Replies

After a long work week, that ended last night, I finally took the time to listen to the link.

I find it hypocritical that Mr MacArthur says that we need look at the whole of scripture, when he doesn’t. He says we need to read all of 1 Peter 3:21; but when he quotes it (whatever version it was) he goes into his interpretation. But when he refers to Acts 2:38 and 22:16, he only mentions portions of them (of Acts 2:38, he cleverly leaves out the heart of it: “..every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ...”. Why, because he doesn’t teach water baptism in the NAME that has the power to save, for the remission of sins.)

He doesn’t like ‘simplistic’? Simply read Acts 22:16:

“And now why tarriest thou, arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” (KJV)

Zuriel’s interpretation (as if one is needed?): “Ok Paul, you have no doubt seen and heard of the conversion of this way. Now you’ve met the Lord Jesus, and have been greatly rebuked. You obeyed his voice to come here in your very humbled condition. Why delay any further, get up, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”

If you look at the water baptism accounts in Acts, you will notice the urgency in which it took place. No waiting a day or more to get prepared, as though it’s a party. The Lord is ready to remit sins 24/7/365. When he sends his preachers, he honors their word (John 20:21).

Even the conversion account in Act 16:31-34 (which is commonly held to only verse 31), shows the urgency:

Paul and Silas told the jailer that he had to believe, and preached the Word to the man and to every one of his house. Then they left the house and went somewhere where there was ample water, and the household was baptized.

I have put together a 15 page study on remission of sins. Among other things, it deals with many of the dodges of water baptism that have been commonly used by people in a position of authority, like John MacArthur.