Forgiveness or Remission?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by james34

So one can be Spirit baptized into the body of Christ without receiving forgiveness of sins? I guess God doesn’t have to have complete control to fill someone with his Spirit after all.

There is this notion flowing from the Evangelical world that states that God cannot cohabit with sin, so, flowing from that notion, is the belief that when God filled Cornelius and his household with the Holy Spirit, He must have first cleansed them with forgiveness.

But the premise is false. God walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, while the serpent was present the whole time.

God walked with the Patriarchs, flaws and all.

God dwelled with the Israelites, first in the Tabernacle, then in the Temple, despite the sinful ways in which they grieved Him for many centuries. In fact, it's not until Ezekiel 9 before God finally departs from the Temple, and it's not until the end of Jeremiah's prophecy that God states there was no remedy for His people except that the Temple be utterly destroyed by the Babylonians.

It is therefore conceivable that God and sin can cohabit in a person. Just as the Temple made with hands was oft defiled when God continued to live there, it is also possible that the Temple made without hands can remain defiled, or become defiled again, whilst God dwells therein.

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit

The Laodiceans were called a church by Christ but were backslidden to the core. Simply receiving the Spirit as a historical experience is no guarantee that anyone so endowed is or will be saved, in the end, even though that historical experience baptized someone into the Body.

In fact, five of the seven churches in Asia Minor had serious sins accruing to their accounts. Thyatira held the doctrine of Jezebel, and yet, they were called a "church" to which the Spirit spoke.

We cannot therefore prove that just because someone received the Holy Spirit, that that always and automatically means, that person is fully and truly rescued from the consequences of their sin debt.

The truth is, the sin debt must be done away with, and in baptism, the body of sins is destroyed (Romans 6:3-6 with Colossians 2:11). Without that destruction of that corpus of unrighteousness, the person so indebted will be answerable for their transgressions.

This is why the antitype to the Flood, baptism, saves us (1 Peter 3:21).

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

There is this notion flowing from the Evangelical world that states that God cannot cohabit with sin, so, flowing from that notion, is the belief that when God filled Cornelius and his household with the Holy Spirit, He must have first cleansed them with forgiveness.

But the premise is false. God walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, while the serpent was present the whole time.

God walked with the Patriarchs, flaws and all.

God dwelled with the Israelites, first in the Tabernacle, then in the Temple, despite the sinful ways in which they grieved Him for many centuries. In fact, it's not until Ezekiel 9 before God finally departs from the Temple, and it's not until the end of Jeremiah's prophecy that God states there was no remedy for His people except that the Temple be utterly destroyed by the Babylonians.

It is therefore conceivable that God and sin can cohabit in a person. Just as the Temple made with hands was oft defiled when God continued to live there, it is also possible that the Temple made without hands can remain defiled, or become defiled again, whilst God dwells therein.



The Laodiceans were called a church by Christ but were backslidden to the core. Simply receiving the Spirit as a historical experience is no guarantee that anyone so endowed is or will be saved, in the end, even though that historical experience baptized someone into the Body.

In fact, five of the seven churches in Asia Minor had serious sins accruing to their accounts. Thyatira held the doctrine of Jezebel, and yet, they were called a "church" to which the Spirit spoke.

We cannot therefore prove that just because someone received the Holy Spirit, that that always and automatically means, that person is fully and truly rescued from the consequences of their sin debt.

The truth is, the sin debt must be done away with, and in baptism, the body of sins is destroyed (Romans 6:3-6 with Colossians 2:11). Without that destruction of that corpus of unrighteousness, the person so indebted will be answerable for their transgressions.

This is why the antitype to the Flood, baptism, saves us (1 Peter 3:21).

[james34]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

There is this notion flowing from the Evangelical world that states that God cannot cohabit with sin, so, flowing from that notion, is the belief that when God filled Cornelius and his household with the Holy Spirit, He must have first cleansed them with forgiveness.

But the premise is false. God walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, while the serpent was present the whole time.

God walked with the Patriarchs, flaws and all.

God dwelled with the Israelites, first in the Tabernacle, then in the Temple, despite the sinful ways in which they grieved Him for many centuries. In fact, it's not until Ezekiel 9 before God finally departs from the Temple, and it's not until the end of Jeremiah's prophecy that God states there was no remedy for His people except that the Temple be utterly destroyed by the Babylonians.

It is therefore conceivable that God and sin can cohabit in a person. Just as the Temple made with hands was oft defiled when God continued to live there, it is also possible that the Temple made without hands can remain defiled, or become defiled again, whilst God dwells therein.



The Laodiceans were called a church by Christ but were backslidden to the core. Simply receiving the Spirit as a historical experience is no guarantee that anyone so endowed is or will be saved, in the end, even though that historical experience baptized someone into the Body.

In fact, five of the seven churches in Asia Minor had serious sins accruing to their accounts. Thyatira held the doctrine of Jezebel, and yet, they were called a "church" to which the Spirit spoke.

We cannot therefore prove that just because someone received the Holy Spirit, that that always and automatically means, that person is fully and truly rescued from the consequences of their sin debt.

The truth is, the sin debt must be done away with, and in baptism, the body of sins is destroyed (Romans 6:3-6 with Colossians 2:11). Without that destruction of that corpus of unrighteousness, the person so indebted will be answerable for their transgressions.

This is why the antitype to the Flood, baptism, saves us (1 Peter 3:21).

You mean by “the resurrection of Jesus Christ/the Holy Ghost baptism)
The law was weak in that it could not provide forgiveness completely. The blood of Christ can and does. The veil was rent when the blood sacrifice gave all and said it it finished. A way was made. It is by this cleansing blood that we are able to be partakers of the the new birth experience. It is “this” ( Spirit) that he (Christ) shed forth.

Acts11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water( unto repentance ) ; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost( beyond repentance/unto new life)

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by james34

You mean by “the resurrection of Jesus Christ/the Holy Ghost baptism)
The law was weak in that it could not provide forgiveness completely. The blood of Christ can and does. The veil was rent when the blood sacrifice gave all and said it it finished. A way was made. It is by this cleansing blood that we are able to be partakers of the the new birth experience. It is “this” ( Spirit) that he (Christ) shed forth.

Acts11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water( unto repentance ) ; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost( beyond repentance/unto new life)

Well, of course, without the Resurrection of Christ, baptism as an act would have no efficacy whatsoever.

That in no way invalidates or disproves anything I wrote, which you quoted. In fact, it validates and proves it, since and because when we are immersed into Christ in water, we are διεσώθησαν δι ὕδατος (diesōthēsan di’ hydatos), that is, thoroughly saved by/through baptism (1 Peter 3:20-21), since and because when we have our bodies washed with pure water, our consciences are sprinkled with the blood of Christ:

Hebrews 10:19-22 (ESV),

19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

There is this notion flowing from the Evangelical world that states that God cannot cohabit with sin, so, flowing from that notion, is the belief that when God filled Cornelius and his household with the Holy Spirit, He must have first cleansed them with forgiveness.

But the premise is false. God walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, while the serpent was present the whole time.

Adam and Eve where expelled from the garden immediately following their sin. God did not continue that same relationship with Adam and Eve after sin entered the picture.

God walked with the Patriarchs, flaws and all.

God also withdrew from people such as king Saul for his disobedience. The patriarchs demonstrated their week human nature at times, but overall displayed a life of faith that was evident by their obedience.

God dwelled with the Israelites, first in the Tabernacle, then in the Temple, despite the sinful ways in which they grieved Him for many centuries. In fact, it's not until Ezekiel 9 before God finally departs from the Temple, and it's not until the end of Jeremiah's prophecy that God states there was no remedy for His people except that the Temple be utterly destroyed by the Babylonians.

It is therefore conceivable that God and sin can cohabit in a person. Just as the Temple made with hands was oft defiled when God continued to live there, it is also possible that the Temple made without hands can remain defiled, or become defiled again, whilst God dwells therein.

The temple was first sanctified by blood before the Lord ever filled the temple.

The Laodiceans were called a church by Christ but were backslidden to the core. Simply receiving the Spirit as a historical experience is no guarantee that anyone so endowed is or will be saved, in the end, even though that historical experience baptized someone into the Body.

In fact, five of the seven churches in Asia Minor had serious sins accruing to their accounts. Thyatira held the doctrine of Jezebel, and yet, they were called a "church" to which the Spirit spoke.

The churches where being warned of their present lost position with God. They where lost if they continued their course. That doesn’t sound like cohabitation with sin to me.

We cannot therefore prove that just because someone received the Holy Spirit, that that always and automatically means, that person is fully and truly rescued from the consequences of their sin debt.

We can’t say that someone who has been baptized is truly rescued from the consequences of their sin debt, but they must stay the course. I don’t believe in eternal security.

The truth is, the sin debt must be done away with, and in baptism, the body of sins is destroyed (Romans 6:3-6 with Colossians 2:11). Without that destruction of that corpus of unrighteousness, the person so indebted will be answerable for their transgressions.

This is why the antitype to the Flood, baptism, saves us (1 Peter 3:21).

The sin debt is done away with by the blood of Jesus. Baptism doesn’t put away the filth of the flesh, but is the answer of good conscious toward God.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Adam and Eve where expelled from the garden immediately following their sin. God did not continue that same relationship with Adam and Eve after sin entered the picture.



God also withdrew from people such as king Saul for his disobedience. The patriarchs demonstrated their week human nature at times, but overall displayed a life of faith that was evident by their obedience.



The temple was first sanctified by blood before the Lord ever filled the temple.



The churches where being warned of their present lost position with God. They where lost if they continued their course. That doesn’t sound like cohabitation with sin to me.



We can’t say that someone who has been baptized is truly rescued from the consequences of their sin debt, but they must stay the course. I don’t believe in eternal security.



The sin debt is done away with by the blood of Jesus. Baptism doesn’t put away the filth of the flesh, but is the answer of good conscious toward God.

Brother, not a single retort of yours in any way nullifies or answers anything I wrote. All I wrote, which you quoted, is absolutely true, Biblical fact, for anyone to read. God can dwell in the presence of sinful humanity, with His holiness and righteousness in no way negating the presence of that sinfulness. I think you missed or glossed over the point I made about the tendency within evangelical thinking to assume God and sin cannot be together in the same room, as it were. I showed otherwise, to prove that a person who has received the Holy Spirit, spoken in other tongues, prophesied, cast out evil spirits, done miracles, and etc. in the name of Christ, can still be lost in the final analysis.

There is therefore no proof in the Scriptures that remission needs to take place before God takes up residence in a person's heart through the Holy Spirit beforehand. Or, Paul and Peter don't agree. You chose which you think it right.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Regarding when remission occurs, for those who argue that it is before baptism, but after repentance, and that the preposition eis therefore means because of, or in regards to, then they must prove when any of the people in Acts 2 who listened to Simon Peter's sermon actually received forgiveness.

Was it when they were "pricked in their hearts" and cried out "men and brethren, what shall we do?"?

If so, then why did Simon Peter tell them they still needed to repent and be baptized?

If the pricking of their hearts and the demand to be told how to respond to Simon Peter's preaching was indicative of their repentance, Simon Peter should not have told them they needed to repent. Instead, Acts 2:38 should read "Be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ..."

But that's not how it reads. Simon started with repentance, which indicates that as far as he was concerned, the respondents had not repented, even while they were pricked in their hearts and demanding instruction.

As far as Simon was concerned, if they did not come forward and be baptized, there was no repentance.

For, Acts 2:41 reads, "then they that gladly received his word were baptized'. It does not read, "then they that gladly received his word repented". Their repentance is presumed as a prerequisite to their baptism.

It is therefore clear that without a baptism following the pricking of the heart and a desire to know what to do, there is no repentance, and therefore, no remission of sins.

Remission of sins therefore, takes place in baptism, and not before, as evidence for repentance.

Cause and effect. Faith causes us to repent and repentance means to change (change from a life of sinful disobedience, to a life of faithful obedience). Baptism is definitely part of that obedience, but is not the source of that obedience. Therefore, we are not saved because of baptism, but we are baptized because we are saved.

At what point do we receive forgiveness? I think it has just become a point of argument and debate. None of us will understand the full effect of that forgiveness until we are freed from this mortal body.

Philippians 3:12-14
12......Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
13......Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
14......I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Therefore, we are not saved because of baptism, but we are baptized because we are saved.

Mark 16:16 KJV
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

According to Jesus, belief and baptism come before being saved. According to you, belief and salvation come before baptism.

You are wrong, and Jesus is right.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Mark 16:16 KJV
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

According to Jesus, belief and baptism come before being saved. According to you, belief and salvation come before baptism.

You are wrong, and Jesus is right.

That word “shall” is important. The salvation that Jesus is referring to is after our time on this earth. Belief is essential, baptism is essential, but it is God who forgives. If we are truly forgiven can we backslide? Does God give his forgiveness and then withdraw it from us? Or, is forgiveness conditional from the start, and to be received at the end of our race? I believe faith must be ongoing, along with baptism and also additional things, in order for us to completely receive the forgiveness we are speaking of in this thread. In the event someone is taken as soon as they believe (make Jesus their choice), I am not certain. I just know we are to obey the scripture as they are clear to us and that means to be baptized in Jesus name. There is an old hymn that we sing, “we’ll understand it better by and by”.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Cause and effect. Faith causes us to repent and repentance means to change (change from a life of sinful disobedience, to a life of faithful obedience). Baptism is definitely part of that obedience, but is not the source of that obedience. Therefore, we are not saved because of baptism, but we are baptized because we are saved.

If that is so, that we are baptized because we are already saved, then what'e the point of baptism? Symbolic act, mere gesture, for the fun of it? And how long might a "saved" person put that baptism off, before he or she runs afoul of the Lord Jesus?

At what point do we receive forgiveness? I think it has just become a point of argument and debate. None of us will understand the full effect of that forgiveness until we are freed from this mortal body.

Brother, this is a cop-out. You may not know or understand, but if we cannot understand the full effect of our own forgiveness until we're dead, then we cannot have any assurance of our own salvation.

Philippians 3:12-14
12......Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
13......Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
14......I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

That is not about forgiveness of sins, but about the nature of the resurrection. Since Paul had not yet died, and been raised in the Resurrection, he could not fully speak on it as though he had already experienced it. Read verses 10 and 11, and you'll see the context is clear.