The GracEmail letter is in red; our response is in black

Why do some of Peter's words in Acts 2:38 use plural forms and some use singular?"

Edward Fudge Responds:

Edward Fudge: It is indeed interesting to read Acts 2:38 in the Greek and to notice the specific differences in singular and plural verbs and pronouns. Luke quotes Peter as saying:

 

"Repent" (plural) and let each one of you be baptized (singular) in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your (plural) sins . . . "

 

Repent simply means to turn the mind away from an old opinion. John demanded that people turn into a new life. Repent is:

 

Metanoeo (g3340) met-an-o-eh'-o; from 3326 and 3539; to think differently or afterwards, i.e. reconsider (mor. feel compunction): - repent.

 

Scripture does not teach Salvation by Repentance Only!

 If one rearranged the sentence in English by singular/plural words, one might read:

 

"Repent (plural) for the remission of your (plural) sins, and let each one of you be baptized (singular) in the name of Jesus Christ."

 

I am not sure how a plurality of people change their minds. Lenski explains this as:

 

"Repent" is plural, but "be baptized" has the distributive singular subject "everyone of you." The two acts, however, always go together... and all difficulty disappears when we properly conceive them as a unit. Let us not separate them. The pathological cases of possible repentance without baptism need not concern us. Peter's hearers knew about baptism through the work of the Baptist. (Lenski, Acts 2:38)

 

Fudge: This is most interesting in light of Luke's account of Jesus' final commission, in which he reports Jesus as saying:

 

"that repentance and remission of sins be proclaimed in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."

 

Peter, recorded within a short period of time by Luke, connected remission of sins to baptism:

 

(Peter said unto them,)	Then Peter said unto them,
Repent ye therefore, (comma)	Repent , (comma)
and be converted,	and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ
that your sins may be blotted out,	for the remission of sins,
when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; Acts 3:19 (The Lord is the Spirit)	and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38

---

Another View:

 

In the Greek, "repent" is in the plural and so is "your" of "your sins." They are meant to be understood as being related to each other. It is like saying, "All of you repent, each of you get baptized, and all of you will receive forgiveness."

 

Pardon me, but that is just a nonesense attempt to justify rejecting the counsel of God. What difference does it make? Suppose we retranslate the retranslation:

 

It is like saying, "Each of you repent, all of you get baptized, and each of you will receive forgiveness."

 

Look at it both ways and understand that you are just trying to tell God to get lost:

 

Each (or all) must repent, each (or all) must be baptized before each (or all) will receive forgiveness.

 

This writer shows that the false interpretation of baptism is bound up in the false and Calvinism which says that God picks the ones He wants to save and then sends all of the rest of us, including inch-long squirming embryos in their mother's womb, to an eternal hell fire.

 

Repentance is a mark of salvation because it is granted by God (2 Tim. 2:25) and is given to believers only. In this context, only the regenerated, repentant person is to be baptized. Baptism is the manifestation of the repentance, that gift from God, that is the sign of the circumcised heart. That is why it says, repent and get baptized.

 

Honor the Holy Spirit and keep the verse in its context:

 

And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient; 2 Timothy 2:24

 

Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 2 Timothy 2:25

 

and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will. 2 Timothy 2:26

Repentance will be a softened heart so that the elder's enemy will turn around and listen to the Words of Christ. This hearing will bring them to their senses and turn away from Satan. They could never turn unless free will was the truth and Calvinis was the lie.

When one teaches the Word of God it is God teaching; when they have Godly sorrow it is brought on by teaching; and when they turn or reform it is the work of God. However, it is never an automatic sign of Calvinistic predestination.

We simply must conclude that those who feel predestinated also feel infallible and brazen enough to tell the Holy Spirit that He just didn't know what He was talking about; and about 26 translators that they are also wrong. When they refused to be baptized in John's baptism for the remission of sins, John said that they rejected the counsel of God for their lives. Therefore, if Calvin was correct, those who reject the counsel of God by refusing to be baptized must be predestinated to be lost.

---

Now that we have seen that Edward Fudges view is the typical Zwinglian - Smyth Baptist view which began in the 1500s and propagated by Smyth, we will review his comments

Because Edward Fudge did not take this opportunity to correct an attempt to have remission of sins prior to baptism, we must assume that he is defending, in a world-wide forum, the notion. Not only so but goes on to defend the remission before baptism doctrine in a positive way. Let us look at the proof-text yanked out by the roots of its context

And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: Acts 24:46

 

And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem Lke .24:47

 

Beginning on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem, Peter, who understood what Jesus commanded, refuted Edward Fudge's exegesis:

 

Then Peter said unto them (each of them), Repent, and be baptized every one (each) of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 2:38

 

The believers had many sins to repent of or turn away from and each of them must do so. Luke refuted Fudge (In volume-one of the set) by showing how repentance is connected to baptism before there is any remission of sins:

 

And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins; Luke 3:3

 

Note that Fudge teaches: "Repent for the remission of sins." Or, repentance is unto (in the direction of) or into (fully inside) the remission of sins. It must follow that the for in Acts 2:38 means in order to and not because of.

 

Or does he intend to say that they were to repent because their sins were already forgiven?

Now, Luke spoke of John's baptism but he used the same language as in Acts 2:38. He notes that people who come to his baptism in order to have their sins (plural) remitted must repent in a plural sense. That is, their many wrong actions must be repented of and demonstrated by their lives. They could not repent collectively and be baptized individually:

 

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Luke 3:7

 

Bring forth therefore fruits (plural) meet for repentance: Luke 3:8

 

There simply is no biblical evidence making repentance the sole act which brings salvation with baptizm the sign which trails along behind. Note:

John MacArthur, Jr. Pastor-Teacher at Grace Community Church, builds an identical house of cards based upon assumptions:

Water baptism does not seem to be what Peter has in view in 1 Peter 3:21.

 

In Acts 2:38, Peter appears to link forgiveness of sins to baptism. But there are at least two plausible interpretations.

 

It is also possible to take the clause "and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" as parenthetical.

 

Edward Fudge: In order to catch Edward Fudge making the same unwarranted assumption and then using his assumption as proof to reach a conclusion, we need to repeat his tampering with Scripture:

 

ASSUMPTION - Let's assume that I have money in the bank.

 

Edward Fudge: If one rearranged the sentence in English by singular/plural words, one might read:

 

"Repent (plural) for the remission of your (plural) sins, and let each one of you be baptized (singular) in the name of Jesus Christ."

 

Now, if we could find 26 versions which agreed!

 

CONCLUSION - Now, he concludes, let's spend the money!

 

Edward Fudge: Now, in his volume-two of the set, Luke shows exactly that occurring, as in Jerusalem Peter says to "repent for the remission of sins" and to be baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ."

 

Not in my Bible!

 

Then Peter said unto them (each of them), Repent, and be baptized every one (each who has repented) of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 2:38

 

EXPLANATION - "Judge, this is what was in my mind."

"You see, there are two rules of high finance."

 

Edward Fudge: This is also interesting in light of the special audience to whom the words of Acts 2:38 were addressed. We often speak of the special situation involved in Acts 10 -- the first gospel sermon to the Gentiles. We usually fail to note that Acts 2 also involves a special situation -- the first gospel sermon to the Jews, specifically some of the very ones who demanded the death of Jesus a few weeks before.

The denial that Jesus and Peter meant what they said depends totally upon the notion that there was a Christian gospel and a Pauline gospel. Jesus preached His gospel to the Jews and they were baptized as a national effort to escape physical judgment. However, Paul -- the anti-Semite -- slowly evolved His Gentile gospel. We do not live under the Christian gospel but the Pauline gospel -- they claim!

"Therefore, Judge, I can take money out of the bank based upon my it might be law of finance."

 

The first missing ingredient is that the apostles were beginning to do what Jesus commanded them to do without any relationship to their rejection of Him. That is, to go into all the world:

 

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Matthew 28:18

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Matthew 28:19

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Matthew 28:20

 

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature (all of them, plural). Mark 16:15

He (singular) that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:16

 

Remember also that this was Pentecost. Therefore, people would have assembled from all over the world and many of them were ethnic Jews but cultural Gentiles of the Greek world:

 

And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Acts 2:8

 

Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia, Acts 2:9

 

Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Acts 2:10

 

Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. Acts 2:11

And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? Acts 2:12

Therefore, it is clear that this was not a message directed to those who were implicated in the death of Jesus. It didn't even matter to Jesus. Remember, that He had concluded all under sin. There were not Jewish sinners and Gentile sinners; big sinners and little sinners. All had fallen short of the glory of God. Therefore, the only reason for tinkling on the Jew Gospel and Gentile Gospel is to prove that we, as Gentiles, are saved by faith only and that baptism is not a part of the process except as a testimony to others. It is a mysterious torturing of Christ's Words (and therefore Christ) to try to be God-like and include everyone under a giant umbrella. However judgmental others have been, we have no authority or need to pass an equal-but-opposite judgment that everyone is saved.

Judge, our assumption is now the Plan of Salvation

 

Edward Fudge: To THESE people, who fancied themselves as God's covenant people, but who had judged Jesus a blasphemer and called for his crucifixion, Peter now says, in compliance with Jesus' parting commission as told by the same author, Luke::

 

REPENT (plural -- the entire collectivity) for the remission of your (plural) sins!

Jesus didn't teach a nationalistic religion so that the collective body of people could repent for all of the sins of each individual. Everyone who desired an answer must repent.

No, we have just shown that many people cried out to know what they should do and it was not connected to any national sin. It was related to personal sin.

 

Edward Fudge: And, particularly significant in view of the particular audience involved, some of whom had personally demanded Jesus' recent death, he demands as a sign and expression of collective repentance a very individual response:

 

What, in the name of comon sense, is collective repentance? Do they take a vote and say, "Ok. As a nation, we know we did wrong. Now we repent by a vote to 100 to 25."

 

"Be baptized (singular), every one of you . . . "

 

This response explicitly contradicts their prior judgment and rejection of Jesus, for it is

 

"in (literally, epi = "upon") the name of JESUS CHRIST."

Fudge clearly believes that the collective "congregation" of Jews must repent.

Then each individual must be baptized purely as a sign of their collective repentance which remitted their collective sins!

This is a rub-it-in-your-face for having rejected Jesus. Having rejected him, you can repent and have your sins forgiven. However, then you must be baptized and acknowledge that remission came from that hated Nazarene.

This makes baptism penance and not repentance.

We repeat what Luke wrote in his "first volume":

 

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Luke 3:7

Bring forth therefore fruits (plural) meet for repentance: Luke 3:8

Therefore, repentance without individual participation is just silly. Baptism was a sign that one was outwardly identifying with the death of Jesus Christ but more. It was not a sign of their repentance but the actual means to the remission of sins -- all other passages and early practices clearly prove this.

Edward Fudge: I am not arguing that Acts 2:38 applies only to Jews, or only to those particular Jews. The Great Commission puts baptism on the highest authority as the believer's appropriate response to the *good news* (not, in Scripture, to "the plan of salvation" or some other such doctrinal formulation), and I would never suggest otherwise. (but, but, but...) 

However, that seems to be the explicit argument. Those who deny that baptism was part of Paul's gospel almost universally claim that Peter was preaching his gospel appropriate to the Jewish people and that Paul would preach the "Pauline" gospel to the Jews. Well, Paul preached to both, didn't he?

 

Well, Edward, I always thought that Jesus really did issue a plan of salvation when He died for and taught:

 

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mark 16:15

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 16:16

 

Edward Fudge: I do ask whether these considerations make Acts 2:38 more meaningful to us in its original setting, and whether Luke's way of stating things here, especially alongside his way of stating the "remission of sins" language in the Great Commission, might suggest better ways for us to conceptualize what the author intended the reader to understand in this particular verse.

We have shown that by proof-texting Luke, the writer "conceptualizes" something which the inspired writers did not say. Therefore, one cannot construct a syllogism which reaches a proper conclusion if the first premise perverts the Words of Christ.

Shouldn't we believe the collective scholarship in the versions and translations available to us? Do you know of any version which translates what Jesus intended the reader to understand?

Thomas Campbell, in The Christian Baptist, VOL. II. NO. III states:

 

"Now this internal religion, externally manifested by certain acts and exercises of divine appointment, is what is commonly called worship, and rightly too. See the whole bible upon this word. The first instituted act of christian worship is baptism into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

 

"Why is it translated "in the name," &c, contrary to the literal and almost universal translation of the particle eis? In the name of any dignified character, universally imports, by the authority of such a person. Whereas this is not the proper and obvious meaning of the baptismal institution. For although it is done by virtue of the divine authority enjoining it, that is, by the authority of Christ; yet its proper and primary import is not a mere exhibition of authority on the part of the institutor, and of submission on the part of the baptized, though this is certainly implied in every act of worship; but it is of a much more consolatory and blissful import, being an expression of faith and obedience on the part of the baptized; nay, the very first instituted act of the obedience of faith, in and by which the believing worshipper is openly declared to be of the household of faith and of the family of God, being baptized into "the name of the Father," of whom the whole redeemed family in heaven and earth is named; and into the name of the Redeemer, the Son, and heir of all things, who makes his people free; and into the name of the Holy Spirit, the sanctifier, the comforter, and perfecter of the saints; that by virtue of his indwelling and sanctifying presence, he, the baptized believer, may be separated to God, with all the redeemed, for a habitation of God, through the Spirit.

 

"Thus a new and blissful relation to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, is publicly recognized towards the believer, by an ordinance divinely and graciously instituted for this purpose. Being thus openly and explicitly declared to be of the family of God, through Jesus Christ, by the Spirit, he is declared free--justified from the guilt, and washed from the pollution of sin, by this washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which is the privilege of all those that believe and thus obey the gospel, by a worshipful and obediential compliance with this divine appointment.

His faith corresponding with every item of the divine testimony, thus exhibited, he joyfully recognizes his new, justified, sanctified, and filial relation to God; and realizing this, is filled with peace and joy in believing; and so goes on his way rejoicing, as well he may. See Acts viii. 39. So much for the first divinely instituted act of the worshipful obedience of faith.

 

 

Second Proof

 

Edward Fudge: And we should constantly remember that this same author Luke quotes this same Apostle Peter as saying in Acts 10:43 that "all the prophets bear witness that whoever believes in [Jesus] has remission of sins."

Click to read about Cornelius:

First, read the passage with open ears:

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. Acts 10:43 (Through is dia meaning " denoting the channel of an act .")

So, you see, Luke was not teaching salvation by "belief only." Rather, those who believe shall receive (KJV) the remission of sins. How? Through His name; "the channel of an act" which involves His name. Where is the only time and place where salvation is connected to His name? In baptism, of course.

Therefore, those who believe shall receive remission through his name.

Jesus said that all authority was vested in His Name. Father, Son and Spirit are not names but are descriptive titles of God's work in the physical world. Jesus connected baptism to his name and His name was always taken at baptism and not at belief or repentance. Jesus demanded that the apostles:

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Matthew 28:19

 

And, lo, Peter showed that baptism is in the name of Jesus (Jehovah-Saved is the name of the Godhead):

 

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38

 

I tell my Beagle: STOP. I mean: "Annie, you are just barking at your own echo off the rocky cliff, so cease barking." She understands the very short sentence but doesn't often obey for long.

 

Conclusion: Only those who repented, and who believed received remission of sins through the Name of Jesus Christ when they were baptized in His name.

 

Second, look where Luke pointed to define how remission of sins is available to believers through the name of Jesus:

 

IN that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness. Zechariah 13:1

 

"At that time a Fountain will be opened to the people of Israel and Jerusalem, a Fountain to cleanse them from all their sins and defilement." Zech 13:1

 

And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord of hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be remembered: and also I will cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land. Zechariah 13:2

 

And it shall come to pass, that when any shall yet prophesy (distill out of their own head, often with music), then his father and his mother that begat him shall say unto him, Thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the Lord: and his father and his mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth. Zechariah 13:3

 

In a literal sense, the fountain was not a little basin into which one might dip their fingers. Rather, it was a large pool dug to collect a flowing source of water:  

Maqowr (h4726) maw-kore'; from 6979; prop. something dug, (a trench) i. e. a (gen.) source (of water, even when naturally flowing; also of tears, blood...

 

Conclusion: when we are baptized in water this is the time and place where Jesus Christ, the True Fountain, cleanses us from all sins. Rather than literal blood, Jesus placed this power in the water: The "bank account" is in the blood of Jesus Christ. Our baptism is a symbol of that in the sense that a check is a symbol of the bank account. By refusing to sign the check we refuse to follow the pattern established by Jesus -- God in the flesh.

 

Third, this statement is absolutely true. If one is a believer then they have had their sins remitted: Elementary, dear Watson.

 

However, it does not mean that one who has accepted the gospel as true has remission of sins. Faith is not just believing:

 

Pisteuo (g4100) pist-yoo'-o; from 4102; to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), i.e. credit; by impl. to entrust one's spiritual well-being to Christ: - believe (-r), commit (to trust), put in trust with.

 

The Holy Spirit or Christ did not leave us to modern Greek grammars and grammarians. He deliberately defined a believer as one who had been baptized:

 

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. Acts 2:41

And all that believed were together, and had all things common; Acts 2:44

 

This says that one who believes is one who has been baptized!

 

Notice the three steps required to make one a believer in Christ:

 

To receive is g588 which means to welcome and approve the gospel. Therefore, this is simple belief that a things is true.

Then they were baptized

Then they were added to the band of believers.

 

Therefore, whosoever believes in Jesus has remission of sins. Why? Because one who is a believer has been baptized.

 

There is a second testimony to the "taken out of context" connection between faith and remission of sins and two gospels is false. God put all, both Jew and Gentile, under sin so that both would have to come to him by faith. This leaves no room for a "Jewish gospel" and a "Gentile gospel."

 

But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. Gal 3:22

 

Believe is not just accepting intellectually that facts are true:

 

Pistis (g4102) pis'-tis; from 3982; persuasion, i.e. credence; mor. conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), espec. reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstr. constancy in such profession; by extens. the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself: - assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.

 

In the Great Commission salvation was based on FAITH and BAPTISM. Unbelief rejectes the "counsel of God in NOT being baptized."

 

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mk 16:16

 

Apisteo (g569) ap-is-teh'-o; from 571; to be unbelieving, i.e. (trans.) disbelieve, or (by impl.) disobey: - believe not.

 

Apistia (g570) ap-is-tee'-ah; from 571; faithlessness, i.e. (neg.) disbelief (want of Chr. faith), or (pos.) unfaithfulness (disobedience): - unbelief.

 

Apistos (g571) ap'-is-tos; from 1 (as a neg. particle) and 4103; (act.) disbelieving, i.e. without Chr. faith (spec. a heathen); (pass.) untrustworthy (person), or incredible (thing): - that believeth not, faithless, incredible thing, infidel, unbeliever (-ing).

 

Because Paul was inspired he was faithful to the "pattern." Notice that the what is becomming children by faith. The how is through baptism.

 

The What:	For (because) ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:26
The How:	For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Gal 3:27

 

Next, Paul denies a Jewish - Gentile gospel split:

 

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:28

 

Edward Fudge: That audience does believe (Acts 15:8-9), God gives them the Holy Spirit, whereupon Peter, seeing all this, also commands them to be baptized in water in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 10:44-48).

 

Fudge: We in the Churches of Christ have looked more like Acts 2:38 (except that we only recently learned the last part of the verse), while most of our evangelical brothers and sisters in other denominations have looked like Acts 10:43. God can handle matters in any order -- he meets people where he finds them and is moving us all to the same goal. Let us preach the WHOLE word -- declaring the good news of Jesus, baptizing those who believe, and teaching them to follow all that Jesus has said.

No. Most of us in churches of Christ have always known that God demonstrated that all people were acceptable to Him just as before the period of the law, and that the Jews were given a sign of their lostness. This sign was given to the Jews, Gentiles, Samaritans, and those Far Away literally in Ephesus. We have always known that people were not saved by the pouring out of a supernatural manifestation of Christ's presence and power.

Holy Spirit baptism was something which would be administered by Jesus Christ personally. It was never something which believers were commanded to do. On the other hand, water baptism was commanded for believers and it was administered by the teacher. In all cases, this was to perform a sign of Christ's Deity and the inspired authority of the early teachers:

And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me,

Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is

he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. John 1:33

When the Holy Spirit was poured out upon the Apostles, it was a sign that Jesus had returned to guide them into all truth just as He had promised in John 14:16-18. This was enough to validate or certify the gospel for the Jews. However, it was not enough to convince many Jews that there was just one gospel: the one for the Jews was the one for the Gentiles.

The Spirit gave Peter a chance to prove that Cornelius was a national sign and not an example of salvation by holy spirit baptism -- as indeed it had not been even for the Apostles.

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. Acts 15:7

And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; Acts 15:8

And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Acts 15:9

 

Jesus came to restore the "broken down tabernacle of David" so:

 

That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Acts 15:17

 

To seek is from the Greek:

 

Ekzeteo (g1567) ek-zay-teh'-o; from 1537 and 2212; to search out, i.e. (fig.) investigate, crave, demand, (by Hebr.) worship: - en- (re-) quire, seek after (carefully, diligently).

They were not saved or purified by the witness of Christ that Gentiles were now approved. Rather, they were purified by faith when they were baptized.

The "pouring out" proven by speaking in tongues was never a means but a sign. Because God gave the Jews the supernatural sign that Gentiles were fit subjects for salvation, Peter asked for any proof from the Jews that they should not be baptized.

Peter did not say that they were saved and therefore should be baptized.

Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? Acts 10:47

Jesus repeated the upper room experience where the Apostles received the sign that Jesus had returned as the teaching Comforter. This was not a repeat of what was demanded of all believers whatever sign they had received:

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38

Receiving the Holy Ghost is not the same as receiving the gift of A holy spirit because God sprinkles our hearts from an evil conscience.

Oh, wouldn't it have been easy for the Holy Spirit to have said: "Because these people are already saved, can anyone forbid baptism as a sign?"

In the upper room, the Apostles received the Holy Ghost as a visible, audible sign that Christ had returned as He had promised. In the case of the Gentiles, they also received the Holy Spirit in an audible manifestion. However, the believers on the day of Pentecost, received "the gift of" the Holy Spirit. Ordinary believers who received some supernatural power received it only by the work of the Apostles.

Therefore, the individual Gentiles were:

Purified by Faith

When they were baptized

If Edward Fudge is correct that there are two gospels and that Cornelius represents the Gentile gospel, they does he demand that we receive the baptism of the Holy Spir and speak in tongues before we can be baptized as a sign? Why would you need a more powerful sign than the evidence that God had favored you and forced you into a supernatural act?

"Note the universality: 'Everyone," no matter what his condition or position may be. One door is open to all, one only. Baptism is pure gospel that conveys grace and salvation from God through Christ; it dare not be changed into a legal or legalistic requirement that is akin to the ceremonial requirement of Moses such as circumcision. God does something for us in baptism, we do nothing for him. Our acceptance of baptism is only acceptance of God's gift." (Lenski)

How can baptism convey grace and salvation from God through Christ and still be a non-essential sign that grace is conveyed before baptism? Certainly our acceptance of baptism is acceptance of the gift bestowed in the literal death, burial and resurrection. However, if "God does something for us in baptism" does He not do something when we refuse or minimize baptism? If grace, salvation and God doing something for us which we cannot do for ourselves is bestowed at baptism then isn't baptism essential for salvation?: Cannot we do something to accept that gift without being a legalist?

Salvation is totally earned, merited and laid up in heaven in God's "bank account." If we sign the check to accept the gift have we legalistically earned it? No. This is just the common buzz words to claim that obedience is legalism. If we do not sign the check can we draw grace and salvation from Christ just because we believe that He has stored it up for us? No.

Our faith is the "faith of Abraham" which saves. That was not "faith only"--

And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; Genesis 26:4

Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws. Genesis 26:5

This same faith of Abraham is available by the same means: obedience-

What: For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:26

 

When: For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Galatians 3:27

There never was a legalistic system of salvation. However, salvation by faith demands that one obey what and Whom they put their trust into. Just remember that the cry: "I don hafta" is the cry of one rebelling against parential or other forms of authority. This is the true meaning of legalism.

Remember that the Liberty Bell never rang a clear tone in its life. It had to be reincarnated and still cracked because of the impurities in its metal. Therefore, freedom's ring can never come from a bell tolling twisted Scriptures.

Click Here to read Max Lucado's New Plan of Salvation.

Click Here to see some more arguments on the Singular-Plural fallacy.