Acts 2:38 Comparison: Evangelical vs. Oneness / Baptismal-Regeneration View

[FlyingDove]

True Circumcision: Jesus’ Baptism with the Holy Spirit Fulfills Every OT Ritual Washings

Since the discussion keeps circling around water & purification, it's time to step back & let Scripture define its own categories. Once the Jewish purification framework is laid out, the New Covenant shift from water washing to Spirit purification becomes impossible to miss

Mosaic Law required numerous ceremonial water purification rituals (ablutions): washing hands, feet, bodies, garments & sacred vessels. Jewish law recognized three primary forms: hand washing, hand & foot washing & full‑body immersion in a mikveh (JewishEncyclopedia.com). On the Day of Atonement, the High Priest washed his hands & feet 10 times & immersed his body 5 times. Other priestly duties required additional purifications (Ex 30:19–21; Lev 6:27; 14:8–9; 15:16; 16:4, 24; 22:6)

Every Mosaic observant Israelite understood these washings. A full mikveh immersion expressed:
I acknowledge I'm unclean, I'm turning from that state, I'm returning to covenant faithfulness, I'm restoring my ritual status before God and the community
(Sources: Jewish Virtual Library; Sefaria; Rabbi Samson R. Hirsch)

The pattern was always the same:
Unclean > immerse > clean - Impure > immerse > pure - Out of fellowship > immerse > restored. But these immersions never removed sin. They restored ritual purity, not spiritual regeneration

Jacob purified his household before meeting the Lord at Bethel (Gen 35).

Israel purified themselves before meeting the Lord at Sinai (Ex 19).

John the Baptist prepared Israel to meet the Lord (Mal 3:1; Matt 3:3; Mark 1:2–3; Luke 3:4).

John's baptism of repentance was a traditional Jewish purification immersion. They confessed their sins, acknowledging they were out of fellowship, outside the covenantal markers & immersion restored their ritual standing before God & the community.

John's baptism prepared Israel for the Messiah, through whom remission of sins would come (Acts 19:4). John operated entirely under Mosaic Law & did not baptize Gentiles (Matt 3:1). In Hebrew/Aramaic, repent (שׁוּב, shuv) means “return to the Lord your God.” John's baptism did not save or remit sin.

Acts is a transitional book, mapping the shift from the Old Covenant's physical circumcision (Gen 17:1–14; Acts 7:8) to the New Covenant's spiritual circumcision of Christ (Col 2:11). Pentecost occurred on the Temple Mt & the categories in Acts 2 are entirely Jewish. Archaeologists have documented more than a hundred mikva’ot around the Temple Mount, especially at the Southern Steps where Acts 2 unfolded.

John 3:25 records a dispute about purification, not forgiveness. This is how Jews interpreted immersion. John & Jesus' disciples practiced a baptism of repentance. A ceremonial purification preparing Israel to return to & meet the Lord

Acts 19:4 confirms this: John's baptism was preparatory, pointing people to Christ. None of Israel’s ceremonial washings, including water baptism, remitted sin or granted eternal life. They restored ritual purity, not spiritual regeneration.

Under the New Covenant, Scripture consistently attributes true cleansing, washing, sanctifying & purifying to the Holy Spirit, not to water.

Titus 3:5, the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit - 2 Thes 2:13, sanctification by the Spirit - Rom 15:16, sanctified by the Holy Spirit - 1 Cor 6:11, washed-sanctified-by the Spirit of our God - 1 Pet 1:2, in the sanctification of the Spirit - Acts 15:9, purifying their hearts by faith

Across multiple authors, Paul, Peter & Luke the pattern is identical: The Spirit is the purifier. Water is the symbol

And the major lexicons agree: Sanctification = purification & purification is the Spirit's work.
BDAG: to purify, cleanse from moral defilement - TDNT: cleansing, removal of impurity, purification - Louw–Nida: to purify, to cleanse, to make holy

So when the Spirit fell in Acts 10, the purifier Holy Spirit/Himself acted. Water follows, it never causes.

The baptism of the Holy Spirit remits sin, purifies the heart, grants eternal life & brings a person into the New Covenant. This baptism is performed by Jesus alone (Matt 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33). No human hands, no ritual water. NEW COVENANT FULFILLMENT: Holy Spirit Baptism as the True Purifier!

Through the Holy Spirit baptism, believers are placed into the body of Christ- by one Spirit (1 Cor 12:13). This is the New Covenant counterpart to the Old Covenant's physical initiation rite. Paul calls it - the circumcision made without hands & the spiritual circumcision of Christ (Col 2:11). It is the inward purification of the heart (Rom 2:29), the very thing Israel's external washings symbolized but could never accomplish.

This Spirit‑given baptism is also God’s eternal salvation seal:
The Spirit abides FOREVER (Jn 14:16) - Believers are SEALED with the Holy Spirit of promise (Eph 1:13–14) - SEALED unto the day of redemption (Eph 4:30) - the Holy Spirit is God's earnest/DOWN PAYMENT guaranteeing our inheritance (2 Cor 1:22; 5:5) - the Holy Spirit poured into our hearts is the assurance of God's love (Rom 5:5) the Holy Spirit guards the salvation entrusted to us (2 Tim 1:14)

When Jesus immerses & SEALS a believer with/by/in the Holy Spirit, He accomplishes what every mikveh, every ablution, every priestly washing, every purification rite & John's baptism of repentance symbolize

The baptism of the Holy Spirit is the New Covenant fulfillment of all Israel's Old Covenant purification rituals. Water rituals pointed to it. The Spirit performs it. Jesus alone administers it.

From Moses to John to Jesus to Peter to Paul, the pattern never changes: water symbolized purification, but the Holy Spirit performs it. When Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit, every Old Covenant washing finds its fulfillment. Water follows & never causes eternal life or sin remittance.

 

[studier]

You didn't answer a single text because the moment you touch the text your position collapses, so instead you retreated into a homemade definition of GENUINE FAITH that neither Peter nor Paul ever give.

Peter explicitly says God purified their hearts by faith (Acts 15:9), identifies the Acts 10 event as Holy Spirit baptism (Acts 11:15–16) & Jesus defines that baptism in (Acts 1:5). Paul says the Spirit is given when you hear & believe (Eph 1:13). That's the inspired sequence, not my system & that's why you keep dodging the only question that exposes the contradiction in your view:

Which baptism marks the moment of salvation in Acts 10? the one Jesus performs with the Spirit in (vs44). or the water baptism Peter performs afterward in (vs47)?

Until you answer that from the text, not from your redefinition of faith, you're not doing exegesis, you're avoiding the very passages that refute your conclusion.

Once again, I actually have answered some of your points about the Text when I said you are misrepresenting what genuine faith includes. I do not think you can prove that Peter or Paul ever define genuine faith as I'm saying it is defined and explained in Scripture. Neither do I think I can show you from Scripture in a way you will accept how it is defined and explained in Scripture.

So, now that you've ceased to tell us that Jewish resources say baptism was just ritual cleansing (I wrote this before seeing your most recent post - back to this again!), and now that we're both having to repeat ourselves about what I have and have not answered, I'm happy to look at Scriptures with you re: baptism to see what they say and do not say. Since by repetition and progressive narrowing you seem to favor the above verses in Acts, I guess we should begin there. If you'd like to use any specific English version, let me know. I'll begin at a basic level and for no specific reason with the NKJ. Brackets indicate some places where the translator needs to determine what word(s) to add:

NKJ Acts15:7-10 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: "Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 "So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged (martureō) them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 "and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

• Some observations about what Peter says:
  • Acts15:7 God chose that through (dia) Peter's mouth the Gentiles were to hear the word/message (logos) - the Good News - and to believe
    • God wanted these Gentiles to hear from Peter [God's] Good News and to believe
      • Why does God work with and through men?
  • Acts15:8 God - the knower of hearts - bore witness (martureō) [to] the Gentiles [] giving [to] them the Holy Spirit just as God gave the Holy Spirit to Peter and to others
    • Peter tells us that God's giving the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles was God witnessing to Peter and others who were there. If there's any public witness here, it was God witnessing [] giving the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles.
      • I'm going to assume the witness God was giving was the Gentiles speaking in languages/tongues exalting God which amazed the Jews who had come with Peter (Acts10:45-46) and that Peter is comparing this with the similar event at Pentecost in Acts2. (which brings to mind some of what I think @Biilybob65 has been saying about these events)
  • Acts15:9 God made no distinction between both Peter and others, and the Gentiles, literally, [] the faith cleansing the hearts [of] them
    • Why is faith articular = "the faith"?
      • God used "the faith" to cleanse these Gentiles' hearts
    • When did the cleansing take place - when was it completed?

Care to agree, disagree, discuss modification, answer any questions I've asked, before proceeding? Anything just in these verses or close context you'd like us to consider?

 

[studier]

Mosaic Law required numerous ceremonial water purification rituals (ablutions): washing hands, feet, bodies, garments & sacred vessels. Jewish law recognized three primary forms: hand washing, hand & foot washing & full‑body immersion in a mikveh (JewishEncyclopedia.com). On the Day of Atonement, the High Priest washed his hands & feet 10 times & immersed his body 5 times. Other priestly duties required additional purifications (Ex 30:19–21; Lev 6:27; 14:8–9; 15:16; 16:4, 24; 22:6)

As I said before, these references are very selective and being used as such to present a very specific point of view. Here's the link to the actual article: ABLUTION

In the same resource, and not referenced in the above post, here's another more detailed article providing more instruction into the actual topic being discussed in this thread: BAPTISM

Every Mosaic observant Israelite understood these washings. A full mikveh immersion expressed:
I acknowledge I'm unclean, I'm turning from that state, I'm returning to covenant faithfulness, I'm restoring my ritual status before God and the community
(Sources: Jewish Virtual Library; Sefaria; Rabbi Samson R. Hirsch)

By repeating these statements and suggesting they are completely supported by the references you generally cite - while not providing any specific links to any statements within them - one wonders how you expect to be taken seriously. Even what you do state just above is more than some ceremonial purification that you previously stated and sounds like spiritual recognition and public confession similar to what I and others have been pointing out FROM Scriptures speaking of what's taking place in baptism. And, when coupled with the above link to the BAPTISM article which links together things like sprinkling with blood and immersion, one wonders how you are missing some of the depths actually discussed in Jewish literature you reference. Maybe you're just copying excerpts from others' works.

Here's a link to an article you may be referencing in the Jewish Virtual Library and an excerpt from it pertaining to the view of Maimonides at minimum (highlights are mine):

"It is emphasized that the purpose of immersion is not physical but spiritual cleanliness. Maimonides concludes his codification of the laws of the mikveh with the following statement: It is plain that the laws about immersion as a means of freeing oneself from uncleanness are decrees laid down by Scripture and not matters about which human understanding is capable of forming a judgment; for behold, they are included among the divine statutes. Now ’uncleanness’ is not mud or filth which water can remove, but is a matter of scriptural decree and dependent on the intention of the heart. Therefore the Sages have said, ’If a man immerses himself, but without special intention, it is as though he has not immersed himself at all.’​

​

Nevertheless, we may find some indication [for the moral basis] of this: Just as one who sets his heart on becoming clean becomes clean as soon as he has immersed himself, although nothing new has befallen his body, so, too, one who sets his heart on cleansing himself from the uncleannesses that beset men’s souls – namely, wrongful thoughts and false convictions – becomes clean as soon as he consents in his heart to shun those counsels and brings his soul into the waters of pure reason. Behold, Scriptures say, ’And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean; from all your uncleannesses and from all your idols will I cleanse you [Ezek. 36: 25]’ (Yad, Mikva’ot 11:12)."​

​

When these articles delve more deeply into baptism and discuss spiritual matters associated with it, they are touching way beyond the simplicity you're selectively citing without actual or complete references or linking to actual articles.

The way I read on this topic in Scripture and in literature, it reveals that God who knows men's hearts is requiring they do something in the beginning of this salvation process that involves them cooperatively and deeply in mind/spirit translating to physical and public declarations like Peter alludes to in 1Pet3:21. Man is being involved in his entirety by God, and, no matter what you say, other verses tie such depth to cleansing of sins, repentance, remission of sins and thus blood (similar to what the BAPTISM article I linked to and you somehow missed referencing more than once and after being requested to do so), calling the Lord's name, etc...

With that said, your cited Sefaria is a vast library of Jewish writings that you cannot reasonably expect others to accept as substantiating what you say apart from providing specific links. Even then, given all the data the site contains, I'm highly doubtful any links you might provide are all that's presented on the matter in Sefaria.

RE: Hirsch. Not being readily familiar with him, though I may have read some of what he's written or what others have said about his writings, I asked Google AI to give me a quick summary of his works and how you are presenting him. This was the brief summary:

• The "Horeb" Perspective: In his seminal work Horeb, Hirsch classified the commandments (mitzvot) into categories. He argued that rituals are not "empty ceremonies" but "edifying symbols" designed to refine the human spirit and imprint divine truths onto the soul.
• Ritual vs. Spirit: Using Hirsch to suggest that water is "only a symbol," Hirsch himself taught that the physical act is the indispensable trigger for the spiritual effect. To Hirsch, the mikveh (ritual bath) was a way for a human to "lose" their physical, animalistic self and emerge as a "purely spiritual" being.
• The High Priest Example: Mention of the High Priest washing on the Day of Atonement. Hirsch’s commentary on this specifically explains that these washings were meant to carry the "holiness of the Sanctuary" into the "concrete life outside"—denying any "clean break" between the ritual and the reality.
• Summary: By citing Hirsch, appeal is made to a world-class authority on Jewish Law. However, Hirsch would likely disagree with any conclusion that the "Spirit replaces water." Hirsch’s entire life was dedicated to proving that the physical ritual (water) is the divinely appointed vehicle for the spiritual reality.

I've asked you more than once as I recall to provide links to what you reference as support for your views. I informed you that they speak of baptism being a much deeper concept than you're presenting. The above is just a portion of what I read before responding as I previously did.

The fact is that you are only presenting a very selective portion of information on the topic and not providing any actual links or excerpts that can be identified as such. You shouldn't really be presenting them as being trustworthy.

 

[studier]

Once again, I actually have answered some of your points about the Text when I said you are misrepresenting what genuine faith includes. I do not think you can prove that Peter or Paul never define genuine faith as I'm saying it is defined and explained in Scripture. Neither do I think I can show you from Scripture in a way you will accept how it is defined and explained in Scripture.

@FlyingDove - missed the editing time on this from post #2,422 so fixed just above

 

[studier]

Here's a link to an article you may be referencing in the Jewish Virtual Library and an excerpt from it pertaining to the view of Maimonides at minimum (highlights are mine):

@FlyingDove - sorry about editing time again - here above is a repaired link in this statement from post #2,423

 

[FlyingDove]

Once again, I actually have answered some of your points about the Text when I said you are misrepresenting what genuine faith includes. I do not think you can prove that Peter or Paul ever define genuine faith as I'm saying it is defined and explained in Scripture. Neither do I think I can show you from Scripture in a way you will accept how it is defined and explained in Scripture.

So, now that you've ceased to tell us that Jewish resources say baptism was just ritual cleansing (I wrote this before seeing your most recent post - back to this again!), and now that we're both having to repeat ourselves about what I have and have not answered, I'm happy to look at Scriptures with you re: baptism to see what they say and do not say. Since by repetition and progressive narrowing you seem to favor the above verses in Acts, I guess we should begin there. If you'd like to use any specific English version, let me know. I'll begin at a basic level and for no specific reason with the NKJ. Brackets indicate some places where the translator needs to determine what word(s) to add:

NKJ Acts15:7-10 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: "Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 "So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged (martureō) them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 "and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

• Some observations about what Peter says:
  • Acts15:7 God chose that through (dia) Peter's mouth the Gentiles were to hear the word/message (logos) - the Good News - and to believe
    • God wanted these Gentiles to hear from Peter [God's] Good News and to believe
      • Why does God work with and through men?
  • Acts15:8 God - the knower of hearts - bore witness (martureō) [to] the Gentiles [] giving [to] them the Holy Spirit just as God gave the Holy Spirit to Peter and to others
    • Peter tells us that God's giving the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles was God witnessing to Peter and others who were there. If there's any public witness here, it was God witnessing [] giving the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles.
      • I'm going to assume the witness God was giving was the Gentiles speaking in languages/tongues exalting God which amazed the Jews who had come with Peter (Acts10:45-46) and that Peter is comparing this with the similar event at Pentecost in Acts2. (which brings to mind some of what I think @Biilybob65 has been saying about these events)
  • Acts15:9 God made no distinction between both Peter and others, and the Gentiles, literally, [] the faith cleansing the hearts [of] them
    • Why is faith articular = "the faith"?
      • God used "the faith" to cleanse these Gentiles' hearts
    • When did the cleansing take place - when was it completed?

Care to agree, disagree, discuss modification, answer any questions I've asked, before proceeding? Anything just in these verses or close context you'd like us to consider?

You still haven't touched the one question the text itself forces on you & no amount of redefining GENUINE FAITH is going to make it disappear.

Peter isn't talking about your system, my system, or anyone's philosophical category of faith. He's talking about a sequence of events God performed in real time.

Peter says God purified their hearts by faith (Acts 15:9) then identifies when that happened: when the Holy Spirit fell on them ""just as on us at the beginning.

Peter calls this the Holy Spirit baptism as defined by Jesus in Acts 1:5 (Acts 11:15–16). Paul gives the same order > hearing, believing & then being sealed with the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13).

None of that comes from me, it's the inspired chronology Luke records. So, top circling.

In Acts 10, which baptism marks the moment God purified accepted them:

The one Jesu performs with the Hoy Spirit in (Vs44)? OR the water baptism Peter performs afterward in (Vs47)?

If purification happened before water, your view collapses. If purification happened after water, Peter's own explanation in Acts 15 becomes nonsense. Until you answer that from the text, not from a homemade definition of GENUINE FAITH you're not doing exegesis, you're dodging the very passages that refute your conclusion.

 

[FlyingDove]

As I said before, these references are very selective and being used as such to present a very specific point of view. Here's the link to the actual article: ABLUTION

In the same resource, and not referenced in the above post, here's another more detailed article providing more instruction into the actual topic being discussed in this thread: BAPTISM



By repeating these statements and suggesting they are completely supported by the references you generally cite - while not providing any specific links to any statements within them - one wonders how you expect to be taken seriously. Even what you do state just above is more than some ceremonial purification that you previously stated and sounds like spiritual recognition and public confession similar to what I and others have been pointing out FROM Scriptures speaking of what's taking place in baptism. And, when coupled with the above link to the BAPTISM article which links together things like sprinkling with blood and immersion, one wonders how you are missing some of the depths actually discussed in Jewish literature you reference. Maybe you're just copying excerpts from others' works.

Here's a link to an article you may be referencing in the Jewish Virtual Library and an excerpt from it pertaining to the view of Maimonides at minimum (highlights are mine):

"It is emphasized that the purpose of immersion is not physical but spiritual cleanliness. Maimonides concludes his codification of the laws of the mikveh with the following statement: It is plain that the laws about immersion as a means of freeing oneself from uncleanness are decrees laid down by Scripture and not matters about which human understanding is capable of forming a judgment; for behold, they are included among the divine statutes. Now ’uncleanness’ is not mud or filth which water can remove, but is a matter of scriptural decree and dependent on the intention of the heart. Therefore the Sages have said, ’If a man immerses himself, but without special intention, it is as though he has not immersed himself at all.’​

​

Nevertheless, we may find some indication [for the moral basis] of this: Just as one who sets his heart on becoming clean becomes clean as soon as he has immersed himself, although nothing new has befallen his body, so, too, one who sets his heart on cleansing himself from the uncleannesses that beset men’s souls – namely, wrongful thoughts and false convictions – becomes clean as soon as he consents in his heart to shun those counsels and brings his soul into the waters of pure reason. Behold, Scriptures say, ’And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean; from all your uncleannesses and from all your idols will I cleanse you [Ezek. 36: 25]’ (Yad, Mikva’ot 11:12)."​

​

When these articles delve more deeply into baptism and discuss spiritual matters associated with it, they are touching way beyond the simplicity you're selectively citing without actual or complete references or linking to actual articles.

The way I read on this topic in Scripture and in literature, it reveals that God who knows men's hearts is requiring they do something in the beginning of this salvation process that involves them cooperatively and deeply in mind/spirit translating to physical and public declarations like Peter alludes to in 1Pet3:21. Man is being involved in his entirety by God, and, no matter what you say, other verses tie such depth to cleansing of sins, repentance, remission of sins and thus blood (similar to what the BAPTISM article I linked to and you somehow missed referencing more than once and after being requested to do so), calling the Lord's name, etc...

With that said, your cited Sefaria is a vast library of Jewish writings that you cannot reasonably expect others to accept as substantiating what you say apart from providing specific links. Even then, given all the data the site contains, I'm highly doubtful any links you might provide are all that's presented on the matter in Sefaria.

RE: Hirsch. Not being readily familiar with him, though I may have read some of what he's written or what others have said about his writings, I asked Google AI to give me a quick summary of his works and how you are presenting him. This was the brief summary:

• The "Horeb" Perspective: In his seminal work Horeb, Hirsch classified the commandments (mitzvot) into categories. He argued that rituals are not "empty ceremonies" but "edifying symbols" designed to refine the human spirit and imprint divine truths onto the soul.
• Ritual vs. Spirit: Using Hirsch to suggest that water is "only a symbol," Hirsch himself taught that the physical act is the indispensable trigger for the spiritual effect. To Hirsch, the mikveh (ritual bath) was a way for a human to "lose" their physical, animalistic self and emerge as a "purely spiritual" being.
• The High Priest Example: Mention of the High Priest washing on the Day of Atonement. Hirsch’s commentary on this specifically explains that these washings were meant to carry the "holiness of the Sanctuary" into the "concrete life outside"—denying any "clean break" between the ritual and the reality.
• Summary: By citing Hirsch, appeal is made to a world-class authority on Jewish Law. However, Hirsch would likely disagree with any conclusion that the "Spirit replaces water." Hirsch’s entire life was dedicated to proving that the physical ritual (water) is the divinely appointed vehicle for the spiritual reality.

I've asked you more than once as I recall to provide links to what you reference as support for your views. I informed you that they speak of baptism being a much deeper concept than you're presenting. The above is just a portion of what I read before responding as I previously did.

The fact is that you are only presenting a very selective portion of information on the topic and not providing any actual links or excerpts that can be identified as such. You shouldn't really be presenting them as being trustworthy.

You spent the entire post attacking my use of sources while proving my point & still not touching the New Testament texts I actually argued from. I never claimed Jewish ritual washings were EMPTY or MERELY PHYSICAL. I said they restored ritual purity, not spiritual regeneration. Your own Maimonides quote concedes that: uncleanness is ""not mud or filth which water can remove,"" & immersion depends on ""the intention of the heart,"" which is exactly why I said water is the symbolic vehicle, not the cause of inner cleansing.

Hirsch saying ritual is the ""divinely appointed vehicle"" for spiritual realities doesn't overturn my argument. It underlines it: the physical act points beyond itself.

My post was not ""copy‑pasted snippets."" It was a documented category argument: OT washings restore ritual status, NT writers consistently attribute true cleansing, washing, sanctifying & purifying to the Holy Spirit. (Titus 3:5, 2 Thes 2:13, Rom 15:16, 1 Cor 6:11, 1 Pet 1:2, Acts 15:9.

You still haven't answered that pattern. You also haven't touched the core claim: when the Holy Spirit fell in Acts 10, the purifier Himself acted & Peter later interprets that as God ""purifying their hearts by faith"" (Acts 15:9), before water ever touched them.

You can argue all day about how rich Jewish baptism theology is, but unless you can show from Scripture that water, not the Spirit remits sin, regenerates & seals unto the day of redemption (Eph 1:13–14 & 4:30), you're just critiquing my bibliography instead of dealing with the actual exegesis.

 

[studier]

You still haven't touched the one question the text itself forces on you & no amount of redefining GENUINE FAITH is going to make it disappear.

Peter isn't talking about your system, my system, or anyone's philosophical category of faith. He's talking about a sequence of events God performed in real time.

Peter says God purified their hearts by faith (Acts 15:9) then identifies when that happened: when the Holy Spirit fell on them ""just as on us at the beginning.

Peter calls this the Holy Spirit baptism as defined by Jesus in Acts 1:5 (Acts 11:15–16). Paul gives the same order > hearing, believing & then being sealed with the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13).

None of that comes from me, it's the inspired chronology Luke records. So, top circling.

In Acts 10, which baptism marks the moment God purified accepted them:

The one Jesu performs with the Hoy Spirit in (Vs44)? OR the water baptism Peter performs afterward in (Vs47)?

If purification happened before water, your view collapses. If purification happened after water, Peter's own explanation in Acts 15 becomes nonsense. Until you answer that from the text, not from a homemade definition of GENUINE FAITH you're not doing exegesis, you're dodging the very passages that refute your conclusion.

IOW you don't want to actually discuss and analyze what Scripture says and doesn't say. Not surprising.

 

[studier]

You spent the entire post attacking my use of sources while proving my point & still not touching the New Testament texts I actually argued from. I never claimed Jewish ritual washings were EMPTY or MERELY PHYSICAL. I said they restored ritual purity, not spiritual regeneration. Your own Maimonides quote concedes that: uncleanness is ""not mud or filth which water can remove,"" & immersion depends on ""the intention of the heart,"" which is exactly why I said water is the symbolic vehicle, not the cause of inner cleansing.

Hirsch saying ritual is the ""divinely appointed vehicle"" for spiritual realities doesn't overturn my argument. It underlines it: the physical act points beyond itself.

My post was not ""copy‑pasted snippets."" It was a documented category argument: OT washings restore ritual status, NT writers consistently attribute true cleansing, washing, sanctifying & purifying to the Holy Spirit. (Titus 3:5, 2 Thes 2:13, Rom 15:16, 1 Cor 6:11, 1 Pet 1:2, Acts 15:9.

You still haven't answered that pattern. You also haven't touched the core claim: when the Holy Spirit fell in Acts 10, the purifier Himself acted & Peter later interprets that as God ""purifying their hearts by faith"" (Acts 15:9), before water ever touched them.

You can argue all day about how rich Jewish baptism theology is, but unless you can show from Scripture that water, not the Spirit remits sin, regenerates & seals unto the day of redemption (Eph 1:13–14 & 4:30), you're just critiquing my bibliography instead of dealing with the actual exegesis.

Your posts re: Jewish resources and thinking are selective, non-quoted, non-linked statements, that are most certainly not fully backed up by those resources themselves.

What I did link to (from and re: the resources you mentioned but didn't actually provide any specific links to) and in part excerpt from is in line with a rich history of thinking re: immersions and cleansing that had depths well-corelated with NC history and practices. There's a reason our Text speaks of such things as being baptized for the remission of sins and tells us of Jesus Christ's mandate to baptize, and there's a reason your system of theology tries to explain it all away with a false dichotomy of water vs. blood.

 

[FlyingDove]

IOW you don't want to actually discuss and analyze what Scripture says and doesn't say. Not surprising.

You're not ""analyzing Scripture."" You're dodging the one place the Scripture itself demands we stand: the sequence Peter gives. You can redefine GENUINE FAITH all day long, but Peter isn't talking about your categories. He's recounting what God actually did, in order, in real time.

Acts 15:7–9 gives a chronology. Acts 10 gives the event. Acts 11 gives Peter's interpretation of the event. You haven't touched any of it.

Peter says God purified their hearts by faith. Peter says God bore witness to them by giving the Holy Spirit. Peter says this happened ""just as on us at the beginning."" Peter says this is the baptism Jesus promised in (Acts 1:5).
Luke records that this happened before water baptism. That's not my theology. That's the inspired timeline you keep refusing to engage.

So let's stop pretending the issue is DEFINITIONS or SYSTEMS. The issue is whether you will answer the text you claim to be analyzing.

In Acts 10, which baptism marks the moment God purified & accepted them?

The Holy Spirit baptism Jesus performs in (Vs.44) OR the water baptism Peter performs afterward in (Vs47)?

There is no third option, no philosophical escape hatch, no GENUINE FAITH or SYSTEMS smokescreens.

Until you answer that question from the text & not from your homemade categories. You're not doing exegesis. You're just avoiding the passages that refute your conclusion.

 

[TheLearner]

read thru

 

[studier]

You're not ""analyzing Scripture."" You're dodging the one place the Scripture itself demands we stand: the sequence Peter gives. You can redefine GENUINE FAITH all day long, but Peter isn't talking about your categories. He's recounting what God actually did, in order, in real time.

Acts 15:7–9 gives a chronology. Acts 10 gives the event. Acts 11 gives Peter's interpretation of the event. You haven't touched any of it.

Peter says God purified their hearts by faith. Peter says God bore witness to them by giving the Holy Spirit. Peter says this happened ""just as on us at the beginning."" Peter says this is the baptism Jesus promised in (Acts 1:5).
Luke records that this happened before water baptism. That's not my theology. That's the inspired timeline you keep refusing to engage.

So let's stop pretending the issue is DEFINITIONS or SYSTEMS. The issue is whether you will answer the text you claim to be analyzing.

In Acts 10, which baptism marks the moment God purified & accepted them?

The Holy Spirit baptism Jesus performs in (Vs.44) OR the water baptism Peter performs afterward in (Vs47)?

There is no third option, no philosophical escape hatch, no GENUINE FAITH or SYSTEMS smokescreens.

Until you answer that question from the text & not from your homemade categories. You're not doing exegesis. You're just avoiding the passages that refute your conclusion.

See post #2,428 and #2,422

 

[Biilybob65]

Acts 15 Verse 7
And when there had been much questioning, Peter rose up and said unto them, Brethren, ye know that a good while ago God made choice among you, that by mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

Peter here has reference to the events related in Acts 10, where is recorded the conversion of Cornelius. Peter at that time had acted in good faith, baptizing Cornelius and his household without any thought of circumcision and law-keeping; but it is evident that the cunning Pharisees, in efforts to bring them all to their viewpoint, began by stressing the social issue of eating with the uncircumcised, but moving quickly afterward to the hard position of demanding full obligations to Moses' law as a condition of salvation. True, Peter had eaten with Cornelius; but, through social pressure, the Pharisee-Christians were able to compromise him by causing his dissimulation. When all were gathered together in Jerusalem, and after many discussions, Peter's basic understanding of God's will, fortified by his rugged character, enabled him to rise up, as he did here, and pull the rug out from under the whole Pharisaical conspiracy.
Verse 8
And God who knoweth the heart, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Spirit, even as he did unto us; and he made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.

Faith ... here means "the Christian faith" as distinguished from the law of Moses and does not mean "faith" as distinguished from repentance and baptism. This is a frequent New Testament usage of the word.
No distinction between us and them ... This is one of the cornerstone doctrines of Christianity. God has only one plan, one system of human salvation, there being no partiality, no special favors, no special devices favoring any man, race or nation. Jews and Gentiles alike confront the same message in Christ. The whole book of Romans was written to develop the theme of God's intrinsic righteousness in treating all men and nations alike. "There is no distinction!" (Romans 3:22). The words Peter spoke here obviously made a deep impression upon the great apostle to the Gentiles.

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

This event actually occurred "as Peter began to speak," being intended not to save Cornelius (for Peter would tell him "words whereby he and his house should be saved" as in Acts 11:14), but for the purpose of convincing Peter and his companions that the gospel should be preached to Cornelius and company without reservation or prior requirement. It is in the necessity for this that the unique character of this entire episode is evident.

Regarding the fact of the Holy Spirit in this instance falling upon people who had not been baptized, whereas on Pentecost the promise of the Holy Spirit was made to depend upon the repentance and baptism of believers, many strange and untenable theories have been erected. Trenchard, for example, thought that here, "The Pentecostal baptism was extended to Gentile believers on the sole ground of repentance and faith."24 However, there is no mention of repentance in this passage; and, as the Spirit fell on them "as Peter began to speak," it is incorrect to say that they were "believers" when that occurred. It is a mistake to make this unique occurrence a normal Christian experience. Murray-Beasley was certainly correct when he declared that:

This gift of the Spirit without baptism must be viewed as exceptional, due to a divine intervention in a highly significant situation, teaching that Gentiles may be received into the church by baptism, even when they have not removed their uncleanness through circumcision and sacrifice.25

It is that "exceptional situation" mentioned by Beasley-Murray that must be emphasized here. The divine manifestation of the Holy Spirit falling on those Gentiles of Cornelius' household was not for the purpose of saving them, in any sense, but for the purpose of convincing the apostle Peter and his companions of the propriety of welcoming the Gentiles into the church of God upon the same conditions as everyone else. And again from Beasley-Murray:

Whatever the relationship between baptism and the gift of the Spirit elsewhere in Acts, there appears to be no doubt as to the intention of Acts 2:38; the penitent believer baptized in the name of Jesus Christ may expect to receive at once the Holy Spirit, even as he is assured of the immediate forgiveness of his sins.26

Acts 11:15 Verse 15
And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning.

A number of the most important facts are revealed in this short sentence.

(1) As I began to speak ... The baptism of the Holy Spirit which occurred so early, before Peter could deliver his soul-saving message, shows that the purpose of this Spirit baptism was unrelated to the salvation of Cornelius, being intended rather as a sign to Peter and his companions that God had called the Gentiles through the gospel.

(2) As on us at the beginning ... These words clearly designate Pentecost as "the beginning," this being the prime authority for accepting that date as the beginning of the church of Christ. There were in fact many beginnings on that day in Jerusalem. See in my Commentary on Luke under Luke 24:46,47.

(3) Peter's linking the event in Cornelius' house with that of Pentecost also justifies the conclusion pointed out by Campbell:

It is a logical inference from these words, that from the day of Pentecost to the calling of the Gentiles, no similar display of the Spirit had been given, else they would not have gone so far back. The interval between Pentecost and this event was (at least) seven or eight years.13

Thus, the clearly miraculous event of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is restricted to these two occasions, when upon the Jews at Pentecost and upon the Gentiles here, the whole of mankind was symbolically included. Therefore, it is undoubtedly true that, in the public manifestations of supernatural gifts, the Holy Spirit "descended only twice."14 These outpourings were visible and were followed by miraculous demonstrations; and these two instances of such a thing are the "only scenes called in the Holy Scriptures, the baptism, or immersion in the Holy Spirit."15 No phenomenon like that has been observed since.

 

[Biilybob65]

Acts 1:5,8 Acts 2:4 Acts 10:44 was not the promised indwelling spirit of Acts 2:38 but was a special working of the spirit to confirm the word of God only appeared in Acts 2:4 and Acts 10:44 that is the only I repeat ONLY time it is recorded as happening in the New Testament it had a specific purpose and was never the promise of Acts 2:38,39 It was never for all it is not the indwelling spirit. Not all got it but the two events of Acts 2:4 and 10:44 you can not show any scripture to refute that fact so to try to say it was the promised indwelling spirit or equal to is a falsehood presented by man not scripture.

The only thing close to it is when the Apostles laid hands on people to transfer this gift and that is not the same as it happened in Acts 2:4 and 10:44. An Apostle had to transfer the gift no one else had the power to even transfer the gift only the Apostles could. This also is not the indwelling spirit but the power of witness to grow churches. Please let the scriptures tell the story and pay attention to what is being revealed. It is clear if you open your mind and hear what is said.

 

[FlyingDove]

See post #2,428 and #2,422

Not interested in debating non‑scripture links. I’m debating the Scripture you keep avoiding.

Acts 10–11–15 gives a sequence you still haven’t answered.

When did God purify them — before water or after?

Until you answer that from the text, links are off the table

 

[Biilybob65]

You're not ""analyzing Scripture."" You're dodging the one place the Scripture itself demands we stand: the sequence Peter gives. You can redefine GENUINE FAITH all day long, but Peter isn't talking about your categories. He's recounting what God actually did, in order, in real time.

Acts 15:7–9 gives a chronology. Acts 10 gives the event. Acts 11 gives Peter's interpretation of the event. You haven't touched any of it.

Peter says God purified their hearts by faith. Peter says God bore witness to them by giving the Holy Spirit. Peter says this happened ""just as on us at the beginning."" Peter says this is the baptism Jesus promised in (Acts 1:5).
Luke records that this happened before water baptism. That's not my theology. That's the inspired timeline you keep refusing to engage.

So let's stop pretending the issue is DEFINITIONS or SYSTEMS. The issue is whether you will answer the text you claim to be analyzing.

In Acts 10, which baptism marks the moment God purified & accepted them?

The Holy Spirit baptism Jesus performs in (Vs.44) OR the water baptism Peter performs afterward in (Vs47)?

There is no third option, no philosophical escape hatch, no GENUINE FAITH or SYSTEMS smokescreens.

Until you answer that question from the text & not from your homemade categories. You're not doing exegesis. You're just avoiding the passages that refute your conclusion.

God purified their hearts by THE FAITH the faith that was once delivered the Gospel He poured out the spirit as a sign that was not when they were saved for he sent Peter to give them The words in which they would be saved and those words were the same words Peter spoke on the day of Pentecost when he used the key Jesus gave him to open the door to the kingdom of Christ. There is no different gospel for anyone other than that God gave Peter to speak on the day of Pentecost when the doors to the kingdom were first opened and God started adding to the church those that were being saved it was the same from then to now.

You really need to see the different work the spirit was doing in those time and why for the bible does tell the difference if you will accept what is recorded and stop trying to make it fit your bias.

 

[Biilybob65]

Acts 1:5,8 Acts 2:4 Acts 10:44 was not the promised indwelling spirit of Acts 2:38 but was a special working of the spirit to confirm the word of God only appeared in Acts 2:4 and Acts 10:44 that is the only I repeat ONLY time it is recorded as happening in the New Testament it had a specific purpose and was never the promise of Acts 2:38,39. It is

 

[FlyingDove]

God purified their hearts by THE FAITH the faith that was once delivered the Gospel He poured out the spirit as a sign that was not when they were saved for he sent Peter to give them The words in which they would be saved and those words were the same words Peter spoke on the day of Pentecost when he used the key Jesus gave him to open the door to the kingdom of Christ. There is no different gospel for anyone other than that God gave Peter to speak on the day of Pentecost when the doors to the kingdom were first opened and God started adding to the church those that were being saved it was the same from then to now.

You really need to see the different work the spirit was doing in those time and why for the bible does tell the difference if you will accept what is recorded and stop trying to make it fit your bias.

Peter himself removes the category you're trying to create. You can invent categories like ""special working of the Spirit,"" but Peter doesn't use that category.

In Acts 11:15–17 Peter says the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius ""as on us at the beginning,"" which is Pentecost. He clearly identifies the event as the fulfillment of Jesus' promise in Acts 1:5, as the very baptism of the Holy Spirit that launched the New Covenant to Jews at Pentecost & now includes gentile believers.

Peter does not describe Acts 10 as a different work, a temporary sign, or a unique manifestation. He interprets it as Pentecost repeated: same promise, same baptism, same gift, same meaning. ""God gave them the like gift as He did unto us,"" & in Acts 15:8–9 he says this is when God purified their hearts by faith & made no distinction between Jew & Gentile.

That is not a ""sign only"" event. That is not a different category. That is not a pre salvation manifestation. Peter uses the event as the proof that God accepted them & Luke records that this happened before water baptism (Acts 10:44–47).

Jesus Holy Spirit baptism is God's Salvation Proof, Guarantee & Seal (Eph 1:13-14, 4:30, 2 Cor 1:22, 5:5, 2 Tim 1:14)

So again: In Acts 10, which baptism marks the moment God purified, saved & accepted them ?

The Holy Spirit baptism Jesus performs in (Vs44), or the water baptism Peter performs afterward in (Vs47)?

There is no 3rd category in the text. Until you answer that from Scripture rather than from a system, you're not doing exegesis. You keep avoiding answering the passages that refute your conclusion.

 

[studier]

Not interested in debating non‑scripture links. I’m debating the Scripture you keep avoiding.

Acts 10–11–15 gives a sequence you still haven’t answered.

When did God purify them — before water or after?

Until you answer that from the text, links are off the table

I'll make this easy since you apparently don't like referenced links back to specific posts. Here's discussion of some of your Scripture I'm obviously not avoiding. What I am not doing is following the superficial proof-texting and summary you're presenting. I don't think you're understanding Scripture, so we should get into it more pointedly.

From post #2,422 for your convenience:

"NKJ Acts15:7-10 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: "Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 "So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged (martureō) them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 "and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

• Some observations about what Peter says:
  • Acts15:7 God chose that through (dia) Peter's mouth the Gentiles were to hear the word/message (logos) - the Good News - and to believe
    • God wanted these Gentiles to hear from Peter [God's] Good News and to believe
      • Why does God work with and through men?
  • Acts15:8 God - the knower of hearts - bore witness (martureō) [to] the Gentiles [] giving [to] them the Holy Spirit just as God gave the Holy Spirit to Peter and to others
    • Peter tells us that God's giving the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles was God witnessing to Peter and others who were there. If there's any public witness here, it was God witnessing [] giving the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles.
      • I'm going to assume the witness God was giving was the Gentiles speaking in languages/tongues exalting God which amazed the Jews who had come with Peter (Acts10:45-46) and that Peter is comparing this with the similar event at Pentecost in Acts2. (which brings to mind some of what I think @Biilybob65 has been saying about these events)
  • Acts15:9 God made no distinction between both Peter and others, and the Gentiles, literally, [] the faith cleansing the hearts [of] them
    • Why is faith articular = "the faith"?
      • God used "the faith" to cleanse these Gentiles' hearts
    • When did the cleansing take place - when was it completed?

Care to agree, disagree, discuss modification, answer any questions I've asked, before proceeding? Anything just in these verses or close context you'd like us to consider?"​

 

[studier]

Acts 15 Verse 7
And when there had been much questioning, Peter rose up and said unto them, Brethren, ye know that a good while ago God made choice among you, that by mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

Peter here has reference to the events related in Acts 10, where is recorded the conversion of Cornelius. Peter at that time had acted in good faith, baptizing Cornelius and his household without any thought of circumcision and law-keeping; but it is evident that the cunning Pharisees, in efforts to bring them all to their viewpoint, began by stressing the social issue of eating with the uncircumcised, but moving quickly afterward to the hard position of demanding full obligations to Moses' law as a condition of salvation. True, Peter had eaten with Cornelius; but, through social pressure, the Pharisee-Christians were able to compromise him by causing his dissimulation. When all were gathered together in Jerusalem, and after many discussions, Peter's basic understanding of God's will, fortified by his rugged character, enabled him to rise up, as he did here, and pull the rug out from under the whole Pharisaical conspiracy.
Verse 8
And God who knoweth the heart, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Spirit, even as he did unto us; and he made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.

Faith ... here means "the Christian faith" as distinguished from the law of Moses and does not mean "faith" as distinguished from repentance and baptism. This is a frequent New Testament usage of the word.
No distinction between us and them ... This is one of the cornerstone doctrines of Christianity. God has only one plan, one system of human salvation, there being no partiality, no special favors, no special devices favoring any man, race or nation. Jews and Gentiles alike confront the same message in Christ. The whole book of Romans was written to develop the theme of God's intrinsic righteousness in treating all men and nations alike. "There is no distinction!" (Romans 3:22). The words Peter spoke here obviously made a deep impression upon the great apostle to the Gentiles.

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

This event actually occurred "as Peter began to speak," being intended not to save Cornelius (for Peter would tell him "words whereby he and his house should be saved" as in Acts 11:14), but for the purpose of convincing Peter and his companions that the gospel should be preached to Cornelius and company without reservation or prior requirement. It is in the necessity for this that the unique character of this entire episode is evident.

Regarding the fact of the Holy Spirit in this instance falling upon people who had not been baptized, whereas on Pentecost the promise of the Holy Spirit was made to depend upon the repentance and baptism of believers, many strange and untenable theories have been erected. Trenchard, for example, thought that here, "The Pentecostal baptism was extended to Gentile believers on the sole ground of repentance and faith."24 However, there is no mention of repentance in this passage; and, as the Spirit fell on them "as Peter began to speak," it is incorrect to say that they were "believers" when that occurred. It is a mistake to make this unique occurrence a normal Christian experience. Murray-Beasley was certainly correct when he declared that:

This gift of the Spirit without baptism must be viewed as exceptional, due to a divine intervention in a highly significant situation, teaching that Gentiles may be received into the church by baptism, even when they have not removed their uncleanness through circumcision and sacrifice.25

It is that "exceptional situation" mentioned by Beasley-Murray that must be emphasized here. The divine manifestation of the Holy Spirit falling on those Gentiles of Cornelius' household was not for the purpose of saving them, in any sense, but for the purpose of convincing the apostle Peter and his companions of the propriety of welcoming the Gentiles into the church of God upon the same conditions as everyone else. And again from Beasley-Murray:

Whatever the relationship between baptism and the gift of the Spirit elsewhere in Acts, there appears to be no doubt as to the intention of Acts 2:38; the penitent believer baptized in the name of Jesus Christ may expect to receive at once the Holy Spirit, even as he is assured of the immediate forgiveness of his sins.26

Acts 11:15 Verse 15
And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning.

A number of the most important facts are revealed in this short sentence.

(1) As I began to speak ... The baptism of the Holy Spirit which occurred so early, before Peter could deliver his soul-saving message, shows that the purpose of this Spirit baptism was unrelated to the salvation of Cornelius, being intended rather as a sign to Peter and his companions that God had called the Gentiles through the gospel.

(2) As on us at the beginning ... These words clearly designate Pentecost as "the beginning," this being the prime authority for accepting that date as the beginning of the church of Christ. There were in fact many beginnings on that day in Jerusalem. See in my Commentary on Luke under Luke 24:46,47.

(3) Peter's linking the event in Cornelius' house with that of Pentecost also justifies the conclusion pointed out by Campbell:

It is a logical inference from these words, that from the day of Pentecost to the calling of the Gentiles, no similar display of the Spirit had been given, else they would not have gone so far back. The interval between Pentecost and this event was (at least) seven or eight years.13

Thus, the clearly miraculous event of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is restricted to these two occasions, when upon the Jews at Pentecost and upon the Gentiles here, the whole of mankind was symbolically included. Therefore, it is undoubtedly true that, in the public manifestations of supernatural gifts, the Holy Spirit "descended only twice."14 These outpourings were visible and were followed by miraculous demonstrations; and these two instances of such a thing are the "only scenes called in the Holy Scriptures, the baptism, or immersion in the Holy Spirit."15 No phenomenon like that has been observed since.

Normally I would give this an "informative" emoji because it is informative, but due to it's length and a few things within it that I think could use some discussion, this is my "informative" emoji.

Is this taken from a specific commentary or commentaries?