On the right hand of God

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Adino

Mfblume, I think we're beginning to talk past each other.... bummer

I don't think so. Adino, when we read our sins can be blotted out in a causal sense, what is different from that and the note for remission of sins in Acts 2:38. Blotting out sins and purging them are the same thing.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Adino

Jfrog, I guess I'll say something similar to what I've told you in the past...

IMO, man can only be condemned for unbelief after having heard the Gospel and ultimately having rejected it. That we have rejected the Gospel will only be ultimately known when we face God at judgment. Once the seed of the Gospel is planted, there is no set time for it to come into fruition. Again, as long as we have accepted it by the time we are standing before his throne we will have avoided condemnation, i.e., eternal separation.

Bottom line is that the sin of unbelief is not forgiven at all. Since I do not believe in universal reconciliation in that all men will again have opportunity to accept Christ once they enter into eternity, I recognize there will be no more hope for the person who dies having ultimately rejected the Gospel message.

The sin of unbelief is never forgiven... even for those who believe in Christ??? Or are you saying those who believe on Christ never committed the sin of unbelief?

[Adino]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I don't think so. Adino, when we read our sins can be blotted out in a causal sense, what is different from that and the note for remission of sins in Acts 2:38. Blotting out sins and purging them are the same thing.

With our previous agreement in mind that forgiveness deals with the conscience of two parties - 1) that of God and 2) that of man, I will propose that this point comes into play with several NT forgiveness passages. As I've said, I believe God enacted forgiveness on the Cross, thus His 'conscience of our sin' was dealt with historically. I also believe we receive/ accept/ experience the historic forgiveness of God in present time. 'Our conscience' of sin is healed/purged/perfected very presently when we believe. Forgiveness enacted by God historically is presently experienced by us today when we believe. Our conscience of sin is healed when we repent and convert to God through faith in Christ.

Isaiah 6:10

Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

Matthew 13:15

For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal (i.e., forgive) them.

See also Mark 4:11-12 (which uses “forgiven”); John 12:37-40; and Acts 28:23-29.

To authors Isaiah, Matthew, Mark, Luke (in Acts), and John, “the heart” turning back to God in repentance brought an experienced healing / forgiveness.

I believe the 'conscience of sin' (Hebrews 9:9; Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 10:2) is 'healed' in conversion. This nuance could come into play in Acts 3:19.

Like I said, if the 'eis' in Acts 2:38 is causal then this healing of man's conscience must be the focus and not God's actual 'enactment of forgiveness' which dealt with His attitude toward our sin. His conscience was 'healed' on the Cross, while our conscience is 'healed' when we trust in the Cross.

Like I also said, I think taking the plural/singular structure of the passage into account as well gives more strength to the position of 'eis' as non-causal in Acts 2:38. I would like to hear your comments on this point.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Adino

Like I said, if the 'eis' in Acts 2:38 is causal then this healing of man's conscience must be the focus and not God's actual 'enactment of forgiveness' which dealt with His attitude toward our sin. His conscience was 'healed' on the Cross, while our conscience is 'healed' when we trust in the Cross.

Like I also said, I think taking the plural/singular structure of the passage into account as well gives more strength to the position of 'eis' as non-causal in Acts 2:38. I would like to hear your comments on this point.

Is "obeying" the Gospel included in trusting in the Cross?

[Falla39]

Originally Posted by Norman

I thought this was going to be about the right hand of God.

Acts 7:54-56

54 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.

55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

Would it be fair to say that Stephen saw Jesus, God's "Right Hand Man"!

Falla39

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Is "obeying" the Gospel included in trusting in the Cross?

I think Adino will say that trusting in the Cross is the obedience to the gospel which the bible speaks of.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Adino

With our previous agreement in mind that forgiveness deals with the conscience of two parties - 1) that of God and 2) that of man, I will propose that this point comes into play with several NT forgiveness passages. As I've said, I believe God enacted forgiveness on the Cross, thus His 'conscience of our sin' was dealt with historically. I also believe we receive/ accept/ experience the historic forgiveness of God in present time.

As I said I can accept that. However, the reference to blotting out our sins, which is synonymous with remission of sins, is fully causal in that verse. This means it is not out of the way to say Acts 2:38 is using EIS as causal as well. This would mean Acts 2:38 is causal and is saying that the historic healing of the conscience of God is accepted by the believer when the believer's conscience is healed.

'Our conscience' of sin is healed/purged/perfected very presently when we believe. Forgiveness enacted by God historically is presently experienced by us today when we believe. Our conscience of sin is healed when we repent and convert to God through faith in Christ.

Isaiah 6:10

Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

Matthew 13:15

For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal (i.e., forgive) them.

See also Mark 4:11-12 (which uses “forgiven”); John 12:37-40; and Acts 28:23-29.

To authors Isaiah, Matthew, Mark, Luke (in Acts), and John, “the heart” turning back to God in repentance brought an experienced healing / forgiveness.

I believe the 'conscience of sin' (Hebrews 9:9; Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 10:2) is 'healed' in conversion. This nuance could come into play in Acts 3:19.

Like I said, if the 'eis' in Acts 2:38 is causal then this healing of man's conscience must be the focus and not God's actual 'enactment of forgiveness' which dealt with His attitude toward our sin. His conscience was 'healed' on the Cross, while our conscience is 'healed' when we trust in the Cross.

Like I also said, I think taking the plural/singular structure of the passage into account as well gives more strength to the position of 'eis' as non-causal in Acts 2:38. I would like to hear your comments on this point.

I always believed that remission of sins required BOTH repentance and baptism. AT Robertson does also note that the urge to repent is given to the plural, group of people, while the word to baptize is changed into the singular tense.

And be baptized every one of you (kai baptisthētō hekastos hūmōn). Rather, “And let each one of you be baptized.” Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed “in the name of Jesus Christ” (en tōi onomati Iēsou Christou). In accordance with the command of Jesus in Mat_28:19 (eis to onoma). No distinction is to be insisted on between eis to onoma and en tōi onomati with baptizō since eis and en are really the same word in origin. In Act_10:48 en tōi onomati Iēsou Christou occurs, but eis to onoma in Act_8:16; Act_19:5. The use of onoma means in the name or with the authority of one as eis onoma prophētou (Mat_10:41) as a prophet, in the name of a prophet.

Unto the remission of your sins (eis aphesin tōn hamartiōn hūmōn). This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of eis does exist as in 1Co_2:7 eis doxan hēmōn (for our glory). But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of eis for aim or purpose. It is seen in Mat_10:41 in three examples eis onoma prophētou, dikaiou, mathētou where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Mat_12:41 about the preaching of Jonah (eis to kērugma Iōna). They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koiné[28928]š generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not.

So it does not seem that the plural/singular transition makes a difference either way.

It is interesting that Robertson claims one has to weigh that out aside from the Greek grammar. Since baptism is noted like circumcision to be a token or seal, I think this may show EIS is causal.

[Adino]

Sorry, everyone.... I've been back to work. Thanks to all who have shared thoughts on this thread thus far. I do want to address some of the posts I've missed. I'll begin with Pressing-On....

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Is "obeying" the Gospel included in trusting in the Cross?

Pressing, I would say that trusting in the Cross IS obeying the Gospel. God gives the Spirit to those who obey him (Acts 5:32). God gives the Spirit to those who place their faith in the Gospel.

God, who knows the heart, bore witness to the belief of the Gentiles by giving them the Spirit (Acts 15:7-9). God bore witness to the 'pre-baptism' obedience to the Gospel of the Gentiles by giving them the Spirit. Faith itself IS obedience (Romans 16:26).

[Adino]

Mfblume, the Acts 15:7-9 passage is also very relevant to our discussion.

Act 15:7-9

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

Notice what Peter says was purified by faith. It was the hearts of the Gentiles, not the heart of God. The heart/conscience of Cornelius was purged by faith. The conscience of sin was purged/purified/made perfect by faith (Acts 15:9; Hebrews 9:9; Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 10:2; Hebrews 10:22). God bore witness to the purified hearts of the Gentiles by giving them the Spirit. They were then baptized.

Which brings us to an important matter concerning Acts 2:38 - 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.

If baptism is to be connected to the phrase "for the remission of sins" in Acts 2:38 I do not see how the EIS can be deemed causal.

Mfblume, I will try to address your last post when I get the chance.... Again, thank you for your thoughts up to now. God bless.

[Falla39]

Originally Posted by Falla39

Acts 7:54-56

54 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.

55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

Would it be fair to say that Stephen saw Jesus, God's "Right Hand Man"!

Falla39

Bump