Forgiveness or Remission?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by james34

You mean by “the resurrection of Jesus Christ/the Holy Ghost baptism)
The law was weak in that it could not provide forgiveness completely. The blood of Christ can and does. The veil was rent when the blood sacrifice gave all and said it it finished. A way was made. It is by this cleansing blood that we are able to be partakers of the the new birth experience. It is “this” ( Spirit) that he (Christ) shed forth.

Acts11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water( unto repentance ) ; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost( beyond repentance/unto new life)

Well, of course, without the Resurrection of Christ, baptism as an act would have no efficacy whatsoever.

That in no way invalidates or disproves anything I wrote, which you quoted. In fact, it validates and proves it, since and because when we are immersed into Christ in water, we are διεσώθησαν δι ὕδατος (diesōthēsan di’ hydatos), that is, thoroughly saved by/through baptism (1 Peter 3:20-21), since and because when we have our bodies washed with pure water, our consciences are sprinkled with the blood of Christ:

Hebrews 10:19-22 (ESV),

19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Regarding when remission occurs, for those who argue that it is before baptism, but after repentance, and that the preposition eis therefore means because of, or in regards to, then they must prove when any of the people in Acts 2 who listened to Simon Peter's sermon actually received forgiveness.

Was it when they were "pricked in their hearts" and cried out "men and brethren, what shall we do?"?

If so, then why did Simon Peter tell them they still needed to repent and be baptized?

If the pricking of their hearts and the demand to be told how to respond to Simon Peter's preaching was indicative of their repentance, Simon Peter should not have told them they needed to repent. Instead, Acts 2:38 should read "Be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ..."

But that's not how it reads. Simon started with repentance, which indicates that as far as he was concerned, the respondents had not repented, even while they were pricked in their hearts and demanding instruction.

As far as Simon was concerned, if they did not come forward and be baptized, there was no repentance.

For, Acts 2:41 reads, "then they that gladly received his word were baptized'. It does not read, "then they that gladly received his word repented". Their repentance is presumed as a prerequisite to their baptism.

It is therefore clear that without a baptism following the pricking of the heart and a desire to know what to do, there is no repentance, and therefore, no remission of sins.

Remission of sins therefore, takes place in baptism, and not before, as evidence for repentance.

Cause and effect. Faith causes us to repent and repentance means to change (change from a life of sinful disobedience, to a life of faithful obedience). Baptism is definitely part of that obedience, but is not the source of that obedience. Therefore, we are not saved because of baptism, but we are baptized because we are saved.

At what point do we receive forgiveness? I think it has just become a point of argument and debate. None of us will understand the full effect of that forgiveness until we are freed from this mortal body.

Philippians 3:12-14
12......Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
13......Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
14......I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Regarding when remission occurs, for those who argue that it is before baptism, but after repentance, and that the preposition eis therefore means because of, or in regards to, then they must prove when any of the people in Acts 2 who listened to Simon Peter's sermon actually received forgiveness.

Was it when they were "pricked in their hearts" and cried out "men and brethren, what shall we do?"?

If so, then why did Simon Peter tell them they still needed to repent and be baptized?

If the pricking of their hearts and the demand to be told how to respond to Simon Peter's preaching was indicative of their repentance, Simon Peter should not have told them they needed to repent. Instead, Acts 2:38 should read "Be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ..."

But that's not how it reads. Simon started with repentance, which indicates that as far as he was concerned, the respondents had not repented, even while they were pricked in their hearts and demanding instruction.

As far as Simon was concerned, if they did not come forward and be baptized, there was no repentance.

For, Acts 2:41 reads, "then they that gladly received his word were baptized'. It does not read, "then they that gladly received his word repented". Their repentance is presumed as a prerequisite to their baptism.

It is therefore clear that without a baptism following the pricking of the heart and a desire to know what to do, there is no repentance, and therefore, no remission of sins.

Remission of sins therefore, takes place in baptism, and not before, as evidence for repentance.

John the Baptist commanded to bring fruit meet (acceptable) for repentance, while performing baptisms unto repentance. Therefore, baptism was a outward demonstration or production of repentance. Fruits are not the source, but grow out of the source.

Jesus was baptized why? Did he have to be forgiven of sin?

Matthew 3:15
And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

“Becometh”

Thayer Lexicon:
1. to stand out, to be conspicuous, to be eminent
2. to be becoming, seemly, fit

Again, it is eminent that people who are “forgiven” or who are “gonna be forgiven” (whichever) to be baptized. We may not have identical understanding on this issue, but I think we are essentially on the same page. Baptism is necessary.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

There is this notion flowing from the Evangelical world that states that God cannot cohabit with sin, so, flowing from that notion, is the belief that when God filled Cornelius and his household with the Holy Spirit, He must have first cleansed them with forgiveness.

But the premise is false. God walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, while the serpent was present the whole time.

Adam and Eve where expelled from the garden immediately following their sin. God did not continue that same relationship with Adam and Eve after sin entered the picture.

God walked with the Patriarchs, flaws and all.

God also withdrew from people such as king Saul for his disobedience. The patriarchs demonstrated their week human nature at times, but overall displayed a life of faith that was evident by their obedience.

God dwelled with the Israelites, first in the Tabernacle, then in the Temple, despite the sinful ways in which they grieved Him for many centuries. In fact, it's not until Ezekiel 9 before God finally departs from the Temple, and it's not until the end of Jeremiah's prophecy that God states there was no remedy for His people except that the Temple be utterly destroyed by the Babylonians.

It is therefore conceivable that God and sin can cohabit in a person. Just as the Temple made with hands was oft defiled when God continued to live there, it is also possible that the Temple made without hands can remain defiled, or become defiled again, whilst God dwells therein.

The temple was first sanctified by blood before the Lord ever filled the temple.

The Laodiceans were called a church by Christ but were backslidden to the core. Simply receiving the Spirit as a historical experience is no guarantee that anyone so endowed is or will be saved, in the end, even though that historical experience baptized someone into the Body.

In fact, five of the seven churches in Asia Minor had serious sins accruing to their accounts. Thyatira held the doctrine of Jezebel, and yet, they were called a "church" to which the Spirit spoke.

The churches where being warned of their present lost position with God. They where lost if they continued their course. That doesn’t sound like cohabitation with sin to me.

We cannot therefore prove that just because someone received the Holy Spirit, that that always and automatically means, that person is fully and truly rescued from the consequences of their sin debt.

We can’t say that someone who has been baptized is truly rescued from the consequences of their sin debt, but they must stay the course. I don’t believe in eternal security.

The truth is, the sin debt must be done away with, and in baptism, the body of sins is destroyed (Romans 6:3-6 with Colossians 2:11). Without that destruction of that corpus of unrighteousness, the person so indebted will be answerable for their transgressions.

This is why the antitype to the Flood, baptism, saves us (1 Peter 3:21).

The sin debt is done away with by the blood of Jesus. Baptism doesn’t put away the filth of the flesh, but is the answer of good conscious toward God.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Therefore, we are not saved because of baptism, but we are baptized because we are saved.

Mark 16:16 KJV
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

According to Jesus, belief and baptism come before being saved. According to you, belief and salvation come before baptism.

You are wrong, and Jesus is right.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Mark 16:16 KJV
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

According to Jesus, belief and baptism come before being saved. According to you, belief and salvation come before baptism.

You are wrong, and Jesus is right.

That word “shall” is important. The salvation that Jesus is referring to is after our time on this earth. Belief is essential, baptism is essential, but it is God who forgives. If we are truly forgiven can we backslide? Does God give his forgiveness and then withdraw it from us? Or, is forgiveness conditional from the start, and to be received at the end of our race? I believe faith must be ongoing, along with baptism and also additional things, in order for us to completely receive the forgiveness we are speaking of in this thread. In the event someone is taken as soon as they believe (make Jesus their choice), I am not certain. I just know we are to obey the scripture as they are clear to us and that means to be baptized in Jesus name. There is an old hymn that we sing, “we’ll understand it better by and by”.

[good samaritan]

History tells of martyrs that experienced horrible deaths for the name of Jesus, who may not have been doctrinally sound. If they died sinners without forgiveness, I am fully trusting in the righteousness of God. Although, I believe, knowing the mercy of God that we may have many surprises in eternity, and we will have all of our misunderstandings reconciled.

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

John the Baptist commanded to bring fruit meet (acceptable) for repentance, while performing baptisms unto repentance. Therefore, baptism was a outward demonstration or production of repentance. Fruits are not the source, but grow out of the source.

Jesus was baptized why? Did he have to be forgiven of sin?

Matthew 3:15
And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

“Becometh”

Thayer Lexicon:
1. to stand out, to be conspicuous, to be eminent
2. to be becoming, seemly, fit

Again, it is eminent that people who are “forgiven” or who are “gonna be forgiven” (whichever) to be baptized. We may not have identical understanding on this issue, but I think we are essentially on the same page. Baptism is necessary.

But, is baptism efficacious if it is required for the forgiveness of sins, and one is baptized believing that it is done because they are already saved?

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by diakonos

But, is baptism efficacious if it is required for the forgiveness of sins, and one is baptized believing that it is done because they are already saved?

Do you mind rewording the question? I am not sure what you are meaning.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by diakonos

But, is baptism efficacious if it is required for the forgiveness of sins, and one is baptized believing that it is done because they are already saved?

Baptism is a commandment of Christ and the apostles. If we don’t keep His commands we are not His children.