Acts 2:38 Baptism of the Holy Spirit

[e.r.m.]

1. In first century Judaism, the mikveh (immersion in living water, such as their pools, the ocean, and rivers) had a central place in cleansing of sin. Acts 2:38 immersion in Yeshua's name for forgiveness of sins, now that he was made Lord and Christ, fit into their beliefs. Peter did the unheard of and gave this same baptism in water to the gentiles in Acts 10 (although it was actually Jesus who did via his vision to Peter). A rabbi also confirmed to me that the mikveh was for the purpose of conversion and not for commemoration of what God has already done for you.
At the event of Acts 2:38 the baptism in water is the overwhelmingly likely scenario

2. Acts 2:38 was a command:
Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Peter could not command people to be baptized with the Holy Spirit. That is not something people could 'do'. Baptism with the Holy Spirit is 'done to them' by God alone.

3. If Peter's "command" had been baptism in the Holy Spirit, then Acts 2:38 would read:

Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you baptize yourselves in the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."


Saying that Acts 2:38 is baptism in the Holy Spirit was a desperate attempt by somebody to avoid water baptism for forgiveness of sins and didn't think it through.

 

[sincerly]

1. In first century Judaism, the mikveh (immersion in living water, such as their pools, the ocean, and rivers) had a central place in cleansing of sin. Acts 2:38 immersion in Yeshua's name for forgiveness of sins, now that he was made Lord and Christ, fit into their beliefs. Peter did the unheard of and gave this same baptism in water to the gentiles in Acts 10 (although it was actually Jesus who did via his vision to Peter). A rabbi also confirmed to me that the mikveh was for the purpose of conversion and not for commemoration of what God has already done for you.

Hebrew= mitsvah= Commandments which could be those referred to/by (of man); (of GOD); or (of the code of wisdom).
It was John the Baptism who came preaching the "Baptism of repentance of sins"/ the Returning about of ones-self from the ways of sin to obedience to GOD.

Judaism, as a whole, rejected the Messiah JOHN spoke/preached concerning.
Judaism at that time was still Sacrificing Animals for the "Atonement of Sins". There was no Baptism which freed one from the Guilt of SIN.

AT Pentacost(the scene of Acts 2:38), Jesus Christ had arisen from being Crucified/for the Sins of mankind---fifty days previously. Jesus had given the Disciples the Commission/Command to "Go teach and Baptize "in HIS name". It is/was in the shed Blood of Jesus Christ that there is remission of Sins. Just as Peter indicated in the above verse.

At the event of Acts 2:38 the baptism in water is the overwhelmingly likely scenario

2. Acts 2:38 was a command:
Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Peter could not command people to be baptized with the Holy Spirit. That is not something people could 'do'. Baptism with the Holy Spirit is 'done to them' by God alone.

3. If Peter's "command" had been baptism in the Holy Spirit, then Acts 2:38 would read:

Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you baptize yourselves in the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."


Saying that Acts 2:38 is baptism in the Holy Spirit was a desperate attempt by somebody to avoid water baptism for forgiveness of sins and didn't think it through.

Water Baptism by and of itself saves no one. It is when one acknowledges that Jesus Christ is the only means(substitution) of paying the debt/penalty for one's disobedience---that one will ever live.

In that scene, there was indicated two "Baptisms"--one the audience saw manifested in the Disciples and they were promised with "Repentance" and Baptism in HIS Name who was able to forgive Sins and wash one clean in the "Regeneration" of the New Birth.---the water.

 

[e.r.m.]

Hebrew= mitsvah= Commandments which could be those referred to/by (of man); (of GOD); or (of the code of wisdom).
It was John the Baptism who came preaching the "Baptism of repentance of sins"/ the Returning about of ones-self from the ways of sin to obedience to GOD.

Judaism, as a whole, rejected the Messiah JOHN spoke/preached concerning.
Judaism at that time was still Sacrificing Animals for the "Atonement of Sins". There was no Baptism which freed one from the Guilt of SIN.

***The only one I saw rejecting John the Baptist was Herod. Not a real important point.

AT Pentacost(the scene of Acts 2:38), Jesus Christ had arisen from being Crucified/for the Sins of mankind---fifty days previously. Jesus had given the Disciples the Commission/Command to "Go teach and Baptize "in HIS name". It is/was in the shed Blood of Jesus Christ that there is remission of Sins. Just as Peter indicated in the above verse.
***There's no divorcing water baptism away from the blood of Jesus.

Water Baptism by and of itself saves no one. It is when one acknowledges that Jesus Christ is the only means(substitution) of paying the debt/penalty for one's disobedience---that one will ever live.
***Of course not, it's belief, repentance, & baptism.

In that scene, there was indicated two "Baptisms"--one the audience saw manifested in the Disciples and they were promised with "Repentance" and Baptism in HIS Name who was able to forgive Sins and wash one clean in the "Regeneration" of the New Birth.---the water.
***Not getting your point.

 

[sincerly]

Hebrew= mitsvah= Commandments which could be those referred to/by (of man); (of GOD); or (of the code of wisdom).
It was John the Baptism who came preaching the "Baptism of repentance of sins"/ the Returning about of ones-self from the ways of sin to obedience to GOD.

Judaism, as a whole, rejected the Messiah JOHN spoke/preached concerning.
Judaism at that time was still Sacrificing Animals for the "Atonement of Sins". There was no Baptism which freed one from the Guilt of SIN.

***The only one I saw rejecting John the Baptist was Herod. Not a real important point.

AT Pentacost(the scene of Acts 2:38), Jesus Christ had arisen from being Crucified/for the Sins of mankind---fifty days previously. Jesus had given the Disciples the Commission/Command to "Go teach and Baptize "in HIS name". It is/was in the shed Blood of Jesus Christ that there is remission of Sins. Just as Peter indicated in the above verse.
***There's no divorcing water baptism away from the blood of Jesus.

Water Baptism by and of itself saves no one. It is when one acknowledges that Jesus Christ is the only means(substitution) of paying the debt/penalty for one's disobedience---that one will ever live.
***Of course not, it's baptism, repentance, & baptism.

In that scene, there was indicated two "Baptisms"--one the audience saw manifested in the Disciples and they were promised with "Repentance" and Baptism in HIS Name who was able to forgive Sins and wash one clean in the "Regeneration" of the New Birth.---the water.
***Not getting your point.

E R. M., Of course "you fail to get the point". And it is understandable, as shown in your answer: """***The only one I saw rejecting John the Baptist was Herod. Not a real important point.""". It was the Messiah, "Jesus" who was rejected and Crucified as John attested to be the ONE to take away SINS. That was Peter's message as well. "In the name of Jesus Christ".

One no longer has to sacrifice animals as a means of Atoning for SINS. That is seen in the same confessing of Sins, Repenting in remorse for them(in those animal sacrifices) and today(since the Crucifixion) appropriating baptism as a means of what Jesus declared in John3 and Paul in Rom.6:1-11 that in Baptism one is in agreement with Jesus Christ in dying to sins and self with HIM and being raised up in newness of the spiritual life which is accomplished by "Faith" "in the name of Jesus Christ".

 

[Muffled]

1. In first century Judaism, the mikveh (immersion in living water, such as their pools, the ocean, and rivers) had a central place in cleansing of sin. Acts 2:38 immersion in Yeshua's name for forgiveness of sins, now that he was made Lord and Christ, fit into their beliefs. Peter did the unheard of and gave this same baptism in water to the gentiles in Acts 10 (although it was actually Jesus who did via his vision to Peter). A rabbi also confirmed to me that the mikveh was for the purpose of conversion and not for commemoration of what God has already done for you.
At the event of Acts 2:38 the baptism in water is the overwhelmingly likely scenario

2. Acts 2:38 was a command:
Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Peter could not command people to be baptized with the Holy Spirit. That is not something people could 'do'. Baptism with the Holy Spirit is 'done to them' by God alone.

3. If Peter's "command" had been baptism in the Holy Spirit, then Acts 2:38 would read:

Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you baptize yourselves in the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."


Saying that Acts 2:38 is baptism in the Holy Spirit was a desperate attempt by somebody to avoid water baptism for forgiveness of sins and didn't think it through.

That depends on whether one believes that receiving the Holy Spirit and being baptized in the Holy Spirit are the same thing. I think Peter rightly understood that most people would receive the Holy Spirit at baptism if they hadn't previously received it.

Acts 10:44 ¶ While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word.

This is a case where the spirit was received before baptism.

Baptism is not necessary for the forgiveness of sins but repentance is.

It is one thing to have ones sins forgiven and another thing to know ones sins are fogiven. In my case I didn't know my sins were forgiven until I expereinced guilt. It was not baptism that assured me my sins were forgiven but the blood of Jesus did.

 

[e.r.m.]

Muffled,

That depends on whether one believes that receiving the Holy Spirit and being baptized in the Holy Spirit are the same thing.
Acts 2:3, 4 - Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38 - Receiving the Holy Spirit after Baptism.
Different.

I think Peter rightly understood that most people would receive the Holy Spirit at baptism if they hadn't previously received it.
John 7:39 The only ones who had received the Holy Spirit by Pentecost were the apostles. John 20:22

Acts 10:44 ¶ While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word. This is a case where the spirit was received before baptism.
Cornelius and company had the spirit "on" them like in Acts 2:3, unlike the indwelling of the Holy Spirit 1 Corinthians 3:16, 6:19, Romans 8:9, which is received at water Baptism in Jesus's name Acts 2:38, Acts 10:47-48.

Baptism is not necessary for the forgiveness of sins but repentance is.
The purpose of repentance and baptism Acts 2:38 is forgiveness of sins.

It is one thing to have ones sins forgiven and another thing to know ones sins are fogiven. In my case I didn't know my sins were forgiven until I expereinced guilt. It was not baptism that assured me my sins were forgiven but the blood of Jesus did
Subjective experience is good a lot of the time, but it is guided by what you're taught. There is no conflict between Acts 2:38 and the blood of Jesus.

 

[e.r.m.]

The purpose of repentance and baptism in Acts 2:38 is for the national forgiveness of one specific generation of Israelites who crucified their Messiah.

Had that one perverse generation repented God would have ushered in Jesus' Messianic Kingdom. Since only a few thousand repented, Jesus' Messianic Kingdom is postponed until the times of the Gentiles is fulfilled.

One must understand the context of Acts 2:38 to use it rightly.
Dr. O

That's not what the verses say. You're inserting this meaning. The verses say Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Not just the sin of crucifying Jesus.

Acts 2:39
"For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."

God called many more than just the Jews of that generation.

The Jewish angle is only the latest trend of a long list of ideas to try to debunk Acts 2:38.


P.S. - Are you a doctor?

 

[e.r.m.]

Your truth is general. It is an error to force this general truth upon the specific context of Acts 2.

God has called the entire world to Himself. That general truth doesn't change the CONTEXT of that "UNTOWARD GENERATION" (Acts 2:40). Matthew 23:35-36 records how that one generation called down God's curse upon themselves and their children (one generation). Jesus Himself said, "so that upon you (that one generation of Israelites) may fall the guilt of the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, . . . Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon THIS GENERATION." (Matt 27:25).

CONTEXT RULES!
Dr. O

A context which you are adding.

Matthew 23:36 "Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

Matthew 27:25 And all the people said, "His blood shall be on us and on our children!"

Acts 2:39 "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."

The third text is distinct from the first two as it includes ALL whom the Lord will call (far off). That is not restricted to that crowd (and their immediate kids).

 

[e.r.m.]

lol You have hit a dead end. You are just repeating yourself.
As are you. Except that there is nothing in the "text" restricting this to the untoward generation.

Notice how you arguments go. You simply quote and ignore the context.

The context of Matthew 23 is Jesus' condemnation of the Pharisees. This has nothing to do with Gentiles.

The context of Matthew 27 is Pilate asking the Jews whether they wanted Jesus or Barabbas. This has nothing to do with Gentiles.
You brought it up.


The context of Acts 2:39 is Acts 2:40 - that one UNTOWARD GENERATION of Israelites who crucified their Messiah. This has nothing to do with Gentiles.

The "far off" is part of that UNTOWARD GENERATION that was living in dispersion. There is nothing in the context that points to any Gentile. You've made this up because you have no other valid supporting argument.
Context, "far off- for all whom the Lord our God will call." The Lord our God has called more than that untoward generation"


Context rules.

You must avoid forcing your personal opinion upon these contexts.
This from the person who said Philip cautioned baptism was for the saved. That is unabashed adding to the scripture.

 

[e.r.m.]

Really?! You have so little with which to work that you close your eyes to the linear structure of Acts 8.

Philip's question was the very human questioning that most denominations do in their water baptism ceremonies. Do you deny that your denomination does it? If so, state the denomination. This will be an interesting follow up.

Philip only gave the "ok" A-F-T-E-R the eunuch stated an existing faith in Jesus.
Context rules - again. You have the right to deny scripture all you want. As for me, I'll honor the sequence of the story as given.

Dr. O

The fact that the Ethiopian eunuch expressed faith is not unabashed adding to the scriptures.

You're original statement
Philip cautioned that baptism was only for the saved
is unabashed adding to the scriptures.

Belief and saved are not the same word, neither in greek, nor in english.

Philip cautions that baptism is for those that "believe".

 

[e.r.m.]

You are half right. The words "belief" and "saved" are an improper synonomy. That is, you can find places where they have different meanings and places where they have the same meaning. For example Acts 16:31 is very well known.

"And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" !

So again, your conclusion isn't supported by the Bible.
You use well rehearsed denominational creeds as a filter for understanding the Bible.
Instead, you should use the Bible to derive your creeds.

Here is one part that you got right. "Philip cautions that baptism is for those that believe." This is because Philip was right. Water baptism is only for those who are already saved.

REally E.Rm>
you have to stop forcing your opinions on the Greek.
They are so easy to refute.

Stick with the Bible. Not your denominational creeds.
Dr. O

You are half right. The words "belief" and "saved" are an improper synonym.
Therefore, Philip cautioned that baptism is for those who believe, not saved."

That is, you can find places where they have different meanings and places where they have the same meaning. For example Acts 16:31 is very well known. "And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house"
So it still "says" believe & saved.

So again, your conclusion isn't supported by the Bible. You use well rehearsed denominational creeds as a filter for understanding the Bible. Instead, you should use the Bible to derive your creeds.
I'm defending what the Bible actually says, you are adding "saved" to where it says "believe."

Here is one part that you got right. "Philip cautions that baptism is for those that believe." This is because Philip was right. Water baptism is only for those who are already saved.
Philip "said" believe, not saved.

REally E.Rm> you have to stop forcing your opinions on the Greek. They are so easy to refute. Stick with the Bible. Not your denominational creeds.
When did you refute my conclusion that Philip said believe instead of saved? That's not even a conclusion, that's what written.
Even if I believed in Sola Fide, I would still have to correct you.

Philip cautioned baptism is for those who believe. That's all he said.
Who's forcing opinions here?

 

[javajo]

I believe that in salvation, we are always the recipient, not the donor. Christ has done something about sin and offers forgiveness to us. The direction is from Christ to me, never from me to him. To offer anything is imperfect and can't do anything to forgive my sin. If I try to donate anything, I've added a work and salvation is no longer purely of grace and from him to me. Keep the direction straight and grace unmixed with anything we do.

Baptism. We are all baptized by one Spirit into the body of Christ when we first believe. Water baptism is the next step of obedience identifying us to the world as a born again believer in Christ. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 is neither of these, but is the first outpouring of the Spirit on the Jewish disciples and the start of the church age. It was a one time event to the Jews. Then it was poured out on the Samaritans and then the Gentiles and also on some followers of John the Baptist. Now when one trusts Christ they are immediately indwelt and gifted by the Holy Spirit and sealed by him forever. After being filled with the Spirit in chapter 2, Peter preached, the people believed and were saved and got baptized. Of course people like to contribute to their salvation so they flip it around, but that's my belief.

 

[e.r.m.]

I believe that in salvation, we are always the recipient, not the donor. Christ has done something about sin and offers forgiveness to us. The direction is from Christ to me, never from me to him. To offer anything is imperfect and can't do anything to forgive my sin. If I try to donate anything, I've added a work and salvation is no longer purely of grace and from him to me. Keep the direction straight and grace unmixed with anything we do.

Baptism. We are all baptized by one Spirit into the body of Christ when we first believe. Water baptism is the next step of obedience identifying us to the world as a born again believer in Christ. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 is neither of these, but is the first outpouring of the Spirit on the Jewish disciples and the start of the church age. It was a one time event to the Jews. Then it was poured out on the Samaritans and then the Gentiles and also on some followers of John the Baptist. Now when one trusts Christ they are immediately indwelt and gifted by the Holy Spirit and sealed by him forever. After being filled with the Spirit in chapter 2, Peter preached, the people believed and were saved and got baptized. Of course people like to contribute to their salvation so they flip it around, but that's my belief.

Hi Javajo, how's it going?

I believe that in salvation, we are always the recipient, not the donor. Christ has done something about sin and offers forgiveness to us. The direction is from Christ to me, never from me to him.
Of course.

To offer anything is imperfect and can't do anything to forgive my sin.
Baptism is not offered from us, but from heaven to us.

If I try to donate anything, I've added a work and salvation is no longer purely of grace and from him to me. Keep the direction straight and grace unmixed with anything we do.
Baptism is not a work.

Baptism. We are all baptized by one Spirit into the body of Christ when we first believe.
Is this baptism in water? Acts 8:38 baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire? Matthew 3:11 or a third baptism? Scripture please.

Water baptism is the next step of obedience identifying us to the world as a born again believer in Christ
That's not the purpose of baptism. That's not in the Bible.

The Baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 is neither of these, but is the first outpouring of the Spirit on the Jewish disciples and the start of the church age.
You're referring to Acts 2:3-4. But Acts 2:38,41 occurred after Acts 2:3-4. Acts 2:38 Baptism in Jesus's name is in water, Acts 10:47-48.

It was a one time event to the Jews. Then it was poured out on the Samaritans and then the Gentiles and also on some followers of John the Baptist. Now when one trusts Christ they are immediately indwelt and gifted by the Holy Spirit and sealed by him forever.
Acts 2:38 The indwelling Holy Spirit comes with water baptism. The Holy Spirit 'upon' is independent of baptism.

After being filled with the Spirit in chapter 2, Peter preached, the people believed and were saved and got baptized.
It doesn't "say" they were saved and got baptized. You say that. What it says is be baptized in Jesus's name for forgiveness of sins.

Of course people like to contribute to their salvation so they flip it around, but that's my belief.
I acknowledge this is your belief.

 

[e.r.m.]

What? You can't see the forest because of all the trees??

Belief in Jesus is the sole given requirement to be saved. there is no other requirement added to belief anywhere in the Bible.

John 3:16 whosover believes has everlasting life.
John 3:36 he that believeth hath everlasting life.
John 5:24 He that believeth hath eternal life.

What is it about these verses that you cannot see?
Dr. O

I cannot see the words: sole requirement, alone, only, etc.

Take care and may God bless you.

 

[e.r.m.]

Ooooohhhhh. A little short on common sense are you ? !

If a person writes a book about so and so being the best baseball player, the word "sole" and "alone" and "only" are common sense understandings that no one else is included in the list.

Likewise, when John writes a whole book about the gospel and only uses the word faith (or its synonyms), then it is but common sense that nothing else is required.

Listen to John's summary: these are written that ye might believe . . . and that believing ye might have life through His name." No mention of anything beside belief. Common sense dictates that we understand the words "alone" and "sole."

Common sense should come into play somewhere - right !
You can't find a verse anywhere in the Bible that add faith plus water or faith plus obedience. Those formulae are man-made inventions.

Context is a great tool.
Common sense might be the best tool.
Dr. O

Oh boy! I'll be out for a few days. Then I'll be back, God willing.

 

[sincerly]

Listen to John's summary: these are written that ye might believe . . . and that believing ye might have life through His name." No mention of anything beside belief. Common sense dictates that we understand the words "alone" and "sole."

Common sense should come into play somewhere - right !
You can't find a verse anywhere in the Bible that add faith plus water or faith plus obedience. Those formulae are man-made inventions.

Context is a great tool.
Common sense might be the best tool.
Dr. O

When the "Context" is ahered to, one has used "common sense." Otherwise, prov.14:12 may be one's conclusion and not the solution. "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death."

Here is what GOD says about "common sense"----Prov.3:5, "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding".(The "search the scriptures"(John 5:39) because(John17:17)Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.)

 

[javajo]

Its just what I believe. I believe we are saved the moment we trust Christ.

 

[sincerly]

Its just what I believe. I believe we are saved the moment we trust Christ.

Hi Javajo, Our GOD is, indeed, an Awesome GOD! HE is long-suffering while one fully decides what one shall eventually decide/What one will "do with Jesus".
Adam and Eve were totally innocent and actually had the capabilty of eternal life as a part of their Being. However, there was that "IF" GOD Placed before them and they failed the test. We Know the narrative of their lives from there---because it, also, impacts upon our very on lives.
Yes, like those Israelites at Sinai, One can profess to the "Whatsoever, the LORD says, We will do". It took less than 40 days before some choose not the HAVE GOD AS THERE GOD.
Were they all on the way to the "promised land"? YES! Then, a short time later, those people were preparing to cross over into the promised land and what happened---They had doubts in the ability of GOD to Lead and Protect them as HE PROMISED. Again, A wait(of 40 years) by the Faithful while the "Doubting and rebellious ones" were left in the wildnerness to die.
Yes, "Believer's" can be "saved", but not necessarily; and those who are evil can, also, change their minds and obey the LORD GOD. Ezek. 18 speaks to this issue of a changing of the mind.
Didn't Jesus address the issue as "a branch abiding/clinging to the tree"; And Paul, in Rom.11 states that re-grafting is possible.
However, the continued vascillation by one is a grieving of the Holy Spirit and while GOD is "long-suffering" One doesn't know at what hour one's life will cease and one dies in their unrepentant of sins.
That is why GOD'S forgiveness isn't a unending blanket which covers continually, but conditional one each Repentant of SIN. The 1John2:1, "IF one sins" the Advocate is there, ready to accept, the Confessed and repentant of transgression.

 

[Muffled]

I believe that in salvation, we are always the recipient, not the donor. Christ has done something about sin and offers forgiveness to us. The direction is from Christ to me, never from me to him. To offer anything is imperfect and can't do anything to forgive my sin. If I try to donate anything, I've added a work and salvation is no longer purely of grace and from him to me. Keep the direction straight and grace unmixed with anything we do.

Baptism. We are all baptized by one Spirit into the body of Christ when we first believe. Water baptism is the next step of obedience identifying us to the world as a born again believer in Christ. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 is neither of these, but is the first outpouring of the Spirit on the Jewish disciples and the start of the church age. It was a one time event to the Jews. Then it was poured out on the Samaritans and then the Gentiles and also on some followers of John the Baptist. Now when one trusts Christ they are immediately indwelt and gifted by the Holy Spirit and sealed by him forever. After being filled with the Spirit in chapter 2, Peter preached, the people believed and were saved and got baptized. Of course people like to contribute to their salvation so they flip it around, but that's my belief.

I can't recall Peter ever being baptized. I suppose his repentance of the life he was leading was represented by his following Jesus.

I believe we have a tendency to make a religious rite out of everything. No doubt the Disciples were instructed to baptize but I don't see it as cut and dried as some do. I think we lose a lot when we relegate to the idea of a magic act and gain a great deal when we emphasize what is really supposed to happen spiritually.

 

[Muffled]

Its just what I believe. I believe we are saved the moment we trust Christ.

However I believe trust is more than just belief. I believe the devil believes in the efficacy of a person having Jesus as Savior but his belief is not acceptance or reception.

I almost walked the aisle in church in response to an invitation because I believed that Jesus should be my Savior but I just wasn't ready to let go of my life. I still wanted to do things my own way. It was only when I was able to see that my own way wouldn't work that I was willing to receive Jesus as Savior.