Loss of salvation???

[Kroogz]

You have already stated your intention of not getting into the different gospels reality in scripture. Avoidance is a tactic, so the conversation was effectively ended by your avoidance.

MM

I would love to discuss it with you. Get into the nuances of it all. I believe you and I have the same take on the Gospel, and the mystery doctrine.

I do not have the writing skills and thought "on paper" skills you have, but I would like to dive into a more thorough thought process of the "different gospels."

Maybe a thread?

In a nutshell~~ I believe there is one Gospel for salvation. But there are differing "kingdoms" and "realities" for Israel and the Church.

 

[Musicmaster]

There's one Gospel in Gal2:7. One man was assigned mainly to the Jews. The other man was assigned mainly to the nations. They were both ultimately proclaiming Jesus is the resurrected Christ - the Eternal King. See previously unanswered posts re: Acts2 and Acts13 c.f. 1Cor.

Unfortunately, we're dealing with multiple translations today:

CJB Galatians 2:7 On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the Good News for the Uncircumcised, just as Kefa had been for the Circumcised;

DBY Galatians 2:7 but, on the contrary, seeing that the glad tidings of the uncircumcision were confided to me, even as to Peter that of the circumcision,

NKJ Galatians 2:7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter

NET Galatians 2:7 On the contrary, when they saw that I was entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised just as Peter was to the circumcised

ESV Galatians 2:7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised

NAS Galatians 2:7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised

"of" is a basic catch-all translation of the actual wording. "for" or "to" is putting forth a bit more translational effort. "gospel" is stated once in the original as the CJB, DBY, NET, NAS are translating. Paul spent the early part of Galatians making it clear that there is one Gospel and Paul had to challenge Peter to make this clear when Peter was wavering due to Jewish influences.

It's not surprising that the other translations altered the Greek to make it sound like it's the same Gospel preached by Peter and Paul. Yes, Christ crucified and faith are the common elements, but none of the other elements are the same. The KJV makes it clear that there are two different gospels...one OF the circumcision and one OF the uncircumcision.

I've always hated those translations that slaughter the Greek so badly...not that the KJV is perfect.

So, this is a question I should have asked at the beginning:

What element(s) for salvation do you believe Paul allegedly left out when he allegedly "summerized" his gospel in 1 Cor. 15:1-4. Perhaps that will help me to understand your claims. The text has given to me that any other element added to what Paul stated in those verses is works-based, which he clearly and emphatically argued against.

Thanks

MM

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

I would love to discuss it with you. Get into the nuances of it all. I believe you and I have the same take on the Gospel, and the mystery doctrine.

I do not have the writing skills and thought "on paper" skills you have, but I would like to dive into a more thorough thought process of the "different gospels."

Maybe a thread?

In a nutshell~~ I believe there is one Gospel for salvation. But there are differing "kingdoms" and "realities" for Israel and the Church.

In a manner of speaking, I agree with you. Christ is the same across the two Gospels. He died for all. Faith is also a common element across all, spanning all the way back to Abraham, and before him to Abel.

What is so vastly different between Peter's and James' Gospel and Paul's Gospel is works, especially water "baptism unto the remission of sins." That absolutely is not at all couched within Paul's Gospel to the Gentiles.

So, this does indeed feed into the topic of this thread, in that nobody can lose their salvation if they ever had it to begin with. For them to say that they can is to try and establish a system of works-based salvation. That cheapens the seal of Holy Spirit upon all who are saved. That system of belief is bankrupt and without scriptural merit.

Please do share your thoughts, and thank you for them.

MM

 

[Kroogz]

Hyperdispensationalism

Ah, yes. The "hyper."

It seems that the "hyper" comes out when folks can no longer defend their nonsense.

It's like "unique." Or "Grace"

Add a "hyper" and some unfounded allegations.......... unique and Grace become EVIL.

 

[Genez]

We're all being programmed, Gene. I can spot your programming a mile away.

Your statements about salvation are foolish. Though we differ in some things, you and I both know facts about salvation, and though I don't know you, I don't doubt we are both living out salvation and know great changes over the years in the ways we think and behave. I'll bet you as I also know we have a way to go.

From day one my respect for His Word was deep. I'm sure you are about as averse to human viewpoint as I am. My aversion coupled with His Spirit and realization that started with your Pastor RBT simply lead me to commit to studying it as I realized could be done.

What RBT teaches still stimulates thought. Stimulating my own thinking.
Some of the best thinking I ever had, was when I found myself disagreeing with something he taught.

I knew, that he is a gift from God. A deep mine of knowledge. One that I knew better than to cut myself off from because I disagreed from time to time with him.

If anyone needs an excuse to quit, be patient. It will be given.

I knew that as I determined to continue learning from his excellent teachings.
I have yet to meet anyone who stopped following, capable to come close to his presentation and understanding.
There were pastors learning from him. Even Billy Graham asked him to private mentor him, but that was turned down.
Humble pastors know that they too can have a pastor's pastor over them.

Peter remained learning from Paul.

Peter was humble.

 

[studier]

he KJV makes it clear that there are two different gospels...one OF the circumcision and one OF the uncircumcision.

I stick with the Greek. I show English translations because most don't know Greek. I end up with preferences based mainly upon what I see in the Greek.

At least the KJV is honest in italicizing where it makes insertions as it did with the addition of "the gospel" the second time. IMO the translations that did not insert "the Gospel" the second time are the best to start with because that second time is not on the Greek.

There re: up to 30+ ways "of" (which is a very effortless fall-back translational insertion and interpretation) can be translated. "of" is basically ambiguous and begging elaboration. You can look at an English dictionary definition for "of" and see even the range of meanings in English.

I had this site on my screen from another discussion where it was raised for me to consider. Here's what A.T. Robertson said about Gal2:7-8. He's providing the basic translation using "of" and then interpreting it. When he speaks of "sphere" and "type" re: 2:7 he's analyzing the "of" in regard to the 30+ choices I mentioned. So, he says there are 2 different Gospel spheres and not 2 different Gospel types. As he clarifies, it is the same Gospel. Underlines are mine:

Here's the link: Galatians 2 - Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

Gal2:7
That I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision (οτ πεπιστευμα το ευαγγελιον της ακροβυστιας). Perfect passive indicative of πιστευω, to intrust, which retains the accusative of the thing (το ευαγγελιον) in the passive voice. This clear-cut agreement between the leaders "denotes a distinction of sphere, and not a difference of type" (Lightfoot). Both divisions in the work preach the same "gospel" (not like Galatians 1:6, the Judaizers). It seems hardly fair to the Three to suggest that they at first championed the cause of the Judaizers in the face of Paul's strong language in verse Galatians 2:5.

Gal2:8
He that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision (ο γαρ ενεργησας Πετρω εις αποστολην της περιτομης). Paul here definitely recognizes Peter's leadership (apostleship, αποστολην, late word, already in Acts 1:25; 1 Corinthians 9:2) to the Jews and asserts that Peter acknowledges his apostleship to the Gentiles. This is a complete answer to the Judaizers who denied the genuineness of Paul's apostleship because he was not one of the twelve.

What element(s) for salvation do you believe Paul allegedly left out when he allegedly "summerized" his gospel in 1 Cor. 15:1-4. Perhaps that will help me to understand your claims. The text has given to me that any other element added to what Paul stated in those verses is works-based, which he clearly and emphatically argued against.

I've already posted quite a bit of work re: Paul's full message in Acts13 c.f. 1Cor. I see no need to answer questions that do not interact with that work compared with the work I posted on Acts2.

 

[studier]

Ah, yes. The "hyper."

It seems that the "hyper" comes out when folks can no longer defend their nonsense.

It's like "unique." Or "Grace"

Add a "hyper" and some unfounded allegations.......... unique and Grace become EVIL.

If you think I haven't shown why I think the 2 Gospel theory is wrong, then it's probably because you've missed or can't interact with the details I've posted re: Acts2 and Acts13 compared with 1Cor.

When someone is posting a theology that's just a tradition already established by others and then labeled by others for ready identification, it's hardly a form of escapism to identify it. I could have just begun and rested with I don't agree with that system. Rather I posted some reasoning why. It's not my issue that you guys won't interact with that work and think you're accomplishing something with these little hit-and-run posts. None of you are doing much if anything with Scripture to any meaningful extent.

Also, you frequently bottom line what you refer to as "calvies" (some of which I've enjoyed BTW) and seem to have no issue being perceived as someone who can't defend your views.

You've been taught Dispensationalism. Here's an article concerning how a Dispensationalist organization known among that tradition views Ultra and Hyper Disp. It's not my label, but it is readily recognized one.

Free Grace and Ultra-Dispensationalism – Grace Evangelical Society

 

[SirSolaScriptura]

Can a once truly saved believer backslide too much and lose the gift of salvation? If so do they need to repent and ask for forgiveness through Christ again? Thoughts are welcome and scripture too!

You can repent of falling away,
"My brothers and sisters, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring that person back,
you can be sure that whoever brings the sinner back from wandering will save that person from death and bring about the forgiveness of many sins." (James 5:19-20)

There is also a strong case for Eternal Security, that you can never fully be lost if you are one of Jesus' Sheep,
"My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[a]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one." (John 10:26-30).

 

[studier]

What RBT teaches still stimulates thought. Stimulating my own thinking.
Some of the best thinking I ever had, was when I found myself disagreeing with something he taught.

I knew, that he is a gift from God. A deep mine of knowledge. One that I knew better than to cut myself off from because I disagreed from time to time with him.

If anyone needs an excuse to quit, be patient. It will be given.

I knew that as I determined to continue learning from his excellent teachings.
I have yet to meet anyone who stopped following, capable to come close to his presentation and understanding.
There were pastors learning from him. Even Billy Graham asked him to private mentor him, but that was turned down.
Humble pastors know that they too can have a pastor's pastor over them.

Peter remained learning from Paul.

Peter was humble.

As discussed, I know quite a bit about RBT Ministries. Like any other ministries, I know personally a few that have quit and left it. I also had more than a few experiences defending it before I walked away mostly silently due to doctrinal differences. I also had some politics rear their head at Berachah at one point. And there used to be several sites where something like "Berachah survivors" used to post the problems they felt were caused by the ministry.

Irrespective of all of this, people are people, and they do what they do for whatever their reasons. RBT absolutely stimulates thought. Some like him, some don't. He and Berachah have put out a lot of material and are continuing to do so. For that system of interpretation, IMO they are hard to compare to.

For me, I didn't need an excuse. I simply went as I was lead, as I have explained.

 

[Musicmaster]

I stick with the Greek. I show English translations because most don't know Greek. I end up with preferences based mainly upon what I see in the Greek.

At least the KJV is honest in italicizing where it makes insertions as it did with the addition of "the gospel" the second time. IMO the translations that did not insert "the Gospel" the second time are the best to start with because that second time is not on the Greek.

There re: up to 30+ ways "of" (which is a very effortless fall-back translational insertion and interpretation) can be translated. "of" is basically ambiguous and begging elaboration. You can look at an English dictionary definition for "of" and see even the range of meanings in English.

I had this site on my screen from another discussion where it was raised for me to consider. Here's what A.T. Robertson said about Gal2:7-8. He's providing the basic translation using "of" and then interpreting it. When he speaks of "sphere" and "type" re: 2:7 he's analyzing the "of" in regard to the 30+ choices I mentioned. So, he says there are 2 different Gospel spheres and not 2 different Gospel types. As he clarifies, it is the same Gospel. Underlines are mine:

Here's the link: Galatians 2 - Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

Gal2:7
That I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision (οτ πεπιστευμα το ευαγγελιον της ακροβυστιας). Perfect passive indicative of πιστευω, to intrust, which retains the accusative of the thing (το ευαγγελιον) in the passive voice. This clear-cut agreement between the leaders "denotes a distinction of sphere, and not a difference of type" (Lightfoot). Both divisions in the work preach the same "gospel" (not like Galatians 1:6, the Judaizers). It seems hardly fair to the Three to suggest that they at first championed the cause of the Judaizers in the face of Paul's strong language in verse Galatians 2:5.

Gal2:8
He that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision (ο γαρ ενεργησας Πετρω εις αποστολην της περιτομης). Paul here definitely recognizes Peter's leadership (apostleship, αποστολην, late word, already in Acts 1:25; 1 Corinthians 9:2) to the Jews and asserts that Peter acknowledges his apostleship to the Gentiles. This is a complete answer to the Judaizers who denied the genuineness of Paul's apostleship because he was not one of the twelve.



I've already posted quite a bit of work re: Paul's full message in Acts13 c.f. 1Cor. I see no need to answer questions that do not interact with that work compared with the work I posted on Acts2.

You're absolutely right in that the KJV put that in there the second time, but the Greek itself, the way it reads, that addition in the English only clarified the cogent meaning of the Greek from which the verse was translated within its context. The grammatical construct of the Greek does not lead to an understanding of one gospel in the sense that all the elements allegedly being absolutely the same and couched within both.

Therein is the reason I asked for you to "summarize" the elements in Paul's Gospel that are of salvational magnitude, never minding the following elements for righteous living, all of which are also faith-based.

MM

 

[studier]

You're absolutely right in that the KJV put that in there the second time, but the Greek itself, the way it reads, that addition in the English only clarified the cogent meaning of the Greek from which the verse was translated within its context. The grammatical construct of the Greek does not lead to an understanding of one gospel in the sense that all the elements allegedly being absolutely the same and couched within both.

Therein is the reason I asked for you to "summarize" the elements in Paul's Gospel that are of salvational magnitude, never minding the following elements for righteous living, all of which are also faith-based.

MM

I understand your point of view re the translation. Obviously, some translators agree with you re: the insertion and some don't. In my translational work my view is to remain as tight to the Greek as possible. One of the issues we have is that few translations do the work necessary to determine and make clear how the translators interpret what's actually being stated in the finer details of the Greek grammar which is what A.T. Robertson did in his commentary I posted from. Re: the interpretation of 2 Gospels, that's mostly just interpretation.

I never got into commentaries much because I didn't want to be influenced when translating. I also don't use these online sites much but mainly just because much of my foundational work was done before they existed and I work from software that provides for me to just work on the Text.

With that said, here's a site with many translations and commentaries. Maybe you've used it. I doubt the commentaries will support your 2 Gospel theory. The few I looked at do not: Galatians 2:7 On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted to preach the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised.

Once again, I posted the elements of both Paul's and Peter's Gospel presentations.

 

[Musicmaster]

I understand your point of view re the translation. Obviously, some translators agree with you re: the insertion and some don't. In my translational work my view is to remain as tight to the Greek as possible. One of the issues we have is that few translations do the work necessary to determine and make clear how the translators interpret what's actually being stated in the finer details of the Greek grammar which is what A.T. Robertson did in his commentary I posted from. Re: the interpretation of 2 Gospels, that's mostly just interpretation.

I never got into commentaries much because I didn't want to be influenced when translating. I also don't use these online sites much but mainly just because much of my foundational work was done before they existed and I work from software that provides for me to just work on the Text.

With that said, here's a site with many translations and commentaries. Maybe you've used it. I doubt the commentaries will support your 2 Gospel theory. The few I looked at do not: Galatians 2:7 On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted to preach the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised.

Once again, I posted the elements of both Paul's and Peter's Gospel presentations.

Question: Suppose there is someone on the street you are talking with, and they ask you what they must do to be saved.

What would be the gospel you share with them...without telling them to read through all the pages of this forum board the things you said you had already covered? What summary would you give to them? What set of bullet points would you present?

MM

 

[studier]

Question: Suppose there is someone on the street you are talking with, and they ask you what they must do to be saved.

What would be the gospel you share with them...without telling them to read through all the pages of this forum board the things you said you had already covered? What summary would you give to them? What set of bullet points would you present?

MM

Brief overview:

Foundationally, I go with Paul's only foundation that can be laid, Jesus is the Christ, and I thus explain who and what the Christ is just as Paul and Peter did in Acts.

My assumption is that all know certain things about God per Romans1. If they haven't rejected this knowledge of Him that He says all men have been given, then they already have some degree of knowledge of His ultimate power and divinity and authority, including judgment. Jesus is His Anointed King with all delegated authority over all of us and over all creation

From there His death on our behalf for our sins/disobediences, burial and resurrection which proved He is YHWH's Christ, and which set the precedence for our resurrected eternal life with Him.

There's always much said about the thief on the cross. IMO we see the Lordship, Kingdom, death, and resurrection or at least the understanding of death not being final when we read that brief section of Scripture. The thief was not ignorant of matters of ultimate importance.

I don't think all of this is that difficult. It's ultimately about willful submission to absolute authority and Jesus made this clear when He very early informed people of who and what God was seeking among men - John4:20-26 where "worship" means in context to [reverently] bow in obeisance in Spirit and Truth - which Jesus said is necessary (John4:24).

 

[Musicmaster]

Brief overview:

Foundationally, I go with Paul's only foundation that can be laid, Jesus is the Christ, and I thus explain who and what the Christ is just as Paul and Peter did in Acts.

My assumption is that all know certain things about God per Romans1. If they haven't rejected this knowledge of Him that He says all men have been given, then they already have some degree of knowledge of His ultimate power and divinity and authority, including judgment. Jesus is His Anointed King with all delegated authority over all of us and over all creation

From there His death on our behalf for our sins/disobediences, burial and resurrection which proved He is YHWH's Christ, and which set the precedence for our resurrected eternal life with Him.

There's always much said about the thief on the cross. IMO we see the Lordship, Kingdom, death, and resurrection or at least the understanding of death not being final when we read that brief section of Scripture. The thief was not ignorant of matters of ultimate importance.

I don't think all of this is that difficult. It's ultimately about willful submission to absolute authority and Jesus made this clear when He very early informed people of who and what God was seeking among men - John4:20-26 where "worship" means in context to [reverently] bow in obeisance in Spirit and Truth - which Jesus said is necessary (John4:24).

The final analysis, then, is that Paul's gospel in 1 Cor. 15:1-4 is indeed sufficient, from what I collect from within your answer, for he did state that his presentation was indeed the path to salvation...by which we are saved. Is that reasonable and biblical from your perspective?

MM

 

[studier]

The final analysis, then, is that Paul's gospel in 1 Cor. 15:1-4 is indeed sufficient, from what I collect from within your answer, for he did state that his presentation was indeed the path to salvation...by which we are saved. Is that reasonable and biblical from your perspective?

MM

Not apart from the foundation which Paul made clear earlier in 1Cor and that he made absolutely clear in Acts13 as did Peter in Acts2.

Let me approach it like this:

NKJ 1 Corinthians 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you-- unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

• What does "Christ" mean?
• Paul's [only] foundation is Jesus [is the] Christ 1Cor3:11.
• What does Christ mean - what is the Christ?
• If we set this foundation properly, then what have we established that is foundational to man's relationship with His Creator?

 

[CS1]

Can a once truly saved believer backslide too much and lose the gift of salvation? If so do they need to repent and ask for forgiveness through Christ again? Thoughts are welcome and scripture too!

Anyone with the breath of life can repent and be forgiven. The Holy Spirit is far more long-suffering than man. Today is the day of Salvation. God's judgment is absolute, Yet he will not Judge if we repent. Just as he said to the Hebrews. Consently.