>At least in my thinking, there is a technical difference between "must"
>and "should." The former seems to imply that if you don't obey the
>imperative, then the stated results will not happen. As related to the
>discussion in Acts 2:38 and BAPTISQHTW, if we opt for "must be baptized,"
>then if one is not baptized, then his sins are not forgiven and/or he
>does not receive the Holy Spirit. If this is the force of the
>imperative, then so be it. But, I don't think such can be derived from
>it. Is this what some are trying to suggest?
In English, yes, there is a difference in suggested implications. My
thought in using those two English words was that there is likely a strong
sense of "oughtness" in the imperative even in 3rd person and not just
permission. Hence, I get the impression that baptism is not just an option
here. (Of course, the decision that leads to it is a voluntary one.)