Acts

SCROLL TO BOTTOM FOR CONTENT THREADS.

Prior Book \| Prior Chapter \| Prior Verse \| Next Verse \| Next Chapter \| Next Book \| Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015
NASB	Acts 2:37 ¶ Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?"
AMPLIFIED 2015	Acts 2:37 ¶ Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart [with remorse and anxiety], and they said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what are we to do?"

SCROLL TO BOTTOM FOR CONTENT THREADS.

Subject: where did this teaching come from?

Bible Note: "Brethren, what shall we do?" I would just like to discuss this question a little bit to understand why Peter by the Holy Spirit gave the people the answer that he gave! Is it the fact that those who ask the question knew they had to submit to something, in order to remove the guilt and sins they had committed? Or did they know that their salvation was already secured, and they could just go about their lives? They knew that they were guilty of killing the Just One, the Son of the living God, so they were looking for a way out of the mess they were in. So they ask the most important question that could ever have been asked, "Brethren, what shall we do?" I now wonder if the teaches of today had to give the answer to that question, would they give the same answer that Peter gave? Or would we get answers like the one's given on this forum! Someone said, that they were glad that they didn't have to jump through "hoops and loops" to come to Christ, how or what answer would you give then to these who asked the question "What shall we do?" Would your answer be the same as Peter's answer? Or would you take out the "hoops and loops?" I know from what I read about "hoops and loops" that baptism would be out of the question because God never included baptism in his salvation plan, and this is what you believe, am I right? Now my question is where did this teaching start That baptism is not and has never been a part of God's salvation plan? The only place in the bible that I found that was negative about baptism was in 1 Cor. 1:10-17 where the members of the corinthian church had a problem that caused division in that church about who the were baptized by! I what we learn here, is that it wasn't baptism it self, but who baptized who! Notice, vs.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. vs.13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? vs.14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; vs.15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in my own name. vs.16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. vs 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. The above text does not teach against baptism, but against divisions, being baptized in the name of Jesus or by the authority of Jesus Christ is the true way, and as stated in Matt 28:19 Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son,and of the Holy Spirit: There are no other places in the bible that teach anything negative about baptism or being baptized. So where did this teaching come from? Who's the author of that doctrine?

Down View Branch

ID# 52724

Questions and/or Subjects for Acts 2:37

Author

Search for your Bible question and answer here:

Acts