Remitted on the Cross or not?

[Jermyn Davidson]

Doesn't the language of Acts 2:38 CLEARLY associate remittance of sins with repentance and baptism?

Maybe I need to re-read this entire thread, but I don't feel like it right now.


Besides, I don't have my Bible close by.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Doesn't the language of Acts 2:38 CLEARLY associate remittance of sins with repentance and baptism?

Maybe I need to re-read this entire thread, but I don't feel like it right now.


Besides, I don't have my Bible close by.

That's the "εις" argument. "Eis" is the Greek word translated as "for" in Acts 2:38.

Some feel that here the word can be understood as "with a regard to..." or "because of..."

Others insist upon the causality interpretation that you appear to have. Frankly, the Greek word is used in both senses throughout the NT. It is the context that should make it plain. Since the reason for baptism is the context and that's what we're asking about, the answer is a bit less certain.

One thing that I've noticed is that those who insist upon the causality interpretation; that is, baptism removes sin; in Acts 2:38 will apply the other meaning in passages like Mark 1:4, concerning John's baptism of repentance. "John baptized for the remission of sins - looking ahead toward Calvary and no sins were really remitted at the time of baptism," they would say.

John himself seems to have had a more serious view of what he was doing, however.

They will demand both uses but arbitrarily assign those uses based upon their own doctrines and already held convictions. That seems sort of like a smörgåsbord Christianity to me.

Basically, if "for" means just one thing in Acts 2:38, then I believe it should mean the exact same thing in Mark 1:4. JMHO.

[bishoph]

Originally Posted by Adino

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.

IMHO this explanation by Adino is the foundation of universalism and or the doctrine of inclusion. To say that one is "historically forgiven whether he accepts it or not," would indicate that everyones sins were forgiven at Calvary without regard to their repentance. The cross provided the ransom or the payment for remission, however, if one does not respond to the gospel and repent, there is no disbursement of forgiveness to their life.

Much like a class action lawsuit, the case may be presented and a judgment awarded, however, even though you may have the injury sustained by the product/person/etc if you did not join in/file a claim on the suit you will not reap the benefits of the judgment/settlement.

At Calvary the settlement was appropriated.......but until I submit a claim via faith, repentance, and baptism, the blood which was appropriated is not applied/active to/in my life.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Adino

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

Adino, please quote me asserting forgiveness of the cross is furthered in personal acceptance or any other method, then we can continue.

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.

Then everyone is saved, right now, even Hitler.

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.

So then everyone that ever lived or will, even men like Hitler, are forgiven in God's eye's. They need not repent or have faith. God already forgave them?

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)

That is because THROUGH faith we receive the forgiveness of sins
Act 10:43 To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."

Act 13:38 Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by him everyone who believes is freed from everything

Act 26:18 to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'

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

A person that has not put faith in Christ and repented is still in their sins.

Jesus teachings that forgiveness of sins, from God is contingent upon your forgiving others...if you do not forgive, God won't forgive you. That is counter to the argument that God has forgiven everyone already.

The gift was purchased by the blood. The gift is yours when you willingly receive it.

Repentance is important
Act 8:22 Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you.

Repentance and conversion pre-requisite for your sins being removed from your record
Act 3:19 Therefore repent and convert so that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Brother David

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).

I didn't argue we appropriate at baptism, but a lot of OPs do. Grace is not a when, but a because. We are saved by Grace...His Grace because of His grace

The topic seems to be when or by what means. I agree we should focus on the one that made the covenant, but Adino wants to focus on something else for this discussion.

My response is that his questions are logical fallacies that assumes OPs that believe baptism is essential say "There is more remission that did not happen on the cross that we need and it's through baptism"

My point was, they fully acknowlege our sins are forgiven at the cross, by the blood, but that gets "activated" in our lives when we finally come to God by faith and are baptized. I don't agree ours sins are forgiven by baptism, or in other words water baptism is the means by which we receive the forgiveness of sins.

Forgiveness happens when we repent

[Jeffrey]

Adino, the work of the cross is our access point. But God requires somethings of us -- chiefly our belief in Him. Secondly, repentance. Does it seem too far fetched that Baptism, which is saturated in Scripture, would not also be included?

[Adino]

Originally Posted by bishoph

IMHO this explanation by Adino is the foundation of universalism and or the doctrine of inclusion. To say that one is "historically forgiven whether he accepts it or not," would indicate that everyones sins were forgiven at Calvary without regard to their repentance. The cross provided the ransom or the payment for remission, however, if one does not respond to the gospel and repent, there is no disbursement of forgiveness to their life.

Much like a class action lawsuit, the case may be presented and a judgment awarded, however, even though you may have the injury sustained by the product/person/etc if you did not join in/file a claim on the suit you will not reap the benefits of the judgment/settlement.

At Calvary the settlement was appropriated.......but until I submit a claim via faith, repentance, and baptism, the blood which was appropriated is not applied/active to/in my life.

Since I continue to say the sin which condemns is the sin of unbelief (Mark 16:16; John 3:18; John 3:36; John 16:8-9), I understand repentance unto life as the repenting heart turning to God through faith in Jesus Christ. The heart turns from the sin of rejection to an acceptance of Christ. This is not universalism.

I again ask: Is man yet condemned for those sins remitted on the Cross or is he condemned only for having rejected Christ? What does Scripture say on this matter? (Mark 16:16; John 3:18; John 3:36; John 16:8-9)

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Adino

Since I continue to say the sin which condemns is the sin of unbelief (Mark 16:16; John 3:18; John 3:36; John 16:8-9), I understand repentance unto life as the repenting heart turning to God through faith in Jesus Christ. The heart turns from the sin of rejection to an acceptance of Christ. This is not universalism.

I again ask: Is man yet condemned for those sins remitted on the Cross or is he condemned only for having rejected Christ? What does Scripture say on this matter? (Mark 16:16; John 3:18; John 3:36; John 16:8-9)

So the only sin that wasn't forgiven on the cross is unbelief?

[mfblume]

the cross made remission of sins available. And Acts 2:38 repentance and baptism allow us to access it.

So you can all go home now. That's it.

[mfblume]

We are baptized into that death of the cross, which explains why the blood of Jesus as well as repentance and baptism remits sins. BLOOD SHED is what death is represented by in terms. And the BLOOD remits as well as Repentance and BAPTISM because we are baptized into His death.