Remission Of Sins Through Baptism

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Sam

uh oh, Elder, looks like a typo there,
or
are you looking our way?

Yep, defintely!
Again.
No ONE in the NT Church age has recieved remission of sins WITHOUT being baptized in Jesus Name.

[Ron]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Yep, defintely!
Again.
No ONE in the NT Church age has recieved remission of sins WITHOUT being baptized in Jesus Name.

Amen!

[Rico]

Originally Posted by staysharp

leap of faith? sounds good, but truth is, we don't know. Is that so hard to digest? Why do we need to make scripture fit our theology? There's all kinds of holes.

Were John's converts rebaptized into Jesus Christ once John died? (besides those Paul encountered), we know Nathaniel was John's disciple. John wasn't baptized of Jesus. The thief wasn't baptized. The five thousand were not baptized as far as we know by what was recorded.

I believe in baptism, but I don't need to add to the word to make it fit my position. It's possible they weren't baptized again, who knows but them?

If they weren't baptized, I'm confident they are saved by grace through faith.

So, what you are saying, in essence, is that the disciples went around telling people, "Do as I say, not as I do?"

[Rico]

Originally Posted by Rico

You know as well as I do that credibility is everything when it comes to preaching. How seriously do you think the disciples would have been taken, telling others they needed to be baptized, if they hadn't been baptized themselves?

Apparently, I had already answered that other post. LOL! Honestly, I didn't even remember I had posted in this thread until I started reading it again. LOL! Me thinks I am going a little batty!

[Steve Epley]

Repentance without baptism is as useless as baptism without repentance.

[Rico]

Ok. Now I remember what happened and why I stopped posting in this thread. For the sake of peace, I will not be disclosing that reason. LOL!

[DAII]

Originally Posted by SDG

II. What, then, of Acts 22:16?

One theologian states:

Here, Ananias, having confronted the blinded Saul, says, in context:

Then he said: "The God of our fathers has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth. You will be his witness to all men of what you have seen and heard. And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name."

We again see the common theme of the calling and sovereignty of God in the context of this passage as well ("God...has chosen you"). Verse 16 presents us with a significant construction in the original language.

The terms "arise" and "call" (anastas and epikalesamenos) are aorist participles; "be baptized" and "be cleansed" (baptisai and apolousai) are aorist imperatives. These terms form two sets--the first, "arise and be baptized," the second, "wash away your sins, calling upon the name of the Lord," or more literally, "wash away your sins, having called upon the name of the Lord." The remission of sins is effected by calling upon the name of the Lord in this passage--it is represented, as elsewhere, by baptism. One thing is for certain: given what we have seen previously of Paul's own theology of justification, he certainly did not interpret Ananias to be teaching any form of baptismal regeneration!

http://vintage.aomin.org/bapreg.html


Another theologian, Bernie Gillespie writes an comprehensive article on this verse and how it relates to 3 step theology in UPCI/Oneness history

... here is the heart of the matter:

The question before us is: "How did Paul ‘wash away’ his sins?" Does Acts 22:16 prove that Paul washed away his sins by being properly baptized? Should we interpret this verse to mean that Paul needed to be baptized in order to have his sins forgiven? Is that how Paul received the forgiveness of sins? Is this what Paul believed or taught in his epistles in the New Testament?

First, notice very carefully the words of the text. Ananias said "arise," next he said "and be baptized," then, "and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." It is not worded, "be baptized to wash away thy sins." If that is what Ananias meant he could have easily said it that way. But he placed the conjunction "and" between his verbs "arise," "be baptized," and "wash." If one attributes the washing to being baptized one could as well attribute it to the command to arise. Certainly this is not what is intended. The washing away of sins is more defined by the "calling on the name of the Lord." The meaning of this phrase would give us a clearer understanding of how Paul’s sins were washed away.

The word "calling" (epikaleosamenos) comes from the root word (epikaleo) which means "to use an attribution in speaking of a person." (Louw-Nida Lexicon) This word is used in Acts 7:59 for the act of praying to Jesus by Stephen as he was dying. He spoke the name of Jesus as direct address in praying to Jesus. It is used in Acts 9:14 of Christians as those who call on the name of the Lord. They spoke the name of Jesus in confession, prayer and worship (and Baptism) as addressing the Person of Jesus and not technically as a formula. When Paul appealed (epikaloumai) to Caesar (Acts 25:11,12,21,25) he called upon the name (title) of Caesar to invoke the authority of the whole person. It was not the mere use of the name, as an incantation or conjuring formula. It was a demand for the right to due process as a Roman citizen. Paul was already a citizen, therefore he was not asking for the right to become a citizen. He assumed that, as a Roman citizen, he had the rights of that citizenship which were embodied in Caesar. This is what is meant by the teaching of Paul: "And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him." (Col. 3:17) This was written to the Colossians in the context of worship. This phrase is used to identify those who have faith in Jesus as the object of their adoration, worship and hope.

These words "calling on the name of the Lord" occur first in Acts chapter two in Peter’s Day of Pentecost sermon. Peter quotes from the prophet Joel (2:32) and applies Yahweh’s last days promise of salvation for Israel to salvation in Jesus Christ. This expression "call upon the name of the LORD," in the Old Testament, is shorthand for placing exclusive faith in Yahweh, the One God of Israel, for mercy and salvation.

Remarkably, Joel’s words are quoted again in another place in the New Testament. It is found in the Apostle Paul’s own writing in Romans 10:13. This is most pertinent, because we have a direct interpretation of what it means to "call upon the name of the Lord" by Paul himself. Here the person told (in Acts 22:16) to call on the name of the Lord to wash away his sins gives us his understanding of what that meant in doctrinal terms. We cannot establish doctrine on an historical narrative (such as the account of Acts) without also supporting it clearly in the teaching portions (epistles) of Scripture. Since it is Paul who "called on the name of the Lord" and it was his sins which were "washed away," no one could explain that better than he.
In Romans ten, Paul says this:

That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame. For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile – the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." [Romans 10:9-13 NIV]

Paul here clearly states that one washes away their sins by believing the Gospel of Christ. The calling on the name of the Lord of Acts 22:16 is the "confess with your mouth . . . and believe in your heart," of Romans 10:13. Paul did not express any connection between washing and Baptism. He claims that his sins were forgiven and thus washed away when he believed and confessed the Gospel of Christ. How could he have neglected such an important necessity as Baptism if it was the key to forgiveness? It would be a major omission at this point. The best and most reasonable explanation is that Paul never believed that Baptism was the means of forgiveness. Otherwise, he has misled all the Roman churches (and the Church throughout history) by teaching them that they are saved and justified when they believe alone.
To further clarify Paul’s understanding of salvation he mourns the disbelief and rejection of his own people:

Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. [Romans 10:1-4 NIV]

What is written here is not to take away from the importance of baptism. I want to make in unequivocally clear that I believe that baptism is necessary for every Christian. It is not optional. It is a command of our Lord and His Apostles that each and every Christian should be baptized. What I am saying is that baptism is not the means to salvation. Faith alone in Christ alone is the means of salvation to everyone. Baptism is necessary for all Christians, but is not necessary for sinners to be saved. This distinction must never be obscured. We must not have a sacrament receiving the faith that should be exclusively placed in Christ the only Savior.

http://inchristalone.org/HowDidPaul.htm

Bump