Remission Of Sins Through Baptism
 

Daniel,


Let us examine Paul's testimony in Acts 22:6-16, as he traveled to Damascus. Paul testified encountering a glorious light, and then heard a voice utter, "Saul, why persecutest thou me?" Paul then looses his sight and abstains from eating and drinking for three days. There's no doubt Paul prayed and repented of his sins during this fast, but yet more was required of him.


Examine carefully in Acts 22:16, after Paul became blind, fasted, prayed, and received his sight. Ananias said to Paul, "and now why tarriest thou?, arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord"


Ananias asked Paul, why tarriest thou or what prevents you from being baptized?


Daniel, would you baptize a person that had not yet repented of their sins, or would you baptize a person that hadn't concluded he/she was a sinner and needed to change?


In Acts 9:6 Paul acknowledges his faults by asking "Lord, what wilt thou have me do?" Remember Paul was on His way to arrest Christians (Acts 9:1-2) when Jesus appeared unto him.


Why didn't Paul continue on his travel to Damascus to persecute and arrest Christians? Because God convicted Paul on the road to Damascus, and there Paul realized his sins, repented, and submitted to God by saying, "Lord, what wilt thou have me do?"


For this reason Ananias told Paul, "why tarriest thou!" Paul you've repented, what are you waiting for, arise a be baptized. What did Ananias claim baptism would do? Ananias told Paul Baptism would wash away his sins (Acts 22:16)


Greek; Wash Away; apolouo; have remitted


Daniel, here we see the act of repentance didn't provide remission of sins, it was baptism that granted Paul remission of sins.


Without water baptism there is no remission of sins.

Re: Remission Of Sins Through Baptism
 

The way I read the scripture, namely Acts 2:38 is that it says to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. Repenting is only part and baptism is only part. It takes both for remission of sins.

Re: Remission Of Sins Through Baptism
 

If Baptism was so important for remission of sins why were not any of the twelve disciples baptized? Had their sins already been remitted somehow?

Why didn't Jesus baptize anyone?

How did Cornelius receive the Holy Ghost if he was still a degenerate sinner?

Also, we cannot derive our doctrine from a historical narrative (Acts) unless that doctrine is supported by other scripture in the bible. This is a common rule in bible interpretation and reading.

Re: Remission Of Sins Through Baptism
 

First, please show us where the bible says none of the 12 were baptized. In fact if you understand discipleship you would know that they WERE baptized. John baptized HIS disciples and Jesus baptized HIS and then HIS disciples went out and baptized others.

Second, the bible never says Jesus never baptized anyone

How did Cornelius receive the Spirit? Same way King Saul did maybe? BTW Nobody here said to not be baptized makes one a degenerate sinner. A sinner is someone that has not repented.

Prove we can't derive doctrine from a historical book. Even the gospels are historical

Re: Remission Of Sins Through Baptism
 

These are things that we have to assume were done because there is no record of these things. Well we know about Johns converts because they are referred to in scripture. One would assume these things happened but no evidence that they did. No evidence does not mean it did not happen though.

Re: Remission Of Sins Through Baptism
 

1) It doesn't say they were baptized. Wouldn't there have been a record.

2) Why didn't Jesus baptize his disciples? Maybe he did but it is not recorded and I can tell you if I was an author of a book and the Messiah baptized me I would be talking about it.

3) Cornelius received the spirit because he heard the word, believed and his sins were forgiven. If your sins are not forgiven then you can't have been born again. By saying that you must be baptized in order to achieve forgiveness then you are saying that person is still not born again.

4) I don't know how to prove that we can't derive doctrine from a historical narrative except that is a common rule in bible interpretation. If AM preaches for an hour at BOTT and someone tells you what he preached about you can’t use that unless you have the entire transcript of the sermon because you would only be getting a summary of the entire message.

Re: Remission Of Sins Through Baptism
 

Let me turn the tables on you. You say that there is no evidence that Jesus baptized his disciples, right? Can you provide the scripture that says Cornelius' sins had been remitted prior to being baptized?

Re: Remission Of Sins Through Baptism
 

Really I was just joking around a little about the disciples getting baptized. I am sure they were baptized though there was no record. :friend

However, can a person be born again unless their sins have been forgiven. Are you telling me that Cornelius wasn't saved until he went down in water? Christ died for our sins on the cross and at that moment it was finished. His sacrifice was for the sins of the past, present, and future and were remitted at that moment.

Re: Remission Of Sins Through Baptism
 

Here is a good video that explains remission of sins in Acts 2:38.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8Urzmrq8zw

Re: Remission Of Sins Through Baptism
 

Prax, the problem with assumative doctrine is that it creates imaginative scenarios. We cannot assume either way. However, what we do NOT have is what can be relied upon. You cannot create fact from fiction.

If God wanted us to know and His salvation for us depended on it, he would of made sure it was given to us plainly.

We do not have any record of Jesus baptizing, of the disciples baptizing in Jesus' name, and also Paul was "glad" he did not baptize.

With regard to DG's comment concerning doctrine from "historical narrative"; any biblical scholar will tell you doctrine cannot be derived from "historical narrative". Chiefly, because these are narratives which summarized the actual message and are unreliable. Doctrine must only be derived from "didactic text" which teaches on the authority of other scriptures.

DG did not say "historical books", he said "historical narratives".

When Peter preached, he preached not from his authority concerning Messiah, but from the authority of prophetic text. The Rabbi's taught not on their authority, but on the authority of other Rabbi's. A Rabbi never spoke on his own authority.

Today in Catholicism, if the Pope speaks for God, he must speak from the authority of God's word, the host of Pope's who have come before him, the council of Bishop's and the Church before his word can be considered "God's word to the Church".

This is why they were amazed at his speech (Jesus) because he spoke as one having authority, not as the scribes.

Authoritative speech is know today as "precedent". Any lawyer going before a judge must present his case with precedent. He speaks on the authority of the law which has come before him. The Apostles did not invent salvation by grace, their doctrine was derived from a host of prophetic text (didactic) (teaching) which spoke before them.

"Didactic" text is scripture which teaches from authority. Narratives are un-realiable sources of information upon which to create doctrine in and of themselves. Only when these narratives speak with authority from historical didactic texts are they reliable.