Forgiveness or Remission?

[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.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

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

What I've done is show that forgiveness and the saving work of the Spirit cannot be separated in time, and therefore, salvation, occurs at a point in time. That point in time is repentant faith, that is, faith that moves someone to repent.

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),

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.

1 John 5.6-7 is not obviously about a believer's conversion. The next verse shows that John is referring to "the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son."

And there is ample proof of all three of these elements being received in baptism

Ok, so I believe you have now answered my previous question about what you believe regarding when the saving work of the Spirit is received in conversion: It occurs with forgiveness and automatically is received in baptism and is not signified by speaking in tongues.

Since I too believe that the saving work of the Spirit and forgiveness occur at the same time, I would agree with you that it occurs in baptism, if not for one thing: the fact that people constantly receive the gift of the Spirit with the sign of tongues before baptism. However someone understands what the gift of the Spirit with the sign of tongues is (supernatural empowerment or as the birth of the Spirit), all would agree that when someone begins to speak in tongues, new life in the Spirit has either already occurred or is occurring at that moment, which is to say that the regenerating work of the Spirit has occurred before baptism. That people constantly speak in tongues before baptism shows that neither forgiveness nor the birth of the Spirit are effected by baptism.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Costeon

What I've done is show that forgiveness and the saving work of the Spirit cannot be separated in time, and therefore, salvation, occurs at a point in time. That point in time is repentant faith, that is, faith that moves someone to repent.

And yet, as I made abundantly clear in Post #190, a refusal to be baptized after someone has "repented" is an indication that they person has not in fact, repented at all, and that, despite any "tongue-speaking" that may have occurred, the person is still guilty of at least one transgression: disobedience to the command by Christ and His Apostles, to be baptized.

1 John 5.6-7 is not obviously about a believer's conversion. The next verse shows that John is referring to "the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son."

The next verse doesn't speak to the entirety of the context. 1 John 5:1-5 begins by speaking of a believer being born of God, and how the children of God can be correctly discerned, by those who keep the commandments, and so, have overcome the world. This is clearly about conversion, about how a person became a believer in Christ, that He was and is the Son of God. Verses 6-11 then speak of the testimony of Christ, to help prove and establish that He really was and is the Son of God, and so, those who have believed in Him, who have been born of God, have put their faith in the right thing.

And we know from an abundance of other verses of Holy Scripture, that water, blood, and Spirit are all linked in baptism.

Ok, so I believe you have now answered my previous question about what you believe regarding when the saving work of the Spirit is received in conversion: It occurs with forgiveness and automatically is received in baptism and is not signified by speaking in tongues.

Since I too believe that the saving work of the Spirit and forgiveness occur at the same time, I would agree with you that it occurs in baptism, if not for one thing: the fact that people constantly receive the gift of the Spirit with the sign of tongues before baptism. However someone understands what the gift of the Spirit with the sign of tongues is (supernatural empowerment or as the birth of the Spirit), all would agree that when someone begins to speak in tongues, new life in the Spirit has either already occurred or is occurring at that moment, which is to say that the regenerating work of the Spirit has occurred before baptism. That people constantly speak in tongues before baptism shows that neither forgiveness nor the birth of the Spirit are effected by baptism.

Again, it would be helpful to not make assumptions about what I believe.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

And yet, as I made abundantly clear in Post #190, a refusal to be baptized after someone has "repented" is an indication that they person has not in fact, repented at all, and that, despite any "tongue-speaking" that may have occurred, the person is still guilty of at least one transgression: disobedience to the command by Christ and His Apostles, to be baptized.

I agree that someone cannot refuse to be baptized and still be saved (and nobody has suggested this), but you can be saved before you're baptized if you have received the gift of the Spirit and spoken in tongues before you were baptized. When someone is speaking in tongues, regardless of how someone understands what the gift of the Spirit with tongues is, this person has either already been born of the Spirit or is being born of the Spirit at that same moment--before baptism. You cannot be born of the Spirit but not be forgiven and still be lost. This person still has to be baptized since it is a command, and if someone were to later refuse to be baptized, this would indicate they no longer possessed saving faith.

The next verse doesn't speak to the entirety of the context. 1 John 5:1-5 begins by speaking of a believer being born of God, and how the children of God can be correctly discerned, by those who keep the commandments, and so, have overcome the world. This is clearly about conversion, about how a person became a believer in Christ, that He was and is the Son of God. Verses 6-11 then speak of the testimony of Christ, to help prove and establish that He really was and is the Son of God, and so, those who have believed in Him, who have been born of God, have put their faith in the right thing.

And we know from an abundance of other verses of Holy Scripture, that water, blood, and Spirit are all linked in baptism.

I disagree with your interpretation, but it doesn't take much to realize that you and I are not going to agree, so there's no need for me to go point by point and show why I disagree. I will just note that the key to all this is your statement "And we know from an abundance of other verses of Holy Scripture, that water, blood, and Spirit are all linked in baptism." It seems you are approaching this text in 1 John with a commitment to a particular view and so are going to interpret this text in light of this view and make it fit with it.

Again, it would be helpful to not make assumptions about what I believe.

Again, I had asked you what you believed about the birth of the Spirit in relation to baptism, but you did not answer directly. No one will make assumptions when you state plainly your beliefs.