Forgiveness or Remission?

[good samaritan]

Btw, if a new babe in Christ explores their way to AFF and we squash them intellectually with our perfect hermeneutical interpretation, and somehow damage their faith, I would fear that it may not go so well in eternity.

“Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.”

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Btw, if a new babe in Christ explores their way to AFF and we squash them intellectually with our perfect hermeneutical interpretation, and somehow damage their faith, I would fear that it may not go so well in eternity.

“Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.”

You cannot damage someone's faith with truth.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Yet you have been discussing with me for over ten pages, presuming I believe that forgiveness and remission have 2 different meanings. Which I have explained several times, that I do not. All the while I am concerned that you are mistaking me for teaching easy believism.

You have not in fact explained that forgiveness and remission are the same thing several times. That was only just recently that you made that clear. And, you aren't the only one I have been posting to, or for, for that matter.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Esaias

You cannot damage someone's faith with truth.

Truth must always be spoken in love an not from a rude, condescending attitude, with the intent of simply winning a debate over scripure. IMO.

Colossians 4:6
Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.

If someone rejects the truth of the gospel we should shake the dust off. We don’t have to cast our pearls before the swine. But, if we are having open dialogue with someone then kindness goes much further.

[votivesoul]

The best way to understand the phrase in Acts 2:38 is to see how it is used in other passages:

In Acts 2:38, the Greek phrase:

eis aphesin ton hamartion

We can compare this to Matthew 26:28:

eis aphesin hamartion

Mark 1:4:

eis aphesin hamartion

Luke 1:77:

aphesei hamartion

Luke 3:3:

eis aphesin hamartion

Luke 24:47:

eis aphesin hamartion

Acts 5:31:

kai aphesin hamartion

Acts 10:43:

aphesin hamartion

Acts 13:38:

aphesin hamartion

Acts 26:18:

autous aphesin hamartion

Colossians 1:14:

ten aphesin ton hamartion

Of key importance is the way the author of Luke-Acts uses the phrase, since such a use will likely be similar in scope and meaning, sic passim.

[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.

[james34]

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.

So one can be Spirit baptized into the body of Christ without receiving forgiveness of sins? I guess God doesn’t have to have complete control to fill someone with his Spirit after all.



13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by james34

So one can be Spirit baptized into the body of Christ without receiving forgiveness of sins? I guess God doesn’t have to have complete control to fill someone with his Spirit after all.

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.

God walked with the Patriarchs, flaws and all.

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.

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit

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.

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.

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).

[Esaias]

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.

God walked with the Patriarchs, flaws and all.

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 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.

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.

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).

[james34]

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.

God walked with the Patriarchs, flaws and all.

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 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.

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.

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).

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)