To be able to make a proper defense of my beliefs, I have been (gratefully) studying your teaching. This has been very helpful for me. I had a couple questions that I was hoping if you could address. Shouldn’t the shift from the second person plural to the third person singular in the imperatives of Acts 2 impact our interpretation? In the 16 follow-up questions to your debate with Thomas Ross you mentioned this was a technique used to emphasize a point, and mentioned John 7:53 as a similar example. Also, why shouldn't Romans 6 and Colossians 2 be read symbolically? I myself don't find the argument that they're symbolic persuasive. The most straightforward way seems to be a literal interpretation. How should I think about this?
First, let’s look at the text: “Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far away, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.’” NASB
The reason I chose the NASB is that this is one of the versions that preserve the second and third person imperatives (in bold)—repent and be baptized, respective. Having conceded the distinction, however, I would not read too much into the Greek verbs. I suspect that “each of you” indicates that it’s an individual decision. Also, this shift feels more formal, more solemn; it’s for you, yes, but also for everyone else, too. Yet I admit that this impression is subjective.
As for your second question, certainly there is symbolism in every baptism passage. But that’s a separate issue from the matter of efficacity (what baptism actually accomplishes). Consider this parallel: Weddings are normally chock-full of symbolism, yet weddings do change one’s status from single to married.
