Jerry,
Since JustAChristian has already given a more than sufficient answer to your arguments regarding Greek grammar, and you have not replied to his answer, or otherwise refuted my assertion that Peter meant repentance AND baptism were necessary, I'll refrain from commenting further right now.
I do want to make a comment about something you said in your last reply to me:
'If submitting to the rite of water baptism was ESSENTIAL for salvation,why did not Peter add the words "and be baptize" to his words to "repent"?'
Well, Jerry, have you ever asked yourself why he mentioned baptism at all? Or why Jesus said those who 'believe and are baptized will be saved'? Or why Jesus said '...baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit'? Or why Peter put importance on water baptism even after he saw Cornelius had received the Spirit? Or why Philip baptized the eunuch into Jesus Christ using water?
You can come with an argument for every instance, explaining why the text doesn't mean what it appears to say, some credible, some not so credible. But to believe your claim, one must believe that every one of these verses actually means something other than the 'plain' meaning of the text. That just doesn't make sense.
And it brings me back to my first question above: why did Peter, Jesus or Paul mention baptism in the context of salvation at all?
God Bless,
Francisco
Since JustAChristian has already given a more than sufficient answer to your arguments regarding Greek grammar, and you have not replied to his answer, or otherwise refuted my assertion that Peter meant repentance AND baptism were necessary, I'll refrain from commenting further right now.
I do want to make a comment about something you said in your last reply to me:
'If submitting to the rite of water baptism was ESSENTIAL for salvation,why did not Peter add the words "and be baptize" to his words to "repent"?'
Well, Jerry, have you ever asked yourself why he mentioned baptism at all? Or why Jesus said those who 'believe and are baptized will be saved'? Or why Jesus said '...baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit'? Or why Peter put importance on water baptism even after he saw Cornelius had received the Spirit? Or why Philip baptized the eunuch into Jesus Christ using water?
You can come with an argument for every instance, explaining why the text doesn't mean what it appears to say, some credible, some not so credible. But to believe your claim, one must believe that every one of these verses actually means something other than the 'plain' meaning of the text. That just doesn't make sense.
And it brings me back to my first question above: why did Peter, Jesus or Paul mention baptism in the context of salvation at all?
God Bless,
Francisco