Baptism, DOES IT REALLY WASH AWAY SIN??

Hermanos,

Solo Jesus salva.

Paz de Cristo,
OM

[Scott Hutchinson]

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Act/Act002.html

[Rico]

Originally Posted by 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.

Jesus didn't bleed to death.

[Scott Hutchinson]

http://www.calvaryapostolic.com/baptism.htm

[Rico]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Paul was a changed man because of his Damascus road experience!

I agree. I don't think anyone could stand in the presence of God, like Paul did, and not immediately repent. Didn't Paul ask Him, "Who art thou, Lord?"

[SDG]

I will respond to the "experts" on eis in a moment ... no matter what your view on eis is ... one cannot ignore the grammatical breakdown of Acts 2:38 which only links remission of sins when examining tenses.

Here is an another expert:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8Urzmrq8zw

Where are your Greek experts on this, Elder Epley.
Isolation of words and isolating phrases is poor scholarship

---------------------------
Ignoring Peter's subsequent sermons that link forgiveness/remission/washing of sins to believe/repentance are inexplicably ignored by those who state Peter held the keys to salvation on the day of Pentecost ......

Acts 3:19

Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,

Acts 10:43
43All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."

Again Oneness theologian shares the validity of these plausible explanations as follows:

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."

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Rico

Jesus didn't bleed to death.

Nor did I say he did! The point was Death is equal to blood. As it pertains to the samething. Without shedding of blood which = death there is no remission of sins. There has to be a sacrifice unto death/shed blood. They are virtually synonomous! Thus baptism is the point of the blood/sacrifice unto death applied.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

Nor did I say he did! The point was Death is equal to blood. As it pertains to the samething. Without shedding of blood which = death there is no remission of sins. There has to be a sacrifice unto death/blood shed.

It sure seemed like that's what you were trying to say. Anyway, it's no biggie. Carry on.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Rico

It sure seemed like that's what you were trying to say. Anyway, it's no biggie. Carry on.

Sorry if it seemed that way. The point was both had to take place in the sacrifice. Blood had to flow and the sacrifice had to die which is the whole point of "without shedding of blood." THe only place you will find a direct reference to the sacrifice/shed blood being applied is at baptism as it is referenced as "death."

[Rico]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

Sorry if it seemed that way. The point was both had to take place in the sacrifice. Blood had to flow and the sacrifice had to die which is the whole point of "without shedding of blood." THe only place you will find a direct reference to the sacrifice/shed blood being applied is at baptism as it is referenced as "death."

I've always seen baptism as symbolic of burial, but something has to be dead for it to be buried, so there's obviously a connection between the two.