brotherofJared
Well-known member
First, I'd like to point out how underhanded it is to quote somebody and not give credit where credit is due. It is a tactic used by some of our critics who do not want to make it easy for someone to follow the argument backwards by using the links provided by this website.
I would think that those who are interested in salvation would find out for themselves just how important it is. If it was good enough for Jesus it's good enough for me. If one is to follow Jesus then I would think that they should get baptized.
Of course there are many interpretations that when my give to passages in the scriptures. We see that amongst the interpretations that are critics use that seem to go across grain with the verse as it is written. It's almost as if it was written in code forcing us to seek the wisdom of men to understand them. Of course they cannot actually say what they say.Not in this case. Greek scholar A. T. Robertson comments on Acts 2:38 - he shows how the grammar of this verse can be used to support more than one interpretation of this text.
Of course we're just going to jump straight to the conclusion. We're not going to talk about how he came to his interpretation. Instead we're just going to refer to his conclusion.He then reaches this conclusion:
It makes little sense to refer to the Bible for anything if we're just going to do or interpret it in accordance to the way we believe. Doesn't it make more sense that we might conform our beliefs to the way the Bible is actually saying it? What need we have of a Bible if we're just going to do what we believe is right? But this isn't the verse that strikes a cord with the need or requirement for baptism. Jesus Christ himself said that no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they've been baptized. And it appears that that is exactly what the apostles taught. In fact it was so important to them that Paul refers to baptism for the Dead. Now, I wonder why it was that important to them."One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received."
So we commenced to wrestle the scriptures. That's up to you. But I don't understand why it would be so difficult to accept that baptism is just part of the things that we have to do to be saved in the kingdom of God. It's not that big of a deal. But you have managed to make a mountain out of this molehill and insist that it's not necessary.Again, in Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19.
I would think that those who are interested in salvation would find out for themselves just how important it is. If it was good enough for Jesus it's good enough for me. If one is to follow Jesus then I would think that they should get baptized.