New Doctrine Emerges: NOT Forgiven at Repentance

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Aquila

...
If you understand the Greek, the baptismal clause is passive, indicating that it is what is expected based upon the remission of sins, not necessarily to gain the remission of sins. In other words, one's sins are forgiven (remitted) upon repentance, however, they are commanded to be water baptized as an act of obedience. That would mean that if one is lost over baptism it is on the grounds of disobedience, not because their sins were never remitted.

From this point forward, I'll have to post on lighter subjects. I'm about half way through a glass of brandy. lol

Well, if you haven't finished that other half of the brandy, and haven't nodded off, what you just said sounds like what Bro. Goss, Bro. Greer, and others taught --that we should be baptized for (because of) the remission/forgiveness of sins, not in order to obtain remission/forgiveness of sins.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Sam

Well, if you haven't finished that other half of the brandy, and haven't nodded off, what you just said sounds like what Bro. Goss, Bro. Greer, and others taught --that we should be baptized for (because of) the remission/forgiveness of sins, not in order to obtain remission/forgiveness of sins.

WHich has NO support in the Greek at all!

[pkdad]

Originally Posted by Aquila

There's a fundamental misunderstanding of the Greek in this argument. The term remission is:

859 // afesiv // aphesis // af'-es-is //

from 863 ; TDNT - 1:50
9,88; n f

AV - remission 9, forgiveness 6, deliverance 1, liberty 1; 17

1) release from bondage or imprisonment
2) forgiveness or pardon, of sins (letting them go as if they
had never been committed), remission of the penalty

It's the same word in Ephesians 1:7,

Ephesians 1:7
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

If you understand the Greek, the baptismal clause is passive, indicating that it is what is expected based upon the remission of sins, not necessarily to gain the remission of sins. In other words, one's sins are forgiven (remitted) upon repentance, however, they are commanded to be water baptized as an act of obedience. That would mean that if one is lost over baptism it is on the grounds of disobedience, not because their sins were never remitted.

From this point forward, I'll have to post on lighter subjects. I'm about half way through a glass of brandy. lol

While I am the biggest proponent of 2 Tim 2:15 Do not lose sight that Greek
language rules and it's 'constructions' are nowhere mentioned in the bible as
"Ordained of God"...Jesus said "the Words I speak are Spirit and Life" not reinterpreted by and through prepositions,verbs, adjectives and other man-made devices that try to disect and slant for personal agendas. God confounded the languages at Babel to remind man who thought to reach heaven with their ingenuity and craft, No matter how you try to make "your mortar" the Word still says, "And be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" 1Peter 3:20-21 Eight souls were saved by water"... "whereby Baptism doth also saves us,"

The waters of the flood destroyed sinful man on the earth, the earth was burried for 150 days Gen 8:3 Gods math showing 3x50 means 3=divine completness and 50=Jubillee/resurection. Eight souls were saved by the 'water' remitting the sin! They were now seperated from the sinful world that reaped the wages of sin...death! When the dove returned with the olive branch, this signified being born of Spirit! They were *(in type) born of water and Spirit! And after Noah worshiped by burnt offering, God made the Noahic Covenent. Our worship and sacrafice is accepted only after our repentance, baptism and Holy Ghost infilling is the "3x50 Spirit,water and blood" witness on earth" that Agree as One" 1John 5:8 We can not enter into the New Covenant unless "for the remission of sins" is done in Jesus Name, by "water!" Not passive or active towers of "Babel."

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I believe that full New Testament salvation contains repentance, water baptism, and Holy Ghost infilling. But I've always had this question.... I was filled with the Holy Ghost immediately after repentance. I spoke in tongues and wept for nearly 40 or more minutes. If my sins weren't remitted until water baptism (which happened later) .... how did God fill me with the Holy Ghost seeing that I was still, according to some, covered in sin? I've wrestled and wrestled with that. It's like I compare my EXPERIENCE to what people are teaching and it doesn't mesh. People are filled with the Holy Ghost before water baptism all the time. That in itself testifies to the fact that sins are forgiven and one is justified at Repentance. However, this doesn't mean that one shouldn't obey and be water baptized, it's only a practical example that experience doesn't match what is often taught.

What if I repented of sin, was filled with the Holy Ghost and was then killed crossing the street on the way to the creek to be water baptized? Many would say that I was lost because I wasn't baptized. Others would say that I was acting in obedience and therefore God would have mercy.

Just some questions that roll around in my crazy head.

Aquilla, I understand the dilemma you are trying to reconcile in your mind. I personally believe that it takes the full new birth, repentance, water, and Spirit (whichever order they occur), in order to attain full remission of sins. Having said that, according to 1 Pet 3:21 regarding baptism, it's "not the washing away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good consceince toward God"... Remission of sins does not mean that the filthiness of the flesh is wiped out, nor does repentence or even the infilling of the Holy Ghost... baptism is the "pledge", the "answer", or as Talmadge French suggests, the "begging for" a good conscience - to have the conscience cleared of the fear of judgement of sin, or to have the eternal record wiped clean.

Therefore receiving the Holy Ghost before baptism does not mean one is clean of the "filth of the flesh", any more than being baptized does. The filth of the flesh is going to be extant in us until glorification. It's merely the grace of God that allows us to have these conversion experiences, and begin a new life in Christ. So it doesn't matter what order conversion takes place, whether Spirit first, or water first, etc... those experiences lead us into a place where the blood continually washes away our sins, past, present, and future. The entire conversion process is necessary, repentance, water, and Spirit, in order to enter into that position in Christ.

Having said that, allow me to attempt to answer your question about a believer who repents, is filled with the Spirit, and dies on the way to the "baptismal". Here is how I see it: 1.) God CAN keep that person alive until they are baptized. I have full confidence of that. Thus we have to acknowledge divine providence here, and trust in that. 2.) Consider Abraham, he was commanded to offer Isaac, but God stayed Abraham's hand. It was God who stopped the process. Yet Abraham was still accounted for righteous. Therefore if an individual is in the process of completing the New Birth as you suggest, but God through divine providence, takes the person out of this life before they are able to be baptized, God's hand in that must be recognized, and their intents acknowledged. God is the righteous judge, and he knows the internal state of the indivual. If God stopped it, or allowed it to be stopped, as Scripture says "I'll have mercy upon who I'll have mercy".... God can very well have mercy on that person, in the same way he can righteously judge them. At that point it's in the hands of God!

[Sam]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

...if an individual is in the process of completing the New Birth as you suggest, but God through divine providence, takes the person out of this life before they are able to be baptized, God's hand in that must be recognized, and their intents acknowledged. God is the righteous judge, and he knows the internal state of the indivual. If God stopped it, or allowed it to be stopped, as Scripture says "I'll have mercy upon who I'll have mercy".... God can very well have mercy on that person, in the same way he can righteously judge them. At that point it's in the hands of God!

In the Roman Catholic Church (which also teaches "born of water" means "water baptism" and also teaches that baptism washes away sin), what you have spoken of is called "baptism of desire" or "baptism by desire" (not sure of the exact words). The idea is that the person would have been baptized if possible but since he couldn't, God gives him credit for being baptized.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Sam

In the Roman Catholic Church (which also teaches "born of water" means "water baptism" and also teaches that baptism washes away sin), what you have spoken of is called "baptism of desire" or "baptism by desire" (not sure of the exact words). The idea is that the person would have been baptized if possible but since he couldn't, God gives him credit for being baptized.

Exactly, just like God gave credit to Abraham for offering Isaac, even though God, through the angel, stopped the offering!

[Sam]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Exactly, just like God gave credit to Abraham for offering Isaac, even though God, through the angel, stopped the offering!

God knows our motives and intentions even better than we do (1 Sam 16:7)

[pastorrick1959]

the blood is applied at baptism , just like the brazen altar , the scacrifice was slain at the altar and of course it bled. if the blood is applied sin is remitted.. the brazen laver however washed away the mess which represented bapt.u need both . but the blood is aplied at repentance no question about it.!

[Sam]

Originally Posted by pastorrick1959

the blood is applied at baptism , just like the brazen altar , the scacrifice was slain at the altar and of course it bled. if the blood is applied sin is remitted.. the brazen laver however washed away the mess which represented bapt.u need both . but the blood is aplied at repentance no question about it.!

so the blood is applied at repentance and then the blood is removed at baptism?
does this mean the blood is "unapplied" at baptism?

I think you're putting too much emphasis on a type.

Were the priests immersed in the laver?
If they were not immersed in the laver, and if the laver depicts baptism, then baptism does not have to be by immersion.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Sam

so the blood is applied at repentance and then the blood is removed at baptism?
does this mean the blood is "unapplied" at baptism?

I think you're putting too much emphasis on a type.

Were the priests immersed in the laver?
If they were not immersed in the laver, and if the laver depicts baptism, then baptism does not have to be by immersion.

Very astute observation. Sprinkling/pouring the waters of purification are found throughout the Old Testament, immersion for Mikvah was a tradition that began under Ezra during the captivity, it's not a "biblical" practice at all.