I appreciate your comment. It sounds much less like drive-by commenting. :) Baptism doesn’t sit in an isolated context in this specific passage. It is most certainly in a Biblical context that we’re fools to ignore. But I don’t think it is fair to Peter or his original audience if you start with the broader context instead of the immediate. And again, I’m going to insist that the words “corresponding to this” must be taken into consideration when interpreting “baptism now saves you.”

Granted, my Judas example was a throwaway comment, but hey, I didn’t think you’d be back! :) Let me try another, a better example. Imagine if we set aside the phrase “Now this may be interpreted allegorically” in Galatians 4:24 and then went on to interpret the rest of the chapter in a literal sense? We’d miss Paul’s point and come up with some weird ideas of covenants. An extreme example but I’m trying to make a point. We have to read the entire thought and not just the parts that support our theology. Our theology must bow to the authority of Scripture. Amen!

Finally, let me repeat, the command in the Great Commission is not “go” but “make disciples”. That means that you have to go in order to make disciples of all nations. And the two things that go into making disciples is baptizing them and teaching them. Everything in that sentence hangs on the command to make disciples. It isn’t a command to go nor teach nor to baptize. Those things are part of the disciplemaking processes.

Hope to hear from you again Steve! These kinds of interactions are good for us as they help sharpen our thoughts and words on important issues. God bless you.

You didn’t like my comment “Since scripture helps us understand scripture, if the New Testament treats this vision as figurative then it is figurative.” Fair enough. But notice that I said if the NT treats something as figurative. The NT would seem to me to be the regulative, normative standard on which to interpret scripture.

You said, “I doubt, there are chapters in the New Testament, especially chapters 24 and 25, are very explicit and concrete that the author doesn’t bother to think.” I’m not sure what you mean here. But if the NT is explicit, then I would read the OT in the manner the NT is being explicit about.

You said, “This article is more of representation of personal thought and feeling.” Well, this is a blog! :)

“NT used some of the OT language doesn’t mean that all OT must be interpret figuratively.” I never said we should take the entire OT figuratively. This post only deals with the temple described in Ezekiel’s vision.

“I wonder why interpret the part of Scripture figuratively when you think so, but not part of Scripture, including Paul’s description on salvation. I imagination, it could have to be interpret figuratively.” It seems you’ve significantly missed the point of this post. Paul’s description of salvation a) isn’t in the OT and b) is to be taken literally because of the genre of literature he writes in.

Furthermore, I did not say to interpret Scripture figuratively whenever you feel like it. That goes back to my first statement, the one you didn’t like. Maybe you should re-read this post more slowly.