Forgiveness or Remission?

[james34]

I used to tie forgiveness/ remission to baptism. But after actually studying the subject, I had to let that go. Apparently the “scholars” don’t have answers either.

[james34]

Read through the old thread by SDG, “remission is different from forgiveness “. https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.co...ad.php?t=18356


It sheds a lot of light on the subject, it’s a great read.

[james34]

Originally Posted by Esaias

It's my term. I call it the Cornelius exception because in the Bible, the order of events in a conversion is hear the Gospel, get baptized, receive the Holy Ghost. But in Cornelius' case (and the other gentiles who were gathered with him to hear Peter), the pattern was hear the Gospel, receive the Holy Ghost, get baptized. It is a singular event repeated nowhere else in Scripture, so therefore qualifies as an "exception" to the normative "hear, baptized, receive" pattern elsewhere followed in Scripture.

That’s like saying you could take 2 routes by automobile to church. One way is a dirt road and is less traveled. The other way is a paved road and is more commonly taken. This does not make the less traveled road an invalid route. What is proven is that it can happen either way, therefore sin must not be remitted at baptism.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

It's my term. I call it the Cornelius exception because in the Bible, the order of events in a conversion is hear the Gospel, get baptized, receive the Holy Ghost. But in Cornelius' case (and the other gentiles who were gathered with him to hear Peter), the pattern was hear the Gospel, receive the Holy Ghost, get baptized. It is a singular event repeated nowhere else in Scripture, so therefore qualifies as an "exception" to the normative "hear, baptized, receive" pattern elsewhere followed in Scripture.

And my point was that you are pointing to that exceptional pattern (the pattern of events in the conversion of the first gentiles to the Gospel) as a response to me pointing out the normative usual pattern of conversion in Scripture. So I addressed the issue, because the conversion of Cornelius does NOT serve as a "gotcha" refutation of the normative pattern of salvation found in the book of Acts. As I said, the exception proves the rule. And in fact Luke's account of the events and the discussion among the brethren that followed (see ch 11) demonstrates that it was indeed an exception due to the early church's failure to immediately begin evangelizing gentiles. They were still under the impression that gentiles could not be saved as gentiles but must first become Jews. That error persisted for some time and was THE major issue in the early church during the first century prior to AD 70.

Now, looking forward through history, down to our day, I believe God includes things in His Word so that all Christians in every time and every culture can derive benefit and learn. In our case, we are today faced with the question of "Why do some people receive the Holy Ghost before baptism, and why do others get baptized and yet it is some time later that they receive the Spirit? Why doesn't everybody get it exactly the same way, in the same order?"

Now, I do not have a answer as to "Why" things happen the way they do. But I see in scripture some get baptized and do not necessarily receive the Spirit right away (Samaritans, for example). I also see where some receive the Spirit prior to being baptized, even right in the middle of the evangelistic sermon (Cornelius and company). And I see others who hear and are baptized and receive the Spirit right after being baptized, as part of the same event (disciples of John in Acts 19). So what I see in Scripture is provision for a Biblical ground of faith and assurance for the many even today, who either have a waiting period after baptism before they receive the Spirit or for those who receive the Spirit prior to baptism. Both scenarios are found in Scripture, therefore both are valid, as much as the hear, baptized, receive all-in-the-same-meeting folks.

But the exception (notice, only in the case of the first gentiles did people receive the Spirit before being baptized) does not overthrow the general template or pattern of hear, baptism, Holy Ghost found in all the other examples. Even in the case of the Samaritans, where there is a gap of time between their baptisms and their receiving of the Spirit, the same basic pattern is found - hear, baptized, receive. In the case of the gentiles, nobody was evangelizing them at that time, nobody would have accepted them as candidates for baptism unless they also submitted to circumcision. Baptism was a mikvah, a rite of Judaism, now understood as being a mikvah or baptism into Messiah, who was for Israel, not uncircumcised gentiles. So God gave them the Spirit proving to the church that yes gentiles need to be baptized and accepted into the congregation just like Judeans.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I am in agreement.

Then you agree baptism is for the forgiveness of sins? So please explain how Acts 2:38, specifically "baptized for the remission of sins", fits into your doctrine that a person is forgiven apart from baptism.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I mean, it's just all so very clear.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Then you agree baptism is for the forgiveness of sins? So please explain how Acts 2:38, specifically "baptized for the remission of sins", fits into your doctrine that a person is forgiven apart from baptism.

Apart from baptism? Find anywhere that I said you don’t have to be baptized? I haven’t. My whole point has been forgiveness is Gods business and he sees the heart of the person in question. Baptism is not a substitute for repentance, but it will follow after it.

How many times have you seen people baptized with water, but never receive the Spirit?

If they obey Acts 2:38 “they shall” right?

Maybe it is just me, but I have seen as many receive the Holly Ghost before baptism as afterwards. Also I have seen many that have been baptized that never received the Holy Ghost at all.

All I have been saying is that salvation/forgiveness/remission is received by grace through faith

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Baptism is the result of that faith and not the cause.

Baptism without faith and repentance is just getting wet. Yet, faith and repentance will produce baptism, along with much other fruit.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Baptism is necessary for the repentant, but forgiveness is by Gods grace alone. Acts 2:38 can unintentionally become a 3 step formula to receive Gods remission of sin, when instead obedience is simply the obvious response of the recipient of Gods grace. The sinner on the cross received no outward demonstration or seal of his faith, but God extended grace to him anyways. This does not negate obedience to the gospel found in the book of Acts and the baptism of the Holy Ghost. The work of God on our lives involves much more of God and less of ourselves then what we sometimes realize.

This is first post I posted.

Notice the underlined statement.

I didn’t mention the sinner on the cross to disprove the necessity of baptism, but to place emphasis on the source of our forgiveness, which is the work of God.

You have been saying that we are forgiven when we get baptized.

I have been saying that if we are forgiven we will be baptized.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

.

What I was meaning is Gods free gift of forgiveness is to the repentant. Gods Forgiveness is not manipulated by a sinners prayer or any other physical observances. When we repent, God freely forgives, and obedience is a continued result of repentance. Therefore, we have the example of the thief on the cross being saved.

The thief was forgiven after (faith)repentance, and if he would of lived to tell it, he would have been baptized and filled like all the rest of Christ followers.

Originally Posted by good samaritan

If people don’t become forgiven until baptism, then how do they receive baptism of the Spirit before water baptism. Your logic is that people born of the Spirit are still in their sins until water baptism.

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Apart from baptism? Find anywhere that I said you don’t have to be baptized? I haven’t.

Looks to me like you were saying a person is forgiven FIRST, and THEN they get baptized. Thus, "forgiven APART FROM baptism." I never claimed you were saying "you don't have to be baptized" at all, but you were making it clear that a person does not have to be baptized. IN ORDER TO BE HAVE REMISSION OF THEIR SINS, that remission of sins occurs PRIOR to being baptized.

[james34]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Looks to me it clear that a person does not have to be baptized. IN ORDER TO BE HAVE REMISSION OF THEIR SINS, that remission of sins occurs PRIOR to being baptized.

TRUE!!!!