On the right hand of God

[Adino]

I'd like to read your thoughts on the following:

Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Christ's blood was shed for the remission of sins.

Hebrews 9:26b .................but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Christ 'put away sin' by the sacrifice of himself.

Hebrews 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

After he 'put away sin' by the sacrifice of himself Christ sat down on the right hand of God.

Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Again, when Christ had by himself 'purged our sins' he subsequently sat down on the right hand of God.

Acts 2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, (Psalms 110:1)

Peter clearly believed Jesus Christ had fulfilled the words of David and was now 'sitting on the right hand of God.'

If Peter agreed with Matthew and the author of Hebrews, and we have no reason to think he did not, we can safely say Peter also believed:

1) Christ's blood was shed for the remission of sins (Matthew 26:28)

2) Christ 'put away sin' by the sacrifice of himself (Hebrews 9:26b)

And most importantly ....

3) After Christ 'put away sin' by the sacrifice of himself he sat down on the right hand of God (Hebrews 10:12). Again, once Christ had by himself 'purged our sins' he subsequently sat down on the right hand of God (Hebrews 1:3).

If we conclude that Peter, at the time of his sermon in Acts 2, understood Christ was already sitting on the right hand of God and that sin remission had already been accomplished by Christ's death on the Cross, we can more clearly understand his words in verse 38. Since sin remission was a historic reality at the time of his sermon, the idea that EIS is non-causal/non-purposive in Acts 2:38 is strengthened. It would mean we are to repent and be baptized* with a view toward (eis) the historic remission of sins which took place on the Cross.

This makes even more sense when we take into consideration the guaranteed reception of the "gift of the Holy Ghost" by all who convert to Christ in repentance. The gift of God, which is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 6:23), is guaranteed TO ALL who convert.

Having been reconciled to God by Christ's death (Romans 5:10; Hebrews 2:17), having had our transgressions redeemed by the means of Christ's death (Hebrews 9:15), we who turn to God in repentance through faith in Christ will be saved by his life (Romans 5:10) in that we will receive the promise of eternal inheritance (Hebrews 9:15) and be sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise which is the earnest of our inheritance (Ephesians 1:12-13).

Meaning, the message of Acts 2:38 becomes very clear: We who in repentance turn to God through faith in Jesus Christ and his historic work of sin remission WILL RECEIVE the promised gift of the Holy Ghost which is LIFE**. He that believes has life (John 3:15-16, John 3:36; John 5:24; John 6:40; John 6:47; John 11:25,26).

*Baptism was unto (eis) repentance (Matthew 3:11) while repentance was for (eis) the remission of sins (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Luke 24:47 [Nestle Aland]; Acts 2:38). Baptism looked to repentance which in turn looked in faith to the historic sin remission of the Cross. Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ declared the repentant heart's conversion to faith in Jesus Christ and his redemptive work on the Cross. Those confessing repentance and faith in Christ were to let their baptism unto (eis) repentance be in the name of Jesus Christ in order to declare Jesus Christ as Savior and object of their repentant heart's faith. All who confessed Christ in baptism were to be accepted with open arms into the Christian community at large as being 'saved' (Mark 16:16; Romans 10:8-10; 1Peter 3:21).

Though God, who knows the heart, recognizes the saved condition of the believer's soul at the moment of faith, there is still need for the Church body, who does not know the heart, to accept that believer into their rank and file as being saved. The man who has, in his heart, believed unto righteousness and is thus saved before God, is to, with his mouth, confess to his peers his faith in Christ and be accepted into the Christian community (Romans 10:8-10).

It is most likely Paul in Romans 10:8-10 is making a subtle reference to water baptism. Water baptism being that public act by which a believer was accepted into the Christian family at large and CONSIDERED to be saved not by God but by a man's believing peers. Confession was normally called for at baptism. Whether Jew or Gentile, the man who believes with his heart unto righteousness (before God) and confesses this belief with his mouth (before men) is to be baptized into the corporate body of believers and welcomed by the Church AS BEING saved.

This could be one way also to look at 1Peter 3:21 which states that baptism "doth also now save us." Baptism "saves" only in that it is that act by which the Church accepts you within its ranks and thereby MARKS you as being saved in their eyes.


**The promise of the Holy Ghost is eternal life.


1John 2:25.......And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.

James 1:12...Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.

Titus 1:2...In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

Acts 13:32-33 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, 33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Acts 2:32....This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost [i.e., having received of the Father resurrection unto eternal life], he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear......

Any thoughts?

[Adino]

For those in Rio Lindo: If our sins were purged BEFORE Christ sat down on the right hand of God, they are not purged again AFTERWARDS in baptism.

[freeatlast]

A lot (31) of looks but no comments...
I likes it Adino..good stuff.

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

A lot (31) of looks but no comments...
I likes it Adino..good stuff.

Are you also a universalist?

[Adino]

You say "also" to freeatlast as if to imply that I am one. I am not.

Here's an excerpt from a post of mine in another thread dealing with the charge of universalism:

Since I continue to say the sin which condemns is the sin of unbelief (Mark 16:16; John 3:18; John 3:36; John 16:8-9), I understand repentance unto life as the repenting heart turning to God through faith in Jesus Christ. The heart turns from the sin of rejection to an acceptance of Christ. This is not universalism.

I again ask: Is man yet condemned for those sins remitted on the Cross or is he condemned only for having rejected Christ? What does Scripture say on this matter? (Mark 16:16; John 3:18; John 3:36; John 16:8-9)

For a deeper look at the discussion find the "Remitted on the Cross or not" thread.

[mfblume]

hi Adino,

You were asked if you were a universalist because it seems one has to believe in universalism to say Christ remitted our sins before we even had a chance to believe in Him and accept Him by whatever way we must accept this work. Since universalism is error, in my opinion, I cannot see that Christ's remission of sins that was followed by His seating at the right hand means our sins were already remitted before we were born, let alone before we are baptized for the remission of sins. It can only mean the sacrifice provided for the remission of sins, whereas animal sacrifices could never accomplish that.

If everyone's sins are remitted already, before they're born, then no one has sin and no one needs so much as repent. But remitted sins means that we committed sins and they were later removed. How can our sins be remitted before we were born when we never had a chance to commit them yet in order for them to be able to remitted? It only makes sense if that scripture is saying that the the work to remit sins is provided for us when we qualify for that experience through obedience to the plan of salvation, while the details of what that plan is is another story. His blood washes away our sins when we fulfill the means by which it is applied to us. It means the sacrifice is the PROVISION FOR remission of sins and that remission does not actually occur until we consciously exert faith towards it for that purpose. Obviously, however way we are privy to that remission is of great controversy.

My thoughts, anyway.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

hi Adino,

You were asked if you were a universalist because it seems one has to believe in universalism to say Christ remitted our sins before we even had a chance to believe in Him and accept Him by whatever way we must accept this work. Since universalism is error, in my opinion, I cannot see that Christ's remission of sins that was followed by His seating at the right hand means our sins were already remitted before we were born, let alone before we are baptized for the remission of sins. It can only mean the sacrifice provided for the remission of sins, whereas animal sacrifices could never accomplish that.

If everyone's sins are remitted already, before they're born, then no one has sin and no one needs so much as repent. But remitted sins means that we committed sins and they were later removed. How can our sins be remitted before we were born when we never had a chance to commit them yet in order for them to be able to remitted? It only makes sense if that scripture is saying that the the work to remit sins is provided for us when we qualify for that experience through obedience to the plan of salvation, while the details of what that plan is is another story. His blood washes away our sins when we fulfill the means by which it is applied to us. It means the sacrifice is the PROVISION FOR remission of sins and that remission does not actually occur until we consciously exert faith towards it for that purpose. Obviously, however way we are privy to that remission is of great controversy.

My thoughts, anyway.

Amen!!!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

hi Adino,

You were asked if you were a universalist because it seems one has to believe in universalism to say Christ remitted our sins before we even had a chance to believe in Him and accept Him by whatever way we must accept this work. Since universalism is error, in my opinion, I cannot see that Christ's remission of sins that was followed by His seating at the right hand means our sins were already remitted before we were born, let alone before we are baptized for the remission of sins. It can only mean the sacrifice provided for the remission of sins, whereas animal sacrifices could never accomplish that.

If everyone's sins are remitted already, before they're born, then no one has sin and no one needs so much as repent. But remitted sins means that we committed sins and they were later removed. How can our sins be remitted before we were born when we never had a chance to commit them yet in order for them to be able to remitted? It only makes sense if that scripture is saying that the the work to remit sins is provided for us when we qualify for that experience through obedience to the plan of salvation, while the details of what that plan is is another story. His blood washes away our sins when we fulfill the means by which it is applied to us. It means the sacrifice is the PROVISION FOR remission of sins and that remission does not actually occur until we consciously exert faith towards it for that purpose. Obviously, however way we are privy to that remission is of great controversy.

My thoughts, anyway.

*BUMP* for ADINO!

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by mfblume

hi Adino,

You were asked if you were a universalist because it seems one has to believe in universalism to say Christ remitted our sins before we even had a chance to believe in Him and accept Him by whatever way we must accept this work. Since universalism is error, in my opinion, I cannot see that Christ's remission of sins that was followed by His seating at the right hand means our sins were already remitted before we were born, let alone before we are baptized for the remission of sins. It can only mean the sacrifice provided for the remission of sins, whereas animal sacrifices could never accomplish that.

If everyone's sins are remitted already, before they're born, then no one has sin and no one needs so much as repent. But remitted sins means that we committed sins and they were later removed. How can our sins be remitted before we were born when we never had a chance to commit them yet in order for them to be able to remitted? It only makes sense if that scripture is saying that the the work to remit sins is provided for us when we qualify for that experience through obedience to the plan of salvation, while the details of what that plan is is another story. His blood washes away our sins when we fulfill the means by which it is applied to us. It means the sacrifice is the PROVISION FOR remission of sins and that remission does not actually occur until we consciously exert faith towards it for that purpose. Obviously, however way we are privy to that remission is of great controversy.

My thoughts, anyway.

Good post.

[Adino]

Haven't forgot about you, guys.... busy week. I'll try to get back with a response later tonight.