False teaching by separating Scripture from Scripture

[ATG]

ATG saidThe only sins Scripture says are forgiven, are confessed past sins. The only sins Scripture says are not forgiven, are future sins in need of repentance. is no that position somewhat legalism?

Rom 3:25
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of past sins, through the forbearance of God;

1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Since it's true by Scripture and not denied, then if you want to call it 'somewhat legalism', go ahead. But what we want to call the truth of Scripture, certainly doesn't change the truth. And if we call the truth of God something that supposed to be bad or degrading, then we are calling God's word evil.

Isa 5:20
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

If God has ever said, that we are already forgiven of all our future sinning, and then says we must repent and confess our sin to be forgiven, then God is a liar.

And simple sense says that if we are forgiven already, then why confess to be forgiven? And how can Christ forgive what we are already forgiven by God? does Christ forgive twice the same thing...

If we're not going to use simple sense in reading Scripture, then how can our faith possibly do the truth of Scripture...Unless of course we're not seeking the truth of Scripture to do, but rather seeking something else of our own faith alone.

Jesus said on the Cross " It is Finished." John 19:30.

Right. Jesus' life on earth ended by His own word. He blew out His last breath at will. No man has power on earth to end his own life by blowing out all his own breath unto death.

That manner of death is partly why the centurion declared Jesus the Son of God.

Mat 27:54
Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

 

[ATG]

Jesus said on the Cross " It is Finished." John 19:30.

This speaks of a Debt paid in full one of past, presence and future.

There's nothing in the those 3 words, that says anything about any debt being paid, must less that the sins of those wicked men crucifying Jesus, are already forgiven.

What we do know from Scripture, is that those men and all other men that sin, must first believe Jesus is the Christ, and is risen from the dead, and repent in Jesus' name, in order to be forgiven by the risen Jesus Christ.

Act 2:22
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?...Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

Rom 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

We shouldn't plug some tradition into some words of Scripture, that do not clearly teach it. Especially not something that has no Scripture anywhere clearly says so, and is only a repeated tradition.

John 19:30: It is Finished.

In any practical sense, Jesus declares that His life in the flesh on earth is now at an end, and immediately gives up the ghost, and by His own will.

If we want to enlarge His words into some greater doctrine, when we have to first prove that doctrine by other Scriptures that plainly say so. There are none for any traditions of Jesus Christ already forgiven anyone's evil doing before doing the evil.

 

[ATG]

is no that position somewhat legalism? Jesus said on the Cross " It is Finished." John 19:30.

This speaks of a Debt paid in full one of past, presence and future.

No Scripture ever teaches that Jesus' finished life on the cross, is the reason Jesus has already forgiven future sins. There is no preforgiven sinning in any Scripture of God, but only of presumptive sinning:

Psa 19:13
Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.

Preforgiven sinning presumes future evil doing, which therefore leads to presumptive sinning, that presumes preforgiveness.

I'll take some time here to go over other bad results, self-contradictions, and impractical problems of such a tradition are our sin being preforgiven:

1.
If Jesus has ever said that we are all forgiven of our future sins, then He makes Himself a liar by also declaring we must repent and confess our present sins, so that He will forgive us and wash us clean from past sins.

Jesus Christ cannot both have forgiven our sins, and will forgive our sins, if we repent. He has either forgiven our sins once for all, or He forgives some sins, but not all. He forgives only past sins confessed. He does not forgive future sins, that are yet done nor confessed.

Since Jesus forgives all sins, when He forgives, then he has forgiven all past sins, not future sins. he forgives all manner of sins, but only those sins that are past.

Rom 3:25
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

2.
Since Jesus did die for all sins of the world, then if all sins are already forgiven, then all people of the world are already forgiven and cleansed of all unrighteousness. Which is in fact taught by some Christians, where faith is just a matter of 'realizing' they are already forgiven and washed clean.

3.
Jesus being the forgiver of all sins, is of all manner of sins, not of all sins past, present, and future. Jesus has not already forgiven any sin that is committed, without first being repented and confessed to Jesus.

And being forgiven for past sins, if we do sin, we must also confess to our Advocate like any other that has sinned, to be forgiven and washed clean.

1Jo 2:1
My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. But if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

3.
What kind of responsible child thinks for one minute, that because their parent has forgiven their recent violation, that they are therefore already forgiven of doing it again?

4.
And what if we don't transgress again? How can no future sins be forgiven, much less already forgiven? There's no condemnation without transgression, and so no need of pardon.

If we are told we are forgiven for something we didn't do, it's not forgiveness but an accusation. Likewise, if we are told that we are already forgiven for evil we have not done, it's not forgiveness but an accusation of future evil.

Saying that we are already forgiven of future sins, is not a good promise, but an evil prophecy of future evil doing. The innocent are being maliciously prepardoned for an evil they don't do.

Jesus Christ does not accuse nor prophecy His own people of future evil doing. He only promises to forgive and wash us, if we sin, not when we sin.

1Jo 2:1
My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. But if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

And that of course is the whole rub of the tradition itself: To claim a preforgiveness for future transgressions, that some unrepented Christians know they will certainly do again. They do not preach if we sin, but only when we sin.

Jesus Christ of the Scriptures only promises to forgive us if we sin, and only if we also repent and confess our sin with godly sorrow:

1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

2 Cor 7:10
For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of:

The whole tradition of being told we are already forgiven of all sins, not just past, but also at present and in the future, is not only without Scripture ever saying so, but is also a false promise to the unrepentant future trasngressors.

And worse, it's also an evil accusation and bad prophecy to any person that has repented of our past sins, and does not commit them.
And we certainly should never be told that we will certainly do them in future, even as some bad prophets preach today, not only to their own congregations, but also to all other churches of God.

 

[ATG]

This speaks of a Debt paid in full one of past, presence and future. By the work of the cross. Salvation comes to those who have repented and placed their faith in the work of the Lord Jesus Christ. All my sin were washed away I did not have to confess each sin but accept that I was a sinner and guilty.

True. Jesus forgives all past sins without numeration, when we come to Him to repent and be saved.

Needing Christ to save me. Now that I am saved. The work of the Holy Spirit in me is to bring about holiness unto Lord. There are times I must ask for God to forgive me because I have said or done something that was wrong.

True again. Once saved, we keep His commandments to sin not. But if we do sin, we can confess our sin and be forgiven and washed clean.

The lost person only has to come under conviction and see their need for Christ and repent of sin. That covers all the sins ones did prior to Salvation.

True again.

You preach Jesus being the propitation of all manner of sins. You do not preach being saved, and so already forgiven of past, present, and future sins.

 

[Inquisitor]

There's nothing in the those 3 words, that says anything about any debt being paid, must less that the sins of those wicked men crucifying Jesus, are already forgiven.

What we do know from Scripture, is that those men and all other men that sin, must first believe Jesus is the Christ, and is risen from the dead, and repent in Jesus' name, in order to be forgiven by the risen Jesus Christ.

Act 2:22
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?...Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

Rom 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

We shouldn't plug some tradition into some words of Scripture, that do not clearly teach it. Especially not something that has no Scripture anywhere clearly says so, and is only a repeated tradition.

John 19:30: It is Finished.

In any practical sense, Jesus declares that His life in the flesh on earth is now at an end, and immediately gives up the ghost, and by His own will.

If we want to enlarge His words into some greater doctrine, when we have to first prove that doctrine by other Scriptures that plainly say so. There are none for any traditions of Jesus Christ already forgiven anyone's evil doing before doing the evil.

You need to explain the following paragraph in Acts.

Acts 11:14-18
He will convey to you a message by which you and all your household will be saved.
As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, just as He had fallen upon us at the beginning.
Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with
the Holy Spirit.’ So if God gave them the same gift He gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to hinder
the work of God?” When they heard this, they had no further objections, and they glorified God, saying, “So then, God has
granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life.”

The Gentiles received the Holy Spirit without a water baptism and without any repentance.

The message itself that Peter spoke was the sole reason for the salvation of the Gentiles.

 

[ATG]

May I ask if you obey Exodus 20?

Show me where the commandments of Exodus 20 are preached by the apostles, and yes I do.

I know one of them isn't, the Sabbath 4th, and no I don't.

 

[Inquisitor]

Show me where the commandments of Exodus 20 are preached by the apostles, and yes I do.

I know one of them isn't, the Sabbath 4th, and no I don't.

So are you under the law or not?

 

[Inquisitor]

Show me where the commandments of Exodus 20 are preached by the apostles, and yes I do.

I know one of them isn't, the Sabbath 4th, and no I don't.

If you are under the law then you are a legalist.

Your algorithm for salvation is displayed below.

Salvation = law + Jesus + repentance + sacraments (water baptism, breaking the bread, fellowship, etc)

 

[GWH]

Where does Scripture ever announce that water baptism ceased to have the significance given to it by Jesus, Peter, and Paul?

Scripture reveals a transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. But that does not establish that the commands given as part of the New Covenant gospel were themselves transitional.

In fact, the evidence points in the opposite direction:

Jesus after His resurrection commanded water baptism → Peter commanded it at Pentecost → Peter commanded it for Spirit-filled Gentiles → Paul administered it at Ephesus → Paul explained its relationship to Christ's death, burial, and resurrection → Peter later said “baptism doth also now save us.”


The transition was into this New Covenant message, not away from it.

The fact that Acts records the transition from the Old Covenant to the New does not mean that everything occurring during that transition was temporary. The real question is what the apostles continued to command as part of the New Covenant gospel. Water baptism was commanded by the resurrected Christ (Mark 16:16; Matt. 28:19), preached at Pentecost for remission of sins (Acts 2:38), commanded even after Gentiles had received the Holy Ghost (Acts 10:44–48), administered by Paul (Acts 19:5), connected with washing away sins in Paul's own testimony (Acts 22:16), and later explained as burial with Christ and participation in His death (Rom. 6:3–4; Col. 2:12).

Scripture never announces a later point at which water baptism became optional or was replaced by Spirit baptism. On the contrary, Acts 10 proves that receiving the Spirit did not eliminate the command to be baptized in water. The transition was from the Old Covenant into the New Covenant gospel—not from commanded water baptism into a later, Spirit-only gospel.

Some people (“Actsists”) focus on events in Acts such as water baptism (WB) and glossolalia rather than on teachings in the epistles about faith/Spirit baptism being what is essential (“Faithists”). The book of Acts does not teach foundational Christian doctrine but merely records what occurred during the early days of the church era as the revelation of GRFS transitioned from OT beliefs to the NT doctrine that is taught in the epistles, which never command WB or tongues as signs of SB or as essential for salvation.

The transition can be seen as occurring in Acts 16:31-34, where Paul told the jailer to believe in the Lord Jesus in order to be saved, NOT to believe and be WB in order to be saved. However, the jailer and others in his family who believed in God were WB.
Then in Acts 17:30-34 Paul told the Athenians to repent, which some did, but whether they were WB is not mentioned.
Then in Acts 19:1-6 Paul encountered some disciples of John who had been WB but had not been taught about SB, so they received SB when Paul placed his hands on them.
Then in Acts 26:16-18, when Paul recounted his calling to King Agrippa, he quoted Jesus as saying, “I am sending you to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.” WB was not mentioned, which continued to be the case in Paul’s epistles.

The foundation cited in 1Corinthisans 3:11 is Christ, referring to faith in Christ’s atonement (Rom. 3:12-5:1). Instructions about baptisms are mentioned in Hebrews 6:2, which logically, semantically, and mathematically had to be that WB is a sign or rite portraying a soul has been SB (Col. 2:12), since there is only one baptism (Eph. 4:5) into one body (Eph. 4:4, 1Cor. 12:13). This understanding was held by Christians generally until RC perverted it by practicing infant sprinkling, which was corrected by the Anabaptists during the Protestant Reformation.

By the last of Paul’s epistles, WB came to be understood as a good but non-essential work or rite, like physical circumcision, and the basis for believing folks are filled with the HS is reflecting God’s love for everyone (Matt. 22:37-40, 1John 4:7-21, John 13:35, Rom. 5:5, Gal. 5:6 & 22, etc.). However, this is a logical inference rather than an explicit NT statement. Then, like now, the rite is performed as an apt way of portraying saving faith in the atonement of Christ, even though the work is not required, just as physical circumcision was not required for salvation either per Paul in Romans 3:21-5:1.

 

[ATG]

The Bible does not use the exact phrase "past, present, and future sins,"

No, but Scripture certainly does account for all.

If we repent and confess our past sins, He is faithful and just to forgive and wash us from all past sinning.

If we repent and confess our present sin, He is faithful and just to forgive and wash us from our sin that is now past.

If we do sin in future, and if we do repent and confess our sin, He is faithful and just to forgive and wash us from our past sinning.

Jesus does not forgive any present transgression being done, until it is repented and confessed. If we do not die in our transgression. We are not promised repentance and forgiveness, while transgressing His commandments.

Jesus does not forgive any future transgression, that has not been committed, much less repented and confessed.

but it explicitly states that Jesus made a complete and final payment.

Colossians 2:13-14: God forgave all our trespasses, cancelling the record of debt that stood against us.

Hebrews 10:14: By a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being made holy.

Hebrews 9:26: He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

At the moment of saving faith, an elect believer is entirely justified. All sins—including those not yet committed—are legally atoned for because every sin was already "future" when Christ died.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between all manner of sins being forgiven at once, and all present and future sins being already forgiven. The former is the propitiation of Jesus for all the sins of the world. The latter is a false promise for unrepenting transgressors.

Jesus' propitiation is for all manner of sins past, present, and future, that any child, man, and woman can commit.

Therefore, if we do sin and transgress, then we certainly can be forgiven, if we repent and confess to Jesus Christ. No present or future sinning is already forgiven at all.

However, there is also no promise of tomorrow, to repent and confess of transgression today. There is no promise of not dying by our transgression, before we can repent and be forgiven.

2 Cor 7:10
For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of:

Nor is there any promise, that our hearts will not be hardened by transgression, and that God will draw us back to Him with sorrow unto repentance.

Psa 19:13
Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.

Presumtpive sinning by God's people, is in two ways: That we are already forgiven of present and future transgressions. Or, that God will always draw us back with godly sorrow to repent and be forgiven.

God can and has in Scripture given up on His own people, hardened in their own transgressions, and left to their own devices unto the grave.

Rom 1:21
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Rom 1:28
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

God declares the believer not guilty once and for all, meaning a Christian can never be condemned or lose their eternal salvation.

The gospel of justifying one evil doer, while condemning another evil doer, is unjust and unrighteous.

Rom 2:3
And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

Being declared not guilty of all past transgressions, is the gospel of Jesus Christ. Being delcared not guilty of any present and future transgressions, is the lie of being preforgiven of all future sins. It's the deciet of unjust judges playing favorites.

1 Peter {1:15}
But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work,

Like all people on earth created in God's own image, if we transgress God's commandment, we are judged for doing evil, the same as any transgressor on earth. And, We are judged more guilty than them that do not name Christ,

Jhn 19:11
Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

2Pe 2:20
For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

We can seek to respect our faith apart from our works, but the righteous Judge Jesus Christ does not respect nor justify any person doing evil against Him, least of all them naming His name with iniquity.

2Ti 2:19
Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

Even though legal guilt is removed, believers must still confess daily sins. This is not to win back judicial pardon or save oneself over again. Instead, it is relational. Sin disrupts our intimate fellowship with God as a Father, and confession restores that warm communion and clears the conscience, much like an apology within a human family.

Separating salvation from fellowship with God, is as false as separating justification from sanctification of God.

1Co 6:11
And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

1Jo 1:5
This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

If we are not fellowshipping with Jesus Christ in the light, we are not washed clean from our own unrighteousness. If we are not washed by Him, we are not justified with Him.

Jhn 13:8
Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.

If we are doing works of darkness, we are not walking in the light of the true God, and have not that true Light Jesus Christ washing and dwelling in us.

Mat 6:23
But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

You haven't corrected anything, all you have offered is your own private opinions, all of which are unbiblical.

I always give Scripture for what I teach. And I'm always glad to anwer any fair challenges to the scriptures and teaching I give. Correction only perfects the teaching and the teacher. And so I always do the same for others.

But, if anyone just talks around what I give, without even addressing the Scripture and the teaching, much less showing any error between them, then it doesn't change nor disprove the teaching of the Scripture I give.

 

[Journey_man]

No, but Scripture certainly does account for all.

If we repent and confess our past sins, He is faithful and just to forgive and wash us from all past sinning.

If we repent and confess our present sin, He is faithful and just to forgive and wash us from our sin that is now past.

If we do sin in future, and if we do repent and confess our sin, He is faithful and just to forgive and wash us from our past sinning.

Jesus does not forgive any present transgression being done, until it is repented and confessed. If we do not die in our transgression. We are not promised repentance and forgiveness, while transgressing His commandments.

Jesus does not forgive any future transgression, that has not been committed, much less repented and confessed.


There is a difference between all manner of sins being forgiven at once, and all present and future sins being already forgiven. The former is the propitiation of Jesus for all the sins of the world. The latter is a false promise for unrepenting transgressors.

Jesus' propitiation is for all manner of sins past, present, and future, that any child, man, and woman can commit.

Therefore, if we do sin and transgress, then we certainly can be forgiven, if we repent and confess to Jesus Christ. No present or future sinning is already forgiven at all.

However, there is also no promise of tomorrow, to repent and confess of transgression today. There is no promise of not dying by our transgression, before we can repent and be forgiven.

2 Cor 7:10
For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of:

Nor is there any promise, that our hearts will not be hardened by transgression, and that God will draw us back to Him with sorrow unto repentance.

Psa 19:13
Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.

Presumtpive sinning by God's people, is in two ways: That we are already forgiven of present and future transgressions. Or, that God will always draw us back with godly sorrow to repent and be forgiven.

God can and has in Scripture given up on His own people, hardened in their own transgressions, and left to their own devices unto the grave.

Rom 1:21
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Rom 1:28
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;




The gospel of justifying one evil doer, while condemning another evil doer, is unjust and unrighteous.

Rom 2:3
And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

Being declared not guilty of all past transgressions, is the gospel of Jesus Christ. Being delcared not guilty of any present and future transgressions, is the lie of being preforgiven of all future sins. It's the deciet of unjust judges playing favorites.

1 Peter {1:15}
But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work,

Like all people on earth created in God's own image, if we transgress God's commandment, we are judged for doing evil, the same as any transgressor on earth. And, We are judged more guilty than them that do not name Christ,

Jhn 19:11
Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

2Pe 2:20
For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

We can seek to respect our faith apart from our works, but the righteous Judge Jesus Christ does not respect nor justify any person doing evil against Him, least of all them naming His name with iniquity.

2Ti 2:19
Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.


Separating salvation from fellowship with God, is as false as separating justification from sanctification of God.

1Co 6:11
And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

1Jo 1:5
This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

If we are not fellowshipping with Jesus Christ in the light, we are not washed clean from our own unrighteousness. If we are not washed by Him, we are not justified with Him.

Jhn 13:8
Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.

If we are doing works of darkness, we are not walking in the light of the true God, and have not that true Light Jesus Christ washing and dwelling in us.

Mat 6:23
But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

I always give Scripture for what I teach. And I'm always glad to anwer any fair challenges to the scriptures and teaching I give. Correction only perfects the teaching and the teacher. And so I always do the same for others.

But, if anyone just talks around what I give, without even addressing the Scripture and the teaching, much less showing any error between them, then it doesn't change nor disprove the teaching of the Scripture I give.

None of the above verses say that salvation can be lost. If your interpretation of those verses was correct, then it would mean that the Bible contradicts itself.

Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
Christ perfected for all time those who are sanctified by a single offering, meaning no future sacrifice or re-justification is ever needed.

The once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus Christ legally paid for every sin—past, present, and future—of the elect, meaning a believer's ultimate legal status of justification is permanently secure. However, we need to carefully distinguish between forensic (legal) forgiveness and ongoing relational fellowship with God, maintaining that believers must still daily repent of new sins.

Romans 8:1 declares there is "no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus", this all-encompassing judicial verdict covers a believer's entire life span.
Colossians 2:13-14 notes that God has forgiven all our trespasses, having cancelled the record of debt that stood against us.

The legal penalty for all future sins was settled at the cross. A Christian does not become "un-justified" or spiritually unborn when they sin. When a believer sins, they sin against their Heavenly Father. This brings a temporary break in experiential communion and invites God's loving fatherly discipline rather than His judicial wrath.

Believers continue to pray for and confess sin, not to secure a new salvation or reverse damnation, but to restore active fellowship, humble the heart, and clear the conscience.

 

[Wansvic]

Some people (“Actsists”) focus on events in Acts such as water baptism (WB) and glossolalia rather than on teachings in the epistles about faith/Spirit baptism being what is essential (“Faithists”). The book of Acts does not teach foundational Christian doctrine but merely records what occurred during the early days of the church era as the revelation of GRFS transitioned from OT beliefs to the NT doctrine that is taught in the epistles, which never command WB or tongues as signs of SB or as essential for salvation.

The transition can be seen as occurring in Acts 16:31-34, where Paul told the jailer to believe in the Lord Jesus in order to be saved, NOT to believe and be WB in order to be saved. However, the jailer and others in his family who believed in God were WB.
Then in Acts 17:30-34 Paul told the Athenians to repent, which some did, but whether they were WB is not mentioned.
Then in Acts 19:1-6 Paul encountered some disciples of John who had been WB but had not been taught about SB, so they received SB when Paul placed his hands on them.
Then in Acts 26:16-18, when Paul recounted his calling to King Agrippa, he quoted Jesus as saying, “I am sending you to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.” WB was not mentioned, which continued to be the case in Paul’s epistles.

The foundation cited in 1Corinthisans 3:11 is Christ, referring to faith in Christ’s atonement (Rom. 3:12-5:1). Instructions about baptisms are mentioned in Hebrews 6:2, which logically, semantically, and mathematically had to be that WB is a sign or rite portraying a soul has been SB (Col. 2:12), since there is only one baptism (Eph. 4:5) into one body (Eph. 4:4, 1Cor. 12:13). This understanding was held by Christians generally until RC perverted it by practicing infant sprinkling, which was corrected by the Anabaptists during the Protestant Reformation.

By the last of Paul’s epistles, WB came to be understood as a good but non-essential work or rite, like physical circumcision, and the basis for believing folks are filled with the HS is reflecting God’s love for everyone (Matt. 22:37-40, 1John 4:7-21, John 13:35, Rom. 5:5, Gal. 5:6 & 22, etc.). However, this is a logical inference rather than an explicit NT statement. Then, like now, the rite is performed as an apt way of portraying saving faith in the atonement of Christ, even though the work is not required, just as physical circumcision was not required for salvation either per Paul in Romans 3:21-5:1.

The problem with the “Actsists versus Faithists” argument is that Scripture never creates such a distinction. Acts records the gospel the apostles preached and the Epistles explain that same gospel to believers who had already received it. There is no Scripture saying that Acts represents a temporary salvation message that was later replaced by Paul's Epistles.

Acts 16 does not indicate a transition away from baptism. Paul told the jailer, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved”, but the account does not stop there. Paul then “spake unto him the word of the Lord”, and the jailer was baptized “the same hour of the night...straightway” . Rather than showing baptism becoming optional, the passage shows what believing the gospel produced when Paul's message was fully explained.

As for, Acts 17 mentioning repentance without mentioning baptism proves nothing about baptism being eliminated. By that reasoning, we could also conclude that the Athenians did not receive the Holy Ghost because receiving the Spirit is not mentioned. Silence about something in one abbreviated account does not overturn explicit teaching elsewhere.

Acts 19 is even more problematic for the proposed transition. Paul encountered disciples who had already received John's baptism, yet he had them rebaptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5). He then laid hands upon them, “the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues”. This occurred at Ephesus, the very place whose believers Paul later reminded that after hearing “the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation,” they were “sealed with that holy Spirit of promise” (Ephesians 1:13). Acts shows us what Paul actually preached at Ephesus; Ephesians does not contradict or replace it.

Acts 26:18 does not eliminate baptism merely because Paul's testimony before Agrippa does not mention it. Paul's fuller testimony explicitly records Ananias telling him: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Acts 22:16
One account cannot be used to erase details supplied by another.

Nor did Paul ever teach that water baptism eventually became equivalent to obsolete physical circumcision. Paul explicitly argues against requiring circumcision, but where does he ever say Christian water baptism is no longer required? Instead, he writes:

“Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death.”
—Romans 6:4

And:

“Buried with him in baptism...through the faith of the operation of God.”
—Colossians 2:12

Paul does not oppose baptism to faith. He connects baptism with faith in God's operation.

The claim that Ephesians 4:5's “one baptism” means water baptism had disappeared is also an assumption. Paul practiced water baptism (Acts 19:5), wrote about baptism into Christ (Romans 6:3–4), and said believers had “put on Christ” through baptism (Galatians 3:27).

Cornelius makes the distinction particularly clear. He received the Holy Ghost and spoke with tongues (Acts 10:44–46), yet afterward Peter still:

“commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.”
—Acts 10:48

If Spirit baptism made water baptism merely optional, why did Peter command Spirit-filled believers to be baptized?

The same problem exists with claiming that love replaced tongues as the evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost. Love and the fruit of the Spirit describe the Spirit's continuing work in a believer's life (Gal. 5:22). Acts describes what occurred when people initially received the Holy Ghost: Acts 2:4 records tongues at Pentecost, Acts 10:46 says Peter's companions knew the Gentiles had received the Spirit “for they heard them speak with tongues,” and Acts 19:6 again records tongues when the Ephesians received the Spirit. Scripture never says love replaced that initial evidence.

Most importantly, the proposed transition from commanded water baptism to an optional rite is admittedly “a logical inference rather than an explicit NT statement.” That is the central weakness of your argument.


Scripture explicitly says:

• Acts 2:38 — “Repent, and be baptized...in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.”
• Acts 10:48 — Peter “commanded them to be baptized.”
• Acts 22:16 — “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins.”
• Romans 6:4 — “Buried with him by baptism.”
• Galatians 3:27 — “Baptized into Christ” and “put on Christ.”
• Colossians 2:12 — “Buried with him in baptism...through faith.”

By contrast, where does Scripture explicitly say water baptism later became optional?

When physical circumcision ceased to be a covenant requirement, the apostles clearly addressed the issue (Acts 15; Gal. 5). Yet there is no scripture announcing that water baptism changed from an apostolic command associated with Christ, His name, remission of sins, and burial with Him into a merely optional ceremony.

That supposed transition must therefore be read into Scripture rather than derived from an explicit biblical statement.

Acts and the Epistles do not teach competing gospels. Acts shows the apostolic gospel being preached and obeyed; the Epistles explain the meaning of that same gospel to people who had already received it. We should allow them to interpret one another rather than use the silence of selected Epistles to overturn the explicit commands and examples recorded in Acts.

 

[GWH]

The problem with the “Actsists versus Faithists” argument is that Scripture never creates such a distinction. Acts records the gospel the apostles preached and the Epistles explain that same gospel to believers who had already received it. There is no Scripture saying that Acts represents a temporary salvation message that was later replaced by Paul's Epistles.

Acts 16 does not indicate a transition away from baptism. Paul told the jailer, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved”, but the account does not stop there. Paul then “spake unto him the word of the Lord”, and the jailer was baptized “the same hour of the night...straightway” . Rather than showing baptism becoming optional, the passage shows what believing the gospel produced when Paul's message was fully explained.

As for, Acts 17 mentioning repentance without mentioning baptism proves nothing about baptism being eliminated. By that reasoning, we could also conclude that the Athenians did not receive the Holy Ghost because receiving the Spirit is not mentioned. Silence about something in one abbreviated account does not overturn explicit teaching elsewhere.

Acts 19 is even more problematic for the proposed transition. Paul encountered disciples who had already received John's baptism, yet he had them rebaptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5). He then laid hands upon them, “the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues”. This occurred at Ephesus, the very place whose believers Paul later reminded that after hearing “the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation,” they were “sealed with that holy Spirit of promise” (Ephesians 1:13). Acts shows us what Paul actually preached at Ephesus; Ephesians does not contradict or replace it.

Acts 26:18 does not eliminate baptism merely because Paul's testimony before Agrippa does not mention it. Paul's fuller testimony explicitly records Ananias telling him: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Acts 22:16
One account cannot be used to erase details supplied by another.

Nor did Paul ever teach that water baptism eventually became equivalent to obsolete physical circumcision. Paul explicitly argues against requiring circumcision, but where does he ever say Christian water baptism is no longer required? Instead, he writes:


And:

Paul does not oppose baptism to faith. He connects baptism with faith in God's operation.

The claim that Ephesians 4:5's “one baptism” means water baptism had disappeared is also an assumption. Paul practiced water baptism (Acts 19:5), wrote about baptism into Christ (Romans 6:3–4), and said believers had “put on Christ” through baptism (Galatians 3:27).

Cornelius makes the distinction particularly clear. He received the Holy Ghost and spoke with tongues (Acts 10:44–46), yet afterward Peter still:


If Spirit baptism made water baptism merely optional, why did Peter command Spirit-filled believers to be baptized?

The same problem exists with claiming that love replaced tongues as the evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost. Love and the fruit of the Spirit describe the Spirit's continuing work in a believer's life (Gal. 5:22). Acts describes what occurred when people initially received the Holy Ghost: Acts 2:4 records tongues at Pentecost, Acts 10:46 says Peter's companions knew the Gentiles had received the Spirit “for they heard them speak with tongues,” and Acts 19:6 again records tongues when the Ephesians received the Spirit. Scripture never says love replaced that initial evidence.

Most importantly, the proposed transition from commanded water baptism to an optional rite is admittedly “a logical inference rather than an explicit NT statement.” That is the central weakness of your argument.


Scripture explicitly says:

• Acts 2:38 — “Repent, and be baptized...in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.”
• Acts 10:48 — Peter “commanded them to be baptized.”
• Acts 22:16 — “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins.”
• Romans 6:4 — “Buried with him by baptism.”
• Galatians 3:27 — “Baptized into Christ” and “put on Christ.”
• Colossians 2:12 — “Buried with him in baptism...through faith.”

By contrast, where does Scripture explicitly say water baptism later became optional?

When physical circumcision ceased to be a covenant requirement, the apostles clearly addressed the issue (Acts 15; Gal. 5). Yet there is no scripture announcing that water baptism changed from an apostolic command associated with Christ, His name, remission of sins, and burial with Him into a merely optional ceremony.

That supposed transition must therefore be read into Scripture rather than derived from an explicit biblical statement.

Acts and the Epistles do not teach competing gospels. Acts shows the apostolic gospel being preached and obeyed; the Epistles explain the meaning of that same gospel to people who had already received it. We should allow them to interpret one another rather than use the silence of selected Epistles to overturn the explicit commands and examples recorded in Acts.

Okay, we have both shared our interpretations of the NT regarding baptism (again),
so the readers can decide which to believe, although I will (again) point out that your view
amounts to salvation via works (the rite of water baptism is required for salvation) which is heretical.
Hope you will reconsider!

 

[Dino246]

There's nothing in the those 3 words, that says anything about any debt being paid, must less that the sins of those wicked men crucifying Jesus, are already forgiven.

What we do know from Scripture, is that those men and all other men that sin, must first believe Jesus is the Christ, and is risen from the dead, and repent in Jesus' name, in order to be forgiven by the risen Jesus Christ.

Act 2:22
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?...Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

Rom 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

We shouldn't plug some tradition into some words of Scripture, that do not clearly teach it. Especially not something that has no Scripture anywhere clearly says so, and is only a repeated tradition.

John 19:30: It is Finished.

In any practical sense, Jesus declares that His life in the flesh on earth is now at an end, and immediately gives up the ghost, and by His own will.

If we want to enlarge His words into some greater doctrine, when we have to first prove that doctrine by other Scriptures that plainly say so. There are none for any traditions of Jesus Christ already forgiven anyone's evil doing before doing the evil.

You haven't done your homework on this. I suggest you do so before making any more ignorant pronouncements.

 

[Inquisitor]

You haven't done your homework on this. I suggest you do so before making any more ignorant pronouncements.

Your reply was spot on.

We shouldn't plug some tradition into some words of Scripture, that do not clearly teach it. Especially not something that has no Scripture anywhere clearly says so, and is only a repeated tradition.

 

[Inquisitor]

The problem with the “Actsists versus Faithists” argument is that Scripture never creates such a distinction. Acts records the gospel the apostles preached and the Epistles explain that same gospel to believers who had already received it. There is no Scripture saying that Acts represents a temporary salvation message that was later replaced by Paul's Epistles.

Acts 16 does not indicate a transition away from baptism. Paul told the jailer, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved”, but the account does not stop there. Paul then “spake unto him the word of the Lord”, and the jailer was baptized “the same hour of the night...straightway” . Rather than showing baptism becoming optional, the passage shows what believing the gospel produced when Paul's message was fully explained.

As for, Acts 17 mentioning repentance without mentioning baptism proves nothing about baptism being eliminated. By that reasoning, we could also conclude that the Athenians did not receive the Holy Ghost because receiving the Spirit is not mentioned. Silence about something in one abbreviated account does not overturn explicit teaching elsewhere.

Acts 19 is even more problematic for the proposed transition. Paul encountered disciples who had already received John's baptism, yet he had them rebaptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5). He then laid hands upon them, “the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues”. This occurred at Ephesus, the very place whose believers Paul later reminded that after hearing “the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation,” they were “sealed with that holy Spirit of promise” (Ephesians 1:13). Acts shows us what Paul actually preached at Ephesus; Ephesians does not contradict or replace it.

Acts 26:18 does not eliminate baptism merely because Paul's testimony before Agrippa does not mention it. Paul's fuller testimony explicitly records Ananias telling him: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Acts 22:16
One account cannot be used to erase details supplied by another.

Nor did Paul ever teach that water baptism eventually became equivalent to obsolete physical circumcision. Paul explicitly argues against requiring circumcision, but where does he ever say Christian water baptism is no longer required? Instead, he writes:


And:

Paul does not oppose baptism to faith. He connects baptism with faith in God's operation.

The claim that Ephesians 4:5's “one baptism” means water baptism had disappeared is also an assumption. Paul practiced water baptism (Acts 19:5), wrote about baptism into Christ (Romans 6:3–4), and said believers had “put on Christ” through baptism (Galatians 3:27).

Cornelius makes the distinction particularly clear. He received the Holy Ghost and spoke with tongues (Acts 10:44–46), yet afterward Peter still:


If Spirit baptism made water baptism merely optional, why did Peter command Spirit-filled believers to be baptized?

The same problem exists with claiming that love replaced tongues as the evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost. Love and the fruit of the Spirit describe the Spirit's continuing work in a believer's life (Gal. 5:22). Acts describes what occurred when people initially received the Holy Ghost: Acts 2:4 records tongues at Pentecost, Acts 10:46 says Peter's companions knew the Gentiles had received the Spirit “for they heard them speak with tongues,” and Acts 19:6 again records tongues when the Ephesians received the Spirit. Scripture never says love replaced that initial evidence.

Most importantly, the proposed transition from commanded water baptism to an optional rite is admittedly “a logical inference rather than an explicit NT statement.” That is the central weakness of your argument.


Scripture explicitly says:

• Acts 2:38 — “Repent, and be baptized...in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.”
• Acts 10:48 — Peter “commanded them to be baptized.”
• Acts 22:16 — “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins.”
• Romans 6:4 — “Buried with him by baptism.”
• Galatians 3:27 — “Baptized into Christ” and “put on Christ.”
• Colossians 2:12 — “Buried with him in baptism...through faith.”

By contrast, where does Scripture explicitly say water baptism later became optional?

When physical circumcision ceased to be a covenant requirement, the apostles clearly addressed the issue (Acts 15; Gal. 5). Yet there is no scripture announcing that water baptism changed from an apostolic command associated with Christ, His name, remission of sins, and burial with Him into a merely optional ceremony.

That supposed transition must therefore be read into Scripture rather than derived from an explicit biblical statement.

Acts and the Epistles do not teach competing gospels. Acts shows the apostolic gospel being preached and obeyed; the Epistles explain the meaning of that same gospel to people who had already received it. We should allow them to interpret one another rather than use the silence of selected Epistles to overturn the explicit commands and examples recorded in Acts.

John the Baptist used water baptism as an outward symbol of repentance and turning away from sin. He explicitly
stated that Jesus would come after him to baptize people inwardly with the Holy Spirit. While John’s water baptism
prepared people's hearts, Jesus’s spirit baptism brings the inner transformation and divine life.

An inner transformation is what Paul constantly talks about in his letters and that is driven by the Holy Spirit.

Not a one-off public dip in the Jordan river confessing your sins.

I am baffled as to why people cannot see the difference?

 

[Wansvic]

Okay, we have both shared our interpretations of the NT regarding baptism (again),
so the readers can decide which to believe, although I will (again) point out that your view
amounts to salvation via works (the rite of water baptism is required for salvation) which is heretical.
Hope you will reconsider!

Something I believe you are missing is the biblical distinction between works intended to earn salvation and obedience that results from faith.

The Bible clearly teaches that salvation is by the grace of God through faith (Eph. 2:8–9). But Scripture never defines genuine faith as merely believing while refusing to obey what God commands. Biblical faith responds to God.

Noah believed God and built and entered the ark (Heb. 11:7). Israel believed and passed through the Red Sea (Heb. 11:29). Naaman believed God's word and went into the Jordan (2 Kings 5:10–14). The blind man believed Jesus and washed in the pool of Siloam (John 9:7). None of those acts earned God's grace. They were God-ordained responses of faith.

Water baptism should be understood the same way. Being baptized does not earn salvation or place God in our debt. It is an obedient response of faith to the command of Jesus and the gospel preached by His apostles. That is why Peter could command believers, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), and why Ananias told Saul, “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16).

So the issue is not grace versus baptism or faith versus baptism. The biblical question is whether saving faith obeys what God has commanded. Calling obedience to God's command “salvation by works” creates a conflict between faith and obedience that Scripture itself does not create.

 

[Wansvic]

John the Baptist used water baptism as an outward symbol of repentance and turning away from sin. He explicitly
stated that Jesus would come after him to baptize people inwardly with the Holy Spirit. While John’s water baptism
prepared people's hearts, Jesus’s spirit baptism brings the inner transformation and divine life.

An inner transformation is what Paul constantly talks about in his letters and that is driven by the Holy Spirit.

Not a one-off public dip in the Jordan river confessing your sins.

I am baffled as to why people cannot see the difference?

I believe you are misunderstanding something very important. John’s baptism and New Testament water baptism are not the same.

John preached a baptism of repentance that prepared people for the coming Messiah (Mark 1:4; Acts 19:4). But after Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection, the apostles administered water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. Acts 19 reveals the distinction. When Paul encountered disciples who had received only John’s baptism, he did not tell them that water baptism had now been replaced by an inward Spirit baptism. Instead, “when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5). Paul then laid his hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost (Acts 19:6).

That account disproves the idea that John’s water baptism simply gave way to Spirit baptism. John’s baptism gave way to New Testament water baptism in Jesus’ name and receiving the Holy Ghost remained a distinct and necessary part of the New Testament experience.

This same pattern appears throughout Acts. Peter did not tell the people at Pentecost to choose between water baptism and Spirit baptism. He commanded both: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38). The Samaritans were baptized in Jesus’ name and afterward received the Holy Ghost (Acts 8:12–17). Cornelius received the Holy Ghost first, yet Peter still commanded him to be water baptized in the name of the Lord (Acts 10:44–48). Paul himself was told, “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16).

The sequence can vary, but the elements do not disappear. New Testament conversion includes both the remission of sins associated with obedient faith in water baptism and the inward transformation that comes through receiving the Holy Ghost. One does not replace the other.

And, as you stated, Paul did teach inward transformation by the Spirit, but he also taught water baptism. He described believers as being “buried with Jesus by baptism” (Rom. 6:3–4; Col. 2:12). Therefore, contrasting Paul’s teaching about inward transformation with water baptism creates a distinction Paul himself did not make.

The real distinction Scripture makes is not water baptism versus Spirit baptism. It is John’s baptism of repentance versus New Testament water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. Jesus, Himself, foretold the change that was coming. After His death and resurrection, He declared “that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47).

That prophecy is extremely significant. John had already preached repentance and administered his baptism of repentance, but Jesus pointed His disciples forward to something that would begin after His resurrection: repentance and remission of sins would be preached in His name, beginning at Jerusalem.

The fulfillment occurred exactly as Jesus said it would—on the Day of Pentecost in Jerusalem. When the people asked Peter and the apostles, “What shall we do?” Peter answered:

“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38).

Notice how precisely Acts 2:38 corresponds with Luke 24:47:
Repentance — “Repent”
Remission of sins — “for the remission of sins”
His name — “in the name of Jesus Christ”
Beginning at Jerusalem — fulfilled on Pentecost in Jerusalem
The Holy Ghost — “ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”

Therefore, John’s statement that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Ghost did not mean that Jesus would eliminate water baptism. It meant that something greater was coming that John could not give. John administered a preparatory baptism of repentance, but the New Testament message instituted after Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection included repentance, water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and receiving the Holy Ghost.

Acts 19 confirms this distinction beyond reasonable question. When Paul encountered men who had already received John’s baptism, he explained that John’s baptism pointed forward to Christ. Upon hearing this, “they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:4–5). Paul then laid his hands upon them, and the Holy Ghost came on them (Acts 19:6).

If Spirit baptism had simply replaced water baptism, Paul would have had no reason to baptize these men again in water. Instead, Scripture records both New Testament water baptism in Jesus’ name and receiving the Holy Ghost.

So John’s baptism was not replaced by Spirit baptism alone. John’s preparatory baptism gave way to New Testament water baptism in Jesus’ name, while Jesus also fulfilled the promise of pouring out the Holy Ghost. These are complementary parts of the New Testament message, not competing alternatives.

 

[ATG]

Yes, the reprobate also hear the gospel being proclaimed, but that only serves to confirms thei condemnation and it in no way suggests they were ever saved to begin with. So your theology is all messed up.

Paul was not a reprobate when writing Heb 11, and speaking of himself with us believers. He was an apostle and holy man of God writing Scripture of God to we the people of faith.

We can ignore our Lord's warning of not being transgressors with the unbelievers of the world, but that does not make us justified believers in Jesus Christ. By our own transgressions we make ourselves unjustified with the unbelievers of the world.

The Lord Jesus Christ will judge us all by our works, whether good or evil, and without any respect to our personal belief about our own salvation and justification.

2Co 5:9
Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men;

1 Peter {1:15}
But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:

Forsaking the fear of the Lord's equal and righteous judgment of works, and dismissing it as bad theology; Is not having faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, but only decieved faith in ourselves and our own personal gospel alone.

 

[ATG]

You can twist the meaning of Hebrews 10:26 anyway you like, but it is not teaching that a genuinely born-again believer can lose their salvation by committing a wilful sin. Instead, it's a stark warning against apostasy—a total, final, and conscious renunciation of Christ—

Heb 10 is warning against transgression. Heb 6 is warning of apostasy without repentance.

Heb 10:26
For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

Heb 10 is for Paul and us, who still believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. If we should transgress with the world, then we shall be counted as unbelievers with judgment to come, except we repent and confess our transgression with Jesus the Advocate for the world.

1Jo 2:1
My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

For if we do transgress against our Lord, we are not cast away as reprobates. Rather as in Rom 11, the Jews transgressing against Jesus the Christ, could repent by faith and be grafted again into the Israel of God, so can we Christians, who are not the natural branches.

Heb 6:4
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Heb 6 is not for Paul and us, but for those that do fall away by transgression without repentance. They harden their hearts to conviction of the Spirit and judgment of works, so that as with blaspheming the Holy Ghost, it is impossible for them to repent and beleive Jesus Christ for saving grace and forgiveness of sins.

2 Cor 7:10
For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of:

We are judged as an unbeliever for transgression. We are cast off as a reprobate by unrepentance. Both are guilty by transgressions, but only the latter is hardened to godly sorrow, and can no more repent at all.

We do not need doctrine to transgress, nor to harden our hearts. We only need ignore the gospel warnings against transgression. However, there are certain destructive teachings that do lead into more transgressions, and even to fallen apostacy.

The doctrine of presumptive sinning without guilt, first sets aside any need to keep God's commandments for justification, as well as any need of repentance from transgressions for reconciliation with God.

Our repentance and confession can become presumptive and vain. We are sorry about sinning, but we are not godly sorrowful to repent of our transgressions. Our hearts become hardened altogether against any such pretence of sorriness in the first place. Our trangressions continue with no godly confession at all.

Is 63:17
O LORD, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy fear? Return for thy servants' sake, the tribes of thine inheritance.

Jer 7:26
Yet they hearkened not unto me, nor inclined their ear, but hardened their neck: they did worse than their fathers.

Heb 3:13
But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.