Forgiveness or Remission?

[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?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Costeon

I agree with you that there is no difference. I suppose it's unfortunate the KJV translators used different words to translate one Greek word. In the original preface to their translation, which is almost never included in KJVs today, they note that they felt no need to use only one English word for each Greek (or Hebrew) word.



The experience of Cornelius and those with him, I believe, shows that people can be forgiven before being baptized. In Acts 15, Peter is arguing against those Jewish believers who were saying that Gentile believers had to be circumcised to be saved, and he uses Cornelius's experience to show that God had fully accepted the Gentiles, as Gentiles, just as much as he had accepted the Jews, and what proved this was him pouring out the Spirit upon them.

In 15.8-9, Peter says, "8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith."

What showed that God had made no distinction between them and Jewish believers and that he had cleansed their hearts by faith was him giving them the Spirit. What would their hearts be cleansed of but their sins? This occurred before they were baptized.

I agree with you that, in the Book of Acts, Cornelius's experience of receiving the Spirit before baptism is the exception to the rule. And so, normally baptism is the place where someone is forgiven, but I think that Cornelius's experience shows that God can forgive apart from baptism in circumstances like his.

I would add that, when we receive the Spirit in conversion, the Spirit sanctifies us, that is, makes us holy and sets us apart for relationship with God. For example, Paul says in 2 Thess 2.13, "But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth."

How could the Spirit's sanctifying work, his making us holy work, not include the removal of our sin?

1. The Bible connects water baptism and remission of sins directly, by direct plain statements.

2. The Bible nowhere makes the same type of connection between receiving the Spirit and remission, in the same way.

3. To connect receiving the Spirit to remission one has to do so indirectly, by a series of assumptions, which are not spelled out as clearly as the situation with number 1 above.

4. Those assumptions include some that are not necessary inferences. That lack of necessary inferences makes the teaching (no. 2, Spirit and remission) essentially a speculative "what if?" scenario.

5. Speculative what ifism cannot be the basis of anything sound or authoritative.

Therefore, it would be perfectly reasonable to reject such a thing.

I understand what you are saying, but I think you are basically assuming too many things to be true, in order to support the claim that remission of sins is a requirement to be met prior to or synonymously with receiving the Spirit. And I just don't see such claims being made by Jesus or the apostles.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Esaias

1. The Bible connects water baptism and remission of sins directly, by direct plain statements.

I agree.

2. The Bible nowhere makes the same type of connection between receiving the Spirit and remission, in the same way.

I do not agree.

Paul does so explicitly, for example, in Col 2.13-14: "And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands."

Paul explicitly says that God made us alive having forgiven us, that is, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us. Paul directly connects being given new life by the Spirit with being forgiven. In addition, we can easily see the logic of this, that these things necessarily occur at the same time. If our trespasses are what made us dead, then we cannot come alive when what made us dead still remains. When what made us dead is removed, the Spirit at once makes us alive.

Paul makes the same point in Eph 2.4-5, 8: "4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved. . . . 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith."

We were dead in trespasses, but God made us alive. Obviously this is parallel to Col 2.13-14, so what I said there including the logic of it all applies here too.

Paul also adds here that, when they were raised to life from being dead in trespasses, this meant that they were saved--saved by his grace through their faith. To be saved, that is to be "in him," by definition means to be both forgiven and to have the Spirit. (See Eph 1.7 and 1.13.) You can't be said to be saved by grace through faith if one of those essential elements is lacking, so when he describes them as having been raised to life and so saved, this necessarily means they had also been forgiven.

3. To connect receiving the Spirit to remission one has to do so indirectly, by a series of assumptions, which are not spelled out as clearly as the situation with number 1 above.

I have shown that they are directly connected and logically required.

I would add another example that shows that receiving the Spirit and being forgiven cannot logically be separated.

In 2 Thes 2.13, Paul says we were saved “through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.” Being forgiven cannot be separated in time from the initial work of sanctification received in salvation. To be sanctified is to be made holy and set apart for God. This obviously must include the removal our our sins. We can’t be holy in God’s sight when what had made us unholy in his sight, our sin, remains. In 1 Cor 6.11, Paul says that, when we were saved, we were washed and sanctified in the name of Jesus and by the Spirit of God, that is, we were cleansed of sin and made holy, and as a result, we were justified, that is, declared righteous before God because we’re now forgiven and holy in his sight. Again, we can’t be cleansed and made holy by the Holy Spirit while what had polluted us and made us unholy before God, our sin, remains.

In short, forgiveness and the regenerating, sanctifying work of the Spirit must occur simultaneously. Scripture says they do, and logic recognizes that they must.

4. Those assumptions include some that are not necessary inferences. That lack of necessary inferences makes the teaching (no. 2, Spirit and remission) essentially a speculative "what if?" scenario.

I have shown that connecting forgiveness with the Spirit is not an assumption and is also logically required, and so it is not a “what if” scenario.

5. Speculative what ifism cannot be the basis of anything sound or authoritative.

Agreed

Therefore, it would be perfectly reasonable to reject such a thing.

But since I have shown this is not a speculative "what ifism," we cannot reasonably reject it.

I understand what you are saying, but I think you are basically assuming too many things to be true, in order to support the claim that remission of sins is a requirement to be met prior to or synonymously with receiving the Spirit. And I just don't see such claims being made by Jesus or the apostles.

If people did not receive the gift of the Spirit with the sign of tongues before baptism, that is, if they were not born of the Spirit/raised from the dead by the Spirit/regenerated by the Spirit before baptism, I would agree with you that baptism is what effects the forgiveness of sins. But since people constantly do receive new life from the Spirit before baptism, I do not believe that baptism can be what effects forgiveness.

I have given some of the reasons why I think it is unscriptural and logically impossible for forgiveness to occur at a different time from receiving new life in the Spirit. If forgiveness cannot be separated from the Spirit and the Spirit can be received before baptism, then baptism can’t be what effects forgiveness. What comes after can’t effect what comes before. Obviously.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Costeon

I agree.



I do not agree.

Paul does so explicitly, for example, in Col 2.13-14: "And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands."

Paul explicitly says that God made us alive having forgiven us, that is, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us. Paul directly connects being given new life by the Spirit with being forgiven. In addition, we can easily see the logic of this, that these things necessarily occur at the same time. If our trespasses are what made us dead, then we cannot come alive when what made us dead still remains. When what made us dead is removed, the Spirit at once makes us alive.

Paul makes the same point in Eph 2.4-5, 8: "4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved. . . . 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith."

We were dead in trespasses, but God made us alive. Obviously this is parallel to Col 2.13-14, so what I said there including the logic of it all applies here too.

Paul also adds here that, when they were raised to life from being dead in trespasses, this meant that they were saved--saved by his grace through their faith. To be saved, that is to be "in him," by definition means to be both forgiven and to have the Spirit. (See Eph 1.7 and 1.13.) You can't be said to be saved by grace through faith if one of those essential elements is lacking, so when he describes them as having been raised to life and so saved, this necessarily means they had also been forgiven.



I have shown that they are directly connected and logically required.

I would add another example that shows that receiving the Spirit and being forgiven cannot logically be separated.

In 2 Thes 2.13, Paul says we were saved “through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.” Being forgiven cannot be separated in time from the initial work of sanctification received in salvation. To be sanctified is to be made holy and set apart for God. This obviously must include the removal our our sins. We can’t be holy in God’s sight when what had made us unholy in his sight, our sin, remains. In 1 Cor 6.11, Paul says that, when we were saved, we were washed and sanctified in the name of Jesus and by the Spirit of God, that is, we were cleansed of sin and made holy, and as a result, we were justified, that is, declared righteous before God because we’re now forgiven and holy in his sight. Again, we can’t be cleansed and made holy by the Holy Spirit while what had polluted us and made us unholy before God, our sin, remains.

In short, forgiveness and the regenerating, sanctifying work of the Spirit must occur simultaneously. Scripture says they do, and logic recognizes that they must.



I have shown that connecting forgiveness with the Spirit is not an assumption and is also logically required, and so it is not a “what if” scenario.



Agreed



But since I have shown this is not a speculative "what ifism," we cannot reasonably reject it.



If people did not receive the gift of the Spirit with the sign of tongues before baptism, that is, if they were not born of the Spirit/raised from the dead by the Spirit/regenerated by the Spirit before baptism, I would agree with you that baptism is what effects the forgiveness of sins. But since people constantly do receive new life from the Spirit before baptism, I do not believe that baptism can be what effects forgiveness.

I have given some of the reasons why I think it is unscriptural and logically impossible for forgiveness to occur at a different time from receiving new life in the Spirit. If forgiveness cannot be separated from the Spirit and the Spirit can be received before baptism, then baptism can’t be what effects forgiveness. What comes after can’t effect what comes before. Obviously.

Whether or not you realize it, you're simply shifting the remission of sins from water baptism, to Spirit baptism.

You could just as easily argue that remission of sins is only effected by the blood of Jesus, based on Matthew 26:28. But a more holistic approach is best:

1 John 5:6-7 (ESV),

6 This is he who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.

There are three elements, for lack of a better word, that agree, or come together, in the life of a believer:

1.) The Spirit
2.) The Water
3.) The Blood

All three are involved in granting remission of sins. And there is ample proof of all three of these elements being received in baptism.

[Esaias]

Anyone?

[james34]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Anyone?

So you believe that one can be baptized in the Holy Ghost, without being forgiven of their sins?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by james34

So you believe that one can be baptized in the Holy Ghost, without being forgiven of their sins?

So you believe that one can be baptized in the Holy Ghost, without being remitted of their sins?

[james34]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So you believe that one can be baptized in the Holy Ghost, without being remitted of their sins?

God does not inhabit a temple not cleansed by the blood. The house of Cornelius were inhabited/filled with the Holy Ghost.

So to yo, Do you believe they were still in their sins?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by james34

God does not inhabit a temple not cleansed by the blood. The house of Cornelius were inhabited/filled with the Holy Ghost.

So to yo, Do you believe they were still in their sins?

Romans 6:3-8 KJV
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? [4] Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. [5] For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: [6] Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. [7] For he that is dead is freed from sin. [8] Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:

So according to you they got the Holy Ghost before they were baptized into Christ's death? Before being made free from sin? Interesting...