted.  There was a reason Jesus appeared to Saul and that reason is not applicable to either you or me.  We understand this.  We need to understand the same principle as it relates to the conversion of Cornelius and his household.  It was a one-time event for a special purpose. 

It is the gospel that saves people “for it is the power of God to salvation.” (Rom. 1:16 NKJV)  It must be believed and obeyed. 

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

More on Peter’s Second Gospel Sermon – Acts 3

Some time ago, I wrote an article entitled, “Peter’s Second Gospel Sermon – Acts 3.”  I would refer the reader to that article first before reading this one.  It can be found on this site.  I thought I would do a follow-up on that one to cover the subject as thoroughly as possible.

The thrust of that prior article was that what Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost that a person must do to have his/her sins forgiven (Acts 2:38) is the same thing he preached in his second sermon (Acts 3:19).

Here are the two passages side by side.

Acts 2:38	Acts 3:19
Repent	Repent
Be Baptized	Be Converted (NKJV) Return (NAS)
For The Remission of Sins	Sins Blotted Out

One can easily see the parallels.  However, Peter in his second sermon in Acts 3 said, depending on your translation, “be converted” (NKJV), “return” (NAS), “turn back” (CSB), “turn again” (ESV) rather than “be baptized” as in Acts 2:38.  How does one account for this given the fact there is but one gospel, one way of salvation from sin?  One must also remember Peter was speaking not from himself but through the Holy Spirit in both instances.

The answer lies in this – the Acts 3:19 account uses a general term that tells the one who hears what must be done but does not tell how to do it.  The how to do it is to be baptized but the listener is not told that.  Why not?  If the sinner was told he must be baptized in Acts 2 for the remission of his/her sins, is the same preacher, in the same city, at nearly the same time, inspired by the same Holy Spirit going to tell a different group there is another way?

This was preaching that was interrupted, the preacher was taken into custody “as they spoke.” (Acts 4:1 NKJV)  There was to be no opportunity for baptism on that occasion.  The preaching began somewhat late in the day for it was around the hour of prayer which was 3 o’clock in the afternoon (Acts 3:1) when the lame man was healed by Peter.  The preaching began after a crowd gathered as a result of that.  We are also told after Peter and John were taken into custody and jailed they were held over until the next day for it was already evening (Acts 4:3).

This was not a long preaching event nor was there an opportunity for baptizing then and there.  This sermon made believers, about 5,000 (Acts 4:4).  Certainly, Peter and John could not have baptized 5,000 men alone.  They could have gotten help but that would have taken time and they were alone at the temple.

(Commentators are uncertain whether the number 5,000 in Acts 4 represents 5,000 new believers or is the total number of believers from the Day of Pentecost up through this day in the aggregate.  For our purposes, it does not matter, in either case it would still leave Peter and John with more to baptize than they could baptize alone.  If you take the 3,000 converts from the Day of Pentecost from the 5,000 here that would still leave the two of them with 1,000 each to baptize.  We will proceed as though the 5,000 were new disciples.)

Does this mean the 5,000 believers were not baptized?  Not at all.  It only means not on that evening by Peter and John.  We already have 3,000 baptized brethren in Jerusalem from the Day of Pentecost sermon and the twelve apostles plus others for “the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved” (Acts 2:47) and who can say how many of them there were.

It was not going to be hard for the 5,000 to find out what was involved in being converted or turning back to the Lord.  The apostles had become well known in Jerusalem due to the miracles that had been done.  “Fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.” (Acts 2:43 NKJV)  Peter had the opportunity to preach in Acts 3 because he had just worked a miracle.  This day was not going to be the last opportunity for these believers to consult Peter or the other apostles or converts.  Where would you find them?  Generally, near the temple.  They would not be hard to find.

And, add to that fact, it is likely some or many of these 5,000 had already heard of what had happened and been taught and done on the Day of Pentecost.  Perhaps some had even been present and while not converted that day had impressions made on their hearts and minds going back to that time.  If so they likely knew baptism was a requirement for turning back to the Lord and likely knew where they could go to accomplish that.  When we want something done in our day we know where to go to get it done or how to find out how to get it done.  They would have been no different.

No doubt they were anxious to have their sins forgiven for Peter had earlier in his speech convicted them of their guilt in having Christ crucified (see Acts 3:13-15).  Peter also tells them, “Every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.”(Acts 3:23 NKJV)  This is motivating speech.  A man must get right with God.  When a man is motivated enough he will seek out the ways and means of salvation.

If one believes the preaching of the apostles was inspired then one is saying the Holy Spirit was the one speaking, speaking through the apostles.  The Holy Spirit is God.  I think it probable, simply speculation here on my part and to be taken as such, that the reason Peter was not more specific on baptism in Acts 3:19 was because the Holy Spirit knew what the circumstances of that occasion were – no opportunity for immediate baptism.

One must always remember Jesus in the Great Commission demanded that disciples be baptized.  “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (Matt. 28:19 NKJV)  Peter would surely have done this in Acts 3 had he had the time and opportunity.  Peter was not an anti-Christ.  We can be confident the 5,000 were baptized in the days that followed.  Peter was not preaching a different gospel or a different way of salvation on that day in Acts 3 versus what he had preached on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2.

 [To download this article or print it out click here.]

 

 

 

  

Is Holy Spirit Baptism The Baptism That Saves?

In an article I wrote some time ago I had a gentleman of the Pentecostal persuasion respond seemingly upset with me over the issue of baptism as I was emphasizing the importance of water baptism which he was discounting as being nothing more than a picture of salvation (whatever that means).  Of course, his emphasis was on Holy Spirit baptism.  In any case, since I said I would respond I will do so here thinking I might as well make an article out of my response. 

When one reads the gospels the very first mention of the subject of baptism comes with the introduction of John the Baptist.  Mark says, "Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins."  (Mark 1:5 NKJV)  We know Jesus when baptized, by John, "came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him."  (Matt. 3:16 NKJV)  So our very first introduction to the subject of baptism relates it to water, not the Holy Spirit. 

However, John did prophecy of two other baptisms to come.  He says, "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."  (Mat 3:11 NKJV) 

It is very important to note who will be doing the baptizing in the Holy Spirit and fire.  Will it be the apostles, will it be man?  No, for the text says "He," a reference to Jesus, which means what?  If you are going to receive Holy Spirit baptism it will not be at the hands of men.  It will have to come directly from heaven itself.  Jesus will be the administrator. 

But, it means even more.  It means it cannot be a command for it is something Christ does for you.  In other words, it is a baptism you cannot obey.  It is something you receive, not something you do.  Pentecostals ought to keep this in mind because it is going to cause problems down the road.  Indeed, it is going to cause problems before one even finishes the book of Matthew. 

In the Great Commission of Matt. 28:18-20 Jesus speaking to the apostles said, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (NKJV)  The reader already knows enough from what has been said previously that this is a command for water baptism for it is the only baptism men can administer.  Men could baptize others with water but not with the Holy Spirit.  Only Jesus could do that. 

Furthermore, the command of the Great Commission was to teach those they baptized to go out and do the same with others--make disciples and baptize them—thus making the Great Commission a perpetual command for the ages.  This means in Eph. 4:5 when Paul said there was "one baptism" we know which one it was. 

Before the time of Paul's writing of the book of Ephesians, there had been two baptisms--water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism (the baptism of fire being yet future at the Day of Judgment).  However, by the time Paul wrote the book of Ephesians, scholars say sometime between 61 and 64 AD, only one baptism remained.  This was approximately 30 years after Jesus had ascended back into heaven and Paul now says as he writes there is but one baptism. 

This puts Pentecostals in a tight spot.  If they say we still have Holy Spirit baptism then they must deny we have water baptism.  If they say we still have both they make Paul, speaking by the Holy Spirit, out to be a liar for that makes two baptisms rather than one. 

Did Jesus speak about baptizing some in the Holy Spirit?  Yes, he did, but to whom?  It was to those with whom he met in Luke 24:33-49.  It was with those who were to "tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high." (Luke 24:49 NKJV)  It was to those who would first preach "repentance and remission of sins … in His name … beginning at Jerusalem."  Now who did that?  Was Peter the first one?  Did he preach baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) "beginning at Jerusalem"?  Yes, he did. 

In the book of John starting with chapter 13 and going through chapter 17 Jesus is with the apostles he had chosen at the Last Supper.  Here he again speaks about this select group being baptized with the Holy Spirit or words to that effect (John 14:16-18, 26, 16:13). 

Luke, in the book of Acts, speaks of "the apostles whom He had chosen" (Acts 1:2) and then says, "to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, 'which,' He said, 'you have heard from Me; for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.'" (Acts 1:3-5 NKJV) 

Thus the promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit was only to a select few, not to all Christians.  All Christians received the Holy Spirit but not all received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and there is a difference.  Many received spiritual gifts and thus had a measure of the Holy Spirit in that special sense as well, but the promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit was only to those few Jesus chose.  I remind the reader that while Holy Spirit baptism had to come directly from heaven spiritual gifts could be received at the hands of the apostles.  "And when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Spirit was given."  (Act 8:18 NKJV) 

Even spiritual gifts were not to last endlessly until the Day of Judgment.  Paul says, in Eph. 4:11-14 (NAS), "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming."  

Apostles and prophets were obviously men with spiritual gifts.  Are there, apostles and prophets, still with us today?  The reader ought to highlight the word "until" in the above passage.  Words do have meaning.  "Until" places a time limit.  Then note the last verse that begins with "As a result."  The result is we will not be carried away "by every wind of doctrine" thus the earth will still be here when the apostles and prophets are gone and so will every wind of doctrine which we will not be carried away by. 

A passage that is even a little clearer is 1 Cor. 13:8-10, "Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge (miraculous spiritual--DS), it will be done away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away."  Some say this refers to Jesus' second coming.  Does it?  It is hard to see how you or I need to be told that there will not be prophecy in heaven.  Is that not self-evident?  Let me tell you what is "perfect" in addition to Jesus--his completed revelation to man in his word, the New Testament itself.  Do you doubt the word of God is perfect?  See Psalms 19:7. 

The one who takes issue with me says, "In John 3:5 water does not refer to Christian baptism in the name of the Lord.  Prove that it does."  If you recall John 3:5 reads as follows, "Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'" (NAS)  Well, what are the other options?  Is it "Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of the Holy Spirit and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'"  That is how this sincere man would have it read, but I think it is readily seen that this will not work in the context of how the sentence is phrased. 

He also argues that Rom. 6:3, Gal. 3:27, and Col. 2:12 all refer to Holy Spirit baptism, not water baptism.  I have already shown that since there is only one baptism today, according to Paul, then it is an either/or option--either it is Holy Spirit baptism or water baptism.  If it is Holy Spirit baptism then the baptism Jesus commanded in the Great Commission is of no effect today and you cannot carry out the Great Commission. 

In Romans 6:3 Paul says, "Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?"  By using the word "us" Paul includes himself.  Let us hear Ananias at the time of Paul's baptism, Acts 22:16, "'And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'"  It sounds to me like the responsibility is on Paul to "arise and be baptized."  It sounds like it is something Paul can attend to.  He can't if it is Holy Spirit baptism as my critic claims.  He will have to wait on Jesus to do that.  Thus my critic is in error. 

Gal. 3:27 reads as follows, "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." (NAS)  Am I baptized "into Christ" or am I baptized by Christ?  Holy Spirit baptism is by Christ, not into Christ.  If Christ both baptizes one and puts one into himself (salvation is in Christ--2 Tim. 2:10) then if you are lost it looks like it is his fault since there is something he did not do for you.  I can obey the command for water baptism but I cannot obey Holy Spirit baptism for Jesus has the responsibility for that.  I have not clothed myself with Christ, and cannot do so, if it is out of my hands which would be the case if this passage refers to Holy Spirit baptism. 

Finally, Col. 2:12, which he says is a reference to Holy Spirit baptism, reads as follows with me including verses 11 and 13 in order to read the text in context.  "And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions." (NAS) 

Beginning with Abraham if a male child was not circumcised the eighth day he fell out of covenant relationship with God.  This remained true on up through the entirety of the Mosaical Era.  You can read about it in Gen. 17:12-14.  If one is in covenant relationship with God he is a child of God.  He may or may not remain faithful and thus can be lost later but at the time he becomes a child of God he is saved. 

I have a question.  In Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost when the first gospel sermon ever preached after Christ's ascension, after the giving of the Great Commission, when were those gathered there, the three thousand, placed into a covenant relationship with God?  Was it before water baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)?  Water baptism was necessary both for the forgiveness of sins and for the reception of the Holy Spirit and was prior to both.  Without the forgiveness of sins first, there was no covenant relationship with God, not under the new covenant. 

It would be good, perhaps, to quote Acts 2:38 here: "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." (NKJV) 

Circumcision placed one into covenant relationship with God under the Law of Moses.  When were people placed in that relationship in Acts 2--was it before or after the receiving of the gift of the Holy Spirit?  One can readily see it was before the receiving of the Holy Spirit but after water baptism.  If you have received "remission of sins" you are saved and in a covenant relationship with God.  Circumcision in the covenant of Christ, in Christianity, is baptism from the heart of faith for the remission of sins in water, not Holy Spirit baptism.  In that act, when based on faith, sins are cut away (removed).  Colossians 2:11-13 is a reference to water baptism. 

But, sometimes it is good to argue against ourselves so, putting myself in my critic's shoes, I would come back and say have you not read Rom.2:29, "But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God"? (NKJV) 

The same Paul who wrote Colossians wrote Romans.  We shall tie them together.  I remind the reader my critic believes the talk about baptism in Rom. 6, the first several verses, is a reference to baptism in the Holy Spirit.  But, Paul says in Rom 6:17-18, "But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness."  There are two points to be made.  (1) You cannot obey Holy Spirit baptism thus his argument fails when he says the baptism of Romans 6 is Holy Spirit baptism.  (2) When were they set free from sin according to Paul?  Answer--when they obeyed.  

This excursion off on Romans 6 throws light on Rom. 2:29.  As this passage—Rom. 2:29--relates back to Col. 2:12 it shows, when combined with the study of Romans 6, that one cannot divorce faith from obedience.  Obedience is from the heart.  What is in the heart to produce this obedience?  Faith!  When understood that obedience is a part of saving faith, that there is no such thing as saving faith apart from obedience, I readily concede that salvation is by that kind of faith.  This faith always includes as an integral part of itself obedience. 

The trouble is the advocates of salvation by faith are generally such as do not define faith this way.  Their faith does not necessarily include any ideas of obedience thus water baptism is just kind of an option if I get to it, if I do it, when I do it, sort of thing.  When God says jump you cannot say I will if I want to, and when I want to, if I decide to.  That is neither faith nor obedience, it is rebellion.  How can one claim a circumcision of heart and talk of having the Spirit all the while saying it does not matter whether you obey what the Spirit has said, you can be saved whether you obey or do not obey?  Jesus, a man full of the Spirit, did not disobey a single commandment but we do and say it is okay and that we have the Spirit.     

If the baptism of the Holy Spirit still exists today then along with it we must have as a necessity those things that accompany it which include the spiritual gifts of the first century.  All Holy Spirit baptized individuals (the apostles) had miraculous spiritual gifts (2 Cor. 12:11-12).   Who ever heard of having the baptism of the Holy Spirit and not having spiritual gifts?  Do we have prophets today, do we have miracle workers today, do we still have revelation being given today?  Let each reader judge for themselves. 

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

 

 

 

  

 

 

Peter's Preaching and the Apostle's Preaching

It is not uncommon to hear people express doubts about the harmony of the preaching and teaching found in the New Testament often doing so by making the claim that the various writers of the New Testament differed in what they taught.  Often those who make such claims will pit Paul against James or Peter against Paul.

The truth is the scriptures do not belong to Paul, or James, or Peter, or any other writer even if their name happens to be attached to a letter.  "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (2 Tim. 3:16 NKJV)  The scriptures came by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  God used men's tongues and pens to give us the message of inspiration.  To say that one New Testament preacher/writer contradicted another is to say that God himself is inconsistent and says and teaches one thing at one time and another thing at another time.  It is to say there is more than one gospel which is the very thing scripture denies.

One can "pervert the gospel of Christ" (Gal. 1:7 NKJV) but you cannot make two gospels out of one.  Paul says, by inspiration, "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed." (Gal. 1:8 NKJV)  One gospel was preached by inspiration.

Jesus commanded the apostles, "But when they arrest you and deliver you up, do not worry beforehand, or premeditate what you will speak. But whatever is given you in that hour, speak that; for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit." (Mark 13:11 NKJV)  I quote that passage as I want you the reader to have it in mind for I want to take a look at a specific instance of just such an occasion and the preaching that was done on that occasion.  I want to examine the sermon Peter and the apostles gave in Acts 5 with a view of showing its harmony with Peter's first gospel sermon in Acts 2 and thus the agreement in preaching the gospel among all the apostles including one yet to come--the apostle Paul--who will not be converted until chapter 9 in the book of Acts.

In Acts 5 we have the apostles arrested and imprisoned (Acts 5:17-18).  That night while in prison an angel came to their rescue releasing them and instructing them to go to the temple and resume their teaching (Acts 5:19-20).  This they did but once again were rearrested and brought before the high priest and the Jewish council (Acts 5:27). 

Which of the apostles was the spokesperson for the group in Acts 5 we are not told but the text says "then Peter and the other apostles answered" (Acts 5:29 NKJV) so we can be certain that all the apostles were in agreement for the answer made is attributed to all of them.

The entire discourse as recorded follows:  "But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: 'We ought to obey God rather than men.  The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree.  Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.  And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.'" (Acts 5:29-32 NKJV)

Let us examine this sermon starting by talking about "obedience."  As it relates to the gospel being preached it is the last use of the word "obey" in this discourse that is of greatest interest in determining the gospel being preached.  Who receives the Holy Spirit?  It is "those who obey Him"--obey God, obey Jesus--as clearly stated in the text.  The Hebrew writer says of Jesus, “He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.” (Heb. 5:9 NKJV)

Is obedience a part of the gospel?  Did Peter preach obedience in his first gospel sermon, the first such sermon ever preached to mankind, in Acts 2?  He commanded those that day to, "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." (Acts 2:38 NKJV)  This statement was made after the Holy Spirit had fallen on Peter (see Acts 2:4) and he was thus speaking by means of the Holy Spirit.  Could you do what Peter asked those in that audience to do that day without being obedient?  Of course not!  Yes, Peter preached obedience on the Day of Pentecost just as he and the other apostles are doing this day in Acts 5.

They say the Holy Spirit is given to those who obey God (Acts 5:32).  One must obey God to have the Spirit.  When Jesus returns it will be "in flaming fire taking vengeance…on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." (2 Thess. 1:8 NKJV)  All the apostles were thus in agreement on the need for obedience and this would include Paul when he later became an apostle.

This was what Peter preached in his second gospel sermon recorded in Acts 3 as well when he quoted Moses, "For Moses truly said to the fathers, 'The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren.  Him you shall hear in all things, whatever He says to you.  And it shall come to pass that every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.'" (Acts 3:22-23 NKJV)  To "hear" does not just mean the physical act of hearing but rather means to obey.

To obey meant to obey what?  Well, it meant to obey all things the apostles spoke by the Holy Spirit.  What was that as it related to gospel obedience, to making one a Christian?  It included what Peter commanded in his Day of Pentecost sermon in Acts 2 preached by means of the Holy Spirit.  "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.'" (Acts 2:38 NKJV) 

Some may be troubled by the fact that faith is not mentioned in that sermon (the Day of Pentecost sermon in Acts 2).  My question is does it have to be when it is clearly implied?  For that matter, no mention of faith is made in this Acts 5 sermon either but it is implied.  Where is the man to be found capable of scriptural repentance who does not first believe?  Where is the man who is willing to be obedient to baptism who does not first believe?  Can a man be scripturally baptized who does not believe?  No!  When a thing is clearly implied in scripture it does not need to be mentioned.

It is said that the Catholics baptize babies who cannot believe.  Do they?  Where does the Bible teach that sprinkling is baptism?  Men made sprinkling baptism, not God.  It became a tradition of men.  In the New Testament a man was baptized when he was buried in water.  There was no other way to be baptized.  Secondly, the Bible teaches, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16 NKJV) and not "he who is incapable of believing and is baptized will be saved."  One comes from God; the other is a man-made doctrine.  Besides, babies are pure in God's sight, sinless, and have no need of baptism. 

In Acts 5:31 the apostles state that Jesus is the Savior who gives repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.  How does he do that?  Peter has preached this before, saying basically the same thing simply phrasing it differently, in the Acts 2:38 passage.  God gives man repentance by giving him motives to lead him to repent.  One must first see his need for repentance, see his own sins so he will feel them in his heart, before he is capable of repenting of them.

In both the sermon in Acts 2 and this one in Acts 5 sin is pointed out--there is need of repentance.  In Acts 2 Peter says, "you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death" Jesus. (Acts 2:23 NKJV)  In Acts 5 the apostles refer to those whom they are addressing as murders (see Acts 5:30).  In Acts 3:15 Peter says to the crowd gathered there that they "killed the Prince of life." (NKJV)

The point is that apostolic preaching preached about sin and the need to repent.  So, we see repentance was preached by the apostles.  It was preached in Acts 5:31; it was preached in Acts 2:38; it was preached in Acts 3:19.  Preaching the gospel always involved the subject of repentance from sin and always will for that is a part of gospel obedience.

How did and how does Jesus give to man forgiveness of sins?  We could say salvation is the gift of God and is by grace and that would be true.  But is there anything God has asked man to do before he will extend that grace to man and grant him forgiveness?

If you say no then you have immediately rejected the need for both faith and repentance.  If we believe faith is essential and if we believe repentance is essential then we must admit man plays a role in his salvation despite it being a gift and we admit there are things man must do.  In Acts 2 Peter said one of the things a man must do was be baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." (Acts 2:38 NKJV) 

Does Jesus give forgiveness of sins?  Yes, but it is conditional.  Jesus said, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." (Mark 16:16 NKJV)  Most people want to make that read "he who believes and is baptized or is not baptized will be saved" but that is adding to the scripture and is not what Jesus taught but what man desires to teach.

Peter, by the Holy Spirit, speaking on the day of Pentecost told penitent believers, "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." (Acts 2:38 NKJV) 

Some say yes that is what the text says but it is not what it means.  Evidently, Peter did not know that for years later he was still saying, "There is also an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism." (1 Peter 3:21 NKJV)  If a man is saved he is saved from sin and the only way that is accomplished is through God's forgiveness.  Peter says baptism saves.  He does not say baptism alone without faith or repentance. 

There was no disagreement among the apostles when Peter first preached baptism for the remission of sins on the Day of Pentecost.  All the apostles were in agreement with Peter's preaching.  Jesus himself had taught them while still on earth that "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:5 NKJV)  They had been commanded at the time Jesus ascended back into heaven to go make disciples and do what?  Baptize them! (Matt. 28:19 NKJV)  Which ones?  Every single one of them with no exceptions.  If you say no then you are under obligation to tell us which ones were not to be baptized.

Just by coincidence, I am now reading a book entitled A History of Christianity, Vol. 1, Beginnings to 1500 by Kenneth Scott Latourette, copyright 1953, Revised Edition.  (That was years ago when this article was first written.)  This is a large book of nearly 700 pages by Mr. Latourette who was Director of Graduate Studies at the Yale Divinity School at the time of his retirement in 1953.  I want to quote from that book for it bears directly on the subject at hand.  "In its earlier days the Church maintained rigorous standards for its membership.  As we have seen, baptism was believed to wash away all sins committed before it was administered." (Page 138)  He says of the Emperor Constantine that he "did not receive baptism until the latter part of his life…from the conviction, then general, that it washed away all previous sins." (Page 93) 

People today do not want to believe that anyone at anytime ever believed that baptism was God's means of washing away (spiritually speaking) the sins of man but that will not change history or the teaching of the New Testament on the subject.  The modern-day idea of salvation by faith alone came from the Middle Ages and not from the first, second, third, or fourth centuries or from the Bible.

In the same book, I quote again only this time of Augustine.  "As a youth Augustine was given Christian instruction.  His mother did not have him baptized because, accepting the belief that baptism washed away sins committed before it was administered, she wished him to defer it until after the heat of youth was passed and with it the excesses of that ardent age." (Page 96)  Born in 354 AD he was baptized on April 25, 387 AD.

In closing, I want to point out that thousands of people were saved by obeying the gospel before Paul ever became an apostle.  Some would like to claim that Paul preached a grace that Peter did not.  They desire two different gospels.  Paul himself denied, as pointed out earlier in this piece, that there were two or more gospels.  When one understands Paul's preaching correctly he will find Peter's preaching for both taught and preached the same gospel and that gospel had baptism in it for the remission of sins.  It was the same gospel the 12 apostles put their stamp of approval on the Day of Pentecost.  They put their stamp of approval on it for the Holy Spirit gave it and who were they to dispute the Spirit of God.  Who are you and I to do so today?

[To download this article or print it out click here.]