Loss of salvation???

[Magenta]

Luke 22 verse 42 “Father, if You are willing, take this cup from Me. Yet not My will, but Yours be done.” John 12 verses 27-28 "Now My soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save Me from this hour’? No, it is for this purpose that I have come to this hour. Father, glorify Your name!” Then a voice came from heaven: “I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again.”

 

[Musicmaster]

Does it matter if he did the baptizing or if others with him did it? Of course it doesn't

You missed the point. If Paul knew it to still be a requirement from his gospel, to be water baptized as an element for salvation or anything else, then he would have said so no matter if he did the baptizing himself or not. He did not state anything of the kind anywhere, and nobody has a reference anywhere they can quote of such from his writings that says any such thing. That's the bottom line. He did not tell them to go back to the gospels, to the Law, nor to the writings of Peter and James nor to the Jews. They didn't even have those. This and many other things are what render the "summarizing" claim a falsehood. Paul was such a man to know that his writings would be for posterity, and avoiding that is problematic.

MM

 

[studier]

You're still not explaining how you figured it to be a legitimate claim that Paul would leave out from 1 Corinthians 15 any other element necessary for salvation, and say it on the basis of summarization. How many elements do you think there are that are required of us today for salvation that would not violate the biblical definition of grace?

I've explained it many times in many ways and will now be done. Once you disregard what I've shown in Acts c.f. 1Cor and characterize it as copy and paste in order to minimalize all the places I showed where Acts compares to 1Cor all you've got left is to repeat yourself as you're doing here. Maybe you could grace me or us with some more detailed copy and paste yourself and include what you see as you do.

Paul speaks throughout his writings of all things Gospel. It's not all in 1Cor15 whether or not you want to make 1Cor15 the only "Gospel of Grace". He speaks elsewhere of repentance, baptism, the kingdom, grace, the only (Gospel) foundation that can be built upon, the cross, and so on.

Unless and until you provide some Scriptural work to substantiate your claims and theories and begin seeing things like arguments from silence fairly, both ways, what's the point of this? Provide a link to your work or provide some actual work in Scripture.

 

[studier]

You missed the point. If Paul knew it to still be a requirement from his gospel, to be water baptized as an element for salvation or anything else, then he would have said so no matter if he did the baptizing himself or not.

From what I've been reading, you really had to make this baptism topic into much more than you originally alluded to. It's part of the 2 Gospel theory that is not unique to you.

I've not missed any point. Baptism seems to me to flow (pardon the pun) smoothly from the Gospels through to Paul who was not only baptized, but also baptized some others, and had baptisms taking place by others during his ministry travels, particularly in Corinth, which is where you're focusing on it being of no importance.

I shouldn't make this assumption, but you [should] know as well as I do that there were many things going on as Acts proceeds that make any formulaic issues re: baptisms difficult to discern. So, fess-up, where do you divide Acts for your 2 Gospel theory? As I said before, different adherents to HD divide it in different places.

Do you spell this out on your site? Is your site labeled with HD or does it identify HD?

 

[Musicmaster]

Ok, so the confusions that arise from trying to intermix two differing Gospels has reared its ugly head.

Peter, who also must have been guilty of "summarizing" given that he made no mention of the elements of the burial and resurrection of Christ in Acts 2:38 after being asked what must they do to be saved.

Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, also having been accused to summarizing, left out the command to repent and to be water baptized unto the remission of sins on the basis of his gospel that he said by which they were saved.

This nefariously subjective narrative foisted, seemingly on the basis of some agenda of works and replacement theology, continue to harangue about the absolute similarities while laying at the feet the guilt of omission...men they have never met.

The claim lives on to this day in the minds of some that both Peter and Paul were stating the same thing, never minding the differences of content in their gospels.

Some seem to think that if only one copies enough text from other sections of scripture that apply only to Israel, that somehow clears up the confusion? No. It only lays down a much larger body of accusation against these two men, sent out by Christ to two different groups, one of which has fallen until raised back up in the last of days after being purged of their unbelief, the other (the body of Christ) living on to this day to whom the Law had never been given nor were commanded to obey.

You can all judge for yourselves, based upon these two sections of scripture, observing the glaring differences, considering that these two men both stated, with emphatic certainty, that what they stated in those precise texts, was sufficient for salvation as stated to the two different groupings.

They cannot both be true for all people for all time. No. Either one of them was lying, or they were both lying, because claiming they were both speaking a truth that is relevant across all of time from Pentecost onward to this day and beyond is a violation of the law of non-contradiction. Given that Peter mentioned the death of Christ in the context of an accusation against the nation of which those Jews were born into as descendants of Abraham, they were cut to the heart to learn they had crucified their Messiah, and that they needed to repent from their belief that He was yet to come, but had already been there and been murdered by them. That was indeed a hit between the eyes.

So, what say you all? Do you continue in following after bogus church traditions for doctrinal slants and outright lies, or do you read scripture for what it says, thus exercising proper responsibility for what you choose to believe?

It's up to you alone. Neither my friend studier nor myself will be held responsible for the choice you make. I personally do not believe one has to be baptized to be saved. That was only true for Israel before her fall, not for now.

MM

 

[studier]

And the nefarious 2-headed Gospel raises its heads in proof-texting with but a very few verses of Scripture while claiming in empty, lengthy narratives void of Scripture in context that others are ignoring context.

All the while this is being done ignoring multiple requests for more work and substantiation in and from Scripture and for access to the more complete studies and discussions allegedly contained on a personal site and ignoring multiple statements that this 2 Gospel theory is simply of the theological system commonly known as Hyperdispensationalism which is rejected by many including Dispensationalists who warn against it.

In our day it seems that one of the common traits of those who do not really work in or from Scripture but from systems of interpretive traditions they choose to learn from is that we get a lot of narrative and empty allegations. But Scripture resolves these empty, wordy appeals. And all of us are subject to its Truth.

NKJ Acts 2:22-42 NKJ in basic context in English as stated by Christ's Apostle Peter according to Luke:

22 "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know--

• Peter speaking to men of Israel
• God's attesting witness of the Man, Jesus from Nazareth, by miracles, wonders and signs

23 "Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death;

• The cross of Jesus
• The death of Jesus
• You Jews lawlessly took Jesus, crucified Jesus, put Jesus to death (remember this when we get to Acts2:38)

24 "whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.

• The resurrection of Jesus

25 "For David says concerning Him: 'I foresaw the LORD always before my face, For He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken.

• King David and the resurrected Lord Jesus

26 Therefore my heart rejoiced, and my tongue was glad; Moreover my flesh also will rest in hope.
27 For You will not leave my soul in Hades, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.
28 You have made known to me the ways of life; You will make me full of joy in Your presence.'
29 "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.

• King David foreseeing the resurrected Lord Jesus in the presence of God - Messianic overtones

30 "Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne,

• The Eternal Davidic Kingship of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ the seed of King David per the Davidic Covenant

31 "he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption.

• The resurrected Lord Jesus Christ the Eternal Davidic King

32 "This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses.

• Jesus is the resurrected Christ / King
• Witnesses

33 "Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.

• The ascension and session of the Lord Jesus Christ / King to the position at God's right hand of all authority
• The promised Holy Spirit given to the Lord Jesus Christ which He poured out as promised

34 "For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: 'The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand,
35 Till I make Your enemies Your footstool."'

• Clarification that all this OC prophecy was about the Eternal Davidic King Jesus Christ and not King David

36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

• God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ
  • Remember who crucified Lord Jesus Christ when we get to Acts2:38

37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

• They've just realized they crucified their Messiah, their Eternal King

38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

• Repent (at minimum) of your crucifixion of The Eternal King Lord Jesus Christ
  • Repent does not always simply mean a change of mind
• Be baptized in the name of The Eternal King Lord Jesus Christ who sits at God's right hand in all authority and gives the promised Holy Spirit

39 "For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."
40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation."

• We have part of the record of all that Peter said that day

41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.

• Implication of repentance and belief > baptism

42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.

• Adherence to Apostolic teaching and fellowship

Compare this to Paul's proclamation in Acts13 and how Acts13 compares to 1Cor. They are very similar. When Paul summarizes the death, burial and resurrection of Christ in 1Cor15 it looks to me like Peter would heartily agree since both he and Paul made vitally clear what Christ means and who is the Christ - the resurrected Lord King Jesus Christ. In fact, didn't Peter support Paul in the counsel at Acts15?

It seems clear the repentance here, beyond being the general repentance of returning to God as Israel had to do many times in her history with God sending her Prophets, is to repent of their crucifixion of the Eternal Lord King Jesus Christ.

Yes, Peter commands baptism and Paul in Acts13 does not. Yet it's clear from Act16 and Acts18 that Paul was baptizing some and others were baptizing many.

The Gospel is the same - believe on the resurrected (from death and burial) Lord Jesus Christ God's Eternal Davidic King and be saved.

There is one Gospel not 2 and not more than 2.

So, what was baptism or better yet what were baptisms? Why were both Peter and Paul doing them or in Paul's case mostly having them done by others? Why did John baptize? Why did Jesus baptize or have others baptize? Why was Jesus baptized? Why was baptism commanded? Why are so many opposed to baptism?

This isn't a baptism thread, but some 2 Gospel agenda determined it was important.

How about the loss of Salvation?