On the right hand of God

[mfblume]

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?

[mfblume]

When we stop and think about it, God's healed conscience means nothing until we get our consciences healed!

Consider this: Speaking of the right hand, Peter mentioned the Spirit being poured out DUE TO Christ's seating at the right hand in Acts 2:33. So, that, with the inspiration of the sermon being references to tongues made by the onlookers, we see how the focus is on Spirit baptism in Acts 2. The conversation about Tongues is what started Peter's whole sermon. Then Peter went back to the issue in verse 33 and mentioned the reason they saw and heard tongues was due to Christ's seating at the right hand. THAT subject is referenced in Acts 2:38 as though to say, "You can have this gift, too, but you all have to repent and each of you be baptized." The very context of Spirit baptism and tongues inspiring Peter's sermon, and the mention of this being poured out due to the the right hand seating, and conclusion with Spirit baptism in Acts 2:38 after mentioning repentance and baptism, puts a causal picture on the baptism, as far as I see it. (Trying to think of the big picture of the overall sermon here.)

There is no explanation of baptism not being causal in all the New Testament. Why? The most natural conclusion is to see it as causal in Acts 2:38. If it was not, then there should have been some explanation to that effect, lest people mistaken it. If it is not causal, then people would simply claim they do not need it, since they can accept by faith all that God did. They would look at baptism as that which is required for a weak conscience. But we see the apostles demanding it without option. That simply does not fit with non-causal manners no matter which way I look at it.

[Adino]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

What more do I want? I want to know why Peter wanted more. He "commanded" them to be baptized.


If he was already saved, why does Peter command him to then be baptized? If Peter was satisfied that he was Holy Ghost filled, why the command to be baptized?

Like I said before, baptism has its purpose. One of its purposes in the Acts 10 account was to keep the Church united. Peter had to offer baptism to the Gentiles in order to make sure there wasn't an early Church schism.

Those who believed and confessed Christ were to be welcomed into the Church with open arms and considered by all to be 'saved.' By commanding baptism Peter established to all that he, as leader of the Jerusalem Church, accepted the Gentiles into the Church community at large.

Enjoy the holiday, Bro! Merry Christmas to you and yours!

[Adino]

Mfblume, then you disagree with these statements I made earlier?

If we take the position that baptism is to be connected to the phrase "for (eis) the remission of sins" and that the EIS is to be causal, then we are implying that baptism is performed in order to purify the heart/conscience of the baptismal candidate. This simply cannot be the intended meaning because faith in the Gospel message is a prerequisite for being baptized.

One's conscience must first rest in the fact that God's conscience has been 'healed' on the Cross (as we agreed) before he is to be baptized. One has to trust that the sacrifice of Christ was effective in bringing about our sin remission in the eyes of God. The moment an individual trusts that his sins are viewed as remitted in God's eyes is the moment that individual's own conscience is purged/purified of his sins. His heart/conscience is 'purified by faith [alone].' Those who have a good conscience toward God are then baptized. Baptism does not bring about a purified/good conscience, it is an act performed out of a purified/good conscience.

You do not believe that faith with an underlying knowledge of how the Cross affected God would bring peace of mind in regard to our conscience of sin?

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

Hoping for a response, because I am loving this discussion.

Me too!

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Adino

You would be correct in your conclusion here, jfrog, but I don't recall saying the sin of unbelief is ever forgiven.

Though forgiven by the Cross, mankind remains spiritually dead until he is imputed the righteousness of Christ and quickened from the dead.

The Cross did not offer opportunity to be forgiven of unbelief, it offered opportunity to receive the righteousness of Christ and be made regenerate. One is rescued from the darkness of unbelief not forgiven of it.

Anyone who finds himself in a state of unbelief when he meets his Maker has no further forgiveness. He will be eternally separated from God because he has not come to Christ for righteousness and eternal life.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by JamDat

With all due respect your obedience doesn't mean squat to God. You can do nothing to save yourself from hell. It's all been done by Him on the cross or there is no grace.

Our righteousness is like filthy rags and not acceptable to God. God is holy and we are not and it is only by the blood of Jesus that you are accepted, nothing more.

All the other things you listed and more is what one should do out of gladness from the salvation you've received. You and I are worms and scum that have broken every commandment six ways till Sunday and God would never ever except our self righteousness because He his holy.

If you are saved by your own actions then the Christ is false, but every man is a liar and we know that Christ is more than enough.

Because Jesus loved me so much that He took my sins past, present, and future upon Himself (we lie again if we say we no longer sin) and allowed the wrath of God condemn Him. Because of this is the only reason this wretched sinner loves Him. I finally get it nothing saves me except Christ alone and now I hear His voice and follow Him.

Chad

Welcome, Chad! Never heard from you before, but enjoyed your "chime."

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Exactly, as Jesus says to Nicodemus, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." John 3:5.

Uhh... reference the John 3:5 thread for more on the error of using this verse to command baptism (there's plenty others to use).

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Adino

Like I said before, baptism has its purpose. One of its purposes in the Acts 10 account was to keep the Church united. Peter had to offer baptism to the Gentiles in order to make sure there wasn't an early Church schism.

Those who believed and confessed Christ were to be welcomed into the Church with open arms and considered by all to be 'saved.' By commanding baptism Peter established to all that he, as leader of the Jerusalem Church, accepted the Gentiles into the Church community at large.

Enjoy the holiday, Bro! Merry Christmas to you and yours!

I'd have to disagree at your view of baptism, even while we'd both agree it's not "the ticket in," but that we are made righteous by faith in the Gospel.

However, the awareness and reality of Christ's presence at baptism, the uniquely mystical nature of the sacrament and the consistent New Testament reverence of baptism cause any of us to consider the reality of what baptism is for both the community of faith and the believer.

[Socialite]

How did I miss out on such a good thread previously?