The apostle Peter has taken a beating among denominationalists. I would feel sorry for him save for the fact that I would be feeling sorry for the wrong party seeing as how he was an inspired apostle of God and his antagonists are but mere men, men without inspiration.
It was not always the way it is today. For at least a few hundred years after his sermon in Acts 2 he was honored by those who proclaimed faith in God and belief in Christ as the Son of God. Today, however, men who claim Christianity pretty much just ignore his sermon that day on Pentecost approximately two thousand years ago for they do not like what he said and they no longer believe it.
Peter was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven by Jesus himself in Matt. 16:19, "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (NKJV) He used those keys on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 for the first time, did so by preaching God's plan of salvation for man. I have never heard anyone argue against that point.
However, few to no denominationalists believe that what he said that day is bound in heaven thus fight against both Jesus and Peter as well as the Holy Spirit by which Peter spoke that day. Wow! Is there no one they will not take on?
On that day in Acts 2 when those to whom Peter spoke "were cut to the heart (by Peter's sermon--DS), and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, 'Men and brethren, what shall we do'" (Act 2:37 NKJV) Peter responded to them by saying, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." (Act 2:38 NKJV) Their faith was evident by their asking the question.
Denominationalists say Peter could not have meant what the words he spoke seem to be saying--baptism is for the remission of sins. Hmmm! I thought he was inspired; I thought the Holy Spirit fell on him and the other apostles that day prior to the sermon. If so, and I thought it was, I thought God was capable of saying what he meant to say. Have I been wrong? But then Jesus did say that "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mar 16:16 NKJV) Did Jesus promise in this Mark passage that he who is not baptized will be saved? Some seem to think so the way they talk. The reality of Mark 16:16, according to their interpretation, is "he who believes and is not baptized will be saved."
But they would object and say I am misrepresenting them. They would say they never said that. Aren't things that are equal to the same thing equal to each other? If they say baptism does not save us, has no role in doing so, one can be saved without it, they are saying "he who believes and is not baptized will be saved" and they can object all day long if they desire but that is exactly where their doctrine leads them.
Poor Peter never did get it right his whole life. If only he could have received some counseling by today's Christians (?) who are in the know. In Acts 10:48 he is again commanding people to be baptized at the house of Cornelius. "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." (NKJV) The gall of the man, commanding a non-essential, but then if memory recalls correctly I believe that man was inspired was he not? Maybe it is not Peter who has the problem.
Sadly, many years later (approximately 30) Peter is still preaching error according to denominationalists for he goes so far as to say now for a second time that baptism is for salvation (Acts 2:38 & 1 Peter 3:21). He says, "There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 3:21 NKJV)
I am in a
minority but I think I will just go with Peter's misunderstanding and let the
denominationalists go their own way. If
they are saving a seat for me this coming Sunday it will be free for someone
else's use. I am sure they are nice
enough people and people who mean well but at my age I cannot afford to go
along with the crowd. I want to go with
Peter. I'll just take a chance that he
knew what he was talking about and that God was able to use language plain and
clear enough that a simpleton like me can understand. I will take him at his word.
[To download this article or print it out click here.]
No comments:
Post a Comment