Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The Fellowship Hall > Fellowship Hall
Facebook

Notices

Fellowship Hall The place to go for Fellowship & Fun!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old 01-27-2023, 07:43 AM
loran adkins's Avatar
loran adkins loran adkins is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 661
Re: Forgiveness or Remission?

Quote:
Originally Posted by good samaritan View Post
Quite simple answer here, it was because of obedience. The instructions of Jesus given in Mathew 28:19. If we have true faith in Christ we will follow his commands.




I don’t think it is a false assumption to think that God forgives someone when they ask Him. I don’t see how that makes baptism optional. If someone is truly repentant and has turned to Christ, they will desire to fulfill all righteousness.




Peter knew that baptism was Jesus command. Just because the Gentiles received the Holy Ghost didn’t mean that the work was finished and there wasn’t more to be done. The baptism of the Gentiles was hard to swallow because many felt that their club was exclusive. Peter baptized the Gentiles to fulfil obedience to Christs words, not because he was panicked that they where not forgiven yet. He knew that some Jews would not agree, but he basically told them that we can’t argue with God. Peter was trying to convince Jews that the gentiles have now became one of us and the implications of that would need to continue.

Galatians 3:27-28
27......For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28......There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 01-27-2023, 09:35 AM
Esaias's Avatar
Esaias Esaias is offline
Unvaxxed Pureblood


 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Zion aka TEXAS
Posts: 26,205
Re: Forgiveness or Remission?

Welcome to the AoGFriendsForum everybody!
__________________
Visit the Apostolic House Church YouTube Channel!


Biblical Worship - free pdf http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/02/21/biblicalworship4/

Conditional immortality proven - https://ia800502.us.archive.org/3/it...surrection.pdf

Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 01-27-2023, 10:09 AM
Costeon Costeon is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 773
Re: Forgiveness or Remission?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias View Post
Welcome to the AoGFriendsForum everybody!
No need to change the name since there have been plenty of Apostolics who have not thought water baptism effected the remission of sins.
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 01-27-2023, 10:37 AM
good samaritan's Avatar
good samaritan good samaritan is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 2,710
Re: Forgiveness or Remission?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias View Post
Welcome to the AoGFriendsForum everybody!
Last I heard the AOG baptism was trinitarian. How bout we call it FBCfriends forum. Because the mystical baptism you insist must mean we have eternal security and once saved always saved (after we are baptized). No one is debating the necessity of baptism, only that baptism of itself doesn’t remit sins. It requires faith that is proven by continual obedience. For those who have placed their faith in Christ before understanding the truth of Acts 2:38 are in the hands of a righteous judge.
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 01-27-2023, 02:14 PM
Costeon Costeon is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 773
Re: Forgiveness or Remission?

Quote:
Originally Posted by coksiw View Post
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?
Because his Lord had commanded him to baptize people as part of making disciples and bringing them into the church.

Nothing our Lord commands is in vain.

Peter did not change his theology, but perhaps the way many understand it is not precisely like he understood it.

Three times in the early part of Acts, Luke records Peter preaching to a group of people in which he mentions receiving the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2.38; 3.19-21; 5.31.32), and in two of the three, he only mentions repentance but not baptism. Joined to this, in Luke 24.46-49, Luke records Jesus's final instructions on what Peter and the other apostles are to preach. Jesus mentions repentance and the forgiveness of sins, but not baptism. If we read Luke and Acts as Luke intended (back to back as two parts of one history), we see that within just a few pages he includes four passages that are clearly parallel in content, and in three out of four, forgiveness and repentance are mentioned, but not baptism.

Interestingly there is a variant reading at Luke 24.47, and some of the oldest manuscripts read "repentance for the forgiveness of sins.")

In light of this evidence and later how Peter says that the proof Cornelius and the other Gentiles had been cleansed by faith was they had received the Spirit, I would suggest that repentant faith and baptism do not play the same role in someone receiving the remission of sins. Repentance and faith seem indispensable in a way that baptism is not. In those parallel passages to Acts 2.38, what is absolutely essential to bringing about the remission of sins, repentance, is mentioned while what is not, baptism, is not.

This is not to suggest that baptism is optional. Even though baptism was not the place where Cornelius was forgiven, Peter still commanded him to be baptized. Baptism is commanded for all, and so all must be baptized. No one can reject baptism and be saved.

Under normal circumstances in the Book of Acts, forgiveness/remission did, in fact, come to someone by faith and repentance at baptism--not because baptism had effected the remission of sins but because it was the usual setting in which the repentance and faith that did effect it was expressed. When someone said they believed the gospel, the church at once led them to baptism. Cornelius's situation, however, was not normal circumstances. At that point, the church would not have baptized him and other Gentiles. God had to do something extraordinary and prove he had accepted them, and in doing this, it was revealed that it is possible in certain circumstances for God to bring someone to faith and repentance before baptism and so remit their sins and cleanse them before baptism. This is definitely not the pattern in Acts, though.

It is, however, certainly common now. In the circumstance when someone is led by the church to receive the Spirit before baptism (which is something that the church in Acts never led someone to do), that person must be commanded to be baptized, and if they truly have saving faith they will. I would even say in order for them to maintain their forgiveness--their cleansing received before baptism--they must be baptized.

Quote:

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?
Peter was not trying to hide anything. He focused on what strengthened his argument in that context.

I think the drive to include their entire experience in their cleansing is not rooted in carefully interpreting this passage but in bringing to it a pre-commitment to the idea that only baptism can bring about the forgiveness/remission of sins.

I know we disagree, but I appreciate the discussion and your questions that challenge me to think through my beliefs again.
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 01-27-2023, 05:26 PM
Esaias's Avatar
Esaias Esaias is offline
Unvaxxed Pureblood


 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Zion aka TEXAS
Posts: 26,205
Re: Forgiveness or Remission?

Quote:
Originally Posted by good samaritan View Post
Last I heard the AOG baptism was trinitarian. How bout we call it FBCfriends forum. Because the mystical baptism you insist must mean we have eternal security and once saved always saved (after we are baptized). No one is debating the necessity of baptism, only that baptism of itself doesn’t remit sins. It requires faith that is proven by continual obedience. For those who have placed their faith in Christ before understanding the truth of Acts 2:38 are in the hands of a righteous judge.
See the bolded? This is why I can't take your comments and questions seriously.
__________________
Visit the Apostolic House Church YouTube Channel!


Biblical Worship - free pdf http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/02/21/biblicalworship4/

Conditional immortality proven - https://ia800502.us.archive.org/3/it...surrection.pdf

Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 01-27-2023, 07:30 PM
coksiw coksiw is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 2,047
Re: Forgiveness or Remission?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Costeon View Post
Because his Lord had commanded him to baptize people as part of making disciples and bringing them into the church.

Nothing our Lord commands is in vain.

Peter did not change his theology, but perhaps the way many understand it is not precisely like he understood it.

Three times in the early part of Acts, Luke records Peter preaching to a group of people in which he mentions receiving the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2.38; 3.19-21; 5.31.32), and in two of the three, he only mentions repentance but not baptism. Joined to this, in Luke 24.46-49, Luke records Jesus's final instructions on what Peter and the other apostles are to preach. Jesus mentions repentance and the forgiveness of sins, but not baptism. If we read Luke and Acts as Luke intended (back to back as two parts of one history), we see that within just a few pages he includes four passages that are clearly parallel in content, and in three out of four, forgiveness and repentance are mentioned, but not baptism.

Interestingly there is a variant reading at Luke 24.47, and some of the oldest manuscripts read "repentance for the forgiveness of sins.")

In light of this evidence and later how Peter says that the proof Cornelius and the other Gentiles had been cleansed by faith was they had received the Spirit, I would suggest that repentant faith and baptism do not play the same role in someone receiving the remission of sins. Repentance and faith seem indispensable in a way that baptism is not. In those parallel passages to Acts 2.38, what is absolutely essential to bringing about the remission of sins, repentance, is mentioned while what is not, baptism, is not.

This is not to suggest that baptism is optional. Even though baptism was not the place where Cornelius was forgiven, Peter still commanded him to be baptized. Baptism is commanded for all, and so all must be baptized. No one can reject baptism and be saved.

Under normal circumstances in the Book of Acts, forgiveness/remission did, in fact, come to someone by faith and repentance at baptism--not because baptism had effected the remission of sins but because it was the usual setting in which the repentance and faith that did effect it was expressed. When someone said they believed the gospel, the church at once led them to baptism. Cornelius's situation, however, was not normal circumstances. At that point, the church would not have baptized him and other Gentiles. God had to do something extraordinary and prove he had accepted them, and in doing this, it was revealed that it is possible in certain circumstances for God to bring someone to faith and repentance before baptism and so remit their sins and cleanse them before baptism. This is definitely not the pattern in Acts, though.

It is, however, certainly common now. In the circumstance when someone is led by the church to receive the Spirit before baptism (which is something that the church in Acts never led someone to do), that person must be commanded to be baptized, and if they truly have saving faith they will. I would even say in order for them to maintain their forgiveness--their cleansing received before baptism--they must be baptized.



Peter was not trying to hide anything. He focused on what strengthened his argument in that context.

I think the drive to include their entire experience in their cleansing is not rooted in carefully interpreting this passage but in bringing to it a pre-commitment to the idea that only baptism can bring about the forgiveness/remission of sins.

I know we disagree, but I appreciate the discussion and your questions that challenge me to think through my beliefs again.


Peter omits faith here, but includes repentance, baptism, and the Spirit:
Act 2:38 NKJV - (38) Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Peter omits faith, baptism, but includes repentance and what might be interpreted as the Spirit:
Act 3:19 NKJV - (19) "Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,
Peter includes faith, but omits repentance, baptism, and the Spirit:
Act 10:43 NKJV - (43) "To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins."
Peter includes baptism, but omits faith, repentance, and Spirit:
1Pe 3:21 NKJV - (21) There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
So, according to the logic that if it is omitted is not necessary for forgiveness, then, what is included commonly in all those passages is the key, right?

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.

We can actually do the same with Paul and you will find surprising results.

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?

Last edited by coksiw; 01-27-2023 at 07:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 01-27-2023, 08:08 PM
Costeon Costeon is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 773
Re: Forgiveness or Remission?

Quote:
Originally Posted by coksiw View Post
Peter omits faith here, but includes repentance, baptism, and the Spirit:
Act 2:38 NKJV - (38) Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Peter omits faith, baptism, but includes repentance and what might be interpreted as the Spirit:
Act 3:19 NKJV - (19) "Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,
Peter includes faith, but omits repentance, baptism, and the Spirit:
Act 10:43 NKJV - (43) "To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins."
Peter includes baptism, but omits faith, repentance, and Spirit:
1Pe 3:21 NKJV - (21) There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
So, according to the logic that if it is omitted is not necessary for forgiveness, then, what is included commonly in all those passages is the key, right?

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.

We can actually do the same with Paul and you will find surprising results.

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?
For Peter and the rest of the writers of the New Testament, faith and repentance are two sides of one coin and can be used as a synecdoche for each other. They are inextricably linked. Faith alone can be mentioned, and that always implies repentance, and repentance alone can be mentioned, and that always implies faith.

As you point out, in Acts 2.38 Peter says "repent" but in Acts 10.43 he says "that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins". In Acts 15.17, Peter describes the Gentiles as believing, and in the next verse, the Jewish leaders call it repentance.

At the beginning of Jesus’s ministry, he said, “Repent and believe the gospel” (Mark 1.15). Paul said he preached “repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20.21).

Regarding, 1 Peter 3.21, if someone has come to faith and repentance and has been baptized but has not spoken in tongues, has baptism saved them?

I think another way to look at this issue is to focus on what the Bible says has happened to someone who has received the Spirit. They have been sanctified, that is, made holy and set apart for relationship with God, and have received new life in the Spirit--Jesus describing it as new birth and Paul describing it as being raised from the dead. What had made us unholy before God and in need of new life? Our sin. Can you be made holy but not have your sins removed? No. How can you be holy when that which made you unholy is still present? Can you be born again or raised from the dead but still be dead in sin? No. How can you be alive when what made you dead is still present?
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 01-27-2023, 10:55 PM
good samaritan's Avatar
good samaritan good samaritan is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 2,710
Re: Forgiveness or Remission?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias View Post
Welcome to the AoGFriendsForum everybody!
See the bolded. This is why I cant take your comments seriously.
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 01-27-2023, 11:08 PM
good samaritan's Avatar
good samaritan good samaritan is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 2,710
Re: Forgiveness or Remission?

Quote:
Originally Posted by coksiw View Post
Peter omits faith here, but includes repentance, baptism, and the Spirit:
Act 2:38 NKJV - (38) Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Peter omits faith, baptism, but includes repentance and what might be interpreted as the Spirit:
Act 3:19 NKJV - (19) "Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,
Peter includes faith, but omits repentance, baptism, and the Spirit:
Act 10:43 NKJV - (43) "To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins."
Peter includes baptism, but omits faith, repentance, and Spirit:
1Pe 3:21 NKJV - (21) There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
So, according to the logic that if it is omitted is not necessary for forgiveness, then, what is included commonly in all those passages is the key, right?

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.

We can actually do the same with Paul and you will find surprising results.

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?
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Remission is Different from Forgiveness Myth SDG The D.A.'s Office 102 04-30-2020 03:29 PM
Remission of Sin? Abiding Now Fellowship Hall 4 12-16-2013 05:07 AM
Forgiveness and/or Remission Sam Fellowship Hall 178 11-14-2007 06:19 PM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by Amanah
- by Salome

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.