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.]

 

Gospel Obedience at Corinth--What Really Happened?

Did Paul preach the same gospel at Corinth that he taught elsewhere?  Everywhere else he taught, as part of the gospel, baptism for the remission of sins.  One can go to Acts 16 and read two accounts, in the same chapter, of conversions made by Paul--Lydia and the Philippian jailer--in which in both instances those being converted were baptized. 

Paul himself, in his conversion, was baptized.  You may recall the words of Ananias to him, "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins." (Acts 22:16 NAS)  I might add that it is hard to wash away your sins if you do not have any so evidently Ananias felt pretty sure that Paul still had some that needed to be taken care of.  Many modern-day preachers speak as though they know more about it than what Ananias did as they say men are saved at the point of faith without baptism and thus have no sins to wash away. 

There is a passage in 1 Corinthians that cause some people trouble on the subject of baptism--1 Cor. 1:14.  Paul preached baptism, personally baptized some, was baptized himself, and yet here he says, in writing to the church at Corinth, "I thank God that I baptized none of you, except Crispus and Gaius." (NAS)  What gives?  That is a good question deserving a response. 

We know Paul preached baptism at Corinth.  How do we know?  In Acts 18:8 we find the result of Paul's preaching at Corinth.  The text says, "Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized." (Acts 18:8 NAS)  I stop here and ask a question.  If Paul was not preaching baptism at Corinth who was?  Someone was as people were being baptized.  However, if you will read Acts 18:5-8 you will see clearly the one doing the preaching was Paul.  But we read 1 Cor. 1:14 and doubt enters our mind. 

There is no need for doubt as will be shown.  If Paul preached one gospel in one location that had baptism in it and another gospel in another location that did not then why should any of us listen to anything he had to say?  He says, "Even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed." (Gal. 1:8 NAS)  If Paul preached more than one gospel he condemned himself by his very own words.  That did not happen.  

In the book of Galatians, Paul says in chapter 3:26-27, "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.  For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." (NAS)  We need for our study to emphasize the words "baptized into Christ".  

But first, what does the word "for" mean?  Has Paul not tied faith in Christ directly with baptism with his second use of the word "for" in this passage?  If you have faith in Christ you are baptized.  If you do not have faith in Christ you are not baptized.  It is that simple. 

True faith in Christ demands baptism for the reason that Jesus taught it.  You cannot have faith in Christ and yet lack faith in what he taught and commanded.  (See Matt. 28:19 and Mark 16:16 on what Jesus taught on the subject of baptism.  See also John 3:5.) 

Let me ask some questions based on this passage--Galatians 3:27.  Paul says, again, "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ."  What about those who were not baptized?  Did they clothe themselves with Christ?  Did Paul say for all of you who were not baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ?  Is that what he said? 

How does one get into Christ, the only place salvation can be found?  Does not the text tell us clearly if we will only listen? 

If Paul preached baptism once he preached it everywhere he went whether the text says he did or not.  There is absolutely no choice but to infer that he taught baptism to both Lydia and the Philipian jailer or else how did they know about it and why did they do it? 

All of that said we need not make necessary inferences about baptism at Corinth for Paul in writing to the church at Corinth says in 1 Cor 12:13, "For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body."  Baptized into what body?  The body of Christ as per Gal. 3:27.  Who was baptized?  "We were all baptized," Paul says.  

One may object and say that the body is the church (Eph. 1:22-23) so baptism is just about getting into the church.  Baptism is about getting into the spiritual body of Christ and, yes, that is the church but that is also the very thing Christ is the Savior of.  "He himself being the Savior of the body." (Eph. 5:23 NAS)  He has not said a word about saving anything else save his body. 

One needs to get himself into Christ where salvation is and the road to doing that is certainly faith but not faith alone apart from repentance, confession of Jesus, and baptism for the remission of sins which places one in Christ.  God adds one to his church but not randomly.  He adds only those who meet his qualifications. 

The reader should not confuse being in the church mentioned in the Bible with denominations.  The thing Paul is discussing is not denominationalism which did not exist when Paul wrote and would not for hundreds of years to come.  One is baptized into the New Testament church, the one Christ established and gave his life for and which will be saved on the last day.  Everyone in the church will be saved provided they live faithful lives, a big if. 

Now to the passage at hand which troubles some, 1 Cor. 1:14-17, Paul speaking, "I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, that no man should say you were baptized in my name.  Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.  For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, that the cross of Christ should not be made void." (NAS) 

There are two points about this passage that we have to keep in mind lest we be led astray.  (1) The problem at Corinth that Paul is discussing in the first chapter of First Corinthians is that of men making themselves disciples of various evangelists rather than of Christ thus creating division.  In verse 13 Paul says, "Has Christ been divided?  Paul was not crucified for you, was he?  Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (NAS)  "In the name of Paul" should read instead "into the name of Paul" (see the side margin notes in the NASB reference edition which lists the word "into" as the literal translation). 

Baptism is "into Christ" (Gal. 3:27) and not "into" man.  Only in Christ is salvation found.  No one at Corinth was baptized into any man's name other than Christ.  Paul was thus thankful he had not personally baptized many at Corinth "that no man should say you were baptized in ("into" is the literal translation--DS) my name." (1 Cor. 1:15 NAS) 

He says that in light of what was going on there.  Had he baptized more then the more likely there would be those claiming to be of Paul and Paul wanted no part of this division in the church that was occurring.  His point is that men are baptized into Christ, not into a man, and thus should wear the name of Christian only.  There is no such thing as being of Paul, or of Apollos, or of Cephas and it is wrong to claim allegiance to such and divide the church. 

(2) The second thing we must understand is that just because Paul did not do the baptizing does not mean that his helpers such as Timothy and others did not do so on his behalf in rendering aid to him in his work.  We know both Silas and Timothy were with him in Corinth (see Acts 18:5-8).  We have another account of this very thing with Jesus.  John says, "When therefore the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were) he left Judea." (John 4:1-2 NAS) 

We need to use our common sense.  Paul is not going to preach baptism and then not see that it is done when people respond to his preaching.  None of us think that Peter personally baptized the 3,000 who responded to his preaching on the day of Pentecost when he preached baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).  We are sure he had help.  If we were to find Paul had men traveling with him who did this work why should we be shocked?  1 Cor. 12:13 certainly proves someone was doing the baptizing there. 

I think we have pretty much covered the ground that needs to be covered concerning what happened in Corinth with regard to Paul's preaching and practice.  The same thing happened at Corinth that happened everywhere else he preached -- the same gospel, the same baptism for those who believed.    

One final comment – why did Paul say Christ did not send him to baptize?  Because any man can baptize another.  It is a physical act as far as immersion is concerned.  Anyone could do that for another but not every man could preach the gospel with Holy Spirit inspiration as could Paul.  That was his main mission and others could follow up his preaching by baptizing those being converted. 

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

The Conversion of Lydia – Acts 16:13-15

In Acts 16:13-15 we find the account of the conversion of Lydia in the city of Philippi.  This is a very interesting conversion account and one that men have debated as to what actually happened.  It is a short account so let us read it and see if there is anything to debate or to cause controversy. 

“And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where we were supposing that there would be a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women who had assembled. (Act 16:13 NAS77) 

And a certain woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. (Act 16:14 NAS77) 

And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us. (Act 16:15 NAS77)”

Paul, Silas, and Timothy, as you recall, entered the city of Philippi to preach the gospel.  Their first opportunity, as far as we can tell, is to a group of women out at the riverside at a gathering place for prayer.  Lydia is one of the women assembled there. 

The first mystery to some people is found in the statement in verse 14 where it is said that "the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul."  Well, how did the Lord do that?  Did God take a kind of spiritual crowbar to her heart and mind and force conversion on her?  Did the Holy Spirit come upon her in some mysterious operation taking over her will and making her receptive to the gospel as Paul preached it?  Some think so.  The reality is there is no truth to such suppositions as will soon be shown. 

God opened Lydia's heart to the gospel simply by the preaching of the word.  How do I know?  That is a fair question.  If God acted miraculously on the heart of Lydia resulting in a sort of forced conversion, one of which she had no way of resisting, and God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34 KJV), shows no partiality (Rom. 2:11, Eph. 6:9, Col. 3:25), and teaches us that it is a sin to show partiality (James 2:9), then God did the very thing in converting Lydia that he says, through his word, that he does not do and that he condemns in us.  None of us believe that. 

Lydia's heart was opened by God's word in the same natural way yours and mine are.  For example, all of us have read passages in the Bible that condemn us for something we have done at one time or another resulting in a pang of guilt and sorrow within us.  Is that the Holy Spirit acting miraculously on my heart or is it the power of the word of God upon a man's heart?  Yes, it is the Spirit working but working through the word, not miraculously separate and apart from the word.  We retain the free will to either believe what we read thus allowing it to touch our hearts or the free will to pass it off and reject it.  

Our hearts are left free to choose either for or against the gospel thus we can be fairly condemned for choosing to reject it.  If it was otherwise how could it be said that God was fair to all?  In conversion, God treats all the same and does not play favorites. 

But, I want to make a note here about Paul's preaching that day.  In earlier articles, I have tried to show that in first-century accounts of gospel preaching all men who preached taught the same thing with the same results among those who believed.  Whether it was Peter, Philip, or Ananias doing the preaching, and now Paul the result was that in every case where the preaching was believed the result was that believers were baptized.  When we believe the words of Peter preaching by inspiration in Acts 2:38, we readily see why that was the case. 

What did Paul preach to Lydia?  We all agree he taught the fundamentals of the Christian faith.  With Paul, as with the other evangelists of his day, that included baptism for the remission of sins.  The text says Lydia was baptized along with her household (Acts 16:15) but when did she do this and why?  The verse before, verse 14, tells us that she was responding "to the things spoken by Paul." (NAS) 

Paul preached to her the gospel.  Paul preached baptism because Lydia was baptized in response to the things spoken by Paul (verse 14).  Baptism then is a part of the gospel.  The gospel cannot be preached without baptism being preached.  We see it preached by Peter, by Philip, by Ananias, and now by Paul. 

Some might respond by saying in earlier accounts found in earlier chapters of Paul's missionary efforts accounts are given where baptism is not mentioned - passages like Acts 13:12, 13:39, 48 and Acts 14:1, 14:21.  The reader ought to realize two things regarding such passages. 

(1) They are summary statements of what happened and not detailed accounts of conversion.  For example, Acts 14:21 simply says they "made many disciples."  There is no attempt to say how that was done.  Acts 13:39 says, "Everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses." (NAS)  True, but what is not stated is what is to be believed.  In Acts 13:48 the text says "as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." (NAS)  Believed what?  If they believed what Paul preached then they believed, among other things, that they must be baptized.  But, the point is that such passages are just summary statements without details being provided. 

Let the reader ask himself this question.  None of these accounts mention a word about repentance nor should they given the fact they are, as has been stated, summary statements.  Do we believe that there is such a thing as salvation by faith without any repentance of sins?  Again, when it is simply stated that people believed it is a summary of what took place and not a detailed account of everything they believed and believed to the point of obedience. 

If we were studying the subject of biblical hermeneutics we would say the word "believed" when used in such passages as we have been talking about is used as a figure of speech called a "synecdoche."  A synecdoche is "a figure of speech by which we speak of the whole by a part." (Hermeneutics, by D. R. Dungan, page 300)  As Dungan says, "This is many times the case with the salvation of sinners.  The whole number of conditions are indicated by the use of one.  Generally the first one is mentioned-that of faith-because without it nothing else could follow." (page 305) 

In more detailed accounts we know what was preached and what was believed by what was done.  Lydia was baptized because the text says she was responding to what was preached and Paul was the preacher.  

(2)  Paul preached the same gospel wherever he went, not one thing in one place and something else in another.  If you can find what he preached once you know he always taught the same elsewhere.  Paul says, "But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed." (Gal 1:8 NAS)  Paul did not preach different things in different places when it came to the gospel.  If he preached baptism to Lydia he preached the same wherever he went and we know he preached it to her. 

If Paul did not believe baptism for the remission of sins was essential to gospel obedience (and thus salvation) then please tell me how he could have written what he did in passages such as Rom. 6:3-4 and Gal. 3:26-27.  Tell me why when Ananias told him "now why do you delay?  Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16 NAS) that Paul did not object and respond to Ananias along the line of now look here Ananias, I know you have the Spirit of God but the minute I met Jesus on the road I believed and was saved and so both you and the Spirit are in error.  I need not be baptized to "wash away" any sins for they were forgiven me when Jesus appeared to me and I first believed.  Why did he not respond that way? 

It astounds me that people can claim to be saved by faith, apart from baptism, given the fact their claim to believe is fraud.  How can I believe in Jesus and yet deny what he taught?   Jesus taught both personally on the subject of baptism (Matt. 28:19, Mark 16:15-16, John 3:5) and through his Holy Spirit-inspired apostles and prophets.  Believe in him, just not in what he has said, and you will be saved seems to be the idea.  What!  How does that work?  Someone needs to explain that. 

What does it mean to be faithful to God as a new convert?  Lydia says, as a new convert speaking to Paul and his party, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay." (Acts 16:15 NAS)  That they did because they judged her, as she says, as one who was faithful to the Lord. 

What did she do to become faithful?  She believed what Paul preached (including baptism) and responded to it by acting upon it.  If one wants to become faithful to the Lord they need to do what she did assuming they have not already done so.  Would she have been judged faithful if she had not been baptized?  Think about that long and hard.  Paul taught it.  Let us say she refused to do it.  Would she then have been judged to be faithful? 

One final fact about Lydia's conversion that has caused trouble is that the text says "she and her household " were baptized (Acts 16:15 NAS).  The thought is that this means she and her young children maybe including infants.  It is easily seen that infants were not baptized for the simple reason that baptism is of no value to one who is not a sinner as its purpose is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) and infants have no sin.  They are safe in the arms of God as is. 

But, there is another point as well confirming there was no infant baptism or baptism of very young children.  Baptism saves only when accompanied by faith (Mark 16:16) for it is "he who has believed and has been baptized" that shall be saved.  It is not he who is too young to believe and is baptized shall be saved.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

He Rejoiced Greatly Having Believed in God

In Acts 16 verses 23 through 34 we have the account of the conversion of the Philippian jailer at the hands of Paul and Silas who preached the gospel to him and his household.  As you recall Paul and Silas had been imprisoned in Philippi when an earthquake struck at midnight, their bonds were loosed, and all the prison doors were opened.  Being responsible for the prisoners the jailer assuming all had escaped was ready to take his own life when Paul called out to him.  The opportunity was given to preach the gospel to him and his household. 

The first recorded words of the jailer after bringing Paul and Silas out of their confinement was "what must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30 NAS)  There is a lot of information that can be gleaned from those few words.  First, it can be fairly inferred that the jailer was convinced that Paul and Silas were men of God who knew God's will.  Perhaps their reputation had proceeded them here in Philippi as not long before this they had converted Lydia (Acts 16:14-15) and also had cast out a spirit of divination from a slave girl, a spirit that was telling all that "these men are bond-servants of the Most High God, who are proclaiming to you the way of salvation." (Acts 16:17 NAS)  All of this had occurred in the city before the jailing of Paul and Silas.     

Secondly, it is clear the jailer felt confident that there were things that he would have to do to be saved.  It was just not clear to him what those things were. 

In response to the jailer's question Paul and Silas tell him to "believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household." (Acts 16:31 NAS)  This was a statement that needed clarification calling for preaching.  What does it mean to "believe in the Lord Jesus"?  The jailer needed to know.  What was to be believed?  He was receptive if he could only learn what it was he was to believe. 

Verse 32 indicates that Paul and Silas did speak "the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house." (Acts 16:32 NAS)  But, that is all that is said about the preaching.  We have to look elsewhere to find what the gospel is for we are all certain he preached the gospel to the jailer.  The gospel is, after all, “the power of God for salvation to every one who believes.” (Rom. 1:16 NAS) 

We find what the gospel is in 1 Cor. 15:1-4 where Paul says, "Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you." (NAS)  He then goes on to explain it to us – that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and raised the third day. 

So, yes, we have a good idea of some of the things Paul and Silas preached to the Philippian jailer.  But, was believing in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ for the remission of our sins all there was to it?  Those who believe that put themselves in a bind.  How? 

Because the demons also believe and shudder (James 2:19), are they saved?  Because "many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him," (John 12:42 NAS) were they saved?  Can one be saved who is unwilling to confess Jesus?  Can one believe in Jesus but refuse to confess him and yet be saved?  Paul says, "With the mouth confession is made to salvation." (Rom. 10:10 NKJV)  In the verse just before that (Rom. 10:9) he says, "If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus."  Yes, "if" you do.  The word "if" has meaning. 

Another bind that those find themselves in who say all one has to do is believe in order to be saved is that they leave out repentance altogether.  If you can leave out repentance that ought to save the demons then, hadn't it?  

Yes, I am sure Paul taught faith in the Lord Jesus and when understood properly that will save a man.  However, faith in the Lord Jesus means you believe what Jesus taught and believe it so strongly you obey him.  Faith in the Lord Jesus is not just mental assent.  Faith in the Lord Jesus is not disregarding his word as of no account. 

Jesus said, "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved."  (Mark 16:16 NAS)  We in so-called Christendom say yes, I believe in Jesus.  I just cannot believe what he says.  Well, that is an impressive statement of faith is it not?  

We know with certainty Paul once again preached baptism to the Philippian jailer for the text says of the jailer, "immediately he was baptized, he and all his household." (Acts 16:33 NAS)  I say Paul preached baptism again for earlier in the same city and in this very same chapter he preached it to Lydia as well (Acts 16:15).  Unless he preached another gospel in other places than what he did in Philippi he always preached baptism in preaching the gospel whether it is mentioned specifically or not.  Baptism is the water part when Jesus said, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5 NAS)   

Every sincere seeker after God ought to pay close attention to verse 34.  Do you want to know what it means to believe in God?  The text says of the jailer that he "rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household."  We know of a certainty that whatever else that phrase means it means at least this much - baptism is a part of the gospel to be believed.  Paul and Silas taught it to the jailer and his household, they believed what they were taught, they obeyed it, and they were baptized immediately in the very late night hours (after midnight).  When this was done it is said then that the jailer "rejoiced greatly, having believed in God."  

Let me ask a question.  Would the jailer have rejoiced had he heard Paul and Silas preach baptism but then said I don't believe it and I refuse to do it?  Could it have been said in that scenario that he believed the word of the Lord?  Even the skeptic must admit that if Paul and Silas preached baptism then it must have been part of "the word of the Lord." (Acts 16:32 NAS)  It was a part, I might add, which they believed--believed and obeyed.  

But, all of this raises other questions.  Why preach baptism to the jailer or anyone else?  Might it not be that Paul and Silas spoke by inspiration?  Might it not be that baptism is a part of the gospel to be believed and obeyed?  Might it not be that Peter speaking by inspiration in Acts 2:38 knew what he was talking about and that baptism is actually and literally for the remission of sins?  Yes, I say, it might be.  I say even more, it is.  It is not to say it comes alone without faith and repentance but it comes with them.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One Church—A Thing Hard to Accept

Many older Americans alive today can remember years ago when O. J. Simpson was arrested and put on trial for the murder of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman.  I remember a comment I heard on TV at the time that simply astounded me.  One lady that was being interviewed, for what reason I no longer recall, made the comment that if she had seen O. J. commit the murder with her own eyes she would not believe it.  I guess her idea was that she could not trust herself, she would have to be hallucinating, her mind would have to be playing tricks on her.  Assuredly, her mind was made up on the subject and any truth brought to bear upon it contrary to what she wanted truth to be would bounce off it like a rubber ball dropped on a hardwood floor.  Truth to her was what she already believed, what she wanted the truth to be, and do not bother me with any contrary facts even if they exist.  I will not believe them.

Is it any wonder people cannot or will not accept truth in religion?  Is it any wonder they will not accept clear statements made in scripture on various subjects?  There was a time in my life when I was yet relatively young and naive that I thought if a person was in error as it related to a religious matter correcting him or her would be as easy as going to the Bible and finding the book, chapter, and verse that told them the truth.  I learned over time that the real problem is not a matter of the mind but one of the heart and thus much more difficult to deal with. 

The kind of people I am talking about will not be convinced of the truth no matter how many scriptures you show them.  They would flunk out of a high school or college class for they will not accept factual statements or any kind of sound reasoning.  Show them a passage like Acts 2:38 on baptism for the remission of sins (add to that Acts 22:16 and 1 Peter 3:21) and they will say the text cannot mean what it says, that would be impossible from their point of view, for like the lady with O.J. it simply cannot be so.  It cannot be so for the heart has already made up its mind and evidence will not change it.  That was the way it was with Jesus' miracles, even his resurrection did not convince those who had already made up their mind that he could not be the Son of God (Matt. 28:11-14).  

In his last recorded meeting with the Jews in Rome during his imprisonment there Paul made this charge against the Jews, not all but some:

“So when they did not agree among themselves, they departed after Paul had said one word: ‘The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, saying, 'Go to this people and say: "Hearing you will hear, and shall not understand; and seeing you will see, and not perceive; for the heart of this people has grown dull.  Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, lest they should understand with their heart and turn, so that I should heal them.”  Therefore let it be known to you that the salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it!’ ” (Acts 28:25-28 NKJV) 

Who had closed the eyes of these Jews who would not see?  Had God done it?  The text says "their eyes they have closed."  Why would a person do that?  Could it be they did not want to see?  Could it be they did not want to know?  Well, why would a person not want to see or not want to know?  Could it be because he or she was happy and satisfied with where they were at and had no desire to change, did not want change?

But this was not the first time the Jews had done such a thing.  Zechariah in talking about the Jews before the Babylonian captivity said of them, "They refused to heed, shrugged their shoulders, and stopped their ears so that they could not hear.  Yes, they made their hearts like flint, refusing to hear the law and the words which the Lord of hosts had sent by His Spirit." (Zech. 7:11-12 NKJV)  It was not a matter of they couldn't hear but rather that they wouldn't hear. 

When Paul says the Gentiles "will hear it" (the reference being to the gospel) it is the same as saying to those Jews to whom he was speaking in Rome "you won't hear but they will."  Both could have heard.  The only difference between the two parties was the heart.  The Jewish heart had grown dull.  The New Living Translation uses the word "hardened" rather than the phrase "grown dull."  The Jewish heart had been hardened but it was of their own doing, of their own will.  Man hardens his own heart and we are warned against doing that, "Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion." (Heb. 3:15 NKJV)  The Jewish heart was that way because they were happy with their present state of affairs, their present state of being, and hardened against any disruption of what was satisfying to them.  It is hard to get a satisfied person to change. 

One also must remember that the human mind, one’s thinking, is influenced strongly by the emotions and will of man.  The heart the Bible speaks of consists of a man's mind, emotions, conscience, and will collectively (depending on the context).  It is hard for the mind to overcome the emotions.  Many marriages that have failed would never have been made in the first place had the mind ruled over the emotions and will.  Many have been able to see a failed marriage before the ceremony but the bride or groom couldn't see it for the emotions overrode rational thought and the will was strong.  The eyes were deliberately closed.   

This brings me to what I really want to talk about it.  I have recently taken an interest in reading books on the history of Christianity from the first century up to the present.  The most recent book I have completed on the subject was a book by Stephen Tomkins who has a Ph.D. in church history from the London School of Theology.  In his book entitled A Short History of Christianity, copyrighted in 2005, he states on page 245 that "there are 34,000 Christian denominations worldwide."  In doing a little Internet search on the subject of numbers I came up with an even greater number—38,000.  The number you come up with will vary due to the criteria you use to distinguish one denomination from another.

Why is it and how is it that when Jesus said "I will build my church" (singular, Matt. 16:18) and when Paul speaking by the Holy Spirit says "there is one body" (Eph. 4:4 NKJV) and has told us in two different places that the church is the body of Christ (see Eph. 1:22-23 and Col. 1:18) that men seem to think that one is equivalent to thirty some thousand?

How is it we have here in the Bible a plain statement of scripture as plain as anything Paul spoke to the Jews in centuries gone by and yet the eyes are closed today and the ears are hard of hearing and the hearts are grown dull so the plain statement of scripture cannot be understood and all mathematical laws are thrown out the window so that one is no longer equal to one but to thirty some thousand?  Yet, we think we are better than the Jews of old.  We think we are more rational.

Yes, I know the argument that all the thirty-some thousand different denominations make up the one church.  Where do you read that in your Bible?  What book is that in, what chapter, what verse or verses?  It is not in the parable of the vine and the branches as is sometimes said.  That parable is found in John 15.  Jesus was talking to individual disciples not denominations.  There was not a denomination on the face of the earth at that time.  When Jesus said "I am the vine, you are the branches" (John 15:5 NKJV) he was not speaking to a phantom that did not exist.

If it be said that the disciples Jesus spoke to at that time were representative of all future believers even though they are scattered throughout all the denominations I deny it.  Why?  Because the disciples Jesus spoke to on that occasion were the 12 apostles and the occasion was the Last Supper (compare Mark 14:17-18 with John 13:1-18:3).  Were the apostles divided in doctrine like the denominations?  It is the disciples united in doctrine, not divided, who are the branches in that account.  It is disciples who are in full fellowship with one another who are the branches, disciples who are unified, not divided.

The one church has one doctrine, not thirty-some thousand different doctrines.  When John, Peter, or Paul, or any of the apostles went anywhere preaching one did not contradict what the other one taught for every one of them was guided in his speech by the Holy Spirit (see Matt. 10:19-20, John 14:16-17, 26, 16:13, Gal. 1:11-12, 2 Tim. 3:16, 1 Cor. 7:40, etc.).  The idea that we have thirty-some thousand faithful denominations all chockfull of saved Christians is the thinking of hearts that have been hardened to the point they can no longer reason rationally.

If denomination A believes one thing, denomination B believes another, and denomination C believes something else and yet I have concluded that a man can be saved in any denomination then the reality is truth no longer matters.  Error is as good as truth for one will be saved either way—by believing and obeying truth or believing and obeying error.  Hardened hearts no longer think rationally.

It is sometimes said that all that really matters is that one believe in Jesus.  That sounds good until you ask people to define what that means.  What does it mean to believe in Jesus?  Does it just mean that all one must do is believe with the mind that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God?  That was the confession Peter made in Matt. 16:16 and Jesus said that he would build his church on that rock.  Are all such believers then in the "one church" Jesus built?

If so what do you do with a passage like John 12:42 where John says, "Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue"? (NKJV)  Granted this was before the one church was established on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 but just for the sake of our discussion let us say we have a similar group of men or the same group of men do the same thing after Pentecost.  What then?  They are believers that Christ is the Son of God.  Is that all that matters?  Are they then in the "one church?"  Are they saved?  The failure to confess Jesus is the same as denying him.

I think you can see you have to be very careful in defining what it means to believe in Jesus when you talk about saving faith or belief.  When you begin to define saving faith in stricter terms than just an intellectual faith then you are putting yourself into a position where you are saying that doctrine does make a difference after all and if doctrine does make a difference then you do not and cannot have thirty-some thousand denominations with different doctrines making up the "one church."  The one church most of the denominational world today believes in cannot exist if doctrine matters.  

The same process, for want of a better word, that makes one a Christian also adds him to the one church Jesus built.  God adds you when you obey the gospel.  The Bible says, "The Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved." (Acts 2:47 NKJV)

Well, who was being saved?  In Acts 2 in the verses prior to verse 47 (just quoted) we have Peter preaching the first gospel sermon ever to be preached.  It was the Day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit that had been promised to the twelve (Acts 1:1-5) had arrived, and Peter via the Holy Spirit preached the first gospel sermon ever to be preached by man in which by belief and obedience to it men were saved and added to the one church of which Jesus is the Savior (Eph. 5:23).  Added by the Lord.

What did Peter preach?  He preached Jesus concluding that part of his sermon with the words "God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." (Acts 2:36 NKJV)  Based on the next verse, verse 37, it is clear men were brought to faith in Christ by what Peter had preached.  Did Peter then tell them their sins had been forgiven and to go on home and henceforth remain faithful?  Had he told them that we could safely conclude the Lord had added them to the one church and that an intellectual faith that Jesus is the Christ, the Lord and Savior, is all that is required for salvation.  If that is what had happened then the idea that all who believe in Jesus no matter what denomination they are in are in the one church and are saved would be a truthful doctrine but that is not what happened.  He next tells them 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)

Here is the point where men who claim to believe in Jesus get their back up and refuse to believe Jesus' words (John 16:13-14) spoken via the Holy Spirit through Peter.  So you have a situation where men supposedly believe in Jesus but won't believe what he says.  That is why I said earlier you have to be very careful about how you define "belief in Jesus."  There is such a thing as belief in Jesus that does not save (see John 12:42 again as just one example).  No one wants that kind of faith.  We are interested in saving faith, in the faith where the Lord adds us to his one church because of our faith.

Men will generally accept what Peter said about repentance as essential for their salvation but not baptism and that despite as plain a statement as one can find in scripture on any subject.  You can point them to other scriptures that say the exact same thing as what Peter said in Acts 2 (Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21, John 3:5, Mark 16:16) but a thousand plain scriptures on the subject will not change their minds.  They have closed their eyes and hardened their hearts.  It will take far more than a few passages on baptism or a few passages on the one church to get them to believe either.  They will only believe "one church" if the number one can somehow be made the equivalent of thirty-some thousand.

I would like to ask a question.  Sometimes we cannot wrap our minds around concepts because the concepts are too big for our finite minds to comprehend and when that happens our defensive mechanism is to cast thoughts about such matters aside.  Here are some examples:  the universe, distances in space, the national debt, our own death, hell, eternity, etc.  These are some things that are hard to grasp hold of.  These are the kinds of things our minds do not dwell on long because they overwhelm the mind.

Now to my question.  Which concept is the hardest for the mind to believe, that there are 30,000 plus churches all of them right and in which any person can be saved in any one of them even though none agree and all teach different doctrines or on the other hand that there is only one church?  I grant you both concepts are kind of mind-boggling.  It is hard to believe there is only one church when the world has such a diversity of churches but is it any harder to believe that than to believe there are 30,000 plus churches all teaching different doctrines and yet it doesn't matter in the least to God and you can be saved in any one of them?  Which is the most outlandish belief?

The Bible does not teach what denominationalism teaches on the subject of the one church.  I include Catholicism as just another denomination.  It is true in the New Testament many of the congregations were not what they ought to be (check out the 7 churches of Asia for both the good and the bad).  But, this much they all had in common, in every congregation the membership had obeyed the gospel Jesus taught via the Holy Spirit through Peter (on the Day of Pentecost) or through the other apostles and inspired teachers and prophets and were thus made up of people who were a part of the one church Jesus built.   That is simply not true of modern-day denominationalism.

The doctrine taught by the apostles and inspired prophets and evangelists was a unified doctrine.  Every congregation was to abide in it.  There was no such thing as every man having a church of his choice each differing in doctrine.  It is not man's choice to make when it comes to the church.  It is God's choice and he has said there is but one church.  If that church is not found in your community why not restore it?  You will find the pattern for it in the pages of your New Testament, not in a book on the history of Christianity which is more the history of apostasy than of New Testament Christianity.

[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.]