Quote:
Originally Posted by Adino
I would agree that the believer's conscience is healed when he accepts the historic healing of the conscience of God.
Yet, as I stated in my last post, I don't see how the EIS can be causal in Acts 2:38 when the 'historic healing of the conscience of God' is accepted at the heart's conversion prior to baptism. The moment faith comes into being, the heart should be at rest.
As in my previous analogy....
Upon hearing the 'good news' of his father's forgiveness and reconciliation the son chooses to place his trust in its reality. This results in a healing of his soul and a cleansing of his conscience of sin. The son moves forward attempting to live a life which would have been pleasing to his loving father.
How long had the son been forgiven? Ever since his father forgave him.
Though forgiven for many years, had the son experienced his father's forgiveness? NO, he did not experience the forgiveness of his father until he learned of it and came to rest in the reality of the historic forgiveness. The word of his father's reconciliation brought healing and a purging of conscience just as the word of our Father's reconciliation brings healing and a purging of our conscience of sin (2Corinthians 5:18-19). Our conscience of sin is made perfect / purged / purified by faith in the finished work of the Cross (Hebrews 9:9; Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 10:2; Hebrews 10:22; Acts 15:9). Though God's conscience of our sin was appeased historically on the Cross, our personal conscience of sin can only be purged when we come to learn of the work of the Cross through the hearing of the Gospel. The forgiveness God enacted 2000 years ago is experienced by us today when we hear and accept by faith the Good News of His historic forgiveness.
Mfblume, the great majority of those who call themselves Christians would say their conscience of sin was set at ease when they trusted in Christ as Lord and Savior. What do you say of those whose conscience of sin was 'healed' by faith alone prior to baptism? |
Whether God's conscience was "healed" at the time of the cross -- more correctly, when the atonement was made in Jesus' ascension to the right hand -- it still has to be done in our consciences. And so I do not see why
Acts 2:38 is not causal. When all you say about God's conscience is true, and we consider your analogy, it still does not remove the fact that our consciences must be healed, and I still see
Acts 2:38 being causal due to that aspect.
There would be no emphasis in baptism as much as the apostles emphasized it if we were "healed" in our own consciences before baptism. Think about it. The early church had a far greater emphasis on baptism than those today who say
Acts 2:38 is not causal. Now, there is the other extreme of preaching the error of baptismal regeneration, but that is going too far the other way.
In regards to those who claimed their consciences were healed by faith before baptism, I again say there is never the emphasis on baptism in such people's lives as in the early church in Acts. There is no way Paul would ask right off the bat whether people had the Holy Ghost and how were they baptized if he did not think those things were causal. Sorry, I cannot see it. I've watched the non-causal crowd, and they simply do not emphasize water baptism like the early church did. That to me speaks more loudly than any other point.
AT Robertson said the Greek does not conclude the issue in
Acts 2:38. I agree. We have to look at the overall picture, and the overall picture shows an emphasis on baptism that non-causal people do not share.
What would baptism be for if not causal, in some form, of SOMETHING?
Threaded Mode
