Denominationalism Sin Against Peter

The apostle Peter has taken a beating among denominationalists. I would feel
sorry for him save for the fact that I would be feeling for the wrong party seeing
as how he was an inspired apostle of God and his antagonists are but mere flesh
and blood men and totally uninspired.

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 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. It is considered an established fact
by all as far as I know.

However, few to no denominationalists believe that what he said that day is

bound in heaven thus fight against both Jesus and Peter. 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 seem to be
saying - that 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. Must have 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)

But Jesus words are explained by our denominational friends. The reality of
Mark 16:16 according to their interpretation is "He who believes and is not
baptized will be saved." Ain't it wonderful how smart these guys are? They are
like Catholic priests who claim they (the Catholic hierarchy) only have a true
understanding of the scriptures (at least that was the old teaching and I suppose
it is still true).
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 also 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" object all day long if they will.

I guess maybe when I learn some day that the scriptures, Jesus, Paul, Peter,
John, and others did not really mean what they had to say then maybe I can
learn the truth. Hope so don't you?

Poor Peter though for he never did get it right his whole life, if he could have just
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.

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 is able to use language plain and clear
enough that a simpleton like myself can understand. I will take him at his word.