You like to talk about “sugar-coated double talk”, this was a load of it.
Just the opposite and there is a huge difference between sugar-coated double talk (and the end result is salvation through faith
and works) and properly harmonizing scripture with scripture (and the end result is salvation by grace through faith, not works).
As I said before, you must ignore, explain away, or mistreat many passages that emphatically instruct action on man’s part in order to arrive at your doctrine.
I neither explain away or mistreat passages of scripture, but instead
properly harmonize scripture with scripture in order to arrive at my doctrine. It's you who explains away and mistreats many passages of scripture in order to arrive at your "patched together" gospel plan that culminates in works salvation.
There is NOTHING in any translation of the Bible separating “repent” and “be baptized” in Acts 2:38 that would indicate that “for the remission of sins” does not apply to both. If anything, it would apply to the closest thing to it which is baptism.
False and multiple Greek scholars would disagree with you. Greek scholar AT Robertson - Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed “in the name of Jesus Christ” (εν τωι ονοματι Ιησου Χριστου — en tōi onomati Iēsou Christou).
"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."
Acts 2 - Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org
Greek scholar E Calvin Beisner said something similar - In short, the most precise English translation of the relevant clauses, arranging them to reflect the switches in person and number of the verbs, would be, “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular)….” Or, to adopt our Southern dialect again, “Y’all repent for the forgiveness of y’all’s sins, and let each one of you be baptized….”
When I showed this translation to the late Julius Mantey, one of the foremost Greek grammarians of the twentieth century and co-author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (originally published in 1927), he approved and even signed his name next to it in the margin of my Greek New Testament. These arguments, lexical and grammatical, stand independently. Even if one rejects both lexical meanings of for, he still must face the grammatical argument, and even if he rejects the grammatical conclusion, he still must face the lexical argument.
Does Acts 2:38 prove baptismal remission? No, it doesn’t even support it as part of a cumulative case. — E. Calvin Beisner
Does Acts 2:38 Teach Baptismal Remission? | Christian Research Institute
Greek scholar Daniel Wallace explains in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: It is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol (although only the reality remits sins). In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas—the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit…” (10:47). The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 (that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell):
Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit baptized.
Oneness Pentecostals believe the work of Baptism saves
Mark 16:16 is the same. It doesn’t matter that baptism is not mentioned in the second half, because if you don’t believe, getting baptized only gets you wet; you don’t meet the Holy Spirit there.
Rom 6 tells us that it is IN baptism that we are united with Christ. As does Eph 2.
It absolutely does matter that baptism is not mentioned in the second half of Mark 16:16 (and in John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:50,47; 11:25,26) and there are many people in various false religions and cults who believe "mental assent" in the existence and in historical facts about Christ, including that the death, burial and resurrection of Christ "happened", but they
don't truly believe the gospel by FAILING to TRUST in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as the ALL-SUFFICIENT means of their salvation. (1 Corinthians 15:1-4; Romans 1:16) These same people only end up getting wet and do not receive the Holy Spirit for failing to believe the gospel. (Ephesians 1:13; 2 Corinthians 4:3,4)
In regards to Romans 6, baptism is the PICTURE of being united with Christ. I like the way Greek scholar AT Robertson points out that it is a tragedy that Paul's majestic picture here has been so blurred by controversy that some refuse to see it. It should be said also that
a symbol is not the reality, but the picture of the reality.
Romans 6:4 Commentary - Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament
You continue to confuse the picture (water baptism) with the reality (Spirit baptism). Being buried, raised and united with Christ is
signified, but
not procured in water baptism.
I could go on, but you have made up your mind. It is pointless to continue.
Ditto.
I am saddened that you choose to believe as you do. I pray that your heart would be opened.
No need to be saddened. My heart was opened several years ago upon leaving a false religion that taught works salvation and receiving Christ through faith and I never looked back! I now believe in the name of the Son of God and I know that I have eternal life. (John 1:12; 1 John 5:13) Praise God!
The funny thing is, even according to your 4 step plan of salvation, I'm still saved. I have repented, I have with the heart believed unto righteousness and with the mouth confessed unto salvation and afterwards I received water baptism. Just not in the same chronological order and with the same purpose of your 4 step plan of salvation. So it's
not believe (still lost) repent (still lost) confess (still lost) get baptized (finally saved) which does not harmonize with (Luke 24:47; John 3:18; Acts 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 10:9,10). I pray that your heart would be opened.
