Remitted on the Cross or not?

[Rhymis]

What eis eis? Yes I have heard all the diluted arguments used to prop up a doctrine that tries vainly to defeat the true Acts 2:38 message. Yes, later.

[Adino]

Originally Posted by Rhymis

What eis eis? Yes I have heard all the diluted arguments used to prop up a doctrine that tries vainly to defeat the true Acts 2:38 message. Yes, later.

Maybe you can also bring me a historical witness of someone interpreting the new birth in the water/spirit fashion prior to Ewart and Haywood in the 20th century. I sat under church historian, Marvin M. Arnold, and he failed to do so. I would appreciate the evidence of someone who has succeeded where he failed from those who insist this interpretation is the correct one.

What support have you that the Ewart and Haywood interpretation of the new birth handed down to you is correct? Why do 99.75% of those who call themselves Christian in the world today reject their interpretation?

Who really has the diluted message?

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

The penitent have a good consience if not they would not have repented. Repentance sets the heart TOWARD God and is NOT the finished product.

Right. Being penitent is only the first step. Next, one must spell the name of God by stepping on the right stones in order, and finally: the leap of faith. Indiana Jones was a 3-stepper! (Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.)

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Adino

Given that all our sin was reckoned to Christ.

Given that all sin reckoned to Christ was remitted prior to the resurrection, else he would not have been raised from the dead.

1) What further remission do we obtain in the waters of baptism which did not happen on the Cross?

2) Does the teaching of baptismal sin remission declare a disbelief in the sin remitting work of the Cross?

Your question is a logical fallacy. It's like asking "why do you still beat your wife?".

The OPs that believe water baptism is essential for salvation don't, as far as I know, argue that it's remission above and beyond what was done on the cross. Rather they argue what was done on the cross is appropriated when we are baptized.

Question 2. I don't think it does, despite the fact that it's not at or by baptism that are sins are forgiven

[Praxeas]

Good grief Timmy, why did you bump this? Bored?

[Adino]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Your question is a logical fallacy. It's like asking "why do you still beat your wife?".

The OPs that believe water baptism is essential for salvation don't, as far as I know, argue that it's remission above and beyond what was done on the cross. Rather they argue what was done on the cross is appropriated when we are baptized.

Question 2. I don't think it does, despite the fact that it's not at or by baptism that are sins are forgiven

What was done on the Cross was effective whether it is appropriated or not. It is a matter of history that does not change whether we believe it or not. Sin remitted on Calvary was remitted on Calvary..... period. We do nothing to add or subtract from the event. We only accept it by faith and pass from spiritual death into life or reject it in unbelief and remain spiritually dead.

Man is not condemned because he 'fails to appropriate' the forgiveness of the Cross. Man is condemned only because he does not believe and pass into life.

Mark 16:16; John 3:18; John 3:36; John 16:8-9

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Adino

What was done on the Cross was effective whether it is appropriated or not. It is a matter of history that does not change whether we believe it or not. Sin remitted on Calvary was remitted on Calvary..... period. We do nothing to add or subtract from the event. We only accept it by faith and pass from spiritual death into life or reject it in unbelief and remain spiritually dead.

Man is not condemned because he 'fails to appropriate' the forgiveness of the Cross. Man is condemned only because he does not believe and pass into life.

Mark 16:16; John 3:18; John 3:36; John 16:8-9

That's all beside the point. Your question is a logical fallacy.

Also you are essentially saying what was done on the cross is appropriated by faith, but you still have them being appropriated. Thus my point. Your question is a logical fallacy that assumes people that believe sins are forgiven at baptism are adding to it, rather than appropriating it just as you said happens at faith. In other words they would say we accept what Christ did when we are baptized.

[Adino]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

That's all beside the point. Your question is a logical fallacy.

Also you are essentially saying what was done on the cross is appropriated by faith, but you still have them being appropriated. Thus my point. Your question is a logical fallacy that assumes people that believe sins are forgiven at baptism are adding to it, rather than appropriating it just as you said happens at faith. In other words they would say we accept what Christ did when we are baptized.

Ahh, but there is a difference. I do not say that forgiveness of the Cross is furthered in personal acceptance as do you.

He is historically forgiven whether he accepts it or not. Though his personal conscience of sin is purged when he realizes and accepts what took place on Calvary, the fact that his sins were historically forgiven is not affected by him in any way.

In your mind, the forgiveness of the Cross does not take effect in the eyes of God until some future date. In my mind, the forgiveness of the Cross is a historic event which cannot be affected by anything we do or don't do.

Forgiveness of all sin imputed to Christ was effected on the Cross..... not later when we believe or when we are baptized. It is not God's attitude toward our sin which changes when we believe, it is our's. Our heart is 'healed' when it comes to rest in the forgiveness of the Cross.

Man is not condemned by God for those sins dealt with on Calvary. Man is condemned only for unbelief in the testimony of God concerning his Son. (Mark 16:16; John 3:18; John 3:36; John 16:8-9)

Do you believe man is yet condemned for those sins remitted on the Cross?

If you do, I would suggest you are saying the remission of the Cross was inadequate.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

That's all beside the point. Your question is a logical fallacy.

Also you are essentially saying what was done on the cross is appropriated by faith, but you still have them being appropriated. Thus my point. Your question is a logical fallacy that assumes people that believe sins are forgiven at baptism are adding to it, rather than appropriating it just as you said happens at faith. In other words they would say we accept what Christ did when we are baptized.

Adino's question(s) were:

"1) What further remission do we obtain in the waters of baptism which did not happen on the Cross?

2) Does the teaching of baptismal sin remission declare a disbelief in the sin remitting work of the Cross?"

I think I see your point in equating "Appropriated in Repentance" with "Appropriating in Baptism."

However, Adino's 'appropriation' of the grace described in Revelation 13:8, Revelation 17:8; Ephesians 1:4; Titus 1:2; and 1 Peter 1:19-20; would seem to to answer that objection.

When it comes to the forgiveness of sin and the NT covenant, our focus should on the One Who made that covenant. If He is capable and willing to uphold His side of the "deal" then whatever else we may do is of only secondary importance (Hebrews 11:6).

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Good grief Timmy, why did you bump this? Bored?

Nah. Somebody linked it from somewhere, and that post jumped out at me.