The Difference Between the PCI of the Merger and the Current Counterfeits

[ChTatum]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Forgiven but rolled forward NO remission.

Elder, I respectfully disagree. They cannot be forgiven and rolled forward. If forgiven, why rolled forward? If rolled forward, then evidently not forgiven.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by ChTatum

Elder, I respectfully disagree. They cannot be forgiven and rolled forward. If forgiven, why rolled forward? If rolled forward, then evidently not forgiven.

Many time in the OT it says they were forgiven but never remitted.

[ChTatum]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Many time in the OT it says they were forgiven but never remitted.

The word "remitted" does not appear in the OT, either in a positive or negative connotation.

And there are three words that are translated as "forgiven".

nasa', naw-saw'; or nacah, naw-saw'; (Psa. 4:6 [7]), a primitive root; to lift, in a great variety of applications, literal and figurative, absolutely and relatively (as follows) :- accept, advance, arise, (able to, [armour], suffer to) bear (-er, up), bring (forth), burn, carry (away), cast, contain, desire, ease, exact, exalt (self), extol, fetch, forgive, furnish, further, give, go on, help, high, hold up, honourable (+ man), lade, lay, lift (self) up, lofty, marry, magnify, × needs, obtain, pardon, raise (up), receive, regard, respect, set (up), spare, stir up, + swear, take (away, up), × utterly, wear, yield.

kaphar, kaw-far'; a primitive root; to cover (specifically with bitumen); figurative to expiate or condone, to placate or cancel :- appease, make (an) atonement, cleanse, disannul, forgive, be merciful, pacify, pardon, purge (away), put off, (make) reconcile (-liation).

calach, saw-lakh'; a primitive root; to forgive :- forgive, pardon, spare.

Calach being the most used.

I was always taught (funny how things are) that sins were never really forgiven in the OT, just rolled forward. I kind of still agree.

[rrford]

Let us not forget that in the Old Testament, and always, God demands a balanced scale. He accepted the sin offering (Atonement) as a means of forgiving the sin of man. While He did not lay it to their charge, the Atonement did not totally appease God's sense of justice. That would take place at Calvary.

Therefore, those sins committed prior to Calvary could be forgiven, but the scales of justice not be balanced. Hebrews plainly states "That they without us would not be made perfect." Something to that verse, I believe.

If forgiveness and remission occured in the Old Testament then someone please tell me WHY Jesus had to die?

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by rrford

Let us not forget that in the Old Testament, and always, God demands a balanced scale. He accepted the sin offering (Atonement) as a means of forgiving the sin of man. While He did not lay it to their charge, the Atonement did not totally appease God's sense of justice. That would take place at Calvary.

Therefore, those sins committed prior to Calvary could be forgiven, but the scales of justice not be balanced. Hebrews plainly states "That they without us would not be made perfect." Something to that verse, I believe.

If forgiveness and remission occured in the Old Testament then someone please tell me WHY Jesus had to die?

There is a thought!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "The law made NOTHING perfect but the bringing in of a better hope did." "For what the law could NOT do"

[Scott Hutchinson]

The Law could only show us where we were wrong,but now The Holy Ghost gives us the power to keep God's law.

[SDG]

Let us examine this term REMISSION OF SINS

re-mish'-un (aphesis, paresis): The first term is the most commonly used and is translated synonymously with forgiveness throughout the NT. The two Greek words, of which the latter occurs only in Rom 3:25, were translated by the same English word in the King James Version. In the Revised Version (British and American), paresis is translation "passing over."

It is contrasted with the other term as pretermission with remission. Remission is exemption from the consequences of an offense, forgiveness; pretermission is the suspension of the penalty (Philippi, Ellicott, Trench (Synonyms, XXXIII), Weiss; compare Acts 17:30).

Cremer (Lexicon of N T Gr) regards the meaning of the two words as identical, except that the one refers to the Old Testament and the other to the New Testament. Sins are remitted when the offender is treated as though the offense had never been committed. Remission is restricted to the penalty, while forgiveness refers more particularly to the person, although it may be used also of the sin itself. Remission also is used of offenses against God's law; forgiveness, against either divine or human law.
See ABSOLUTION; FORGIVENESS.
H. E. Jacobs

______________________________________

Why are some trying to continue to insist that the New Covenant demands two separate actions ... with forgiveness coming first and remission occurring subsequently ...

The only reason PAJCers will not let go of this theory is because it would take out a brick in their brick-wall theology ...

repentance would no longer be just for forgiveness sins and baptism would no longer be necessary for remission.

However ... the following has not been addressed by those sticking to their PAJC guns:

There is no argument that forgiveness and remission were distinct conceptually under the old covenant ... no argument from me ... or TB for that matter ....

but even my brother Epley has admitted that in the New Covenant they are interwoven .... and that both terms are synonymous in the NT.

The Bible itself is its own best commentary. Hebrews 9:15 reaffirms the truth that the death of Christ was the legal basis for God having forgiven the sins of the Old Testament saints - "And for this cause he (Jesus Christ) is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance."

God very definitely FORGAVE sins many times in the Old Testament, and He certainly PUNISHED His people for their sins; but the legal basis for His having forgiven,,or remitted the sins of His people in the Old Testament times was the future and predicted death of Christ on the cross of Calvary; He is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8). The death of Christ satisfies the legal requirements of His having remitted and forgiven the sins of the O.T. saints. The blood of Christ declares the righteousness of God in forgiving sins, both in Old Testament times and now in the New.

So why then does the New Covenant ... as taught in the NT .. used aphesis most commonly, including in Acts 2:38, to describe forgiveness/remission???

because .... aphesis/forgiveness/remission is found in the Lamb of God ... the work of Jesus Christ on the cross ... along with our propitiation ... expiation ... atonement... redemption... reconciliation ... and justification. ... [you name it ... He did it]

Gentleman, this attempt to separate forgiveness and remission in the new covenant is to fit it into a faulty theology.

Hebrews holds many keys to understanding the work of Lamb of God who has become our High priest. Read it and realize what He did.
__________________________________________________ _________

Hebrews 9

The Blood of Christ
11When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here,[b] he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,[c] so that we may serve the living God!

15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

16In the case of a will,[d] it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep."[e] 21In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

23It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. 25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

[Truly Blessed]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Let us examine this term REMISSION OF SINS

re-mish'-un (aphesis, paresis): The first term is the most commonly used and is translated synonymously with forgiveness throughout the NT. The two Greek words, of which the latter occurs only in Rom 3:25, were translated by the same English word in the King James Version. In the Revised Version (British and American), paresis is translation "passing over."

It is contrasted with the other term as pretermission with remission. Remission is exemption from the consequences of an offense, forgiveness; pretermission is the suspension of the penalty (Philippi, Ellicott, Trench (Synonyms, XXXIII), Weiss; compare Acts 17:30).

Cremer (Lexicon of N T Gr) regards the meaning of the two words as identical, except that the one refers to the Old Testament and the other to the New Testament. Sins are remitted when the offender is treated as though the offense had never been committed. Remission is restricted to the penalty, while forgiveness refers more particularly to the person, although it may be used also of the sin itself. Remission also is used of offenses against God's law; forgiveness, against either divine or human law.
See ABSOLUTION; FORGIVENESS.
H. E. Jacobs

______________________________________

Why are some trying to continue to insist that the New Covenant demands two separate actions ... with forgiveness coming first and remission occurring subsequently ...

The only reason PAJCers will not let go of this theory that somehow under the new convenant remission and forgiveness are two separate concepts is because it would take out a brick in their brick-wall theology ...

repentance would no longer be just for forgiveness sins and baptism would no longer be necessary for remission.

However ... the following has not been addressed by those sticking to their PAJC guns:

The is no argument that forgiveness and remission were distinct conceptually under the old covenant ... no argument from me ... or TB for that matter ....

but even my brother Epley has admitted that in the New Covenant they are interwoven .... and that both terms are synonymous in the NT.

The Bible itself is its own best commentary. Hebrews 9:15 reaffirms the truth that the death of Christ was the legal basis for God having forgiven the sins of the Old Testament saints - "And for this cause he (Jesus Christ) is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance."

God very definitely FORGAVE sins many times in the Old Testament, and He certainly PUNISHED His people for their sins; but the legal basis for His having forgiven,,or remitted the sins of His people in the Old Testament times was the future and predicted death of Christ on the cross of Calvary; He is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8). The death of Christ satisfies the legal requirements of His having remitted and forgiven the sins of the O.T. saints. The blood of Christ declares the righteousness of God in forgiving sins, both in Old Testament times and now in the New.

So why then does the New Covenant ... as taught in the NT .. used aphesis most commonly, including in Acts 2:38, to describe forgiveness/remission???

because .... they were found in the Lamb of God ... the work of Jesus Christ on the cross ... along with our propitiation ... expiation ... atonement... redemption... reconciliation ... and justification. ... [you name it ... He did it]

Gentleman, this attempt to separate forgiveness and remission in the new covenant is to fit it in a faulty theology.

Hebrews holds many keys to understanding the work of Lamb of God who has become our High priest. Read it and realize what He did.
__________________________________________________ _________

Hebrews 9

The Blood of Christ
11When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here,[b] he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,[c] so that we may serve the living God!

15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

16In the case of a will,[d] it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep."[e] 21In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

23It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. 25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

You've hit the nail on the head with this excellent post Dan! I wish I had more time to contribute to the discussion. However, you are doing a great job of holding your own here. When folks choose to embrace false teaching that sets aside solid biblical teaching on basic issues of salvation, they not only have to distort what is said in scripture, but have to either revise history to fit their theology or simply deny the reality of man's relationship with God because it refutes their position.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Let us examine this term REMISSION OF SINS

re-mish'-un (aphesis, paresis): The first term is the most commonly used and is translated synonymously with forgiveness throughout the NT. The two Greek words, of which the latter occurs only in Rom 3:25, were translated by the same English word in the King James Version. In the Revised Version (British and American), paresis is translation "passing over."

It is contrasted with the other term as pretermission with remission. Remission is exemption from the consequences of an offense, forgiveness; pretermission is the suspension of the penalty (Philippi, Ellicott, Trench (Synonyms, XXXIII), Weiss; compare Acts 17:30).

Cremer (Lexicon of N T Gr) regards the meaning of the two words as identical, except that the one refers to the Old Testament and the other to the New Testament. Sins are remitted when the offender is treated as though the offense had never been committed. Remission is restricted to the penalty, while forgiveness refers more particularly to the person, although it may be used also of the sin itself. Remission also is used of offenses against God's law; forgiveness, against either divine or human law.
See ABSOLUTION; FORGIVENESS.
H. E. Jacobs

______________________________________

Why are some trying to continue to insist that the New Covenant demands two separate actions ... with forgiveness coming first and remission occurring subsequently ...

The only reason PAJCers will not let go of this theory is because it would take out a brick in their brick-wall theology ...

repentance would no longer be just for forgiveness sins and baptism would no longer be necessary for remission.

However ... the following has not been addressed by those sticking to their PAJC guns:

The is no argument that forgiveness and remission were distinct conceptually under the old covenant ... no argument from me ... or TB for that matter ....

but even my brother Epley has admitted that in the New Covenant they are interwoven .... and that both terms are synonymous in the NT.

The Bible itself is its own best commentary. Hebrews 9:15 reaffirms the truth that the death of Christ was the legal basis for God having forgiven the sins of the Old Testament saints - "And for this cause he (Jesus Christ) is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance."

God very definitely FORGAVE sins many times in the Old Testament, and He certainly PUNISHED His people for their sins; but the legal basis for His having forgiven,,or remitted the sins of His people in the Old Testament times was the future and predicted death of Christ on the cross of Calvary; He is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8). The death of Christ satisfies the legal requirements of His having remitted and forgiven the sins of the O.T. saints. The blood of Christ declares the righteousness of God in forgiving sins, both in Old Testament times and now in the New.

So why then does the New Covenant ... as taught in the NT .. used aphesis most commonly, including in Acts 2:38, to describe forgiveness/remission???

because .... aphesis/forgiveness/remission is found in the Lamb of God ... the work of Jesus Christ on the cross ... along with our propitiation ... expiation ... atonement... redemption... reconciliation ... and justification. ... [you name it ... He did it]

Gentleman, this attempt to separate forgiveness and remission in the new covenant is to fit it into a faulty theology.

Hebrews holds many keys to understanding the work of Lamb of God who has become our High priest. Read it and realize what He did.
__________________________________________________ _________

Hebrews 9

The Blood of Christ
11When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here,[b] he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,[c] so that we may serve the living God!

15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

16In the case of a will,[d] it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep."[e] 21In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

23It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. 25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

Dan did YOU read your own lexicon you quote?????????? While they are interwoven they are NOT the same. And your passages prove the EXACT opposite of what you are saying. Sin to be taken away required a sinless sin bearer and upon him our sins were laid and he took them away. Calvary's blood remits sins it takes them away beyond forgiving them they are wiped clean the record is made clear. We are identified with this act through baptism and only through baptism.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Dan did YOU read your own lexicon you quote?????????? While they are interwoven they are NOT the same. And your passages prove the EXACT opposite of what you are saying. Sin to be taken away required a sinless sin bearer and upon him our sins were laid and he took them away. Calvary's blood remits sins it takes them away beyond forgiving them they are wiped clean the record is made clear. We are identified with this act through baptism and only through baptism.

Thank you for restating your position.