Forgiveness or Remission?

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by coksiw

The phrase "having cleansed their hearts by faith" may be also referring to the entire experience as a whole, including baptism in Jesus name, and not necessarily to only the infilling of the Spirit; making the evidence of the Spirit the witness of the acceptance, and the cleaning of the heart, a reference to the end result which included the baptism (the full experience).

Well, I don't the context will allow us to say that it's referring to their whole experience, including their baptism. Everything Peter says in Acts 15 about the Gentiles’ hearts is explicitly connected with God pouring out the Spirit on them. Peter said that he preached the gospel to them and they believed. How did he know they believed? Because, when he preached the gospel to them, God knew their hearts—he knew they had come to faith—and at once poured out his Spirit on them in response to their faith. God knew their hearts and so cleansed their hearts. All this explicitly happened before they were baptized.

It’s important to note that Peter never mentions baptizing them in his argument. And there's a reason for that. Just like in Acts 11, when he had to defend himself against some Jewish Christians who were attacking him for going to the Gentiles in the first place, Peter focuses exclusively on what God had done. It wouldn't have strengthened his argument against his opponents to focus on anything he had done—like baptizing Cornelius—so Peter mentions only God’s deeds to refute his opponents. God’s actions had brought about the cleansing of their hearts; it had nothing to do with Peter baptizing them. In cleansing them and making no distinction between them and Jewish believers when he poured his Spirit out upon them, God proved he had accepted them as they were without them having to be circumcised.

In fact, they received the Spirit right after Peter said: "Act 10:43 NKJV - (43) "To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.""

Right, and this shows they were cleansed of sin before their baptisms. Peter’s promise was that whoever comes to faith in Christ will have their sins forgiven and removed. Their receiving the Spirit showed they had come to faith in Christ and had received this forgiveness. God knew their heart and so cleansed their heart of sin as he poured out the Spirit on them.

When God poured out the Spirit on them, we know from other passages of Scripture that at that moment they were sanctified by the Spirit and born of the Spirit and raised from the dead by the Spirit. A person cannot experience being made holy and being given new life by the Spirit while what had made them unholy and in need of new life in the first place, their sin, still remains. To come to life, what had caused death had to be removed. To be made holy, what had defiled had to be cleansed.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Well, I don't the context will allow us to say that it's referring to their whole experience, including their baptism. Everything Peter says in Acts 15 about the Gentiles’ hearts is explicitly connected with God pouring out the Spirit on them. Peter said that he preached the gospel to them and they believed. How did he know they believed? Because, when he preached the gospel to them, God knew their hearts—he knew they had come to faith—and at once poured out his Spirit on them in response to their faith. God knew their hearts and so cleansed their hearts. All this explicitly happened before they were baptized.

It’s important to note that Peter never mentions baptizing them in his argument. And there's a reason for that. Just like in Acts 11, when he had to defend himself against some Jewish Christians who were attacking him for going to the Gentiles in the first place, Peter focuses exclusively on what God had done. It wouldn't have strengthened his argument against his opponents to focus on anything he had done—like baptizing Cornelius—so Peter mentions only God’s deeds to refute his opponents. God’s actions had brought about the cleansing of their hearts; it had nothing to do with Peter baptizing them. In cleansing them and making no distinction between them and Jewish believers when he poured his Spirit out upon them, God proved he had accepted them as they were without them having to be circumcised.



Right, and this shows they were cleansed of sin before their baptisms. Peter’s promise was that whoever comes to faith in Christ will have their sins forgiven and removed. Their receiving the Spirit showed they had come to faith in Christ and had received this forgiveness. God knew their heart and so cleansed their heart of sin as he poured out the Spirit on them.

When God poured out the Spirit on them, we know from other passages of Scripture that at that moment they were sanctified by the Spirit and born of the Spirit and raised from the dead by the Spirit. A person cannot experience being made holy and being given new life by the Spirit while what had made them unholy and in need of new life in the first place, their sin, still remains. To come to life, what had caused death had to be removed. To be made holy, what had defiled had to be cleansed.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Well, I don't the context will allow us to say that it's referring to their whole experience, including their baptism. Everything Peter says in Acts 15 about the Gentiles’ hearts is explicitly connected with God pouring out the Spirit on them. Peter said that he preached the gospel to them and they believed. How did he know they believed? Because, when he preached the gospel to them, God knew their hearts—he knew they had come to faith—and at once poured out his Spirit on them in response to their faith. God knew their hearts and so cleansed their hearts. All this explicitly happened before they were baptized.

It’s important to note that Peter never mentions baptizing them in his argument. And there's a reason for that. Just like in Acts 11, when he had to defend himself against some Jewish Christians who were attacking him for going to the Gentiles in the first place, Peter focuses exclusively on what God had done. It wouldn't have strengthened his argument against his opponents to focus on anything he had done—like baptizing Cornelius—so Peter mentions only God’s deeds to refute his opponents. God’s actions had brought about the cleansing of their hearts; it had nothing to do with Peter baptizing them. In cleansing them and making no distinction between them and Jewish believers when he poured his Spirit out upon them, God proved he had accepted them as they were without them having to be circumcised.



Right, and this shows they were cleansed of sin before their baptisms. Peter’s promise was that whoever comes to faith in Christ will have their sins forgiven and removed. Their receiving the Spirit showed they had come to faith in Christ and had received this forgiveness. God knew their heart and so cleansed their heart of sin as he poured out the Spirit on them.

When God poured out the Spirit on them, we know from other passages of Scripture that at that moment they were sanctified by the Spirit and born of the Spirit and raised from the dead by the Spirit. A person cannot experience being made holy and being given new life by the Spirit while what had made them unholy and in need of new life in the first place, their sin, still remains. To come to life, what had caused death had to be removed. To be made holy, what had defiled had to be cleansed.

If Peter was so convinced they were cleaned of their sins after receiving the Spirit, why he wanted to baptize them? It was the same Peter that said you shall be baptized in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sin. Did Peter change his theology? Or is his theology ambiguous?
If receiving the Spirit means all your sins are forgiven, why call people that received the Spirit to be baptized? Baptism becomes vain, ... just a formality without real implications.

Also, what is the theological benefit here? Do you want to make the baptism in Jesus' name optional? or that you can get the Spirit or baptism but not needing both? Who are you trying to save without baptism?


Peter definitely focused on the sign of the Spirit for his argument, however, it doesn't mean that he wasn't referring to the entire experience of salvation that actually occurred. Do you think Peter was trying to hide the fact that they were baptized?

"Peter: ... and that was the story. Elders: Great! God accepted the Gentiles! Peter: I forgot to mention that I also.... hmm... baptized them, hehe... he.... I guess it was OK? Elders: nah, no a big deal, they were forgiven already. You just should pray for people to receive the Spirit and forget about baptism..."

Can you image? It doesn't sound right, does it?

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by coksiw

If Peter was so convinced they were cleaned of their sins after receiving the Spirit, why he wanted to baptize them? It was the same Peter that said you shall be baptized in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sin. Did Peter change his theology? Or is his theology ambiguous?
If receiving the Spirit means all your sins are forgiven, why call people that received the Spirit to be baptized? Baptism becomes vain, ... just a formality without real implications.

Quite simple answer here, it was because of obedience. The instructions of Jesus given in Mathew 28:19. If we have true faith in Christ we will follow his commands.

Also, what is the theological benefit here? Do you want to make the baptism in Jesus' name optional? or that you can get the Spirit or baptism but not needing both? Who are you trying to save without baptism?

I don’t think it is a false assumption to think that God forgives someone when they ask Him. I don’t see how that makes baptism optional. If someone is truly repentant and has turned to Christ, they will desire to fulfill all righteousness.

Peter definitely focused on the sign of the Spirit for his argument, however, it doesn't mean that he wasn't referring to the entire experience of salvation that actually occurred. Do you think Peter was trying to hide the fact that they were baptized?

"Peter: ... and that was the story. Elders: Great! God accepted the Gentiles! Peter: I forgot to mention that I also.... hmm... baptized them, hehe... he.... I guess it was OK? Elders: nah, no a big deal, they were forgiven already. You just should pray for people to receive the Spirit and forget about baptism..."

Can you image? It doesn't sound right, does it?

Peter knew that baptism was Jesus command. Just because the Gentiles received the Holy Ghost didn’t mean that the work was finished and there wasn’t more to be done. The baptism of the Gentiles was hard to swallow because many felt that their club was exclusive. Peter baptized the Gentiles to fulfil obedience to Christs words, not because he was panicked that they where not forgiven yet. He knew that some Jews would not agree, but he basically told them that we can’t argue with God. Peter was trying to convince Jews that the gentiles have now became one of us and the implications of that would need to continue.

Galatians 3:27-28
27......For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28......There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

[loran adkins]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Quite simple answer here, it was because of obedience. The instructions of Jesus given in Mathew 28:19. If we have true faith in Christ we will follow his commands.




I don’t think it is a false assumption to think that God forgives someone when they ask Him. I don’t see how that makes baptism optional. If someone is truly repentant and has turned to Christ, they will desire to fulfill all righteousness.




Peter knew that baptism was Jesus command. Just because the Gentiles received the Holy Ghost didn’t mean that the work was finished and there wasn’t more to be done. The baptism of the Gentiles was hard to swallow because many felt that their club was exclusive. Peter baptized the Gentiles to fulfil obedience to Christs words, not because he was panicked that they where not forgiven yet. He knew that some Jews would not agree, but he basically told them that we can’t argue with God. Peter was trying to convince Jews that the gentiles have now became one of us and the implications of that would need to continue.

Galatians 3:27-28
27......For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28......There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

[Esaias]

Welcome to the AoGFriendsForum everybody!

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Welcome to the AoGFriendsForum everybody!

No need to change the name since there have been plenty of Apostolics who have not thought water baptism effected the remission of sins.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Welcome to the AoGFriendsForum everybody!

Last I heard the AOG baptism was trinitarian. How bout we call it FBCfriends forum. Because the mystical baptism you insist must mean we have eternal security and once saved always saved (after we are baptized). No one is debating the necessity of baptism, only that baptism of itself doesn’t remit sins. It requires faith that is proven by continual obedience. For those who have placed their faith in Christ before understanding the truth of Acts 2:38 are in the hands of a righteous judge.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Last I heard the AOG baptism was trinitarian. How bout we call it FBCfriends forum. Because the mystical baptism you insist must mean we have eternal security and once saved always saved (after we are baptized). No one is debating the necessity of baptism, only that baptism of itself doesn’t remit sins. It requires faith that is proven by continual obedience. For those who have placed their faith in Christ before understanding the truth of Acts 2:38 are in the hands of a righteous judge.

See the bolded? This is why I can't take your comments and questions seriously.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Welcome to the AoGFriendsForum everybody!

See the bolded. This is why I cant take your comments seriously.