Baptism, DOES IT REALLY WASH AWAY SIN??

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I agree w / the following writer as to the who, when and where the blood is applied:

http://www.inchristalone.org/WhenBloodAppliedpt4.html


To simplify, to bring atonement for the nation of Israel, the High Priest Aaron, on the Day of Atonement had to take the blood of the sacrifice into the Most Holy Place (the place representing God’s throne room) and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat (the place of atonement). This is an Old Covenant picture of what Jesus Christ does to achieve atonement under the New Covenant. It also gives a graphic answer to the next three questions: “Who applies the Blood?,” “Where is the blood applied?” and “When is the blood applied?”

------------------------------------------------
Who Applies the Blood?

We know that Jesus is the “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29,36). It is His blood that is shed for the forgiveness of our sins (Ephesians 1:7; 1 Peter 1:18; 1 John 1:7; Revelation 1:5). We are justified by the blood of Jesus (Romans 5:9). But, Jesus is also the Great High Priest who applies the blood (Hebrew 9:7-12). He shed His blood on Golgotha and thereby applied it by dying on the Cross (Colossians 1:20; Hebrews 13:12). The effect of the blood is the effect of Jesus’ death (Hebrews 9:16-18). Because of His death in our place, he suffered the penalty of sin(1 Peter 2:24). But, because He was perfect in obedience, he cannot remain dead (Acts 2:24-28). God justifies Jesus, by raising Him from the dead (1 Timothy 3:16). Then Christ is taken up into Heaven by God, because He had finished His purpose on the earth (John 16:10-28; John 19:30; Hebrews 10:12-13). Now, as the ascended Lord of the Church, he acts as our Great High Priest. He ever lives to make intercession for us (Hebrews 2:17-18; 7:25-27). He presents his own sacrifice eternally to the Father on our behalf (Revelation 13:8). It is Jesus, the Great High Priest who applies the blood.

-------------------------------------------------------
Where is the Blood Applied?

There is a sense that the pattern of activities performed by the high priest under the Tabernacle/Temple system are fulfilled in Christ’s priestly ministry. The High Priest entered the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement, bearing the blood of the congregational sacrifice. There he would sprinkle the blood of the bull on the mercy seat or place of atonement to reconcile Israel to God. Jesus the true and only Sacrifice, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, ascended into Heaven as the Great High Priest, bearing His own blood on Himself, because He was the true mercy seat (hilasmos). Paul says, “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;” (Romans 3:25 KJV).

The word “propitiation” is hilasterion. It is the word translated “mercyseat” in Hebrews 9:5. Jesus is called the mercy seat, the hilasterion, the propitiation, the place of atonement. There is no greater place to “apply” the blood than on Jesus himself. Jesus, as the Great High Priest, applies the blood. He uses the Cross like the priests hyssop and sprinkles the people with salvation. Jesus, makes the Cross the seat of mercy since he is the propitiation or the mercy seat. This is where the blood is applied.

This is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

-------------------------------------------------------------
When is the Blood Applied?

Rather than ask “When is the blood applied?” we should ask when was the penalty for sin paid. The Bible teaches us that it was paid by Jesus when he died. It also tells us where Jesus died – He died on the Cross. It is when Jesus died that the blood was applied. Hebrews is emphatic that Jesus presents himself as an atoning sacrifice once.

For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another – He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation. (Hebrews 9:24-28 NKJV) This means his death takes place at a particular moment of history. He died once. There was only one sacrifice for all time. Thus, his blood was shed once, for all time. It was applied once for all time two thousand years ago outside the city wall of Jerusalem on the Cross of Calvary. It only needs to be applied once because “by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” (Hebrews 10:14 ESV). The blood was applied once for all time on the Cross. This one shedding of Jesus blood is sufficient to take away the sins of the whole world, and more, to cleanse the Heaven itself (Hebrews 9:24).

Jesus as the Lamb and as the High Priest presented his blood – His proof of death on the Cross. As he hung on the Roman stake with his blood running down his body and onto the ground He was presenting his offering. It was upon His death that Jesus cried, “It is finished!” The wrath of God was satisfied. The penalty was paid. The veil of separation was rent. All this happened because Jesus died for us. And Jesus’ blood is the proof of it.

Dan thanks for your repsonse. In it had the comment:

"Rather than ask “When is the blood applied?” we should ask when was the penalty for sin paid."

Though this is true and it will lead to the end result as would pointingto when is remission etc.... In reality all the above really never say WHEN according to scripture it is applied.

I am looking for specific scripture on this. I have discussed this with many teachers from seminary school from multiple persuasions. They all pretty much admit scripture does not give a direct time.

That is until I point out this one little thing.

What is the parallel or equal reference to blood.

Remember without shedding of blood there can be no remission.

Again there is a very precise answer though somewhat veiled but not really.

[SDG]

There are two views I believe you are discussing Luke as the issue of when ...

as opposed to the sacramental view that approaches baptism as a rite that mitigates grace ... and to some sin washing...

They are:

1. The mind of God- Christ was slain from the foundation of the world.
2. The legal aspect -the actual crucifixion in which payment was made in full... and Christ declares it is finished.

[LUKE2447]

Does repentance require blood to have been applied? Did the children of Israel or many others in the OT when hearing the call of God to repent have blood on there lives already?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Who denies that a repentant heart will show the fruit of faith ... Mizpeh ... we are not discussing the need to be baptized as a commandment or responding through faith... but rather this notion that baptism washes sin ...

Moreover, that it must have the proper articulations for it to be efficacious.

Keep your head in the game, please. No red herrings ... no no rabbit trails.

Dan, I'm responding the Baron's comment that he did not think Paul/Saul repented on the Damascus road. My assertion is that Paul did repent on the Damascus road as evidenced by his reaction to Jesus and subsequent fasting. And because Paul repented, Ananias telling Paul to "arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" does not make sense IF, according to one steppers, Paul's sins were already remitted when he repented since there would be not further need of a "washing".

My head is in the game, Dan. It would be helpful if you had read the entire conversation I was having with the Baron before accusing me of throwing out red herrings and creating rabbit trails.

[LUKE2447]

Dan I will get to the point.

Without shedding of blood there is no remission. I believe we both agree on this.

Could Jesus have not died and been a proper sacrifice while bleeding badly?

Could Jesus have died but not shed blood and been a proper sacrifice?

The answer is no! They are tied togethor in a bond! Without the shedding of blood unto death the sacrifice would have moot. thus the meaning of shedding of blood is meant to be one that is unto death.

Therefore anytime you see death referenced to Christ it is a clear reference unto the shedding of blood or the atoning blood. So the question can now be asked

WHEN is the death/shedding of blood referenced to being applied?

and the answer is simple and you know the answer BAPTISM!

Rom 6:3 Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? (BLOOD APPLIED)
Rom 6:4 We were buried therefore with him through baptism unto death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection;
Rom 6:6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away, that so we should no longer be in bondage to sin;

Baptism is seen as the application or uniting of us with Christ's death/sheeding of blood.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Dan, I'm responding the Baron's comment that he did not think Paul/Saul repented on the Damascus road. My assertion is that Paul did repent on the Damascus road as evidenced by his reaction to Jesus and subsequent fasting. And because Paul repented, Ananias telling Paul to "arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" does not make sense IF, according to one steppers, Paul's sins were already remitted when he repented becaue there would be not further need of a "washing".

My head is in the game, Dan. It would be helpful if you had read the entire conversation I was having with the Baron before accusing me of throwing out red herrings and creating rabbit trails.

Paul asked what he should do, he was afraid. Those things by themselves do not show repentance. So it may have been after this that he repented.

[LUKE2447]

Dan,

You also see the authority being placed on baptism when from his side flowed blood and water. There is a clear reason for this to be mentioned. As both are referenced as life in the Word. They are both used in reference to convenants and they do now. Yes we must have faith as it is our faith in the working of God through baptism that remits our sins. In baptism is seen the picture of the death of Christ which is the shedding of blood and us being buried with him. Then new life springing forth. Water and blood again are symbols of life in the Word.

[U376977]

Originally Posted by Ron

1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Notice, Baptism is part and parcel of that which saves us Dan!
OOPPS, Sorry Freudian slip perhaps.

Ron, You are quoting the scripture I used to start the thread. Sam and a few others have tried to answer what I am asking.

It clearly states "baptism doth save us" but then it says that it DOES NOT WASH AWAY THE FILTHYNESS OF THE FLESH."
Is that a blood alone function?

Is the water only to "cleanse the conscience"?


It seems to me that this is the only way to interpet this verse, However doctrine must be on the whole of scripture.

Does my interpetation stand across the whole of the Bible? Sam, Ron, Bro. Eply, Ferd, Others?

Please help me understand-----

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by U376977

Ron, You are quoting the scripture I used to start the thread. Sam and a few others have tried to answer what I am asking.

It clearly states "baptism doth save us" but then it says that it DOES NOT WASH AWAY THE FILTHYNESS OF THE FLESH."
Is that a blood alone function?

Is the water only to "cleanse the conscience"?


It seems to me that this is the only way to interpet this verse, However doctrine must be on the whole of scripture.

Does my interpetation stand across the whole of the Bible? Sam, Ron, Bro. Eply, Ferd, Others?

Please help me understand-----

It is all symblism of the reality of your baptism through faith in the D,B,R of Christ... The water is always the perfect symbol of cleansing action. (sorry Mr. Clean) Thus the faith in the working of God in baptism is seen as clearing or as Peter says a "answer of a good conscience" KJV or "but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," ESV

or in my personal amplified version "a faithful/good response toward God" Which is brought about by the conviction of the truth of Christ. Thus we respond by turning away(repenting which is faith) to the cross(baptism continued faith) and we identify with him by believing/trusting in the promised work of God(faith)

This would be in part a answer to or an appeal to the conviction/God's Word of our sins. Thus we are already past repentance and faith. As baptism is viewed as the result of the response to God's convicting power of Christ. Thus we through hearing answer the call with a good conscience in baptism. To be buried, identified and made alive with him. If baptism was not a part of salvation to receive forgiveness why the need for the appeal, or a answer unto God if the debt or the felt burden of sin has been satisfied beforehand. To see these words "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you" are very direct meanings. If remission of sins is simply upon faith or repentance then this scripture means nothing. As you cannot answer or appeal to receive nothing espcially when the corresponding thought is "now saves you"

Just a thought!

[Steve Epley]

Would someone be so kind to post the authorities I posted on "eis?" And the translations I posted on Acts 2:38?