Forgiveness or Remission?

[mfblume]

I recall hearing a preacher preach a message entitled, "Going to Hell with the Holy Ghost." I forget his name. Will try to remember it.

Another preacher preached a few campmeetings in Nova Scotia in either the late 90s or early 2000s, and preached how everyone who ever had the Holy Ghost will go in the rapture, but be turned away if they backslid. His text was Matt 22 where the man without a wedding garment was at the wedding supper and turned away to the lake of fire.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Genuine repentance includes baptism (it is completed in and signified by baptism). The idea that sins are "forgiven" at one point and then subsequently "remitted" at another point is incorrect, as the two words mean the same thing in reference to sins. To "remit" a debt is to forgive the debt. It is impossible for sins to be forgiven but not remitted (or vice versa). That's like saying you owe someone a debt, they forgive the debt, but you still owe it because it hasn't been remitted. Or the other way around.

This fits in well with Acts 2:38

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Esaias

1. Proves that the Bible teaches a difference between remission and forgiveness, and what that difference is.

I agree with you that there is no difference. I suppose it's unfortunate the KJV translators used different words to translate one Greek word. In the original preface to their translation, which is almost never included in KJVs today, they note that they felt no need to use only one English word for each Greek (or Hebrew) word.

2. Prove that the Bible teaches people receive forgiveness of sins before being baptised.

The experience of Cornelius and those with him, I believe, shows that people can be forgiven before being baptized. In Acts 15, Peter is arguing against those Jewish believers who were saying that Gentile believers had to be circumcised to be saved, and he uses Cornelius's experience to show that God had fully accepted the Gentiles, as Gentiles, just as much as he had accepted the Jews, and what proved this was him pouring out the Spirit upon them.

In 15.8-9, Peter says, "8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith."

What showed that God had made no distinction between them and Jewish believers and that he had cleansed their hearts by faith was him giving them the Spirit. What would their hearts be cleansed of but their sins? This occurred before they were baptized.

I agree with you that, in the Book of Acts, Cornelius's experience of receiving the Spirit before baptism is the exception to the rule. And so, normally baptism is the place where someone is forgiven, but I think that Cornelius's experience shows that God can forgive apart from baptism in circumstances like his.

I would add that, when we receive the Spirit in conversion, the Spirit sanctifies us, that is, makes us holy and sets us apart for relationship with God. For example, Paul says in 2 Thess 2.13, "But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth."

How could the Spirit's sanctifying work, his making us holy work, not include the removal of our sin?

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Costeon

I agree with you that there is no difference. I suppose it's unfortunate the KJV translators used different words to translate one Greek word. In the original preface to their translation, which is almost never included in KJVs today, they note that they felt no need to use only one English word for each Greek (or Hebrew) word.



The experience of Cornelius and those with him, I believe, shows that people can be forgiven before being baptized. In Acts 15, Peter is arguing against those Jewish believers who were saying that Gentile believers had to be circumcised to be saved, and he uses Cornelius's experience to show that God had fully accepted the Gentiles, as Gentiles, just as much as he had accepted the Jews, and what proved this was him pouring out the Spirit upon them.

In 15.8-9, Peter says, "8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith."

What showed that God had made no distinction between them and Jewish believers and that he had cleansed their hearts by faith was him giving them the Spirit. What would their hearts be cleansed of but their sins? This occurred before they were baptized.

I agree with you that, in the Book of Acts, Cornelius's experience of receiving the Spirit before baptism is the exception to the rule. And so, normally baptism is the place where someone is forgiven, but I think that Cornelius's experience shows that God can forgive apart from baptism in circumstances like his.

I would add that, when we receive the Spirit in conversion, the Spirit sanctifies us, that is, makes us holy and sets us apart for relationship with God. For example, Paul says in 2 Thess 2.13, "But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth."

How could the Spirit's sanctifying work, his making us holy work, not include the removal of our sin?

Old testament saints received the Spirit of God even before the cross. Some more extreme examples: Saul was filled of the Spirit and "prophesied" even when he was persecuting David; Balaam filled with the Spirit prophesied blessing to Israel even when his heart was not right before God; David, apparently, didn't lose the Spirit of God in him after committing the adultery since during repentance he was asking God to not take away his Spirit from his life. I definitely believe that those that do not repent eventually will lose the Spirit, btw, but that's not the topic here.

God may give you his Spirit even before you are fully and legally forgiven to the point of giving you entrance to everlasting life. The phrase "having cleansed their hearts by faith" may be also referring to the entire experience as a whole, including baptism in Jesus name, and not necessarily to only the infilling of the Spirit; making the evidence of the Spirit the witness of the acceptance, and the cleaning of the heart, a reference to the end result which included the baptism (the full experience).
In fact, they received the Spirit right after Peter said: "Act 10:43 NKJV - (43) "To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.""

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Costeon

I agree with you that there is no difference. I suppose it's unfortunate the KJV translators used different words to translate one Greek word. In the original preface to their translation, which is almost never included in KJVs today, they note that they felt no need to use only one English word for each Greek (or Hebrew) word.



The experience of Cornelius and those with him, I believe, shows that people can be forgiven before being baptized. In Acts 15, Peter is arguing against those Jewish believers who were saying that Gentile believers had to be circumcised to be saved, and he uses Cornelius's experience to show that God had fully accepted the Gentiles, as Gentiles, just as much as he had accepted the Jews, and what proved this was him pouring out the Spirit upon them.

In 15.8-9, Peter says, "8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith."

What showed that God had made no distinction between them and Jewish believers and that he had cleansed their hearts by faith was him giving them the Spirit. What would their hearts be cleansed of but their sins? This occurred before they were baptized.

I agree with you that, in the Book of Acts, Cornelius's experience of receiving the Spirit before baptism is the exception to the rule. And so, normally baptism is the place where someone is forgiven, but I think that Cornelius's experience shows that God can forgive apart from baptism in circumstances like his.

I would add that, when we receive the Spirit in conversion, the Spirit sanctifies us, that is, makes us holy and sets us apart for relationship with God. For example, Paul says in 2 Thess 2.13, "But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth."

How could the Spirit's sanctifying work, his making us holy work, not include the removal of our sin?

1. The Bible connects water baptism and remission of sins directly, by direct plain statements.

2. The Bible nowhere makes the same type of connection between receiving the Spirit and remission, in the same way.

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.

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.

5. Speculative what ifism cannot be the basis of anything sound or authoritative.

Therefore, it would be perfectly reasonable to reject such a thing.

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.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by coksiw

The phrase "having cleansed their hearts by faith" may be also referring to the entire experience as a whole, including baptism in Jesus name, and not necessarily to only the infilling of the Spirit; making the evidence of the Spirit the witness of the acceptance, and the cleaning of the heart, a reference to the end result which included the baptism (the full experience).

Well, I don't the context will allow us to say that it's referring to their whole experience, including their baptism. Everything Peter says in Acts 15 about the Gentiles’ hearts is explicitly connected with God pouring out the Spirit on them. Peter said that he preached the gospel to them and they believed. How did he know they believed? Because, when he preached the gospel to them, God knew their hearts—he knew they had come to faith—and at once poured out his Spirit on them in response to their faith. God knew their hearts and so cleansed their hearts. All this explicitly happened before they were baptized.

It’s important to note that Peter never mentions baptizing them in his argument. And there's a reason for that. Just like in Acts 11, when he had to defend himself against some Jewish Christians who were attacking him for going to the Gentiles in the first place, Peter focuses exclusively on what God had done. It wouldn't have strengthened his argument against his opponents to focus on anything he had done—like baptizing Cornelius—so Peter mentions only God’s deeds to refute his opponents. God’s actions had brought about the cleansing of their hearts; it had nothing to do with Peter baptizing them. In cleansing them and making no distinction between them and Jewish believers when he poured his Spirit out upon them, God proved he had accepted them as they were without them having to be circumcised.

In fact, they received the Spirit right after Peter said: "Act 10:43 NKJV - (43) "To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.""

Right, and this shows they were cleansed of sin before their baptisms. Peter’s promise was that whoever comes to faith in Christ will have their sins forgiven and removed. Their receiving the Spirit showed they had come to faith in Christ and had received this forgiveness. God knew their heart and so cleansed their heart of sin as he poured out the Spirit on them.

When God poured out the Spirit on them, we know from other passages of Scripture that at that moment they were sanctified by the Spirit and born of the Spirit and raised from the dead by the Spirit. A person cannot experience being made holy and being given new life by the Spirit while what had made them unholy and in need of new life in the first place, their sin, still remains. To come to life, what had caused death had to be removed. To be made holy, what had defiled had to be cleansed.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Well, I don't the context will allow us to say that it's referring to their whole experience, including their baptism. Everything Peter says in Acts 15 about the Gentiles’ hearts is explicitly connected with God pouring out the Spirit on them. Peter said that he preached the gospel to them and they believed. How did he know they believed? Because, when he preached the gospel to them, God knew their hearts—he knew they had come to faith—and at once poured out his Spirit on them in response to their faith. God knew their hearts and so cleansed their hearts. All this explicitly happened before they were baptized.

It’s important to note that Peter never mentions baptizing them in his argument. And there's a reason for that. Just like in Acts 11, when he had to defend himself against some Jewish Christians who were attacking him for going to the Gentiles in the first place, Peter focuses exclusively on what God had done. It wouldn't have strengthened his argument against his opponents to focus on anything he had done—like baptizing Cornelius—so Peter mentions only God’s deeds to refute his opponents. God’s actions had brought about the cleansing of their hearts; it had nothing to do with Peter baptizing them. In cleansing them and making no distinction between them and Jewish believers when he poured his Spirit out upon them, God proved he had accepted them as they were without them having to be circumcised.



Right, and this shows they were cleansed of sin before their baptisms. Peter’s promise was that whoever comes to faith in Christ will have their sins forgiven and removed. Their receiving the Spirit showed they had come to faith in Christ and had received this forgiveness. God knew their heart and so cleansed their heart of sin as he poured out the Spirit on them.

When God poured out the Spirit on them, we know from other passages of Scripture that at that moment they were sanctified by the Spirit and born of the Spirit and raised from the dead by the Spirit. A person cannot experience being made holy and being given new life by the Spirit while what had made them unholy and in need of new life in the first place, their sin, still remains. To come to life, what had caused death had to be removed. To be made holy, what had defiled had to be cleansed.

[good samaritan]

The bottom line is that we have hope

Acts 26:6
And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers:

Philippians 3:11-14
11......If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.
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.

I don’t think we own God’s mercy, nor do we have one single experience that entitles us to an eternal reward. We have hope in Jesus Christ and therefore we are obedient to His Word. Repentance and baptism do go hand in hand, but that remission doesn’t become secured until we hear Him say well done. Our theology will not dictate Gods sovereignty.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Well, I don't the context will allow us to say that it's referring to their whole experience, including their baptism. Everything Peter says in Acts 15 about the Gentiles’ hearts is explicitly connected with God pouring out the Spirit on them. Peter said that he preached the gospel to them and they believed. How did he know they believed? Because, when he preached the gospel to them, God knew their hearts—he knew they had come to faith—and at once poured out his Spirit on them in response to their faith. God knew their hearts and so cleansed their hearts. All this explicitly happened before they were baptized.

It’s important to note that Peter never mentions baptizing them in his argument. And there's a reason for that. Just like in Acts 11, when he had to defend himself against some Jewish Christians who were attacking him for going to the Gentiles in the first place, Peter focuses exclusively on what God had done. It wouldn't have strengthened his argument against his opponents to focus on anything he had done—like baptizing Cornelius—so Peter mentions only God’s deeds to refute his opponents. God’s actions had brought about the cleansing of their hearts; it had nothing to do with Peter baptizing them. In cleansing them and making no distinction between them and Jewish believers when he poured his Spirit out upon them, God proved he had accepted them as they were without them having to be circumcised.



Right, and this shows they were cleansed of sin before their baptisms. Peter’s promise was that whoever comes to faith in Christ will have their sins forgiven and removed. Their receiving the Spirit showed they had come to faith in Christ and had received this forgiveness. God knew their heart and so cleansed their heart of sin as he poured out the Spirit on them.

When God poured out the Spirit on them, we know from other passages of Scripture that at that moment they were sanctified by the Spirit and born of the Spirit and raised from the dead by the Spirit. A person cannot experience being made holy and being given new life by the Spirit while what had made them unholy and in need of new life in the first place, their sin, still remains. To come to life, what had caused death had to be removed. To be made holy, what had defiled had to be cleansed.

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?


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?

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by coksiw

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.

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.

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?

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 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 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.