The Church of Christ and necessity of Baptism

[Guest]

Hi Paidion,

This is second time in this thread you've understood my words differently than I intended to communicate them. I apologize for not being clearer. When I say "it doesn't matter", what I mean by "it" is not the reason Christ commanded baptism, but my lack of understanding what that reason is. There are many things God commands of us that we don't yet understand, but what matters is our faithfulness to do it anyways.

Regarding yours and Homer's view of baptismal regeneration, you may or may not be right. But if you are right, that means I wasn't truly converted the year before my baptism, when I thought I was and my life bore fruit of it. It means that none of the people who lived during the time that infant baptism was universal in the church were really Christians. It means that Luther, Calvin, or any of the reformers (in fact every Presbyterian and Lutheran today) were not regenerated believers (except Anabaptists). I just have a hard time believing that and I'm not convinced by the evidence that you both have given.

You wrote:

I don't think that there is anything suggesting that baptism is a "condition for salvation." Rather I think the "verses and anecdotes" tell us that at baptism the the door to salvation is entered. Salvation is a process, but regeneration occurs instantaneously ----- when we are baptized.

Doesn't your first sentence contradict the rest of the statement? If baptism is the "door to salvation", isn't that a condition? If we don't meet the condition of entering through the "door" of baptism, we aren't yet saved. Isn't that what you're saying?

I'm sorry guys, I just can't make that leap. That's ok though, at least we agree that believers are commanded by Jesus to be baptized, which makes it a requirement. So in practice we are consistent, even if we're not in theory.

Lord bless.

[Guest]

Paidion,

Happy Easter, Paidion.

I have heard Catholics and Protestants describe water baptism the way that you have in your last post, though I have had difficulty finding such a teaching in the Bible myself. In your post you described how you believe we are regenerated during the physical act of baptism, yet not by it. What is the difference? If what you believe is true, I am not sure why or how you could say in the same post that baptism is not a condition for salvation. Where else does a person become regenerated if not during water baptism, according to what you said?

Can a person be a Christian and not regenerated? Is there an in-between state? What about the period in a person's life where they have professed Jesus as Lord but have not yet been water baptized. What are they? My understanding of being a Christian is that it is an all or none condition. The Christian life (especially in regard to sanctification) is a process, but being "born again" is the singular event that begins our life as a Christian, and this begins when we believe.

I believe regeneration occurs at the point where a person professes Jesus. This is the point at which the Bible indicates that we recieve the Holy Spirit. An example of this would be in Acts 10:44-48, where a group of people heard Peter preach and not only believed but began to speak in tongues. Peter said, "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have recieved the Holy Spirit just as we have." Here is an example where these new converts were regenerated prior to baptism - and there can be no doubt that this is so since they had the Spirit of God. There was no need for an exception to the "regeneration at baptism" norm that you appeal to since there was nothing preventing water baptism. According to Peter, they had the Holy Spirit prior to baptism. They were so full of the Spirit, in fact, that they were speaking in tongues and magnifying God, Luke tells us. We are told that, in obedience to Jesus' command, these believers were then water baptized. However, what internal working was left to be worked by water baptism in these converts who already had the Spirit of God? In fact, Peter said that these converts, yet to be baptized, had the Spirit of God "just as we have". They apparently had no less of God or regeneration than Peter, prior to baptism! How could they not be regenerated but have the Spirit and be speaking in tongues? What other internal working did water baptism perform for them? What internal working did they lack prior to their immersion?

The author of Hebrews states that it is the washing with the blood of Jesus that grants the clean conscience we enjoy as believers. In Hb. 9:13 he says, "For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" This might have been a good place for the author of Hebrews to mention our water baptism as believers and how that has a role in the regeneration process and establishing our clean conscience. This would have been especially useful since Hebrews was written to Jewish believers who grew up with ceremonial washings as a part of their Jewish relgion. Yet, although the author does not come out and say "baptism is just symbolic", his failing to mention it I believe is not coincidental.

Homer mentioned some illustrations to explain your shared ideas about faith and works. I think we all can appreciate how an act of love means you love someone (the example of the husband making his wife something to show he cares for her). But the meaning of an action does not mean the action is what it represents. Gifts are not love. What something means or represents is not the thing it represents - that's the definition of representing something! What if another husband did the same act that Homer described, but did it because he felt guilty about an extra-marital affair he had that his wife didn't know about. It's the same gift, but not the same in meaning. The common denominator is not the bird feeder or spice rack that the husband made, but its what is in his heart. Love may be represented by many things we do or say, but love is immaterial and invisible (though no less real than its manifestations). It is the cause and motive of our actions, but is not the same thing as what we make or what we say. The fruit hanging on the tree is closely related to the tree, as a product of the tree, but is not the tree itself. The fruit of our faith is the good works we do, but the works are not my faith. They are a measure of my faith. The are caused by my faith. They do not cause my faith.

Homer mentioned some examples where people acted on their faith (the woman who grabbed Jesus' garment and was healed, or the paralyzed man who was healed). It is their faith that made them well, Jesus said. Jesus saw proof of their faith because only someone who really believed in His ability to heal the sick would go to the lengths that these desperate people did. I do not believe that Jesus garment had anything to do with the women being healed. Jesus interacted with people on a daily basis for over 30 years, and it seems doubtful that every time someone touched him in the course of daily life that power went out of Him. Is it the garment or the act of grabbing the garment that healed her? I believe it is the faith that moved these people to act that God honored. That is also the kind of faith that saves a soul.

It is this concept of faith producing works that is expressed in Revelations 20:12 when it says, "And the dead were judged according to their works...". It is why James said in 2:18 "Show me your faith without works, and I will show you my faith by my works." He does not say that faith are works or that works are faith. They are different as one causes the other; works prove the existence of faith.

I do not doubt you or Homer are believers, and I am not calling your salvation or motives into question. I do, however, have to question why you both believe that this one act is where regeneration occurs? There have been many schools of thought that have tried to add "plus 1" to saving faith in Jesus in order to be saved or regenerated or right with God. The Judaizers, for example, wanted to add circumcision, for starters. Paul wrote in Gal. 3:2,3 "This only I want to learn from you: Did you recieve the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? ....Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh". Paul had circumcision in mind here, not baptism, and most likely the believers in the church at Galatia were already baptized. But I think his sentiment can be applied to this debate. We, like the believers in Acts 10 and the thief on the cross, have recieved the Spirit through faith and not by any religious ceremonial act, even one that Christ commands of all believers. Paul could have mentioned baptism as a part of that equation, especially to place it in contradistinction to circumcision, a particularly Old Testament act. Paul could have called to mind how they had recieved the Spirit as they came out of the water. Maybe Paul didn't because that is not how he viewed baptism.

You and Homer will not like that I have mentioned that you are adding a requirement of salvation to our faith in Jesus, but if regeneration occurs in the baptismal, then you have. In an earlier post, Homer warned me to not be so sure that alms for the poor aren't required for salvation because of his interpretation of Matt 7:21ff. But that statement doesn't mean we're saved by our works, yet feeding the poor is required for salvation as Homer understands it. Seem clear? How many other works are required? And if baptism isn't an act or a work, what is it? Is it in the realm of thought or action? Is it in a different dimension?

In your attempts to reconcile salvation by faith alone (because no one wants to be known as the "salvation by works guy" at this forum) with a belief that baptism is where regeneration occurs, you have been forced to use contradictory statements that others have also noticed. You say baptism is where regeneration occurs and is at the the door of our relationship with God and is used to actually cleanse the conscience while we're in the water because its not just symbolic....BUT its not required for salvation. This requires a very complicated new lexicon where what you believe and what you do are now defined differently than in any other field of study I have come across. This is done to allow the act of baptism to be a requirement for regeneration yet at the same time not be an act so we're still saved by faith alone. You can have your cake and eat it too!

Like you, I do not believe profession is a half-hearted agreement that God exists or that Jesus existed, and it is not an insincere comittment either. My belief that baptism is merely symbolic should not be interpreted to mean that I devalue it. I am glad that you and Homer hold baptism in high regard, and both of you seem to do so out of respect for Jesus' command that His disciples be baptized. On that I commend you both. But is the regeneration moment really in the water? If it is, it may prove too much for you to separate how you believe that it's not the baptism that regenerates, but that its in the water where regeneration occurs. I see no Scripture that teaches those things and I see examples where the opposite is true. The thief and the people in Acts 10 are not exceptions to what the norm you claim is taught in Scripture. Calling for multiple exceptions when verses don't fit a doctrine should always raise concerns about the ability of that doctrine to harmonize with the whole counsel of God. Rather I think these examples seriously challenge the ideas you and Homer have presented.

[Guest]

Doesn't your first sentence contradict the rest of the statement? If baptism is the "door to salvation", isn't that a condition? If we don't meet the condition of entering through the "door" of baptism, we aren't yet saved. Isn't that what you're saying?

Christopher (and David, too), I think one thing that trips you up in the understanding of the necessity of Baptism is your understanding of "salvation". It is a process, and no one is yet "saved", except in the sense that Paul in Ephesians states "You have been saved". That is the only NT book which makes such a statement. And I think it is made in the same sense that the author of Hebrews states "All things have been put under his feet" and immediately afterward states "But we do not yet see all things under his feet". When God decides to do a thing, it's as good as done now. "He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. We are being saved essentially from sin
(not hell), and the process is not yet complete.

So baptism is the "door of salvation" in the sense of being the point in time when the process begins. The reason I said that baptism was not "a condition for salvation" is that I believe that baptism is salvation itself -- in the sense that it is the first of a series of many steps in the process. I see no contradiction here. Notwithstanding, depending upon how you are using the word "condition", perhaps one could say that it is a condition. Tell me, is signing a contract "a condition" for having one's house built?
Or is it simply the first step? Perhaps in one sense, baptism would be a "condition" for the salvation process.

David, I intend to respond to your post later. I will be quite busy for the next few days. I am going to Thunder Bay to take in two days of Steve's teachings, but hope to be able to more thoroughly explain my position on baptism to you in light of what you have written.

I am glad you recognize Homer and me as "believers". I take it that by the term you mean "disciples". There are many millions today who profess to be "believers" or "Christians" but few who would identify themselves as "disciples". Surveys taken concerning the lives of large numbers of "Christians" show that their lifestyles, on the average, do not differ substantially from that of "Non-Christians". There must be something missing! That statement of our Lord's is still true, "Narrow is the gate, and constricted is the way that leads to life, and few there are that find it."

[Guest]

Paidion,

I also will be out of pocket for the next several days. I have been on a week of vacation, and that is the only reason that I have had time to post statements as often as I have. If I don't respond to you or Homer, I am not ignoring either of you, but am probably away on business.

I agree that salvation is a process. I am probably preaching to the choir, but I think the broad definition of salvation has to do with being saved from sin: past, present and future (or justification, sanctification, and then a yet future recreation). However, as you stated, I think regeneration is instantaneous (you wrote that in an earlier post, and I agree with you). The difference of opinion between you and I is that you feel that this regeneration occurs at baptism (unless there's no water, in which case exceptions are made), whereas I believe it begins at the point a person comes to believe.

You are, unfortunately, too corrrect that today many people think of their relationship with God as "saying the sinner's prayer" and nothing more. This reflects the watered-down teaching of most churches. My wife and I used to live in Dallas and Houston, the so-called Bible belt. You wouldn't believe how difficult it was to find a good church. There wasn't one on every street corner, I can tell you that. This defective understanding of salvation may be the cause for the reality you alluded to, that many who call themselves Christians are really not. Like you, I take the true Biblical meaning of "Christian" to be disciple and nothing less.

You and I share the same idea of salvation as having an even broader meaning than "not going to hell". I am not sure what you meant when you said "we are essentially being saved from sin (not hell), and the process is not yet complete". If you were referring to the ongoing process of sanctification, then I agree.

The Bible does make other statements about being saved from hell other than the book of Ephesians, though that may not be a point your were contesting in your post. I wasn't sure. Romans 10:8,9 says that if we believe and confess the Lord Jesus , we will be saved (from hell, I think in that context). There are yet other verses that give Christ's disciples assurance that they are presently saved from hell (so long as they continue abiding in Christ), and other verses that promise victory over sin during their life (sanctification).

Paidion, my contention with you and Homer is that the medium God uses to cleanse us from sin (which is synonomous with having our conscience cleansed before God) is not water, but Blood. This is stated in the verses I mentioned in I Peter 1:19 and Hebrews 9 and 10. And Paul said we have access to this grace in which we now stand through faith (Romans 5:2). People who might be reading our posts may begin to see that there are many verses that talk of faith as how we access God. You would say that you agree, but what you may actually mean is "Yes we access God by faith, but faith includes being baptized which is when we actually start acessing God". I am not sure that in the multitude of statements where only faith is mentioned that it is fair to unpack all of that extra baggage each time a verse says that. It would help me if Paul or Peter or the other authors of the New Testament would consistently include baptism by name as part of how we access God, so that I wouldn't feel like I'm importing this "implied meaning" into the text. Instead, these verses lead me to believe that all of God's children, who already have access to God through Jesus and have already been born again by God through faith, should be baptized as Jesus commanded them.

There are verses (though not really that many) like Acts 2:38, which without other information from the New Testament, could very well mean what you say it does. Yet, these same verses can be understood in the way I have suggested, which I think harmonizes with other statements of Scripture which are even less debatable and which mention faith only. I do not approach controversial topics with the attitude that "he with the most proof texts wins". However, I would say that most of the plain statements about relating to God don't mention baptism, but all mention faith. That means something.

A contract to say, build a home, is the beginning of the building project. But it is more. It defines the terms under which the workers will work and how much the client is willing to pay. Without the contract, good luck getting the construction workers out to the job site. We have a contract, or covenant, with God. Signing a contract may not be an adequate example for you and I to discuss because our covenant with God also addresses the past, something most construction companies could care less about (except your past credit, that is!).

A convert with the Holy Spirit in his/her heart is what goes under the water, and a baptized convert with the Holy Spirit in his/her heart is what comes out. We follow Christ in His example of baptism and in His command to be baptized. If you disagree, then you will need to be able to clearly define the state of the person prior to baptism? You will not be able to reply with humility "It's not up to me to judge". Our religion is not so mysterious that we cannot test whether we are His. In fact, Paul tells the Corinthians to test themselves and see whether they are in the faith.

Salvation may be a process, but our religion can allow us to call ourselves His children now. What am I if I have repented and believed but have not been immersed?

Have a good trip.

[Guest]

David,

We are having a hard time understanding one another here!

You said:

In your post you described how you believe we are regenerated during the physical act of baptism, yet not by it. What is the difference? If what you believe is true, I am not sure why or how you could say in the same post that baptism is not a condition for salvation.

Let me illustrate by citing the story of victory at Jericho. It must be familiar to you how God told them to march around Jericho day by day. They were told not to make a sound with their voice until told to shout. This was certainly a trial of faith, rising day by day to march and seeing no result. Finally on the seventh day Joshua gave the command to "shout for the Lord has given you the city" and the wall fell down flat. Would you say that the walls were brought down by their shout, or was their shout the "occasion" of the wall being brought down by an act of God? This is precisely the difference you inquire about. Not a man of them is said to have thought that their obedient actions caused the wall to topple; they knew full well God did it. And what was the meaning of all their marching &c. if not faith? Was it a kind of mindless obedience or works?

but being "born again" is the singular event that begins our life as a Christian, and this begins when we believe

In your own experience, can you cite a particular point when this occured in your life apart from any action at all on your part? A point in time when you switched from total unbelief to faith and were born again?

I believe regeneration occurs at the point where a person professes Jesus

Whoa! Isn't "professing Jesus" (confession) every much "an act" as
baptism? Are you making a distinction without a difference? It seems that the practice of confessing Jesus and "calling upon His name" was a part of baptism as practiced in earliest Christianity, and in many churches today.

An example of this would be in Acts 10:44-48, where a group of people heard Peter preach and not only believed but began to speak in tongues. Peter said, "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have recieved the Holy Spirit just as we have." Here is an example where these new converts were regenerated prior to baptism - and there can be no doubt that this is so since they had the Spirit of God. There was no need for an exception to the "regeneration at baptism" norm that you appeal to since there was nothing preventing water baptism.

So "There was no need for an exception to the.....norm"? Here we have God utilizing a miraculous vision to convince Peter to go to the house of gentiles to preach to them. Being uncircumcized, they were gentiles whom the Jews would refuse baptism. Then God gives them the Holy Spirit accompanied by miraculous signs and Peter turns to the Jews accompanying him and inquires how baptism can be refused these gentiles
who have received the Holy Spirit. And you would have us believe there was nothing non-normative in this case? Quite to the contrary, this was a momentous milestone in the progress of the early church, so important that Luke refers to it three times!

But the meaning of an action does not mean the action is what it represents. Gifts are not love. What something means or represents is not the thing it represents - that's the definition of representing something!

I do not know how anything I said made you think I disagree with this. I am talking about what an action means, not what it is. Murder might mean hate or it might mean greed. Have you not heard of "hate crimes"? Are they not saying the crime has a unique meaning?

What if another husband did the same act that Homer described, but did it because he felt guilty about an extra-marital affair he had that his wife didn't know about. It's the same gift, but not the same in
meaning.

Hurray! Exactly my point! In this case, although perhaps unknown to his wife, his work had a different meaning! So baptism or anything else we do can mean trust in God or something else. In some cases baptism means love for a girl who will not otherwise marry a guy.

Homer mentioned some examples where people acted on their faith (the woman who grabbed Jesus' garment and was healed, or the paralyzed man who was healed). It is their faith that made them well, Jesus said. Jesus saw proof of their faith because only someone who really believed in His ability to heal the sick would go to the lengths that these desperate people did. I do not believe that Jesus garment had anything to do with the women being healed. Jesus interacted with people on a daily basis for over 30 years, and it seems doubtful that every time someone touched him in the course of daily life that power went out of Him. Is it the garment or the act of grabbing the garment that healed her? I believe it is the faith that moved these people to act that God honored. That is also the kind of faith that saves a soul.

I agree. Yet I would still maintain that it is important that the biblical writers described their actions as faith, precisely because, I believe, their actions had the meaning of faith.

works prove the existence of faith

Again I certainly agree. The only way to know an abstract condition exists is by the objective results produced.

In an earlier post, Homer warned me to not be so sure that alms for the poor aren't required for salvation because of his interpretation of Matt 7:21ff. But that statement doesn't mean we're saved by our works, yet feeding the poor is required for salvation as Homer understands it. Seem clear? How many other works are required?

Perhaps it is my age, but I could not find where I said this. I do believe that the lack of hospitality, shown to the brethren of Jesus in the story of the sheep and goats at the last judgement, had the meaning of rejection of the gospel message brought by his disciples. Again actions have meaning. See an important example of this very thing in 2 John 10-11.

And if baptism isn't an act or a work, what is it?

An act of faith. An appeal to God. A calling on the name of the Lord. (as stated before, words were ordinarily spoken at baptism).

This requires a very complicated new lexicon where what you believe and what you do are now defined differently than in any other field of study I have come across.

Eminent scholars of cultural anthropology of the East in biblical times insist there was virtually no difference in the minds of the people between faith and faithfulness. There is a great difference between how we think in the west and how they thought, and still think today.

The thief and the people in Acts 10 are not exceptions to what the norm you claim is taught in Scripture. Calling for multiple exceptions when verses don't fit a doctrine should always raise concerns about the ability of that doctrine to harmonize with the whole counsel of God. Rather I think these examples seriously challenge the ideas you and Homer have presented.

What is your "norm"? Is it not that you are saved the moment you believe, as you have tirelessly repeated? What if I show you a rather prominent case, involving thousands, where that was not the case! Please read carefully Acts 2:36-38. Peter assures them of who Jesus is, both Lord and Christ. "They were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, 'Men and brethren, what shall we do?' " They had obviously repented (changed their minds about Jesus; he had previously implicated them in the death of Jesus) and obviously believed. Why did not Peter inform them they were now saved? On your own testimony (see above) they were at this point Christians! Yet he urged them on to repentance (reverse course and follow Jesus) and to be baptized for the remission of their sins and reception of the Holy Spirit. And this at the momentous occasion when Peter took the "keys" and threw open the doors to the Kingdom of Heaven!

[Guest]

Christopher,

Please forgive me for nosing into your conversation with Paidion and Homer, however, in my opinion you are presenting some fundamental fallacies in regard to this subject.

First, you misapply the term “baptismal regeneration” to their position. “Baptismal regeneration” is properly used to describe the belief that the application of “baptism” removes the guilt of original sin from an infant. Some also hold that “baptismal regeneration” creates faith in the heart of an infant. I do not recall Homer or Paidion presenting these positions.

The second fallacy is basing an interpretation of scripture on how well it supports a desired outcome rather than on the meaning of the text itself. You seem to reject Paidion and Homer’s understanding of scripture because you consider it to lead you to question whether those baptized as infants, as well as those not yet baptized, are truly Christian. Our understanding of scripture must be based on what the scripture says, not on whether we like the conclusions it forces us to reach. Otherwise, scripture will never correct us. Remember, those baptized as infants and those not yet baptized are in the hands of a most merciful God, and our understanding of baptism neither confirms nor denies their status before God.

[Guest]

Hi SamIam,

No apology necessary, it's a public forum and nosing is not only welcomed, it's encouraged.

You wrote:

First, you misapply the term “baptismal regeneration” to their position. “Baptismal regeneration” is properly used to describe the belief that the application of “baptism” removes the guilt of original sin from an infant. Some also hold that “baptismal regeneration” creates faith in the heart of an infant. I do not recall Homer or Paidion presenting these positions.

Thank you for the correction. Not being familiar with the term, it seemed like a good short way to describe what Homer, Paidion, and perhaps yourself believe. I used it because Homer used it in an earlier post saying:

I reject the idea of baptismal regeneration as conferring any benefit apart from faith.

If you are correct in saying that it only applies to infant baptism, then you are correct in saying I misapplied the term.

You also wrote:

The second fallacy is basing an interpretation of scripture on how well it supports a desired outcome rather than on the meaning of the text itself. You seem to reject Paidion and Homer’s understanding of scripture because you consider it to lead you to question whether those baptized as infants, as well as those not yet baptized, are truly Christian. Our understanding of scripture must be based on what the scripture says, not on whether we like the conclusions it forces us to reach. Otherwise, scripture will never correct us.

I'll have to disagree with you that my point regarding people who were infant baptized is invalid. Thinking things out to their logical conclusion is a very common way to bolster an argument. For example, the idea of "double-predestination" is a logical conclusion reached by examining the Calvinist assertion of predestination.

I agree with you that the scripture is the final arbiter of all truth. But in cases which the scripture is not so clear, as in the topic we are currently discussing (hence the debate), we must sometimes look at other evidences (character of God, circumstantial/situational, early church beliefs, etc.) to help us form our opinions on what we believe to be true. In as much as these things agree with scripture, I think they can be used as secondary support for our conclusions. It's very common in this and other discussions.

My arguments have nothing to do with what I would "like" the scripture to say. I personally have nothing at stake in this debate. I have been baptized and I recommend every believer to do so at first opportunity. My only goal (as I believe everyone else's here) is to get at the truth of the matter.

It may or may not be true that the nobody in the church for more than 1000 years was ever truly regenerated because they were infant baptized, but I wouldn't want to tell any of the Catholics, Lutherans, or Presbyterians I know that they haven't "entered the door of salvation" yet. I personally know people in all of these groups that I would consider brothers/sisters in Christ. The evidence presented so far doesn't convince me they are not true Christians (and that's not for me to judge anyways).

You wrote:

Remember, those baptized as infants and those not yet baptized are in the hands of a most merciful God, and our understanding of baptism neither confirms nor denies their status before God.

Amen.

Lord bless.

P.S. I have to know. Do you like green eggs and ham?

[Guest]

As it is written ...

SamIam not only likes green eggs and ham, but thinks you will like them too. Even though you will not eat them in a box, you will not eat them with a fox, you will not eat them here or there, you will not eat them anywhere ...

[Guest]

When did Paul have his sins washed away?

Was it during the time when the risen Jesus met him on the road to Damascus, and asked Paul why he was persecuting Him? Was it at the moment Paul trusted Jesus, and was willing to do what Jesus asked him to do? At the moment when Paul first placed faith in the risen Lord?

No! It was at the time of Paul's baptism. Paul recounts the time after his encounter with Jesus, when Ananias met him and said, "Brother Saul, receive your sight." And in that very hour he received his sight. Then Ananias said:

"And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name." Acts 22:16

So it was not when he believed but when he was baptized that Paul's sins were washed away..... unless Ananias was theologically mistaken in believing in "baptismal regeneration".

[Guest]

Hi Paidion,

I only have a moment, but I was wondering what your interpretation of Acts 10:44-46 would be in light of your previous post. Also, what would you make of Paul's conversation with the Philippian jailer. The jailer asked in Acts 16:30 "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" to which Paul and Silas said "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your household." In this conversation, Paul and Silas seem to answer the question of salvation's requirements and do not mention baptism.

I am pretty sure Paul was saved on the road to Damascus, because in Galatians 1:11-12 he said "But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither recieved it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ". This revelation must have been His conversation with the risen Christ on the Damascus road. After all, Jesus gave Paul instructions and Paul obeyed. I think he believed from that initial conversation, and according to Paul's statement to the jailer, that is what one must do to be saved.

I will try to circle back and write a more thorough response to your post. Ananias gave Paul further instructions, as Jesus said he would, but I do not think Paul was in a pre-conversion state prior to water baptism and his account in Acts 22 does not say that either. That also may explain why Ananias calls Paul "Brother Saul" prior to immerssion.