New Doctrine Emerges: NOT Forgiven at Repentance

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

What's funny mizpeh is that nobody even argued about baptism being the point of forgiveness in the ealy church. They debated many things but baptism for remission of sins is not one of them.

They did debate baptism for the remission of sins and the purpose of baptism in general.

"But there are some of them [the Gnostics] who assert that it is unnecessary to bring persons to the water. Rather, they mix oil and water together, and they place this mixture on the heads of those who are to be initiated....This they maintain to be the redemption.....Other [heretics], however, reject all these practices, and maintain that the mystery of the unspeakable and invisible power should not to be performed by visible and corruptible creatures.

....These claim that the knowledge of the unspeakable Greatness is itself perfect redemption." Irenaeus 180 ad

"Now, the teaching is laid down that "without baptism, salvation is attainable by no one." This is based primarily on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, "Unless one is born of water he has not life." However, when this is laid down, there immediately arise scrupulous (or rather, audacious) doubts on the part of some." Tertullian 198 ad

I only used the early church fathers writings to show that this is not a new fangled doctrine, but that it was taught very early on that remission of sins which is the same as forgiveness of sins happens at water baptism.

Dan was just sprouting off at the mouth, even though he knew what the ECF's taught on this subject.

[SDG]

Forgiveness of sins is still available at repentance ... despite what the 6 of you think.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Forgiveness of sins is still available at repentance ... despite what the 6 of you think.

It's more important what the Bible states. Remission happens at baptism....why tarriest thou, arise and be baptized and wash away your sins calling on the name of the Lord.

The crowd is not always right.

[Aquila]

I believe that full New Testament salvation contains repentance, water baptism, and Holy Ghost infilling. But I've always had this question.... I was filled with the Holy Ghost immediately after repentance. I spoke in tongues and wept for nearly 40 or more minutes. If my sins weren't remitted until water baptism (which happened later) .... how did God fill me with the Holy Ghost seeing that I was still, according to some, covered in sin? I've wrestled and wrestled with that. It's like I compare my EXPERIENCE to what people are teaching and it doesn't mesh. People are filled with the Holy Ghost before water baptism all the time. That in itself testifies to the fact that sins are forgiven and one is justified at Repentance. However, this doesn't mean that one shouldn't obey and be water baptized, it's only a practical example that experience doesn't match what is often taught.

What if I repented of sin, was filled with the Holy Ghost and was then killed crossing the street on the way to the creek to be water baptized? Many would say that I was lost because I wasn't baptized. Others would say that I was acting in obedience and therefore God would have mercy.

Just some questions that roll around in my crazy head.

[pastorrick1959]

the blood is applied at baptism , just like the brazen altar , the scacrifice was slain at the altar and of course it bled. if the blood is applied sin is remitted.. the brazen laver however washed away the mess which represented bapt.u need both . but the blood is aplied at repentance no question about it.!

[Aquila]

I think it's fair to say that the blood is effectual through repentance, baptism, and Holy Ghost infilling.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by pastorrick1959

the blood is applied at baptism , just like the brazen altar , the scacrifice was slain at the altar and of course it bled. if the blood is applied sin is remitted.. the brazen laver however washed away the mess which represented bapt.u need both . but the blood is aplied at repentance no question about it.!

so the blood is applied at repentance and then the blood is removed at baptism?
does this mean the blood is "unapplied" at baptism?

I think you're putting too much emphasis on a type.

Were the priests immersed in the laver?
If they were not immersed in the laver, and if the laver depicts baptism, then baptism does not have to be by immersion.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I believe that full New Testament salvation contains repentance, water baptism, and Holy Ghost infilling. But I've always had this question.... I was filled with the Holy Ghost immediately after repentance. I spoke in tongues and wept for nearly 40 or more minutes. If my sins weren't remitted until water baptism (which happened later) .... how did God fill me with the Holy Ghost seeing that I was still, according to some, covered in sin? ...

Just accept the fact that baptism does not "really" cleanse from sin. It's only a symbolic cleansing. Cornelius and his friends received the Holy Ghost Baptism before they were baptized in water. Peter had preached that "whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins" (Acts 10:43). Evidently those Gentiles believed and received remission/forgiveness of sins, and while they rejoiced in their new experience of salvation, they received the Holy Ghost Baptism and began to speak with tongues. All of this happened while Peter was preaching. Peter later commanded them to be baptized "in the name of the Lord" (Acts 10:48). When Peter later described what happened at the house of Cornelius, he said that God had granted the Gentiles "repentance unto life" (Acts 10:18). Then about 11 years later at the Jerusalem Council, Peter said that God had purified "their hearts by faith" (Acts 15:9). In other words, as those Gentiles heard the Word, they believed, were saved/born again and cleansed from sin and then received the Holy Ghost Baptism --all of this before water baptism.

Thousands of people have received the Holy Ghost Baptism before being baptized in water and some have never been baptized in water. It sounds to me that God is not as concerned about "proper" water baptism as we are.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Sam

so the blood is applied at repentance and then the blood is removed at baptism?
does this mean the blood is "unapplied" at baptism?

I think you're putting too much emphasis on a type.

Were the priests immersed in the laver?
If they were not immersed in the laver, and if the laver depicts baptism, then baptism does not have to be by immersion.

Very astute observation. Sprinkling/pouring the waters of purification are found throughout the Old Testament, immersion for Mikvah was a tradition that began under Ezra during the captivity, it's not a "biblical" practice at all.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

They did debate baptism for the remission of sins and the purpose of baptism in general.

"But there are some of them [the Gnostics] who assert that it is unnecessary to bring persons to the water. Rather, they mix oil and water together, and they place this mixture on the heads of those who are to be initiated....This they maintain to be the redemption.....Other [heretics], however, reject all these practices, and maintain that the mystery of the unspeakable and invisible power should not to be performed by visible and corruptible creatures.

....These claim that the knowledge of the unspeakable Greatness is itself perfect redemption." Irenaeus 180 ad

"Now, the teaching is laid down that "without baptism, salvation is attainable by no one." This is based primarily on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, "Unless one is born of water he has not life." However, when this is laid down, there immediately arise scrupulous (or rather, audacious) doubts on the part of some." Tertullian 198 ad

I only used the early church fathers writings to show that this is not a new fangled doctrine, but that it was taught very early on that remission of sins which is the same as forgiveness of sins happens at water baptism.

Dan was just sprouting off at the mouth, even though he knew what the ECF's taught on this subject.

I don't think many consider gnostics as argument among "Christianity." When I said what I said I was referring to what many call orthodox teaching. In that there was no argument and even from reformed scholars they admit this.