Featured How do Baptists interpret Acts 22:18?

Good post--I think you meant Acts 22:16

 

Before you pounce all over Acts 22:16, as if you have won some moral victory, consider some things first.
First, in Acts 22, Paul was giving his testimony. It was a "shortened" version of what happened. Some things were left out, and other details were emphasized. Testimonies are always given with that purpose in mind--tailored to the audience and purpose for which they are given.
Second, the actually historical account is always more accurate. Look at the actual story and see what happened (not the "condensed" version)

First look back at Acts chapter 8:
Acts 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.
Acts 8:3 As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.
--This is Saul, the great persecutor of the Christians, Pharisee of the Pharisees, member of the Sanhedrin, a very powerful man.

Acts 9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
--Now as he travels to Damascus Jesus appears to him, and addresses him.

Acts 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
--There are two responses here:
Who are thou? and most significant of all, "Lord."
Here is a member of the Sanhedrin, one who hated Christ, now calling Christ "Lord," master, Sovereign." Never would such a proud hater of Christians submit to Christ as that. He was one of the ones that had him crucified.

And then:
Acts 9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
--Salvation was in verse 5. This was the beginning of sanctification, obedience. "Lord, what will you have me to do." Only a dedicated Christian would pray such a prayer. Saul had already been saved at this point. He was now obeying the Lord. He was totally submitted to him. He was the servant. Christ was his Lord.

Acts 9:9 And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.
--Three days he fasted.

Acts 9:12 And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.
--Now the Lord calls Ananias and instructs him to go meet Saul, and put his had upon him that he may receive his sight.
Understandably, Ananias is somewhat reluctant, for he knows of the reputation of Saul, and how he has persecuted so many Christians. But the Lord reassures him:

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.

Now, note carefully the order of events and what happens next:
Acts 9:17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.
1. Ananias puts his hands upon Saul.
2. He tells Saul the the Lord has sent him that he might receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.
3. Immediately the blindness departs; he receives his sight.
4. He arises, and is baptized.

He was already saved; his sins had already been forgiven. He had already been healed. Baptism was the last step of obedience after salvation, and it was after salvation having nothing to do with salvation.

Acts 9:19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.
20 And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.
--He ate, was strengthened, had fellowship, and immediately began to preach.

Don't get so hyped up on the "condensed" version as if you have a case. You don't. Read the complete historical account to see what really happened. Saul's conversion happened long before he was ever baptized.

 

You really shouldn't post lies on this board. If you don't know squat about the history of baptism, then go and study it before posting in ignorance.

However, my post demonstrates from the inspired history of the Bible how Paul was baptized, as an adult, and the very word "baptidzo" means "immerse", which is one of its strongest arguments.

 

The question is not whether baptism saves, as the scriptures clearly says it does. The question is not whether baptism washes away sins, as the scriptures clearly says it does. However, the question is HOW does baptism save and wash away sins - literally or figuratively. The scriptues clearly says it does as a "FIGURE" - 1 Peter. 3:21.

Moreover, the same can be said of the sacrficial and ceremonial system in the Old Testament. The language of redemption was always directly connected with sacrifices and ceremonial cleansings ("for sins" "for thy cleansing") however, Hebrews 10:1-4 informs it did not LITERALLY remit or wash away sins at all but only did in figure as a "shadow."

Jesus illustrates this clearly in Luke 5:12-15 with the cleansing of the leper:

12 ¶ And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
13 And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him.
14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

He was LITERALLY cleansed "immediately"

He was nevertheless told to go "offer for thy cleansing according as Moses commanded." This involved a sacrfice "for thy cleansing." Did he offer the sacrifice in order to be cleansed but because he had been cleansed? Both! He offered a sacrifice in order to be cleansed CEREMONIALLY or FIGURATIVELY because he had already been cleansed LITERALLY.

Bottom line it was "for a testiomy unto them." Likewise with baptism and the Lord's Supper as they are New Testament counterparts to Old Testament ceremonial institutions.

So it is very simple. When one believes they are saved LITERALLY. When one submits to baptism they are saved FIGURATIVELY. Scripture must be compared to scripture if truth is to be arrived at.

 

Can't seem to get you to deal with my response, so here it is again!

 

I take it you don't know how to debate? When someone places evidence before you that exposes your position for error, you don't simply repeat what you said, but you attempt to respond to the evidence placed before you.

Try again!

 

Here you go! Try again to respond!

 

You really shouldn't post insults because you can't defend your position from the scriptures. Everything you said is absolutely false and a lie from the pit. There was no infant baptism in the NT or in NT times.

The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that infant baptism and other practices are simply based upon tradition:

"The designation of unwritten Divine traditions was not always given all the clearness desirable especially in early times; however Catholic controversialists soon proved to the Protestants that to be logical and consistent they must admit unwritten traditions as revealed. Otherwise by what right did they rest on Sunday and not on Saturday? How could they regard infant baptism as valid, or baptism by infusion? How could they permit the taking of an oath, since Christ had commanded that we swear not at all? The Quakers were more logical in refusing all oaths, the Anabaptists in re-baptizing adults, the Sabbatarians in resting on Saturday. (Bainvel J. Transcribed by Tomas Hancil. Tradition and Living Magisterium. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV. Published 1912. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York)."


Twentieth century archaeologist and Catholic priest of the Franciscan Order, Bellarmino Bagatti correctly concluded that Judeo-Christians did not baptize infants, “following the example of the Lord” (Bagatti, From The church from the circumcision: history and archaeology of the Judaeo-Christians). Bagatti also found that the Apostle Peter was buried in the necropolis under the modern Dominus Flevit Church, in Jerusalem, at a similar time as the Pope claimed to have found evidence for Saint Peter's burial under the Vatican. Of course, this was embarrassing for the RCC, so they tried to keep it quiet. But that's another subject; back to the one at hand.

It is quite clear that it is infant baptism that was invented for two reasons: due to an erroneous view of original sin and how it affects infants, and out of superstition.

So, repent Lutheran brother, and return to the truth of the New Testament and the teaching and practice of the apostles. You have swallowed a lie.

Oh, btw, it was "tradition" to murder others in the name of Jesus for over a millenium, and your Lutheran spiritual ancestors continued that tradition with zeal, in spite of what Jesus said and taught in the NT. It is not a coincidence that the state-church murderers were also infant baptizers -- two "traditions of men" diametrically opposed to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles in the New Testament.

You accusations might work on people who don't know church history or the scriptures, but, since I know both, thoroughly, they won't work on me.

Oh... take what I have just posted, including the Catholic sources, and share them with your pastor, and see what he regurgitates.

 

You do not address my argument at all in your on line reference above. So lets try this again:


The question is not whether baptism saves, as the scriptures clearly says it does. The question is not whether baptism washes away sins, as the scriptures clearly says it does. However, the question is HOW does baptism save and wash away sins - literally or figuratively. The scriptues clearly says it does as a "FIGURE" - 1 Peter. 3:21.

Moreover, the same can be said of the sacrficial and ceremonial system in the Old Testament. The language of redemption was always directly connected with sacrifices and ceremonial cleansings ("for sins" "for thy cleansing") however, Hebrews 10:1-4 informs it did not LITERALLY remit or wash away sins at all but only did in figure as a "shadow."

Jesus illustrates this clearly in Luke 5:12-15 with the cleansing of the leper:

12 ¶ And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
13 And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him.
14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

He was LITERALLY cleansed "immediately"

He was nevertheless told to go "offer for thy cleansing according as Moses commanded." This involved a sacrfice "for thy cleansing." Did he offer the sacrifice in order to be cleansed but because he had been cleansed? Both! He offered a sacrifice in order to be cleansed CEREMONIALLY or FIGURATIVELY because he had already been cleansed LITERALLY.

Bottom line it was "for a testiomy unto them." Likewise with baptism and the Lord's Supper as they are New Testament counterparts to Old Testament ceremonial institutions.

So it is very simple. When one believes they are saved LITERALLY. When one submits to baptism they are saved FIGURATIVELY. Scripture must be compared to scripture if truth is to be arrived at.

 

This is an excellent and clear exposition -- one of the best I've ever seen.

I often disagree with you, but when you are right, you hit it dead on.

 

the ONLY sure way to test ANY doctrine is to see what the entire word of God stated concerning it, as as important as early Church fathers may have been, NONE were inspired Apostles!

 

Thank you.

When I read scripture, I try to take into account context and locale. I also compare scripture with scripture. Scripture is the primary evidence I use to determine my beliefs.

As I mentioned elsewhere, the Quakers say that the stream is purest at its source, and the further you get from the stream, the more polluted it becomes. So, the further a writer is from the NT, first century church, the less credence should be given to his/her opinions -- unless they line up with scripture.

And that is the case with baptism -- the further removed from scripture, the more erroneous and superstitious the beliefs and practices became concerning baptism, as well as other things, such as the doctrines about Mary.

I have already proved from RC sources that infant baptism was a "tradition of men", with absolutely no scriptural support whatsoever.

And Biblicist, as much as he and I have had our passionate running battles, has posted some excellent exegesis showing how the Bible itself refutes RC sacramentalism, and by extension, Magisterial Protestant sacramentalism.

Now, I do believe God works through the physical, but even this simple truth has been perverted by sacerdotal sacramentalism.