Baptism forgives sins?

[tonychanyt]

My fellow Protestants, Baptism is not a symbol.

It is not just a symbol.

Peter gave a sermon at Pentecost. Ac 2:

37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins,

Nicene Creed:

I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

Does that mean baptism forgives sins?

I don't think so, not by itself. The Nicene people were thinking about Ep 4:

4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

There is one baptism in Christ for all people. It signifies the forgiveness of sins for all who believe. The Nicene Creed was a declaration of this.

Peter's context was different from the creed. It was about conversion. Repent and be baptized to become a follower of Jesus. He will forgive your sins. He will cleanse you to be indwelled by the Paraclete/Spirit:

and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” 40 And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.”

Peter had salvation and conversion in his mind.

41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Baptism is an initiation ritual. Without repentance or turning to God, one's sins would not be forgiven. Baptism is a sign that one has believed in and turned to God.

 

[timf]

The baptism for the forgiveness of sins was preached by John the Baptist and was critical to call the nation of Israel back to faithfulness to Jehovah and to be ready to receive the promised Messiah. In Acts 2 Peter declares that the Jews killed their Messiah and those listening were horrified to realize this. The admonition Peter gave to those present was to be baptized as well as repent for the forgiveness of sins. All of this is perfectly consistent with the kingdom gospel for the nation of Israel.

Paul, the Apostle to the gentiles, was not called to baptize. This was probably because gentiles were to be saved individually and outside of the law keeping that was for the nation of Israel. It can be confusing without this distinction.

1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

 

[David Lamb]

It is not just a symbol.

Peter gave a sermon at Pentecost. Ac 2:


Nicene Creed:


Does that mean baptism forgives sins?

I don't think so, not by itself. The Nicene people were thinking about Ep 4:


There is one baptism in Christ for all people. It signifies the forgiveness of sins for all who believe. The Nicene Creed was a declaration of this.

Peter's context was different from the creed. It was about conversion. Repent and be baptized to become a follower of Jesus. He will forgive your sins. He will cleanse you to be indwelled by the Paraclete/Spirit:


Peter had salvation and conversion in his mind.


Baptism is an initiation ritual. Without repentance or turning to God, one's sins would not be forgiven. Baptism is a sign that one has believed in and turned to God.

My Greek-English Lexicon has the following concerning the word translated "for" in Acts 2:38: ""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."

 

[Cornelius8L]

It is not just a symbol.

Peter gave a sermon at Pentecost. Ac 2:


Nicene Creed:


Does that mean baptism forgives sins?

I don't think so, not by itself. The Nicene people were thinking about Ep 4:


There is one baptism in Christ for all people. It signifies the forgiveness of sins for all who believe. The Nicene Creed was a declaration of this.

Peter's context was different from the creed. It was about conversion. Repent and be baptized to become a follower of Jesus. He will forgive your sins. He will cleanse you to be indwelled by the Paraclete/Spirit:


Peter had salvation and conversion in his mind.


Baptism is an initiation ritual. Without repentance or turning to God, one's sins would not be forgiven. Baptism is a sign that one has believed in and turned to God.

Despite Jesus undergoing water baptism administered by John the Baptist (Matthew 3:15-17), Apostle Paul regarded John's baptism as inappropriate (Acts 19:4-6). However, it is intriguing that Jesus did not intervene to prevent John from baptizing others, even when His disciples began baptizing alongside John in the same river (John 3:22-26). Jesus also posted a question to the religious authorities about the legitimacy of John's baptism (Matthew 21:23–27; Mark 11:27–33, Luke 20:1-8), a practice Apostle Paul later dismissed. (It's noteworthy that Jesus Himself never performed physical water baptism for anyone, as seen in John 4:1-2.) So, what was God thinking?

God did not send an angel to prevent Jesus from being circumcised (Luke 2:21). However, Paul testified that circumcision ought to be discarded (Galatians 5:1-3), concluding that the entire law is fulfilled in the command to “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Galatians 5:14). Does this imply that ceremonial practices Jesus engaged in before the cross should be abolished? Many of these practices, even those observed by Jesus Himself, were discontinued after the crucifixion.

Whenever Jesus discussed baptism, He referred to His crucifixion (Luke 12:50, Mark 10:38-39), aligning with Paul's explanation in his letters (Romans 6:3-11, Galatians 3:27), where Jesus's baptism (Mark 16:16) refers to crucifying our old selves. Furthermore, the Gospel authors and John the Baptist clearly testified that Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit and fire, not with water (Mark 1:8, Matthew 3:11). Therefore, the baptism Jesus emphasizes is the crucifixion of our old selves, allowing our sins to be washed away, not the physical water baptism.

 

[jas3]

Does that mean baptism forgives sins?

I don't think so, not by itself. The Nicene people were thinking about Ep 4:

The universal understanding of baptism was that it did actually forgive sins (properly speaking, the grace of God conferred in baptism forgave sins). Here's St. Cyril of Jerusalem, a contemporary of the Nicene Fathers, on baptism:

"Let no one then suppose that Baptism is merely the grace of remission of sins, or further, that of adoption; as John's was a Baptism conferring only remission of sins; whereas we know full well, that as it purges our sins, and ministers to us the gift of the Holy Spirit, so also it is the antitype (cf. Heb. 9:24) of the sufferings of Christ." (Catechetical Homilies, Homily 20)

As for Eph. 4, all that passage says is that there is one baptism, nothing about it being symbolic of sins that have already been forgiven. The reference to "one baptism" is a reference to the passage in Ephesians, which indicates that you can't be rebaptized.

Peter's context was different from the creed.

Apparently not, given that ante-Nicene and Nicene Church Fathers who write about baptism all say that sins are forgiven in baptism itself.

 

[tonychanyt]

Apostle Paul regarded John's baptism as inappropriate (Acts 19:4-6).

Thanks for the reference. This is how to do referencing and quotation in a scholarly manner:

1. Display and indent the relevant text.
2. Selectively bold the particular keywords that are important to your point. There is no need to bold the entire sentence. Have a laser-sharp focus.

I do this for others who read my posts. It is a standard high-school scholarship.

 

[RamiC]

Jesus also posted a question to the religious authorities about the legitimacy of John's baptism Matthew 21:23–27;

24 But Jesus answered and said to them, “I also will ask you one thing, which if you tell Me, I likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things: 25 The baptism of John—where was it from? From heaven or from men?”

And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ He will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ 26 But if we say, ‘From men,’ we fear the multitude, for all count John as a prophet." Matthew 21:23–24 26

Jesus is saying this to confound the existing religious authorities, this is to show that they do not recognise the authority from which He was acting, as he was teaching in the Temple, it is not to question the validity of water baptism by appealing to their wisdom about it. Hence the next bit,

"And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ He will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ 26 But if we say, ‘From men,’ we fear the multitude, for all count John as a prophet.” 27 So they answered Jesus and said, “We do not know.”

And He said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things." Matthew 21 26-27 NKJV

Paul's actions in Ephesus, which you refer to as proof that he thought John's water baptism is "inapropriate", are a demonstration of the power of the Holy Spirit, transferred from a suitable person (that is someone already carrying the Spirit), after they had recieved water baptism.

4 Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied." Acts 19 3 - 5 NKJV

This is because they were unaware of the two baptisms, as can be seen here

"Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples 2 he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” Acts 19 1-2 NKJV

it is clearly not because he thought that a form of baptism (water) which he absolutely affirmed was inapropriate.

If anyone is not yet water-baptised, even if they believe already, please might I recommend it? By whatever method your church uses, as long as it is in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, please go ahead. Paul did approve.

 

[Cornelius8L]

Paul's actions in Ephesus, which you refer to as proof that he thought John's water baptism is "inapropriate", are a demonstration of the power of the Holy Spirit, transferred from a suitable person (that is someone already carrying the Spirit), after they had recieved water baptism.

However, it is intriguing that Jesus did not intervene to prevent John from baptizing others, even when His disciples began baptizing alongside John in the same river (John 3:22-26).

We should consider whether Jesus himself placed significant importance on this. As recorded by his disciple, John the Baptist, who preached about Jesus, would have had no reason to reject Jesus’ authority if Jesus had emphasized baptism in his name. If baptism in Jesus' name was crucial, Jesus could have instructed John to adjust his baptismal practice when they were both present at the river (John 3:22-26). Furthermore, the records show that Jesus’ disciples were baptizing people, prompting John’s disciples to complain about Jesus attracting more followers. If baptism in Jesus’ name were essential for salvation, why didn’t Jesus correct John, who was baptizing at the same time but not in Jesus’ name? Meanwhile, Jesus’ disciples had evidently already begun baptizing in his name, even as John maintained his distinct practice.

Whenever Jesus discussed baptism, He referred to His crucifixion (Luke 12:50, Mark 10:38-39), aligning with Paul's explanation in his letters (Romans 6:3-11, Galatians 3:27), where Jesus's baptism (Mark 16:16) refers to crucifying our old selves. Furthermore, the Gospel authors and John the Baptist clearly testified that Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit and fire, not with water (Mark 1:8, Matthew 3:11). Therefore, the baptism Jesus emphasizes is the crucifixion of our old selves, allowing our sins to be washed away, not the physical water baptism.

Throughout scripture, we see that God consistently shows a tendency to accept acts of goodwill, even when they are not explicitly required. What I’m suggesting is that water baptism is one such act of goodwill. However, what truly matters is the later baptism that Jesus spoke of—crucifying ourselves.

Paul acknowledged that he spoke and understood only in part, but when completeness comes, the partial will be set aside (1 Corinthians 13:9). Water baptism appears to be part of this partial understanding, especially in light of what Jesus did not do regarding John the Baptist’s practice at the river.