Acts 2:38 is still in my Bible - why?

Kind of an obscure verse, but I assume that it is just a dog-whistle for “save the whole world, whether they want it or not” evangelicals. I’d thinkMatthew 28:19-20would be more fitting for that, though.

Quakers.

Repenting … that means giving up our sinful ways … what is sin? … well, being hateful towards one another is the main sin … so, I reckon the meaning is that the command to stop being hateful is still in the Bible … perhaps a reminder to the bumper-sticker bearer’s fellow Christians that taking a liberal approach to doctrine has a few limits … or perhaps a reminder that we Christians are required to love our brothers and sisters without qualification …

It’s not hard to find so-called “Christians” vomiting filth and hate … technically such is a sin … so, repent your filthy and hateful ways, and be baptized etc etc etc …

Some quick googling reveals that this verse is often used in the debate over which baptism is necessary for salvation, in particular, used by the “pro” side in support of their position. So I’d make a WAG that the person who had this bumper sticker advocates that baptism is necessary for salvation.

(Mainstream evangelicals tend to believe that the only thing necessary for salvation is belief in Jesus as the son of God, and that baptism is merely a symbolic formality one chooses to do to signify that they’ve accepted that belief. But if you died before you ever had the chance to get baptized, you’d still go to heaven.)

It’s about the “Gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Some Christians believe that the receiving the gift of the HS = imparting charismatic gifts: healing, speaking in tongues, that sort of thing. Ergo, if you don’t practice spiritual gifts, then your Bible doesn’t include that verse (a subtle way at saying you’re ignoring it).

-HeyHomie, former fundamentalist preacher who encountered that shit on a daily basis.

Some groups (mainly smaller, lesser-known ones) don’t exactly “not baptize” but they very much downplay it, as a reaction because so many groups misuse it and blow it out of proportion.

I just saw an old Simpsons episode wherein Homer has to recite any bible verse to get past a giant spider. I realized I would fail.

However, during the Scottish-Italian sport of Exhibition Shirling the American custom of holding up a sign proclaiming a bible verse holds good, as can be seen in this sanctioned contest in Canada.

Might be the very same.

In case you ever find yourself in this situation, maybe you should memorize John 11:35.

The RCC doesn’t consider baptism by water to be merely a symbolic formality, but also considers that one can be saved without baptism by water: there’s baptism by desire (the person died before he could receive baptism by water) and there’s also the notion that “God isn’t a (complete) jerk”. The notion that Abraham and Moses are in hell because they were born too early would count as “complete jerk”.

Sadly, some people do believe that God is a jerk.

As long as he says and does the jerky things they want to see and hear.

Baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation as is demonstrated by the thief on the cross who confessed Jesus. He never had the chance to be baptized, but Jesus told him “…this day you will be with me in paradise.”
However, a person should be baptized as soon as practical after accepting Christ as their savior. A pastor friend told me once that baptism was an “ordinance” of the church.

Ah, that makes sense. It’s not about baptism per se, but about the things that are supposed to go along with baptism. Thanks for explaining that.

I think that the official Catholic position is that the Seven Sacraments are conduits of God’s grace, but that God being God, can confer Es grace without need of a specific conduit, if E so chooses. Well, except of course that the Catholic church doesn’t use Spivak pronouns.

Thanks, Mary Ellen Walton.

Yes, I think HeyHomie’s explanation is correct. It’s the driver’s way of saying “I’m a Charismatic (or Pentacostal) Christian.”

I was raised in the Friends church. The Friends (Quaker) position is not that baptism is unnecessary, but rather that baptism comes directly from God, not from being moistened by your pastor. John the Baptist said:

Maybe there should be a bumper sticker that says “I Corinthians 12 is still in my Bible”.

I don’t think anyone is making the claim that the passage is literally missing from some versions of the Bible. (Although there are books that are included in the Bible by some denominations and not included by others.) I believe the statement is intended to convey the message “This passage is present in everyone’s Bible. But my denomination follows it while other denominations do not.”

If you’re a Catholic and you want something to put on your own bumper sticker, go with “Mark 10:9 is still in my Bible.”

Goodnight, JohnGalt.

Mine would say something like “Aquatic ceremonies are not a basis for a system of government” or something in that vein.

The Salvation Army is another Christian sect that doesn’t Baptize in water. But they and the Quakers believe in a spiritual Baptism.

A few modern Christian groups believe that Baptism is a Jewish ceremony like circumcision and don’t practice it.

Some early Church writers paid little to no attention at all to Baptism. Apparently it wasn’t a big thing for many Christians before 300AD.

Remember: Any statement that starts with "As a Christian I believe … " is almost certainly going to end up not being universal.