[Winman]

Bro George

Thank you for that study. But there are some verses that seem to apply to Gentiles (very few, but they are there).

Act 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Acts 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

Acts 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Acts 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Now, to me, these verses are including Gentiles with the Jews. Maybe I am wrong, but that is how they read to me. I will agree that the overwhelming majority of these verses apply to the Jews only, but the Gentiles are not entirely left out.

And when I read Acts 2:38, I have never quite read it the way you do (not saying you are wrong or that I am right)

Acts 2:38 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.

I read this as Peter saying to repent of believeing Jesus was a blasphemer (what the Jews had accused Jesus of), and to believe he was indeed the Son of God. And then to follow with believer's baptism. The Holy Spirit would be received upon believeing, not because of baptism.

It is similar to Mark 16:16

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

Many teach that this verse says you must be baptized to be saved, but that is not what it says, the second phrase shows that it is the believeing only that saves.

Now to me, Mark 16:16 is an excellent example of rightly dividing the word. If you do not read the second phrase, you misunderstand the first.

And I see Acts 2:38 to read in a very similar manner. Repent means to "believe", then a person should be baptized (but has nothing to do with salvation), upon believeing a person receives the Holy Ghost. Notice it says "gift". If you have to perform an act or work to receive the Holy Ghost, then it is no longer a gift.

Now, I could be wrong on this, I am going to have to study the matter more. I think you present a good case, but I do not see it 100% as you do.

But I thank you for this detailed study. I have learned much from you.

[chette777]

BroParish,

I will try and clarify

yes the death burial and resurrection are mentioned in Acts 2. But the reason Peter mentions it is to show them they had deliberately killed their messiah and King, and that God had raised him from the dead.

from that they were convicted of killing their Messiah and asked what they should do. do not read that as saying, What shall we do to be saved" they never asked that, just what shall we do .

Peter answer was not believe on the name of the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved.

No what Peter replies is REPENT (a work because they believed what Peter said) and BE BAPTIZED (a work) for the REMISSION OF SINS (the result of their faith in what Peter said about Christ plus works). it is not their belief in Christ for the forgiveness of sins it is their belief he was their Messiah and they killed and rejected him that is the context of the previous verses to Acts 2 vs 38.

you can share the details of Christ death burial and resurrection in a conversation like Peter did and it still no be the Gospel of grace.

remember If you give the details of Christ resurrection burial and death and fail to tell people it is for the FORGIVENESS OF SINS you are not telling them the Gospel of grace. your just giving them historical details just as Peter did.

the death Burial and resurrection is not the Good News in and of itself just like John 3:16 is not the gospel. The good news of the Gospel of Grace is that the Death Burial and resurrection of CHRIST is for YOUR SINS, IT WAS DONE TO TAKE YOUR PLACE IN DEATH AS THE REQUIREMENT OF SIN (for the soul that sinneth shall die), HIS BLOOD WAS SHED FOR ATONEMENT OF YOUR SINS TO GOD(without the shedding of blood there is not remission of sin), HIS RESURRECTION WAS FOR YOUR JUSTIFICATION AND IF YOU PLACE YOUR FAITH IN CHRIST WORK TO YOU IS IMPUTED CHRIST'S RIGHTEOUSNESS. Now that's the good news, the Gospel of Grace.

Peter never in Acts 2 even comes close to telling them this Gospel.

Winman,

Acts 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. It had not come to pass yet. future reference not present active. Paul was the first to use this with the Jail keeper at Philippi

Acts 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. is including the future generations of Israel not Gentiles. but in a broad sense could include Gentiles as we see in the millennial kingdom which came after the Lord returns to his Place in the Kingdom. which would of happened if the leaders repented but they did not resulting in Acts stoning of Stephan.

Mk 16 is faith plus works believe and be baptized (work). repent never means "to believe" as you stated above. it means to turn from never believe. however I think what you meant was if a person believes it resulted in repentance. it also says gift in Acts 2:38 yes, but if the Apostles didn't tarry they would have not received the gift either which was teh promise of the father.

[Winman]

Chette

Peter did mention the forgiveness of sins.

Acts 2:Acts 2:38 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.

And notice, Peter did not specifically name the sin of killing Jesus, he said SINS (plural)

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by George

Aloha brother Tony,

I'm going to "dip my oar in" if you don't mind.

John the Baptist was NOT the first "Baptist " - if you mean like all of the Baptists since the death burial and resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. John the Baptist's "ministry" had no more "connection" to a modern Baptist preacher's "ministry" than Moses or any of the other Hebrew Prophets in the Old Testament do.

John the Baptist was a Hebrew Prophet to the nation of Israel only:

Luke 7:28 For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.

John the Baptist was a Hebrew Prophet to the nation of Israel only - who went before the Lord "in the spirit and power of Elias".

Luke 1:17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

John the Baptist was a Hebrew Prophet to the nation of Israel only - who was:

Matthew 3:3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Mark 1:3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Luke 3:4 As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

John 1:23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.

The Lord Jesus Christ was baptized in water to "fulfill all righteousness" [Matthew 3:15] and so that: "He should be made manifest to Israel". To which John the Baptist testified. [John 1: 29-34]

Matthew 3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

John the Baptist was baptizing "the baptism of repentance" (the same "baptism" that Apollos preached years later- Acts 18:25) and that is why he objected to baptizing Jesus - because He (the Lord) was sinless and had no sins to "repent" of!

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Mark 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

The main "purpose" for baptizing the Lord Jesus Christ in water was to reveal ("manifest") Him to the nation of Israel:

John 1:25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?
26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.
29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
33 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.
34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

Brother George, you may feel free to comment or resond to anything I write on this forum my friend

Okay dokay. I didn't think there was, but I asked the question specifically about John the Baptist because I wanted to see if anyone held the Brider position, since they consider John the "first Baptist".

Jesus Christ's baptism, we are in agreement on partially, I believe we need to go into the OT to see what made the Jews understand He was manifest to them. Was John's baptism something new that popped oiut of the ground?

He was made manifest by the Law He wrote and the ordinances He established in the OT and the prophecies He inspired to the OT prophets. But in order for Him to be recognized and "manifest" He had to show them, perform for them, some prophetic ordinance that they would know and understand.


That ordinance was the OT washing to sanctify a priest, the first being the consecrated washing in water and the second being sanctification by oil(a type of the Holy Ghost)and in Christ and the "kingdom of priests" John came to call, their santification would be by the very Entity the oil typified, the Holy Spirit.

This consecration and sanctification by water washing and oil was expected, otherwise, how would they know He was manifested as what?

Le 21:10 And he that is the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured, and that is consecrated to put on the garments, shall not uncover his head, nor rend his clothes;

John the Baptist came to consecrate Christ as the great High Priest, just as he told the Jews:

Mt 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Mr 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Lu 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

Christ was sanctified by God the Father after His baptism, His washing of consecration:

Luke 3:21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

Le 8:6 And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water.
Lev. 8:12 And he poured of the anointing oil upon Aaron’s head, and anointed him, to sanctify him.

Jesus Christ Himself was the bodily manifestation of God and the spokesman to Israel all through the OT, it was He who spoke according to John 1:1-3. At John the Baptist's objection to Him being baptized notice closely that Christ speaks several words that are often times overlooked, and clearly pointing to this procedure being looked for and recognized as an OT ordinance, specifically the washings:

Mt 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

So Christ's consecration, His washing, was looked for and recognized.

Deut.5 Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Ro 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

Thus Christ came to manifest Himself to Israel, to fulful the promises made unto the fathers, and that promise was manifest in:

Ex 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Isa 61:6 But ye shall be named the Priests of the LORD: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.
Isa 66:21 And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the LORD.

Peter writes to the people he baptized in Acts 2(I Peter 1:1), the Messianic Church, the Kingdom Of Priests then and in the Tribulation. Note the reference in I Peter 2:9 to Ex:19:6:

1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Nowhere in Paul's letters are we called a "priesthood of believers", the Body of Christ are the "kings" of Revelation 1:6, Israel is "the kingdom of priests:

2Ti 2:12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:

Re 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Water baptism was not part of Paul's ministry though he baptized through the book of Acts. The end of the book of Acts is where the commission of Mark 16 stopped with taer baptism, signs, and wonders to Israel. Paul was shaking deadly serpents off into the fire in Acts 28.

1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Brother George, that's Scripture with Scripture and pretty well closes the case for "following the Lord in believers baptism", though I am sure it won;t close the discussion.

Grace and peace to you my friend.

Tony

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Brother Tony, et al:

Bro. Parrish has put so well what I may have said, that I can add nothing more.

Bro. George answered the two questions with his usual overwhelming flood of Scripture references that I need not give more detail, only to summarize what would have been the gist of my response:

Question #1: "Was John the Baptist the first Baptist?"

As simply as can be said: He is the only one given that name in the Scriptures.

Question #2: "Why was Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh, baptized in water?"

When John himself asked that question, we find Jesus' answer in Matthew 3:15: "And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him."

--------------

To all:
I have been working this issue over before the LORD since I first posted the poll and saw the initial responses. After reading Tony's replies, and the several brethren's replies noted above, I consider that the issue is more a question of dispensational divisions rather than the question of baptism itself. The definition/purpose of believer's baptism has been adequately explained above. There is evidently a wide gap in that definition and the one proposed by those who see it as an OT act only.

Because I view Israel and the church differently than many here, I do not consider myself appropriate to discuss whether or not the present dispensation includes the teachings of Jesus in the Gospel or not. I will step back briefly, though there are a few sideline questions that I want to ask a bit later.

Just one comment & question for now:
Tony, you speak of Jesus' instruction in Matthew 28 as addressing "the Law of Moses". The word "law" or "Law" does not exist in the command given by the LORD there. To whom exactly was Jesus giving the commission? The 11 apostles? The collection of disciples of that present time (120-500?)? All believers including us?

Brother Tim, water baptism is most certainly a part of the Law given to Moses in Exodus and Leviticus. The OT "washings" are called "baptisms" in Hebrews:

Heb. 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

I suppose saying that this part of the OT and that part of the OT is not part of the Law, I would have to refer you to Paul:

1Co 14:21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

Paul is quoting Isaiah 28, which was part of The Prophets, yet he considered the Prophets part of the Law:

Isaiah 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

Brother, water baptism is not something that popped up out of nowhere with John the Baptist, it's still OT age if it did. Matthew 28 and Mark 16 are the commissions given to the Apostles to make Israel a "kingdom of priests".

Sorry brother, Scripture with Scripture closes the case of "following the Lord in believer's baptism". There is no such command. Jesus was not baptized by John until "all the people" of Israel was baptized, He followed them

Lu 3:21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,

Who followed who, brother?

I am not under Matthew 28 or Mark 16 as the Scriptures clearly indicate. As I demonstrated in my first response to brother George, you need to take the denominational glasses off and put on the clear vision of Isaiah 28:9-13.

Grace and peace to you

Tony

[George]

Aloha brother Winman,

I agree with your assessment of those verses that you sited. They could have been applicable to the Gentiles - but I believe that they are NOT applicable to the Gentiles, because of the nation of Israel's eventual REJECTION of Peter's "gospel". [Matthew 24:14]

Remember - Peter's address was to: "Ye men of Israel"; " all the house of Israel" and " Men and brethren" - these "titles" did NOT include Gentiles. {No Jew, living at this time, would even think of "including" Gentiles as "men of Israel"; or of Gentiles having a part in "the house of Israel"; or especially calling Gentiles "brethren".}

Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Acts 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

Acts 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Acts 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

I believe that the "KEY" to understanding this issue, is that the dissemination of the "gospel of the kingdom" [Matthew 24:14] that Peter and the others were preaching early on in the Book of Acts was interrupted by the REJECTION of that "gospel" by the nation of Israel's leaders [Acts 7: 1-60] and the subsequent call of the Apostle Paul, and the revelation of the "mystery" of the church [Colossians 1:26] that was given to him; along with his (MY "Gospel").

Had the nation of Israel accepted the "gospel of the kingdom", it could have very well gone unto the "uttermost part of the earth" and "to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

But because of Israel's REJECTION of that "gospel", it has been temporarily laid aside (for Paul's "Gospel") until "the last days".

Acts 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh:and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

When the church is translated out of this world the Lord will "pick up" with the Nation of Israel and the "Kingdom" where He "left off", and the "Gospel of the Grace of God" (Paul's "Gospel") will go out with the saints. At that time God will re-institute "the gospel of the kingdom", which shall, at that time, go out "unto the uttermost part of the earth", as God intended it to nearly 2,000 years ago.

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

I believe that John's ministry was unique. None before him were given the task, and any like Apollos who attempted it afterward were in error, as seen by the correction of Apollos.

Of Apollos the Scriptures say:

Acts 18:25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing [U]only the baptism of John./U]

The "baptism of John" that Apollos preached was the Levitical washing of Leviticus 8 until the gospel of the grace of God, the mystery(Ephesians 2, Ephesians 3) were revealed to him that he learn:

Acts 18:26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

He spake boldly where, preaching the baptism of John, the Levitical consecration of a kingdom of priests, unitl the way of God was expounded unto him how?

Scripture with Scripture brother. Water baptism is an ordinance of the Law of Moses.

Grace and peace to you.

Tony

[George]

Brother Tony said:

1Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

"Brother George, that's Scripture with Scripture and pretty well closes the case for "following the Lord in believers baptism", though I am sure it won't close the discussion."

Aloha brother Tony,

"I am sure it won't close the discussion." How right you are. Your arguments are very persuasive - but not persuasive enough. In the absence of a clear COMMANDMENT (in either Testament) - NOT to Baptize, I will continue to believe that water Baptism is still a legitimate ordinance for a New Testament church.

I do not believe that John's Baptism, or the Baptism practiced in the early part of the Book of Acts is the SAME as that practiced by the Apostle Paul.

Your citation of 1 Corinthians 1:17 in and of itself, is not very persuasive, if considered in "context".

1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

In the context, Paul is thanking God that he only baptized a few of the Corinthians believers, because of the dispute that was going on in the Corinthian church over WHO baptized so and so, and whether they had been baptized by Apollos, or by Cephas (Peter); or by Paul.

Paul was just thanking God that he that he never baptized a lot of the Corinthian brethren, for, if by him baptizing them, they then bragged about WHO baptized them and started causing divisions amongst the brethren over their baptism, he didn't want to have any part of that division, even though He, Apollos, and Cephas were not the cause.

The context has nothing to do with Paul NOT recommending baptism, or with him saying that water baptism should no longer be practiced; it has to do with Paul not wanting some of the Corinthian brethren going around causing divisions simply because Paul baptized them. {Christian "celebrities" have been around since the beginning of the church, and Paul wanted NO part of it!}

Paul's emphasis was on preaching the "Gospel" [1 Corinthians 1:17] and NOT on Baptism, and if his baptizing a believer was going to cause them to "stumble", he would have just as soon have someone else do it.

Although we disagree on this one, I still count you as a dear brother, and I certainly have enjoyed your Posts. You have a unique and different "take" on many Scriptural issues, and I have been edified by many of your comments.

[tonybones2112]

[QUOTE=George;20809]Brother Tony said:

Aloha brother Tony,

"I am sure it won't close the discussion." How right you are. Your arguments are very persuasive - but not persuasive enough. In the absence of a clear COMMANDMENT (in either Testament) - NOT to Baptize, I will continue to believe that water Baptism is still a legitimate ordinance for a New Testament church.

Brother, I'm going to respond chronologically, I just found it hard to concentrate on this thread and a whole slew of new ones popped up a few weeks ago, I thought I'd let a few cool off if anyone was upset, I'm going down the messages one by one and will catch you on this one in a day or so.

Grace and peace

Tony

[chette777]

Originally Posted by Winman

Chette

Peter did mention the forgiveness of sins.

Acts 2:Acts 2:38 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.

And notice, Peter did not specifically name the sin of killing Jesus, he said SINS (plural)

But what had to be done for thew remission of sins was not belief on Jesus or the finished work of his cross but repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus, and then they could get the gift.