In Christ Alone! Ministries eMail Weblog

Remissional Redundancy?

2009-06-16T17:01:00.008-04:00

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

2009-06-03T18:57:00.005-04:00

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?

2009-03-02T19:20:00.009-05:00

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?”

2009-01-28T12:52:00.007-05:00

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”

2009-01-07T13:11:00.014-05:00

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”

2009-01-07T13:01:00.005-05:00

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.

Justified But Not “Born Again”

2008-12-17T12:32:00.019-05:00

Can you be justified but not “born again”? Some say it’s possible. Oneness Pentecostals attempt to reconcile their view of Acts 2:38-is-the-New Birth with the traditional understanding of justification by faith alone in Christ alone. To do this they say a person can be justified, but not yet born again. Several connected to schools in the UPCI have developed an approach that a person is justified by faith, but still must follow the UPCI Acts 2:38 formula to be born again. For those who believe the traditional view of justification, this is obviously inconceivable. But in some strange way, the UPCI sees this as a solution to the differences between their view of Acts 2:38 and those who believe salvation is by faith alone in Christ.

Image via Wikipedia

The Bible teaches that one is born again when the Holy Spirit transforms one’s heart from unbelief to faith. The New Birth is necessary because the unbelieving heart is dead in sin. The heart must be made new to receive and believe the Gospel. The Bible teaches that God gives us a new birth when He alone (unilaterally = from God’s side) revives our dead heart based on His sovereign power and grace. When we are born again we experience a “spiritual resurrection into a new sphere of life.” [T.C. Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, p. 147.] We become alive to God. God plants a “new principle of life” in our souls. This fulfills the ancient promise through the prophet:

I will give them an undivided heart and put a new spirit in them; I will remove from them their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 19:11 NIV)

I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. (Ezekiel 36:26-27 NIV)

God puts his Spirit within us and gives us a new heart when we are born again. This must happen before a person has the power to believe or respond to God. This is what Jesus taught:

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:44 NIV)

Why? Those dead in sin cannot respond or believe. If a person is not born again, they cannot be justified because they are dead in sin -- they cannot, and do not, desire to believe:

You were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. (Eph. 2:1,2 NIV).

To read the rest of the article go to Justified But Not "Born Again"?

You might also wish to read What is Justification by Faith? and What Makes You Right with God? and Will the Real "Justification by Faith" Please Stand Up!

NOTE: A more expanded study of this subject can be found in my paper “Can the Gospel Be Fractured?”

Is Justification a “Component” of Salvation?

2008-12-15T15:40:00.010-05:00

Image by Brent Nelson via Flickr

Justification by faith is essential to salvation. It is the center of one’s relationship with God. Failing to understand either the importance of justification or its nature is a serious problem. Ideas that cause us to misunderstand justification directly affect our faith and our saving relationship with God.

In the discussion of the nature of justification, I have addressed in previous blogs what I believe are some of the wrong and harmful notions of justification by faith. So far we have talked about the idea of “re-justification.” As I shared:

The error of the term “re-justification” is the same as the mistaken idea of “transformational justification.” Justification is a once-for-all-time reality that has vital, ongoing consequences in the future life of the Christian. The justified person does not need to be re-justified. Just like in our natural, physical birth, a person is born once. This event is the beginning of a long life of being a “born” person. But there is no need to be born (in the natural sense) again or repetitively. This fact is so obvious that it sounds ridiculous to even state it. But, the idea of “re-justification” is just as ridiculous as saying a person has to be repetitively born . . . Therefore, using the phrase “re-justification” is as unnecessary as saying one must be “born again” again.

In another blog I talked about the idea of “instantaneous” justification. The use of this term assumes that there are parts or levels of justification, the first of which is instantaneous. I wrote:

In the Bible, when a person believed God, they were justified at that moment. “Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness.” (Rom. 4:3 ESV) The context of Romans 4 Paul is discussing the nature of justification as illustrated in the faith of Abraham. In Galatians, Paul teaches that NT believers are children of Abraham by faith. (Galatians 3: 6-14) When was Abraham counted righteousness? When he believed God.

The same response goes for the concept “initial” justification. It faces the same problem.

Justification is a whole, occurring at the moment of truth faith (as I recently blogged) and is effective for the rest of one’s walk of faith. Justification as an event is not a process, neither is it a progressive work, as if we become increasing justified or need to renew or recharge our justification. Nonetheless, its effect is an ongoing reality in the life of the justified. There is a progressive effect of justification on our lives as we learn the power of living the justified life. This is certainly a process as we live by faith. But this does not define the meaning of justification as a progressive process.

View complete article at Is Justification a "Component" of Salvation?

Does Acts 19:5-6 Prove Acts 2:38 is the New Birth?

2008-09-02T16:55:00.004-04:00

“Paul asked questions like ‘Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed? Read Acts 19.” Doesn’t this show that Paul believed that Acts 2:38 was the New Birth?

This does not prove that Paul taught or practiced Acts 2:38 as the UPCI believes it.

A closer look shows that the situation in Acts 19 is not so simply explained. When Paul visited the men in Ephesus, he tested whether they had heard about Christ by asking them if the Holy Spirit had come to them. It was the Holy Spirit that always opened hearts to believe the Gospel (cp. Caesarea, Lydia, et. al.). It was the Holy Spirit that came on those who believed the Gospel. If they knew about the Holy Spirit, then they would necessarily know about Jesus and the Gospel. When they said they had not heard about the Holy Spirit, Paul knew that they were not believers in the Gospel. At that precise point, Paul preached the Gospel to the Ephesians by explaining to them that they should “believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” (Acts 19:4 NAS). This is what Paul told them to do. He did not tell them they would not be saved unless they were baptized. He did not teach them that the real secret was to be baptized with the formula “in the name of Jesus” only. He did not tell them they needed to prove they had the Holy Spirit by speaking with tongues. None of that was necessary because Paul did not believe or teach those ideas. He told them they needed to believe in Jesus – the one that John, their leader, preached about.

Image via Wikipedia

Later when Paul spoke his final words to the elders of the Ephesian churches, he reconfirmed the priority of the Gospel to them by restating his mission: “that I may finish my course, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify solemnly of the gospel of the grace of God.” (Acts 20:24 NAS). Paul could have told them, “Keep preaching baptism in Jesus name.” or, “Don’t ever let go of speaking with tongues as the initial evidence.” But he never even hinted at those notions. He reminded them that the center of his ministry – the ministry by which God brought them into the Church – was the “gospel of the grace of God.”

To best understand how Paul truly understood the events of Acts 19 we need only to read his words in Ephesians 1:13 (NAS): “In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-- having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,” The sequence of events as Paul states them is simple. The Ephesians heard the “gospel of your salvation” and then believed. When they believed they were “sealed in Him [Christ] with the Holy Spirit.” The Holy Spirit opened their hearts to believe the Gospel, and then he sealed them into Christ. There were not sealed because they spoke with tongues. They were sealed with the Holy Spirit when the believed the Gospel.

The picture of what happened in Ephesus is very evident when you read all the Ephesians texts together in their proper historical order: First, Paul preached to them to “believe . . . in Jesus.” Next, Paul exhorted the Ephesians about the centrality of the “gospel of the grace of God.” Finally, Paul reminded them in an epistle that they had received the Holy Spirit at the time they believed the Gospel. There is no mention of a specific form of water baptism or of any necessary evidence such as speaking with tongue. There is not even a hint of these doctrines. But, the idea of believing the Gospel – faith alone in Christ alone – is central and conspicuous to Paul teaching about salvation.

Justified at the Moment of True Faith

2008-08-25T12:31:00.004-04:00

Do the Scriptures teach that a person is justified by faith alone? Those who believe that salvation is not by faith alone, in the matter of justification by faith, attempt to redefine faith in a less than biblical manner. Others endeavor to make faith a mere part of the equation. The further questions are, does justification take place at the moment of truth faith in Christ? Is a person saved at the moment of truth faith in Jesus Christ? Simply reading the many passages below makes it clear that one is justified at the moment of true faith. [Underscore and italics below are mine; translation NIV]

Image via Wikipedia

Luke 7: 47 Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little." 48 Then Jesus said to her, "Your sins are forgiven." 49 The other guests began to say among themselves, "Who is this who even forgives sins?" 50 Jesus said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. . . . 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. . . . John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

John 5:24 "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

Acts 13:38 "Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39 Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses.

Acts 15: 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us.9 He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.

This passage refers to the events of Acts 10 and 11.

Acts 11:17 So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?"

This refers to the event when Peter preached these words:

Acts 10:39 "We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, 40 but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. 41 He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42 He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. 43 All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."

Acts 16:31 They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household."

Romans 3:22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. 27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29 Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.

Romans 4: 3What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." 4 Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. 6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.

Romans 10: 9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

Galatians 2:16 know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

Galatians 3:6 Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." 7 Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. 8 The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." 9 So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. 10 All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." 11 Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

Galatians 3:24 So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. 26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus,

Ephesians 1:13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of his glory.

Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

Philippians 3:8 What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.

1 John 5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. 2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. 3 This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, 4 for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. 5 Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God. . . . 10 Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son.

View this article in pdf at "Justified at the Moment of True Faith"

"Initial" Justification

2008-08-11T14:02:00.009-04:00

Does God declare us righteous “initially” but not later?

I have found some in the UPCI (et. al.) using the word “initial” to qualify the meaning of the biblical word justification.

What is at issue is the whole meaning of justification. Roman Catholicism teaches that justification is the process by which God makes one righteous. “It involves the infusion of supernatural grace that blots out sin, regenerates the soul and makes it worthy of the creator who fashioned it.” [Van Harvey, A Handbook of Theological Terms, p. 136.] In this view, justification is the same as sanctification, i.e., one is right with God on the basis of their own righteousness as aided by the Holy Spirit or infused grace. This is practically the same definition of justification held by the UPCI. That is why I say that the UPCI theology of salvation is foundationally Roman Catholic.

Image via Wikipedia

On the other hand, the apostle Paul teaches that justification involves God “counting” (imputing) one righteous on the basis of faith in Jesus and his work on the Cross. Rather than “infuse” the believer with “actual grace,” which enables him to become worthy of forgiveness, the Scriptures teach that unworthy believers are forgiven as a divine act of grace through their faith in the sacrifice of Christ. The believer is not justified on the basis of his or her own righteousness. Rather, she or he is justified – accepted by God – on the basis of Christ’s righteousness for them. The difference between these two definitions of justification is huge and profoundly impacts every other belief and practice one maintains.

First of all, just like “re-justification” and “instantaneous” justification the idea of “initial” justification is unwarranted. All of these qualifiers change the biblical meaning of justification by faith as it is taught in Scripture. As I have stated, justification is not a process, the equal of sanctification. It is a once-for-all-time work of God. Here is the fundamental reason it is not a process: the righteousness by which one is justified is Christ’s righteousness and not one’s own. Let me clarify. In the view that justification is a process by which God helps you become righteous enough to be accepted, it is the believer’s own righteousness that justifies. In contrast, the Bible teaches that we are justified by Christ’s righteousness. This means it is a finished work at the Cross and resurrection of Jesus. We receive that benefit of this righteousness when we trust in Christ alone for our righteousness. Therefore, it cannot be a process worked out in us because it is already finished in Christ.

As Paul states in Roman 10:9, 10 “because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.” We are justified when we confess and believe in Jesus. Notice that Paul says, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes,” (Rom. 1:1 ESV). The salvation the Gospel brings is to the one who “believes.” This is present tense: Now. Not over a period of years as we become more sanctified and build up our own righteousness.

Whenever you read or hear someone using language such as “initial” or “instantaneous” when speaking about justification, a red flag should pop up. It indicates a totally unbiblical view of justification that is based on the believer’s righteousness, rather than the righteousness of Christ alone. Accept no substitutes. Don’t fall for the misleading phrases that take the power of the Cross out of salvation. Biblical justification must not be qualified by any depreciating term such as "re-justification," "instantaneous” or “initial.” There is only one saving justification for sinners; it is the righteousness of Christ that comes by faith alone in Christ alone.

View "Initial" Justification in pdf

"Instantaneous" Justification

2008-07-31T16:29:00.008-04:00

I have read some from the UPCI who state that Paul received "instantaneous" justification when he "experienced" Acts 2:38.

This is another unique phrase used to caricature the biblical idea of justification. The word instantaneous is added to justification as if there were several kinds of justification.

Image via Wikipedia

The phrase “instantaneous justification” is redundant and misleading. One might be led to think there is one kind of justification that is “instantaneous” and another kind that is gradual or progressive. There is only one kind of justification in the Bible. The biblical justification is instantaneous, and does not need the unnecessary modifier. In the Bible, when a person believed God, they were justified at that moment. “Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness.” (Rom. 4:3 ESV) The context of Romans 4 Paul is discussing the nature of justification as illustrated in the faith of Abraham. In Galatians, Paul teaches that NT believers are children of Abraham by faith. (Galatians 3: 6-14) When was Abraham counted righteousness? When he believed God. He did not build or work his faith up to a sufficient point to where it was enough to justify him. The Scriptures are very clear: “Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness.” This is the pattern throughout the Old and New Testaments.

In Acts 15:9 Peter explains to the Jerusalem council how God accepted the Gentiles in Caesarea. He tells them: “God . . . made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.” The Gentiles of Cornelius’ house were forgiven of their sins – justified – the moment they believed in Christ. This was verified for Peter when the Holy Spirit fell on them. This incident was not a pattern of how everyone must speak in tongues to receive the Spirit, but rather shows the inception of Gentiles being included by God into His Church. They received the Gospel, believed in Christ, and God cleansed their hearts and baptized them with His Spirit.

To confuse the matter more, some claim that Paul “experienced Acts 2:38” when he was “instantaneously justified.” The UPCI says that Acts 2:38 teaches we must be baptized by the formula “in the name of Jesus” only, in order for sin to be remitted. It also claims that Acts 2:38 teaches we must speak in tongues as the initial evidence of Spirit baptism. Paul does not tell us anywhere in his epistles that he was baptized “in the name of Jesus” only. Never. Paul also never mentions or hints that he spoke with tongues as evidence that he received the Holy Spirit. It would seem that if Paul believed these were absolutely necessary for salvation, he would have devoted significant space in his writing to make that clear. But he never, one time, proposes or even alludes to the idea that speaking in tongues is the ‘initial evidence’ of Spirit baptism. Thus, there is no statement in the NT to support that Paul “experienced” Acts 2:38 as the UPCI teaches it.

View article in pdf at "Instantaneous" Justification

"Re-justification"

2008-07-29T11:42:00.011-04:00

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

I am fascinated by the creative ways that theology students in the UPCI are handling the doctrine of justification. Because their doctrine of Acts 2:38 is-the-New Birth rejects the historic teaching of justification by faith there is an attempt to redefine or caricature justification into something the Bible or orthodox Christianity has never believed. This is leading to a few novel terms or phrases that reveal a misguided understanding of the biblical teaching of justification by faith.

One of those is the phrase “repetitive justification”. The problem with this phrase is that the word repetitive is unnecessary. Why? Because ‘repetitive justification’ is a tautology (redundant). The very nature of justification makes it necessarily ongoing. Thus, the word ‘repetitive’ is superfluous.

A companion phrase I see being used is “re-justification.” This is really another way of saying repetitive justification. Instead of re-justification a more descriptive phrase for the same idea is “transformational justification.” I posted this on my website (at: http://inchristalone.org/TheFullGospelError.htm):

Re-justification?

A gross misconception of justification is too often seen among “full Gospel” advocates. It is the mistaken idea that, after a Christian has a serious lapse of faith or behavior, that one would need to be re-justified in the form of a second conversion. At the heart of this whole issue is the question of the status of the lapsed Christian. It appeared to those of the Roman Catholic tradition that the answer is to view justification as synonymous with sanctification. This means the believer cooperates with Christ’s grace by obedience to cause justification. Justification would not occur until one is completely transformed into the image of Christ. Of course, this would only occur (except for some saints) at the Consummation. Thus, no one (again, except for a few rare saints) is truly justified in this life. In their view, the lapsed Christian would need the sacraments of Confession, Penance, and the Mass in order to be restored, if they had not committed the unpardonable sin. Justification is viewed as the process of transformation, the “renewing of the Holy Ghost,” by which a person is actually made righteous.

This teaching of “transformational justification” is the opposite of what the Reformers saw. They saw justification as the state of the believer by which he is right with God because of the merits of Christ. Rather that being made perfectly righteous, the believer is counted righteous on Christ’s behalf. This enables the sinner to enter into favor and right standing with God, so that the work of the Spirit can proceed within the one who is justified. This made it possible for the Holy Spirit to transform the believer. This transformation is called sanctification and not justification. This transformation would advance, never perfect in this life, to a perfection received at the Coming of Christ. It is justification that makes sanctifying transformation possible and not the other way around.

Justification is like regeneration. Initially regeneration occurs when God plants a new heart or nature in a sinner and makes him or her alive to God. When a person is born again they do not need to be “born again” again. The Bible teaches that when a person is born of the Spirit it is a one time event that provides a new creation or new nature that continues on in the remainder of one’s life. The presence of the new creation or nature continues through the believer’s life, but the believer does not need to be born again over and over. Therefore, using the phrase “re-justification” is as unnecessary as saying one must be “born again” again.

View article pdf at "Re-Justification"

Knowing "About" the Lord, but not "Knowing" Him

2008-01-14T15:29:00.006-05:00

Image by Martin LaBar (going on hiatus) via Flickr

Email Question: Is repentance an act that saves? I believe it is.

My Response: The reason that I do not understand repentance as an act that saves or obtains salvation is because of the nature of salvation. The Bible teaches that our condition in sin is so total that God is the only one who can do anything to save us. When we understand how serious our condition is and how holy God is, we would understand that we cannot even respond to God unless His Spirit enables us.

I would be interested in how you would answer a couple of questions. The first is, “Saved from what?” That would tell a lot about what you mean by repentance and where you base your faith. The Bible says that we are saved from God’s wrath. (Romans 1:18; 2:5, 8; 3:5; 4:15; 5:9; 9:22; Eph. 2:3; 5:6; I Thess. 1:10; 2:16; 5:9; Rev. 6:16, 17). The depth of our sin against God is so profound that it is impossible for any human to calculate it. When Adam & Eve sinned, they did so not only defying the authority of God, but more seriously questioning the goodness of God. Rather than live in unbounded love and enjoyment of God and living for His glory, they turned their love inward toward themselves, enjoying things other than God and seeking their own glory (Rom. 2). This dishonoring of God shook humanity to its core and corrupted human nature until now (Gen. 11:1; Eph. 4:22; 2 Pet. 1:4). This sin against God’s goodness, glory and sovereignty was so great that it evoked nothing less than righteous anger from God (Rom. 1:18; 5:9; Eph. 2:3; 5:6). Not petty human or emotional anger, but wrath in the sense of God’s justice working to reconcile or restore what the unrighteousness of sin defiled and destroyed (Acts 17:31).

The second question is: “Saved by what?” The Bible does not teach that repentance is salvation itself. It teaches that repentance is “unto” salvation (2 Cor. 7:10; 2 Tim. 2:25), which is accomplished by God. A perfect sacrifice was required under Moses (Ex. 12:5; 1 Pet. 1:19). But Romans and Hebrews tell us that none of the Old Covenant sacrifices were able to forgive sin (Rom. 3: 25; Heb. 10:4). Only the one sacrifice of Jesus upon the Cross quenched the wrath of the Father and remitted our sins (Heb. 7:27; 9:12; 10:10). Therefore, repentance in itself does not save; it turns us to Jesus, and Jesus saves!

Read the full article in pdf at "Knowing 'About' the Lord, but not 'Knowing' Him"

New In Christ Alone! Podcast

2007-12-10T15:56:00.002-05:00

I've just started a new Podcast featuring my and Jeff Harkin's teaching. If you wold like to listen or subscribe use the following links:

In Christ Alone! Podcast
Subscribe to our Podcast
You can subscribe through iTunes as well.

Piper on Acts 2:38

2007-11-10T10:19:00.002-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

I recently read an article by John Piper. In this article he commented on Acts 2:38. I have excerpted those comments but have left the title and links to the article to give him full credit and to allow you to visit his site and read the entire article. I believe his understanding of Acts 2:38, especially with respect to water baptism, is very sensible, sound and biblically accurate. Note this statement in particular:

“If you take the whole witness of the New Testament into account, it becomes clear that we are justified by faith alone (Romans 3:28; 5:1) and that baptism is a proper and Christ-mandated expression of that faith."

Read the excerpt below. If you you have the time, please read the entire article. I would be interested in your comments.

Treasuring Christ Together as a Church on Multiple Campuses

By John Piper November 4, 2007

“When Peter later reports to the church in Jerusalem that Cornelius and the Gentiles had believed in Christ and received the Holy Spirit, these very people who are here being converted say in Acts 11:18, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.” The reason they say “to the Gentiles also” is because they knew that is what happened to them on this day of Pentecost. They were granted repentance. It was a gift of God. When an unbelieving person hears the word of God—a person who has been guilty of crucifying the Lord of glory (by their hands or by their shouts or by their sins)—only a miracle of sovereign grace explains why some cry out, “Away with such men,” and others say, “What must I do to be saved?”

“So God brings them to conviction, and in verses 38-39, Peter answers them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” It would be a terrible misuse of these verses to build a whole theology of baptismal regeneration on it—that is, to say as some denominations do that the act of baptism is the instrument that connects you to Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and until you are baptized you are not forgiven, and not justified. I have dealt with many people over the years because those denominations capture many vulnerable students at the university.

“Get Your Hat and Run”

“The mere statement that we should repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins does not tell us how baptism works in relation to the forgiveness of sins. If I say, “Get your hat and run, or you’ll miss the train,” I am not saying that “getting your hat is part of what gets you to the train on time. I’m just saying that there are good reasons to get your hat as you run. But it’s the running that makes the difference whether you get to the train on time. And when Peter says, “Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, he does not tell us whether the baptism or the repentance or both are the instrument that connects us with forgiveness.

“In fact, in Acts 3:19, Peter says, “Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out.” No mention of baptism. But the promise of forgiveness is still given. And in Acts 16:31, Paul says, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” No mention of baptism, but the assurance of salvation given.

“If you take the whole witness of the New Testament into account, it becomes clear that we are justified by faith alone (Romans 3:28; 5:1) and that baptism is a proper and Christ-mandated expression of that faith. So I would paraphrase verse 38 like this: “Repent, that is, turn from your unbelief and put your faith in Christ, and give expression to that faith in baptism. This faith will connect you to Jesus Christ, and on the basis of what he has done for you, you will be forgiven all your sins, even the sin of crucifying the Lord of glory. And in that forgiven state, you will receive the enjoyment of Holy Spirit and all his fruit in your life.”

Visit John Piper's website at Desiring God

Is Repentance an Act that Saves?

2006-09-04T13:12:00.006-04:00

Email Question: Is repentance an act that saves? I believe it is.

My Response: The reason that I do not understand repentance as an act that saves or obtains salvation is because of the nature of salvation. The Bible teaches that our condition in sin is so total that God is the only one who can do anything to save us. When we understand how serious our condition is and how holy God is, we would understand that we cannot even respond to God unless His Spirit enables us.I would be interested in how you would answer a couple of questions.

The first is, “Saved from what?” That would tell a lot about what you mean by repentance and where you base your faith. The Bible says that we are saved from God’s wrath. (Romans 1:18; 2:5, 8; 3:5; 4:15; 5:9; 9:22; Eph. 2:3; 5:6; I Thess. 1:10; 2:16; 5:9; Rev. 6:16, 17). The depth of our sin against God is so profound that it is impossible for any human to calculate it. When Adam & Eve sinned, they did so not only defying the authority of God, but more seriously questioning the goodness of God. Rather than live in unbounded love and enjoyment of God and living for His glory, they turned their love inward toward themselves, enjoying things other than God and seeking their own glory (Rom. 2). This dishonoring of God shook humanity to its core and corrupted human nature until now (Gen. 11:1; Eph. 4:22; 2 Pet. 1:4). This sin against God’s goodness, glory and sovereignty was so great that it evoked nothing less than righteous anger from God (Rom. 1:18; 5:9; Eph. 2:3; 5:6). Not petty human or emotional anger, but wrath in the sense of God’s justice working to reconcile or restore what the unrighteousness of sin defiled and destroyed (Acts 17:31).

View Is Repentance an Act that Saves? in pdf

Way to enter into Covenant

2006-09-04T12:51:00.006-04:00

Image via Wikipedia

September 4, 2006

Email comment: First of all, my belief is that the way to enter into a covenant with God is Acts 2:38, but I believe that God can enter into a covenant with anyone on his terms, apart from Baptism.

My Response: I would like to hear how you understand Acts 2:38 as the way to enter into covenant with God. More, I would be interested in how you handle water baptism in Acts 2:38 as not being part of the way one enters into covenant with God. I would agree that water baptism is not the means for entering the covenant and is rather the sign of the covenant. More explanation would be necessary to talk more profitably about this statement.

You believe that Acts 2:38 is one way to be in covenant with God. But, you also believe there are other ways to be in covenant with God. My response is that there are really only two biblical covenants that God makes with Humanity. Each of these covenants is made by God in mercy and condescension (Isa. 40:13-17) to our human limitations. The first is a covenant of works. The blessings of this covenant – of life and provision – were given to Adam (Gen. 1&2) on the condition that they obeyed God. In Eden they were not to eat of the tree of the knowledge or good and evil (Gen. 2:17). When they ate they broke the covenant of works and their punishment was death (Gen. 3:16-19).

The law given to Moses is a further expansion of this covenant. It is a law that will bring life as long as it is obeyed (Gal. 3:12; Rom. 10:5). But as Adam and Eve disobeyed, sinned and broke the covenant of works, so did Israel and all Gentiles (Rom. 3:9-20). Because this covenant was broken, God made a second called the covenant of grace. In this new covenant, God promises life and salvation to all who believe in Jesus Christ (Mk. 16:15-16; John 3:16; Romans 5:6-9 Gal. 3:11). In this new covenant God gives a new heart and new spirit to make us willing and able to believe in Christ (Ezk, 36:26-27; John 6:44-45).

Jesus announced this new covenant at his last supper (Lk 22:20). He is the mediator of this new covenant because it is by his death that the new and better covenant is confirmed (Heb. 7:22). It is a new covenant in the blood of Jesus (1 Cor. 11:25). These are the only two covenants given to us in Scripture. One is either right by covenant (covenant righteousness) through their own personal, perfect works; or, one is right with God through faith in Jesus Christ (Christ's covenant righteousness). Everyone will stand before God one day. Each will stand before God in either their own righteousness or the righteousness of Jesus, given by grace.
View article "Way to Enter Into Covenant" in pdf

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

2006-06-26T09:49:00.008-04:00

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

Reponse to "Saddened"

2005-11-14T11:50:00.005-05:00

Dear [Anonymous],

I appreciate your concern about my spiritual welfare. That is one of the main reasons for my web site. I am concerned about the faith and spiritual welfare of folks who need to understand the biblical meaning and power of the Gospel. I understand when you say you are sad over my testimony. Please let me humbly say that you need not be sad for me. I am resting in Jesus and trusting him completely with all my soul. I know it is disturbing to read about someone who used to believe what you presently believe. However, rest assured that I am not in spiritual trouble. Christ is all and all to me and I look to him alone.

Many of the comments you made I have address with articles on my web site. Many people just read part of my testimony, written 10 years ago, and they write me to give me a piece of their mind, without looking further into the answers that I have already written and made available. I ask that you understand my faith in the whole journey, and not from reading one part of it.Also, I say this kindly, and not to argue, but it is patronizing and impolite as a Christian to tell them "First of all, you are wrong and deep down you know it. You do not fully believe what you are teaching now, there is no way you possibly can when you know truth." No, I don't know I am wrong deep down. Yes, I do fully believe what I am teaching. You judge my motives without doing the hard work of reading my articles and pointing out with Scriptural study why I am wrong. I guess that means I am wrong because you say so. That's a frail reason for saying I am wrong. We could argue 'round and 'round in an immature way saying, "You're wrong," "no, you're wrong." But the test is whether we speak what Scripture teaches. I am confident that the Bible teaches that I am right with God by trusting in the life, death and resurrection of my Lord Jesus Christ for my salvation. I believe that is what Scripture teaches. If I am wrong, then show from Scripture where that is wrong.

View Response to Deeply Saddened in pdf

"Deeply Saddened"

2005-11-14T11:26:00.002-05:00

Dear Mr Bernie Gillespie, I have put "deeply saddened" in the subject heading because that is how reading your "testimony" has made me feel. I felt a sorrow for you the whole time I was reading it. I feel sorrow for you and for your family. And for the members of your church who must be mourning for you right now.

My name is _____ _____, I attend the UPCI church in __________. It is a daughter work of the ___________ church where I used to attend. My youth pastors in that church were greatly respected and the youth adored them. Including myself. I was very deeply hurt when I found out that they were given a "revelation" from God that what we were preaching is not right and that they didn't have to do what they'd been doing and that life didn't have to be so "difficult". They no longer go to a church at all, they are hurting and trying to fulfill the emptiness with alcohol and tasteless music. Because God never really did give them that revelation. If we aren't careful we may think that we are being spoken to by God, but we are quickly deceived and listen to the wrong voices. If satan knows we are vulnerable that is when he will make us question our faith. And he will use whatever it takes to do so. Whether it be a trip to the holy land or simply deciding that this way of life is "unnecessary" He did it to me once through Greek Mythology. We must be careful.

I am deeply bothered at what you said in your testimony, "Before I had to go to great lengths to explain how these passages really did not mean what the obvious reader could see they did mean". I have been in church 8 years, and have never had to do that. The thing is (and being a previous bible school teacher you should know this) is that you do have to look farther into it than what it simply says. For example the Bible tells us that God wants us to be perfect. So should we take that as it is and say that we will never be saved because no one will ever obtain perfection? no, we can't do that because then we would be taking the word out of context when you look at the strongs original meaning of the word perfect, it simply means complete. whole. that's all, if we were to take it as it "simply says" we would think we had to be flawless.

You are right we are saved by grace and faith, but that is not all. You can't just take one thing out of the bible and decide that's all there is to it. There is more to it than that. But it's easier to think that's it. It sounds to me from what you are interpreting that it was YOUR personal views that were prideful and self righteous and it sounds as though you are blaming that on the upci but the upci is not prideful and self righteous, though it has members that are as in any church. I thank God that my pastor does not just read us the Bible. He does in depth studies into the meanings of the words so that we really do understand it from the original greek and hebrew texts. I also do studies as such and do not come across things that are contrary to upci doctrine.

As for your conclusion "If I am wrong God have mercy on me, If I am right...what will be your response, my brothers and sisters?" First of all, you are wrong and deep down you know it. You do not fully believe what you are teaching now, there is no way you possibly can when you know truth.

Secondly, I don't have to worry about "if" you are right. The simple fact that you say "If" you are right, and "if you are wrong shows that you are unsure. I don't think for one second what my respose would be if you are right because I know you are not, because I read and study the scriptures to show myself approved, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed RIGHTLY dividing the word of truth. I hope God does have mercy on you, for not only have you left truth but you have led your wife and your very own children that God blessed you with into the wrong path. I pray you come to a realization real soon and come back to truth b4 it is too late. we don't have time to play games and I find it a shame to lead people so close and know the real thing is out there and keep it from them. and actually teach against it. I am adding you to my prayer list and your wife and children.

My prayers are with you,

[Anonymous]

Welcome to the In Christ Alone! Ministries eMail Blog

2005-11-01T18:52:00.002-05:00

I receive many precious and important emails from those who visit my web site. The number of emails and the time it takes to adequately answer them is more than the time I have every week.

My heart goes out to each and every person who writes. Yet, before I can respond there are three or four more. This cycle repeats itself every week and sometimes every day. I have prayed about how that I might provide some help, friendship, and support for each and every person who contacts me.

Since blogging is becoming more common, I thought that I would try to use a web log as a way to share my anwers to "composite" emails. That is, I can take the common questions that many people ask and then answer them, on this web log, as though I am speaking to one person. (In reality, the "one person" is many people represented by their emails). So, friends, that is what I going to attempt. There will be trial and error along the way, but I believe it will be enjoyable and fun. This is an experiment. The goal is to keep in touch in a way that time allows. Through this ICA! eMail web log I can talk with you about various and random subjects related to the Gospel, theology, culture, Biblical studies, church life, grace & legalism, or important issues in living the Christian life.

I ask that you have patience with me as I learn the best way to serve you. Please feel free to write me with you suggestions, observations, or encouragements(!!) at my email address icamin@ameritech.net.

Enjoy and be blessed in Jesus!

Bernie