Forgiveness or Remission?

[Esaias]

Now for part 2, "When does a person receive forgiveness of sins, according to the Bible?"

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
(Act 2:38)

Peter clearly identifies that baptism is "for the remission of sins". The Greek word translated "for" is "eis" and literally means "into". He literally said "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ into the remission of sins".

Baptism is "into the remission" (or "forgiveness") of sins.

In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
(Eph 1:7)

We have redemption through the blood of Christ, "the forgiveness of sins". Clearly, forgiveness or remission of sins requires the blood of Christ. The question is, when is the blood of Christ applied to a person's life so as to remove their sins? Obviously it must be applied at some point, otherwise all people would have been automatically saved the moment Christ died and rose again, and we know that is not true, because that is universalism. So when is the blood applied? That is to say, when does a person enter into the benefits of the blood of Christ? (Notice, we must enter INTO the death of Christ, just as baptism is INTO the remission of sins...)

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
(1Pe 1:2)

Obedience is connected to the "sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ". In order to have the blood applied, there must be some kind of obedience involved. Something is to be obeyed.

And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
(Rev 1:5)

Having the blood applied is here identified as being "washed... from our sins in His own blood". So application of the blood, the "sprinkling of the blood upon us" so to say, is also called having our sins washed from us in His blood. When does this washing of our sins take place?

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
(Mat 23:29-31)

Now, in this passage, we see that "the blood" is used to represent the "killing" or death of the prophets. So when we read of "the blood of Christ" we are reading about His death. Since the blood washes us from our sins, and since the blood is to be sprinkled upon us, since the blood must be applied to us, since we must somehow avail ourselves of the blood of Christ to receive the remission or forgiveness of sins, this all means it is His DEATH that takes care of our sins, and it is His DEATH that must be applied to us, it is His DEATH that we must somehow access. How and when is this done?

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
(Rom 6:3-11)

We access and apply the death of Christ when we are baptised! We are baptised into His death, that is to say, the blood.

Remember, we read in Revelation how Christ washes away our sins in His own blood (that is to say, by His death). So we also read this:

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
(Act 22:16)

In baptism our sins are washed away. This is WHEN Christ washes us from our sins in His blood, this is when we are identified with Him and His death and when His death is applied to us - in baptism. Which means very simply this is when the convicted sinner has his or her sins FORGIVEN.

A person hears the Gospel, comes under conviction, and is now anxious about the condition of their soul. That is, they now understand that they are sinners, and that they need to be forgiven or pardoned, they need to be cleansed or washed from their sins. They hear that Christ died for them, that forgiveness or remission of sins is available to them (because of His death aka "the blood of His cross"). So they wonder "what must I do?"

Mere mental assent to the facts of the Gospel is not enough. Demons know all this. Demons agree all this is correct. Jesus really is the Saviour, His blood really atones for sins. But knowing that is not enough. It must become PERSONAL. His death must be applied to the individual.

At this point, the convicted sinner is going to be told what to do (in most evangelistic meetings, anyway). And the vast majority of the time they will be told to "Come forward" and make some kind of prayer. Whether it is a simple "ABC repeat after me" or whether it is a more old fashioned "Just have a talk with Jesus about your sins", it all amounts to the same thing - the sinner is told to PRAY his way to the blood.

But is that the Bible way?

NO.

Nobody in al the Bible was ever told to "come forward", nobody was ever told to "say this prayer" nor were they told to "have a time of crying and talk it out with God". Nobody was ever told to "invite Jesus into their heart" nor was anyone ever told to "accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour." Instead, they are told to "repent and be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." They are told to "be baptised and wash away your sins calling on the name of the Lord". Baptism is the Biblical, apostolic "thing to do" that has been replaced by the man made "make your decision, say this prayer, cry it out at the altar rail" methods of modern religionists.

Remember we read about "obedience and sprinkling"? One is to OBEY the Gospel, this means believe it FOR REAL. Not just in your head (the belief level of demons) but in your LIFE. Real belief is ACTION. In baptism we publicly before others confess Jesus Christ, in baptism we plead the blood of Christ for the covering of our sins, in baptism we make our request to God to apply the death of Christ to our miserable sin-spotted life. In baptism we pledge ourselves to Christ, to become His disciple, His follower. In baptism we identify with the blood of Christ, and in baptism we are raised up in newness of life. In baptism we experience the remission or forgiveness or washing away of our sins.

Everything that the modern "pray Jesus into your heart" methods seek to accomplish is supplied by the Biblical method of Christian baptism.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by james34

God does not inhabit a temple not cleansed by the blood. The house of Cornelius were inhabited/filled with the Holy Ghost.

So to yo, Do you believe they were still in their sins?

According to this line of reasoning, Cornelius and company could not receive the Holy Ghost unless they were "cleansed". Since they received the Holy Ghost before being baptised, they were cleansed before being baptised. Since cleansing (according to this line of reasoning) is equivalent to having sins forgiven, they had their sins forgiven prior to being baptised.

So, James, I have a few questions for you.

1. When were they cleansed? When did they receive forgiveness of sins? Peter preached the Gospel, and while he was still speaking they all got the Holy ghost. There was no altar call, there was no "decision", no "public profession of Christ", no "season of prayer". So when did they receive forgiveness of sins? When were they "cleansed"?

2. Before this meeting, Peter was given a vision of all sorts of animals, and told to kill and eat them. He said he would not eat that which was unclean or common, and was told "Do not call common what God has cleansed". This of course had nothing to do with hamhocks and shrimp gumbo, but everything to do with gentiles being preached to:

And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
(Act 10:28)

So apparently Cornelius and the gentiles were cleansed before Peter ever preached the Gospel to them? How is this possible? Do you believe people are cleansed before even hearing the Gospel?

Or is it possible you have mistaken ideas about all this stuff?

[james34]

Why, then, do some come to the conclusion that we must be baptized in order to have our sin’s remitted ? Often, the discussion of whether or not this passage teaches baptism is required for remittance centers around the Greek word eis that is translated “for” in this passage. Those who hold to the belief that baptism is required for remittance are quick to point to this verse and the fact that it says “be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins,” assuming that the word translated “for” in this verse means “in order to get.” However, in both Greek and English, there are many possible usages of the word “for.”

As an example, when one says “Take two aspirin for your headache,” it is obvious to everybody that it does not mean “take two aspirin in order to get your headache,” but instead to “take two aspirin because you already have a headache.” There are three possible meanings of the word “for” that might fit the context of Acts 2:38: 1--“in order to be, become, get, have, keep, etc.,” 2—“because of, as the result of,” or 3—“with regard to.” Since any one of the three meanings could fit the context of this passage, additional study is required in order to determine which one is correct.

We need to start by looking back to the original language and the meaning of the Greek word eis. This is a common Greek word (it is used 1774 times in the New Testament) that is translated many different ways. Like the English word “for” it can have several different meanings. So, again, we see at least two or three possible meanings of the passage, one that would seem to support that baptism is required for forgiveness /remittance and others that would not. While both the meanings of the Greek word eis are seen in different passages of Scripture, such noted Greek scholars as A.T. Robertson and J.R. Mantey have maintained that the Greek preposition eis in Acts 2:38 should be translated “because of” or “in view of,” and not “in order to,” or “for the purpose of.”

One example of how this preposition is used in other Scriptures is seen in Matthew 12:41 where the word eis communicates the “result” of an action. In this case it is said that the people of Nineveh “repented at the preaching of Jonah” (the word translated “at” is the same Greek word eis). Clearly, the meaning of this passage is that they repented “because of’” or “as the result of” Jonah’s preaching. In the same way, it would be possible that Acts 2:38 is indeed communicating the fact that they were to be baptized “as the result of” or “because” they already had believed and in doing so had already received forgiveness of their sins (John 1:12; John 3:14-18; John 5:24; John 11:25-26; Acts 10:43; Acts 13:39; Acts 16:31; Acts 26:18; Romans 10:9; Ephesians 1:12-14). This interpretation of the passage is also consistent with the message recorded in Peter’s next two sermons to unbelievers where he associates the forgiveness of sins with the act of repentance and faith in Christ without even mentioning baptism (Acts 3:17-26; Acts 4:8-12).

[Esaias]

Furthermore, regarding the Cornelius episode. It seems to be implied by some that the experience of Cornelius and company is the more common occurrence nowadays. That, like as Cornelius and them received the Holy Ghost and were then baptised afterwards, so too most people nowadays receive the Holy Ghost and then are baptised later. It was stated in this thread something to the effect of "I have seen more people get the Holy Ghost at an altar call than a baptismal service", or something like that. And it is implied that this somehow reflects the Cornelius type of conversion experience.

But does it really? I say NO.

What actually happened with Cornelius?

While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
(Act 10:44)

And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
(Act 11:15)

Peter started preaching, and WHILE HE WAS PREACHING the entire audience got the Holy Ghost. No altar call. No call for a decision. No "invitation". Not even a prayer service. No "tarrying". So let me ask those who think the Cornelius revival meeting is somehow typical of their experiences: How many times have you been in an evangelistic meeting full of unconverted people who all get the Holy Ghost right in the middle of the preacher's preaching? The preacher doesn't even get to tell anyone what to do, doesn't even get a chance to make any kind of invitation whatsoever, the audience just breaks out in Pentecostal worship speaking in tongues and magnifying God.

Does this really describe the "common and typical" evangelistic meetings and experiences you are familiar with?

I would suggest that Cornelius and company are definitely an exceptional event. And I would suggest that those who point to Cornelius as some kind of pattern for their own evangelistic experiences are pointing amiss and know not what they actually do.

[james34]

Originally Posted by Esaias

According to this line of reasoning, Cornelius and company could not receive the Holy Ghost unless they were "cleansed". Since they received the Holy Ghost before being baptised, they were cleansed before being baptised. Since cleansing (according to this line of reasoning) is equivalent to having sins forgiven, they had their sins forgiven prior to being baptised.

So, James, I have a few questions for you.

1. When were they cleansed? When did they receive forgiveness of sins? Peter preached the Gospel, and while he was still speaking they all got the Holy ghost. There was no altar call, there was no "decision", no "public profession of Christ", no "season of prayer". So when did they receive forgiveness of sins? When were they "cleansed"?

2. Before this meeting, Peter was given a vision of all sorts of animals, and told to kill and eat them. He said he would not eat that which was unclean or common, and was told "Do not call common what God has cleansed". This of course had nothing to do with hamhocks and shrimp gumbo, but everything to do with gentiles being preached to:

And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
(Act 10:28)

So apparently Cornelius and the gentiles were cleansed before Peter ever preached the Gospel to them? How is this possible? Do you believe people are cleansed before even hearing the Gospel?

Or is it possible you have mistaken ideas about all this stuff?

The reference to Peter callling something unclean, was in accordance to the the customs of the law, and not specifically aimed at the house of Cornelius. It definitely wasn’t referencing clean in the sense of God having cleaned it with his blood at this point. It was more pointing to the idea that Christ died for all ( nationalities) and in this sense the law lost its bearing on non Jewish people and the Gentiles were no more unclean than an unsaved Jew.

I am familiar with the teaching that says, repent , be baptized, in order to get the Holy Ghost. I have been in and around apostolic churches my whole life. These are all taught as steps to get to the identifying part( Holy Ghost with tongues as evidence) Everyone considers the Holy Ghost as Gods’ witness. I have never met a preacher that “once someone received the Holy Ghost”, that is was doubted whether or not God had forgiven their sins. I have seen them baptized in Jesus name many times , and it be suspected that they have not received the Sprit due to lack of repentance. I’ve seen and heard of many at water baptism, not get filled, and finally confess their sins and then receive the Spirit. God fills them often before baptism if he sees the heart is right, and other times he doesn’t even after baptism if the heart isn’t right. God doesn’t seem to be moved much by baptism as far as it’s ability to cleanse a vessel is concerned.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by james34

Why, then, do some come to the conclusion that we must be baptized in order to have our sin’s remitted ? Often, the discussion of whether or not this passage teaches baptism is required for remittance centers around the Greek word eis that is translated “for” in this passage. Those who hold to the belief that baptism is required for remittance are quick to point to this verse and the fact that it says “be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins,” assuming that the word translated “for” in this verse means “in order to get.” However, in both Greek and English, there are many possible usages of the word “for.”

As an example, when one says “Take two aspirin for your headache,” it is obvious to everybody that it does not mean “take two aspirin in order to get your headache,” but instead to “take two aspirin because you already have a headache.” There are three possible meanings of the word “for” that might fit the context of Acts 2:38: 1--“in order to be, become, get, have, keep, etc.,” 2—“because of, as the result of,” or 3—“with regard to.” Since any one of the three meanings could fit the context of this passage, additional study is required in order to determine which one is correct.

We need to start by looking back to the original language and the meaning of the Greek word eis. This is a common Greek word (it is used 1774 times in the New Testament) that is translated many different ways. Like the English word “for” it can have several different meanings. So, again, we see at least two or three possible meanings of the passage, one that would seem to support that baptism is required for forgiveness /remittance and others that would not. While both the meanings of the Greek word eis are seen in different passages of Scripture, such noted Greek scholars as A.T. Robertson and J.R. Mantey have maintained that the Greek preposition eis in Acts 2:38 should be translated “because of” or “in view of,” and not “in order to,” or “for the purpose of.”

One example of how this preposition is used in other Scriptures is seen in Matthew 12:41 where the word eis communicates the “result” of an action. In this case it is said that the people of Nineveh “repented at the preaching of Jonah” (the word translated “at” is the same Greek word eis). Clearly, the meaning of this passage is that they repented “because of’” or “as the result of” Jonah’s preaching. In the same way, it would be possible that Acts 2:38 is indeed communicating the fact that they were to be baptized “as the result of” or “because” they already had believed and in doing so had already received forgiveness of their sins (John 1:12; John 3:14-18; John 5:24; John 11:25-26; Acts 10:43; Acts 13:39; Acts 16:31; Acts 26:18; Romans 10:9; Ephesians 1:12-14). This interpretation of the passage is also consistent with the message recorded in Peter’s next two sermons to unbelievers where he associates the forgiveness of sins with the act of repentance and faith in Christ without even mentioning baptism (Acts 3:17-26; Acts 4:8-12).

Wow. Not only did you basically copy and paste an article straight from "GotQuestions" without attribution (plagiarism and bad form), but you changed the initial sentence from "in order to get saved" to "in order to have our sin's remitted".

Here's a link to the original article if anyone is interested:

https://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-Acts-2-38.html

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by james34

I am familiar with the teaching that says, repent , be baptized, in order to get the Holy Ghost. I have been in and around apostolic churches my whole life. These are all taught as steps to get to the identifying part( Holy Ghost with tongues as evidence) Everyone considers the Holy Ghost as Gods’ witness. I have never met a preacher that “once someone received the Holy Ghost”, that is was doubted whether or not God had forgiven their sins. I have seen them baptized in Jesus name many times , and it be suspected that they have not received the Sprit due to lack of repentance. I’ve seen and heard of many at water baptism, not get filled, and finally confess their sins and then receive the Spirit. God fills them often before baptism if he sees the heart is right, and other times he doesn’t even after baptism if the heart isn’t right. God doesn’t seem to be moved much by baptism as far as it’s ability to cleanse a vessel is concerned.

I'll take that as a non-answer to my two questions, and conclude you have no answer to them.

[james34]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I'll take that as a non-answer to my two questions, and conclude you have no answer to them.

You can’t explain it any other way. Cornelius was added to the church. It doesn’t bother me that I copy and pasted . I was not trying to hide it lol ( I didn’t care) A 5 year old would have recognized it was copied. Lol Good detective work there Sherlock!!! I changed the words to fit the discussion and represent the idea I was trying to express.

I am going to copy and paste some more from the debate on this forum about forgiveness and remission.between SDG or whoever it was.


Seriously, was Cornelius not forgiven of his sins?

[james34]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Wow. Not only did you basically copy and paste an article straight from "GotQuestions" without attribution (plagiarism and bad form), but you changed the initial sentence from "in order to get saved" to "in order to have our sin's remitted".

Here's a link to the original article if anyone is interested:

https://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-Acts-2-38.html

Point is , “for” can mean because of, and thanks for posting the link.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Wow. Not only did you basically copy and paste an article straight from "GotQuestions" without attribution (plagiarism and bad form), but you changed the initial sentence from "in order to get saved" to "in order to have our sin's remitted".

Here's a link to the original article if anyone is interested:

https://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-Acts-2-38.html