Did Baptism Ever Wash Away Sins?

[staysharp]

Num 19:9

9 And a man that is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and lay them up without the camp in a clean place, and it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water of separation: it is a purification for sin.
KJV
The scripture states that the “ waters of separation” were for purification for sin.

WERE NOT THESE SANITARY SINS AGAINST THE COMMUNITY OF ISRAEL? WAS THIS NOT A PROCESS FOR THOSE WHO WERE UNCLEAN? IF THEY CLEANSED ONE WEEK AND TOUCHED A DEAD BODY THE NEXT, THEY HAD TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AGAIN.

FURTHERMORE, IF THIS PROCESS REMOVED THE SINS OF THE PEOPLE, WHY WOULD THE PRIEST NEED TO APPLY THE BLOOD TO THE MERCY SEAT? WHY WOULDN'T THIS SUFFICE ALONE?

WHY STILL OFFER SACRIFICES?

WITHOUT THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD THERE IS NO REMISSION.

11'(K)The one who touches the corpse of any person shall be unclean for seven days.

12'That one shall (L)purify himself from uncleanness with the water on the third day and on the seventh day, and then he will be clean; but if he does not purify himself on the third day and on the seventh day, he will not be clean.

13'(M)Anyone who touches a corpse, the body of a man who has died, and does not purify himself, (N)defiles the tabernacle of the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from Israel Because the water for impurity was not (O)sprinkled on him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is still on him.

14'This is the law when a man dies in a tent: everyone who comes into the tent and everyone who is in the tent shall be unclean for seven days.

15'Every open vessel, which has no covering tied down on it, shall be unclean.

16'(P)Also, anyone who in the open field touches one who has been slain with a sword or who has died naturally, or a human bone or a grave, shall be unclean for seven days.

17'Then for the unclean person they shall take some of the ashes of the burnt (Q)purification from sin and flowing water shall be added to them in a vessel.

18'A clean person shall take hyssop and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it on the tent and on all the furnishings and on the persons who were there, and on the one who touched the bone or the one slain or the one dying naturally or the grave.

The blood from the red heifer was sprinkled before the tabernacle apparently when the supply of ashes was depleted and needed to be replenished.

AND YOU FIND THIS WHERE?

Num 19:4
4 And Eleazar the priest shall take of her blood with his finger, and sprinkle of her blood directly before the tabernacle of the congregation seven times:
KJV

[QUOTE]If they were not cleansed by the waters of separation they were cut off from the congregation of Israel for defiling the tabernacle or sanctuary.

I BELIEVE IS SAID THIS; I CALLED IT THE COMMUNITY, WHICH SOME TRANSLATIONS REFER.

This misrepresentation is apparently the crux of the argument being made here. Saying that, “the blood is applied at baptism,” is not, "replacing the blood with baptism," anymore than the sprinkling of the blood of the sin offering on the mercy seat replaced the blood of the ram that was offered.

NOT SURE I FOLLOW YOU HERE. WAS NOT THE BLOOD OF THE SACRIFICE THE SAME AS WAS OFFERED ON THE MERCY SEAT?

What the annual sin offering and cleansing process with the water of separation does demonstrate is that it was not enough for a sacrifice to be made but the blood had to be applied to cover the sin.

THIS WE AGREE ON.

The “water of separation” is a beautiful type of how we are washed by the blood in baptism.

HOW SO? THE BLOOD WAS NOT ADDED TO THE WATER, THE ASHES WERE.

The blood of the heifer was the offering for the sin, but the individual was unclean until the sacrifice was mixed with the water and applied to the individual.

AGAIN, YOU ARE GIVING THIS PROCESS ETERNAL SALVATIONAL PROPERTIES. WAS BEING UNCLEAN A SIN UNTO DEATH AGAINST THE SOUL?, OR WAS IT A SIN AGAINST THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL AND THE LAW?

MANY LIVED UNCLEAN, LEPERS, SICKLY, THE WOMEN WITH THE ISSUE OF BLOOD, ETC. WERE THESE PEOPLE NOT SAVED BECAUSE THEY WERE RITUALLY UNCLEAN?

IF THIS COULD SAVE THE PEOPLE, WHY DID THE PEOPLE STILL NEED TO OFFER A SACRIFICE AND BRING OFFERINGS AND WHY DID THE PRIEST OFFER YEARLY SACRIFICE FOR THE NATION?

We cannot mix the physical remains of our sacrifice in the waters of baptism but do mix the sacrifice with the water by invoking the Name of He from whose side flowed blood and water.

SO WE MIX THE SACRIFICE BY INVOCATION? NOW, THAT'S THE CRAZIEST THING I'VE READ SO FAR. WHAT SCRIPTURE ARE YOU REFERRING TO HERE?

If we place our faith in Christ and His blood by being baptized our sins are washed away.

NOW IF WE PLACE OUR FAITH IN CHRIST AND HIS BLOOD IS CORRECT, THIS WE HAVE SCRIPTURE FOR. NOT BY BEING BAPTIZED ARE YOUR SINS WASHED AWAY. THIS IS NOT SCRIPTURAL.

It is again a misrepresentation to state that being baptized is disregarding the sacrifice when in fact it is appropriating and applying the blood of the sacrifice.

SO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS WE CAN APPLY THE BLOOD TO OURSELVES IN BAPTISM? WE APPROPRIATE THE BLOOD OF THE SACRIFICE IN BAPTISM? THIS IS SOMETHING WE DO?

DID NOT CHRIST ALREADY DO THIS ON OUR BEHALF? WASN'T THE OFFERING UNTO GOD ON OUR BEHALF?

THE BLOOD WAS APPLIED TO THE MERCY SEAT. SHOW ME WHERE THE BLOOD OF THE SACRIFICE WAS APPLIED TO A PERSON? IN THE WATERS OF SEPARATION, THE BLOOD WAS NOT APPLIED TO THE PERSON, THE ASHES WERE MIXED WITH WATER.

Aahhh, well at least we can agree as to the fact that Peter would be mortified at the doctrines of baptism being espoused by some in this day.

FINALLY SOMETHING WE AGREE ON! LOL

He does tell us what he thinks of baptism in this setting.

1 Peter 3:20-21

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
KJV

Eight souls were saved by water as we are now saved by baptism.

AGAIN, WATER DIDN'T SAVE THEM, THE ARK SAVED THEM. THE WATER REPRESENTED DEATH. WHAT PETER IS REFERRING TO IS THE SEPARATION OF THE WATER THAT SAVED THEM FROM DYING LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.

The scripture also has this to say about those who would twist the doctrine.
2 Tim 3:13-14

13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
KJV

SURELY, YOUR NOT CALLING US OF THE PCI PERSUASION EVIL AND DECEIVED?

BTW, THANKS FOR THE "SPIRITED DEBATE", I DIDN'T REALLY KNOW HOW THE "BAPTISMAL REGENERISTS" VIEWED THIS. NOW I KNOW AND I REALLY APPRECIATE IT.

ALSO, THE CAPS ARE NO INDICATOR OF BEING MAD OR YELLING, I JUST FORGOT HALF WAY THROUGH IT WAS ON AND DECIDED TO KEEP TYPING.

GOD BLESS YOU MY BROTHER IN CHRIST!

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by embonpoint

This misrepresentation is apparently the crux of the argument being made here. Saying that, “the blood is applied at baptism,” is not, "replacing the blood with baptism," anymore than the sprinkling of the blood of the sin offering on the mercy seat replaced the blood of the ram that was offered. What the annual sin offering and cleansing process with the water of separation does demonstrate is that it was not enough for a sacrifice to be made but the blood had to be applied to cover the sin.

The “water of separation” is a beautiful type of how we are washed by the blood in baptism. The blood of the heifer was the offering for the sin, but the individual was unclean until the sacrifice was mixed with the water and applied to the individual.

We cannot mix the physical remains of our sacrifice in the waters of baptism but do mix the sacrifice with the water by invoking the Name of He from whose side flowed blood and water.



If we place our faith in Christ and His blood by being baptized our sins are washed away. It is again a misrepresentation to state that being baptized is disregarding the sacrifice when in fact it is appropriating and applying the blood of the sacrifice.



Aahhh, well at least we can agree as to the fact that Peter would be mortified at the doctrines of baptism being espoused by some in this day.

He does tell us what he thinks of baptism in this setting.

1 Peter 3:20-21

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
KJV

Eight souls were saved by water as we are now saved by baptism.

The scripture also has this to say about those who would twist the doctrine.
2 Tim 3:13-14

13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
KJV

amen

[embonpoint]

Originally Posted by embonpoint

9 And a man that is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and lay them up without the camp in a clean place, and it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water of separation: it is a purification for sin.
KJV
The scripture states that the “ waters of separation” were for purification for sin.

Originally Posted by staysharp

Num 19:9

WERE NOT THESE SANITARY SINS AGAINST THE COMMUNITY OF ISRAEL? WAS THIS NOT A PROCESS FOR THOSE WHO WERE UNCLEAN? IF THEY CLEANSED ONE WEEK AND TOUCHED A DEAD BODY THE NEXT, THEY HAD TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AGAIN.

FURTHERMORE, IF THIS PROCESS REMOVED THE SINS OF THE PEOPLE, WHY WOULD THE PRIEST NEED TO APPLY THE BLOOD TO THE MERCY SEAT? WHY WOULDN'T THIS SUFFICE ALONE?

WHY STILL OFFER SACRIFICES?

You are asking me to answer for scripture and I believe it is always safer to answer with scripture. This was a purification, for what you are calling “sanitary sins,” but it is important to note that it was called a purification for sin by the scripture.

No types in the OT are exact representations of the New but are shadows of the real. The scripture does not say, nor did I, that this water was a cleansing for all the sins of Israel, thus the need for the annual sin offering.

What this does show is the offering of the blood of the heifer for specific sins and how it was applied to an individual after being offered.

Originally Posted by staysharp

WITHOUT THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD THERE IS NO REMISSION.

Without the blood of the red heifer there would have been no cleansing but without the application of the water the blood would not have been effective for the individual.

Originally Posted by embonpoint

The blood from the red heifer was sprinkled before the tabernacle apparently when the supply of ashes was depleted and needed to be replenished.

Originally Posted by staysharp

AND YOU FIND THIS WHERE? .

You obviously noticed since you italicized that I said “apparently,” based on the process described in the scripture.

You stated as fact in your original post that the blood of the red heifer was sprinkled annually on the mercy seat.

Originally Posted by staysharp

Yearly, the high priest was required to offer the blood of the Red Heifer before God and enter into the Holy of Holies and apply that blood for the nation of Israel on the mercy seat.

I don’t believe that I am the one struggling with the facts as to what was done with the Red Heifer. Your above quote is erroneous and cannot be substantiated by scripture.

Originally Posted by embonpoint

If they were not cleansed by the waters of separation they were cut off from the congregation of Israel for defiling the tabernacle or sanctuary.

Originally Posted by staysharp

I BELIEVE IS SAID THIS; I CALLED IT THE COMMUNITY, WHICH SOME TRANSLATIONS REFER

The point is, that you seemed to be trying to diminish the spiritual aspects of the waters of separation representing it as simply a physical washing for sanitary reasons. The scripture refers specifically to the tabernacle and sanctuary thus denoting being cut off not only from the community but from the place where God met with his people and where the offerings were made. There were spiritual consequences to not being washed.

Originally Posted by embonpoint

Eight souls were saved by water as we are now saved by baptism.

Originally Posted by staysharp

AGAIN, WATER DIDN'T SAVE THEM, THE ARK SAVED THEM. THE WATER REPRESENTED DEATH. WHAT PETER IS REFERRING TO IS THE SEPARATION OF THE WATER THAT SAVED THEM FROM DYING LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.

Your argument again seems to be with scripture and not me. I did not say that they were saved by water, I Peter, 3 does. It does not say they were saved by the ark.

They were saved from a sinful world that was cleansed by the waters of the flood they stepped off the ark into a new world and new life for all intents and purposes. Old things were passed away and all things had become new.

“The like figure whereunto baptism doth also now save us.”

[Fiyahstarter]

Oh, now I get it! LOL!!

Seriously, tho... I couldn't be more confused.

But this I do know: I am just glad I know WHO Jesus is, am baptized in HIS name, and am filled with HIS Spirit! What order they came in and when I was "technically" saved, I don't care. I HAVE ARRIVED!

You guys ARE great! Really love reading your stuff! Everyone's stuff!

DanA... I'm glad you're back!

Now play nice, fellas... because we all DO love the same LORD, right?

[anapko]

Originally Posted by Alter Ego

War is hell.

So the different views of Oneness Pentecostals qualifies it to a war? Wouldn't out Lord be pleased!

[anapko]

Originally Posted by Ronzo

If that's the way you see it, that explains your posts... your attitude stinks.

Along with another one...!

[Hoovie]

anapko, you look like pastor Teets

[anapko]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

anapko, you look like pastor Teets

LOL...never met him, but he must be one good looking fellow!

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by anapko

LOL...never met him, but he must be one good looking fellow!

Scotty Teets is a fine fellow indeed!

Now don't abuse his likeness!