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

[deacon blues]

It's the lack of understanding in OP theology between justification, sanctification and perfection.

I was always taught and I still believe you are forgiven when you repent. Now this begs the question, "If you are forgiven at repentance but are still destined for hell, what were you forgiven of?" If you owe a debt and the person you owe says you're forgiven of the debt but still demands you to pay them back, are you forgiven of the debt?

Teachings of the Bible that are more difficult to understand are to be interpreted in light of those more easily understood. Scriptures that seem to connect baptism to salvation must be interpreted in light of scriptures that don't support that notion.

To as many as received Jesus, to them gave He the power to become sons of God. My children are expected to mature and grow and obey me, but they are my children nevertheless. The fact they were born made them my children. I expect them tom learn to read and write eventually, but if they don't, they're still my children.

We become children of God through faith. We are justified by faith. We are made right with God. The thief on the cross could do nothing but believe and Jesus declared he would be in paradise. And the argument that he was still under OT salvation fails because he couldn't even meet those requirements.

If anybody goes to heaven without being baptized you cannot say that baptism is absolutely essential for salvation. The message of the Bible is grace through faith from Genesis to Revelation.

The Tabernacle Plan interpretation fails in that its a type and shadow of JESUS not Acts 2:38. JESUS is the tabernacle! JESUS is salvation! Receive JESUS and you get the sacrifice, you get the washing of the laver, you get the Light of the World, the Bread of Heaven, the sweet aroma of the incense, the Holy Place, the Ark of the Covenant, the Law, the Manna, Aaron's Rod, the Mercy Seat, the Holy of Holies, the Shekinah---IT'S ALL IN HIM!!!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Contradictory. Either baptism saves or it doesn't. Peter said baptism saves, others say it's baptism plus something else saves. It can't be both.

Yes it can! You are saying Peter contradicted the rest of the bible. In all this discussion you have yet to say what Peter MEANT. Why did he say baptism saves? YOU tell us.

You cannot say we are not meant to read Peter at face value. That is ridiculous. Peter said what he said and we are meant to take it. You cannot say Peter MISSED something.

It is common language to say that something that is involved in a process accomplishes what that process accomplishes. Saying that Baptism saves is NOT saying baptism alone saves.

Ok, baptism is a PART of salvation therefore baptism doesn't save, in spite of scripture plainly saying it does.

No one would make that statement except someone looking to find a loophole for no need of baptism. Saying baptism saves does not contradict the thought that it is part of salvation. Saying gasoline makes the car run does not mean nothing else is needed like an engine or battery, etc. Please. That manner of speaking is used all the time.

Which saves you baptism or belief? One? The other? Scripture indicates that baptism saves, other times baptism plus belief saves, other times something else. Jesus Himself said that eternal life was attained by eating His body and drinking His blood. Other scripture says that if you take communion you eat the body, drink the blood of Jesus. Yet other scriptures indicate that one must be born of the Spirit to see the kingdom of God.

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.

It's a pick and choose salvation in scripture. One should pick something and have faith in it.

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.

No, I'm not twisting the scripture at all. Peter doesn't say that baptism is a PART of salvation, that's your personal belief. Peter said simply that baptism does now save us. Reject it and go on to your favorite salvation scriptures if you wish, there are plenty to choose from if that passage isn't palatable in your salvation theology.

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

[mfblume]

Peter spoke the same explanation that Paul did in Romans regarding baptism, making Paul's baptism in Romans a wet and watery baptism.



I will post a study I made showing that to be the case. If it is, then baptism into Christ's death is paramount, and it is accomplished through water baptism by faith.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

It's the lack of understanding in OP theology between justification, sanctification and perfection.

I was always taught and I still believe you are forgiven when you repent. Now this begs the question, "If you are forgiven at repentance but are still destined for hell, what were you forgiven of?" If you owe a debt and the person you owe says you're forgiven of the debt but still demands you to pay them back, are you forgiven of the debt?

Teachings of the Bible that are more difficult to understand are to be interpreted in light of those more easily understood. Scriptures that seem to connect baptism to salvation must be interpreted in light of scriptures that don't support that notion.

To as many as received Jesus, to them gave He the power to become sons of God. My children are expected to mature and grow and obey me, but they are my children nevertheless. The fact they were born made them my children. I expect them tom learn to read and write eventually, but if they don't, they're still my children.

We become children of God through faith. We are justified by faith. We are made right with God. The thief on the cross could do nothing but believe and Jesus declared he would be in paradise. And the argument that he was still under OT salvation fails because he couldn't even meet those requirements.

If anybody goes to heaven without being baptized you cannot say that baptism is absolutely essential for salvation. The message of the Bible is grace through faith from Genesis to Revelation.

The Tabernacle Plan interpretation fails in that its a type and shadow of JESUS not Acts 2:38. JESUS is the tabernacle! JESUS is salvation! Receive JESUS and you get the sacrifice, you get the washing of the laver, you get the Light of the World, the Bread of Heaven, the sweet aroma of the incense, the Holy Place, the Ark of the Covenant, the Law, the Manna, Aaron's Rod, the Mercy Seat, the Holy of Holies, the Shekinah---IT'S ALL IN HIM!!!

Yep.

[mfblume]

We become children of God through faith. We are justified by faith. We are made right with God. The thief on the cross could do nothing but believe and Jesus declared he would be in paradise. And the argument that he was still under OT salvation fails because he couldn't even meet those requirements.

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.

[Aquila]

It's my understanding that the ancient Christians didn't separate repentance and water baptism. In fact, one turned from the life they were living unto Christ, the act of faith being to call upon His name in the waters of baptism.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Dordrecht

Wow. That includes all of us.
We'r all at one time or another doing things that doesn't make God happy.

Amazing how some of you folks think. ;-)

Yep. Thank god he has given us a way to repent and thank god repentance makes god happy. I never said we had to never make mistakes. In fact you'll find that I claim mistakes are usually the norm. We can make god happy by overcoming our mistakes and as long as we are trying to do that I tend to think god is happy.

[navygoat1998]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

It's the lack of understanding in OP theology between justification, sanctification and perfection.

I was always taught and I still believe you are forgiven when you repent. Now this begs the question, "If you are forgiven at repentance but are still destined for hell, what were you forgiven of?" If you owe a debt and the person you owe says you're forgiven of the debt but still demands you to pay them back, are you forgiven of the debt?

Teachings of the Bible that are more difficult to understand are to be interpreted in light of those more easily understood. Scriptures that seem to connect baptism to salvation must be interpreted in light of scriptures that don't support that notion.

To as many as received Jesus, to them gave He the power to become sons of God. My children are expected to mature and grow and obey me, but they are my children nevertheless. The fact they were born made them my children. I expect them tom learn to read and write eventually, but if they don't, they're still my children.

We become children of God through faith. We are justified by faith. We are made right with God. The thief on the cross could do nothing but believe and Jesus declared he would be in paradise. And the argument that he was still under OT salvation fails because he couldn't even meet those requirements.

If anybody goes to heaven without being baptized you cannot say that baptism is absolutely essential for salvation. The message of the Bible is grace through faith from Genesis to Revelation.

The Tabernacle Plan interpretation fails in that its a type and shadow of JESUS not Acts 2:38. JESUS is the tabernacle! JESUS is salvation! Receive JESUS and you get the sacrifice, you get the washing of the laver, you get the Light of the World, the Bread of Heaven, the sweet aroma of the incense, the Holy Place, the Ark of the Covenant, the Law, the Manna, Aaron's Rod, the Mercy Seat, the Holy of Holies, the Shekinah---IT'S ALL IN HIM!!!

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Yes it can! You are saying Peter contradicted the rest of the bible. In all this discussion you have yet to say what Peter MEANT. Why did he say baptism saves? YOU tell us.

Why did he plainly say that baptism saves? I guess because he believed baptism saves. I know what he said, he wasn't ambiguous but was very plain with his statement. Did Peter MEAN what he said?

You cannot say we are not meant to read Peter at face value. That is ridiculous. Peter said what he said and we are meant to take it. You cannot say Peter MISSED something.

Exactly! Peter's statement, taken at face value, without modification, specifically states that "baptism does now save you". You're apparently not wanting to take Peter at face value. Add whatever you wish, but Peter's statement consists of one single solitary act.....baptism....to be saved.

is common language to say that something that is involved in a process accomplishes what that process accomplishes. Saying that Baptism saves is NOT saying baptism alone saves.

Nope, Peter didn't say that baptism was part of a process consisting of multiple things. "Baptism does now save you" is simple and to the point. Nothing about a process there.

No one would make that statement except someone looking to find a loophole for no need of baptism. Saying baptism saves does not contradict the thought that it is part of salvation. Saying gasoline makes the car run does not mean nothing else is needed like an engine or battery, etc. Please. That manner of speaking is used all the time.

Again, there is nothing in Peter's statement about baptism being a PART of being saved. You pick and choose whatever scriptures you want, pour them into a pot and cook whatever salvation theology you wish. But in Peter's staement "baptism does now save you" there is only one ingredient. Baptism.

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.

You're saying that baptism is when the blood of Jesus is applied to one's life? Is there more to being saved than the blood? If so, Peter was wrong in his statement that "baptism does now save you". In other words, it's the blood plus something else.

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.

I'm not arguing that baptism doesn't have to occur, my point is that Peter only reference baptism as the sole requirement for being saved. Nothing else was mentioned in his statement.

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

If we are saved by baptism, as Peter says, then how are infants saved if they aren't baptized? We had a discussion about infant salvation a few weeks ago and really never came to a conclusion how infants were saved, if they were saved at all. A couple of the participants in the thread asked the question if infants were even saved. A no would be very troubling to most.....but I digress.

Baptism is part of salvation.

Not according to Paul's statement that "baptism does now save you". Paul did not say, as you're attempting to make him say, 'baptism is a PART of what now saves you'.

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

I say that he meant exactly what he said. There is no dismissing his words, adding to them or taking away from them. He doesn't equivocate, "baptism does now save you"........period.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

It's the lack of understanding in OP theology between justification, sanctification and perfection.

I was always taught and I still believe you are forgiven when you repent. Now this begs the question, "If you are forgiven at repentance but are still destined for hell, what were you forgiven of?" If you owe a debt and the person you owe says you're forgiven of the debt but still demands you to pay them back, are you forgiven of the debt?

Teachings of the Bible that are more difficult to understand are to be interpreted in light of those more easily understood. Scriptures that seem to connect baptism to salvation must be interpreted in light of scriptures that don't support that notion.

To as many as received Jesus, to them gave He the power to become sons of God. My children are expected to mature and grow and obey me, but they are my children nevertheless. The fact they were born made them my children. I expect them tom learn to read and write eventually, but if they don't, they're still my children.

We become children of God through faith. We are justified by faith. We are made right with God. The thief on the cross could do nothing but believe and Jesus declared he would be in paradise. And the argument that he was still under OT salvation fails because he couldn't even meet those requirements.

If anybody goes to heaven without being baptized you cannot say that baptism is absolutely essential for salvation. The message of the Bible is grace through faith from Genesis to Revelation.

The Tabernacle Plan interpretation fails in that its a type and shadow of JESUS not Acts 2:38. JESUS is the tabernacle! JESUS is salvation! Receive JESUS and you get the sacrifice, you get the washing of the laver, you get the Light of the World, the Bread of Heaven, the sweet aroma of the incense, the Holy Place, the Ark of the Covenant, the Law, the Manna, Aaron's Rod, the Mercy Seat, the Holy of Holies, the Shekinah---IT'S ALL IN HIM!!!

Mmmmmmmmmmmmm. . . . .