1) Forgiven 👉AT👈 The Cross: Why Was Paul Baptized to Wash Away Sins?

You're home for MidActs Bible Study. This is Truth Time Radio.
Starting a new series today, one that will run simultaneously with our Romans verse by verse study.
We'll title the series, Forgiven at the Cross, Answering Every Objection.
Today's objection is, if sins were forgiven at the cross, why was Paul baptized to wash away sins?
We'll get into this in a few moments.
In each episode, I'll take a different objection to forgiven at the cross and we'll deconstruct it.
According to Oxford Languages, to deconstruct is to analyze a text or a linguistic or conceptual system by deconstruction, typically in order to expose its hidden internal assumptions and contradictions and subvert its apparent significance or unity.
During the series, expect to hear every known objection that come from the limited forgivers.
Expect to hear them all addressed right here on Truth Time.
We'll tackle every supposed gotcha verse and we'll answer it with God's holy writ as found right here in this King James Bible.
Now, one thing to note, each objection will be transcribed and released as a blog there at the website. We want to make these freely available for you to use anytime you're confronted by a limited forgiver.
Forgiven at the cross is under attack today.
You know this, even by dispensationalists.
It's a serious issue.
Some have chosen to just not stand by idly, twiddling their thumbs, there on the seat of do-nothing.
But instead, as Paul their pattern did, they've chosen to stand in defense of his gospel.
In this series, we will address objections like this one.
You've most likely heard it.
The one that says, All sins were forgiven except the sin of unbelief.
Wrong.
Unbelief was forgiven also.
On the cross, God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, and he stopped imputing our sins to us.
It's clear.
It's clear to anyone with spiritual eyes.
It's like that saying, most have heard it, God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.
No, God said it, that settles it.
It doesn't matter whether you believe it or not.
And if God needs your belief before what he's already done can be settled, then is it any wonder that we have limited forgivers?
We'll address the one that claims there are four types of reconciliation.
There are not four types of reconciliation.
There is one.
We'll squash that lie and prove the error of it with the King James Bible.
We'll address the one that we recently heard from a pastor in Louisville who, during a Facebook discussion with one of our listeners, Brother Don, who has acquired a great understanding of reconciliation, by the way, they were in a discussion and well, after the pastor realized he was outmatched, he chose to divert and deflect.
He chose to boast of how he's been a preacher for 50 years.
My wife said, And still doesn't understand the gospel?
And she's right because he said, you must first be reconciled to God.
Then, then you get forgiven and justified by faith.
50 years to learn that.
Bible school graduate.
Could he have it more backwards?
God is a God of order.
First Corinthians chapter 14, read it.
But this fella doesn't follow the order and could stand to give a listen to our understanding the terms series.
We laid this out.
We laid it out in order of how it appears in the King James Bible.
We did that instead of doing as he did and going on the words of what his teacher taught him there at his beloved Bible school, the ones willing to compromise truth for fear of losing their seat at the table.
Got to make sure they get to speak at the next conference, you know.
Then there's the one out there that says, Sins are paid for, but not forgiven.
I'll address this as well.
And the, By the cross or at the cross issue, which is really a non issue, but we'll answer it anyway. Okay.
There's more, but I just wanted to get those out of the way and just mention a few that we'll be covering during this series.
If you're a minister of reconciliation who simply needs clarity, we'll do all we can to help you sharpen your presentation.
One thing we've discovered is, the limited forgiver limitarians we've dealt with say they believe their King James Bible, but don't.
They have a hard time believing God over their prejudices.
Okay.
Today's objection.
If sins were forgiven at the cross, why was Paul baptized to wash away sins?
In Acts 22:16, here Ananias, he asked Paul, Why tarryest thou? Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
It's vital that we do not fail to recognize, just back up a few verses there, and recognize verse 12. Ananias was quote, "A devout man," according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there.
Let's keep this in mind during the study, a very important statement often overlooked.
Ananias had a good report among all the Jews.
Saul of Tarsus did not.
Often God used practical means to do and to reveal things, and we got to be careful not to miss the practicality here of how God worked and dealt with humanity.
Another thing noteworthy is Ananias baptized Saul to wash away his sins, even though Jesus never told him to do so.
Is this a problem?
Was Ananias out of order?
Not at all.
Even though Jesus never told him to do so, neither did he tell him not to.
And for good reason.
It wasn't time.
From Ananias' perspective, being baptized would have been the common response for any and all new converts.
Saul's being baptized into water was a sign that he had accepted Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah.
And this sign was for Ananias and the Jews dwelling at Jerusalem, but did nothing for Saul.
Absolutely nothing.
I direct you to Acts chapter 9. Look at verse 26. And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples. But they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.
See that?
We start to see what's going on here.
Saul, a killer, and it was known throughout all Jerusalem.
Water baptism wasn't as frou-frou as it is today.
It was serious business.
So by Saul, by him being water baptized in public, was a big event, a big deal, an outward sign of his genuine repentance toward the Lord Jesus.
But the sign wasn't for him.
He already knew what he had already done.
He repented, changed his mind on the road to Damascus.
Already done it.
So it wasn't a sign to him.
It wasn't a sign to Jesus.
It was a sign to the people.
Can't you just imagine the whispers?
Do you know who that is?
That's Saul.
Saul of Tarsus.
What?
Yeah, that's him.
He's a believer now.
How do you know?
He's been baptized.
Haven't you heard?
Saul assayed to join himself to the disciples, but they were terrified of him.
They didn't believe he was legit.
Because of this, the next verse, look at it, verse 27, we learn here that Barnabas took him, brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord and even spoken to him.
Barnabas also told them how he had witnessed him preach boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.
Hey, when you search these scriptures for your answers, compare scripture with scripture.
Doing so, the answers show themselves and prove themselves.
Acts 22:15, here's another important verse to help us with the "why" of Saul's baptism.
Watch, For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.
Now, these all men here would include who?
Law-keeping, pork abstaining, circumcised on the eighth day, Sabbath-keeping, synagogue attending, water-baptized children of Israel, who, what? Would require a sign.
Hence, Saul's baptism.
For the Jews, 1 Corinthians 1:22, For the Jews require a sign.
And at that time, there was no greater sign, no greater sign of conversion than water baptism.
It was evidence that Saul was now a bona fide follower of the Messiah of Christ.
The reason he was baptized by Ananias is because that, that was the requirement of him at that time.
There was no immediate change in the program.
His baptism occurred during a transition period.
He had already met Jesus.
He already had knowledge of Christ dying for his sins, his burial, his resurrection.
So he understood that from the get-go.
But the transition had not fully happened.
And the Lord does all things decently and in order.
Saul had led Israel's rebellion and was a persecuting, blaspheming, injurious, who consented to the murder of Stephen.
And in the eyes of Ananias, a devout man according to the law, Saul's baptism was what washed away his sins.
Makes perfect sense when approached from this premise.
When we consider that, at that time, Ananias only had an understanding of the gospel of the kingdom, repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, it makes sense.
And we understand that baptism to wash away sins was never Paul's gospel.
Acts 22 is simply Paul quoting Ananias concerning something that occurred clear back in Acts 9.
It is not Paul preaching his my gospel.
Something he didn't reveal to the leaders of Israel until Acts chapter 15.
Ananias knew nothing of a dispensational change.
He knew nothing of the finished cross work being good news.
The event of the cross was bad news to him and the men of Israel.
They looked upon it as a murder committed against their king, their Messiah.
All Ananias knew was this rascal Saul, he needed to be cleansed from all his sins against the believing Jews.
Ananias was simply following John the Baptist and Peter in believer's baptism.
This public showing, this water baptism ceremony, it was not to benefit Saul.
It was not to benefit the Lord Jesus, but was a sign for the little flock remnant of Israel.
Saul was already justified by grace through faith and made the first member of the body of Christ by his belief that he demonstrated on that Damascus road.
2 Corinthians 5:19 clearly describes what took place on Calvary's cross.
It was there that the sin sacrifice was accepted and is why God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not, not imputing our sins to us.
Saul couldn't have been water baptized to wash away non-imputed sins.
That's nonsensical.
Since the new program had yet to be revealed, Jesus allowed Ananias to baptize him.
If he would have rejected baptism, Ananias and those at Jerusalem would have taken that to mean he was a liar, he was still in unbelief, and would have based that from their prophetic Old Testament scriptures.
Saul was a Pharisee, remember, and Luke chapter 7 in verse 30 says, the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being, now watch, being not baptized of him.
So you see, up to the time of Acts 9, Saul and others like him had rejected the baptism of John.
And there is no way, no way he could reject it again and still be accepted by the apostles.
No way.
Regardless of what religion has fed us, God's word is practical.
I mean, with a mere thought, God could have changed dispensations, erased man's memory, and started over, started from scratch, treating us like robots.
But that's not His way.
He's practical, and He does things decently and in order.
Jews require a sign, and through Ananias, God gave them one.
That was the perfect order of things.
God's perfect in His order and perfect in His time.
And the due time hadn't came yet.
Saul was saved apart from the prophetic program, and his water baptism was nothing more than a sign to the kingdom saints so they might accept him as a bona fide apostle.
When Saul was baptized by Ananias, he did not know the complete revelation of the mystery.
Jesus hadn't revealed it to him yet.
But what he did know is the gospel of grace, how His sins were forgiven on the cross by the blood of the risen Christ, and not by the washing of water.
We can know this for certain.
We don't have to guess because of what we find in 1 Timothy 1:16.
Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show forth all longsuffering for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on Him to life everlasting.
A couple of important takeaways here.
This verse tells us something happened in Paul first, and that he's our pattern.
Well, if you and I didn't need water to wash away our sins, then neither did our pattern.
Neither did Paul.
How much sense would that make?
And while here, let's just kill another giant with the same smooth stone.
There are Acts 28ers and those of the mid-Acts hybrid flavor who claim that Paul, well, at first he was put into the little flock, they say, by believing that Jesus was the Messiah, and that it wasn't until later that he was given the gospel of grace for the body of Christ.
Well, we're reasonable.
We're all reasonable here, right?
Okay, if you and I were saved without first being put into the little flock, then why would our pattern, Paul, why would he had to have done that?
And would not that disqualify him as being our pattern?
A pattern is to be followed.
How could we follow our pattern while at the same time not follow our pattern?
Logic says that if our pattern was saved by first being put into the little flock, then that's how we should be saved.
Logic says that if our pattern had to repent and be water baptized to wash away his sins, then so should we.
That's how our sins would get washed away.
Folks, I hate to ruin their fun, but those who claim this have an argument that's illogical, irrational, and falls flat.
Paul's writings are plain.
How we receive Christ is how we walk in him, Colossians 2:6.
So, how did we receive him?
Well, if you're saved, you received him by grace through faith.
No water for forgiveness, and you were never in the little flock.
See how we're deconstructing this?
If Paul's our pattern, we're saved the same way he was.
Therefore, it's not possible that Ananias' baptism washed away his sins.
And neither is it possible that Paul was first a member of the little flock before being in the body of Christ.
This is truth to anyone with the capacity to compare Scripture and believe what they read.
Believe God.
Agree with Him.
Folks, Mid-Acts is the correct position.
Not Acts 2, not Acts 28.
The only problem with Mid-Acts is, whomever came up with the name most likely failed math.
But at least they had enough sense to see the plethora of dispensational distinctions found in the writings of Paul.
So, let's sum this up.
Neither Ananias or any of the little flock remnant of Israel had knowledge of the new program that God would be launching through the salvation of Saul.
Had no knowledge that on the cross, God stopped imputing sins to the world.
No knowledge that on the cross, the handwriting of ordinances against us were taken out of the way and nailed to the cross of Christ.
And neither Ananias or any of the little flock remnant of Israel had knowledge of the revelation of the mystery.
No knowledge of the dispensation of God's grace, the called out one new man, the new creature, the church, the body of Christ, none of that.
This was all still a secret mystery hid in God.
A mystery that was soon to cause men to move with envy, as it says.
To gather up a great company and set the city in an uproar.
Acts chapter 17.
They cried out, This man, Paul, has turned our world upside down.
And it caused some to ask, May we know what this new doctrine whereof thou speakest?
For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears.
Therefore, what do these things mean?
So Ananias, a devout man according to the law, told Saul, Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins.
Anything wrong with that?
Absolutely not.
He was a little flock Jew looking through the lenses of the gospel of the kingdom.
Knowing nothing of the gospel of grace, according to the secret mystery, there was no sins to be washed away by water.
But Ananias had no knowledge of that.
At Saul's baptism, from Ananias' perspective, Saul needed to incur the Ezekiel chapter 36 washing ritual.
The sprinkling of clean water to cleanse him from all his spiritual filthiness.
And Acts 2:38 to place his sins in remission to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
If Ananias was told of the mystery, it would have been completely out of order.
And testified, 1 Timothy 2:6, before its due time.
Saul, being a Pharisee, could have not gotten away with rejecting water baptism.
Everyone was aware of his unbelief, so his public water baptism was a visual must.
Two things we know, Saul's sins were already forgiven at the cross, and he could not have been saved into the little flock.
Okay, let's say you're here today and you've yet to receive the free gift of eternal life.
You're at the right place.
The good news is, at the cross, God was in Christ reconciling us unto Himself.
And it was there that He stopped imputing our sins.
He gave Himself to be a ransom for all, the final and perfect sacrifice for you and I.
And that sacrifice, it satisfied God, totally and completely.
Jesus left no stone unturned.
There's nothing we can do to add to it.
We can't pray the sinner's prayer enough.
We can't repent of sins enough.
We can't believe enough.
We can't get what we already have, God's forgiveness.
But what we can do is believe on Him for salvation.
Today is the day of salvation, not the day to get your sins forgiven.
That's already passed.
Forgiveness for all the world was achieved by Christ on the cross.
He died for our sins according to the Scriptures.
He was buried and rose on the third day according to the Scriptures.
Now trust Christ.
Believe the good news by agreeing with Him, by resting your faith in Christ alone.