ECT Is Baptism Like Animal Sacrifice?

[Lazy afternoon]

17 “Yet now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers. 18 But those things which God foretold by the mouth of all His prophets, that the Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled. 19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, 20 and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, 21 whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.

Be converted so that the times of refreshing may come...future tense.

17 “Yet now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers. 18 But those things which God foretold by the mouth of all His prophets, that the Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled. 19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,

That was ongoing since Pentecost.




20 and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, 21 whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.

That is future.

It should be obvious that for the refreshing to come from the presence of the Lord, that He is not returned at the time of its coming.

LA

 

[kmoney]

Would you agree that animal sacrifice in the OT did not save people...that it was symbolic? It was an act of obedience and a demonstration of faith.*

Would you agree that baptism serves a similar purpose in NT times, as to sacrifice in OT days?

I think the Eucharist is a better comparison to animal sacrifice than baptism.

But yes, I'd say that all of these acts are only effective if they are backed by true repentance and faith.

Hos 6:6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

 

[kmoney]

Not to the animal.

:chuckle:

 

[kmoney]

If this is the case, why did Paul consent to be baptized?

Why did he himself baptize members of the body of Christ?

Where in the bible does it say that baptism points toward a future day of atonement?

Why does the book of Hebrews say that sins have been perfectly atoned for by the cross in a once for all time sacrifice if believer's baptism points toward a future atonement?

Good questions. It doesn't appear that Paul rejected water baptism, only that it wasn't his specific calling.

1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
1Co 1:15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
1Co 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

 

[turbosixx]

Would you agree that animal sacrifice in the OT did not save people...that it was symbolic? It was an act of obedience and a demonstration of faith.*

Would you agree that baptism serves a similar purpose in NT times, as to sacrifice in OT days?

I agree totally. The blood of bulls and goats could not remove sin so it was an act of obedience and a demonstration of faith. The blood of Christ does remove sin and baptism is how we die with Christ giving us access to that blood. That is why the bible says baptism does save us.
1 Pt. 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—

I would suggest our daily walk is our sacrificial offerings that we offer in the temple.

Rom. 12:1 Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship.
1 Cor. 3:16 Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst? 17If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for God’s temple is sacred, and you together are that temple.

 

[oatmeal]

Would you agree that animal sacrifice in the OT did not save people...that it was symbolic? It was an act of obedience and a demonstration of faith.*

Would you agree that baptism serves a similar purpose in NT times, as to sacrifice in OT days?

Although in a sense, animal sacrifices were symbolic, it was much more than that.

The shedding of blood was required for remission from sin.

Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

It was also necessary for sealing some covenants.

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

It was also used as a sign for the destroyer to passover the houses where the blood of the lamb was sprinkled on the door posts and lintel.

Exodus 12:7-13

7 And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it.

8 And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.

9 Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire; his head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof.

10 And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire.

11 And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the Lord's passover.

12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord.

13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

Exodus 12:23

For the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the Lord will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.

One thing the shedding of the blood indicated was the seriousness of the situation.




Baptism likewise was in a sense symbolic, yet it too was based on the commitment of the heart in repentance to God.

Luke 3:7-10

Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

9 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

10 And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then?

This post barely scratches the surface of what can be learned, but consider it a primer for further study

 

[turbosixx]

Although in a sense, animal sacrifices were symbolic, it was much more than that.

The shedding of blood was required for remission from sin.

Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

It was also necessary for sealing some covenants.

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

It was also used as a sign for the destroyer to passover the houses where the blood of the lamb was sprinkled on the door posts and lintel.

Exodus 12:7-13

7 And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it.

8 And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.

9 Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire; his head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof.

10 And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire.

11 And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the Lord's passover.

12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord.

13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

Exodus 12:23

For the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the Lord will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.

One thing the shedding of the blood indicated was the seriousness of the situation.




Baptism likewise was in a sense symbolic, yet it too was based on the commitment of the heart in repentance to God.

Luke 3:7-10

Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

9 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

10 And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then?

This post barely scratches the surface of what can be learned, but consider it a primer for further study

Yes, the baptism of John was like the animal sacrifices, it was not backed by the blood of Christ.

 

[6days]

Although in a sense, animal sacrifices were symbolic, it was much more than that.

The shedding of blood was required for remission from sin.

Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Thanks for your answer.
But..would you agree that the shedding of animal blood didn't purge people from their sin? It was symbolic of blood to be shed by the God-man who would truly save people from sin.

 

[oatmeal]

Thanks for your answer.
But..would you agree that the shedding of animal blood didn't purge people from their sin? It was symbolic of blood to be shed by the God-man who would truly save people from sin.

When we look closer at the issue, we realize that without the animal sacrifice, or rather without the obedience to God by sacrificing the animals, would the sins be remitted?

Lot did not want to leave Sodom. Had he not, would he have been rescued?

If Moses had not lifted up his staff at the Red Sea, would it have parted?

Exodus 14:15-21

15 And the Lord said unto Moses, Wherefore criest thou unto me? speak unto the children of Israel, that they go forward:

16 But lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine hand over the sea, and divide it: and the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea.

21 And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.

Without obedience to God, we do not receive God's promises.

Jesus told the man with the withered hand to stretch it out, then, not before, then it became whole as the other. Unless the man obeyed, the hand would not have been healed. The stretching out was more than symbolic, it was an absolute requirement.

"Go wash in the pool of Siloam" What if the blind man thought, "That is stupid, I am blind, I can't see to get to the pool of Siloam" do you think he would have been healed?

What about Namaan the Syrian who had leprosy?

II Kings 5:
9 So Naaman came with his horses and with his chariot, and stood at the door of the house of Elisha.

10 And Elisha sent a messenger unto him, saying, Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean.

11 But Naaman was wroth, and went away, and said, Behold, I thought, He will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the Lord his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper.

12 Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? may I not wash in them, and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage.

13 And his servants came near, and spake unto him, and said, My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it? how much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean?

14 Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.

God requires so little of us, yet he loads us daily with his benefits if would simply do what He asks.

Psalm 68:19

Blessed be the Lord, who daily loadeth us with benefits, even the God of our salvation. Selah.

Psalm 103:2

Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits:

Psalm 116:12

What shall I render unto the Lord for all his benefits toward me?

 

[Nick M]

Rom 5:11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

So are you going with Paul who looks back on salvation, or Peter who is looking forward? Nice to see you acknowledge two gospels and one of them is OSAS.

 

[intojoy]

Thanks for your answer.

But..would you agree that the shedding of animal blood didn't purge people from their sin? It was symbolic of blood to be shed by the God-man who would truly save people from sin.

God views sin very seriously and when an animal was sacrificed that animal suffered the full wrath of God's anger against sin. The sins of the people were not forgiven in the sense that they were given a pass but were atoned for by the sufferings of the innocent animals.

Yeshua bore the full wrath of God's judgement for all of the sins of humanity of all time past present and future when he was put to death, buried and resurrected and I by being baptized identified with the death burial and resurrection. Because I believe that that substitutionary act was sufficient in the eyes of the Father to declare me not guilty for my sin I am now justified once and for all. Baptism does not save anyone. Animal sacrifices did not save anyone. Yeshua saves and he merely commands that we identify with his message thru baptism. The ordinance of baptism doesn't save any more that taking communion doesn't save. These two ordinances are just done in obedience. Communion is done in remembrance of Yeshua's part (suffering and death), baptism is done of our part (believing and identifying).

 

[Dialogos]

He tells you in the text.

And what does that text say?

Does Paul say, "ok, I'll be baptized, but just for fun because it doesn't mean anything for the body of Christ, a population of which I have just become the first member."?

:nono:

Ananias told Paul to rise and be baptized, washing away his sins calling on His Name (Acts 22:16).

Now, what gospel was Paul saved under, Nick? The gospel of the circumcision or the gospel of the uncircumcision?


I asked why Paul baptized members of the body of Christ if that isn't for today?

You answer:

He tells you in the text. It appears you have not read Acts of the Apostles. I will cut you slack on this just like I did 6days.

I don't need slack, I need some explanation for why Paul regularly practiced something you refuse to practice and then blame Paul for not practicing it.

Under Paul's preaching Lydia and her household were baptized (Acts 16:15), the Philippian Jailer and his family (Acts 16:33), many of the Corinthians were baptized under Paul's ministry (Acts 18:6) along with Crispus the ruler of the synagogue. Paul baptized the apostles of John in Acts 19.

MAD explanations of 1 Cor 1:17 generate a lot of confusion that the historical context of that verse makes clear. Not everyone that was baptized under Paul's ministry was baptized by Paul himself.

Thus Acts 18:8 can be true...

"many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized."​

And yet Paul says he didn't directly baptized many but only Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanus and perhaps a few others.

The simplest and best explanation is that Aquilla, Silas and Timothy did a fair amount of the baptizing in Corinth.

1 Cor 1:17 points out a division of labor when Paul sees large numbers of converts. Paul preaches, for that is why he was sent, and, for the most part, leaves the baptizing to others.

This is similar to Jesus' ministry where Jesus does the proclamation but His disciples did the baptizing (See John 4:1-2).

It is a ritual cleansing, not a real one because the day of atonement was in the future.

Baptism is a ritual that portrays cleansing for certain.

1 Peter 3:21 makes that clear. The removal of dirt from the flesh doesn't save you but the answer of a good conscience toward God does.

If the day of atonement is in the future for believers of the circumcision gospel, then they have no answer of a good conscience as their consciences would have yet to be cleansed and salvation would only be a future reality that they could not yet experience. Yet Peter tells them that they were receiving (present tense) the end of their faith - the salvation of their souls (1 Peter 1:9).

Can you explain this?

:idunno:

Like I said, read Acts. And actually pay attention and believe Peter when he says it.

Maybe you should take your own advice.

The author of Hebrews is looking forward to salvation.

Sure, we all do. Salvation has past, present and future aspects to it. But one thing is absolutely certain from Hebrews.

The New Covenant is a covenant of salvation. It is a covenant where sins and lawless acts are remembered no more. (Hebrews 10:17) And it was put in force by the death of Christ on the cross. Thus the covenant that now governs God's relationship to mankind is the New Covenant.

Hebrews is absolutely clear when a covenant goes into affect.

" For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.
18 Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. (Heb 9:16-18 NKJ)​

Nick, just read the bible and believe what it says.

When does the bible say a testament is in force?

He says it because the cross is atonement for sin.

It is. The cross was a once for all time atonement for sin.
The cross was accomplished in the past, therefore atonement for sin was accomplished in the past.

There is no future sacrifice of atonement.

For the life of me I don't know where you MAD folks got this quasi-catholic idea that the blood of Jesus has to be offered for atonement more than once.

Bible believers realize that when Hebrews says that the sacrifice of Christ was a once for all time sacrifice, it means once for all time.

Just believe what it says.

I do, wanna join me?

Do you believe what Hebrews 9:17 says or not?

And for the record, Hebrews is not written to you. But Ephesians is written to you.

The book of Hebrews was written to Jews, probably in Jerusalem. Ephesians was written to both Jews and gentiles in Ephesus.

Neither of these books were written to either you or I, but both were written for you and I.

Now you quote Acts 3:17-19 presumably in order to prove that the atonement is future.

But that's not what Acts 3:17-19 says, not even close.

:nono: