Hello RG,

Glad to receive your comments. My response is below. Keep the questions coming!

Let's assume you are right and Ananias was refering to washing away sins as being repentence or believing. If this was the case, then Ananias would of been talking out of order. He should have said call on the name of the Lord to wash away thy sins and be baptized. Repentence or belief always preceeds baptism.

I would ask, Why should we assume that Paul had already repented because he was praying and seen a vision of Ananias? I do not see anything in the text that states or implies that the moment he saw the vision he was converted. Everything in the account of Paul's conversion, found in Acts 9:1-19, 22:10-18, and 26:4-16, point to the moment when Ananias layed hands on Paul and prayed for him. It was at this time that the scales fell from his eyes. This indicated that God opened Paul's eyes to the truth of Jesus and that Paul received it. It appears that it was at this time the Lord filled him with the Spirit. It appears that Paul himself interpreted his blindness and restoration of sight as symbolic of his calling and ministry to bring the light of the Gospel to those blinded by Satan: "I am sending you to them (Gentiles) to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me." (Acts 26:17-18 NIV) Here Paul plainly states that the Gentiles who hear the Gospel would be forgiven by faith. No mention of baptism is made. Paul had the perfect oportunity to say that they all must be properly baptized in order to have their sins remitted. But, Christ told Paul it was by faith in him.

The call to be baptized is not found in Acts 9 but is recalled later by Paul in Acts 22. Acts 9 only records that he was baptized and does not say anything about his forgiveness being based on his baptism. Any such conclusion comes from reading that into the words of Ananias found in Acts 22:16. The early converts in Acts showed their faith in Christ through submission to baptism. This was consistent with the Jewish practice. It was most natural to what they understood as an outward sign of their faith. This does not mean baptism converted them. It means that baptism was a commonly accepted practice among Jews to declare ones conversion to the faith. But, we must ask if it is right to claim that this act of baptism was the way Paul's sins were washed away. Or on the other hand, did his baptism symbolize the forgiveness of sins that took place through faith in Christ.

My conclusion in my paper and still is, is that to interpret this one verse as teaching baptismal regeneration to the total disregard of all the rest of Paul's teaching, esp. his version in Acts 26, is not only unwise, but unfounded. Throughout the history of the church only a marginal number of Christians have read it that way. Today it is primarily the Catholic Church, the Church's of Christ, and the Oneness Pentecostal's who hold to this interpretation. That is because they teach baptismal regeneration and it supports their theology. However, I submit that we can best know what Paul's baptism meant to him by listening to all the rest of his teaching throughout his epistles. This is more consistent with all of Scripture, rather than taking one historical account in Acts, and then assume and suppose when he might have repented and his sins were remitted.

The tragedy to me is that I once required all people to interpret this passage in a way that told them they were not saved unless the were submerged in water in a specific way, even if they had true faith in Jesus for salvation. All Christians must take care of coming up with unique interpretations which lead them to reject others as unsaved and which works to remove their assurance of salvation by faith in Christ. Jesus told Peter in Acts 10, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." If Christ has cleansed a believer by faith, but someone tells that person, "No, you still have your sins because you haven't been baptized the way my group uniquely interprets two verses of Acts," then we may find that we oppose God himself. They may be cleansed by faith in Christ and we are still calling them impure. I believe that is exactly what is happening.

I do not believe that Luke's intention in telling the story of Paul's conversion is to teach the world they must be baptized to have their sins remitted. It is to show God's plan in reaching the Gentiles with the Gospel through a converted Jewish leader who was once an enemy of the Church. Nor, do we find Paul himself teaching such a thing as baptismal remission any where in Scripture. Doesn't it seen sensible to let Paul interpret his own experience, as in Acts 26, rather than for us assume what it means while disregarding everything else he plainly teaches about justification by faith?

Well, RG, that's my take on your question. Please do not take my rigorous statements or pointed questions as in any way personal toward you. I am simply arguing the issues, while I hold you in total respect as a person who has a right to his convictions. I talk much stronger to myself as I work through my own conclusions (I don't get too upset at myself, lol).

I hope this is helpful in explaining my beliefs. Thank you for writing and sharing you understanding as well. May God grant that we all come into the knowledge of truth and salvation as has intended.

In Christ Alone!

Bernie Gillespie