Loss of salvation???

[Musicmaster]

To be honest, there is still a dilemma.

I believe salvation has always been the same. And only one way........ Faith alone in Christ alone.

It was in the "shadows and types" with Israel. And Paul brought it into the LIGHT for all to see.

Ok, let's look directly at the teaching of Peter, paying close attention to the wording, and the dilemma should disappear:

Acts 2:37-38
37 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?
38 Then Peter said unto them, 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.

Now, we today know...or at least, many of us know...that we don't have to do any work to be saved nor to receive Holy Spirit. If any work were involved, then it is no more of grace, but of works, just as Paul argued.

So, can we agree that the remission of sins for Israel was a critical element for them to be saved? They could not possibly be saved if their sins were still upon them. I'm sure we can agree with that.

Is it because Israel was under a different set of requirements for salvation that bothers your train of thought about all this? Israel had a special purpose in God's plans. They alone were the kings and priests unto the Most High God, not Gentiles. They were under the Law, Gentiles were not...except the proselytes into Judaism who became Jews and were therefore beholden to follow the Law of Moses.

Gentiles, however, after the "wall of partition" was taken down when Israel fell, were blessed greatly when salvation came unto them directly without their having to convert to Judaism.

Some out there are bound to have a brain aneurism when reading things that go against their adoption of replacement theology corruptions that are so prolific throughout Evangelical teachings and beliefs. The followers of that garbage may as well join with Obama, Michael and their affiliations with the Muslim Brotherhood with that kind of thinking, for they are all kindred spirits in this regard.

If there's still problems with what's actually written in the scriptures, then please do share so that we can all consider it compared to what's written.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Baptism is of ourselves, for one has to prepare and then walk down into the water and then walk out of the water. What does that water do besides getting one wet? Nothing. Nothing at all for we who are under grace.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Loves them enough for what? To tease them with something He knew they'd reject. Sorry man this makes no sense at all on ANY level. This would make God unsure, inept, weak, pointless, and a liar. This brings us to the fact His word completely contradicts that Jesus loses ANY the Father gives Him. Doesn't it?

I realize it's likely a useless exercise toward some for me to quote scripture that speaks contrary to popular beliefs, but it needs to be shown from scripture, and those willing to accept it, then great. Those who won't, oh well:

Matthew 10:5-7
5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Who are some of the lost sheep to whom the twelve were assigned to preach? It wasn't to Gentiles, but to Jews, and here's just a small listing of the Jews from many different (Greek - ethnos):

Acts 2:9-11
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

Paul stated with very clear language that he was the apostle to the Gentiles, with the twelve being the apostles to the "circumcized."

Like I said, some people are going to stick with that they have always believed and been taught by their false teaching pastors and Sunday school teachers and parents and grandparents or whomever they heard it from. Heck, even the homosexual friendly NIV may teach the same thing. For many, it doesn't matter what the scriptures actually say in the Greek, it's all about what one believes and to boot with the truth.

How about you, Jim? Do you believe what scripture says? I hope you're a man of the Word rather than one unwilling to explore and study it all out for what it says in the place of all the allegory trash out there that is used to make scripture say what others want it to say.

Blessings.

MM

 

[Kroogz]

Ok, let's look directly at the teaching of Peter, paying close attention to the wording, and the dilemma should disappear:

Acts 2:37-38
37 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?
38 Then Peter said unto them, 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.

Now, we today know...or at least, many of us know...that we don't have to do any work to be saved nor to receive Holy Spirit. If any work were involved, then it is no more of grace, but of works, just as Paul argued.

So, can we agree that the remission of sins for Israel was a critical element for them to be saved? They could not possibly be saved if their sins were still upon them. I'm sure we can agree with that.

Is it because Israel was under a different set of requirements for salvation that bothers your train of thought about all this? Israel had a special purpose in God's plans. They alone were the kings and priests unto the Most High God, not Gentiles. They were under the Law, Gentiles were not...except the proselytes into Judaism who became Jews and were therefore beholden to follow the Law of Moses.

Gentiles, however, after the "wall of partition" was taken down when Israel fell, were blessed greatly when salvation came unto them directly without their having to convert to Judaism.

Some out there are bound to have a brain aneurism when reading things that go against their adoption of replacement theology corruptions that are so prolific throughout Evangelical teachings and beliefs. The followers of that garbage may as well join with Obama, Michael and their affiliations with the Muslim Brotherhood with that kind of thinking, for they are all kindred spirits in this regard.

If there's still problems with what's actually written in the scriptures, then please do share so that we can all consider it compared to what's written.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Baptism is of ourselves, for one has to prepare and then walk down into the water and then walk out of the water. What does that water do besides getting one wet? Nothing. Nothing at all for we who are under grace.

MM

Thank you sir. This is a well written and thoughtful response. And replacement theology of any kind is abhorrent IMO. But you know there is a "but" coming.

The Jew should have KNOWN what their tradition of baptism was about and what it pointed to...."Have you not heard?"

Acts 5:31
31 “He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Acts 10:43
43 “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”

 

[Genez]

Ok, let's look directly at the teaching of Peter, paying close attention to the wording, and the dilemma should disappear:

Acts 2:37-38
37 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?
38 Then Peter said unto them, 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.

Peter's audience were Jews.
Not gentiles.

The Jews he witnessed to had been habitually going to the Temple to offer animal sacrifices for the remission of their sins.

38~~ Then Peter said face to face unto them, for their benefit, all of you repent {change your mind about Christ}. And receive baptism every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ because of the remission {payment for} of sins, and you shall receive the Holy Spirit.​

​

Peter was not only telling these Jews about salvation in Christ, but that the Cross was also the permanent remission for their sins.
It was a salvation message that was law-abiding Jew, specific!

In Christ......

 

[Kroogz]

@Musicmaster

If I may, Paul uses the same technique in Romans when talking with the Jews.

"confess with your mouth" is used by most believers today for salvation. But it has everything to do with the Shema prayer and the Jews.

Paul was using their traditions of their daily chant Of "believing in the one true God"


Paul was not saying that we need to confess with our mouths to be saved. He was pointing out their traditions pointed to faith alone in Christ alone.

 

[Genez]

So, can we agree that the remission of sins for Israel was a critical element for them to be saved? They could not possibly be saved if their sins were still upon them. I'm sure we can agree with that.

The Jews Peter witnessed to had been habitually going to the Temple to offer animal sacrifices for the remission of their sins.
Peter was not only telling these Jews about salvation in Christ.
But, that the Cross was also the permanent solution for the post salvation remission for their sins.

It was a salvation message that was also dealing with law-abiding-Jews.

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

Because of the Cross?
No more need for blood sacrifices at the Temple!
That was good news for those Jews that had to keep on having messy animal sacrifices for their sins.

Even today, after we are saved, we will still need purification from our sins!

Purification of our sins is what keeps us walking and being filled with the Spirit.
And, SAVED believers can grieve and quench the Spirit, and some so!
But, they are saved.

Apples and oranges...




In Christ......

 

[Mouse_Cheeks]

Romans 9-11 emphasizes that God's covenant with Israel remains valid, and He has not rejected His chosen people. God's plan of salvation includes both Jews and Gentiles, and He uses the Gentiles to provoke the Jews to jealousy, ultimately leading them to salvation.



Israel has not fallen, as in being finished forever.
God has simply put Israel on hold.

On hold until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.
Then?
The Rapture!

After the Rapture God will commence once more using the Jews as His people, having Jerusalem in Israel as the capital of the world under God for the Millennium.

It sounds like they're following the doctrine of Suppressionism.

 

[Musicmaster]

Peter's audience were Jews.
Not gentiles.

The Jews he witnessed to had been habitually going to the Temple to offer animal sacrifices for the remission of their sins.

38~~ Then Peter said face to face unto them, for their benefit, all of you repent {change your mind about Christ}. And receive baptism every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ because of the remission {payment for} of sins, and you shall receive the Holy Spirit.​

​

Peter was not only telling these Jews about salvation in Christ, but that the Cross was also the permanent remission for their sins.
It was a salvation message that was law-abiding Jew, specific!

In Christ......

Let's not forget that, for Israel, it was the cross AND baptism for the remission of sins. It was not only the cross. Peter made that abundantly clear.

MM

 

[Genez]

It sounds like they're following the doctrine of Suppressionism.

What ever you wish to call it?

It is what the Bible says is happening.

 

[Genez]

Let's not forget that, for Israel, it was the cross AND baptism for the remission of sins. It was not only the cross. Peter made that abundantly clear.

MM

I just explained it to you.

I was a Jew.

Just sit still for a second?
And, know He is God.

 

[Kroogz]

Let's not forget that, for Israel, it was the cross AND baptism for the remission of sins. It was not only the cross. Peter made that abundantly clear.

MM

This is also Peter:

Acts 5:31
31 “He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Acts 10:43
43 “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”

And Luke:

Luke 24:47
47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

@Genez, IMO clearly explained it in his above post. 2326

 

[Musicmaster]

I just explained it to you.

I was a Jew.

Just sit still for a second?
And, know He is God.

Yes. I remember that we are both Jews. Not sure what that has to do with the discussion.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

This is also Peter:

Acts 5:31
31 “He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Acts 10:43
43 “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”

And Luke:

Luke 24:47
47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

@Genez, IMO clearly explained it in his above post. 2326

Yes, but that does not nullify the elements for salvation that Peter pointed out to Israel on Pentacost. Repentance and baptism were required of Israel, not Gentiles.

MM

 

[Kroogz]

Yes, but that does not nullify the elements for salvation that Peter pointed out to Israel on Pentacost. Repentance and baptism were required of Israel, not Gentiles.

MM

Why did Peter use "remission of sins" Rather than "forgiveness of sins" in the verse in question?

 

[Kroogz]

Why did Peter use "remission of sins" Rather than "forgiveness of sins" in the verse in question?

Sorry @Musicmaster I was thinking something different and "spoke" too soon. And couldn't edit my previous post.

 

[Kroogz]

Yes, but that does not nullify the elements for salvation that Peter pointed out to Israel on Pentacost. Repentance and baptism were required of Israel, not Gentiles.

MM

Peter points out that all the prophets witness that through His name and all who believe in Him receive forgiveness of sins.

Luke tells us that ALL the nations will hear this message and it will start with Jerusalem.

Why did the prophets leave out baptism for Israel? That's a big omission considering their eternal life depended on it.

 

[Genez]

Yes. I remember that we are both Jews. Not sure what that has to do with the discussion.

MM

You were born a Jew?
Grew up as a Jew?

 

[Genez]

Not sure what that has to do with the discussion.

MM

You seem to be ignorant of the required way of life Jews were to live when Jesus appeared on earth.

 

[Genez]

Yes, but that does not nullify the elements for salvation that Peter pointed out to Israel on Pentacost. Repentance and baptism were required of Israel, not Gentiles.

MM

The timeline when spoken.... (After Jesus was resurrected, and was before Pentecost took place. )

​

On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: ​

“Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you ​

have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you ​

will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”​

​

Acts 1:4-5​

Do you see the change about baptism types that was to take place?

It took Peter all the way to Acts 11 to finally figure it out.
Up until then, Peter had been thoughtlessly commanding water baptisms.
Then!
He finally remembered the words Jesus spoke to him about water will be replaced by Spirit baptism.

We all have to learn to give up certain things we assumed and took for granted before we are saved.

 

[Musicmaster]

Peter points out that all the prophets witness that through His name and all who believe in Him receive forgiveness of sins.

Luke tells us that ALL the nations will hear this message and it will start with Jerusalem.

Why did the prophets leave out baptism for Israel? That's a big omission considering their eternal life depended on it.

Ok. I think perhaps I'm seeing where you're going.

What you quoted from Peter is absolutely true. The difference is that he did not reiterate the elements every time he spoke about Christ and the necessity for faith, just as every element was not reiterated after every mention of forgiveness following animal sacrifice in the Mosaic Law. We all know that the blood of animals did not atone for sin since animal blood could not take away sin. Many times especially throughout the OT it is stated by the Lord that their sins were forgiven.

In other words, absent repeating all the details every time the topic came up, it was always understood by us Jews that the act was necessary as a demonstration of our faith. If we refused to sacrifice, then that was indication for our lack of faith, and therefore loss of salvation because of that lack of faith.

Baptism was required as the work demonstration of faith if one was capable of fulfilling that requirement. No such requirement was laid down upon the shoulders of the Gentiles. Teaching otherwise by trying to harmonize the Kingdom Gospel with the Gospel of Grace only leads to confusion and hypocrisy. Peter preached the Gospel Christ preached only to Israel, with Peter preaching that gospel only t look Israe.

Does that clarify what I was saying?

MM