Saved By Faith Alone in Acts 2

What is required to become a Christian and be saved from one’s sins?  The Protestant world seems to have convinced itself that salvation comes to a person by faith alone without any further actions on an individual's part.  It is especially adamant in its stand that baptism has no part in salvation.   It is hard to understand but it is without any doubt the majority position of the Protestant world.

They use passage after passage that teach we are saved by faith which no one doubts but they add the word “alone.”  And yet the only time the phrase “faith alone” is used in the Bible the text says, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24 ESV, see also the CSB, NAS, NET, NIV, and the NLT)  The King James Version and the New King James Version reads “not by faith only.”

One has to remember faith has to be defined.  When the Bible speaks of us being saved by faith is it speaking of a dead faith or a living faith?  If it is a living faith it does not stop at mental assent but is moving and active.  To stop is to be dead in its tracks.

Let me ask a question.  In Acts 2 we read of the first gospel sermon ever preached.  Were those people in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost who responded to Peter’s gospel preaching saved by faith?  Certainly!  They were but they were saved with a living faith that responded to Peter’s preaching by believing and obeying it, by repenting and being baptized; Peter said for the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38).  Peter’s command was, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” (Acts 2:38 KJV)

Now make no mistake about it, the faith-only or faith-alone crowd would have those saved that day saved before obedience to Peter’s preaching, saved at the point of faith; based on what they teach their doctrine demands it.  They would deny that but only in part.  They would say you must repent but to do that you have to split Peter’s preaching in half taking part of it, repentance, while rejecting the other, baptism.  One wonders what good conjunctions are in grammar if you can do that to a sentence or in this case to Peter’s oral command.  Or, should we say the Holy Spirit’s oral command?  Yes, we should.

But, if they include repentance in their faith alone doctrine then they ought to quit referring to it as “faith alone” for that it would not be.    

It is plain enough that this crowd on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 had not repented but had developed faith.  We know they had come to faith for the text says “they were cut to the heart” by Peter’s preaching and ask Peter and the apostles “what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37)  We know Peter’s response.  Why command people to repent who have already repented?  Peter commanded them to repent thus they had not done so even though they had faith.

Repentance is not just sorrow for sin.  These people were clearly sorry about crucifying Jesus when they asked what shall we do.  The text says they were cut to the heart.  Godly sorrow leads to repentance (2 Cor. 7:10) but it is not repentance.  To repent one must turn from sin to righteousness.  It is a state of mind and will.  It is a determination to cease sinning and live righteously.  One may be sorry about a thing for a number of reasons without any determination to change his/her ways; this is the sorrow of the world that leads to death (2 Cor. 7:10).

Peter’s preaching that day had produced faith.  The question to be answered was whether it would produce repentance and baptism.  Some of the faith-only people like to say repentance is inherent in faith, that faith is a synecdoche.  Yes, I believe that is true at times but when used that way it includes not just repentance but baptism also.  That they will not accept.  However, in Acts 2 faith is clearly not a synecdoche.  The question they must answer in Acts 2 is exactly when those people were saved.  The only options are (1) at the point of faith, (2) at the point of faith and repentance, (3) at the point of faith, repentance, and baptism.  

In the past, some have argued that the word “for” in the passage means “because,” because of the remission of sins.  There is no truth in it but for the sake of argument let us pursue the thought.  If that was so then you have forgiveness of sins before repentance of sins.  You can be forgiven without repentance.  If you repent and are baptized because your sins were already forgiven, forgiven by faith, then you were saved before you repented of your sins.  Saved without repentance.  Now it is easy to see that will not work.

I suppose another question, in due order, would be good to ask the faith-only people.  Had you been in the crowd that day on the Day of Pentecost and heard Peter’s preaching being subject to it yourself, one of the guilty ones, could you have walked away from it having believed it and repented and been saved without obeying Peter’s command to be baptized?  Their doctrine demands that if they are consistent.  And, in such a scenario could it truly be said you believed Peter’s preaching if you refused baptism?

Jesus said in a disputed passage, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” (Mark 16:16 NKJV)  It is disputed because the ending of Mark is disputed.  But, in an undisputed passage Jesus says, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5 NKJV)  You cannot go to heaven without baptism. 

Finally, the faith-only position belittles the Great Commission for in it Jesus commanded baptism.  “Then Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ‘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.” (Matt. 28:18-20 NKJV)

Can you disobey Jesus and be saved?  He is “the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.” (Heb. 5:9 NKJV) 

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

Jesus Defines Repentance

The Bible clearly teaches that repentance is a command of God to all men (Acts 17:30) and that if we fail to repent we shall perish (Luke 13:3, 5).  It is essential then that we come to a proper understanding of the meaning of repentance.  What does it mean to repent?  Jesus tells us and we can find no higher authority on the subject than Christ himself.  Let us hear what he has said.

“The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here.” (Luke 11:32 NKJV)

The book of Jonah where we are told about this is a very short book of only 4 chapters so it is not hard to find out what the men of Nineveh did which Jesus calls repentance.

Nineveh was a city God described as a wicked city (Jonah 1:2) to which God sent Jonah to give them the message that in 40 days Nineveh would be overthrown (Jonah 3:4).  Now note the first response to this message.

“So the people of Nineveh believed God, proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest to the least of them.” (Jonah 3:5 NKJV)  Now belief is not repentance but it is a prerequisite to it.  Where there is no belief there will be no repentance, it is impossible.  One might quit a sin for any number of reasons (health, reputation, family, etc.) without repenting.  We say it is hard to get people to repent and so it is but why?  One of the biggest reasons is failure to believe God, what he says in the scriptures. 

What must one believe in order to repent?  He must believe God is (Heb. 11:6).  He must believe he stands guilty before God (Rom. 3:23, 1 John 1:8).  He must believe he is a condemned man in his present state (Rom. 6:23).  Belief is thus a necessary prerequisite to biblical repentance.

There are two or three passages in the New Testament that put repentance before belief (Acts 20:21, Heb. 6:1, Mark 1:15).  I will make a comment or two and go on without going into a long excursion on these passages.  Where the passages address a Jewish crowd one must remember the Jewish people had believed in God for generations.  They had sinned against God.  They needed to repent of that and then believe something new to them – faith in Jesus.  Jesus was new to the world.

The second comment I will make in passing is that the order of the wording does not necessarily imply that the one action preceded the other.  Paul, in Rom. 10:9, puts confession before faith, “that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (NKJV)  Do you think Paul meant to imply that confession is to come before faith?  How would that work?  How could Jesus be Lord if God did not raise him from the dead--if you did not believe that he did?  So we see that faith precedes the confession even though the word order is what it is.  Faith must precede repentance if there is to be repentance.

Now back to Nineveh.  The faith of the people of Nineveh was so strong that they had no doubt that what Jonah was telling them would come to pass.  They saw themselves as a doomed people.  They were confirmed believers that disaster was about to befall them.

Having believed they then humbled themselves before God.  All put on sackcloth from the least to the greatest (Jonah 3:5), they fasted (3:7), they cried to God (3:8).  One of the hardest things for a man to do is humble himself before God and man.  To admit sin is belittling to the proud.  

Pride is a great destroyer of people and is something every person has to deal with in their life.  Pride is one of the things God hates (Pro. 8:13).  It is a forerunner of shame (Pro. 11:2) and comes before a fall (Pro. 16:18); it will bring a man low (Pro. 29:23).  Those who are proud cannot humble themselves and confess they have sinned and repent.  They will pay for their arrogant spirit.  The men of Nineveh will not be of their number.   

What more did the people of Nineveh do?  Jonah 3:8 says the King decreed that “every one turn from his evil way and from the violence that is in his hands.” (NKJV)  What did they do?  They ceased doing evil.

Let us summarize the events that transpired here in a city that Jesus said repented.  Here is what we have seen:

(1)  People heard a message from God condemning them and believed it.

(2)  This brought godly sorrow to their hearts.

(3)  They humbled themselves and sought God turning from their evil ways.

This sums up the process of repentance from beginning to end.  Today when we hear the gospel message if we believe it we see we are in a condemned state before God.  We are convicted in our hearts of our sins.  Believing this brings sorrow to our hearts.  If we are then willing to humble ourselves before God, seek him, and turn away from evil to do good, as defined by God in his word, we can rest assured that we have met the requirement for repentance for we have fulfilled all the things the people of Nineveh did and Jesus said they repented.

How long does it take to repent?  It takes just as long as it takes you to be convicted in your heart and then determine with your will to cease your sin and turn to God in faith and obedience.  Repentance is not reformation of life for reformation of life is a result, or fruit, of repentance.  Repentance is a matter of the heart and a determination of the mind or will.

One can hear a single gospel sermon and repent immediately if the heart is good and honest and tender toward God.  Thus we have those 3,000 who repented on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 after hearing Peter’s sermon.  The Bible says of that day and of that preaching that when the people heard it “they were cut to the heart.” (Acts 2:37 NKJV)  They saw themselves as condemned before God and were ready and willing to repent.  This Peter told them to do as well as be baptized for the remission of sins. (Acts 2:38)

So, how long did it take them to repent?  Not long.  Just as long as it took to hear the preaching, believe it, be pricked in the heart, and as a result create a willingness of heart to seek God and turn away from evil.  The time it takes to repent depends on the hardness of the heart.  There will never be enough time for some hearts.  For the good and honest heart it will not take long.

I want to deal very briefly with a few common misconceptions before closing.  Many believe that sorrow for sin is repentance and that the giving over of the will to God is faith.  Neither is true.  Godly sorrow for sin leads to repentance and is not repentance itself.  “For godly sorrow produces repentance.” (2 Cor. 7:10 NKJV)  I might add not all sorrow for sin is godly.  Prisons are full of people who are sorry for their sin because they got caught but God and his will has no part in their thinking.

The giving over of the will to God is often called faith but God calls it repentance.  True, the giving over of the will is based on faith but is not faith itself but rather repentance.  We ought to call Bible things by Bible names as it allows us to reason more correctly.

Reformation of life can also easily be misconstrued as repentance.  You can turn away from doing evil for various reasons.  Men quit adultery for fear their wife will find out and their marriage be destroyed.  Others quit cheating on their taxes for fear of getting caught.  The list could go on.  This kind of reformation of life is not repentance nor does it have anything to do with repentance.  God is left out of the picture.  All concerns are over worldly matters and relationships, not God.

Repentance is repentance from sin and thus God is always in view in true repentance.  He is not in view in reformation of life for worldly reasons.

True repentance results in a reformation of life growing out of faith and a seeking of God.  It means necessarily a turning away from sin to righteousness.  One ends up with a changed life because of a changed outlook.  The proper order of events is godly sorrow first resulting in repentance (a changed outlook – a changed will) that leads to reformation of life.   

[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.]

Peter's Second Gospel Sermon -- Acts 3

Most people who know anything at all about the Christian faith realize that Peter preached the first gospel sermon ever preached on the Day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2.  The second recorded sermon in the Christian dispensation of time is again a sermon preached by Peter as found in the next chapter in Acts -- chapter 3.  That there was preaching being done between Peter's first sermon and his second there is no doubt for the Bible says "the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved" (Acts 2:47 NAS) and this was after Pentecost but before the events recorded in Acts 3.

Of those sermons, of which we know nothing, we can only say with certainty that the truth was taught and what was taught was the same as that taught by Peter in Acts 2 by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  For it to be otherwise would be to say two or more different gospels were preached which we are sure was not the case.  Peter did not preach one gospel one day and another gospel another day.  He did not have a different gospel for everyday of the week or month nor did one apostle preach one thing and another apostle preach something else.

In order to not make this article too long I want to zero in on only one issue -- what did Peter tell those he preached to on this second preaching occasion that they needed to do in order to be saved?  The answer to that is found in Acts 3:19, "Repent therefore and return, that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord." (NAS)  The English Standard Version has, "Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out."  The New King James has, "Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out."

Albert Barnes, the well known Bible commentator, says of the Greek word translated "return" or "turn again" or "be converted" in this passage that it "means properly to 'turn; to return to a path from which one has gone astray; and then to turn away from sins, or to forsake them.' It is a word used in a general sense to denote 'the whole turning to God.'” (This is from his commentary on Acts.)  It does not then designate one specific thing but includes everything not covered by the word "repent."

One needs to ask some questions.  Earlier in this sermon Peter had accused those of whom he was speaking to of delivering up Jesus to be killed (Acts 3:13), disowning Jesus (Acts 3:13), and asking that a murderer be set free rather than Jesus thus condemning Jesus to death (Acts 3:14-15).  In view of Jesus' innocence of all wrongdoing this was sin and sin of the worst sort since Jesus was the Son of God.  What they had done was evil and repentance was needed.

Now what is repentance?  Paul says, "Godly sorrow produces repentance to salvation." (2 Cor. 7:10 NKJV)  Thus godly sorrow precedes repentance and is not itself repentance.  Judas was sorry but did not repent in the biblical sense of the word and was not saved thus the sorrow he had was not "godly sorrow" since godly sorrow leads to repentance and salvation.  Jesus said with reference to Judas, "The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had never been born." (Mark 14:21 NKJV)  Jesus could not have said that of Judas had Judas been saved in the end.

John the Baptist spoke of bearing "fruits worthy of repentance" (Matt. 3:8 NKJV) thus reformation of life is a product of repentance and is not in itself repentance but a result of repentance.  Repentance is that which lies between godly sorrow and reformation of life and we might ask what that is?  It is a determination made in the mind and will of man to cease sin and to turn to God and live for God.  It is a matter of the mind and will of man, a decision made because of godly sorrow that will lead to reformation of life, a turning from sin and a turning to God and a godly life.

The point being made is that when Peter used the phrase "return" in Acts 3:19 he had something in mind other than repentance.  He had already told them to repent.  He was not being redundant in his language.  He was not just using different words to refer to the same thing.

Now the careful reader who reads the entire sermon (Acts 3:12-26) will note that just like in Peter's first gospel sermon (Acts 2) he does not mention faith in Christ.  Is it because he does not think it matters?  That is ridiculous in view of the fact Peter is speaking by means of the Holy Spirit and the whole New Testament emphasizes faith.  The explanation lies elsewhere.  In Acts 3 faith in Christ is understood.  How so?  No one repents until convicted by guilt.  No one is convicted by guilt of sin until they come to believe.  It is not possible to repent until you believe.  Repentance itself will be proof of faith.

If one will take the time to read Acts 3:12-18 he will see clearly that Peter has preached Christ to them and the sin he points out to them that they are guilty of is not just the murder of any ordinary man but of God's "Servant Jesus" (Acts 3:13 NAS), the "Holy and Righteous One" (Acts 3:14 NAS), the "Prince of life" (Acts 3:15 NAS).  Now they have just witnessed a miracle done in the name of this Jesus whom they had put to death (the man lame from his mother's womb--Acts 3:2) and Peter has done this preaching to them.  If they repent it will only be because of faith.  They will have come to believe what Peter preached.

We are now at a point in this sermon that we were in Peter's first sermon.  No mention of faith but faith is necessarily implied.  We are then told directly in both sermons the necessity of repentance (Acts 2:38 and Acts 3:19).  We are also told in both sermons that if we will do as Peter has said, said by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, we will have "the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2:38) or that which is the same ""your sins may be wiped away." (Acts 3:19 NAS)  But in both sermons there is something else mentioned in addition to repentance that is necessary unless we desire to cut sentences in half and delete part of God's word on the subject.

We can now come to an understanding of what the word "return" means in Acts 3:19, the other thing Peter says that is needed to have sins wiped away, by seeing what it was Peter required of those on the Day of Pentecost in order to have "the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2:38 NAS).  What was that one thing he mentioned that it would take to obtain the forgiveness of sins in addition to repentance on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2?  It was baptism.

Now note what Barnes said as quoted earlier.  "It (a reference to the Greek word translated "return" in the NAS or "be converted" in the NKJV--DS) is a word used in a general sense to denote 'the whole turning to God.'”  All that is left of that turning to God according to Peter in his Acts 2 sermon is baptism.  Should we be surprised?  Why should we be surprised?  Do we think the Holy Spirit preached different gospels at different times?  If baptism was required of those not Christians on the Day of Pentecost why would we think it would not be required of those not Christians some days later? 

But one might argue that the word "return" does not mean baptism.  No it does not for it is a general term, not a specific term.  In the KJ and the NKJV the Greek word is translated "be converted."  Surely everyone can see that phrase is general not specific.  It tells you to do something but not how to do it.  You have to learn that elsewhere.  How would one do that?  Simple!  By seeing how the thing was done under similar circumstances elsewhere--in Acts 2.  How were sins wiped away elsewhere?  What was required elsewhere for the forgiveness of sins?

But one might object and say it means in this context of Acts 3 return to God.  Yes, but how is that done in this gospel dispensation?  How did Peter say it was done in his first gospel sermon, the first one ever preached to humanity?

A lot of denominational people do not like Peter's Acts 2 sermon because of what he says about baptism and would like to somehow or another get rid of it.  One common way is to try and pit Peter against Paul mistakenly thinking Paul taught something different on salvation (he did not).  That effort will not succeed.  Paul, then called Saul, was not converted until Acts chapter 9 some 3 years after the church was established and after the gospel was being preached (dating according to "The Oxford Companion to the Bible," edited by Metzger and Coogan, pages 120-121).  Were there no Christians until Paul began preaching?  Acts 2:47 says there were daily conversions.  Thousands were converted before Paul.

Later in his preaching on this occasion Peter quotes Moses saying, "The Lord God shall raise up for you a prophet like me from your brethren; to him you shall give heed in everything he says to you.  And it shall be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people." (Acts 3:22-23 NAS)

If I had not been baptized for the remission of sins I would be scared by that statement for it was Jesus who said, "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5 NAS)  It was Jesus who said, "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved." (Mark 16:16 NAS)  It was Jesus who said to the apostles while delivering the Great Commission to "make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." (Matt. 28:19 NAS)  It was Jesus that said all of that.  It was Peter, quoting Moses, who said if you do not heed everything he (Jesus--DS) said you shall "be utterly destroyed from among the people." (Acts 3:23 NAS)  Was Peter inspired to say that?  What do you think?     

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