Repentance in Acts 2:38

[Costeon]

In Acts 2:38, what does it mean to "repent," and when someone repents, what is their status before God, or what does it accomplish?

[Amanah]

Repentance and baptism are inseparable for the remission of sins, just as the wedding vows, and the wedding night are both required for one to be actually married

[Amanah]

You can promise to forsake all others, but your not married till you take His name

[Costeon]

Repentance and baptism are inseparable for the remission of sins, just as the wedding vows, and the wedding night are both required for one to be actually married

What does repent mean, though? What does it accomplish?

[Esaias]

If you were told "Hey, stop sinning and get baptised in Jesus name so your sins will be forgiven" would you have a hard time understanding that?

[Costeon]

If you were told "Hey, stop sinning and get baptised in Jesus name so your sins will be forgiven" would you have a hard time understanding that?

Repent means "stop sinning"? Is there no forgiveness at all till baptism? I ask because I was reading the section on repentance in David Bernard's book The New Birth, and he asserts that repentance partially effects forgiveness and baptism completes forgiveness. He argues this, it seems, because he is trying to account for how people can receive the Spirit before baptism even though their sins are still fully against them--which they would be if there is no forgiveness till baptism.

[votivesoul]

Acts 2:38 is a response from Simon about what the audience ought to do regarding the fact they've just realized that God made Jesus both Lord and Christ, and that they crucified Him.

Repentance therefore in Acts 2:38 is a combination of the following:

- Realizing, believing, and confessing that Jesus is Lord by the will and edict of God
- Realizing, believing, and confessing that Jesus is the Messiah by the will and edict of God
- In light of these two things, realizing, believing, and confessing that you had the by the will and edict of God Lord and Messiah murdered

If and when you realize, believe, and confess these things, you should be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus so your sin (crucifying the One God made Lord and Christ) may be forgiven.

[Esaias]

Repent means "stop sinning"? Is there no forgiveness at all till baptism? I ask because I was reading the section on repentance in David Bernard's book The New Birth, and he asserts that repentance partially effects forgiveness and baptism completes forgiveness. He argues this, it seems, because he is trying to account for how people can receive the Spirit before baptism even though their sins are still fully against them--which they would be if there is no forgiveness till baptism.

BpopulBernard - and you - are still viewing repentance as the old "first trip to the altar" scenario left over from Wesleyan Pentecostal and Baptist influences, where repentance is a particular liturgical action usually involving a crying/confessing spell at an altar rail or bedside leading to a catharsis that is mistaken for "justification".

Biblically, repentance means turning back to God, so is not a particular step in a 2 or 3 step process but a more general term like "get right with God".

Remission of sins for the alien uncovenanted sinner is experienced in baptism. And remission and forgiveness are identical words in Greek.

[Costeon]

BpopulBernard - and you - are still viewing repentance as the old "first trip to the altar" scenario left over from Wesleyan Pentecostal and Baptist influences, where repentance is a particular liturgical action usually involving a crying/confessing spell at an altar rail or bedside leading to a catharsis that is mistaken for "justification".

Biblically, repentance means turning back to God, so is not a particular step in a 2 or 3 step process but a more general term like "get right with God".

Remission of sins for the alien uncovenanted sinner is experienced in baptism. And remission and forgiveness are identical words in Greek.

Your second and third paragraphs alone would have been a great response to my initial post.

[diakonos]

In Acts 2:38, what does it mean to "repent," and when someone repents, what is their status before God, or what does it accomplish?

To change your mind...

[Costeon]

Acts 2:38 is a response from Simon about what the audience ought to do regarding the fact they've just realized that God made Jesus both Lord and Christ, and that they crucified Him.

Repentance therefore in Acts 2:38 is a combination of the following:

- Realizing, believing, and confessing that Jesus is Lord by the will and edict of God
- Realizing, believing, and confessing that Jesus is the Messiah by the will and edict of God
- In light of these two things, realizing, believing, and confessing that you had the by the will and edict of God Lord and Messiah murdered

If and when you realize, believe, and confess these things, you should be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus so your sin (crucifying the One God made Lord and Christ) may be forgiven.

Well said. Do you think that the place to confess Jesus is Lord is in baptism? It seems that baptism should be the location or context for repentance to (publicly) occur. I have long thought that OPs separated repentance too much from baptism, as if it is something that should happen "at the altar."

[Esaias]

Your second and third paragraphs alone would have been a great response to my initial post.

The first paragraph identifies the commonly held erroneous approach to the subject. It was not meant to be any kind of attack. Sorry if it came across that way.

[Amanah]

[some] are still viewing repentance as the old "first trip to the altar" scenario left over from Wesleyan Pentecostal and Baptist influences, where repentance is a particular liturgical action usually involving a crying/confessing spell at an altar rail or bedside leading to a catharsis that is mistaken for "justification".

Biblically, repentance means turning back to God, so is not a particular step in a 2 or 3 step process but a more general term like "get right with God".

Remission of sins for the alien uncovenanted sinner is experienced in baptism. And remission and forgiveness are identical words in Greek.

https://wikiclipart.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Teacher-apple-clipart-free-images-12.jpg

[Evang.Benincasa]

Repent means "stop sinning"? Is there no forgiveness at all till baptism? I ask because I was reading the section on repentance in David Bernard's book The New Birth, and he asserts that repentance partially effects forgiveness and baptism completes forgiveness. He argues this, it seems, because he is trying to account for how people can receive the Spirit before baptism even though their sins are still fully against them--which they would be if there is no forgiveness till baptism.

If there was forgiveness at repentance then the Old Testament people were already saved (2 Chronicles 7:14).

[Evang.Benincasa]

BpopulBernard - and you - are still viewing repentance as the old "first trip to the altar" scenario left over from Wesleyan Pentecostal and Baptist influences, where repentance is a particular liturgical action usually involving a crying/confessing spell at an altar rail or bedside leading to a catharsis that is mistaken for "justification".

Biblically, repentance means turning back to God, so is not a particular step in a 2 or 3 step process but a more general term like "get right with God".

Remission of sins for the alien uncovenanted sinner is experienced in baptism. And remission and forgiveness are identical words in Greek.

:highfive

[Nicodemus1968]

Jesus’s death, burial, and resurrection is symbolic of the step that we need to take.

You can find examples like this throughout the Old Testament as well. Elijah as he killed the sacrifice (repentance) then he had them cover the sacrifice with water (baptism), and then fire came down from heaven (Holy Ghost) to consume the sacrifice.

Jesus’s Death is symbolic of Repentance, Jesus’s burial is symbolic of baptism, and his resurrection is symbolic of the individual receiving the Holy Ghost.

Repentance is you dying out to your self. You can repent and confess your faults to Jesus wherever you are doesn’t have to be in a physical church building. The British Army (it may be another service as well) as there marching the drill Sargent will actually say “Repent” and they will turn 180 degrees and begin to march the opposite direction.

With that said, repentance is not the power Acts 1:8 describes, your not saved through repentance. Your sins haven’t even been remitted yet, that comes along with baptism as you take on his name.

[Nicodemus1968]

Well said. Do you think that the place to confess Jesus is Lord is in baptism? It seems that baptism should be the location or context for repentance to (publicly) occur. I have long thought that OPs separated repentance too much from baptism, as if it is something that should happen "at the altar."

Do you think that the place to confess Jesus is Lord is in baptism?

Can you please explain what your meaning? I’m just trying to make clear your not talking about baptism being the place to confess “Jesus is Lord and your personal savior” kind of a thing.

It seems that baptism should be the location or context for repentance to (publicly) occur.

Why publicly?

I have long thought that OPs separated repentance too much from baptism

What is OP’s

I’m not trying to put you on the spot, just trying to understand what your asking so I can better answer. Also, you have to be careful Pentecost (UPCI) isnt what it used to be, I’m sorry that’s just the way it is. They’re moving from Acts 2:38 message to “Accept the Lord” maybe not even that. WPF isnt far behind, organizations are man made pyramids.

[Esaias]

BpopulBernard - and you - are still viewing repentance as the old "first trip to the altar" scenario left over from Wesleyan Pentecostal and Baptist influences, where repentance is a particular liturgical action usually involving a crying/confessing spell at an altar rail or bedside leading to a catharsis that is mistaken for "justification".

Biblically, repentance means turning back to God, so is not a particular step in a 2 or 3 step process but a more general term like "get right with God".

Remission of sins for the alien uncovenanted sinner is experienced in baptism. And remission and forgiveness are identical words in Greek.

Ha! I have no idea where that Bpopul came from! Lol autocorrect going insane....

[Nicodemus1968]

Ha! I have no idea where that Bpopul came from! Lol autocorrect going insane....

:heeheehee I wondered about that.

[Costeon]

The first paragraph identifies the commonly held erroneous approach to the subject. It was not meant to be any kind of attack. Sorry if it came across that way.

I appreciate it, Esaias.

[Costeon]

Ha! I have no idea where that Bpopul came from! Lol autocorrect going insane....

I figured it was something like that, but it was interpreted easy enough. :-)

[Costeon]

If there was forgiveness at repentance then the Old Testament people were already saved (2 Chronicles 7:14).

How were they saved?

[Costeon]

Jesus’s death, burial, and resurrection is symbolic of the step that we need to take.

Jesus’s Death is symbolic of Repentance, Jesus’s burial is symbolic of baptism, and his resurrection is symbolic of the individual receiving the Holy Ghost

I'm not sure about this, but where does the NT say that Jesus's death is symbolic of repentance, or that when we repent we are identifying with his death? I know we Oneness Pentecostals have said this a lot, but I'm not sure it is directly stated this way in the NT.

Paul does say, however, that our baptism is like Christ's death--and his burial, and resurrection in Rom 6:3-4 and Col 2.11-12. If we carefully note what Paul says in these two passages, we see that our identification with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection occurs in a moment when we "die" and are "buried" as we are lowered into the water and then are "resurrected" when we are brought up out of the water. It does not occur through distinct or discrete steps that may be separated in time--someone repents at the altar, and is then baptized, say, later that day or the next Sunday, and then maybe receives the Spirit a week or so (or a month or so) after that.

The British Army (it may be another service as well) as there marching the drill Sargent will actually say “Repent” and they will turn 180 degrees and begin to march the opposite direction.

Very interesting!

[Evang.Benincasa]

How were they saved?

How were Old Testament people saved? You tell me. I was going to type out a whole mantra but decided to ask you.

[Costeon]

Do you think that the place to confess Jesus is Lord is in baptism?

Can you please explain what your meaning? I’m just trying to make clear your not talking about baptism being the place to confess “Jesus is Lord and your personal savior” kind of a thing.

I mean that baptism is the normal, biblical place for fulfilling Rom 10.9-13. Genuine faith is displayed or expressed in baptism. We call on the name of the Lord when we confess that Jesus is Lord in the waters of baptism.

In this passage, Paul clearly explains how we come to be be declared righteous by faith (10.6). It is not complicated or involve extraordinary deeds (ascending into heaven or descending into the earth), but is simple: trust and confession (10.7-10).

Oneness Pentecostals tend to ignore Romans--an overreaction or overcorrection to Evangelicals' use of it. It should not be ignored but squared with Acts 2:38. Hence me saying that baptism is the place for saving faith to be expressed.

It seems that baptism should be the location or context for repentance to (publicly) occur.

Why publicly?

Regarding Peter's audience, they had publicly rejected Christ. Now they were to publicly accept him through their baptism and taking on his name.


I have long thought that OPs separated repentance too much from baptism

What is OP’s

Ah, sorry for not defining that. I mean Oneness Pentecostals. I guess I'm too lazy to write it out. :-)

I’m not trying to put you on the spot, just trying to understand what your asking so I can better answer.

I appreciate it. I didn't feel like you were putting me on the spot. :-)

[Costeon]

How were Old Testament people saved? You tell me. I was going to type out a whole mantra but decided to ask you.

As Paul indicates in Rom 4.1-12, they were saved on the same basis we are: justification by faith. This would be for those before the Law (Abraham) and for those under the Law (David).

They were not saved by obeying the Law, for those who relied on their ability to do the law to be righteous in God's sight were under a curse, as Paul says in Gal 3.10, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” No one ever abided by all things in the Law except Christ. Paul continues in 3.11, "Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for 'The righteous shall live by faith.'"

But, praise God!, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree'— so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith" (3.13-14).

Paul explains what, then, was the point of the Law in Romans and Galatians, so I won't repeat what he says there.

All have been saved by faith in Christ--in the OT looking forward to the promised Christ; in the NT and afterwards looking back to Christ.

[Evang.Benincasa]

As Paul indicates in Rom 4.1-12, they were saved on the same basis we are: justification by faith. This would be for those before the Law (Abraham) and for those under the Law (David).

They were not saved by obeying the Law, for those who relied on their ability to do the law to be righteous in God's sight were under a curse, as Paul says in Gal 3.10, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” No one ever abided by all things in the Law except Christ. Paul continues in 3.11, "Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for 'The righteous shall live by faith.'"

But, praise God!, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree'— so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith" (3.13-14).

Paul explains what, then, was the point of the Law in Romans and Galatians, so I won't repeat what he says there.

All have been saved by faith in Christ--in the OT looking forward to the promised Christ; in the NT and afterwards looking back to Christ.

Then why were the cursed if they kept not the law?
Adam and Eve transgress and are expelled. Israel rejects the law and goes into Babylonian captivity? Faith produces works, therefore we show our faith by our works. Hence they kept the law, as did Paul, Elizabeth, and Zechariah. Not that the law was salvation, but faith in that produced the obidience to the law. When that schoolmaster finally brought them to the teacher they were ready to receive their salvation. The only way the thief on the cross had salvation was that he was a member of the common wealth of Israel. Who had been part of their system. Therefore as a child up he was taught everything in the Books of Moses concerning Christ. When his 2 Chronicles 7:14 moment came he took it. Accepting Jesus as the Christ. Having been baptized as an entire group in Moses under the cloud and through the sea.

[coksiw]

I just read The New Birth from Bernard as well entirely.

He teaches that:

The entire conversion experience is repentance, baptism and the gift. That all of that is the result of a saving faith, and that's how you are justified.
Being half way doesn't justify you because saving faith will take it through all the steps. If you don't do all the steps then your faith is lacking, your repentance is not complete, your trust in him is not complete, then you are not justified.
God is the one owning the process, and the one that looks at the heart, and the one that by Grace drives people to repent and gives the Holy Spirit. We don't own the process, we don't tell God "OK this person is now justified Lord, you must receive it in Heaven".

Robin Johnston teaches something similar.

Bernard says clearly that repentance, beside the godly sorrow, requires fruit demonstrating it, and if you repent but don't receive the Holy Spirit, it is a matter of time before you start struggling hard with sin again because you won't have a victorious life without him. But that's hypothetical. We really don't know if the repentance was complete or the saving faith was complete.

[Costeon]

Then why were the cursed if they kept not the law?
Adam and Eve transgress and are expelled. Israel rejects the law and goes into Babylonian captivity? Faith produces works, therefore we show our faith by our works. Hence they kept the law, as did Paul, Elizabeth, and Zechariah. Not that the law was salvation, but faith in that produced the obidience to the law. When that schoolmaster finally brought them to the teacher they were ready to receive their salvation. The only way the thief on the cross had salvation was that he was a member of the common wealth of Israel. Who had been part of their system. Therefore as a child up he was taught everything in the Books of Moses concerning Christ. When his 2 Chronicles 7:14 moment came he took it. Accepting Jesus as the Christ. Having been baptized as an entire group in Moses under the cloud and through the sea.

I agree with much that you say here, but I'm not sure I understand everything you say, and I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing regarding obedience.

When Paul speaks of the curse of the Law, I understand him to be saying that if someone were to be justified by the law they would have had had to obey it perfectly, never once having broken it in any of its aspects, moral, civil, or ceremonial--"cursed is everyone who does not continue in everything written in the Law." In other words you had to be sinless.

He says something similar in Rom 2.12-13: "For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified." As Paul makes clear, no one one can be justified by the Law because no one has ever successfully been a perfect doer of the law (besides Christ.) "For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin" (Rom 3.9).

So we're all cursed if we're seeking to be justified by the Law, "For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin (3.20).

But, praise God, though no one can be justified by perfectly obeying the Law, "21 now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe" (3.21-22).

I don't think that Paul is speaking of pious Jews, like Zechariah or Elizabeth or himself, whose life was characterized by obedience to the Law, especially in the sense of fulfilling the externals of sabbath-keeping, kosher laws, feasts, and sacrifices. Zechariah, et al, was not sinless. He did not, for example, love his neighbor as himself every moment of his life. But I would imagine he did not fail in offering the right sacrifices.

I agree with you that true faith produces fruit. Absolutely. There will always be evidence if we have faith. But we must never think we are maintaining our justification because we are obeying. To say we're somehow maintaining our justification begs the question, Well how much obedience? Or, how many good works? How much is good enough? Again, if we will be justified by our works, it will be because we never sin. But no one fulfills God's moral law flawlessly. Therefore, no one will be justified by their works.

Thank God for the Cross!

[Costeon]

I just read The New Birth from Bernard as well entirely.

He teaches that:

The entire conversion experience is repentance, baptism and the gift. That all of that is the result of a saving faith, and that's how you are justified.
Being half way doesn't justify you because saving faith will take it through all the steps. If you don't do all the steps then your faith is lacking, your repentance is not complete, your trust in him is not complete, then you are not justified.
God is the one owning the process, and the one that looks at the heart, and the one that by Grace drives people to repent and gives the Holy Spirit. We don't own the process, we don't tell God "OK this person is now justified Lord, you must receive it in Heaven".

Robin Johnston teaches something similar.

Bernard says clearly that repentance, beside the godly sorrow, requires fruit demonstrating it, and if you repent but don't receive the Holy Spirit, it is a matter of time before you start struggling hard with sin again because you won't have a victorious life without him. But that's hypothetical. We really don't know if the repentance was complete or the saving faith was complete.

I only read the section entitled "Repentance." What I objected to is that he posits that there are, in effect, stages of forgiveness. Though it's not complete at repentance (it's completed at baptism), it's enough so that someone can go on and be filled with the Spirit after repenting.

He does not really provide Scripture to back this up, because Scripture does not explicitly speak of stages of forgiveness, as far as I know.

This stages of forgiveness idea is another form of the popular idea that forgiveness is somehow different from remission of sins, or of Segraves’s hybrid justification doctrine, which states that justification is based on faith (trust, reliance on Christ) but justification is simply a new standing with God that now makes it possible to go on and receive forgiveness of sins in baptism and to be regenerated in the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

All of these views are ultimately trying to explain how someone can receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit before being baptized and thus forgiven of sins. These views show that no one can conceive that someone can receive the Holy Spirit though they are still entirely stained with sin, so they try to add in some kind of forgiveness before baptism.

Well, I say no one, but someone on this forum a few months back, and I'm not sure who it was, took the bull by the horns and said you didn't have to be forgiven before receiving the Holy Spirit. If I remember correctly, their reasoning was that, since there is no distinction between remission and forgiveness of sins, no forgiveness occurs till baptism, and so if someone receives the Spirit before baptism, they still have their entire record of sin against them till they are baptized. I didn't agree with their view, but I admired his attempt to be consistent with his understanding of Scripture rather than to posit an unbiblical idea of some sort of stages of forgiveness.

[Amanah]

This is a great and needed discussion

[votivesoul]

Well said. Do you think that the place to confess Jesus is Lord is in baptism? It seems that baptism should be the location or context for repentance to (publicly) occur. I have long thought that OPs separated repentance too much from baptism, as if it is something that should happen "at the altar."

Before immersion. "If you believe with your whole heart, you may" said Philip. To which the eunuch replied "I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God". After that confession, they went into the water.

There really shouldn't be a delay, however. Come to faith through repentance, make your confession, then go get washed and receive the Holy Spirit immediately.

[votivesoul]

Before immersion. "If you believe with your whole heart, you may" said Philip. To which the eunuch replied "I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God". After that confession, they went into the water.

There really shouldn't be a delay, however. Come to faith through repentance, make your confession, then go get washed and receive the Holy Spirit immediately.

And what I mean is, don't convince people to get in the water and then lead them to Jesus and then hope God grants them repentance, so they can then be baptized.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I agree with you that true faith produces fruit. Absolutely. There will always be evidence if we have faith. But we must never think we are maintaining our justification because we are obeying. To say we're somehow maintaining our justification begs the question, Well how much obedience? Or, how many good works? How much is good enough? Again, if we will be justified by our works, it will be because we never sin. But no one fulfills God's moral law flawlessly. Therefore, no one will be justified by their works.

Thank God for the Cross!

The whole everyone sins but Jesus is misleading. Because when you read the Bible we find that Noah was blameless, Daniel was blameless, Job was blameless, Zechariah and his wife blameless, as well as the Apostle Paul. So either we are mistaken about sin, or we don’t understand what the scripture is talking about these people. We don’t maintain anything, we don’t do works to be saved, we being saved produces works. James the law keeper was explaining how faith without works is dead. This epistle infuriated Martin Luther to such a point that he wanted to remove it from the New Testament. The problem being that reformationists don’t understand how salvation worked in the Old Testament. Law was to be obeyed. But not as a to do list, where it was a laborious act and struggle. Abel sacrifice was a by product of his love. Cain’s sacrifice was rejected because it wasn’t performed out of love, but out of duty.
This is the big difference between the Rabbinicals and the Apostles. The Rabbis worked to find loopholes, ways around the law. Like cursing your parents, and instead of stoning you offered a gift at the temple. Knowing that if you modified the law in anyway you were under a curse Deut 4:2, Deuteronomy 12:32, Proverbs 30:6, Ecclesiastes 3:14, Galatians 1:8, and Revelations 22:18-19.
Law was never meant to be the curse, it was the vehicle to bring the Israelite to Christ. It was meant to show the lover of God who the Christ would be, and therefore be no longer needed once He was manifested. When we fall out of love then it becomes a drudgery and we only focus on obidience to the point of hate.
Then we start looking at our watch waiting for our sacrifice to be accepted, while are Brother is weeping snot bubbles and tears loving God having his sacrifice accepted.

[Costeon]

The whole everyone sins but Jesus is misleading. Because when you read the Bible we find that Noah was blameless, Daniel was blameless, Job was blameless, Zechariah and his wife blameless, as well as the Apostle Paul. So either we are mistaken about sin, or we don’t understand what the scripture is talking about these people.

It is probably easier to define "sin" than to define "blameless" regarding those that you mention. From Noah's example, it seems blameless does not mean sinless, since he got so drunk he was laying uncovered in his tent--but technically this was not counted against him as sin since this was before, I believe, a commandment had been given forbidding drunkenness, and where this is no command, there is no transgression (Rom 4.15).

Sin is the breaking of God's law (1 John 3.4). Any of God's law. For OT believers it was specifically breaking any of God's civil, ceremonial, or moral law. For NT believers, it is the breaking of any of God's moral law, the civil and ceremonial laws of the Old Covenant no longer applying.

It seems to me that most Pentecostals think of sin only in terms of "big" sins, for example, drunkenness, murder, assault, fornication, sins which I trust we have the victory over. :-) I used to have an inadequate doctrine of sin like this, but at some point came to see it as much more than that. Any command I break, regardless of how insignificant it may seem to me is sin.

When the Lord said to love my neighbor as myself, I first ask, What does it mean to love? Paul's definition of love in 1 Cor 13 comes to mind. Paul says that love "is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth." Maybe people on this forum have flawlessly maintained this kind of love toward all people, but I have not, though I think I probably do a better job of it now than I did when the Lord first saved me.

Paul says, "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others" (Phil 2.3-4). I have not flawlessly done these things. When I don't, it is sin.

Carefully reading the Sermon on the Mount will go a long way toward us having an adequate view of sin. Jesus, for example, said, "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." I make that my goal, but fall short, especially when I focus on sins like those mentioned in the paragraphs above.

We don’t maintain anything, we don’t do works to be saved, we being saved produces works. James the law keeper was explaining how faith without works is dead.
Agreed. But what do we mean by works? And how many works show that my faith is not dead? One a day? 100 a day? I think you're right in pointing out this verse, but again, it begs the question, What does "without works" mean? James focuses on "good deeds," feeding and clothing those in need, for example.

James had a rigorous view of law keeping: "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it" (2.10). In short, everyone is guilty of all of it because no one has flawlessly kept it their whole lives. But, praise God, "mercy triumphs over judgment" (2.13).

The problem being that reformationists don’t understand how salvation worked in the Old Testament. Law was to be obeyed. But not as a to do list, where it was a laborious act and struggle. Abel sacrifice was a by product of his love. Cain’s sacrifice was rejected because it wasn’t performed out of love, but out of duty.

Reading Luther some, I think he had a good understanding of how salvation worked in the Old Testament. Luther makes the very point you're making in his Preface to the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, when he is gives an overview of Rom 2.

For example, "Since [the Law] is spiritual, however, no one keeps it, unless everything you do springs from your inmost heart. . . . Because that law is spiritual, and demands that sort of mind, if that spirit is not in our hearts, sin remains; a grudge abides together with hostility to the law, although the law itself is right and good and holy." This preface is short and would be well worth reading.

Regarding Luther and the Book of James, Luther liked it, but like many in the first few centuries of the church, he did not think it was authored by the Apostle James and so was not canonical. In his Preface to the Book of James, he writes, "I think highly of the epistle of James, and regard it as valuable although it was rejected in early days. [Luther is correct here that it was one of the disputed books and one of the last books to be accepted into the canon of Scripture.] It does not expound human doctrines but lays much emphasis on God's law. [Law has a positive role to play in Luther's theology.] Yet, to give my own opinion without prejudice to that of anyone else, I do not hold it to be of apostolic authorship, for the following reasons . . . . [He lists his reasons.I therefore refuse him a place among the writers of the true canon of my Bible; but I would not prevent anyone placing him or raising him where he likes, for the epistle contains many excellent passages."

Law was never meant to be the curse, it was the vehicle to bring the Israelite to Christ. It was meant to show the lover of God who the Christ would be, and therefore be no longer needed once He was manifested. When we fall out of love then it becomes a drudgery and we only focus on obidience to the point of hate.
I like how you express this. Yes, as Paul, notes the Law was meant to bring people to Christ and it was holy, righteous, and good. The problem was not with the Law but with sin--sin killed people through what was good, the Law. Law was not intended to be a curse, but because of sin it was a curse, as Paul argues in Galatians and Romans.

[Costeon]

And what I mean is, don't convince people to get in the water and then lead them to Jesus and then hope God grants them repentance, so they can they be baptized.

Agreed. It should be “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?" (Acts 8.36).

[Costeon]

Before immersion. "If you believe with your whole heart, you may" said Philip. To which the eunuch replied "I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God". After that confession, they went into the water.


I think you make a good point, though I am reluctant to use a single passage from a historical narrative, since we have nothing else to help us to know if this was a general practice. (You, of course, may have other passages you base your thought on here.) Admittedly my thinking has probably been shaped a lot by thinking of John's baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. They confessed their sins in the water it seems (Matt 3.6), so it seems to me that's what we would do. Confessing Jesus is Lord is the epitome of a repentant heart. I turn from sin and myself as Lord and confess him as Lord.

But more significantly, since Acts 22.6 speaks of calling on the name of the Lord in baptism and Paul mentions calling on the name of the Lord in Rom 10.13 and connects this with confessing Jesus is Lord, this may be evidence that in the NT they confessed Jesus as Lord in baptism.

There really shouldn't be a delay, however. Come to faith through repentance, make your confession, then go get washed and receive the Holy Spirit immediately.

Amen.

[Evang.Benincasa]

It is probably easier to define "sin" than to define "blameless" regarding those that you mention. From Noah's example, it seems blameless does not mean sinless, since he got so drunk he was laying uncovered in his tent--but technically this was not counted against him as sin since this was before, I believe, a commandment had been given forbidding drunkenness, and where this is no command, there is no transgression (Rom 4.15).

Ezekiel 14:14 makes a clear case what God thought of Noah. Ezekiel is told by God when the land sins, God would cut them off, even if they had three righteous men within the land. God is obviously referring back to the deal made with Abraham concerning Sodom, and Gomorrah. This is where God agrees to spare the cities if He finds 10 righteous men can be found Genesis 18:23–32. Yet, this deal no longer open for Ezekiel. In Genesis 6:8 God tells Noah that Noah had found favor in Good's assessment. Genesis 7:1 tells us that God called Noah righteous in the generation of Noah. Job 1:1 we are introduced to Job as upright, blameless, and had achieved living apart from what God considered evil? Daniel we are told by the angel Gabriel that Daniel was highly desired by God. Just as Gabriel tells Mary that she is highly favored by God. These people are chosen not because they were barely getting by in their religion. But because they were righteous and blameless.
Noah gets drunk? No prohibition against gluttony? Still God didn't share your view of Noah's indulging in the vino. The definition for righteous/δίκαιοι is innocent, and holy. Therefore Zechariah and Elizabeth were innocent, and HOLY in God's assessment of their lives. This is how the early readers of the Gospel of Luke would of understood the Greek definition of Zacharias and his wife's behavior. Now, it gets way more interesting when we look at their law keeping practices. Luke states that the couple were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. Now, Galatians 2:16 talks about no justification by the fruit of the law, but by the faith in the Christ. From Abel who loved God, to Zechariah who loved God, all looked forward to the ending of the curse. Again, we are not saved by works, but because we are saved we produce fruit to life everlasting. When Galatians 3:10 quotes Deuteronomy 27:26, Paul is speaking of those who place the horse before the cart. That total dependence on one's own ability in their religious observance minus love and devotion to God will account for something. Yet, Zacharias and his wife weren't cursed, they were blameless in every jot and tittle of the law. Hence the admonition found in Deuteronomy 27:26. Or are we to take Deuteronomy 27:26 as a catch 22? Cursed if you do, and cursed if you don't? Sounds like the Greek and Roman gods who made impossible insurmountable problems for their devotees. But 1 Thessalonians 3:12-13 mentions that the Lord Jesus will help us to increase in love towards the church family. In that way Jesus strengthen our minds so we will be without fault and holy in the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ. What it boils down to is that the love of the brethren is the real growth ingredient to be ye perfect as your Father is perfect. Bringing the individual to maturity in Christ.




Sin is the breaking of God's law (1 John 3.4). Any of God's law. For OT believers it was specifically breaking any of God's civil, ceremonial, or moral law. For NT believers, it is the breaking of any of God's moral law, the civil and ceremonial laws of the Old Covenant no longer applying.

Which Noah, Daniel, Job, Zechariah, Elizabeth, and the Apostle Paul did blamelessly. Interesting how God called those who were not only obeying but loving Him, which produced the obedience. Paul writes this to the Philippian church family. Philippians 2:14-15 that they were not to complain and argue so that they would be blameless, pure, without fault. John tells his students they they were to purify themselves as pure as Jesus Christ, and be as righteous as Jesus Christ 1 John 3:3, and 1 John 3:7. The law is still functioning like gravity, and if we continue to practice sin then we come back under the curse. It is not whether or not we wash cups, or slit the throat of a bull. That no longer applies because those systems no longer exist. Jesus is the fulfillment, the lamb offered by God that takes the sin of the entire world away. But is the entire world without sin, because of Jesus' atonement? No, but they all have access. If they heed God's call.


It seems to me that most Pentecostals think of sin only in terms of "big" sins, for example, drunkenness, murder, assault, fornication, sins which I trust we have the victory over. :-)

That sounds like all of Christendom. I was raised by Catholics, Jews, and atheists and they all held to the above. Although the atheists turned it into white lies and black lies. People are people, and Pentecost is a very small part. These forums tend to drag a Pentecostal behind the car for a few miles because they are either disgruntled, or once were "Pentecostals" But every single denomination has those who either love it, or hate it. It is human nature, sadly it is the most immature part of human nature.

I used to have an inadequate doctrine of sin like this, but at some point came to see it as much more than that. Any command I break, regardless of how insignificant it may seem to me is sin.

Most people who think and behave that way are more focused on the rules than on the Savior. Having a spouse that all is on your mind is how to get out of the dog house, really weakens and destroys the relationship. A boss who we are always trying not to get in trouble with, tends to make us hate our job, until we eventually quit. But love of spouse, and of job, bypasses a lot. Because the more in love they more everything else falls together. There is no worry about getting in trouble. All becauses the lion share of your time is focused on praying in the love of God, and allowing His Spirit to guide the way. This isn't done by human discipline, then all who are regimentally pious in their own religion would have peace which passes all understanding. No, this is done by the infilling of the Holy Ghost and the faith in Christ to lead us in the light as He is also in the light.


When the Lord said to love my neighbor as myself, I first ask, What does it mean to love? Paul's definition of love in 1 Cor 13 comes to mind. Paul says that love "is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth." Maybe people on this forum have flawlessly maintained this kind of love toward all people, but I have not, though I think I probably do a better job of it now than I did when the Lord first saved me.

Hence the reason why the apostles in their letters write to children, young men, and elders. Three phases, of the same man. We grow in Him, and have our being. We cannot remain babes, because we would still be nursing from the word. Milk wasn't consumed like it is now, especially the milk which they are talking about in the NT. Which is mother's milk given to infants. We are to have the oil, wine, and the honey. Allowing Jesus through His ministry to bring us to mature adults in Him.



Paul says, "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others" (Phil 2.3-4). I have not flawlessly done these things. When I don't, it is sin.

You haven't flawlessly done those things in past tense. Therefore you notice that you haven't, therefore if it is the Holy Ghost showing you this, you can through the Holy Ghost correct and move on. You're past performance means nothing to you, or should it mean anything to anyone else. Like you said you were new, a novice, growing, walking in the light as He is in the light. Taking the yoke upon you to learn of Him, to allow Him to lead you, to His goals for you. Be the leaf, and Jesus the river.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Carefully reading the Sermon on the Mount will go a long way toward us having an adequate view of sin. Jesus, for example, said, "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." I make that my goal, but fall short, especially when I focus on sins like those mentioned in the paragraphs above.

Because we all focus on the wrong things at times. He asks us to get out of the boat. We understand that safety is in the boat, walking on water is an impossibility. Yet, at His behest we are power packed to go forward into a world where sinking is the greatest possibility. But He is there with full knowledge that no matter what He won't let us sink. We need to focus on the faith that He is able to see us through the storm, the hostile waters, and through the oven heated seven times hotter. So, when we come out on the other side we are not wet, or burned and no one can even smell the smoke.




Agreed. But what do we mean by works? And how many works show that my faith is not dead? One a day? 100 a day? I think you're right in pointing out this verse, but again, it begs the question, What does "without works" mean? James focuses on "good deeds," feeding and clothing those in need, for example.

Without works mean that all we have are the fig leaves (the covering) without the fruit. Having works is having fruit in due season, when we were children, we acted such, we had the fruit of children. When we were teenagers we had that fruit, but when we become adults in Christ, we hold the Father's image, we become mature. This isn't some process bathed in regulations, check points where we ourselves are more critical and unyielding then anyone else in our lives. This process is where Jesus through His Holy Ghost inside us grows the love of God in us, where our focus is totally on Him. The ministry working themselves out of a job to train others to be part of the body of Christ and to be part of the ministry.



James had a rigorous view of law keeping: "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it" (2.10). In short, everyone is guilty of all of it because no one has flawlessly kept it their whole lives. But, praise God, "mercy triumphs over judgment" (2.13).

James quotes Deuteronomy 27:26 in connection to the commandment which says love thy neighbor. He didn't expect his students to say "we will try but don't think it is possible." No, this was simple to those he was addressing, or else Deuteronomy 27:26 would not of been employed by Moses in the first place. Here the church was learning how they ought to live in a wicked age, and how they would come forth as tried gold. Without spot or wrinkle, not by their own human discipline but by the faith that Jesus is going to get them all the way home. With their chief motivator which is love for Jesus Christ.

[votivesoul]

Agreed. It should be “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?" (Acts 8.36).

That's how it happened with me, in a manner of speaking.

[votivesoul]

I think you make a good point, though I am reluctant to use a single passage from a historical narrative, since we have nothing else to help us to know if this was a general practice. (You, of course, may have other passages you base your thought on here.) Admittedly my thinking has probably been shaped a lot by thinking of John's baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. They confessed their sins in the water it seems (Matt 3.6), so it seems to me that's what we would do. Confessing Jesus is Lord is the epitome of a repentant heart. I turn from sin and myself as Lord and confess him as Lord.

But more significantly, since Acts 22.6 speaks of calling on the name of the Lord in baptism and Paul mentions calling on the name of the Lord in Rom 10.13 and connects this with confessing Jesus is Lord, this may be evidence that in the NT they confessed Jesus as Lord in baptism.



Amen.

That Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God is the chief confession of the New Covenant Scriptures. The end of the Gospel of John is key:

These things are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you might have life through His name (John 20:31).

If a person doesn't believe these things and so does not openly confess them, they should not be baptized, no matter what else they might say or do. And I think it should be made certain that a person truly believes these things before they get in the water, or, after getting in the water, finding out the baptizee doesn't believe these things, means everyone just wasted their time.

So, even if you go through with the baptism in ignorance, they will not receive the Holy Spirit.

As far as making confession in the water, last fall I baptized a coworker (already filled with the Spirit decades ago) who, before her immersion, wanted to testify and make a confession. She said (paraphrasing here from memory) loudly with a smile "I believe in Jesus. I love Him with my whole heart. He is my Lord and Savior. I'm so excited and happy to be getting baptized."

That's a good confession, if you ask me. So I baptized her in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ afterward. But I would not have baptized her at all had I not already known she was a devotee of the Son of God and believed Him to be the Anointed One, even though she claimed she had already received the Spirit. And that came through lots of talking and administering the Word. As she received the Word, and me as the servant and messenger of the Messiah, it was clear her heart was tender and ready for immersion. In fact, she was the one who brought it up and told me the Lord had shown her she needed to be baptized. I then offered to do it and the rest is history.

Otherwise, yes, call on the Lord Jesus in baptism. Invoke Him and invite Him to the holy bath and petition Him to fulfill the promises of the Holy Scriptures when someone is baptized. But the baptizer should be certain such a confession is legit and make it a matter of importance to find out before leading someone to the water, or else, watch as someone just gets wet, and all leave discouraged.

Years ago, I was praying with a man from Cambodia, raised as a Buddhist, but living as a heathen. God was granting him repentance and he told me he wanted to be baptized. I asked him plainly "Do you believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God?", to which he replied "Yes", more nodding than speaking. The experience and the tears and what God was doing in His life at that moment made it clear He really did believe what he claimed. So we got him ready, baptized him and he received the Holy Spirit in a few moments after he came up from the water.

The church needs to make sure all the ducks are in a row, as it were, on this stuff, or things become disorderly and unfold in a haphazard way that does not, cannot, and will not, bless and glorify God.

[Costeon]

That Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God is the chief confession of the New Covenant Scriptures. The end of the Gospel of John is key:

These things are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you might have life through His name (John 20:31).

If a person doesn't believe these things and so does not openly confess them, they should not be baptized, no matter what else they might say or do. And I think it should be made certain that a person truly believes these things before they get in the water, or, after getting in the water, finding out the baptizee doesn't believe these things, means everyone just wasted their time.

So, even if you go through with the baptism in ignorance, they will not receive the Holy Spirit.

As far as making confession in the water, last fall I baptized a coworker (already filled with the Spirit decades ago) who, before her immersion, wanted to testify and make a confession. She said (paraphrasing here from memory) loudly with a smile "I believe in Jesus. I love Him with my whole heart. He is my Lord and Savior. I'm so excited and happy to be getting baptized."

That's a good confession, if you ask me. So I baptized her in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ afterward. But I would not have baptized her at all had I not already known she was a devotee of the Son of God and believed Him to be the Anointed One, even though she claimed she had already received the Spirit. And that came through lots of talking and administering the Word. As she received the Word, and me as the servant and messenger of the Messiah, it was clear her heart was tender and ready for immersion. In fact, she was the one who brought it up and told me the Lord had shown her she needed to be baptized. I then offered to do it and the rest is history.

Otherwise, yes, call on the Lord Jesus in baptism. Invoke Him and invite Him to the holy bath and petition Him to fulfill the promises of the Holy Scriptures when someone is baptized. But the baptizer should be certain such a confession is legit and make it a matter of importance to find out before leading someone to the water, or else, watch as someone just gets wet, and all leave discouraged.

Years ago, I was praying with a man from Cambodia, raised as a Buddhist, but living as a heathen. God was granting him repentance and he told me he wanted to be baptized. I asked him plainly "Do you believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God?", to which he replied "Yes", more nodding than speaking. The experience and the tears and what God was doing in His life at that moment made it clear He really did believe what he claimed. So we got him ready, baptized him and he received the Holy Spirit in a few moments after he came up from the water.

The church needs to make sure all the ducks are in a row, as it were, on this stuff, or things become disorderly and unfold in a haphazard way that does not, cannot, and will not, bless and glorify God.

I love those stories!

I totally agree with you about making sure someone believes that Jesus is the Son of God and are consciously embracing him as their Lord before getting in the water. Before I baptize anyone I do this and in the water lead them in confessing that Jesus is Lord in the presence of those witnessing the baptism.

Thankfully, only a couple of times when I have been approached about baptizing someone has the person acted like they had no idea what I was talking about regarding them making Jesus the Lord of their lives, etc. which led me to not baptize them. In those times, usually a friend or family member was a lot more eager to get the person baptized and had pressured them or had promised them it would change their messed up lives, and so forth.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I love those stories!

I totally agree with you about making sure someone believes that Jesus is the Son of God and are consciously embracing him as their Lord before getting in the water. Before I baptize anyone I do this and in the water lead them in confessing that Jesus is Lord in the presence of those witnessing the baptism.

Thankfully, only a couple of times when I have been approached about baptizing someone has the person acted like they had no idea what I was talking about regarding them making Jesus the Lord of their lives, etc. which led me to not baptize them. In those times, usually a friend or family member was a lot more eager to get the person baptized and had pressured them or had promised them it would change their messed up lives, and so forth.

:thumbsup

[layman316]

In Acts 2:38, what does it mean to "repent," and when someone repents, what is their status before God, or what does it accomplish?

It means to make a 180 degree turn to God. It also means to feel regret or remorse for sins or crimes.


If we take Acts 2:38 in context we see that the Jews believed Peter's message before he told them to repent.

I don't believe that water baptism is what washes away sin, no more that converting blots out sins.

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,