Interesting question, Jay, and our only choice for an answer is speculation, because the scripture doesn't address that possibility. (Which is often the definition of "interesting question" to those of us who feel led to ponder details.)

John's appearance and approach was rather unusual, even for "that time," which attracted people probably our of curiosity. (Today, people would probably watch the news on their i-pads as John was loaded into a paddy-wagon headed for a hospital). But they went out to check this guy out, and they heard his message, which was so anointed by God that the word pierced everyone (except maybe the "religious leaders").

John's purpose – to prepare the way; to testify of Jesus.

John's message – repent for the kingdom of God is at hand, [at which time] He will baptize within the Holy Spirit (and fire).

John's method – water baptism, symbolizing change from one state into (eis) another.

What did the Pharisees notice – was it the fruit of repentance or the physical symbol of water immersion which meant to them the authority of a change?

John 1:24 Now some Pharisees who had been sent questioned him, "Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?"

John's answer deflected attention away from himself and toward the baptism that Jesus would perform

What if John didn't water baptize? Would no one have repented? Would those who did repent not receive corresponding forgiveness? Would John have not done an act that showed authority of change that would be recognized by the Pharisees? If someone repented at home, would they remain unforgiven or would their repentance not been noticed by the Jewish leaders?

Water baptism was necessary as a matter of obedience. But I think it was John's obedience to water baptize that was involved rather than the responsibility of the responder to obey something.

That, I think, is the same role of water baptism today. It is the church's responsibility to water baptize a responder and not the responsibility of the responder, who has already been baptized in the Holy Spirit by Jesus. Why? Obedience, just like it was for John.

John's message would not have been complete without his administration of water baptism. His mission would have failed because he could testify of the baptism within the Holy Spirit. John would have been held accountable.

I think, from the perspective of the responder to John's message, that forgiveness of sin was granted in response to their faith and confession. But there was no question that water baptism would follow.

"What compelled them to enter the water?" I don't John gave then that choice.

This is the same post-Pentecost; people weren't given a choice, they just were water baptized. There is no example of someone refusing to be water baptized. What if they aren't? We don't have a direct answer to that.

But does that mean we make water baptism the gate to salvation? Do we hold the grace of God hostage until we do something in the physical realm? I used to think that. Now it sounds like an incredibly arrogant and dangerous position to take. I just can't do it.

Thanks, Jay.

I think we sometimes take our own understanding of forgiveness and transfer it to how God thinks, when it should be the other way around. But there are consequences to unforgiveness. In the process of peacemaking, I have seen the consequences of conflict and unforgiving attitudes on both the people involved and the resulting division and chaos in the church. I have seen the crippling consequences of continuing to maintain a root of bitterness on people's (or family's) physical health, spiritual health, financial health, everything. And the worst part is the attitudes they pass to their children. And I have also seen the incredible display of power of the Holy Spirit when people humble themselves before the cross and confess wrongs done to one another.

I have been through a reconciliation process myself together with other elders, and I can say that it is an incredibly emotionally and spiritually draining process. It is not for the weak. I thought I understood what forgiveness, peace, and reconciliation were, but I found through this experience that I didn't understand diddly.

Is God's forgiveness conditional on whether or not we ask Him or whether or not we forgive someone else? I think not from God's perspective; His offer of forgiveness isn't retractable (John 3:16), but God has created us so that our openness to receiving God's continual ("ongoing") forgiveness may be dependent on our own attitudes toward other people. I think that's the link.

Who would be more likely to say, "I don't think God likes me. I don't see how He could forgive me" — a person carrying around inside of them an unforgiving attitude and root of bitterness, or a person walking in the freedom and joy of an active forgiving and peaceful relation with their brothers and sisters in Christ (or their spouse, etc.)?

Did I create more ambiguity?

But if repentance was sufficient by itself, why did the Jews go to John to be baptized? Why not just repent at home? What was going on that compelled them to enter the water?

Salvation is continuous but not necessarily permanent. I lay this argument out in detail in the ebook posted here The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace. It's also laid out in the series "Amazing Grace."

The 20th Century Churches of Christ have two inconsistent rules.

Rule 1: If you sin after baptism, you can only be forgiven by repenting, confessing sin, and asking forgiveness. In the context of divorce, the 20th Century CoC also adds the requirement of making restitution. And for a public sin, you have to "come forward" at a church assembly and confess to the congregation.

Rule 2: Forgiveness for those walking in the light in continuous.

(1Jo 1:7 ESV) But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

It is routinely noted the "cleanses" is in present tense in the Greek and so promises continuous forgiveness.

Now, obviously, the two standards are very different. I've repeatedly asked leading writers within the conservative Churches to explain when one rule applies and other does not — and where the scriptures tells us which rule governs when. I've yet to receive an answer other than trite aphorisms — "holy common sense" and such like.

I think Rule 1 is mistaken and Rule 2 is scriptural.

However, you can certainly fall from grace, but not by just any sin. The sins that damn are those that undo what saved us in the first place — a loss of faith in Jesus (1 John 4:1-3), rebellion (Heb 10:26 ff), or loss of trust in Jesus to save by grace (Gal 5:1-7).

These are the antitheses of the three elements of faith (in the Pauline/Johannine sense) —

* Believe Jesus to be the Messiah, the Son of God (Faith)(Accept Jesus as the Christ)
* Submit to Jesus as Lord, that is, become faithful to Jesus (Love)(Accept Jesus as Lord)
* Trust Jesus to keep his promise to save us based on faith (Hope)(Accept Jesus as Savior)

Here are the links — http://oneinjesus.info/books-by-jay-guin/the-holy… http://oneinjesus.info/index-under-construction/t…

John's baptism effected a one-time forgiveness. Jesus' baptism, by giving those of faith the Spirit, gives them ongoing forgiveness.

"Ongoing forgiveness" sounds a bit strange to me. What do you mean by that? That we are "permanently" forgiven? Or "automatically"?

As I understand it, even after we have been baptized and regenerated, we have to repent of sin and confess them in order to be cleansed (1Jo 1:9). Christ also said that forgiveness is conditional and depentend on our forgiving others their trespasses (Mat 6:14-15). Forgiveness can even be taken back as is shown in one of His parables (Mat 18:23-35).

How do the facts that forgivness must be asked for, is conditional and can be taken back harmonize with the term "ongoing forgiveness"? Maybe I completely misunderstand your point …

Alexander

If the water baptism of John represented what God was doing following repentance, why should post-Pentecostal water baptism be elevated to a higher spiritual importance, especially when John said a baptism that was different from water would be of infinitely greater importance? Consistent with John's baptism, post-Pentecostal water baptism represents what God has done.

How could anyone place water baptism as the gatekeeper for our sovereign God's forgiveness? But, at one time, I did just that. I am a testimony to the patience and grace of God.

Amen to your comment of 10:00 A.M.

Interesting question:

"How could John's baptism within water effect forgiveness of sins when the sacrifice for them hadn't been given yet?"

Well, how did God forgive David's sin with Bathsheba 1,000 years earlier? How did Elijah make it to heaven if his sins weren't yet forgiven?

The old "sins rolled forward" argument is, in my opinion, fatally flawed. The scriptures plainly teach that sins were forgiven long before Jesus' sacrifice — including by Jesus himself. I take the statements as inspired and true.

Forgiveness occurs in heaven, not on earth. And God exists outside of human time. He forgave, just as the text says, but he forgave as a consequence of Jesus' sacrifice. Time is no barrier to God's grace.

(2Sa 12:13 ESV) 13 David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die."

(Mar 2:5 ESV) 5 And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."

Therefore, I have no trouble with the idea that John's baptism effected forgiveness — empowered by the sacrifice of Jesus.

Hence, I see the distinction between John's baptism (pre-Pentecost) and Jesus' baptism (post-Pentecost) in the receipt of the Spirit and the continuous forgiveness thereby received by Christians. John's baptism effected a one-time forgiveness. Jesus' baptism, by giving those of faith the Spirit, gives them ongoing forgiveness — a MUCH greater blessing!

(Tit 3:4-7 ESV) 4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Therefore, while John's baptism effected forgiveness, it did not free from bondage to sin. That requires the Spirit (and we agree on that point).

I believe you are quite right that Christian baptism is infinitely superior to John's and that the difference is found in the receipt of the Spirit.

It is future tense, but I take the construction to be causative rather than chronological. In English we might say, "Kiss me and I'll kiss you back." The first verb is imperative and the second future. The second results from the first, but they happen at essentially the same time.

However, in that construction, it's quite impossible to mean, "Because I kissed you back, kiss me." The future-tense action can't precede the imperative.

I'm likely exceeding my limited Greek expertise here, but that seems to be how most commentators take the construction, other than those arguing from Calvinistic preconceptions.