Why Baptism Doesn't Wash Away Sins, Acts 10:43

[Chateau d'If]

Originally Posted by mfblume

here is what you are missing. The DEATH of Jesus is the issue. The reason we read that remission of sins occurs by the blood of Jesus, while at the same time we read repentance and baptism is for the remission of sins, is because both blood and baptism indicate the death of Christ. We do not literally and physically get hold of red sticky vein fluid to remit our sins. Shedding of blood indicates loss of life for the life of the flesh is in the blood. Shed blood indicates death. Baptism is immersion into the death of Jesus, too. It's not the water. Hence, baptism and the blood of Jesus both are said to remit sins. But the actual remission of sins occurs BY OUR INCLUSION INTO THE DEATH OF CHRIST.

The fact is that those who think baptism does not have to occur will see people never bother with it. fact. the book of Acts shows that was not the case. Acts shows commands to be baptized over and over. That just is not present in ministries that do not believe baptism is part of salvation.

The other extreme is baptismal regeneration where no faith is needed, and you can baptize infants. Both are wrong.

Baptism is part of salvation. The eastern church has more a handle on it than the liberal west. They say A MYSTERY is involved. We cannot fully comprehend how, but God does something supernatural in baptism. The west throws that out altogether.

But it's the FAITH that is all important. Philip said as much to the eunuch. Jesus said in Mark 16:16. That is the reason that if the commonly spoken thought of a death between repentance and baptism occurs is answered by the fact that the intention of FAITH that God sees in a heart means the person is saved. Again, Abraham would not have been deemed righteous had he not later been circumcised, for God sees the FAITH THAT WORKS. Real faith that saves WILL WORK. The work is necessary or else the faith was absent.

That's a shallow overview. Baptism is far deeper than what you folks are seeing. And pat responses such as baptism saves, but doesn't save exposes that.

Peter says baptism saves. Now, YOU explain what he meant. So far you have only quoted him and given no explanation.

I don't want to wade to deeply in these waters but I will ask one question; How can the saints who lived and died prior to the advent of Christ possibly be saved if baptism is necessary for salvation?

Do you advocate two methods of salvation; one for those pre-advent and one for those post-advent?

Consider the following excerpt from Romans 3 (NLT)...

"23 For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard. 24 Yet God, with undeserved kindness, declares that we are righteous. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins. 25 For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood.

This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past, 26 for he was looking ahead and including them in what he would do in this present time. God did this to demonstrate his righteousness, for he himself is fair and just, and he declares sinners to be right in his sight when they believe in Jesus."

I'm open to instruction but this passage seems to indicate that all who have ever lived and believed are held to the same standard. That standard is faith in God.

Old Testament saints had a forward looking faith. They believed on and in a Messiah whose name as of yet had not been revealed. Paul says God counted them as righteous in response to that faith.

New Testament saints possess the revealed name of Jesus but righteousness is imputed to us no differently. We are justified by grace through faith. Ephesians 2:8-9

[Chateau d'If]

Originally Posted by mfblume

That is worn out and faulty.

Wrong. Jesus had not died and no one could get baptized into his death when the thief spoke to Jesus.

Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

You cannot take the thief and his lack of baptism to say we do not need it today. It is baptism into DEATH. The Lord had not even died yet!

In fact, Jesus told the disciples in Luke 24:47-49 to BEGIN preaching Acts 2:38 43 days after the thief had his encounter with Jesus. You cannot take the thief example and show how people get saved today. That is ignorant of Luke 24:47-49.

Luk 24:47-49 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, >>>>>>>BEGINNING<<<<<<<< at Jerusalem. (48) And ye are witnesses of these things. (49) And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

Act 2:38-39 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (39) For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Jesus had not preached it and neither did the apostles. They BEGAN in Acts 2 long after the thief spoke to the Lord. ANYTHING before the death of Jesus, and more importantly before the ATONEMENT made by Christ after His ascension, DOES NOT fall within this dispensation of the New Covenant where we obey Acts 2:38.

Oh my. There is just so much wrong with this.

So Jesus came and preached a message for three and a half years that was invalid upon His death? What?!!!

Were the disciples lost before they went to the Upper Room?

Did they go there in order to receive salvation?

[Originalist]

Many are forgetting the last part of I Peter 3:21 which tells us HOW baptism saves us....

It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

So the real thing then that saves us IS the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Compare Peter's line of reasoning to what Paul had to say about baptism in Romans chapter 6....

3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, we too may live a new life , just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father,

Here Paul tells us plainly why we are baptized, "in order that we mat live a new life".

Yet, it is plain that a "baptism into DEATH" cannot give one life. Paul credits the "new life" to us receiving that , "glory of the Father that raised Christ from the dead", a clear reference to the baptism in the Holy Spirit. If one wants to be given new life, the old one has to die. We die in baptism with Christ that we might live with him in Holy Ghost baptism.

This is essentially what Peter is saying. Baptism "saves" us in that it is where, judicially speaking, sinned is "drowned", so that we can be literally saved by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Here an illustration. Let's say you are dying of an incurable disease. A doctor holding a syringe containing a miracle cure is standing on the other side of an impassible chasm from you. He has the cure, but the chasm makes it impossible for you to reach him! In love, he builds a bridge that spans that chasm. He meets you on that bridge and gives you the life saving injection.

Now let me ask you, what saved you? Was it the bridge? Was it the miracle cure? Was it the doctor? The bridge could not cure your disease. You won't ignore the doctor and bow down and kiss the bridge he built. But had he not built that bridge, you would have died. So in that sense, the bridge saved you.

Man was separated from God by a deep and wide chasm of sin. He wanted to inject us with the miracle cure of his Spirit, but the chasm of sin made it impossible. In love, he built a bridge by dying on the cross and paying our sin debt. His death built a bridge across the chasm of sin so that we could meet him there and be injected with the miracle cure of his indwelling Spirit.

Titus 3;5 says..."He saved us by washing of rebirth and renewal of the Holy Ghost"

So what saves us? His blood? The indwelling miracle cure of his Spirit? Both? Had Jesus died and there not have been a resurrection and subsequent Pentecost, the bridge of his blood would have led to nowhere. But had that bridge not been built, we would have remained separated from the miracle cure of his Spirit.

It is in this sense that baptism "saves" us. It is where we cross the bridge built by Christ so that, "just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life."


Howbeit, I admit that sometimes Apostolics do indeed give more credit to the bridge than the One who built it. We do at times act as if it is the going through the motions of getting dunked that literally saves us.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Chateau d'If

Oh my. There is just so much wrong with this.

So Jesus came and preached a message for three and a half years that was invalid upon His death? What?!!!

Were the disciples lost before they went to the Upper Room?

Did they go there in order to receive salvation?

The new covenant did not start until Pentecost. Even Evangelical leaders admit that Pentecost was "the birth of the Church".

Jesus' message was prophetic, proclaiming what would be accomplished after he had been glorified and sent back his Spirit.

[phareztamar]

The new covenant did not start until Pentecost. Even Evangelical leaders admit that Pentecost was "the birth of the Church".

Jesus' message was prophetic, proclaiming what would be accomplished after he had been glorified and sent back his Spirit.


Yup. You nailed it.

[votivesoul]

I think we can conclude that SOMETHING washes away sins.

There are only two things ever associated with such a washing away:

1.) The Blood of Jesus Christ (e.g. Revelation 1:5)
2.) Water Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ (e.g. Acts 22:16)

If water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ has no bearing whatsoever on the washing away of sins, why does the Bible at all link the two?

If it is the blood only, then why is water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ and the washing away of sins so linked?

Look at the terminology! It is identical:

"...for the remission of sins..."

I am quoting Matthew 26:28 or Acts 2:38?

The fact that you can't tell ought to tell us something.

[Dordrecht]

The Lord's way is the way of the cross.
The only thing that stands between man and eternal hell is the Cross of Christ.
This means that if a preacher is not "preaching the Cross of Christ", he is not preaching the gospel at all.

Paul said:

Christ send me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel, not with enticing words, lest the Cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Other things such as water baptism are important, but neither water baptism nor any "organized church ordinance" is to be given preeminence.
Salvation is all about what Christ did at that cross. Nothing more, nothing less.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Chateau d'If

I don't want to wade to deeply in these waters but I will ask one question; How can the saints who lived and died prior to the advent of Christ possibly be saved if baptism is necessary for salvation?

Do you advocate two methods of salvation; one for those pre-advent and one for those post-advent?

There are multiple methods of salvation presented in the OT as well as the NT. Just depends on which scriptures one picks and chooses.

[Esaias]

There is ever only one 'way' of salvation - that is faith. And faith always equates to obedience to God, not a mere outward going through the motions, but obedience that springs from the heart.

John's baptism - was it of men, or God?

If it was of God, could any Jew be right with God who rejected it?

What about christian baptism - is it of men, or God?

If it is of God, can anyone be right with God who rejects it?

Therefore, preach Jesus, and baptism in his name as the method by which a person publicly affirms they are on the Lord's side, and any one who wishes to argue 'well, can't I be saved WITHOUT baptism?' reveals themselves to be at odds not with baptism, but the Lord.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Esaias

There is ever only one 'way' of salvation - that is faith. And faith always equates to obedience to God, not a mere outward going through the motions, but obedience that springs from the heart.

John's baptism - was it of men, or God?

If it was of God, could any Jew be right with God who rejected it?

What about christian baptism - is it of men, or God?

If it is of God, can anyone be right with God who rejects it?

Therefore, preach Jesus, and baptism in his name as the method by which a person publicly affirms they are on the Lord's side, and any one who wishes to argue 'well, can't I be saved WITHOUT baptism?' reveals themselves to be at odds not with baptism, but the Lord.

Baptism is just one of many salvation methods presented in the bible.