Forgiveness or Remission?

[good samaritan]

Acts 15:8-9
8......And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9......And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

This doesn't mean we are not to be baptized, but the supernatural ingredient is faith.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

The debate here is at what point is remission attained. Is it at faith? Baptism? Spirit baptism? When all three are done?

My opinion is that we are forgiven when we believe and sincerely ask, but our faith will guide us further to fulfill all righteousness. Abraham performed zero sacraments to become righteous. His righteousness was because of his faith. Faith without works is dead and therefore we must continue to walk by faith. Faith equates obedience to the gospel. It isn't a magic formula, but simply obeying God.

I've enjoyed reading your posts.

Here you are touching on the the heart of the gospel. As Paul said, "16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, 'The righteous shall live by faith'" (Rom 1.16-17).

One thing Paul makes clear in Rom 4 is that we are justified exactly like Abraham was. For example:

"16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all."

"23 But the words 'it was counted to him' were not written for his sake alone, 24 but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord."

I believe, based on Abraham's entire story, that our sins are remitted (which I regard as no different from sins being forgiven) at the moment God has brought us to repentance and faith, or as a friend of mine calls it, repentant faith, a faith that repents. As I mentioned in my last post to Coksiw, there is no such thing as having faith without repentance. If I have faith that Jesus is Lord and Savior, I will turn from my sins to him to be saved and will submit to him as Lord. Till I repent, I may have some degree of belief, but I do not have saving faith.

Abraham's story begins in Gen 12 when by faith he left Ur at the call of God and began to call on the name of the Lord at altars he built for the Lord. (See Gen 12 and Heb 11.8-9.) Abraham so thoroughly believed the promises God made to him, by faith he committed himself exclusively to God as he turned from his old gods and the life he had lived in sin and began to call on the name of the Lord. In short, by faith he repented, and in that repentant faith, he was initially justified.

Genesis 15 is where Moses explicitly uses the word "justified" to describe Abraham's status before God, and so not surprisingly that's the passage Paul uses in his argument in Rom 4 since he is emphasizing that word. I would see Gen 15 as reaffirming Abraham’s justification that began in Gen 12. The righteous will live by faith, as Abraham did, and whenever we exercise faith, our justification is reaffirmed.

Abraham was justified at repentant faith, and this is how we are justified precisely like he was.

And yet, we must note, he had to be circumcised when that command came, not to bring him justification, but as Paul says, "He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised" (Rom 4.14). His circumcision was a sign that confirmed his relationship with God. If he had refused to be circumcised, that would have proved that he no longer possessed justifiying faith.

Baptism is a command. Someone cannot reject it and be saved.

Baptism is commanded as the God-given place to express our repentant faith. Baptism is always a seal of faith, a confirming sign, and if we would just call people to baptism as the place to repent and believe as the Book of Acts church did instead of leading people to seek Spirit baptism first as the first church never did, then baptism would be the usual setting in which someone received the remission of sins, not because the act of baptism effects, or brings about, forgiveness, but because it is the setting in which what does effect it, repentant faith, is expressed.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Costeon

I've enjoyed reading your posts.

Here you are touching on the the heart of the gospel. As Paul said, "16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, 'The righteous shall live by faith'" (Rom 1.16-17).

One thing Paul makes clear in Rom 4 is that we are justified exactly like Abraham was. For example:

"16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all."

"23 But the words 'it was counted to him' were not written for his sake alone, 24 but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord."

I believe, based on Abraham's entire story, that our sins are remitted (which I regard as no different from sins being forgiven) at the moment God has brought us to repentance and faith, or as a friend of mine calls it, repentant faith, a faith that repents. As I mentioned in my last post to Coksiw, there is no such thing as having faith without repentance. If I have faith that Jesus is Lord and Savior, I will turn from my sins to him to be saved and will submit to him as Lord. Till I repent, I may have some degree of belief, but I do not have saving faith.

Abraham's story begins in Gen 12 when by faith he left Ur at the call of God and began to call on the name of the Lord at altars he built for the Lord. (See Gen 12 and Heb 11.8-9.) Abraham so thoroughly believed the promises God made to him, by faith he committed himself exclusively to God as he turned from his old gods and the life he had lived in sin and began to call on the name of the Lord. In short, by faith he repented, and in that repentant faith, he was initially justified.

Genesis 15 is where Moses explicitly uses the word "justified" to describe Abraham's status before God, and so not surprisingly that's the passage Paul uses in his argument in Rom 4 since he is emphasizing that word. I would see Gen 15 as reaffirming Abraham’s justification that began in Gen 12. The righteous will live by faith, as Abraham did, and whenever we exercise faith, our justification is reaffirmed.

Abraham was justified at repentant faith, and this is how we are justified precisely like he was.

And yet, we must note, he had to be circumcised when that command came, not to bring him justification, but as Paul says, "He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised" (Rom 4.14). His circumcision was a sign that confirmed his relationship with God. If he had refused to be circumcised, that would have proved that he no longer possessed justifiying faith.

Baptism is a command. Someone cannot reject it and be saved.

Baptism is commanded as the God-given place to express our repentant faith. Baptism is always a seal of faith, a confirming sign, and if we would just call people to baptism as the place to repent and believe as the Book of Acts church did instead of leading people to seek Spirit baptism first as the first church never did, then baptism would be the usual setting in which someone received the remission of sins, not because the act of baptism effects, or brings about, forgiveness, but because it is the setting in which what does effect it, repentant faith, is expressed.

100%

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

The debate here is at what point is remission attained. Is it at faith? Baptism? Spirit baptism? When all three are done?

My opinion is that we are forgiven when we believe and sincerely ask, but our faith will guide us further to fulfill all righteousness. Abraham performed zero sacraments to become righteous. His righteousness was because of his faith. Faith without works is dead and therefore we must continue to walk by faith. Faith equates obedience to the gospel. It isn't a magic formula, but simply obeying God.

Amen, faith is validated by works. You get baptized because God said if you do, your sins are forgiven and you can enter into the kingdom of God. Nothing magic in the water, is your obedient faith that God honors in his faithfulness.

The question of when exactly in the timeline the forgiveness happens is a theoretical question that I still need to see the need for it. If God asks you to be baptized and receive the Spirit to enter into the kingdom, why would you disobey? That shows that your faith wasn’t valid to begin with.

Why the theoretical question? Who are you trying to save without baptism? Why would you offend God teaching baptism isn’t necessary for forgiveness, there for skippable?

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Amen, faith is validated by works. You get baptized because God said if you do, your sins are forgiven and you can enter into the kingdom of God. Nothing magic in the water, is your obedient faith that God honors in his faithfulness.

If baptism is a work, then you aren't saved by it. What could be more fundamental to Paul's argument about salvation than that it is not by works?

If God asks you to be baptized and receive the Spirit to enter into the kingdom, why would you disobey?

No one has suggested that people don't have to be baptized.

Why would you offend God teaching baptism isn’t necessary for forgiveness, there for skippable?

It's your interpretation that makes baptism absolutely necessary for forgiveness in all circumstances. The fact that people can receive the Spirit before baptism, along with Peter's explicit words in Acts 10, 11, and 15, show that baptism does not effect the forgiveness of sins, though it is the usual setting where someone is forgiven.

If you say it does not show this, and that even after someone has received the Spirit, they are still not forgiven till baptism, then you have to embrace the concept that you can be born of and raised from the dead by the Spirit but still be dead in tresspasses and sins. What made you dead was your sin. You can't be alive while what made you dead is present.

The idea that you can be regenerated by the Spirit--made alive by the Spirit--but not be forgiven, and thus still going to hell, is unprecedented in Christian theology before a group of Oneness teachers started teaching it around 1915.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Costeon

If baptism is a work, then you aren't saved by it. What could be more fundamental to Paul's argument about salvation than that it is not by works?

What is works? How do you explain James' argument then?

It's your interpretation that makes baptism absolutely necessary for forgiveness in all circumstances. The fact that people can receive the Spirit before baptism, along with Peter's explicit words in Acts 10, 11, and 15, show that baptism does not effect the forgiveness of sins, though it is the usual setting where someone is forgiven.

If you say it does not show this, and that even after someone has received the Spirit, they are still not forgiven till baptism, then you have to embrace the concept that you can be born of and raised from the dead by the Spirit but still be dead in tresspasses and sins. What made you dead was your sin. You can't be alive while what made you dead is present.

The idea that you can be regenerated by the Spirit--made alive by the Spirit--but not be forgiven, and thus still going to hell, is unprecedented in Christian theology before a group of Oneness teachers started teaching it around 1915.

What do you mean with "forgiveness" then? Is it forgiveness when God reaches out to you? or is it forgiveness when your sins are paid for and therefore you can inherit everlasting life? Couldn't He in his mercy reach out to you and "get you started" in the process of salvation? It doesn't mean you are saved yet. Similar "already" but "not yet" kind of scenario: How can you be sanctified when the Spirit comes to you, and yet the same Spirit starts a process of santification? Are you sanctified or not? saved or not? forgiven or not? How can you be "forgiven" (whatever the sense), and yet lose your salvation? All of that can be understood in the sense that salvation is a process. Baptism and receiving the Spirit is part of the "birthing" process that, when completed, then you get a "birth certificate"; then you still have to keep pursing holiness, and without it you won't see the Lord. We are not saved by the merits of the works because we will be found guilty, but our faith is validated by works, and our pursing of holiness keeps our status, since they show our repentance (fruit of repentance).

I think you are seeing both side of a coin and favoring one side, when the Bible really balances both of them at the same time.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Amen, faith is validated by works. You get baptized because God said if you do, your sins are forgiven and you can enter into the kingdom of God. Nothing magic in the water, is your obedient faith that God honors in his faithfulness.

The question of when exactly in the timeline the forgiveness happens is a theoretical question that I still need to see the need for it. If God asks you to be baptized and receive the Spirit to enter into the kingdom, why would you disobey? That shows that your faith wasn’t valid to begin with.

Why the theoretical question? Who are you trying to save without baptism? Why would you offend God teaching baptism isn’t necessary for forgiveness, there for skippable?

It was not my question but has been what this discussion has been about. I really don't care because I know to be baptized in Jesus name. It is Gods perogative who He forgives. It is my job to share the gospel.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by coksiw

What is works? How do you explain James' argument then?




What do you mean with "forgiveness" then? Is it forgiveness when God reaches out to you? or is it forgiveness when your sins are paid for and therefore you can inherit everlasting life? Couldn't He in his mercy reach out to you and "get you started" in the process of salvation? It doesn't mean you are saved yet.Similar "already" but "not yet" kind of scenario: How can you be sanctified when the Spirit comes to you, and yet the same Spirit starts a process of santification? Are you sanctified or not? saved or not? forgiven or not? How can you be "forgiven" (whatever the sense), and yet lose your salvation? All of that can be understood in the sense that salvation is a process. Baptism and receiving the Spirit is part of the "birthing" process that, when completed, then you get a "birth certificate"; then you still have to keep pursing holiness, and without it you won't see the Lord. We are not saved by the merits of the works because we will be found guilty, but our faith is validated by works, and our pursing of holiness keeps our status, since they show our repentance (fruit of repentance).

I think you are seeing both side of a coin and favoring one side, when the Bible really balances both of them at the same time.

I think we are essentially in agreement on the subject. The process begins at faith. Everything is built upon the foundation of faith in Christ. In cases like the thief on the cross, only God has the authority to say. We must simply be obedient.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Guess what it is common to all of them: nothing. So people don't need to believe, repent, be baptized, or receive the Spirit to be saved, according to Peter.

Better hermeneutics: if it is included once, it is part of the way to be saved. The reason why it appears in some places but not in others can be explained with linguistics. We all actually practice the same phenomenon, but for whatever reason, some don't expect the biblical writers to do the same?

I've been reflecting some more on what you said in this post.

At the end of the Gospel of Luke, Luke records what Jesus commanded Peter to preach about salvation, and in Acts on four occasions, Luke records Peter proclaiming this salvation:

To the crowd on Pentecost (Acts 2:14-39), the first fulfillment of Jesus’s commands (Luke 24.46-49).
To the crowd who had gathered after the beggar was healed (Acts 3:11-4:4)
To the Jewish leaders after his second arrest (Acts 5:29-32)
To Cornelius and to the crowd in his home (Acts 10:34-43)

In response to my post where I first mentioned these passages and emphasized that baptism is only mentioned once (excepting Acts 10, which I had not mentioned), you responded, “Guess what it is common to all of them: nothing.”

Let’s review, and readers of this thread will have to decide if that is an accurate way to characterize these passages.

In Luke 24.47-49, Jesus mentions repentance, the forgiveness of sins, and the promise of the Father, which is the gift of the Holy Spirit.

In Acts 2.38, Peter mentions repentance, baptism, the forgiveness of sins, and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

In Acts 3.19-20, Peter mentions repentance, the forgiveness of sins, and alludes to the Holy Spirit as “times of refreshing from the presence of the Lord.”

In Acts 5.31-32, Peter mentions repentance, the forgiveness of sins, and the Holy Spirit.

In Acts 10.43, Peter mentions belief/faith and the forgiveness of sins before God dramatically intervenes while Peter was still speaking, and the Holy Spirit fell on them.

These passages have nothing in common?

In all five of these situations, the speaker mentions the forgiveness of sins.

In all five, the Holy Spirit appears, the speaker mentioning the Holy Spirit directly or alluding to it in four of them, and in the fifth one, the Holy Spirit dramatically falls on the crowd before Peter could say anything about it.

In four of the five, the speaker mentions repentance in addition to the forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit.

In one of them, the speaker mentions belief/faith instead of repentance in addition to the forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit.

But as I noted in my first response to you, in Acts 11.7-8 after Peter mentions the Gentiles’ belief/faith, others there call it repentance. In my response, I explained how, in the context of conversion, there is no such thing as faith without repentance, and to mention one is to imply the other because both are aspects of turning from sin to Christ, and so one can be used as a synecdoche for both.

So there is, in fact, a great deal in common in these passages where Peter is preaching the message Jesus commanded him to preach: faith and repentance, the forgiveness of sins, and the Holy Spirit. What is not common in these passages is baptism. Only once does it appear in addition to the common elements.

In your reply, in addition to saying these passages have nothing in common, you said, “Better hermeneutics: if it is included once, it is part of the way to be saved.”

I agree with you in part. As I and Good Samaritan have reiterated, baptism is required. But what is better hermeneutics in interpreting Peter’s messages in Acts is to note what Peter felt compelled to always mention—what is common—and what Peter felt the need to only mention once, what is uncommon, and to conclude that, though repentant faith and baptism are both required, they are not functioning in the same way and are not equally essential in receiving the forgiveness of sins. Peter always mentions what is essential to receiving the forgiveness of sins, repentant faith, and sometimes mentions the setting in which what is essential is expressed, baptism.

Finally, you included 1 Peter 3.21 in your initial reply. It doesn’t really belong in this discussion because it is clearly not parallel to these passages in Acts as the contexts are totally different. In 1 Peter he is obviously not proclaiming salvation to the lost. Moreover, I find that, when people use 1 Peter 3.21 to bolster their case that baptism effects the forgiveness of sins, they don’t actually believe that baptism saves if someone has not also spoken in tongues, hence me asking you, if a person has come to faith and repentance and been baptized but not spoken in tongues, has baptism saved them? I have yet to hear anyone reply yes they are saved. They always say something to the effect that Peter is assuming they have also spoken in tongues, but they never take him at face value, and say, “Yes they are saved if they have been baptized, even if they haven’t spoken in tongues yet.

[Esaias]

"Raised from the dead by the Spirit..."

But the BIBLE says:

Colossians 2:12 KJV
Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Our "spiritual resurrection" occurs in baptism according to the apostle Paul.

That's REAL "apostolic" doctrine.