The Wonderful Dispensation of Grace

[lightninboy]

THE GOSPEL AND WATER BAPTISM:
A STUDY OF ACTS 2:38

Over the years I have come to see that Acts 2:38, 22:16, and 1 Pet 3:21 can be understood at face value while, at the same time, maintaining with integrity the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith alone.

The Sacramentarian Interpretation

Defenders
The Churches of Christ. Roman Catholic Church.

The Causal Eis Interpretation

Accordingly, Acts 2:38 should be translated: "Repent and be baptized...because of the remission of sins." Thus salvation occurred before, not at, the moment of baptism.

Defenders
This interpretation has the support of such outstanding evangelical scholars, past and present, as W. A. Criswell, Julius R. Mantey, A. T. Robertson, Charles C. Ryrie, and Kenneth S. Wuest. Also, the eminent British grammarian, Nigel Turner, admits that in some contexts, such as Acts 2:38, a causal usage is possible if demanded by one's theology.

The Syntactical Break Interpretation

Defenders
While this interpretation has been held at least as early as 1860, more recent defenders include Aubrey Malphurs, Bob L. Ross*, Frank Stagg, Ned Stonehouse, and Stanley Toussaint.

The Conversion-Initiation Interpretation

Defenders
F.F. Bruce, James D. G. Dunn, and Richard N. Longnecker. G. R. Beasley-Murray, Richard Averbeck, Ian Howard Marshall, and even John Calvin. Alexander Campbell.

The Ultra-Dispensational Interpretation

Defenders
This interpretation has been held by Charles F. Baker, E. W. Bullinger, Harry Bultema, A. E. Knoch, Cornelius Stam, and Charles H. Welch.

The defense of this position is basically theological. It teaches that the concept of the Church as the Body of Christ (Jew and Gentile in one body with full equality) was revealed only to Paul during his prison ministry (Eph 3:1-9), after the Book of Acts was written. Therefore, the whole of Acts is not directly applicable to us today any more than the OT is directly applicable. Acts 2 concerns Israel and the judgment coming upon her for her rejection of her Messiah-King (Acts 2:39-40).
Also, this position makes a distinction between the forgiveness of sins and the doctrine of justification by faith. A. E. Knoch explains:
Repentance and baptism lead to a probationary pardon, which may be withdrawn. This pardon is extended by Christ as the King. Its operation is illustrated by the parable of the ten thousand talent debtor (see Matt 18:27-34) whose debt was remitted, but who refused to remit the smaller sum which his fellow slave owed to him. Hence the remission of his debt was canceled. So it is with Israel in this chronicle. Many of those who, in the beginning, received the pardon of their sins, refused to share their pardon with the other nations, objecting to proselytes like Cornelius, raising a riot on the supposition that an alien had entered the sanctuary, seeking to kill Paul even though he brought alms to Jerusalem. They finally fall away (Heb 6:6; 10:27) where there is no longer any room for repentance, but a fearful prospect of judgment. This pardon, however, is in sharp contrast to our justification, or acquittal, from which there can be no fall, as it places us beyond the sphere of judgment. Conciliation (Rom 5:11) is immeasurably beyond any pardon, as it places us in the unclouded favor of God's grace.
The promise was to Israel, both in the land and in the dispersion (Dan 9:27). Those "afar" were Jews in the lands where God had driven them, and not Gentiles or the church.

Deficiencies

The idea that Acts 2 is not the birth of the Church and is unrelated to this dispensation is a serious deficiency.
While the idea that forgiveness is different from justification has merit (and will be considered in our next interpretation), the claim that the Church was not in existence in Acts 2 and, therefore, Acts 2 is not applicable today, is by itself enough to make us look for a better interpretation.

The Transitional Interpretation

Defenders
This view has not had a wide hearing and, therefore, its advocates are few. However, this position is held by Zane C. Hodges and Craig Glickman. Those who held a position which is somewhat compatible with it include Arno C. Gaebelein and Harry A. Ironside.

This observation allows the transitional interpretation to take Acts 2:38 at prima facie understanding and yet remain evangelical. Acts 2:38 is not telling anyone how to be eternally saved, justified, regenerated, or how to avoid the lake of fire!

 

[lightninboy]

We Believe In:
WATER BAPTISM

Three groups in contemporary Christendom, one harking back to the seventeenth century, and two from the nineteenth, have chosen not to believe in or practice water baptism at all. Two of these, the Society of Friends (popularly called "Quakers") and the Salvation Army, have been very active in valuable social work. The third group, generally identified as a ultra-dispensationalists" (though obviously not their own chosen designation) rests on such subtle "dividing" of the Scriptures as to attract chiefly those of an intellectual bent to their circle of fellowship.
The Quakers
The Salvation Army
The Ultra-Dispensationalists
You will never see a sign reading "First Ultra-Dispensationalist Church." Those in this movement believe that they are more advanced than traditional dispensationalists and that there is nothing "ultra" about them. Those who look with disfavor on dispensational theology often lump dispensationalists and ultra-dispensationalists together, but they are really quite different in outlook.
Ultra-dispensationalists believe that the Christian Church started after Pentecost, and that the earliest Church was a Jewish Church. Hence they consider baptism and the Lord's Supper, or at least the former, to be "carnal" ordinances fit only for the Jewish phase of Christianity. In 1 Cor 1:13-17 Paul tells a little about his own practice regarding baptism. Preaching the Gospel, not baptizing, was his primary mission (v 17). The important thing to note here is that Paul, the number-one "hero" of the ultra-dispensationalist movement, did baptize Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas, and saw to it that it was done for the others.
Regarding the Lord's Supper, the phrase "till He comes" (1 Cor 11:26) would seem to answer the question sufficiently for most. Regarding baptism, where in Scripture has the command to baptize ever been rescinded?

The Meaning of Baptism

The precise significance of baptism is still much debated. Many still teach baptismal regeneration, that is, that the person being baptized—usually an infant in circles holding that view—is actually "born again and grafted into the Body of Christ. Others, while not holding baptismal regeneration as such, believe it is part of salvation, and without it one will be damned.
As to mode, those who pour or sprinkle generally see baptism as a picture of the Holy Spirit coming on the believer at salvation. Those practicing immersion usually see the rite as a picture of the believer's death, burial, and resurrection with Christ.
In 1 Cor 10:2 we read that the children of Israel were "baptized into Moses... in the sea."

The Importance of Baptism

For Obedience

As a Witness

Conclusion

Why? Because Christ has commanded it, because it is the badge of a Christian in the eyes of the world, and because it is a privilege to obey our Lord's command.
We believe in baptism. It is one of only two rites instituted by our Lord in the Gospels, practiced by the Apostles in the Book of Acts, and explained in the Epistles of the NT. It should be practiced by the whole body of Christ. Unbiblical ritualism, divisive sectarianism, or overly-subtle distinctions should not keep anyone from obeying Christ's beautiful ordinance of water baptism.

 

[patman]

Dear patman,
Thank you for your reply.

Did you read those old posts I referred to or the summary of them I posted?

If MAD is right, please refute them.

The article I just posted said that the Israelites at Pentecost had already believed in the promised Messiah for eternal life, and the remission of sins was not for salvation but for reconciling them with God for crucifying the Messiah. Note that they didn’t ask “How may we be saved?”

But Peters answer covered that too...

Grace with out works means forgiveness without water baptism. And Peter obviously didn't understand grace without works because he was still afraid of breaking the law into Acts 10.

 

[patman]

We believe in baptism. It is one of only two rites instituted by our Lord in the Gospels, practiced by the Apostles in the Book of Acts, and explained in the Epistles of the NT. It should be practiced by the whole body of Christ. Unbiblical ritualism, divisive sectarianism, or overly-subtle distinctions should not keep anyone from obeying Christ's beautiful ordinance of water baptism.

See? This isn't Grace. It is forgiveness through works.

 

[godrulz]

Hey lightinboy,

Acts 9-12 are the starting of MAD, they will refer to grace.

And in Acts 2, Peter said to be baptized for the remission of sins. That is not grace, a work for forgivness, is never grace.

:noid: :bang:

Peter did not teach baptismal regeneration, a heresy in all generations. A quick look at a credible commentary for the Acts 2 and Peter proof text will show the grammatical issues that undermine your argument (not always obvious from the English text).

 

[godrulz]

But Peters answer covered that too...

Grace with out works means forgiveness without water baptism. And Peter obviously didn't understand grace without works because he was still afraid of breaking the law into Acts 10.

Peter was not correct about everything after the resurrection. He was not a 'scholar'. This does not mean he was preaching a different legitimate gospel than others after the resurrection. The Greek grammar in Acts 2:38 undermines your assumptions. Repentance, not baptism, was linked with forgiveness. The baptism was an outward symbol of inner repentant faith, not the mode for forgiveness. Forgiveness is based on Christ, His blood (death), not an external ritual that Mormons and JWs also practice without merit.

 

[patman]

Peter was not correct about everything after the resurrection. He was not a 'scholar'. This does not mean he was preaching a different legitimate gospel than others after the resurrection. The Greek grammar in Acts 2:38 undermines your assumptions. Repentance, not baptism, was linked with forgiveness. The baptism was an outward symbol of inner repentant faith, not the mode for forgiveness. Forgiveness is based on Christ, His blood (death), not an external ritual that Mormons and JWs also practice without merit.

So Peter taught falsehood?

He should have understood that grace was grace without works, especially the law.

Why did it take him so long, why did Paul have to go to Jerusalem and tell them about grace? Why did Paul say the gospel of grace was given to him?

Why do Jesus teachings about signs and wonders to whoever prays for not happen today?

Acts 2 doesn't complete the picture. Sorry. If you are getting so frustrated, then drop it. I have come from Acts 2 and now believe in Acts 9. It answers questions fully while Acts 2 is wishy-washy.

Most of all, Acts 2 doesn't understand true grace. There will always be works tacked on somewhere. This isn't what Paul teaches, it is what Jesus taught.

 

[Lighthouse]

I do not want to play catch up, so if there are any questions for me, please point me to them, or ask them again.

 

[lightninboy]

Dear Lighthouse,

My last letter to you was post #690 on page 46.

Notice the Assemblies of God doctrinal statement in post #716 on page 48.

 

[godrulz]

I do not want to play catch up, so if there are any questions for me, please point me to them, or ask them again.

Why is the sky blue (chapter and verse)?

 

[lightninboy]

Dear patman,
Thank you for your reply.

See? This isn't Grace. It is forgiveness through works.

What do you mean?

Most of all, Acts 2 doesn't understand true grace. There will always be works tacked on somewhere. This isn't what Paul teaches, it is what Jesus taught.

What do you mean? Give examples. What denomination did you go to?

I admit it is frustrating to me that God apparently didn’t tell Peter about the Gentiles sooner, but I am looking for the answer to that.

#168 One of the primary purposes of the Law was to declare what is right and what is wrong. So the Law was designed to bring us to brokenness.

#170 Salvation in the old covenant was not limited to the circumcised.

#171 The covenant of grace supersedes the covenant of the law and thus abolishes the law as a supposed way of salvation. The law can never give salvation; in fact, the law does not make a man an heir, it makes him a criminal who deserves the wrath of God.

Are these statements true or false?

 

[lightninboy]

The opinion of a former pastor of mine:

If the Law was impossible to keep, could an Israelite ever slack off on keeping it?
If one did, what would be the penalty?

There were various penalties for various offenses. What was revealed to Peter in Acts 10 and what is evident from Romans 14; Galatians 4 and Colossians 2 is that the requirements of the law are no longer binding upon the believer, be he Jew or Gentile. Note Peter's change of behavior and vacillation, which Paul condemns in Galatians 2. The first part of Romans 14 reveals that people could choose to keep certain aspects of the Law but should not judge those who choose not to.
The penalties for not keeping the law or not honoring God's word are the same then and now: serious trouble in this life for not keeping God's word, discipline from God and loss of reward in God's kingdom and in eternity.

Are non-Christian Jews still under the Law?

Concerning non-Christian Jews--they are deceived as Romans 10:1ff indicates and keeping the law or not does not have the consequences it once did.

Does it seem that the Law would naturally lead to perfectionism and Phariseeism?

Yes, it does seem that pride often results when the focus is on the works accomplished as was the case with the Pharisees.

 

[Clete]

The opinion of a former pastor of mine:

Who cares?

 

[Clete]

Sounds like a straw man? I fail to see the lip service conclusion just because we are not antinomian/lawless/license (either are you, huh?).

By your definition of those terms, yes I am!

The Beatitudes, for example, teach conditional blessing and I understand them in that context. You ignore its context and believe that "The meek shall inherit the Earth." somehow applies to you today. That makes you a legalist godrulz.

I affirm what you think Paul says, but Paul builds on the foundation of Christ's teachings, not contradicts them. He even repeats the principles of the Decalogue in Eph. 4-6.

This comment makes me think you don't have a clue what I believe or teach. You've been one of my favorite posters on TOL for a long time Godrulz but sometimes you make me want to scream! It's as if I've never said a word to you and that you are just making a completely blind guess as to what Acts 9 Dispensationalism teaches. Do you even read Pastor Hill's posts? Or did you saying knowing that you were intentionally ignoring what you've been taught a thousand times about what Paul teaches vs. what Jesus and the twelve taught? This is either the most ignorant thing I've seen you post in years or it is the most intellectually dishonest thing I've ever seen you post. Simply outrageous.

This does prove my point thought! Now you're trying to tell me that Paul's gospel is basically based on the Ten Commandments! You'd have to be a Catholic or a member of the Church of Christ to be any more legalistic than that.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[lightninboy]

I admit it is frustrating to me that God apparently didn’t tell Peter about the Gentiles sooner, but I am looking for the answer to that.

MAD must also explain why God apparently didn't tell Peter about the Gentiles sooner.
This is no slam dunk for MAD.

When Peter says that it is against our law to associate or visit with a Gentile (literally, "a person of another race"), he is not pointing to explicit Old Testament teaching as much as to Jewish custom. Nehemiah did take the mandate excluding Ammonites and Edomites from the assembly (Deut 23:3-4) and extended it to all Gentiles (Neh 13:3). Rabbinic law extended the separation, however, by proscribing Jewish social contact with Gentiles, particularly accepting hospitality in their homes (m. `Aboda Zara 5:5; m. Toharot 7:6; compare m. Demai 3:4). In the end, in Jewish eyes, Gentiles themselves became a source of ritual impurity (t. Demai 3:14; t. `Aboda Zara 4:11).
Despite this deep-seated taboo, Peter announces he has learned the lesson of the heavenly vision, which providentially converged with the arrival of Gentile messengers and the Spirit's instruction "Go with them, not making any distinctions" (10:9-19). Peter puts it tersely: God has shown me that I should not call any man impure [common] or unclean (v. 28; compare vv. 14-15). Just as the external cultural barrier between holy and profane (the common), clean and unclean, has come down, so the prejudicial barrier between races and ethnic groups is forever removed. No human being is to be treated as profane, somehow beyond the reach of a sacred God's saving and sanctifying work. No human being is to be viewed as unclean, a hindrance to my pursuit of spiritual purity before God (compare Jesus' example in Lk 5:30; 7:34; 15:1).
Peter has acted on his new insight by coming without objection (compare Acts 10:20). Now he wants to know why he has been called. Cornelius's response indicates that God has orchestrated this historic meeting, the inauguration of the Gentile mission.
Cornelius's vision and his subsequent obedience are the most repeated features of his conversion narrative (10:3-7, 22, 30-33; 11:13-14). Thus Luke continues to emphasize that the Gentile mission is God's will and would not have happened without divine intervention.
In Acts 10:35 Peter and Luke are seeking to avoid two extremes: the Jews' ethnic pride and prejudice, which saw no Gentile as a fit object of God's saving call, and the view that the religions of all cultures are equally valid bases for being acceptable to God.

 

[Lighthouse]

Dear Lighthouse,

My last letter to you was post #690 on page 46.

Notice the Assemblies of God doctrinal statement in post #716 on page 48.

Links?

 

[Lighthouse]

Why is the sky blue (chapter and verse)?

 

[lightninboy]

LOS ANGELES (BP)--In the same sense that early apostles misunderstood the Great Commission to exclude gentiles, modern evangelicals too often have misunderstood it to exclude the Jews.
Jim Sibley said he believes Peter and the other disciples initially thought the term “Go and make disciples of all nations” meant they were to take the gospel to the Jewish communities of all the nations. It was only after Peter’s vision in Acts 10 of the sheet being lowered from heaven full of unclean animals that their paradigm changed to include gentiles.
“They thought the gospel was only for the Jewish people. They were wrong. They were closer to the truth than we are, for the truth is that, though the gospel is for all, it is especially for the Jewish people,” Sibley said.
“Once the apostles understood the Great Commission correctly, they turned their world upside down. It is time we recaptured this biblical understanding of the Great Commission as well.”
Romans 1:16 states the gospel is for all believers, “to the Jew first and also to the Greek,” Sibley noted, and in Acts 13:46, the Apostle Paul tells the Jewish community in Antioch, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first.”
“Many Christians have a love for the Jewish people, yet they maintain a superior or condescending attitude toward them,” Sibley said. These attitudes often stem from a belief that God has “either rejected the Jewish people or judged them with spiritual blindness in response to their rejection of Jesus,” he added. “We take pride in the fact that we, in contrast to the Jewish people, have not been so foolish, but have received him as our Savior.”
God foreordained their rejection, and it was actually necessary for the fulfillment of prophecy and of his plan for the atoning work of Christ on the cross, he said.
“Gentile Christians should understand that in the plan of God the blindness of the Jewish people has served his purposes to bring salvation to them. This should fill gentile Christians with both compassion and a sense of indebtedness to the Jewish people,” Sibley said.
A further barrier is found in the reaction of Jewish people themselves to the gospel. Although Jews can be found and accepted within the Jewish community with almost any set of beliefs, the common thread is the rejection of Jesus as the Messiah.
“He is not a viable option for the Jewish people,” Sibley said. “When most Jewish people are exposed to the gospel, they are pained.”
There is a common desire among Christians to maintain good relationships and acceptance from the unbelieving Jewish community, Sibley said. But he noted the view of David Brickner, executive director of Jews for Jesus, that the popular concept of “gaining a right” to witness actually contradicts Scripture. “The Bible teaches that proclaiming the gospel is an obligation to be fulfilled, not a right to be earned,” Brickner has noted.

 

[lightninboy]

Links?

:bang: :yawn: :vomit: :help:

 

[lightninboy]

Matt 28:
18 Jesus came to them and spoke to them, saying,
"All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.
19 Therefore go, and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all things that I commanded you.
Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

Is the Great Commission for all Christians, or only for those few disciples? As it does say to teach them "to obey everything I have commanded you", that would include the Great Commission itself.

Mark 16:
15 He said to them, "Go into all the world,
and preach the gospel to the whole creation.
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved;
but he who disbelieves will be condemned.

But why preach to "all creation". The King James renders this "to every creature". Are we to preach to animals? What he means by this is to include Gentiles. For Jews were generally racist. They spoke of Gentiles as if dogs or other such animals. And indeed we will see in the book of Acts a great reluctance on the part of the Jewish apostles to preach to Gentiles. Indeed instead of "going", they stayed around Jerusalem for quite a long time. So God went on to choose someone else who would fulfill the Commission.
Are there people in the world that you despise like the Jews did the Gentiles? Perhaps they are the ones God is calling you to go to. For didn't God chose the most unlikely character - a Pharisee who even used to persecute even Jewish Christians - to preach to the Gentiles over that of the Galilean Apostles who grew up in a Hellenistic environment?

Mark 16:16 is the only verse in the Synoptic gospels which speak of salvation by faith. It reads somewhat like John 3:18 "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."
The text here only deals with the situation in which one believes and is baptized, and when one disbelieves. It says nothing about the case when one believes but has yet to get baptized. For that case we must refer to other scripture like John 3:18 above which state that upon belief one is not condemned, making no reference to baptism. Nonetheless I would say that water baptism simply accompanies faith in Christ as naturally as repentance does, but I would dissuade those who have a "get wet to the get saved" ritualistic mentality.

Just as the authors of the Old Testament were affirmed by miracles, so too the authors of the New Testament. But the Bible having been finished and confirmed by miracles, there was little logical need for such in post-Biblical times. For the message is one of faith and not of sight. "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." John 20:29 Thus today while there are perhaps pockets of miracles here and there, we no longer see that parade of miracles characteristic of Jesus' ministry and that of the apostles. For they fulfilled their purpose.
The search for miracles can become an idol and detract from the truth and distract from Christ.

Luke 24:
45 Then he opened their minds, that they might understand the Scriptures.
46 He said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day,
47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached
in his name to all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48 You are witnesses of these things.
49 Behold, I send forth the promise of my Father on you.
But wait in the city of Jerusalem until you are clothed with power from on high."

They indeed started in Jerusalem. But it appears they got too comfortable there, as I mentioned above and they seemed to lose the point of view that Jerusalem was only the starting place. So to with us that when we lose the vision of the big picture and stagnate in ministry, people perish. Most institutional churches contribute to such stagnation, as do the burdens of married life. And yet there often seems a contemptuous pride that those of the Jerusalem ministry have towards those who go beyond the bounds of such a ministry. Their one city is more important that those of the rest of the world, and so they chose 11 to minister there, while 1 person goes to the rest of the world.