Baptism question for One-Steppers

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by CC1

However let me ask you something about this scripture and your beliefs. Do you believe that water baptism is regenerative, that it washes away your sins?

I'm not really sure. I've always been taught that baptism is necessary for washing away the sins. That's why I'm studying this, to get an understanding for myself
.

Originally Posted by freeatlast

I am a one stepper. I do believe eveery Christian should be baptized. 1 Pet 3:21 lets us know the water does not wash us, but rahter the blood, thru the reserection of Christ.

Major difference in one step vs three step theolgy. One steppers get baptized BECAUSE Christ has saved them thru the resurection of christ. BECAUSE they desire to proclaim their faith publicly.

Three steppers get batized to GET saved. Believing that it gives them new birth, all the while exclaiming loudly that they are NOT baptismal regenerations as are their Catholic counter parts.

So why do you think the verse states "Washing away your sins"?

Originally Posted by tbpew

I do not think that is what the Ethiopian Eunuch was thinking when he asked of Phillip: "Here is water, what hinders me from being baptised"?

Phillip established the enabling criteria by asking him a question.

AFTER the Eunuch answered by confirming that JESUS CHRIST is the SON of God....

they both went down into the water and Phillip baptised the Eunuch.

I do not believe that Phillip thought the water washed away sins.
I do not believe the Eunuch thought the water washed away sins.

I do believe they BOTH acknowledged that WATER was involved in their burial with the one who died for them.

1 John 5:8 invites us to consider the witness, to have understanding concerning: the spirit, the water, and the blood agreeing in one.

But, same question - what about how the verse I quoted is worded?

Originally Posted by pelathais

Why do you equate "washed away" with "remitted?"

Matthew 26:28
Romans 3:25
Hebrews 9:22

It's His blood that remits sins. Unless someone is being very careless, there is no shedding of blood at a baptism. And where there is no shedding of blood, there is no "remission."

Also we will notice that it is by having Paul "call on the name of the Lord" that the washing takes place, not baptism (1 Peter 3:21).

Why do I equate it with remitted? Because that's what I've been taught? Scriptures that have been used are Acts 2:38 - 'for the remission of sin', and the verse I quoted in my first post.

So, back to my original question - why does it say 'be baptized and wash away thy sins'?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

I'm not really sure. I've always been taught that baptism is necessary for washing away the sins. That's why I'm studying this, to get an understanding for myself...

So why do you think the verse states "Washing away your sins"?

Because whosever shall "call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved! (Joel 2:32, Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13).

"Saved" from what? Saved from sin. His blood, and our faith in Him has washed us from sin (Matthew 26:28).

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

But, same question - what about how the verse I quoted is worded?

Same answer, only more emphatic.

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

Why do I equate it with remitted? Because that's what I've been taught? Scriptures that have been used are Acts 2:38 - 'for the remission of sin', and the verse I quoted in my first post.

So, back to my original question - why does it say 'be baptized and wash away thy sins'?

Because it really says more than that, doesn't it? That was my point (or among my points). You're either intentionally leaving out parts of this passage on purpose or perhaps unconsciously. Either way, the Word of God is being hewn here and not "rightly divided."

Consider; why were the disciples of John rebaptized in Acts 19? It was NOT for the "remission of sins" because according to the Bible their sins were remitted with John's baptism of repentance (Mark 1:4; Luke 1:77; Luke 3:3).

So why were they baptized if they had no sins to be "washed away?" There's more to baptism than getting wet and being "washed." MUCH MORE!

Peter makes it clear that baptism is NOT a "washing" in water, though he of course may have had just the physical body in mind. Peter does emphasize that it's the "resurrection of Jesus Christ" that accomplishes the "good conscience toward God..."

Why was Paul told to "call on the name of the Lord?" WHAT DID YOU SAY WHEN YOU WERE BAPTIZED? Anything? If the preacher did all of the talking then you really WERE NOT baptized like the Apostles, were you? Just asking rhetorically. Food for thought.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Because it really says more than that, doesn't it? That was my point (or among my points). You're either intentionally leaving out parts of this passage on purpose or perhaps unconsciously. Either way, the Word of God is being hewn here and not "rightly divided."

Just want to answer this part, and then I'll go back and read your post, and ponder what you said.....


I'm not purposely doing anything, other than asking questions. I don't have an agenda, hidden or otherwise. I'm just sincerely pondering things I've been taught, seeking input from people who believe differently, and then studying the word of God, seeking a clearer understanding.

I sincerely want to know what people believe, and why. I'm not trying to anyone. Not trying to convince anyone of my point of view, because right now I'm not sure what my point of view IS.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by pelathais

WHAT DID YOU SAY WHEN YOU WERE BAPTIZED? Anything? If the preacher did all of the talking then you really WERE NOT baptized like the Apostles, were you? Just asking rhetorically. Food for thought.

No, I don't think I said anything.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

No, I don't think I said anything.

I wasn't trying to give you a hard time there, AQP. You've always had a great spirit and I appreciate your posts. Sorry for coming across with a bunch of staccatto bursts. I was just telling my boss that I "type like a polio victim" LOL.

I think my sentences come out in little bursts of thought as well.

It's a deep subject area. And Jesus is a huge Savior. We'll never plumb the depths nor soar to all of the heights.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I wasn't trying to give you a hard time there, AQP. You've always had a great spirit and I appreciate your posts. Sorry for coming across with a bunch of staccatto bursts. I was just telling my boss that I "type like a polio victim" LOL.

I think my sentences come out in little bursts of thought as well.

It's a deep subject area. And Jesus is a huge Savior. We'll never plumb the depths nor soar to all of the heights.

I always enjoy your posts as well, they're usually always well thought out... I never noticed a polio victim tendency.

I agree, God is a great big, awesome God. Our finite minds will never completely figure Him out.

[Steve Epley]

My advise ignore these posts and believe the text.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

My advise ignore these posts and believe the text.

Bump.

I believe Ananias who was inspired to say it and Luke who was inspired to write it and the God who inspired them and reject these "Baptist wannabees."

Evidently sins are washed away during the act of baptism having his name INVOKED or it would NOT have found it's way into Holy Writ.

NOT ONE PERSON SINCE PENTECOST HAS RECIEVED REMISSION OF SINS WITHOUT BEING BAPTIZED IN JESUS NAME!!!!!!!!!!!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

My advise ignore these posts and believe the text.

"Please ignore the posts that have provided ample scriptural proof for the remission of sins being provided by the blood of Jesus Christ and faith in the same Jesus Christ.

Instead, "believe" the 4 words excised from one verse and combined with 3 words from another verse in a different book of the Bible that tell us of "magic" in the water when you ignore the surrounding context."

Or have I not been generous with your view?