Calling all PAJCers: When does Justification and Remission Happen?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by tbpew

so dan (I came back after rethinking your post),
If their salvation did not require works in agreement with God's provision..Dan, what would be their deliverence if they did not cross the RED SEA?

Works are not the anti-faith boogeyman, they are the life-giving agreement with what the believer hears (by faith) as the commands of the Spirit.

Ferd asked a few things about the degree with which you will ride your "works-are-bad" doctrinal viewpoint. How about answering a few of them?

but dan, surely you can not really be betting the farm with only dead faith in your hand.

TBP,

It's a myth that you are suggesting when you label me with a 'works-are-bad' doctrine .. if you think I don't believe in good works .... you're MISTAKEN ... GRIEVOUSLY!!!

Our works validate, or show real, our faith ... all of our works ....

They do not, baptism included, cause salvation or qualify us for salvation .... as your doctrine suggests.

Our works are results of our faith in the SALVATION HE AFFORDED .... they follow our belief...

They are fruit of his righteousness ... not ours ....

[Johnny]

"Our works are results of our faith in the SALVATION HE AFFORDED .... they follow our belief...

They are fruit of his righteousness ... not ours .... " I agree with your quote. Johnny

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Johnny

"Our works are results of our faith in the SALVATION HE AFFORDED .... they follow our belief...

They are fruit of his righteousness ... not ours .... " I agree with your quote. Johnny

HAPPY BIRTHDAY JOHNNY ...

HOW'S IT FEEL TO BE AN OCTOGENARIAN ???

I love you, bro.

[SDG]

Mizpeh ...

I think there' s large body of work here between you, TBP , and I to know where we stand on this topic ... on justification and remission...

I did read your last post ... and some of your questions I think can be answered by some of my post in the last 2-3 pages ....

As for a few points that stand out to me ....

1. I am always baffled by those who oft forget that both OT and NT saints are saved by faith ... and that this new covenant is better .... because it's a circumcision of the heart ... and not a works-based salvation.

2. How some would discount the epistles as only being directed to believers ... as to forget that they knew there would be new converts also listening in churches as they were being read ... if we are to discount John's words in his epistles as just for the believer than we should never preach from these epistles in the presence of sinners.

3. How can a holy God justify us ... declare us righteous ... before him having not entirely wiped away our sins? You believe we are righteous before we are "totally" forgiven ... it doest fit my simple logic.

I respect your view ... it's very different from some of the hard-line OPs but I don't think we're going to sway each other to budge from our positions .. at least not now.

Respectfully,
Dan

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

For you.... is it a sacrament that mediates grace and 'activates' various phenomena? .... among them:

1. The blood is applied somehow through a spiritual type of transubstantiation.
2. Sins are washed away by being born of the water
3. We are somehow literally buried with Christ by this work
4. By doing this rite/work we participate in that somehow causes salvation

Which of these two scenarios are harmonized with the clear biblical declarations among them being:

1. we are save by grace, through faith .... and not by works ...
2. blood remits sin
3. and Christ's words when he said: If you love me, obey my commandments.

Dan,
1)The blood of Christ washes away our sins. Rev 1:5
2)Our sins are washed away by the blood of Christ when we are baptized. Acts 22:16
3)We are FIGURATIVELY buried with Christ by a work of the Spirit when we are baptized in water. Romans 6:4
4)The work in baptism is God's. It is not a work of the law neither is it a good work that we are appointed unto. It is part of the new birth. And is for salvation: Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:21, John 3:5, Tit 3:5

I'm not sure what you want harmonized. But I think you have some harmonizing to do. If we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone then why does the Bible say we must be baptized to be saved, we must repent, we must have the Spirit of Christ?

We are saved by the grace of God through faith...I don't see how this contradicts with the doctrines of repentance or baptisms. The just shall live by faith and we walk by faith and not by sight. All that we do in our service to God is by faith. From start to finish.

The circumicision in the NT is done at baptism.

[mizpeh]

Dan,

How were you born again?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Dan,
1)The blood of Christ washes away our sins. Rev 1:5
2)Our sins are washed away by the blood of Christ when we are baptized. Acts 22:16
3)We are FIGURATIVELY buried with Christ by a work of the Spirit when we are baptized in water. Romans 6:4
4)The work in baptism is God's. It is not a work of the law neither is it a good work that we are appointe unto. It is part of the new birth. And as for salvation: Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:21, John 3:5, Tit 3:5

I'm not sure what you want harmonized. But I think you have some harmonizing to do. If we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone then why does the Bible say we must be baptized to be saved, we must repent, we must have the Spirit of Christ?

We are saved by the grace of God through faith...I don't see how this contradicts with the doctrines of repentance or baptisms. The just shall live by faith and we walk by faith and not by sight. All that we do in our service to God is by faith. From start to finish.

The circumicision in the NT is done at baptism.

We agree on points 1 and 3.

As for point 4 ... Circumcisions didn't cause salvation in the OT ... it's an act of obedience through faith ...

Now point 2 ...

As for your interpretation ... of Acts 22:16 ... I share the following by Bernie Gillespie on the topic ... here is the article in it's entirety.

Gillespie:

The question before us is: "How did Paul ‘wash away’ his sins?" Does Acts 22:16 prove that Paul washed away his sins by being properly baptized? Should we interpret this verse to mean that Paul needed to be baptized in order to have his sins forgiven? Is that how Paul received the forgiveness of sins? Is this what Paul believed or taught in his epistles in the New Testament?

First, notice very carefully the words of the text. Ananias said "arise," next he said "and be baptized," then, "and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." It is not worded, "be baptized to wash away thy sins." If that is what Ananias meant he could have easily said it that way. But he placed the conjunction "and" between his verbs "arise," "be baptized," and "wash." If one attributes the washing to being baptized one could as well attribute it to the command to arise. Certainly this is not what is intended. The washing away of sins is more defined by the "calling on the name of the Lord." The meaning of this phrase would give us a clearer understanding of how Paul’s sins were washed away.

The word "calling" (epikaleosamenos) comes from the root word (epikaleo) which means "to use an attribution in speaking of a person." (Louw-Nida Lexicon) This word is used in Acts 7:59 for the act of praying to Jesus by Stephen as he was dying. He spoke the name of Jesus as direct address in praying to Jesus. It is used in Acts 9:14 of Christians as those who call on the name of the Lord. They spoke the name of Jesus in confession, prayer and worship (and Baptism) as addressing the Person of Jesus and not technically as a formula. When Paul appealed (epikaloumai) to Caesar (Acts 25:11,12,21,25) he called upon the name (title) of Caesar to invoke the authority of the whole person. It was not the mere use of the name, as an incantation or conjuring formula. It was a demand for the right to due process as a Roman citizen.


Paul was already a citizen, therefore he was not asking for the right to become a citizen. He assumed that, as a Roman citizen, he had the rights of that citizenship which were embodied in Caesar. This is what is meant by the teaching of Paul: "And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him." (Col. 3:17) This was written to the Colossians in the context of worship. This phrase is used to identify those who have faith in Jesus as the object of their adoration, worship and hope.

These words "calling on the name of the Lord" occur first in Acts chapter two in Peter’s Day of Pentecost sermon. Peter quotes from the prophet Joel (2:32) and applies Yahweh’s last days promise of salvation for Israel to salvation in Jesus Christ. This expression "call upon the name of the LORD," in the Old Testament, is shorthand for placing exclusive faith in Yahweh, the One God of Israel, for mercy and salvation.

Remarkably, Joel’s words are quoted again in another place in the New Testament. It is found in the Apostle Paul’s own writing in Romans 10:13. This is most pertinent, because we have a direct interpretation of what it means to "call upon the name of the Lord" by Paul himself. Here the person told (in Acts 22:16) to call on the name of the Lord to wash away his sins gives us his understanding of what that meant in doctrinal terms. We cannot establish doctrine on an historical narrative (such as the account of Acts) without also supporting it clearly in the teaching portions (epistles) of Scripture. Since it is Paul who "called on the name of the Lord" and it was his sins which were "washed away," no one could explain that better than he.
In Romans ten, Paul says this:

That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame. For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile – the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." [Romans 10:9-13 NIV]

Paul here clearly states that one washes away their sins by believing the Gospel of Christ. The calling on the name of the Lord of Acts 22:16 is the "confess with your mouth . . . and believe in your heart," of Romans 10:13. Paul did not express any connection between washing and Baptism. He claims that his sins were forgiven and thus washed away when he believed and confessed the Gospel of Christ. How could he have neglected such an important necessity as Baptism if it was the key to forgiveness? It would be a major omission at this point. The best and most reasonable explanation is that Paul never believed that Baptism was the means of forgiveness. Otherwise, he has misled all the Roman churches (and the Church throughout history) by teaching them that they are saved and justified when they believe alone.
To further clarify Paul’s understanding of salvation he mourns the disbelief and rejection of his own people:

Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. [Romans 10:1-4 NIV]

What is written here is not to take away from the importance of baptism. I want to make it unequivocally clear that I believe that baptism is necessary for every Christian. It is not optional. It is a command of our Lord and His Apostles that each and every Christian should be baptized. What I am saying is that baptism is not the means to salvation. Faith alone in Christ alone is the means of salvation to everyone. Baptism is necessary for all Christians, but is not necessary for sinners to be saved. This distinction must never be obscured. We must not have a sacrament receiving the faith that should be exclusively placed in Christ the only Savior.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Mizpeh ...

I think there' s large body of work here between you, TBP , and I to know where we stand on this topic ... on justification and remission...

I did read you last post ... and some of your questions I think can be answered by some of my post in the last 2-3 pages ....

As for a few points that stand out to me ....

1. I am always baffled by those who oft forget that both OT and NT saints are saved by faith ... and that this new covenant is better .... because it's a circumcision of the heart ... and not a works-based salvation.

2. How some would discount the epistles as only being directed to believers ... as to forget that they knew there would be new converts also listening in churches as they were being read ... if we are to discount John's words in his epistles as just for the believer than we should never preach from these epistles in the presence of sinners.

3. How can a holy God justify us ... declare us righteous ... before him having not entirely wiped away our sins? You believe we are righteous before we are "totally" forgiven ... it doest fit my simple logic.

I respect your view ... it's very different from some of the hard-line OPs but I don't think we're going to sway each other to budge from our positions .. at least not now.

Respectfully,
Dan

Dan,

Though we disagree, I count you as a brother in the Lord. I'm not sure which doctrine is worse, If your right, then we'll see many in heaven who did not get baptized in Jesus name nor were they baptized with the Spirit of God with the evidence of tongues. If I'm right, then many that thought they were saved were deceived and will open their eyes in hell.

As for your comment on the epistles, I find your logic faulty but I can't put my finger on the name of the fallacy. And I don't think you are rightly dividing the word of God if you choose to use 1 John 1 and apply it to the lost.

I don't understand how we can be justified before our sins are forgiven either, that's why I'm studying Romans. But just because I don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't so. There is one verse, Acts 15:9, that teaches a purification of the heart by faith and in context would take place prior to water baptism.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Dan,

Though we disagree, I count you as a brother in the Lord. I'm not sure which doctrine is worse, If your right, then we'll see many in heaven who did not get baptized in Jesus name nor were they baptized with the Spirit of God with the evidence of tongues. If I'm right, then many that thought they were saved were deceived and will open their eyes in hell.

As for your comment on the epistles, I find your logic faulty but I can't put my finger on the name of the fallacy. And I don't think you are rightly dividing the word of God if you choose to use 1 John 1 and apply it to the lost.

I don't understand how we can be justified before our sins are forgiven either, that's why I'm studying Romans. But just because I don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't so. There is one verse, Acts 15:9, that teaches a purification of the heart by faith and in context would take place prior to water baptism.

I consider you my brother also .. Mizpeh ... and TBP

As you study Romans ... I encourage you to make a few stops at Hebrews ...

As for the Acts 15:9 .. text .. please take a look at this article and see what you can glean ... you don't have to agree with it all .. retain the goodl

As for your born again question ... a perennial question and debate between PCI ers and PAJCers .. start a thread and see what we can discuss.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I consider you my brother also .. Mizpeh ... and TBP

As you study Romans ... I encourage you to make a few stops at Hebrews ...

As for the Acts 15:9 .. text .. please take a look at this article and see what you can glean ... you don't have to agree with it all .. retain the goodl

As for your born again question ... a perennial question and debate between PCI ers and PAJCers .. start a thread and see what we can discuss.

The study of Romans is going to take a long time. I plan to stop at Luther, Seagreaves, and Bernard as well.

I'm not a brother. ...and I've been spending too much time in forums. I'll pass on starting a thread.