Quote:
Originally Posted by DAII
|
DAII, I've thus far only read half of Segraves blog but it seems he builds the rest of his article on premises of which I take issue. Here are a few thoughts concerning what I have read:
Segraves writes:
"Assuming for the sake of discussion that the second-person plural humōn is the original reading, Beisner’s comment begs the question as to what the implication is of making this switch. Using Beisner’s reasoning, the implication would be that all of those present should repent for the forgiveness of the sins of all of those present. This is certainly not Peter’s meaning."
I think Rev. Segraves could be mistaken here. It most certainly is possible Peter's intended meaning is that all being addressed were to repent 'with a view toward' the remission of all sin on the Cross. An acceptance of the effected sin remission of the Cross is part of repentance. It is in repentance that one turns from unbelief in the risen Christ to faith in him and his effective work on Calvary. The fact that Christ was resurrected blatantly declared the issue of sin had been dealt with, for to accept a risen Christ is to accept that God no longer imputes to him the sins Christ bore on Calvary. The resurrection declares a finished work of sin remission. All are to have a repentant heart trusting in Christ as Savior from all sin.
Those pricked in their hearts in
Acts 2:37 were asking what to do in light of their sin of having rejected the Messiah. Peter could very possibly be telling them all to turn to faith in Jesus Christ with a view toward the accomplished sin remitting work of the Cross made apparent by Christ's resurrection. Sin remission would thus not be the result of repentance and/or baptism but the accomplished work of Christ on the Cross to be acknowledged and trusted in. Men were to turn to faith in Christ with a view toward the accomplished sin remission He performed on the Cross.
In turning our repentant hearts to faith in Christ and his finished work of sin remission on the Cross we 'repent for the forgiveness of the sins of all.'
I also think Segraves does not make a convincing case for the definite causal use of 'eis' in the phrase 'for the remission of sins.' The phrase can very easily be interpreted as 'with a view toward' (or 'with respect to') sin remission elsewhere in Scripture.
Segraves goes on to say,
"If Beisner’s reading is followed, would the forgiveness of sins that is effected by communal repentance be invalidated if even one person who heard Peter’s command failed to repent?"
I do not believe God's forgiveness is 'effected' by any repentance, whether communal or individual. Forgiveness is a matter of historic reality effected on the Cross and not afterwards. Whether we accept or reject this accomplished fact of remission has no bearing on its historicity. Any further forgiveness by God after the Cross would require a further sacrifice.
The only thing changing after the Cross in regard to God's forgiveness is our coming to terms with its reality. I think once we understand the forgiveness of the Cross in regard to when God enacted it as opposed to when we experience and/or 'receive' it we can better approach the question of sin remission in
Acts 2:38.
An important illustration: Consider the son who sins against his father and moves far away. In his dying moments the father makes it known to all that he has forgiven his estranged son. Years later the son comes to acknowledge his sin against his father and returns home only to find that his father has passed. He is devastated and his conscience of sin is tearing his soul apart.
Is the son forgiven?
YES
Has he experienced his father's forgiveness?
NOT YET
Devastated and yearning for a healing of his heart he finally learns that his father forgave him many years earlier and had never ceased loving him.
Upon hearing this good news the son chooses to place his trust in its reality. This results in a healing in 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 prior to dying.
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.
Neither repentance nor baptism effects God's historic forgiveness. The historic forgiveness of the Cross took place outside of our acceptance or rejection of it.
Since we cannot effect the forgiveness of God through repentance, faith and/or baptism we must simply rest in its historic reality.
We all thus repent 'with a view toward,' and each of us are baptized 'with a view toward' the historic remission of the Cross. Our repentance, faith, and baptism has no bearing on the historic fact that God forgave us all on the Cross.
I think this is very supportive of the non-causal / non-purposive understanding of 'eis' in
Acts 2:38. If 'eis' is causal in
Acts 2:38 then it can only be referencing the purging
of conscience we receive when we trust in the historic forgiveness of the Cross and not the actual forgiveness God historically enacted on the Cross 2000 years ago.
Linear Mode
