Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias
Remission of sins is a function of justification. It is not a separable "step" or event. Remission of sins is a phrase that means one's crimes have been forgiven, blotted out, removed from one's account. Justification means to have one's sins (crimes) blotted out, removed from the record, so that the individual is declared righteous. They are, in effect, the same thing.
And since remission of sins occurs in water baptism, that is where justification occurs (initially being declared righteous, one's record of sins being blotted out, etc).
Furthermore, it is in Christian baptism that one "washes away your sins" ( Acts 22:16). Therefore, "cleansing" takes place in water baptism as well. |
I very much agree with what you say about remission of sins being a function of justification.
In Romans Paul is discussing the actual way people are justified, and he uses Abraham’s experience to exemplify this. Paul says, if Abraham had been justified (declared not guilty) after doing anything, that would have meant that he had earned it. But, in fact, he didn’t do anything. He only trusted God, and God accounted it to him as righteousness. The nature of Abraham’s saving faith was something internal, something in his heart and mind. That and that alone justified him.
This, of course, raised the question of the significance of circumcision. Paul explains, “11 And he received
the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but
who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.
Paul calls baptism our circumcision in
Col 2. Similar to OT circumcision, it is a sign and seal of our justifying faith.
In the new covenant, whether we are Gentiles or Jews we are justified exactly like Abraham was, which is why he is called our father. When we trust as Abraham trusted, we are justified just as he was justified. Paul adds, “Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, 24
but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead.”
This anticipates what Paul says in
Rom 10:9: “that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus
and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”
I noted the nature of Abraham’s faith above. Our saving faith is similar: 10 For
with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." This is what it means to have saving belief. “For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame” (v.11). To have saving faith is to believe and confess.
As the sign and seal of our faith, baptism is the appropriate and normative place for our saving faith to be confessed. If I refused or put off baptism that would show I did not truly have faith, just as if Abraham had refused to be circumcised would have shown he had no faith.
Since baptism is the sign and seal of faith and the place justifying faith is normally expressed and is so closely related to repentance in
Acts 2:38, it is appropriate and understandable why the saving action is attributed to the symbol of baptism itself—even though we all know that baptism accomplishes nothing apart from faith.
Bringing this back to the original issue, so in my mind, it makes more sense to think that God granted Cornelius remission of sins at the very moment of faith and then baptized him with the Spirit. The essential thing that makes baptism meaningful, faith, was present, but since Cornelius was a Gentile, baptism, the usual sign and seal, would not have been offered to him regardless of what faith he might have claimed. God intervened and did a unique thing for Cornelius to prove to the Jewish Christians that Gentiles were accepted.
Again, the implication of what I've quoted from your previous post is that someone could receive the fullness of the life-giving Spirit but still not be justified if they had not been baptized yet. Or, with the traditional OP view, someone's "sins (crimes) [could be] blotted out, removed from the record, so that the individual is declared righteous," which is the essence of salvation (
Luke 1:77), but nevertheless still be lost till they are baptized with the Spirit and speak in tongues. They could still be going to hell though God had pronounced them righteous. Those implications cannot be denied, dismissed, or ignored, which is why I cannot accept the traditional view.
What I've stated is that God could if circumstances warranted it justify someone at faith apart from baptism, since that faith alone is what makes baptism meaningful. Though this would be unusual, it would not be illogical. It would not create a scenario where someone had been declared righteous but still was lost if they had not yet been baptized in the Spirit, or one in which someone is still lost because they had yet not been declared righteous in baptism, though they had received the life-giving Holy Spirit.
The view I've stated can make sense of both the situations that follow the order of
Acts 2:38 and the unusual situations, like Cornelius's, that don't, without creating illogical implications.
Threaded Mode
