Forgiveness or Remission?

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I don't see the word "salvation" in John 3:5. Do you? I also don't see the phrase "the sign of tongues" there, either. Do you?

John 3.5 is not about salvation? Based on Jesus's entire conversation with Nicodemus, to be born from above and thus be able to see and enter the kingdom is equivalent to believing in Jesus and thus not perishing but having eternal life. That is the very definition of salvation.

It would be helpful if you just stated clearly what you think the the birth of the Spirit it is. Do you not think it only occurs with the sign of tongues?


I don't see the word "baptism" here either, but I would imagine you and others would say that "water" is obviously baptism.

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by Costeon

I don't see the word "baptism" here either, but I would imagine you and others would say that "water" is obviously baptism.

Even though John consistently alludes “water” to the Spirit?

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by diakonos

Even though John consistently alludes “water” to the Spirit?

I'm not arguing that "water" refers to baptism. I'm noting that the average Oneness Pentecostal says it does.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Whether or not you realize it, you're simply shifting the remission of sins from water baptism, to Spirit baptism.

What I've done is show that forgiveness and the saving work of the Spirit cannot be separated in time, and therefore, salvation, occurs at a point in time. That point in time is repentant faith, that is, faith that moves someone to repent.

You could just as easily argue that remission of sins is only effected by the blood of Jesus, based on Matthew 26:28. But a more holistic approach is best:

1 John 5:6-7 (ESV),

There are three elements, for lack of a better word, that agree, or come together, in the life of a believer:

1.) The Spirit
2.) The Water
3.) The Blood

All three are involved in granting remission of sins.

1 John 5.6-7 is not obviously about a believer's conversion. The next verse shows that John is referring to "the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son."

And there is ample proof of all three of these elements being received in baptism

Ok, so I believe you have now answered my previous question about what you believe regarding when the saving work of the Spirit is received in conversion: It occurs with forgiveness and automatically is received in baptism and is not signified by speaking in tongues.

Since I too believe that the saving work of the Spirit and forgiveness occur at the same time, I would agree with you that it occurs in baptism, if not for one thing: the fact that people constantly receive the gift of the Spirit with the sign of tongues before baptism. However someone understands what the gift of the Spirit with the sign of tongues is (supernatural empowerment or as the birth of the Spirit), all would agree that when someone begins to speak in tongues, new life in the Spirit has either already occurred or is occurring at that moment, which is to say that the regenerating work of the Spirit has occurred before baptism. That people constantly speak in tongues before baptism shows that neither forgiveness nor the birth of the Spirit are effected by baptism.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by coksiw

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

James is not talking about conversion. He is talking about the Christian life after conversion. We are saved by faith not by our works whether at conversion or at any other time. (See Rom 4.4-5; Eph 2.8-9.) To be saved by works would require perfect obedience, and we've already failed to do that. Though we are saved by faith, the faith that saves always produces fruit, or good works (Eph 2.10). We show our faith by our works (James 2.18). James gives some examples to illustrate his point: giving people the clothing and food they need, Abraham offering Isaac, and Rahab hiding the spies. None of those things were the things they did to get saved. They followed after they were saved. Their works demonstrated that they still had saving faith.

What do you mean with "forgiveness" then?

I'll just define forgiveness the way Paul does in Col 2.14: it's "canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross." When we are forgiven, our debt of sin is completely removed.

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.

When we are forgiven, God counts us as righteous in his sight (Rom 4.6-8). We are no longer guilty before God and so no longer subject to God's judgment. It's not God just getting you started in the process. You can't be forgiven and not saved. Our sins are what made us subject to God's judgment. When our sins are removed, there is no longer any basis for us to be judged.

God always reaches out to us to get us started, but that is not forgiveness. Not only does he always reach out to us, he had to. We were dead in trespasses and sins (Eph 2.1) and could not have just chosen to turn to Christ. We cannot receive even one thing unless it is given to us from heaven (John 3.27.) No one can come to the Father unless He draws him or her (John 6.44). He does all this and brings us to a place where we can have faith and repent, but this process of drawing us and enabling us to begin turning to him is not forgiveness. This grace that draws people and enables them to turn to Christ is often called prevenient or preceding grace--it comes before salvation.

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?

Sanctification is the initial act the Spirit works in us when we're saved when he changes our hearts and cleanses our sins. We are thus holy, that is, sanctified, in his sight. Sanctification can refer to this status we have before God that we receive at conversion and continue to have by faith, and sanctification can also refer to the long process by which the Holy Spirit makes us more holy in our actual thoughts, words, and deeds. So, yes, you are sanctified before God while being sanctified. It's a current status and an ongoing process.

You can lose your salvation when you turn from faith and reject Christ and utterly disregard and flagrantly violate his Word. Your sins are no longer atoned for and covered:

"21 And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard" (Col 1.21-23).

"26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries" (Heb 10.26-27).

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.

We are saved in a moment not through a process in which you get a bit of salvation at baptism (forgiveness/remission) and a bit at the gift of the Spirit with tongues (regeneration of the Spirit). When God has brought you to faith and repentance you are forgiven and given new life by the Spirit at the same time--you were raised from the dead spiritually when God forgave and removed your sins (Col 2.13-14).

When you conceive of initial salvation as a process and say forgiveness occurs at a different moment than the birth of the Spirit, you end up with people being partly saved and partly lost, partly born and partly not born. It's not surprising that no one besides some Oneness Pentecostals beginning in the early part of the 1900s have ever divided forgiveness from the new birth of the Spirit, asserting that they occur at different moments in time.

Now, from conversion to our final salvation when Christ returns, that is indeed a process of growing in holiness, and as you note, without this growth in holiness no one will see the Lord.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Costeon

John 3.5 is not about salvation? Based on Jesus's entire conversation with Nicodemus, to be born from above and thus be able to see and enter the kingdom is equivalent to believing in Jesus and thus not perishing but having eternal life. That is the very definition of salvation.

The word "salvation" isn't present in John 3:5. And the phrase "born again" didn't have the same connotations as it seemingly does for us, all these years later. We have equated the phrase "born again" with "saved".

But the Biblical idea of being saved, or of salvation, especially in the Hebrew Scriptures of the Old Testament, as the foundation of Christ's life and work, is one of immediate rescue and deliverance, particularly from temporal situations and problems. And being born again/from above, was basic rabbinical language used to tell prospective followers that they needed to abandon their former allegiances to someone else's teachings, in order to follow another's.

Consider the context. Nicodemus is a Rabbi, affiliated with the Pharisees. He comes by night to meet Jesus in a private audience. He begins their discussion with flattery:

“Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.”

In the Dea Sea Scrolls, in Pesher Nahum, the Pharisees are called "Flattery-Seekers". They are also known as Flattery-Seekers (Sometimes rendered Seekers After Smooth Things) in The Psalms of Thanksgiving, likely a reference to Isaiah 30:10, where the Hebrew word for "smooth" is chelqah , which figuratively means "flattery". This is a pejorative against them, for their desire for more lenient interpretations of the Torah.

Jesus, then, cuts to the chase, and decides to given Nicodemus a decidedly not smooth thing for him to hear. Essentially, the Pharisees, as a party, are guilty of some serious crimes against God and His people. Nicodemus is guilty by association. If he would be cleared of that guilt, he must start over, anew, or afresh (which is the best interpretation of anóthen from John 3:3).

Essentially, Nicodemus, and by extension, the Pharisees, must make a clean break from their past allegiances to their school of thought, else they will be excluded from seeing and entering the "Kingdom of God", a metonym for the Nation of Israel.

Nicodemus and Jesus have their parlay in verses 3-9, then Jesus begins His diatribe against him in verse 10:

“Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?"

The context of John 3 is very much the immediate situation on the ground in the nation of Israel, in Christ's conflict with the Pharisees, a conflict that preceded Christ, going nearly 200 years all the way back to the formation of the Yahad at Qumran, and the persecution of the Teacher of Righteousness by the Flattery-Seekers, after they attempted but failed to ally themselves with Demetrius, King of Greece, in an attempt to overthrow Alexander Jannaeus, which caused a severe blowback against the Pharisees under Alexander (he crucified 800 of them, plus killed all their wives and children). But, when Alexander died, his widow, Salome, favored the Pharisees, and they got the last laugh, so to speak, and remained in political and religious power until the time of Christ.

Suffice it to say, that there is a lot more going on in John 3:3-5 then your typical modern, Protestant Evangelical version with a Pentecostal spin.

It would be helpful if you just stated clearly what you think the the birth of the Spirit it is. Do you not think it only occurs with the sign of tongues?

I don't see the word "baptism" here either, but I would imagine you and others would say that "water" is obviously baptism.

It would be most helpful to not make any assumptions about what I believe.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Costeon

What I've done is show that forgiveness and the saving work of the Spirit cannot be separated in time, and therefore, salvation, occurs at a point in time. That point in time is repentant faith, that is, faith that moves someone to repent.

And yet, as I made abundantly clear in Post #190, a refusal to be baptized after someone has "repented" is an indication that they person has not in fact, repented at all, and that, despite any "tongue-speaking" that may have occurred, the person is still guilty of at least one transgression: disobedience to the command by Christ and His Apostles, to be baptized.

1 John 5.6-7 is not obviously about a believer's conversion. The next verse shows that John is referring to "the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son."

The next verse doesn't speak to the entirety of the context. 1 John 5:1-5 begins by speaking of a believer being born of God, and how the children of God can be correctly discerned, by those who keep the commandments, and so, have overcome the world. This is clearly about conversion, about how a person became a believer in Christ, that He was and is the Son of God. Verses 6-11 then speak of the testimony of Christ, to help prove and establish that He really was and is the Son of God, and so, those who have believed in Him, who have been born of God, have put their faith in the right thing.

And we know from an abundance of other verses of Holy Scripture, that water, blood, and Spirit are all linked in baptism.

Ok, so I believe you have now answered my previous question about what you believe regarding when the saving work of the Spirit is received in conversion: It occurs with forgiveness and automatically is received in baptism and is not signified by speaking in tongues.

Since I too believe that the saving work of the Spirit and forgiveness occur at the same time, I would agree with you that it occurs in baptism, if not for one thing: the fact that people constantly receive the gift of the Spirit with the sign of tongues before baptism. However someone understands what the gift of the Spirit with the sign of tongues is (supernatural empowerment or as the birth of the Spirit), all would agree that when someone begins to speak in tongues, new life in the Spirit has either already occurred or is occurring at that moment, which is to say that the regenerating work of the Spirit has occurred before baptism. That people constantly speak in tongues before baptism shows that neither forgiveness nor the birth of the Spirit are effected by baptism.

Again, it would be helpful to not make assumptions about what I believe.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

The word "salvation" isn't present in John 3:5. And the phrase "born again" didn't have the same connotations as it seemingly does for us, all these years later. We have equated the phrase "born again" with "saved".

But the Biblical idea of being saved, or of salvation, especially in the Hebrew Scriptures of the Old Testament, as the foundation of Christ's life and work, is one of immediate rescue and deliverance, particularly from temporal situations and problems. And being born again/from above, was basic rabbinical language used to tell prospective followers that they needed to abandon their former allegiances to someone else's teachings, in order to follow another's.

Consider the context. Nicodemus is a Rabbi, affiliated with the Pharisees. He comes by night to meet Jesus in a private audience. He begins their discussion with flattery:

“Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.”

In the Dea Sea Scrolls, in Pesher Nahum, the Pharisees are called "Flattery-Seekers". They are also known as Flattery-Seekers (Sometimes rendered Seekers After Smooth Things) in The Psalms of Thanksgiving, likely a reference to Isaiah 30:10, where the Hebrew word for "smooth" is chelqah , which figuratively means "flattery". This is a pejorative against them, for their desire for more lenient interpretations of the Torah.

Jesus, then, cuts to the chase, and decides to given Nicodemus a decidedly not smooth thing for him to hear. Essentially, the Pharisees, as a party, are guilty of some serious crimes against God and His people. Nicodemus is guilty by association. If he would be cleared of that guilt, he must start over, anew, or afresh (which is the best interpretation of anóthen from John 3:3).

Essentially, Nicodemus, and by extension, the Pharisees, must make a clean break from their past allegiances to their school of thought, else they will be excluded from seeing and entering the "Kingdom of God", a metonym for the Nation of Israel.

Nicodemus and Jesus have their parlay in verses 3-9, then Jesus begins His diatribe against him in verse 10:

“Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?"

The context of John 3 is very much the immediate situation on the ground in the nation of Israel, in Christ's conflict with the Pharisees, a conflict that preceded Christ, going nearly 200 years all the way back to the formation of the Yahad at Qumran, and the persecution of the Teacher of Righteousness by the Flattery-Seekers, after they attempted but failed to ally themselves with Demetrius, King of Greece, in an attempt to overthrow Alexander Jannaeus, which caused a severe blowback against the Pharisees under Alexander (he crucified 800 of them, plus killed all their wives and children). But, when Alexander died, his widow, Salome, favored the Pharisees, and they got the last laugh, so to speak, and remained in political and religious power until the time of Christ.

Suffice it to say, that there is a lot more going on in John 3:3-5 then your typical modern, Protestant Evangelical version with a Pentecostal spin.



It would be most helpful to not make any assumptions about what I believe.

Acts 13:33 KJV
God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Revelation 1:5 KJV
And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

It seems that born again/of the Spirit also has reference to being resurrected into immortality.

Galatians 4:29 KJV
But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

Here, Isaac is said to have been "born after the Spirit", though his birth was just as physical as Ishmael's. The difference being that Isaac came into existence as a result of a Divine Promise and faith toward God.

1 Peter 1:23-25 KJV
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. [24] For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: [25] But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Whatever it means to be born again, it must be by the Word of God, and not by personal opinion or denominational dogma or personal observations of what passes for "regeneration" amongst "the masses".

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

The word "salvation" isn't present in John 3:5.

But it is in the same passage, v 17: "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."

And the phrase "born again" didn't have the same connotations as it seemingly does for us, all these years later. We have equated the phrase "born again" with "saved".

Equating the phrase "born again" with salvation is not something we have uniquely done all these years later. We have texts by Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, who wrote around 55-80 years after the apostle John, that explicitly do this.

But the Biblical idea of being saved, or of salvation, especially in the Hebrew Scriptures of the Old Testament, as the foundation of Christ's life and work, is one of immediate rescue and deliverance, particularly from temporal situations and problems.

Again, in this same conversation, Jesus explicitly mentions salvation, and it refers to an immediate rescue and deliverance from God's condemnation and judgment, and in this salvation, coming to have eternal life.

John 3.16-18: "16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."

And being born again/from above, was basic rabbinical language used to tell prospective followers that they needed to abandon their former allegiances to someone else's teachings, in order to follow another's.

Consider the context. Nicodemus is a Rabbi, affiliated with the Pharisees. He comes by night to meet Jesus in a private audience. He begins their discussion with flattery:

“Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.”

In the Dea Sea Scrolls, in Pesher Nahum, the Pharisees are called "Flattery-Seekers". They are also known as Flattery-Seekers (Sometimes rendered Seekers After Smooth Things) in The Psalms of Thanksgiving, likely a reference to Isaiah 30:10, where the Hebrew word for "smooth" is chelqah , which figuratively means "flattery". This is a pejorative against them, for their desire for more lenient interpretations of the Torah.

Jesus, then, cuts to the chase, and decides to given Nicodemus a decidedly not smooth thing for him to hear. Essentially, the Pharisees, as a party, are guilty of some serious crimes against God and His people. Nicodemus is guilty by association. If he would be cleared of that guilt, he must start over, anew, or afresh (which is the best interpretation of anóthen from John 3:3).

Essentially, Nicodemus, and by extension, the Pharisees, must make a clean break from their past allegiances to their school of thought, else they will be excluded from seeing and entering the "Kingdom of God", a metonym for the Nation of Israel.

Nicodemus and Jesus have their parlay in verses 3-9, then Jesus begins His diatribe against him in verse 10:

“Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?"

The context of John 3 is very much the immediate situation on the ground in the nation of Israel, in Christ's conflict with the Pharisees, a conflict that preceded Christ, going nearly 200 years all the way back to the formation of the Yahad at Qumran, and the persecution of the Teacher of Righteousness by the Flattery-Seekers, after they attempted but failed to ally themselves with Demetrius, King of Greece, in an attempt to overthrow Alexander Jannaeus, which caused a severe blowback against the Pharisees under Alexander (he crucified 800 of them, plus killed all their wives and children). But, when Alexander died, his widow, Salome, favored the Pharisees, and they got the last laugh, so to speak, and remained in political and religious power until the time of Christ.

Suffice it to say, that there is a lot more going on in John 3:3-5 then your typical modern, Protestant Evangelical version with a Pentecostal spin.

I've already shown how your assertion is incorrect that equating John 3.3-5 with salvation is modern phenomenon. It decidedly is not.

And calling Nicodemus a flatterer simply does not accord with what John says in his gospel about Nicodemus.

John uniformly presents him as sincere in respect to Jesus: he is attracted to Jesus as a teacher and is a seeker of the truth (3.1-21); he defends Jesus against his fellow Pharisees (7.45-52); he helped bury Jesus! (19.38-42).

"Consider the context."
Let's do so. In a previous post I have already noted, "Based on Jesus's entire conversation with Nicodemus, to be born from above and thus be able to see and enter the kingdom is equivalent to believing in Jesus and thus not perishing but having eternal life. That is the very definition of salvation."

That's the immediate context, but consider the opening section of John's Gospel. In vv 11-13, John first establishes the context for understanding what Jesus means by being born from above.

"11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."

To be born from above is to be born of God and to become a child of God. To believe in his name (v 12) is later directly associated in John 3 with receiving eternal life and escaping condemnation (vv 15-18).

Suffice it to say, born from above language is fundamentally about salvation.

Of course, John is not the only NT writer is use born from above/born of God language in connection with being a believer in Jesus and being saved. Paul and Peter do as well:

Gal 4.28-30: "28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.”

1 Pet 1.3-5: "3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, 5 who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

1 Pet 1.23, 25: "23 since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; . . . And this word is the good news that was preached to you."

So, yes, being born of God/born from above/born again is fundamentally about being saved and having eternal life.

It would be most helpful to not make any assumptions about what I believe.

I believe I had already asked you if you thought the birth of the Spirit occurred automatically at baptism and so without the sign of tongues, but you had not answered the question.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

And yet, as I made abundantly clear in Post #190, a refusal to be baptized after someone has "repented" is an indication that they person has not in fact, repented at all, and that, despite any "tongue-speaking" that may have occurred, the person is still guilty of at least one transgression: disobedience to the command by Christ and His Apostles, to be baptized.

I agree that someone cannot refuse to be baptized and still be saved (and nobody has suggested this), but you can be saved before you're baptized if you have received the gift of the Spirit and spoken in tongues before you were baptized. When someone is speaking in tongues, regardless of how someone understands what the gift of the Spirit with tongues is, this person has either already been born of the Spirit or is being born of the Spirit at that same moment--before baptism. You cannot be born of the Spirit but not be forgiven and still be lost. This person still has to be baptized since it is a command, and if someone were to later refuse to be baptized, this would indicate they no longer possessed saving faith.

The next verse doesn't speak to the entirety of the context. 1 John 5:1-5 begins by speaking of a believer being born of God, and how the children of God can be correctly discerned, by those who keep the commandments, and so, have overcome the world. This is clearly about conversion, about how a person became a believer in Christ, that He was and is the Son of God. Verses 6-11 then speak of the testimony of Christ, to help prove and establish that He really was and is the Son of God, and so, those who have believed in Him, who have been born of God, have put their faith in the right thing.

And we know from an abundance of other verses of Holy Scripture, that water, blood, and Spirit are all linked in baptism.

I disagree with your interpretation, but it doesn't take much to realize that you and I are not going to agree, so there's no need for me to go point by point and show why I disagree. I will just note that the key to all this is your statement "And we know from an abundance of other verses of Holy Scripture, that water, blood, and Spirit are all linked in baptism." It seems you are approaching this text in 1 John with a commitment to a particular view and so are going to interpret this text in light of this view and make it fit with it.

Again, it would be helpful to not make assumptions about what I believe.

Again, I had asked you what you believed about the birth of the Spirit in relation to baptism, but you did not answer directly. No one will make assumptions when you state plainly your beliefs.