Forgiveness or Remission?

[Esaias]

Since baptism is a burial, we got some here burying "newborn" people!

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Since baptism is a burial, we got some here burying "newborn" people!

An extremely common view, maybe the view held by the vast majority of Apostolics, is that repentance is dying with Christ, baptism is being buried with Christ, and Spirit baptism with tongues is being raised with Christ (and born of the Spirit). In this scheme, people who have spoken in tongues but who have not been baptized yet are supposedly born of the Spirit and raised with him but still unburied. So we got some here burying "raised" people!

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Since baptism is a burial, we got some here burying "newborn" people!

Baptism is symbolic. It doesn’t mean that Cornelius was spiritually buried after he was spiritually born. The order is not what is important.

[votivesoul]

It is a very inconsistent doctrine that states that one can be forgiven/receive remission of sins prior to water baptism, merely through repentance and/or receiving the Holy Spirit, even to the speaking with other tongues, and yet, have the ability to reject or put off water baptism by personal choice, thereby disobeying a direct command of the Son of God, and His Chosen Emissaries of the Gospel, thereby showing that unless and until such a person gets in the water and is immersed in the name of the Lord Jesus, they still have the sin of rejecting the command of baptism tainting their heart, corrupting their soul, thus proving that the sin of disobedience to the command of Christ and the Apostles to be baptized in water, is and only can be, forgiven/remitted, when the person is immersed/baptized.

It is therefore clear that at least one sin must and only can be forgiven/remitted by baptism: the rejection and putting off of baptism itself!

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

It is a very inconsistent doctrine that states that one can be forgiven/receive remission of sins prior to water baptism, merely through repentance and/or receiving the Holy Spirit, even to the speaking with other tongues, and yet, have the ability to reject or put off water baptism by personal choice, thereby disobeying a direct command of the Son of God, and His Chosen Emissaries of the Gospel, thereby showing that unless and until such a person gets in the water and is immersed in the name of the Lord Jesus, they still have the sin of rejecting the command of baptism tainting their heart, corrupting their soul, thus proving that the sin of disobedience to the command of Christ and the Apostles to be baptized in water, is and only can be, forgiven/remitted, when the person is immersed/baptized.

It is therefore clear that at least one sin must and only can be forgiven/remitted by baptism: the rejection and putting off of baptism itself!

So, therefore, imagine if you will, when Simon Peter commands Cornelius and his household to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and Cornelius or members of his household, for whatever reason, balk at the command, and tell Simon Peter that they will have to think it over, talk with some other church authority, wait for the angel to come back to tell them to go ahead with it, or etc. to whatever degree, and in so doing, they choose not to be baptized.

Do you suppose Simon Peter would just shrug his shoulders, say something to the effect of "Ah, well. They're good. I mean, they were just speaking in tongues and magnifying God, so, not getting baptized isn't that big of a deal..."

Or, do you suppose, Simon Peter would think "Hey, the Lord and Savior of the World, who just filled you all with His Holy Spirit, commands you to get baptized, and I am the Chosen Emissary of God Almighty, the very one the Angel of the Lord told you to send for, the one whom the Angel told you, would tell you words necessary for your salvation, and now, you're going to reject what I have to tell you about being baptized? You may have just been speaking with other tongues and magnifying God, but you must clearly still need to repent for daring to reject the very words and commands of the Holy One, Jesus of Nazareth..."

I espouse something very much like the second view, even if the actual words are merely speculative.

[votivesoul]

Regarding 1 Peter 3:21, we must not forget the verses that lead up to the conclusion:

1 Peter 3:18-22 (ESV),

18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

1.) Christ the Righteous suffered (that is, died) for the Unrighteous, but only once (that is, not multiple times).

2.) Christ the Righteous' suffering, that is, His death, brings us to God.

3.) The reason Christ the Righteous' suffering, that is, His death, brings us to God is because, though He was put to death in the flesh, He was made alive in the Spirit.

4.) Through the Spirit, Christ went and preached to those imprison spirits, whatever it was He proclaimed.

5.) Those imprisoned spirits were imprisoned because of some act of disobedience toward God.

6.) The disobedience of those imprisoned spirits took place in the days of Noah, as God patiently waited for the Ark to be built, before He inundated the world with the Flood.

7.) The preparation and finalization of the Ark saved 8 souls, that is, Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their three wives.

The phrase "brought safely through water" is key.

The Greek text is διεσώθησαν δι ὕδατος (diesōthēsan di’ hydatos).

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_peter/3-20.htm

The first word, διεσώθησαν (diesōthēsan), derives from διασώζω (diasózó), which is a compound made up of two words, namely: διά (dia) and σῴζω (sózó).

Dia means to go across, to get to the other side, and so, as a preposition, means "through", in the sense of "by the instrumentality of", and so, can mean "thoroughly" especially when added to a word as a prefix.

See: https://biblehub.com/greek/1223.htm

In regards to Sozo, we have the common word for "save", in the sense of deliver or rescue, that is, moving from danger to safety.

See: https://biblehub.com/greek/4982.htm

So, the 8 souls where not merely saved/delivered/rescued, but were thoroughly saved/delivered/rescued, that is, they were carried across to the other side, from danger to safety.

What was the danger: the world Noah and his family formerly inhabited, which was completely corrupted, on account of the Nephilim, as it is stated in Genesis 6:5:

...the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Noah and his family were thoroughly saved from that evil world. But note! It does not say that the ark, that is, the vessel upon which and through which, they rode out the flood, is what saved/delivered/rescued them.

No. Simon Peter wrote that it was δι ὕδατος (di’ hydatos) that saved them. Di'hydatos is another compound, made up of dia and the common Greek word for water.

See: https://biblehub.com/greek/5204.htm

The waters of the Flood were the instrument through which Noah and his family were completely/utterly saved/delivered/rescued from the dangers of the evil world they had been inhabiting, until the waters of the Flood destroyed that world and allowed Noah and his family to be brought to a place of safety.

That is the type of baptism Simon Peter has in mind. Just as the waters of the Flood saved Noah, et al, so, too, does water baptism save/deliver/rescue a person from the evil of their former sinfulness.

The conclusion is inescapable. Simon could not have made it any clearer. Without the Flood, Noah and his family would never have been saved. Without baptism, no believer can be saved. Baptism is the instrument wherein we are saved, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Just as the promise of a new world and a new chance on the other side of the Flood, plus the warning of the Flood itself, gave Noah and his family reason to build the ark in the first place (and they "moved with fear" to obey God's command - Hebrews 11:7), so, too does the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the promise of a new life, one that starts now and leads into eternity, plus the possibility of everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord (see 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9), gives us reason to enter into the waters of baptism. And should we not also/likewise, move with fear to get into the waters and be saved?

Through his first epistle, the man who holds the keys to the kingdom of God seems to still be telling us, nearly 2,000 years later:

"Yes, Amen! Get in, get wet, get dunked and get saved!".

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

The conclusion is inescapable. Simon could not have made it any clearer. Without the Flood, Noah and his family would never have been saved. Without baptism, no believer can be saved. Baptism is the instrument wherein we are saved, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I think Simon could have made it clearer. :-) There is no consensus on how baptism saves:

ESV: "not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience"

CSB: "not because it removes dirt from your body but because it is the mark of a good conscience toward God."

KJV: "(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,)"

It saves, not by the act itself, but only as it is the setting in which repentant faith is expressed.

Anyone who teaches that "baptism is the instrument wherein we are saved" must also believe that the birth of the Spirit, which is essential to salvation, occurs also and only in baptism, so I understand this is what you believe; otherwise, baptism does not save you. But it seems this would be impossible to maintain since countless people receive the fullness of the Spirit before baptism.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Costeon

I think Simon could have made it clearer. :-)

My dear brother, consider what you say. You're intimating that when the Spirit of God moved upon the Apostle with the Keys of the Kingdom of God, to write an epistle to the Body of Believers, such that it would exist for all time, that the Spirit moved upon Simon to be vague and insinuating, but otherwise unclear as to the meaning?

Doesn't that seem a bit unlikely, especially as it pertains to our salvation, to baptism, and the resurrection of Christ?

There is no consensus on how baptism saves:

ESV: "not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience"

CSB: "not because it removes dirt from your body but because it is the mark of a good conscience toward God."

KJV: "(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,)"

These references all state the same thing, even if the vocabulary is slightly changed. Baptism isn't a bath for the cleansing of one's skin. It's an indication that one's conscience has been properly pricked and activated by the preaching of the Glad Tidings, sufficient to generate a desire to be baptized.

It saves, not by the act itself, but only as it is the setting in which repentant faith is expressed.

But that's not what Peter wrote. He wrote that baptism saves us in the same way that the Flood saved Noah and his family.

Anyone who teaches that "baptism is the instrument wherein we are saved" must also believe that the birth of the Spirit, which is essential to salvation, occurs also and only in baptism, so I understand this is what you believe; otherwise, baptism does not save you. But it seems this would be impossible to maintain since countless people receive the fullness of the Spirit before baptism.

Paul wrote that we are justified freely by God's grace, through the washing of regeneration and the renewal of the Holy Spirit (See Titus 3:1-7).

Baptism saves in the sense that the Flood saved Noah and his family. Paul wrote that in baptism the body of sins is destroyed (Romans 6:6). In the Flood, the Old World was likewise destroyed. Without the destruction of that Old World, or of the body of sins, neither Noah, et al, or the believer, would have been, or will be saved.

Apart from that, I don't see the link you're making, in Scripture, with the phrase "birth of the Spirit" and "essential to salvation". I see the Holy Spirit being promised and given as an earnest of our inheritance, as the empowering force of Christ Himself so that we may lead responsible, God-honoring lives of peace and partnership with the Father.

So, maybe you could show me the connection from the Scriptures? And, as far as the phrase "fullness of the Spirit", perhaps you could show me that in the Scriptures, as well? Particularly, that "countless people receive the fullness of the Spirit before baptism"?

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

My dear brother, consider what you say. You're intimating that when the Spirit of God moved upon the Apostle with the Keys of the Kingdom of God, to write an epistle to the Body of Believers, such that it would exist for all time, that the Spirit moved upon Simon to be vague and insinuating, but otherwise unclear as to the meaning?

Doesn't that seem a bit unlikely, especially as it pertains to our salvation, to baptism, and the resurrection of Christ?

Why has there ever been a debate in this history of the church? If indeed nothing is ambiguous, how have sincere believers disagreed on anything?

Apart from that, I don't see the link you're making, in Scripture, with the phrase "birth of the Spirit" and "essential to salvation". I see the Holy Spirit being promised and given as an earnest of our inheritance, as the empowering force of Christ Himself so that we may lead responsible, God-honoring lives of peace and partnership with the Father.

So, maybe you could show me the connection from the Scriptures? And, as far as the phrase "fullness of the Spirit", perhaps you could show me that in the Scriptures, as well? Particularly, that "countless people receive the fullness of the Spirit before baptism"?

The birth of the Spirit is essential to salvation (John 3.5). I'll ask you what I asked Esaias: Do you believe that the birth of the Spirit occurs automatically in baptism and is not accompanied with the sign of tongues?

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Why has there ever been a debate in this history of the church? If indeed nothing is ambiguous, how have sincere believers disagreed on anything?

Where did you get that information?

From The New Birth by David K. Bernard:

Early post-apostolic Christians affirmed baptism as part of salvation. Latourette remarked, “Baptism was believed to wash away all sins committed before it was administered. After baptism, the Christian was supposed not to sin.”9 He also said, “Baptism seems to have been regarded as requisite for the ‘remission of sins’ and for the new birth through which alone one could enter the Kingdom of God.”10

With respect to baptism in the first and second centuries the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics states, “The dominant ideas were those of forgiveness of sin, regeneration, and the gift of the Holy Spirit . . . The change effected by baptism was attributed to the ‘name’ and to the water, which were regarded as actually effective and not merely symbolic.”11 According to Heick, the postapostolic fathers (AD 90-140) taught that “baptism confers the forgiveness of sins.”12 For example, this was the teaching in the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. For the Greek Apologists (AD 130-180) baptism was “a washing of forgiveness and a regeneration.”13 They said it “brings pardon and the new life, and is therefore necessary to salvation.”14

Other early theologians who taught that God remits sins at water baptism were Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, and Augustine.15 Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Cyprian specifically described water baptism as the birth of the water in John 3:5, and Hippolytus and Cyprian identified water baptism as the laver of regeneration in Titus 3:5. The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles paraphrases John 3:5 as, “Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven.”16

Tertullian taught that at water baptism the believer has his sins washed away, is born in water, and is prepared for the Holy Spirit.17 He believed that John’s baptism pointed towards future remission of sins and that Christ’s disciples continued John’s baptism during Christ’s earthly ministry. He described baptism as a seal of faith that is necessary to salvation, stating that John 3:5 “has tied faith to the necessity of baptism.”
These men and writings represent many different theological factions, and we do not endorse all of their doctrines; nevertheless it is interesting to see that all agreed on the necessity of baptism. Third-century controversies over heretic baptisms demonstrate that all Christendom of the time agreed that “there can be only one baptism, and that this baptism is essential to salvation.”18

9Latourette, I, 135.
10Ibid., p. 194.
11“Baptism (Early Christian),” ERE, II, 389.
12Heick, I, 54; see Klotsche, pp. 20-21, 99.
13Heick, I, 62.
14Ibid; see Klotsche, p. 27.
15Heick, I, 62, 122, 129, 135; “Baptism (Early Christian),” ERE, II, 385. For further documentation of this paragraph see ANF, I, 444 & 574; ANF, III, 674-75; ANF, V, 237, 276, & 378.
16Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, 6.3.15, ANF, VII, 457.
17Tertullian, On Baptism, ANF, III, 669-679.
18“Baptism (Early Christian),” ERE, II, 391.

There was not "debate", the understand was clear, generally speaking, and reflected on writing.