Remissional Redundancy?

The Bible tells us that Jesus Christ paid for all sins on the Cross. But some say that a person’s sins are not remitted until they are correctly baptized, citing Acts 2:38. Are there two different remissions of sin? Is there a remissional redundancy: one at the Cross, and another at the time of personal water baptism?

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. (1 Peter 2:24)

Image by midiman via Flickr

Jesus taught that his blood remitted sin: “my blood . . . which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” (Matt. 26:28). The writer of Hebrews states: “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” (Heb. 9:22). (The KJV says “remission” in the place of forgiveness.[1] That is because remission and forgiveness are the same thing.[2]) It was the specific blood of Jesus that forgives our sins. “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of his grace.” (Eph. 1:7). Jesus is the final sacrifice for all sins: “Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.” (Heb. 10:18). We are forgiven when we believe in Jesus. Peter preached, “everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name[3].” (Acts 10:43).

When and where is sin remitted? -- at the Cross. His death on the Cross is proof that sin is remitted. Paul says, “because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.” (Rom 6:7). If the Bible states that Jesus’ death on the Cross is the sacrifice for our sins; if it says he died to our sins only once; and if it says he could not be held by death, but is raised to give us life and salvation, then, we can safely say that our sins imputed to Jesus on the Cross were cleansed, taken away or paid for there and his resurrection testifies it is so:

The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. (Romans 6:10)

And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Heb. 10:10)

But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. (Acts 24:24)

Jesus did away with our sins on the Cross: “But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.” (Heb. 9:26) He does not offer himself to remit sins day after day. Otherwise he would have to suffer death everyday since God made the world. We need not to ask him to remit our sins day after day. He has done away with sin by his death on the Cross, once, for all time:

Then 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. (Heb. 9:6)

Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. (Heb. 7:27)

To contend that sin is not fully remitted at the Cross fails to understand the resurrection of Jesus. He could not be raised from the dead if our sins, imputed against him, were not done away with. He would still bear our sins. But the Bible says our sins are no longer imputed to him:

How 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, so that we may serve the living God! (Heb. 9:14)

To read the rest of this article go to "Remissional Redundancy?"

Other articles you might be interested in Remission of Sins in Acts 2:38

and How Did Paul 'Wash Away' His Sins?

---

[1] There are seven words in the whole Bible used for forgiveness: three in Hebrew: 1) Kipper = “to cover”; Nasa = “to bear,” “take away guilt”; 3) Salah = “to pardon.” There are four in Greek: 1) Apolyein = “to put away”; 2) Paresis = “putting away,” “disregarding” (only one time - Rom. 3:25); 3) Charizesthai = “to forgive sins” - (especially expresses the graciousness of God’s forgiveness. This word is used only in Luke (7:21; Acts 3:4) and Paul (2 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 4:32; Col. 2:13; 3:13).); 4) Aphesis = “forgiveness” - (which conveys the idea of “sending away” or “letting go.” It is a noun 15 times and a verb 40 times). Aphesis is the most common word in the NT for forgiveness. There are ten verses in the KJV that use the word remission (Matt. 26:28; Mk, 1:4; Lk, 1:77; Lk, 3:3; Lk, 24:47; Acts 2:38; Acts 10:43; Rom. 3:25; Heb. 9:22; Heb. 10:18). All these verses, except Rom. 3:25 (paresis) use the Greek work aphesis. Aphesis is rooted in the verb aphieemi, which is rendered in English as “forgive,” “left,” “leave,” “sent away,” “omitted,” “forsook,” “remit,” “let go,” or “put away.” Aphesis is used 17 times in the KJV as “forgiveness,” “remission,” “deliverance,” or “set at liberty.”

[2] The Greek word for remission is also the same Greek word for forgiveness. The word “forgiveness” in Acts 5:31 is translated from the Greek word aphesis. The word “remission” in Acts 2:38 is also translated from the Greek work aphesis. (The only place where “remission” is not translated from aphesis is Romans 3:25 where the word is paresis. In this case the word means “overlooking” or allowing sins to go unpunished. This would not be remission in the sense of taking away sins, as the context of the verse bears out.)

[3] To believe “in his name” means the same as believe in the person who possesses the name. To believe in the name of Jesus, is a Hebrew way of saying, “believe in Jesus.”

The Value of Preserving Historical Memory

Bio-ethicist Leon Kass[1] warns us that in the near future, pharmaceuticals will exist that will enable a person to edit their memories in order to achieve happiness. The advancing field of neuroscience is working to discover chemicals that will alter human memories. Society will welcome this drug as humane since it will relieve people of the pain of personally traumatic events. But Kass protests that any drug that interferes with memory formation, directly impacts character formation. Since one’s identity is connected to one’s memory, using such a drug transforms who one really is. In the process of remembering one’s life, without the painful or negative parts, one produces a different soul.

My concern is not with the advancing ethical issues of biotechnology. My concern is with the historical memory of Oneness Pentecostals. It is disturbing how historical editors of the UPCI have interfered with its historical memories in order to shape the UPCI identity. As the present generation seeks to define its distinctiveness, it is tempted to redact its history in order to remove some of the painful, negative or unflattering facts, events, or persons, of the past.

Image via Wikipedia

More subtly, some distant or deeper roots are “forgotten” to make the past look like the present. Kass maintains that memory altering drugs would allow a person to uncouple past events from current emotions, so that the person is able to recall negative, even traumatic events as though they really were not so bad or important. Nonetheless, one does not need such a drug to alter one’s memory. If the keepers of a group’s history (even with good intentions) embellish the favorable memories over time, and little by little remove or marginalize the unfavorable memories, the character and identity of the group will change almost unconsciously. More than a few facts are being altered. The very identity, character, and soul of the movement are being made over.

We should expect any group to defend their group history against any attempts at revision by a malicious redactor (perceived or actual). It is only right for them to safeguard the character of the UPCI. Nevertheless, outside voices are needed to bring to consciousness those memories and voices from the UPCI past, which do not resonate with the present version of UPCI history. The members of a group should challenge factual error and misrepresentations of their past. At the same time, it is incumbent upon the historians to not reject out of hand data that conflicts with present day assumptions. Instead, they are responsible to preserve all their memories honestly, and that means to acknowledge and come to terms with elements of the past that challenge long-held conventions or traditions. They must hold the memories of their group in sacred trust. This means listening to voices from their past, which bring to light facts that dispute the present accepted “gallery of pictures” of their historical family album.

---

[1] Leon Kass, Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness, (Regan Books, December 1, 2003).

Does Faith Equal Obedience?

Does faith equal obedience? There are Christians who attempt to redefine the Gospel by making faith the equivalent of obedience. In so doing, the whole point of the Gospel is lost. Gospel is swallowed up by Law. Paul makes a critical distinction between those who observe the law and those who “believe what you heard” (Gal. 3:2) So should we. There is a difference between obedience to God’s Word and faith in God’s Word. Obedience should follow faith (Heb. 5:9; 1 John 2:5; 5:3). Faith and obedience are never separated in the Christian life (Rom. 16:26; 1 Pet. 1:22). Yet, they are never treated as synonymous (Rom. 4:1-5).

Why? The Bible teaches that no one can obey enough to merit salvation. This is the heart of the problem Jesus came to solve. We are not able to fully obey God’s Word (Romans 3:23). Only Jesus was able to perfectly obey God’s Word. [Was Jesus a Christian?[1]] While we fail to fully keep God’s Word, Jesus did not fail. He alone is the Son of God, in whom the Father is well pleased. He was spotless, sinless, and without guile. Christ is the righteousness of God. Here is the miracle of the Gospel and the grace of God: God, out of His grace allows us to receive Christ’s righteousness through believing the Word of the Gospel.

Image via Wikipedia

Paul does even more than distinguish between the observing of law and faith. He identifies a new kind of righteousness (Romans 1:17; 3:21-22). It is the righteousness that is the product of Christ’s perfect obedience. And this new kind of righteousness is available to those who believe in Christ. This is the reason why Paul speaks in Romans 1:5 about the eivj u`pakoh.n pi,stewj (obedience of faith). The King James translates this as “for obedience to the faith.” However most translators and many respected scholars translate this phrase as the obedience that IS faith. Cranfield, an eminent Romans scholar, presents in his timeless commentary all the grammatical possibilities for this phrase. Then, as is his method, he lays out the reasons for each one. Finally, he gives the reasons for his choice: “Of these the one which seems to us to suit best the structure of Paul’s thought in Romans is ‘the obedience which consists of faith.’”[2]

Read the rest of this article at Does Faith Equal Obedience?

---

[1] http://www.inchristalone.org/WasJesusAChristian.htm

[2] The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, eds., J. A. Emerton, C. E. B. Cranfield, and G. N. Stanton, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994). Vol. I, p. 66.

“Easy Believism: How Would ‘Hard Believism’ Affect the Gospel?”

Those who challenge the teaching of salvation by faith alone in Christ alone use such loaded phrases as “easy believism,” and “cheap grace.” The insinuation is that salvation by faith alone is watered-down, lax, and morally weak. In the historic debate salvation by faith has been characterize as antinomian, i.e., lawless. It is assumed that Christians who believe they are saved by the sheer grace of God, with only naked faith in Christ, are ethically irresponsible and morally careless. They are seen as neglecting obedience to God and the necessity of good works.

Image via Wikipedia

But if there is “easy believism,” then one wonders what “hard believism” would be like. How does one make believing harder? And should we make it harder? As we look deeper, we see that the aspersion of “easy believism” goes to the very definition and nature of faith. What is true saving faith?

To have faith means more than to have an opinion, belief or conviction. It means far more than knowledge or acknowledgment. It means trust and reliance. "Reliance upon a thing or person supposed to be trustworthy, this is Faith."[1] As I said, some make the mistake of faulting those who hold to "faith alone" as "easy believism" or mere "mental assent." But the issue is more than "easy believism" or "uneasy legalism." The phrase "easy believism" betrays a lack of understanding concerning what Scripture teaches about saving faith. The issue is the clear meaning of saving faith as presented in Scripture.

Read the rest of this article at "Easy Believism: How Would 'Hard Believism' Affect the Gospel?"

---

[1] H.C.G. Moule, Justification By Faith, (London, John F. Shaw and Co., n.d.), p. 12.

1 Peter 3:21 “Water Baptism and Salvation”

Image via Wikipedia

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: (1 Peter 3:21 KJV)

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (1 Peter 3:21 ESV)

Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (1 Peter 3:21 NASB)

[A]nd this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also-- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (1 Peter 3:21 NIV)

Does Peter Teach That Water Baptism Saves?

Baptismal remission is buttressed primarily by three specific verses in the Bible. The first is Acts 2:38, the second is 1 Peter 3:21, and these are linked to Jesus’ words in Mark 16:16. These three verses are cited as though they exist in a mutually supportive bond, and as proof that the apostolic teaching is baptismal remission.

One writer, Talmadge French[1] asserts that the case for baptismal remission is made by a proper understanding of the word eis, and the proper connection of Acts 2:38 with 1 Peter 3:21:

Peter, to the contrary, makes such a strong case for baptism that he says Noah was “saved,” not by the Ark, but “by water”! God, of course, saved them, but it was through the agency of water, in that the water lifted them above the judgment. The Apostle points out that the water is the antitype of water-baptism that “doth also now save us.” Why? Because of the Name of Jesus! Baptism in Jesus’ Name (Acts 2:38) is “for the remission of sins,” or, as indicated by the work eis (Gk). In order to access remission. This literally means into the remission of sins, but not because, or as a result, of sins already remitted.[2]

First, before we look at the exegesis, one thing that stands out to me, French uses circular reasoning to prove baptismal remission. He first assumes that water-baptism is the means of sin’s remission. In order to prove that “for” in Acts 2:38 means that sin is remitted by baptism, he cites 1 Peter 3:21, as further support that water-baptism saves. But, in his conclusion about 1 Peter, he circles back to Acts 2:38 to prove that Peter teaches water-baptism saves us. Both verses are interpreted in a way that appears to support French’s a priori assumption – baptismal remission. It seems baptismal remission is automatically assumed to be true. Only then, are all the verses of Scripture interpreted as confirming that assumption.

If you would like to read the rest of this article go to "1 Peter 3:21 'Water Baptism and Salvation'"

You might also be interested to read Does Baptism Save? from Q & A.

[1] Author of Our God is One, Talmadge is a former ordained minister of the UPCI and teacher at the Indiana Bible College (a UPCI school). He is now Education Committee Chairman of the World Pentecostal Fellowship and teaches at the Apostolic School of Theology in Sacramento, CA.

[2] Talmadge French, Theology Column, Indiana Bible College Perspectives, Vol. 13, No. 3, p. 7.

Mark 16:16 “He That Believes Shall Not Be Condemned”

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16 ESV)

Some Christians believe this passage teaches that only those who are baptized are or can be saved. Is this true? Those who believe in and teach baptismal remission (and regeneration) base their teaching on this verse. Does Jesus teach that those who believe, but are not baptized, are not save? I do not believe this is what Jesus meant.

Image by Bob McCaffrey via Flickr

First, Jesus said, "But he that believeth not shall be damned." If you take it word for word, then the only one not condemned is the one who does not believe. Rather than take it literally, some add their interpretation "of course one who does not believe will not be saved, because he will not be baptized." That is an assumption and a fallacy known as “the converse of the condition.” If you applied to this to other passages you would have serious problems. For example, Paul said, “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed.” (Gal. 3:29), could you reverse that and say, “If you are Abraham’s seed, you belong to Christ”? Surely not!

If you would like to read the rest of this article go to "Mark 16:16 'He That Believes Shall Not Be Condemned.'"

You might also be interested to read "Does Baptism Save?" from Q & A on my website.