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.”

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.

What does "For" (eis) in Acts 2:38 Mean?

Image via Wikipedia

From a recent email:

I recently began a discussion with a guy concerning eis in Acts 2:38. ... After offering the approach I have been using in the past that baptism is eis (with a view toward) repentence [Matthew 3:11], eis (with a view toward) Christ [Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:3], and eis (with a view toward) the remission of sins [Luke 3:3; Acts 2:38] I offered another possible view using the UPC definition of eis, i.e., "in order to obtain." It's the approach which recognizes the command to "repent" in Acts 2:38 to be in the 2nd person plural, the command to "be baptized" to be in the 3rd person singular, and the phrase "for the remission of [your] sins" to again be in the 2nd person plural seeming to connect the 2nd person plurals, repentance and remission of sins, while making baptism a parenthetical insertion. The verse would thus show an emphasis on repentance being "eis [in order to obtain] the remission of sins."

I find this interesting because my Nestle Aland Greek New Testament has the phrase "repentance and remission" found in Luke 24:47 as "metanoia eis aphesis." It has Christ saying that "repentance eis remission of sins" was to be preached in his name. We also know John the Baptist preached the baptism of "repentance eis the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3). I've presented the argument that, if grammatical nuances of Acts 2:38 are taken into consideration, Peter preached the same thing.... that the remission of sins is to be connected to repentance and not to baptism. Meaning, like John the Baptist and Christ, Peter preached repentance eis the remission of sins. If eis is to be accepted as "in order to obtain," then we have John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and Peter teaching that man was to repent eis (in order to obtain) the remission of sins. Then again, the argument is stronger if the grammatical argument of the plurals vs singular holds water.

My response:

I have been working on a paper on eis for several years, but never have been able to finish it. Obviously, we agree on the general idea that baptism does not cause remission in Acts 2:38. Getting at how eis functions in Acts 2:38 is what is challenging. I think it is good to show that eis is used in Matt. 3:11 "baptize you in water unto repentance." When you parallel Matt 3:11, Mk. 1:4 and Lk. 24:47 it is apparent that the connection is between repentance & the remission of sins and the stress is on repentance. Baptism is associated with repentance and remission because it is the sign of repentance as found in Jewish proselyte washing/baptism. The simple comparison of these passages should be enough to keep the UPCI from an exclusive baptismal remission. But, of course it isn’t.

The issue of baptismal remission cannot be solved by simply determining the usage of eis. This is a major point for interpreting Acts 2:38. The finest Greek scholars have disagreed over this. Most of them don’t believe that eis intends a baptismal remission, even those who say eis is purposive or causal. It can be noted that one could hold to an interpretation that eis is causal without concluding that Peter teaches baptismal remission. For example, G. Campbell Morgan [The Birth of the Church, p. 156.] believes that epi in "in the name of Jesus" means "upon", which would connotes "upon the name of Jesus." Campbell (and others) says that to repent and be baptized "upon" the name of Jesus would mean to repent and be baptized resting upon or DEPENDING on the name of Jesus. In essence, to depend on the name is a Jewish way of saying trusting or believing in that person. So if Peter exhorts the people of the Jewish nation to repent of killing their very Lord and Christ, he means for them to repent, and be converted, or come over to Christianity, signified by baptism, as they trust in or depend on Jesus to remit or take away their sins. So then eis could be causal, with the cause being trusting in the Jesus (upon the name of Jesus) for the forgiveness of their sins.

View "What does 'For' (eis) in Acts 2:38 Mean?" in pdf

To read my paper go to Does the Word “For” in “For the Remission of Sins" in Acts 2:38 Signify that Water Baptism Remits Sin?1