Baptism, DOES IT REALLY WASH AWAY SIN??

[SDG]

Acts 2:38 uses aphesis for remission, as do countless other verses to mean forgiveness ....

-----------------------------------------

Example 1

KIV:

38Then 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.

NIV:
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Reina Valera:
38 Pedro les dijo: Arrepentíos, y bautícese cada uno de vosotros en el nombre de Jesucristo para perdón de los pecados; y recibiréis el don del Espíritu Santo.

-------------------------------
Example 2:


Mark 1:4

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

NIV:
4And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Reina Valera:
4 Bautizaba Juan en el desierto, y predicaba el bautismo de arrepentimiento para perdón de pecados.

----------------------------------

Example 3:
Reina Valera:

Luke 24

47 y que se predicase en su nombre el arrepentimiento y el perdón de pecados en todas las naciones, comenzando desde Jerusalén.

KJV:

47And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

NIV:
4And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.


I could go on and on.... it applies to all verses with this root word.

To say that repentance brings forgiveness and baptism brings remission only works in a KJV setting .... not in the original Greek ... other English versions ... NIV, NASB, ESV ... or in other languages that use the one word to mean the same as the Apostles expressed it.

------------------------

Baptism provides no "washing".

The false premise that remission is a result of a washing that happens at baptism .... while forgiveness is the result of repentance ... is patently false ... and borders on the mysticism found in the doctrine of transubstantiation of the Eucharist.

As is the idea that the blood is only applied in a properly administered baptism in which salvation hangs on the words of the baptizer.

When one examines the words of the Apostles in using the Greek word "aphesis" to mean both forgivenes/remission ... w/ no distinction made.

Why do you go against their doctrine and words?

The writer to the Hebrews (chapter 6) tells us blood remits/forgives/washes/ wipes away our sins. Peter, the preacher at Pentecost, tells us that when we repent and turn to God our sins are wiped/blotted away (Acts 3:19)

What about Acts 2:38 ... ? "For the remission of sins".

Dr. Seagraves adds:

Quote:

It would be useful in any current discussion of the relationship between water baptism and the remission of sins to recognize and respond to an objection that is current among some scholars of our day. It is perhaps best expressed in The Bible Knowledge Commentary and suggests that the clause "and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ" is parenthetical, based on the following factors: "

(a) The verb makes a distinction between singular and plural verbs and nouns. The verb `repent' is plural and so is the pronoun `your' in the clause so that your sins maybe forgiven (lit., `unto the remission of your sins,' eis aphesin ton hamartion hymon).

Therefore the verb `repent' must go with the purpose and forgiveness of sins.

On the other hand the imperative `be baptized' is singular, setting it off from the rest of the sentence.

(b) This concept fits with Peter's proclamation in Acts 10:43 in which the same expression `sins may be forgiven' (aphesin harmation) occurs. There it is granted on the basis of faith alone.

(c) In Luke 24:47 and Acts 5:31 the same writer, Luke, indicates that repentance results in remission
of sins."

Peter, "the holder of the keys", even tells us in his epistle tells us that it does not put away filth. (1 Peter 3)

We can clap hands and high five each other in this thread all we want but to add to the Word has serious consequences.

The following quote holds true to this extrabiblical approach some of you are proposing:

"Any doctrine which cannot be solidly supported by scripture must be laid aside, lest we be found to add to or take away from God’s holy Word."

[mizpeh]

http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=1519

Definition: 1) into, unto, to, towards, for, among
++++
"For" (as used in \\#Ac 2:38\\ "for the forgiveness...") could have two
meanings. If you saw a poster saying "Jesse James wanted for
robbery", "for" could mean Jesse is wanted so he can commit a
robbery, or is wanted because he has committed a robbery. The later
sense is the correct one. So too in this passage, the word "for"
signifies an action in the past. Otherwise, it would violate the
entire tenor of the NT teaching on salvation by grace and not by works.

The example used above with Jesse James is given in favor of proving a certain doctrine of salvation and shows blatant predjudice of that doctrine. The last line of the explanation of the how the word, eis, can be used when it is translated as the word, for, is telling. If you have the belief that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, then the teaching that, eis, means that baptism is done in order to remit sins goes completely against what you believe.

IOW, because the interpreters of the NET Bible believe "the entire tenor of the NT teaching on salvation by grace and not by works" they have used this particular example of Jesse James to try to sway our opinion to that the word, for, in Acts 2:38 must mean "because of" instead of " in order that" so it will fit with their doctrine. Because they do not believe water baptism is where sins are remitted/washed away/circucised, they adhere to the "because of" view of the word, for, in Acts 2:38. And they use a blatantly predjudiced example which leans towards their interpretation. Jesse James is wanted "because of " murder.

Now someone else could come up with another example which uses the word, for, as "in order that" to try to prove their point. We have to look at all the verses that teach on repentance, baptism, and remission of sin to try to find the proper meaning and not read our own version of salvation into it. From studying I still find baptism SAVES us.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Acts 22:16 (Amplified Bible)
Amplified Bible (AMP)
Copyright © 1954, 1958, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1987 by The Lockman Foundation


16And now, why do you delay? Rise and be baptized, and [a]by calling upon His name, wash away your sins.

Footnotes:

Acts 22:16 Charles B. Williams, The New Testament: A Translation in the Language of the People: Circumstantial participle expressing manner or means.

The connection is between calling on the name of the Lord and the washing away of sins, not baptism.

I think we can agree that Paul repented on the Damascus road. He fasted for three days before Ananias came and laid hands on him to recieve his sight and the Holy Spirit. I find it hard to believe during those three days that Paul did not call on the name of the Lord once.

Now if Paul received remission of sins/washing away of sins upon faith or even upon repentance WHY did Ananias say "Rise and be baptized, and [a]by calling upon His name, wash away your sins."? I would say it was because the connection is calling on the name of the Lord IN water baptism to have our sins washed away.

[SDG]

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 baptized 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 ... as it was for Abraham, Jacob, Moses (See Hebrews 11)

------------------------------------------------
Paul in Romans 10 is echoing a biblical truth and a promise from OT scripture .. and surely understood this when he was instructed to call on the name of the Lord ... not the baptizer ...

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.

--------------------------------------------

[1Corinth2v4]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

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

--------------------------------------------

Daniel,


You've avoided my question thus far. You said on a previous post "just believing brings salvation."

Can I enter heaven or be saved without the Holy Ghost infilling?

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I think we can agree that Paul repented on the Damascus road. He fasted for three days before Ananias came and laid hands on him to recieve his sight and the Holy Spirit. I find it hard to believe during those three days that Paul did not call on the name of the Lord once.

Now if Paul received remission of sins/washing away of sins upon faith or even upon repentance WHY did Ananias say "Rise and be baptized, and [a]by calling upon His name, wash away your sins."? I would say it was because the connection is calling on the name of the Lord IN water baptism to have our sins washed away.

I read the story again and I don't see that Paul did repent on the road. It certainly doesn't say that he did.

[SDG]

Another plausible interpretation of Acts 22:19

Does Acts 22:16 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?"

Answer: As with any single verse or passage, we discern what it teaches by first filtering it through what we know the Bible teaches on the subject at hand. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9). So, any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other act, is necessary for salvation, is a faulty interpretation. For more information, please visit our webpage on "Is salvation by faith alone, or by faith plus works?"

Acts 22:16, "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name." The first question that must be answered is "when was Paul saved?" 1. Paul tells that he did not receive or hear the Gospel from Ananias, but rather he heard it directly from Christ. Galatians 1:11-12 says, "For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ." So, Paul heard and believed in Christ on the road to Damascus. Paul had already believed in Christ when Ananias came to pray for him to receive his sight (Acts 9:17).

2. It also should be noted that Paul at the time when Ananias prayed for him to receive his sight, he also received the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17)--this was before he was baptized (Acts 9:18). Acts presents a transition period where God's focus turns from Israel to the Church. The events recorded in Acts are not always normative. With regard to receiving the Holy Spirit, the norm is that a person receives and is permanently indwelt by the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation.

3. The Greek aorist participle, epikalesamenos, translated "calling on His name" refers either to action that is simultaneous with or before that of the main verb, "be baptized." Here Paul’s calling on Christ’s name for salvation preceded his water baptism. The participle may be translated "having called on His name" which makes more sense, as it would clearly indicate the order of the events.

4. Concerning the words, "be baptized, and wash away your sins," because Paul was already cleansed spiritually at the time Christ appeared to him, these words must refer to the symbolism of baptism. Baptism is a picture of God’s inner work of washing away sin (1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 Peter 3:21).

5. It is also interesting that when Paul recounted this event again later in Acts (Acts 26:12-18), he did not mention Ananias or what Ananias said to him at all. Verse 18 again would confirm the idea that Paul received Christ as Savior on the road to Damascus since here Christ is telling Paul he will be a messenger for Him concerning forgiveness of sins for Gentiles as they have faith in Him. It would seem unlikely that Christ would commission Paul if Paul had not yet believed in Him.

http://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-Acts-22-16.html

[Scott Hutchinson]

I believe that baptism is essential,I can't deny the word.However is there any virtue in H20 to literally send sin away ? Is grace imparted through water baptism,can mere water regenerate a person? Can a person receive remission or being forgiven of sins prior to baptism ? Do people who receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost prior to Jesus Name baptism receive forgiveness at repentance.
And yes I believe all who repent are commanded to be Spirit filled and to take on The name of The Lord in baptism .

[SDG]

Originally Posted by 1Corinth2v4

Daniel,


You've avoided my question thus far. You said on a previous post "just believing brings salvation."

Can I enter heaven or be saved without the Holy Ghost infilling?

Sir, in reference to you pneumatological question ....

I believe you are aware that most 1 steppers believe we can only be regenerated by God's Spirit. You have confuse the empowerment and subsequent fillings of God's Spirit w/ a one time filling. That which is dead must be quickened to life in order to show fruit which meet repentance.

I will kindly request you open a thread ... on this matter directing it to the whole community ... although it too has been beaten to death.

This thread is about washing of sins.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Here is a simple question if someone repents does God forgive of their sins yes or no ?