Remission Of Sins Through Baptism

[SDG]

Esteemed Corinthian:

Acts 22 along w/ 7-8 verses are the basis of a pet doctrine that was not preached by Jesus Christ or the Apostles that being the DOCTRINE OF BAPTISMAL REGENERATION ... or that a properly administered baptism effectuates remission of sins and causes our New Birth.

I. First let us deal w/ your non-sequitur definition of apoulous ...

it means "washed away" .... nowhere is it translated as remitted in scripture. It appears twice and it either is translated as washed away or washed.

2. to wash off or away

Translated Words KJV (2) - wash, 1; wash away, 1; NAS (2) - wash away, 1; washed, 1;


Are remission and forgiveness different to you ... Corinthian? The writers of the NT did not make this distinction .... they used the same word throughout ... APHESIS.

re-mish'-un (aphesis, paresis): The first term is the most commonly used and is translated synonymously with forgiveness throughout the NT. The two Greek words, of which the latter occurs only in Rom 3:25, were translated by the same English word in the King James Version. In the Revised Version (British and American), paresis is translation "passing over."

It is contrasted with the other term as pretermission with remission. Remission is exemption from the consequences of an offense, forgiveness; pretermission is the suspension of the penalty (Philippi, Ellicott, Trench (Synonyms, XXXIII), Weiss; compare Acts 17:30).

Cremer (Lexicon of N T Gr) regards the meaning of the two words as identical, except that the one refers to the Old Testament and the other to the New Testament. Sins are remitted when the offender is treated as though the offense had never been committed. Remission is restricted to the penalty, while forgiveness refers more particularly to the person, although it may be used also of the sin itself. Remission also is used of offenses against God's law; forgiveness, against either divine or human law.
See ABSOLUTION; FORGIVENESS.
H. E. Jacobs

Noted Oneness theologian Daniel Seagraves also makes note that this idea that somehow forgiveness and remission of sins have distinct meanings is flawed and may need to be revisited in the UPCI Articles of Faith:

A study of the Greek text would indicate that "forgiveness" and "remission" are synonyms, since in the King James Version both words are translated from the same Greek word, aphesis.3

Does the assertion that, on the one hand, forgiveness is obtained by repentance alone and, on the other hand, remission of sins is obtained by baptism in water by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ present a contradiction in the Articles of Faith of the U.P.C.I.?

Should there be an examination of the somewhat popular teaching that sins are forgiven at repentance but are not remitted until water baptism?

This idea that aphesis is synonymous w/ forgiveness and remission present a dilemma for the baptismal regenerationists when confronted with verses like Luke 24

and that repentance for forgiveness/remission of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem ....

Also the argument that eis means to cause along w/ the word aphesis meaning remission brings to light that their argument is INCONSISTENT when we examine this combination of words in other scriptures.

Let's look at the inconsistency of this argument.

Mark 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Luke 3:3

And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

Prior to Jesus' public ministry, John the Baptist had preached a baptism of repentance for remission of sins (eis aphesin hamartion; Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3). Those people who rejected John's baptism rejected for themselves the counsel of God (Luke 7:29, 30). Its purpose is identical with the purposes suggested for Jesus' death (Matthew 26:28) and for the baptism of Pentecost (Acts 2:38).

DID JOHN'S BAPTISM CAUSE FORGIVENESS OF SINS OR WASH AWAY SINS? If it did then why the cross? ... why baptize in Jesus name according to your soteriological model?

Jesus died (shed His blood) in order that people could have remission of sins (eis aphesin hamartion; Matthew 26:28). Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission (Hebrews 9:22). No one could argue that Jesus died because sins had already been forgiven. He purchased the church with His own blood (Acts 20:28). With His blood He purchased a people for His own possession (Titus 2:14). He died for our sins (huper ton hamartion; I Corinthians 15:3).


Jesus, after the resurrection, informed His disciples that it was written that the Christ should suffer and be raised on the third day and that repentance and the remission of sins (eis aphesis hamartion) be preached in His name unto all the nations (Luke 24:47). Here it is repentance that brings about remission/aphesis/forgiveness.

In each of these verses, the phrase is the same as that in Acts 2:38--eis aphesin hamartion.

In my second post I will offer a plausible and sound interpretation of Acts 22:16 ... a passage I feel is butchered and misapplied by baptismal regenerationists.

[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

[SDG]

III. Does calling on the name of the Lord mean verbalizing the proper name Jesus by the baptizer to effectuate remission/forgiveness/aphesis of sins? Or in other words is the blood applied in a properly administered baptism using the right formula?

Using Greek terms to explain biblical principles from the Hebraic minds who were writing in their second language can be a tricky thing if you work backwards as many of my 3 stepping friends have ...

Calling on the name of the Lord is not a NEW TESTAMENT THING ....

in the Jewish tradition .... the baptizee did the confession of faith ... some have confused what being baptize into the name, or authority of Jesus Christ w/ the biblical principle of CALLING UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD .... which was more that the incantation of a name. You won't see this practice in scripture that salvation or a covenant somehow hangs on a third party officiator getting it right.

Calling upon the name of the Lord in the OT and NT have a distinct meaning to what many of my OP brethren have twisted it to mean w/ their Water and Spirit rose colored glasses on.

One of the gravest errors we make in rightly dividing the word is our failure to understand idiomatic expressions of the Hebraic language.

In the OT ... to call upon the name of the Lord, the word upon is the particle preposition b or beth. There is no Strong's number that corresponds. Only the use of this Hebrew preposition separates to call the LORD or to call to the LORD from to call upon the LORD or to call upon the name of the LORD.

Almost every use of to call on the name of the LORD involves the construction of an altar and the offering of a sacrifice (Genesis 12:8, 13:4, 21:33--implied, 26:25; 1 Kings 18:24).

All of the Old Testament sacrifices were only as effective as the believing of the one offering them.All of these sacrifices entailed acknowledging God's lamb who would be revealed in the future. To call “upon the name of the LORD” was to formally enter into a covenant by coming into His presence.

Notice that it was between the believer and God ... not the officiator of a baptismal ceremony invoking it on someone else.

CrazyHomie once stated:

If we are going to be called "Apostolic" and a "new testament church", obviously one would think we would want to be biblically based in our baptism. Baptism was a ritual cleansing incorportated into the mosaic law. If a woman was on her monthly, she would go and "cleanse" herself. If you were healed of leprosy, etc. one would obey the law and cleanse themselves. These baptism pools were all over the holy land and were called "Mikvahs". When Peter preached in Acts 2, he told them to go wash according to the "new covenant" which was Christ. They were no longer to cleanse themselves according to the "old covenant" which was the law. Also, it was a public confession as to their new found faith in this messiah called Jesus Christ. In those days to public confess ones faith away from the law to follow Jesus, was inviting persecution if not death from the religious community. Three thousand obeyed Peter and went and washed themselves. I am not saying an individual is not saved by invocation, rather biblically speaking, it is always up to the believer to call on Christ for salvation.

Entering this new covenant is through our confession of faith in the Lamb ... my friend and brother ... as it was for Abraham, Jacob, Moses (See Hebrews 11)

MORE IN NEXT POST ... __________________

[SDG]

Paul in Romans 10 is echoing a biblical truth and a promise from OT scripture ...

These too are the words of the prophet Joel and Peter ... and others also ... there is witness in Scripture .... and calling upon the name has alway fell upon the believer as it relates to salvation ... not the utterances of third party ... i.e. baptizer.

The name is undoubtedly attached to the person and His authority and his entire nature as Savior and God.

A sinner, Jew or Gentile, who has sincerely believed and calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved ....

John says

And his commandment is this: we should believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another just as he commanded us

I write these things to you so that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

As does Joel:

Quote:
32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.

As does the Psalmist:

Quote:
Psalm 116:4, "Then called I upon the name of the LORD [YHWH] ; O LORD [YHWH], I beseech thee, deliver my soul."

As does Paul:

Quote:
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

As does Ananias, in Acts:

Quote:
"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

As does Peter, in the book of Acts on the day of Pentecost:

Quote:
21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

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.

Again I think when one studies out what it means to be a disciple then one has to assume the 12 were baptized themselves.

From John the baptist to Mat 28:19 and acts 19 water baptism is part of a ritual making one a disciple of a certain teacher.. A disciple was one that believed, learned and practiced the teaching of his master and as well the example He gives them

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by deltaguitar

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

It doesn't say they didn't have a propeller pop out of their rear ends and fly them on missionary journies either, why assume there would be a record? They were disciples. Even Jesus was baptized. What you are doing is an argument from silence

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.

it never says he never baptized anyone. Baptism was connected with discipleship. At sometime Jesus would have had to have baptized someone so they can in turn go out and baptize others. The verse you are refering too simple does not say he never baptized anyone. It simply shows that now that he has his Disciples (the 12 and perhaps others) THEY baptized for Him

Joh 4:1 Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John
Joh 4:2 (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples),
At this point it does not matter why he did not baptize anymore. He has disciples. He is the teacher. Just as Paul said, he did not come to baptize. Now that Jesus has his Disciples THEY can do the baptising for him while he concentrates on what the Teacher is supposed to do....teach. But still notice this verse? Make disciples...baptise...in order to be a disciple of Christ you had to be baptized either by him or one of his students using HIS authority.

Joh 3:22 After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he remained there with them and was baptizing.
Joh 3:23 John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because water was plentiful there, and people were coming and being baptized
Joh 3:24 (for John had not yet been put in prison).
Joh 3:25 Now a discussion arose between some of John's disciples and a Jew over purification.
Joh 3:26 And they came to John and said to him, "Rabbi, he who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you bore witness--look, he is baptizing, and all are going to him."
Joh 3:27 John answered, "A person cannot receive even one thing unless it is given him from heaven.
Joh 3:28 You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, 'I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him.'

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.

I never said his sins were not forgiven. You are preaching to the choir. Aim your post as someone else. I simply pointed out a fallacy in your argument

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.

If this is a common rule that we can't use historical narrative then you should also know the common reason for this to be true. The gospels are historical. Exodus is historical. Yet they all contain teaching.

BTW do you believe tongues is the evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by staysharp

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.
.

Just to hilight the fallacy in your thinking....Paul never said he was glad he did not baptize. He never said he did not baptize. Paul said to a church he was glad he baptized none of THEM. Why? Because they were misunderstanding the authority and purpose of baptism, which in scriptures was a sign you were someones disciple. John's disciples were baptized unto John. Paul was claiming that had he baptized them they would have said they were of Paul.

When Paul found the disciples of John in Acts he asked how they were baptized and then when they were to become the disciples of Jesus he baptized them in the name of Jesus. The disciples of Jesus have HIS authority to carry on HIS mission and make and baptized disciples unto Jesus.

It's amazing people take scriptures like that out of context and try to make Paul out to not baptize anyone or glad he does not baptize. Absolutely amazing.

Water baptism according to scriptures I have already posted is part of the discipleship process

[staysharp]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Just to hilight the fallacy in your thinking....Paul never said he was glad he did not baptize. He never said he did not baptize. Paul said to a church he was glad he baptized none of THEM. Why? Because they were misunderstanding the authority and purpose of baptism, which in scriptures was a sign you were someones disciple. John's disciples were baptized unto John. Paul was claiming that had he baptized them they would have said they were of Paul.

When Paul found the disciples of John in Acts he asked how they were baptized and then when they were to become the disciples of Jesus he baptized them in the name of Jesus. The disciples of Jesus have HIS authority to carry on HIS mission and make and baptized disciples unto Jesus.

It's amazing people take scriptures like that out of context and try to make Paul out to not baptize anyone or glad he does not baptize. Absolutely amazing.

Water baptism according to scriptures I have already posted is part of the discipleship process

Prax, I didn't say Paul didn't baptize. My reference was his statement and you are correct, I just didn't fully explain. However, you cannot refute my statement. We cannot make doctrine from assumatory imaginative fiction.

A probability is not factual neither historative. BTW, I thought you were a one stepper? Was I mistaken?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by staysharp

We cannot make doctrine from assumatory imaginative fiction.

Uh....well since I never said we could I don't see why I need to refute it.

A probability is not factual neither historative. BTW, I thought you were a one stepper? Was I mistaken?

I still don't see how anything you are saying relates to what I posted. Can you be specific? Im having a hard time understanding why you are posting what you are posting. Did I make a doctrinal declaration based on probability? Please show me where

[staysharp]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Uh....well since I never said we could I don't see why I need to refute it.


I still don't see how anything you are saying relates to what I posted. Can you be specific? Im having a hard time understanding why you are posting what you are posting. Did I make a doctrinal declaration based on probability? Please show me where

Nevermind...we're the only ones playing this game...nobody's listening. I'm not interested in rhetorical rhetoric...Celebrity Apprentice is more interesting...tonight the last night!!!