Different Gospels

[Thaddeus]

True indeed. He even stated that those who believe upon Him shall be saved, with no mention of water baptism. However, Peter was very specific in his instructions to Israel in Acts 2 where the remission of sins was concerned. Of course, getting wet saved nobody, including the thief on the cross. So where it's true there was some exceptions where faith alone was the prime operator, obedience when feasible was indeed an element for salvation for Israel before our fall.

MM

But did Peter believe his statement made in Acts2:38 must rigidly be adhered to?
Jesus said those who believe and are baptised will be saved. However, he also told Zaccheus salvation had come to him without firstly insisting he was baptised in water.
And after Peter's encounter with Cornelius and his household, Im sure he did not hold strictly to Acts2:38

 

[Thaddeus]

In 1 Corinthians, Paul admitted to baptising some people. If those in the BOC should not be baptised, why did Paul not state he baptised people in error? I would think he should have made that very plain, so people would understand if that was the truth.
Or possibly, Paul was not as enlightened as some are today, he did not realise he baptised in error

 

[Musicmaster]

But did Peter believe his statement made in Acts2:38 must rigidly be adhered to?
Jesus said those who believe and are baptised will be saved. However, he also told Zaccheus salvation had come to him without firstly insisting he was baptised in water.
And after Peter's encounter with Cornelius and his household, Im sure he did not hold strictly to Acts2:38

Commanded baptism for the remission of sins to those who were capable of demonstrating their faith, that was the key. Recall what it is the Lord looks upon, which is the heart of man. We of Israel, being the stiff-necked people we were/are, the acid test of our faith was in the test of our doing as commanded, and we failed miserably. Gentiles had to join with Israel for salvation before and after our fall, but that changed with our fall. We were zealous for the Law, and some of us are still zealous for the Law, but the Law had never been given to Gentiles apart from the four items stated by James in Acts 15.

The Gospel Paul received only from Christ is what he preached, which is the gospel that remained hidden in God from the foundations of the world, and a gospel that, had the princes of this world known about in advance, they would not have crucified Christ. A gospel totally bereft of any and all works of effort, that was unheard of before Paul was instructed about that in Arabia after his Damascus road conversion. What he know of the Kingdom Gospel before his conversion by which he persecuted the believing Jews, he learned that of men, but his gospel that he received from no man, that is the Gospel of Grace that saves today as opposed to the Kingdom Gospel of works.

Does that help?

MM

 

[Thaddeus]

Commanded baptism for the remission of sins to those who were capable of demonstrating their faith, that was the key.

Does that help?

MM

Not really

 

[Musicmaster]

In 1 Corinthians, Paul admitted to baptising some people. If those in the BOC should not be baptised, why did Paul not state he baptised people in error? I would think he should have made that very plain, so people would understand if that was the truth.
Or possibly, Paul was not as enlightened as some are today, he did not realise he baptised in error

There was no error in Paul baptizing. Recall that he never stated that baptism was for the remission of sins to Gentiles as was stated by Peter to Israel, and ONLY Israel. Paul's earlier practice of baptizing ended as he progressed in his ministry, just as did his working of miracles, especially with his declaring that he was not sent to baptize.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Not really

So, what's the problem? What is it you're not getting from what scripture says?

MM

 

[Thaddeus]

There was no error in Paul baptizing. Recall that he never stated that baptism was for the remission of sins to Gentiles as was stated by Peter to Israel, and ONLY Israel. Paul's earlier practice of baptizing ended as he progressed in his ministry, just as did his working of miracles, especially with his declaring that he was not sent to baptize.

MM

Im confused, if Paul did not baptise in error, then baptism must be OK for those in the BOC
I think you are finding it hard to grasp what I am saying
Once again, Jesus said those who believe and are baptised will be saved.
But the practical reality was, Jesus did not insist people were baptised in order to receive salvation
Just as, a baptism for the forgiveness of sins was in place when Jesus walked this earth, but Jesus forgave people their sins without insisting they were first baptised in water
So, Peter's pratical reality could be viewed as was Jesus, in spite of statements made

 

[Thaddeus]

So, what's the problem? What is it you're not getting from what scripture says?

MM

If you understood my posts, you should know

 

[Thaddeus]

We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a cross, 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.” Acts10:39-43

Lines up with 1Cor15:1-4, no mention of baptism there

 

[Musicmaster]

Im confused, if Paul did not baptise in error, then baptism must be OK for those in the BOC

I see no reason to say that it's wrong to be baptized today. The problem is when people force that into a requirement for salvation, as is the case with some groupings out there. I don't recall even implying that it's wrong to do so today, but coupling it to salvation through remission of sins, that's where the problems begin. Water baptism is no longer required for remission of sins, as was the case under the Kingdom Gospel, not the Gospel of Grace.

I think you are finding it hard to grasp what I am saying
Once again, Jesus said those who believe and are baptised will be saved.
But the practical reality was, Jesus did not insist people were baptised in order to receive salvation

What's at issue here is that He did command it, and those who might have gone out claiming that they weren't going to do it, that spoke to a heart issue. Also, that commandment given to Israel alone was rooted in the Law, for Christ Himself was baptized in fulfillment of all righteousness, which was of the Law. All priests had to pass through the cleansing ceremony to enter the priesthood at the age of 30 or older, and Jesus was...30.

So, faith being the foundational motivator for baptism, that's pretty much beyond question. Faith has always been a foundational element dating back to Abraham and beyond.

Just as, a baptism for the forgiveness of sins was in place when Jesus walked this earth, but Jesus forgave people their sins without insisting they were first baptised in water

Yes, and who was/is Jesus. He was/is God, who along can forgive sins. If that's a problem to you, then please qualify that issue. This is interesting is the reason I'm asking.

So, Peter's pratical reality could be viewed as was Jesus, in spite of statements made

Again, Peter was addressing Israel only in his command to them, not to Gentiles. It was Israel who were gathered beneath that balcony where Peter issued that command to Israel.

So, if you would, please explain why God Himself forgiving sins apart from water baptism (for some people) is such an issue. The thief on the cross is one such example, right?

Thanks

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

If you understood my posts, you should know

So, it's wrong to ask for clarification, and instead run on the basis of assumption as is the modus operandi of some?

Sorry, but I'm not of that stripe.

MM

 

[BartholomewB]

The differences are what come across as also more striking, some of which are a down-play on the deity of Christ. This listing that drives this study is much too numerous a discussion that could fill tens and even hundreds of forum pages and posts, which is why I kept the response down to a few paragraphs.

Hope that helps.

MM

Thank you, @Musicmaster. Yes, it does help. You've made it quite clear now.

Regards
Bart

 

[Musicmaster]

We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a cross, 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.” Acts10:39-43

Lines up with 1Cor15:1-4, no mention of baptism there

I explained what you seem to think is a dichotomy between the command for water baptism for those under the Kingdom Gospel, with some of them declared saved without it, and the gospel of Grace.

Leaving aside the Gospel of Grace for now, what really is the problem here?

Some, whose faith was demonstrated in a way that satisfied the Lord and thus His subsequent declaration for their salvation versus the command for water baptism for the masses who were not explicitly declared to be saved on the basis of their faith. That seem to be a rub for you. What really would satisfy your thinking on this? Anything? Would any answer ever really suffice? How high is that bar of evidence in your system of thought?

I can't instruct you in the philosophical "why's" of all this given that it's those who work through the philosophy of this are those who don't lack understanding. It's those who think only on the level of "what/how" who remain confused. That doesn't make anyone superior to the other, but philosophically, the differences in the realms of thought versus action only that demonstrates who can arrive at the answers.

MM

 

[Thaddeus]

I see no reason to say that it's wrong to be baptized today. The problem is when people force that into a requirement for salvation, as is the case with some groupings out there. I don't recall even implying that it's wrong to do so today, but coupling it to salvation through remission of sins, that's where the problems begin. Water baptism is no longer required for remission of sins, as was the case under the Kingdom Gospel, not the Gospel of Grace.



What's at issue here is that He did command it, and those who might have gone out claiming that they weren't going to do it, that spoke to a heart issue. Also, that commandment given to Israel alone was rooted in the Law, for Christ Himself was baptized in fulfillment of all righteousness, which was of the Law. All priests had to pass through the cleansing ceremony to enter the priesthood at the age of 30 or older, and Jesus was...30.

So, faith being the foundational motivator for baptism, that's pretty much beyond question. Faith has always been a foundational element dating back to Abraham and beyond.



Yes, and who was/is Jesus. He was/is God, who along can forgive sins. If that's a problem to you, then please qualify that issue. This is interesting is the reason I'm asking.



Again, Peter was addressing Israel only in his command to them, not to Gentiles. It was Israel who were gathered beneath that balcony where Peter issued that command to Israel.

So, if you would, please explain why God Himself forgiving sins apart from water baptism (for some people) is such an issue. The thief on the cross is one such example, right?

Thanks

MM

Ive already explained the issue, you seem to find it hard to grasp, so there is no point in endlessly repeating myself only for you to ask me to explain what I have more than once explained.

 

[Thaddeus]

So, it's wrong to ask for clarification, and instead run on the basis of assumption as is the modus operandi of some?

Sorry, but I'm not of that stripe.

MM

It is wrong to continually ask for what has many times been stated

 

[Thaddeus]

I explained what you seem to think is a dichotomy between the command for water baptism for those under the Kingdom Gospel, with some of them declared saved without it, and the gospel of Grace.

Leaving aside the Gospel of Grace for now, what really is the problem here?

Some, whose faith was demonstrated in a way that satisfied the Lord and thus His subsequent declaration for their salvation versus the command for water baptism for the masses who were not explicitly declared to be saved on the basis of their faith. That seem to be a rub for you. What really would satisfy your thinking on this? Anything? Would any answer ever really suffice? How high is that bar of evidence in your system of thought?

I can't instruct you in the philosophical "why's" of all this given that it's those who work through the philosophy of this are those who don't lack understanding. It's those who think only on the level of "what/how" who remain confused. That doesn't make anyone superior to the other, but philosophically, the differences in the realms of thought versus action only that demonstrates who can arrive at the answers.

MM

I doubt the philisophical will lead you into spiritual truth

 

[Musicmaster]

If that were what I was saying then I would have indeed been wrong. I was only appealing to the perspective, not the exclusion of the spiritual. That you would go so far as to try and force such an extreme into what I've been saying, that speaks to an either an agenda or a severe lack of understanding/discernment.

If you have questions, then please, by all means, ask.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Folks, generally speaking, the anti-intellectualism of some belief systems that embrace erroneous doctrines need to understand something pivotal, and Norman Geisler had this to say about philosophy rather than to demonize it:

Christian-Specific Reasons to Study Philosophy​

• Imago Dei and Rationality
  • Genesis 1:27: humans are made in God’s image; Genesis 9:6 and James 3:9 affirm this for all people, including unbelievers.
  • Reason is part of God’s image, grounding Christian thinking in divine likeness.
• Fulfillment of the Greatest Command
  • Jesus commands loving God with heart, mind, soul, and strength; loving God with the mind is central.
  • Philosophy helps fulfill this by cultivating rational love and devotion.
• Understanding Theology
  • Theology is reasoning (logos) about God (theos); major theological issues are philosophical.
  • False philosophies (e.g., existentialism shaping neo-orthodoxy via Kierkegaard, influencing Barth, Brunner, Bultmann) yield false theology; sound philosophy supports orthodoxy.
• Effective Evangelism and Pre-Evangelism
  • Evangelism depends on worldview context: theistic contexts (e.g., parts of Africa, South America) ease gospel communication.
  • Pantheistic contexts (e.g., India, Asia: “God is all, all is God”) render gospel claims (e.g., unique Son of God) unintelligible without philosophical bridges.
  • Pre-evangelism (per Francis Schaeffer) moves non-theistic/pantheistic views toward theism so the gospel is coherent; anecdote: a Jewish student found resurrection evidence unpersuasive because he didn’t believe in God.
• Defending the Faith (Apologetics)
  • 1 Peter 3:15 calls Christians to give reasons for their hope; Jude urges contending for the faith; Paul defends the gospel (Philippians 1) and reasons on Mars Hill (Acts 17).
  • Scripture prescribes and models rational defense and argument for faith claims.

I hope this helps.

MM

 

[Thaddeus]

At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do. Luke10:21

Something Paul would avidly have agreed with

 

[Musicmaster]

At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do. Luke10:21

Something Paul would avidly have agreed with

It appears you're pushing this into the realm of anti-intellectualism. I hope that's not the case.

MM