Can remission of sins come before baptism?

[christian-only]

Acts 2:38 "...Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins..."

Nicean Creed "...We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins..."

Don't people who deny that baptism is the point at which remission of sins is recieved deny both Acts 2:38 and the Nicean Creed (which one must believe to post here)? Just curious.

 

[Biarien]

Would you say that a person who accepts Christ as their Lord and Savior on Tuesday, is scheduled to be baptized on Sunday, but dies on Thursday is not saved?

 

[christian-only]

Are you saying that they should not be baptized immediately? In every example of conversion in Scripture it was immediate, and certainly Peter's words indicate that one has not truly accepted Christ as their Saviour until they have been baptized in His name, seeing as the reception of remission of sins is in baptism, according both to Peter and the Nicean Creed.

 

[Eusebios]

Are you saying that they should not be baptized immediately? In every example of conversion in Scripture it was immediate, and certainly Peter's words indicate that one has not truly accepted Christ as their Saviour until they have been baptized in His name, seeing as the reception of remission of sins is in baptism, according both to Peter and the Nicean Creed.

Although i would agree that in general, Baptism is necessary for the remission of sin, to dogmatize it might be taking it a step too far, I can think of one shining example, that of the penitant thief, where baptism was unnecessary, though it was also impossible.
His unworthy servant,
Eusebios.

 

[duster1az]

Acts 2:38 "...Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins..."

Nicean Creed "...We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins..."

Don't people who deny that baptism is the point at which remission of sins is recieved deny both Acts 2:38 and the Nicean Creed (which one must believe to post here)? Just curious.

Are you sure your Scripture reference isn't speaking of a true baptism by the Spirit which places one into the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13) instead of a ritual baptism with water?

In Christ,
Tracey

 

[Reformationist]

Don't people who deny that baptism is the point at which remission of sins is recieved deny both Acts 2:38 and the Nicean Creed (which one must believe to post here)?

No.

 

[christian-only]

Are you sure your Scripture reference isn't speaking of a true baptism by the Spirit which places one into the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13) instead of a ritual baptism with water?

In Christ,
Tracey

Firstly, Acts 2:38 is a command. How could Peter command baptism IN (WITH) the Spirit? He couldn't. How could he command baptism BY the Spirit? Only by commanding baptism in water.

Note first that baptism WITH (IN) the Spirit is not baptism BY the Spirit. In one He is the baptizer, but in the other the thing the person is baptized into.

Baptism BY the Spirit (1 Cor 12:13) occurs inside water baptism, thus a Christian is reborn of water and of the Spirit (John 3:5) washed in water with the washing of rebirth and renewed by the Spirit (Titus 3:5).

 

[Diaconeo]

I don't think that the Nicean Creed particularly states what 'baptism'. One must first come to a common understanding of baptism. Do we mean Ritual (water) or Real (Spirit) baptism. If we say ritual, then we are making a work our means of remission of sin. Scripture has a very large problem with this thought. If we say real, then we are in agreement with Scripture, and ALL of the 'baptism' passages make much more sense.

Following the thought of the thief on the cross next to our beloved Savior, we have to remember that he was not under the New Covenant as yet, but still under the Old. Having said that, we must also realize that the thief was also not ritually cleansed prior to his death, therefore is cursed under the Old Covenant. Which brings me to the point of Grace, which has always been the means of salvation for man, wether under the Old Covenant of the blood of bulls and goats, or under the New by the blood of Christ.

We cannot even be sure of the meaning used for baptism. While the Greek 'baptizo' means to immerse, it means so in such a way as to preclude coming out. It is used on one recipe for pickles, in which the pickles are to be immersed {baptizo} into the brine. Not just dipped fully into the brine and then removed, but placed into the brine and left there. Ovbiously if this was actually done to the converts, then the Church would have died as soon as it was started, unless converts refused to be baptized. Another problem is that the secondary meaning of the word 'baptizo' means to take on the character of that into that which you are being baptized. Dyeing is a good example of this, which is used three times in the Greek translation of the Old Testament. If we are baptized into Christ, do we not take on His Character? I believe this is the true meaning of Scripture.

From Scripture is it obvious that ritual baptism is not the true telling of a regenerate heart that has been cleansed from sin. It is true that in three instances in Acts ritual baptism preceded the sign of tongues, howeve, on one occassion it came after the sign of tongues. Now, let us understand that tongues in these instances were clear signs of the Holy Spirit dwelling within the believer. The day of Pentacost, the Samaritans and John's diciples all had water baptism, then spoke in tongues as a sign to the Jews present. The Gentiles in Acts 10 on the other hand had it in reverse. First they heard the Gospel message, believed, spoke in tongues as a sign of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, then were baptized. Peter was so shocked at this, he knew there was no reason for them to NOT be baptized; but they were already regenerate by this time because the Spirit dwelling in the Temple.

Let us also consider that Paul advocated repentance and profession for remission of sins, not water baptism (Rom. 10.8-13) In Eph. 2.9-11 Paul makes it very clear that it is only by faith through grace that we are saved and by no acts (works). If it is by works then it is not a gift, but a due payment. Note also that he definately states that it not by any physical means we are saved in ***. 3.4-5 "But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by the works of righteoussness which we have done {water baptism} but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of teh Holy Ghost." It is by the Holy Ghost we are washed into regeneration and renewing.

Man has been saved the same way from Adam up to now. It is not by the Law, which is imperfect, nor by water which merely washes off dirt, but by the Grace of God alone, by Faith in Him alone, not by any works of righteousness.

In Christ,

Matthew

 

[christian-only]

I don't think that the Nicean Creed particularly states what 'baptism'.

We know who was in the Nicean Council, and we know they didn't believe in the modern idea of "spiritual baptism" apart from water baptism. Those who met at that council believed that water baptism was for the remission of sins, and to argue with that is to argue with history. We know then, that the Creed refers to water baptism.

Besides that, the words of the Creed are lifted from Acts 2:38, which is a command, and seeing as how only water baptism can be commanded, we know that both refer to water baptism.

Now, you quoted Titus 3:5, "according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of rebirth, and renewing by the Holy Spirit." Those word remind me of John 3:5 (same chapter and verse, different book) which says "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Now, "washing of rebirth" = "born of water" and "and renewing by the Holy Spirit" = "and of the Spirit." We see in 1 Cor 12:13 "by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body," but in Acts 2:41 "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls...[47]And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." We see then that both water baptism and baptism BY the Spirit add one to the church, the body of Christ. How can that be, unless the two together are ONE BAPTISM (Eph 4:5) and are as inseparable as the Father and Son. Without the Father there is no Son, and without the Son there is no Father. Even so, without being born of water there is no being born of Spirit and without being born of Spirit there is no being born of water - without water baptism there is no baptism BY the Spirit and without baptism BY the Spirit there is no water baptism.

Concerning the argument against water baptism which claims it is a work, see http://www.christianforums.com/t105579

 

[frumanchu]

Baptism​

Christian baptism, which has the form of a ceremonial washing (like John’s pre-Christian baptism), is a sign from God that signifies inward cleansing and remission of sins (Acts 22:16; 1 Cor. 6:11; Eph. 5:25–27), Spirit-wrought regeneration and new life (Titus 3:5), and the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit as God’s seal testifying and guaranteeing that one will be kept safe in Christ forever (1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:13, 14). Fundamentally, baptism signifies union with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:3–7; Col. 2:11, 12), and this union with Christ is the source of every element in our salvation (1 John 5:11, 12). Receiving the sign of baptism in faith assures those baptized that God’s gift of new life in Christ is freely given to them. At the same time, it commits them to live in a new way as disciples of Jesus.​

Christ told His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). This formula means that the covenant relation which baptism formally confers is with all three Persons of the Godhead. When Paul says that the Israelites were “baptized into Moses” (1 Cor. 10:2), he means that they were put under Moses’ control and direction. Baptism into the name of the triune God signifies control and direction by God.​

The outward signs do not automatically or magically convey the inward blessings that they signify. No prescription of a particular mode of baptism can be found in the New Testament. The command to baptize may be fulfilled by immersion, dipping, or sprinkling; all three modes satisfy the meaning of the Greek verb baptizo and the symbolic requirement of passing under, and emerging from, cleansing water.​

http://www.christianforums.com/t105919#_ftn1http://www.christianforums.com/t105919#_ftnref1New Geneva study Bible. 1997, c1995 (electronic ed.) (Ge 1:1). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

 

[Philip]

I don't think that the Nicean Creed particularly states what 'baptism'.

Given that we have many other writings from the holy bishops who wrote the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (most notably, Sts. Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom), it is quite clear what baptism they had in mind. There can be no doubt that they meant a physical baptism with water (except for extreme circumstances) that coincides with the spiritual baptism by the Spirit. You may wish to reinterpret the Creed, but its original meaning is clear.

One must first come to a common understanding of baptism. Do we mean Ritual (water) or Real (Spirit) baptism.

Why do you separate the two?

We cannot even be sure of the meaning used for baptism. While the Greek 'baptizo' means to immerse, it means so in such a way as to preclude coming out. It is used on one recipe for pickles, in which the pickles are to be immersed {baptizo} into the brine. Not just dipped fully into the brine and then removed, but placed into the brine and left there.

Baptizo allows for the object to remain submerged, but does not require it. Scripture tells us that St John the Forerunner baptized (baptizo) with water. Would you have us believe that he drowned the people he baptized?

Another problem is that the secondary meaning of the word 'baptizo' means to take on the character of that into that which you are being baptized. Dyeing is a good example of this, which is used three times in the Greek translation of the Old Testament.

Baptizo does not have that meaning. It means "to make completely wet". When use to mean "dye", it refers to the complete dipping of the item into the liquid, not to the taking on some characteristic. BTW, this use of baptizo contradicts your claim that baptizo means "it means so in such a way as to preclude coming out". The cloth that is dipped in the dye is removed from the dye. It is not left in.

 

[msortwell]

Addressing those who would offer that the act of water baptism causes the remission of sin . . . using Acts 2:38 as proof.

There is much missing from Acts 2:38 that prevents its use as a proof text for the act of water baptism conferring righteousness upon the subject of the baptism. To use this text for such a proof, we must obtain all that we need in the way of proof from the single word translated as "for" in the KJV.

Acts 2:38
38 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.(KJV)

You would equate "for" to mean "to bring about" or something similar. The word simply does not have that meaning in this context. Particularly in light of clarifying text located later in Acts, and also in Romans (more on this later).

Omitting the parenthetical clause from the midst of 2:38, to help us see the key grammatical elements involved in this translation, we get the essence of the command " . . . be baptized . . . for the remission of sins." This instruction can perhaps be more easily understood if we substitute less "spiritual" (but more familiar) terms. Consider a military band, assembled for inspection and review. One of the soldiers is to be recognized for heroism. His commander might order him forward by saying, "Step forward and be decorated for bravery."

Which is the symbol, and which is the issue of substance? What is the cause that led to an appropriate response? His bravery precipitated his being decorated. If he had not been brave there would be nothing to be decorated "for."

Back to the Bible text. If those Peter was addressing had no remission of sin through Christ, if they had not received His righteousness imputed to them because of their faith in Him, there would have been no remission to be baptized "for."

And from whence comes the imputing of that righteousness? From God, when the heart of the sinner turns to Christ as his only hope for salvation. Consider the following.

Acts 10:43
43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (KJV)

Rom 10:9-11
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation (recall that salvation can include justification or sanctification or both - see my post in "What is salvation").
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. (KJV)

I am afraid that to attribute the remission of sins to the washing with water is to confuse the celebration, the symbolic expression of the spiritual cleansing that comes through faith in Christ, with the belief unto justification.

Like the Wizard in the Emerald City of Oz, you are crediting the medal with instilling valor. It is cute in a fantasy story. But it is very dangerous in theology.

By His Grace Alone,

Mike

 

[christian-only]

If those Peter was addressing had no remission of sin through Christ, if they had not received His righteousness imputed to them because of their faith in Him, there would have been no remission to be baptized "for."

Not so! To understand the Biblical phrase "for the remission of sins" we must start in Matthew 26:28.

"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matthew 26:28)​

Now, according to you, "for the remission of sins" means "because you already have the remission of sins." If so, Christ is saying "I die on the cross BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAVE THE REMISSION OF SINS." How can that be?

Now, the phrase "for the remission of sins" is the same exact phrase in both Acts 2:38 and MAtthew 26:28, in both Greek "eis afesin hamartion" and English "for the remission of sins," and means the SAME THING in both passages.

In fact, we see by this phrase the connection between baptism and our Lord's death. Does not Paul say "so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?"? Well, why then do you suppose that water baptism is some ritual disconnected from Christ's death? It isn't! It's where we first receive benefit from his death, where we receive remission of sins for the first time!

"How does water remit sins?" It doesn't - Christ's death does, BUT it is at baptism that we enter His death and reap the benefits of it. In fact, the phrase "eis afesin hamartion" could be translated "into the remission of sins." If you look at it that way, then remission of sins is like a reservoir containing Christ's blood which He shed "into the remission of sins" and into which we are baptized being baptized "into the remission of sins," that reservoir where Christ's very blood is.

Note on the other "for"s in Matthew 26:28

There are three Greek words translated "for" in the KJV of Matthew 26:28, "For (GAR) this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for (PERI) many for (EIS) the remission of sins." GAR means "because (obviously the use in this verse), therefore, why" PERI "concerning, about, for the benefit of (obviously the use in this verse)" and EIS "into, unto, to, in order to."​

 

[Philip]

C-O is correct concerning the meaning of eis. It always has the meaning of "to cause" or "to enter into" as in

John 6:22
The day following, when the people which stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was none other boat there, save that one whereinto his disciples were entered, and that Jesus went not with his disciples into [eis] the boat, but that his disciples were gone away alone;​

The Greek word translated as "for" with the meaning "because of" is en, as in

Luke 1:44
For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for[en] joy.​

 

[Andyman_1970]

I posted this in the "Liberal Theology" Board.


In the New Testament, circumcision is mentioned many times. But with respect to baptism it is specifically mentioned in Col. 2:11-12: "In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead" (NIV). In these verses, baptism and circumcision are related. The extent of that relationship is still being debated. Nevertheless, Paul also says in Rom. 2:29, "But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God." As you can see, for the Christian, circumcision is of the heart. And because it is, we Christians are now included the Abrahamic covenant where before, we, the Gentiles, were not. "Remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world," (Eph. 2:12, NASB).


In Gal. 3:8, Paul calls the promise of the Abrahamic covenant, the gospel. He says, "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, 'All the nations shall be blessed in you, so then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.'". So, Paul calls the Abrahamic covenant, the gospel. The sign of this Abrahamic covenant was circumcision.

Here is the catch. Since the Abrahamic covenant is still valid (we are justified by faith -- Gal. 3:8), then is there a covenant sign for us today? I believe that baptism replaces the Old Testament covenant sign of circumcision because:

1) there was a New Covenant in the communion supper (Luke 22:20), and

2) in circumcision there was the shedding of blood, but in baptism no blood is shed. The covenant sign has changed now that the Law has been fulfilled in Christ.

Understanding that baptism is a covenant sign, you can see that it is a representation of the reality of Christ circumcising our hearts (Rom. 2:29; Col. 2:11-12). It is our outward proclamation of the inward spiritual blessing of regeneration, of "heart-circumcision." It comes after faith which is a gift of God (Rom. 13:3) and the work of God (John 6:28).

 

[Diaconeo]

It is interesting to see this come down to the grammatical syntax of the Greek. I stayed away from that as much as possible because my grammatical understanding of the Greek is weak and must come from those that have given thier lives' work to studying it. Much of my study in the grammatics of Acts 2:38 does in fact lie in the Greek preposition 'eis' but there is also consideration of the preposition 'apo'.

Let me start of by stating that I am a baptistic, conservative, independant calvinist with lutheran tendencies who takes a literal approach to the interpretation of Scripture in with the endeavor of harmonizing all to a 'proof text'. I will also offer this, a proof text out of context is a pretense.

'Eis[' has 26 meanings in English and is used in Acts 8:38 to mean into "...they went down into the water, both Phillip and the eunuch; and he baptized him." This preposition is also translated over 500 times in the NT as 'unto' and could also be used in the Acts 2:38 proof text, thus reading it, "..unto remission of sin."
'Eis' may also be interpreted, when used in the accusitve, as 'on the account of' or 'on the basis of' and also translated 'because of' as in Mt. 3:11, 12:41, and Mk. 1:4. However, this is not it's usual translation, which normally describes purpose or direction. But it also does not preclude that this is an acceptable translation.
'Eis is also the Greek preposition for criminals wanted 'for' a crime. Now the question remains, is the criminal wanted for the purpose of committing a crime, or on account of his committing a crime. I think we can all see that it is because of the fact that he committed a crime. Thus we must then ask, are we baptized for the purposed of remission of sins, or on account of remission of sins?

Another grammatical point is the use of singular and plural verbs. It should be noted that 'repent' is plural while 'be baptized' is singular. Interestingly enough, 'your' is also plural. So what we have in a singular imparetive in the middle of a group instruction, that being, 'be baptized.' If we read it in a normal literal way, then our proof text reads like so, "Repent{pl} for the remission of your sin, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Chirst, and you will recieve the Holy Ghost." When translated this way, it is obvious that repentance is for the remission of sins and agrees with Peter's developed doctrine in Acts 5:31, 10:43, 13:38 and 26:18. However, if we link the remission of sins to 'be baptized' then we have a problem. "Repent and each one of you be baptized for the remission of your {pl} sins, and you shall recieve the Holy Ghost." This leaves us in a particularlly sticky grammatical dillema, namely that eveyone had to be baptized or none of them would recieve remissino of sins. I do not believe that this is the meaning of Peter's instruction.

As an interesting thought to all of this. Was Peter mistaking when he commanded each one of them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ alone? Did not Jesus command to have deciples baptized in three names??? hmmm

In Christ,

Matthew

 

[Philip]

'Eis' may also be interpreted, when used in the accusitve, as 'on the account of' or 'on the basis of' and also translated 'because of' as in Mt. 3:11, 12:41, and Mk. 1:4. However, this is not it's usual translation, which normally describes purpose or direction. But it also does not preclude that this is an acceptable translation.

None of these three verses support a translation of eis as meaning "because of". Matthew 3:11 and Mark 1:4 both deal with baptism for the remission of sin. Claiming that this supports of a translation to "because of" requires you to first make an assumption concerning the nature of baptism.

Matthew 12:41 does not support your claim either. It can be read just as easily as stating that Nineveh reformed into the teach of Jonah. That is, they did what he said.

'Eis is also the Greek preposition for criminals wanted 'for' a crime. Now the question remains, is the criminal wanted for the purpose of committing a crime, or on account of his committing a crime. I think we can all see that it is because of the fact that he committed a crime. Thus we must then ask, are we baptized for the purposed of remission of sins, or on account of remission of sins?

Do you citation or example of this usage of eis?

This leaves us in a particularlly sticky grammatical dillema, namely that eveyone had to be baptized or none of them would recieve remissino of sins. I do not believe that this is the meaning of Peter's instruction.

This is not a "grammatical dilemma". The phrase "and each of you" necessitates that command be baptized. This emphasizes that it was important for each and every one of them to repent and be baptized. It should be read this way:

First, Peter addresses the group as one: All of you (plural) must repent.
Then Peter speaks to the group as individuals: Each and everyone of you (singular) must be baptized.
Finally, Peter addresses those that will be baptize as a group: All of you (plural) who do this will receive the Holy Spirit.

 

[Philip]

Eis is also the Greek preposition for criminals wanted 'for' a crime. Now the question remains, is the criminal wanted for the purpose of committing a crime, or on account of his committing a crime.

Please provide a citation for this. As I look through Scripture, the closest I have found is this:

Luke 23:19
(He [Barabbas] was one who had been thrown into prison for an insurrection made in the city, and for murder.)​

The word translated as "for" is dia, not eis. The word eis does appear in this verse. It is translated as "into".

Perhaps

Acts 4:9
if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well,​

but this does not use eis either. Could you point to an example?

 

[christian-only]

Understanding that baptism is a covenant sign, you can see that it is a representation of the reality of Christ circumcising our hearts (Rom. 2:29; Col. 2:11-12). It is our outward proclamation of the inward spiritual blessing of regeneration, of "heart-circumcision."

It is the outward sign of that which is received inside itself, as Paul says "buried with Him in baptism, IN WHICH you also were raised with Him through faith in the operation of God, who raised Him from the dead." (Col 2:12)

It is INSIDE baptism (not before, not after) that a person is spiritually resurrected, therefore baptism is a sign of what is received inside it.

Furthermore, when a person is being baptized they must believe they are receiving it, or they will not receive it, seeing as how he says it is "through faith in the operation of God" - what operation? That spiritual resurrection, circumcision and regeneration which the Spirit performs INSIDE baptism. This is why Jesus said a man must be born of water and of the Spirit.

 

[workman]

Acts 2:38 "...Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins..."

Nicean Creed "...We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins..."

Don't people who deny that baptism is the point at which remission of sins is recieved deny both Acts 2:38 and the Nicean Creed (which one must believe to post here)? Just curious.

Hi all! Thanks be to God we can all express our beliefs here without being persecuted eh? No one is hunting me down to kill me because of what I believe in....At least not yet anyhow.

Great topic and one we should all consider seriously as we are discussing the very words of God here! I have been studying on this very subject in great depth for a couple years now and I'm excited to share what I have learned from the Lord's word and what I believe God has showed me.

Unfortunately I just found this and time is short...tonight. So I will come back to this in the AM. I look forward to discussing this with you all.

~A "workman" for the Lord