Philo said:
It's interesting to note that Alexander Campbell was the first person to propose that baptism was for the remission of sins. Before his exegesis of Acts 2:38, no one had ever considered that the text might be indicating that. Of course Alexander Campbell wasn't baptized "for the remission of sins", as he was baptized before he made that discovery.
This is necessarily false as the Nicene Creed even contains the idea of baptism for remission of sins. As to whether or not Alexander Campbell, or anyone else for that matter, has done what is necessary to be right with God has absolutely no bearing on what the Scriptures say.
And the reason it does matter that baptism was a familiar ritual to the people of the near east is this: God didn't invent baptism with John, nor on the day of Pentacost. It was a borrowed ritual.
And again
it doesn't matter what happened before hand because God has changed the meaning behind it. I actually find it rather interesting that baptism was used beforehand - it sort of brings to remembrance something about "a shadow of things to come"
It was used because it already had a place in the culture.
This is very presumptuous. How can you possibly know this?
If, for instance, annointing was the mode of introduction into the Jewish community, I imagine annointing would be the issue here.
The issue would be whatever God chose. He just happend to pick baptism. Why did He choose that? I don't think that we're told why, so any decision on our own part could never be anything more than speculation.
The ritual of baptism is significant because of its cultural heritage, and not despite it. It wasn't meaningful because it was in the biblical record. It's in the biblical record because it was meaningful beforehand.
It's significant because that when God has chosen to forgive us of our sins (Acts 2:38)
Again, my biggest issue is the idea that knowing about Christ and recognizing baptism as necessary for salvation are both necessities for salvation. The life and teachings of Christ, His death for our sins, and His ressurection to glory are all matters of fact.
I agree. I also agree that the Peter having stood before a crowd of Jews and telling them to be baptized for the remission of their sins is a fact.
You cannot honestly argue that the Bible doesn't present the Gospel as such.
I won't argue as such - but I also believe the entire New Testament to be teachings of Christ. And I also think that Christ directly said that we have to be baptized in order to be saved.
However, things such as baptism, meeting and taking communion on the first day, and living a Godly life are all things that there is no little debate about.
There has always been debate and contention about the Truth. The fact that it still exists only validates some of the things that Christ has said.
Why God would pin our salvation not only on faith but also a certain way of looking at the Bible and certain conclusions drawn there from illudes me completely.
Well, I believe that God only had one intention or interpretation for the Scriptures - His. I believe that if we look at the Scriptures with an honest and open heart, considering the sum of God's word, which is Truth, then we can understand exactly what God intended. A ten year old child would have little difficulty answering what baptism is for when presented with Acts 2.
I also think that you lose sight of your (our) position when you ask questions like these. God would be just in sending all of us to hell - the fact that we are even offered salvation, on any terms, is amazing. I believe that God would be just in laying anything out as a condition for our salvation. We don't make the conditions, God does. And to be quite honest, it doesn't matter if we don't like it or if we would do things differently.
When we sin, we deserve to die. Salvation by any means is more than we should have.
