New Doctrine Emerges: NOT Forgiven at Repentance

[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."

[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!

[mizpeh]

To be baptized because you sins were already forgiven doesn't make sense. Peter would have been telling those who believed and were convicted to 1) repent and then be baptized because your sins were forgiven at repentence.....why not say repent for (in order to) the forgiveness of sins and then be baptized (insert whatever reason you believe baptism accomplishes or is symbollic of).

Really, it just doesn't make sense to say Repent and be baptized everyone of you for (because you have) the forgiveness of your sins. You are making the assumption that sins are remitted either at faith or repentance. And then one has to wonder why be baptized, what profit is there in water baptism and why wasn't that point made clear? If the reason for repentance was to remit sins then why didn't Peter tell them why they were being baptized. Sorry saying they were baptized because their sins had already been forgiven doesn't work.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

To be baptized because you sins were already forgiven doesn't make sense. Peter would have been telling those who believed and were convicted to 1) repent and then be baptized because your sins were forgiven at repentence.....why not say repent for (in order to) the forgiveness of sins and then be baptized (insert whatever reason you believe baptism accomplishes or is symbollic of).

Really, it just doesn't make sense to say Repent and be baptized everyone of you for (because you have) the forgiveness of your sins. You are making the assumption that sins are remitted either at faith or repentance. And then one has to wonder why be baptized, what profit is there in water baptism and why wasn't that point made clear? If the reason for repentance was to remit sins then why didn't Peter tell them why they were being baptized. Sorry saying they were baptized because their sins had already been forgiven doesn't work.

IT also doesn't make sense of Peter to say twice in 1 Peter 3 that water saves! Then oooohhh he didn't really mean it! LOL! The only time people can get confused is when they take "one" witness out of context and that is Paul. Even then he cleary teaches baptism is essential in uniting with Christ.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

WHich has NO support in the Greek at all!

That's been tossed back and forth on this forum for a long time.

The Greek word "for" in Acts 2:38 is "eis."
Just as the English word "for" can have more than one meaning, so can the Greek word "eis."

In English we could say that a man was wanted "for" ("because of," not "in order to obtain") bank robbery and then give instructions to see the local sheriff "for" ("in order to obtain," not "because of") the reward.

We've had a plethora of Greek scholars and experts quoted before and some say "eis" in Acts 2:38 means "because of" and some say it means "in order to obtain." So nothing is solved by appealing to the "experts."

The Greek original is ambiguous like the English translation.

Let's not repeat that saga again. Apostolics just don't all agree on that one. All we can do is accept one another and respect one another.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Sam

That's been tossed back and forth on this forum for a long time.

The Greek word "for" in Acts 2:38 is "eis."
Just as the English word "for" can have more than one meaning, so can the Greek word "eis."

You know as I do if you have paid any attention at all to the argument that it does not mean that in the Greek.

In English we could say that a man was wanted "for" ("because of," not "in order to obtain") bank robbery and then give instructions to see the local sheriff "for" ("in order to obtain," not "because of") the reward.

That is not true in the greek. English usage and greek usage are not equivalents.

We've had a plethora of Greek scholars and experts quoted before and some say "eis" in Acts 2:38 means "because of" and some say it means "in order to obtain." So nothing is solved by appealing to the "experts."

No Lexicon will back that up and even the greatest scholar to some Robertson even says it really has little support and is more a theological interpretation not a grammatical one.

The Greek original is ambiguous like the English translation.

Let's not repeat that saga again. Apostolics just don't all agree on that one. All we can do is accept one another and respect one another.

sorry but to much evidence outside of Acts 2:38 shows baptism is the time and place of washing away of sin. This it not a one time argument!

[LUKE2447]

In Acts 2:38 (KJV), Peter said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR (Greek eis) the remission of sins." According to one source, eis is translated in this way in the King James Version:

Into – 571 times

To -- 282 times

Unto -- 208 times

In -- 131 times

For -- 91 times

On -- 57 times

Toward -- 32 times

That -- 30 times

Against -- 25 times

Upon -- 25 times

At -- 20 times

Among -- 16 times

Concerning -- 5 times

“because of” – 0 times

Also if "eis" means "because of" it would also include repentance in the phrase. Thus repent and be baptize because of remission of sins. Thus forgiveness of sins is before Repentance and baptism. Which makes the whole thing make little sense.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

You know as I do if you have paid any attention at all to the argument that it does not mean that in the Greek.



That is not true in the greek. English usage and greek usage are not equivalents.



No Lexicon will back that up and even the greatest scholar to some Robertson even says it really has little support and is more a theological interpretation not a grammatical one.



sorry but to much evidence outside of Acts 2:38 shows baptism is the time and place of washing away of sin. This it not a one time argument!

I agree with everything you said up to the bolded portion! Baptism is "for", or "into" remission of sins... I agree wholly with that statement. But scripture is clear that remission of sins down not occur at the moment of water baptism. What is necessary for remission of sins to be fully experienced is the complete New Birth, of water AND Spirit. Saying that "baptism is for remission of sins" is a lot different than saying "remission of sins occurs at the moment of water baptism". Scripture is clear on the former statement, but the latter statement is a theological development.

[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!

[deltaguitar]

If you guys are going to interpret Acts 2:38 so literally in order to believe that Baptism is for remission of sin then why not believe that communion is also needed in order to obtain remission of sins?

Now we have folks saying that we have to repent, be baptized, and then receive the Holy Ghost in order to OBTAIN remission. Looks to me like more and more is being added to obtain remission.

It was Jesus Christ who paid for our remission of sins on the Cross and my remission was obtained at that time.