Loss of salvation???

[Jordon]

I assure you that I am not racist, that I do believe the doctrines known as "Calvinism", and do not speak ill of John Calvin. I have never called you a troll or a coward. I repeat that my only point was you using rudeness to address fellow posters, calling them scumbags, etc. From now on I will leave it up to the forum moderators.

Sir I'll say this one last time,

Sir nobody is apologising to me what so ever for the rudeness shown to me.

And once again I will apologise for my comment of a low life scumbag. As I wished I hadn't of wrote it, but I don't want people to go to hell sir.

Secondly sir I don't agree with people who don't share God.

As he's our God and he's our father, and we are his children. So I don't agree with people demanding you give them an answer. Or being rude in the way they ask you for answers. But don't take that personally sir

I was suffering with grief when I made the comment so please don't take it personal, look I haven't had any apologies from @Musicmaster even tho I have apologised for my comments
I don't agree with cutting anyone of from God, as I do believe with all my heart you don't know who's going to be saved before they are saved.

That Gods sovereign will sir

So sir I have apologised to @Musicmaster and it looks like he doesn't want to apologise to me and has no intension of and he started trouble sir with me.

The only thing he shown account for himself is to once again rope up a tulip doctrine that I never hardy talk about in the real world.

I haven't given it much interest untill I came here l, as for predestination I've already said many times here and else where that predestination means one thing only to me, and that is if the father hands you over to the son.your saved and there is no way to lose that salvation, and lastly salvation is offered to everyone.

But if you read through these posts you'll see it's being applied that I'm saying something completely different, so yeah I'm not replying to anymore rudeness,

 

[Jordon]

May I ask why should anyone be hated with a tulip doctrine

Now to answer this question myself

I have to wonder if it's because people are using it to hate people with or whether people are indoctrinated themselves.

Is it some other reason why a person would suddenly decide to label you a Calvinist ?
Do they love God ? Do they not want you to not have God.

Or do they feel your taking there God away from them, so there going to do it Back to you ?

Or something else do they have a heavy heart, and they are just suffering at that moment, and a bit of hate has got hold of them

I wonder if there ok really, or can they can find peace, but is it really worth holding on to a doctrine that's causing you hate, why not just accept it and move on.

I mean accept it for, that's what somebody likes but you don't have to like it, but it doesn't mean you should take it away from them.

So tulip, hi tulip how are you doing today. Well I'm fine thanks.
This is tulip she's a real person who has just joined the site, say hello to tulip and be nice.

 

[TruthDefender]

I hope this is being ask because you don't know. They way its asked sometimes it (can) drives us apart not together. My thought always on this "lose" salvation is, explain how man is going to undo this "new man" this "new creation" that "new spirit" that only a GOD made new again. Now if salvation is nothing more then a simple choice.. ooh GOD HELP US ALL.

So this back slide.. how did that undo salvation? To those here can I share something real fast. How odd is it that the 1st thread I replied to today is about salvation and I was thinking about salvation today and He asked "what is salvation to you". HAHA and now this question. See I was about 1/2 into typing when it hit me.. hey.. I was just thinking about this today.

Not going to post verses we all know to just debate them. This was a thought many times when I was 1st saved (55y+ago) the enemy used against me but as its written just came to mind "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; now that I have become a man, I am done with childish ways and have put them aside. "

Who knows Him like the 12 with Paul and then so many through out history because they were not the only ones.. I surly do not know Him like that...oh I pray but.. I can wait if I have to. But you would have to know that you know that you know Him.. its a gift from GOD. Truth? I have no answer on how I would give it back or drop it or misplace it.. think even if every demon and fallen angel came at me.. if they could not even take it.. how can I lose it other then I really never had it.. just deceived my self never truly wanting to repent

Sin separates us from God so we must repent. God said that nothing can snatch us out of His hand, if we stay on track, but we can fall due to our own volition.

However, we should always repent of our sins and ask God to bless us with more faith, and to continue to have mercy on our souls. We don’t want to end up like the people in the Exodus; many had hearts of stone and were rebellious…. God then destroyed them.

 

[Sipsey]

Sin separates us from God so we must repent. God said that nothing can snatch us out of His hand, if we stay on track, but we can fall due to our own volition.

However, we should always repent of our sins and ask God to bless us with more faith, and to continue to have mercy on our souls. We don’t want to end up like the people in the Exodus; many had hearts of stone and were rebellious…. God then destroyed them.

God indeed caused them to die. Even Moses was not allowed to enter the promised land. However there are three distinct views on what their sin and physical death represented:

• Arminian / Wesleyan view: Some would say these people forfeited covenant salvation by apostasy and rebellion (Hebrews 3:16–19 interprets the wilderness deaths as an example of unbelief leading to exclusion from God’s rest).
• Calvinist / Reformed view: Those who perished were never truly regenerated—so their destruction revealed that they were covenant members outwardly but not inwardly saved. Their “loss” was exposure, not the forfeiting of eternal salvation.
• Free Grace / Rewards perspective: Some argue they were still God’s people in an eternal sense, but their physical destruction was temporal discipline, meaning they lost earthly life and rewards, not eternal salvation.

1Jn 1:9 emphasizes our need to “confess” (to name, admit, proclaim) our sin to God— not for Him, but so we can openly and honestly bring them out in the open. I think only then can we “repent” and change our attitudes about the seriousness of sin.

 

[Musicmaster]

yes people are making people stumble here with isms

I've had an absolute nuff of people calling people isms for preaching grace.

I have asked them for weeks not to use isms but they won't listen

Because there evil with unsound minds

They won't listen that there is no such thing as Calvinism

No they just listen to grace and then say that's Calvinism and I'm going to hell

Well they can get lost from now on

Nobody else has caused you to use language the Lord said comes from the heart. Your words betray a filth within you that's not worth conversing. No need to judge you for what we can clearly see in your words.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Sin separates us from God so we must repent. God said that nothing can snatch us out of His hand, if we stay on track, but we can fall due to our own volition.

However, we should always repent of our sins and ask God to bless us with more faith, and to continue to have mercy on our souls. We don’t want to end up like the people in the Exodus; many had hearts of stone and were rebellious…. God then destroyed them.

I don't know if you picked up on what you're saying, but if you re-read it, the words you wrote smack of works-based salvation and works-based retention of salvation.

As for me, I am saved no matter what I do given that we ALL sin on a daily basis. What we are to do is good works to store up treasures in Heaven. If ongoing sin affected our salvation rather than just our rewards, none of us will be in Heaven.

Please share with us, how does one repent from their sins when we all continue to sin every day, multiple times, over and over and over and...? Do you remember each and every sin over which to repent, or do you pray some sort of blanket prayer at the end of the day? Where is that in scripture? What Jesus told Israel compared to what Jesus told Paul to preach to us, they are not one and the same. Israel was under the Kingdom Gospel, we are not.

When we read scripture for what it says, one will search in vain to find one of the eleven preaching faith in the death, burial and resurrection on the third day the Lord Jesus Christ, and that they would be saved. No. The Kingdom Gospel required water baptism for remission of sins. Paul preached no such gospel to the body of Christ. This is what would have caused Satan and his princes to NOT crucify the Lord of Glory:

Romans 11:9-12
9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

So, when we apply Theology 101 and logic to the above, we can ascertain that the coming of salvation UNTO the Gentiles in the midst of the diminishing of Israel, salvation must not have been available to Gentiles apart from joining with Israel (Esther 8:17) given that salvation was not yet UNTO Gentiles. Do you see what the language betrays to us.

If the basketball has come UNTO a certain player, then that clearly shows to us that he did not previously have the ball in his possession until it came TO him. I hope everyone can see this in order to discover the obvious in words that most of churchianity doesn't teach their followers. Always look at the flip-side of what's being said in order to see the other half, or at least more, of the picture being painted.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

May I ask why should anyone be hated with a tulip doctrine

There's that same sentiment that race baiters use; painting the other side with the colors of "hate" rather than simply recognizing it all as being disagreement. Translating disagreement into the realm of "hate" is nothing but a tactic of the simpletons out there who can't argue their case apart from demonizing others who happen to disagree with them.

Now to answer this question myself

I have to wonder if it's because people are using it to hate people with or whether people are indoctrinated themselves.

When there's disagreement, then there's reason for both sides to consider the questions posed and to also allow for the possibility that they themselves are wrong. When using filthy language toward others, that negates any desire in others to take you or anyone else seriously. Painting others with colors of hate, that too is reason to ignore people like you who do this kind of baiting. It's not going to work. Your questions are of not value when you are on the offensive rather than simply conversing.

Is it some other reason why a person would suddenly decide to label you a Calvinist ?
Do they love God ? Do they not want you to not have God.

You really need to get a grip on yourself. This sniveling whine is getting very old. Why not simply converse with others?

Or do they feel your taking there God away from them, so there going to do it Back to you ?

Or something else do they have a heavy heart, and they are just suffering at that moment, and a bit of hate has got hold of them

There you go again. What's a better tact is to discuss the written word, which alone gives to us the true understanding of the one, true God.

I wonder if there ok really, or can they can find peace, but is it really worth holding on to a doctrine that's causing you hate, why not just accept it and move on.

I mean accept it for, that's what somebody likes but you don't have to like it, but it doesn't mean you should take it away from them.

So tulip, hi tulip how are you doing today. Well I'm fine thanks.
This is tulip she's a real person who has just joined the site, say hello to tulip and be nice.

You are so filled with something that's difficult to label. It's definitely a cultural spirit we can see in various groupings out there who, rather than to debate the topic, resort to personal attacks and labels of hate on others as if they themselves are not the ones filled with the very hatred of which they accuse others.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

1Jn 1:9 emphasizes our need to “confess” (to name, admit, proclaim) our sin to God— not for Him, but so we can openly and honestly bring them out in the open. I think only then can we “repent” and change our attitudes about the seriousness of sin.

Actually, John wrote that to Israel under the Kingdom Gospel. He was not the apostle to the Gentiles and the body of Christ. I am Israeli, and yet I am also in the body of Christ rather than under the Kingdom gospel.

MM

 

[Jordon]

There's that same sentiment that race baiters use; painting the other side with the colors of "hate" rather than simply recognizing it all as being disagreement. Translating disagreement into the realm of "hate" is nothing but a tactic of the simpletons out there who can't argue their case apart from demonizing others who happen to disagree with them.



When there's disagreement, then there's reason for both sides to consider the questions posed and to also allow for the possibility that they themselves are wrong. When using filthy language toward others, that negates any desire in others to take you or anyone else seriously. Painting others with colors of hate, that too is reason to ignore people like you who do this kind of baiting. It's not going to work. Your questions are of not value when you are on the offensive rather than simply conversing.



You really need to get a grip on yourself. This sniveling whine is getting very old. Why not simply converse with others?



There you go again. What's a better tact is to discuss the written word, which alone gives to us the true understanding of the one, true God.



You are so filled with something that's difficult to label. It's definitely a cultural spirit we can see in various groupings out there who, rather than to debate the topic, resort to personal attacks and labels of hate on others as if they themselves are not the ones filled with the very hatred of which they accuse others.

MM

well I'll respond to this in dew time.

But the question I'm asking you is why would somebody else hate somebody with a doctrine regardless of what that doctrine is called.

And the world is hurting, hate gets a hold on many people and they need God.

This is where we can reach out to them

 

[Suze]

God

well I'll respond to this in dew time.

But the question I'm asking you is why would somebody else hate somebody with a doctrine regardless of what that doctrine is called.

And the world is hurting, hate gets a hold on many people and they need God.

This is where we can reach out to them[/QUO God doesn't hate anyone , Jesus doesn't hate anyone so why should we ? Being hateful pushes people away from us and as Christians , that's not what we should b doing

 

[Suze]

well I'll respond to this in dew time.

But the question I'm asking you is why would somebody else hate somebody with a doctrine regardless of what that doctrine is called.

And the world is hurting, hate gets a hold on many people and they need God.

This is where we can reach out to them

God doesn't hate anyone , Jesus doesn't hate anyone and neither should we . Hate pushes people away from us and as Christians , thats not what we should b doing .

 

[Sipsey]

Actually, John wrote that to Israel under the Kingdom Gospel. He was not the apostle to the Gentiles and the body of Christ. I am Israeli, and yet I am also in the body of Christ rather than under the Kingdom gospel.

MM

I think we see it differently. 1st John was written well after the cross.
The letter was written sometime between approximately 85-95 AD, which is roughly 50-60 years after Jesus’s crucifixion. This makes 1 John one of the later New Testament writings.
Several factors point to this late date:
• The letter addresses mature theological issues and heresies that developed over time in the early church
• It deals with false teachers who were likely early Gnostics, movements that emerged later in the first century
• The writing style and theological development suggest a period when Christian doctrine had time to develop and face challenges
• Church tradition places the apostle John’s ministry in Ephesus during his later years
• The letter assumes an established Christian community with a history of faith
So 1 John belongs to the post-apostolic period when the early church was dealing with more sophisticated theological challenges and needed guidance on issues like assurance of salvation, love within the community, and discerning truth from error. It’s very much a product of the developing early church rather than the immediate post-crucifixion period.

 

[Musicmaster]

Sir I'll say this one last time,

Sir nobody is apologising to me what so ever for the rudeness shown to me.

And once again I will apologise for my comment of a low life scumbag. As I wished I hadn't of wrote it, but I don't want people to go to hell sir.

I've never seen an evangelist call his audience names because of his fear of them going to Hell. That's a tactic that I simply cannot fathom as being an effective evangelistic tool to win anyone over to Christ. So, this has the ring of hollowness to it in the midst of any apology that may have been spoken. I haven't gone through all the posts yet, but I haven't seen it at this time.

I was suffering with grief when I made the comment so please don't take it personal, look I haven't had any apologies from @Musicmaster even tho I have apologised for my comments

I can't say that I have ever seen anyone grieving lash out at others in such hateful indifference to etiquette and thoughtfulness. We aren't your enemy, but Satan certainly wants to see each one lashing out at others who disagree with them. He loves that.

I don't agree with cutting anyone of from God, as I do believe with all my heart you don't know who's going to be saved before they are saved.

If you would, please show to us where scripture teaches not believing in the Calvinistic-flavored set of doctrines is a matter of being cut off from God. Calvinism is embraced in many thousands of combinations by different people, and so similarities are generally the only basis for the label in a culture so deeply enthused with labels.

That Gods sovereign will sir

What Sovereignty? God is not so sovereign that He can lie or do anything that's against His nature and ways. Scripture doesn't say "won't," but rather "cannot."

Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

See that? If He were sovereign, which the Bible nowhere declares Him to be since that word doesn't even exist in the Bible in relation to God, then for us today to label Him with that descriptor is to place Him down to the level of man who CAN lie and do what is absolutely opposed to the nature and will of God. Emperors exercised sovereignty over their empires, and they lied, stole, murdered and did all manner of that which is contrary to God and His nature and will.

So sir I have apologised to @Musicmaster and it looks like he doesn't want to apologise to me and has no intension of and he started trouble sir with me.

I can only get on here sporadically due to extensive travel for my work and family. My computer stays at my house with my only being home on weekends and holidays and other days I take off from work. Sorry if I didn't get back to your apology, wherever it is, in the timeframe of your choosing. Your sovereignty over the efficacy of apologies didn't have the power to shove me back here to my house to get on here. I will indeed look for it and respond in kind.

The only thing he shown account for himself is to once again rope up a tulip doctrine that I never hardy talk about in the real world.

So, you DO talk about the TULIP doctrine in varying degrees? What elements of that doctrine do you uphold? You see, the perfect justice of God is such that He only punishes people with Hell for the choices they made in this life, not on the basis of something He did or did not give to them on the basis of some warped belief in an alleged "sovereignty." TULIP doesn't only imply but outright demands the only way to salvation being on the basis of empowerment at the exclusion of God's express will for ALL of mankind as if He were some sort of self-conflicted misfit fuss-bucket. MacArthur and Sproul and others of that stripe are so easily refuted, but their stardom kept people like me from ever being able to approach them to discuss these things. When on stages of their stardom, nobody at the mike was allowed to debate them.

I haven't given it much interest untill I came here l, as for predestination I've already said many times here and else where that predestination means one thing only to me, and that is if the father hands you over to the son.your saved and there is no way to lose that salvation, and lastly salvation is offered to everyone.

But if you read through these posts you'll see it's being applied that I'm saying something completely different, so yeah I'm not replying to anymore rudeness,

Romans 8:28-30
28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

This habit so many have in making this out to be about salvation rather than "the IMAGE...," is problematic in the worst way. The IMAGE of Christ is inclusive of His possessing a glorified body. He predestined that all who will be in Him will be in His image, meaning we too will have glorified bodies because of our salvation through choice. This practice so many have with shoving meaning into a context that isn't in the text at all within the scope of the context, it's just plain wrong.

Now I realize there are those who see salvation plastered all over that context, with that being their frame of mind, but it simply isn't there given that the context of speaking about the IMAGE of Christ to which He predestined us to be in.

MM

 

[Jordon]

I've never seen an evangelist call his audience names because of his fear of them going to Hell. That's a tactic that I simply cannot fathom as being an effective evangelistic tool to win anyone over to Christ. So, this has the ring of hollowness to it in the midst of any apology that may have been spoken. I haven't gone through all the posts yet, but I haven't seen it at this time.



I can't say that I have ever seen anyone grieving lash out at others in such hateful indifference to etiquette and thoughtfulness. We aren't your enemy, but Satan certainly wants to see each one lashing out at others who disagree with them. He loves that.



If you would, please show to us where scripture teaches not believing in the Calvinistic-flavored set of doctrines is a matter of being cut off from God. Calvinism is embraced in many thousands of combinations by different people, and so similarities are generally the only basis for the label in a culture so deeply enthused with labels.



What Sovereignty? God is not so sovereign that He can lie or do anything that's against His nature and ways. Scripture doesn't say "won't," but rather "cannot."

Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

See that? If He were sovereign, which the Bible nowhere declares Him to be since that word doesn't even exist in the Bible in relation to God, then for us today to label Him with that descriptor is to place Him down to the level of man who CAN lie and do what is absolutely opposed to the nature and will of God. Emperors exercised sovereignty over their empires, and they lied, stole, murdered and did all manner of that which is contrary to God and His nature and will.



I can only get on here sporadically due to extensive travel for my work and family. My computer stays at my house with my only being home on weekends and holidays and other days I take off from work. Sorry if I didn't get back to your apology, wherever it is, in the timeframe of your choosing. Your sovereignty over the efficacy of apologies didn't have the power to shove me back here to my house to get on here. I will indeed look for it and respond in kind.



So, you DO talk about the TULIP doctrine in varying degrees? What elements of that doctrine do you uphold? You see, the perfect justice of God is such that He only punishes people with Hell for the choices they made in this life, not on the basis of something He did or did not give to them on the basis of some warped belief in an alleged "sovereignty." TULIP doesn't only imply but outright demands the only way to salvation being on the basis of empowerment at the exclusion of God's express will for ALL of mankind as if He were some sort of self-conflicted misfit fuss-bucket. MacArthur and Sproul and others of that stripe are so easily refuted, but their stardom kept people like me from ever being able to approach them to discuss these things. When on stages of their stardom, nobody at the mike was allowed to debate them.



Romans 8:28-30
28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

This habit so many have in making this out to be about salvation rather than "the IMAGE...," is problematic in the worst way. The IMAGE of Christ is inclusive of His possessing a glorified body. He predestined that all who will be in Him will be in His image, meaning we too will have glorified bodies because of our salvation through choice. This practice so many have with shoving meaning into a context that isn't in the text at all within the scope of the context, it's just plain wrong.

Now I realize there are those who see salvation plastered all over that context, with that being their frame of mind, but it simply isn't there given that the context of speaking about the IMAGE of Christ to which He predestined us to be in.

MM

well there's a lot to respond to here, and I ain't got the time ar the moment.

I've apologised for my comment.

What about your comment of where trolls and cowards for running away from you.

Would you care to explain whether you think that's right

 

[Musicmaster]

well I'll respond to this in dew time.

But the question I'm asking you is why would somebody else hate somebody with a doctrine regardless of what that doctrine is called.

And the world is hurting, hate gets a hold on many people and they need God.

This is where we can reach out to them

You're asking a question that has no bearing upon anything that has transpired. You keep throwing in "hate," to which I have no response given that hatred had nothing to do on a personal level with the discussion over a doctrinal topic.

So long as you keep throwing in "hate" into the mix as being on a personal level in the opponents, that only poisons the well of discussion. Leave that tactic to the race-bating crowd who themselves are the haters and racists and bigots. We who are of Israel are experiencing a heightened level of hated all across this country, and I'm not going to let it get me down. The haters are actually a minority in every sense of the word. Jesus instructed that the evil enemies we encounter, we are to bless them, which then heaps up burning coals upon their heads rather than ours.

Do I hate? Yes. I hate false doctrines and I hate the corruptions of what the scriptures actually say as opposed to all the eisegetical injections so many false beliefs individuals harbor and false religions trying to force into the texts what isn't there, such as sacramentalism and rituals that have no merits apart from evolving traditions known to have been rooted in paganism.

Those out there who translate disagreement with them into hate, that's their problem, and to them I offer no apologies for my disagreement and labeling of the origins of their beliefs as to where they truly originated. Most false beliefs people harbor were taught to them by someone given that most people almost never read and accept scripture for what it says without injecting their own personality formulated by someone else influences.

So, if another asks me who influenced me, I now point to Holy Spirit on the basis of the promise made in 1 John 2:27. Many people claim Holy Spirit taught them this or that or the other, and when those people claim polar opposites of a doctrine they claim was given them by the same Spirit, then either one or both are wrong. They cannot both be right as that would violate the law of non-contradiction.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

I think we see it differently. 1st John was written well after the cross.
The letter was written sometime between approximately 85-95 AD, which is roughly 50-60 years after Jesus’s crucifixion. This makes 1 John one of the later New Testament writings.
Several factors point to this late date:
• The letter addresses mature theological issues and heresies that developed over time in the early church
• It deals with false teachers who were likely early Gnostics, movements that emerged later in the first century
• The writing style and theological development suggest a period when Christian doctrine had time to develop and face challenges
• Church tradition places the apostle John’s ministry in Ephesus during his later years
• The letter assumes an established Christian community with a history of faith
So 1 John belongs to the post-apostolic period when the early church was dealing with more sophisticated theological challenges and needed guidance on issues like assurance of salvation, love within the community, and discerning truth from error. It’s very much a product of the developing early church rather than the immediate post-crucifixion period.

It's ok that we disagree. So that you know where I'm coming from, I situate my position on the basis of this:

Romans 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

Given that circumcision and uncircumcision are not the same thing, the gospels are also not the same gospel. That there are two different gospels addressed in that passage, as is clearly understood by the use of "of," which clearly denotes differing items from differing origins. A simple reading of the texts make that abundantly clear dare one compare Acts 2:38 and 1 Cor. 15:1-4.

Galatians 1:8-9
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Peter wasn't accursed for preaching the Kingdom Gospel to Jews or even the few Gentiles he encountered, but only he or anyone else, even an angel, who dared preach that Kingdom Gospel to the Gentiles to whom Paul had preached and converted, any other preaching done by anyone of that other Gospel to the Gentiles and Jews of Paul's conversion works, they were to be accursed.

If Paul had meant to address outright falsehoods, then he would have stated such, but he was clearly speaking of differing gospels that were both true, but not meant for all audiences. The Kingdom gospel was not meant for the Gentiles, and that distinction was differentiated in this text to the extent of the other teachers conveying the Kingdom Gospel unto the Gentiles were to be accursed. Strong language intended to alert the Gentiles to ignore and walk away from those daring to preach to them what was not meant for them. The Kingdom Gospel was still a Gospel message, but it had limits as to its scope, evidenced by to whom it was spoken...always to Israel and Israel only:

Matthew 10:5 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:

Acts 11:19 Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.

That there was a GOSPEL that the preacher of which was to be accursed for preaching that other gospel to Paul's Gentiles and Messianic Jews, that preacher was to be accursed considering the agreement Paul had with Peter.

MM

 

[Jordon]

You're asking a question that has no bearing upon anything that has transpired. You keep throwing in "hate," to which I have no response given that hatred had nothing to do on a personal level with the discussion over a doctrinal topic.

So long as you keep throwing in "hate" into the mix as being on a personal level in the opponents, that only poisons the well of discussion. Leave that tactic to the race-bating crowd who themselves are the haters and racists and bigots. We who are of Israel are experiencing a heightened level of hated all across this country, and I'm not going to let it get me down. The haters are actually a minority in every sense of the word. Jesus instructed that the evil enemies we encounter, we are to bless them, which then heaps up burning coals upon their heads rather than ours.

Do I hate? Yes. I hate false doctrines and I hate the corruptions of what the scriptures actually say as opposed to all the eisegetical injections so many false beliefs individuals harbor and false religions trying to force into the texts what isn't there, such as sacramentalism and rituals that have no merits apart from evolving traditions known to have been rooted in paganism.

Those out there who translate disagreement with them into hate, that's their problem, and to them I offer no apologies for my disagreement and labeling of the origins of their beliefs as to where they truly originated. Most false beliefs people harbor were taught to them by someone given that most people almost never read and accept scripture for what it says without injecting their own personality formulated by someone else influences.

So, if another asks me who influenced me, I now point to Holy Spirit on the basis of the promise made in 1 John 2:27. Many people claim Holy Spirit taught them this or that or the other, and when those people claim polar opposites of a doctrine they claim was given them by the same Spirit, then either one or both are wrong. They cannot both be right as that would violate the law of non-contradiction.

MM

no so you said we where cowards and trolls for running away from you.

Are you denying you said this

 

[Sipsey]

It's ok that we disagree. So that you know where I'm coming from, I situate my position on the basis of this:

Romans 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

Given that circumcision and uncircumcision are not the same thing, the gospels are also not the same gospel. That there are two different gospels addressed in that passage, as is clearly understood by the use of "of," which clearly denotes differing items from differing origins. A simple reading of the texts make that abundantly clear dare one compare Acts 2:38 and 1 Cor. 15:1-4.

Galatians 1:8-9
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Peter wasn't accursed for preaching the Kingdom Gospel to Jews or even the few Gentiles he encountered, but only he or anyone else, even an angel, who dared preach that Kingdom Gospel to the Gentiles to whom Paul had preached and converted, any other preaching done by anyone of that other Gospel to the Gentiles and Jews of Paul's conversion works, they were to be accursed.

If Paul had meant to address outright falsehoods, then he would have stated such, but he was clearly speaking of differing gospels that were both true, but not meant for all audiences. The Kingdom gospel was not meant for the Gentiles, and that distinction was differentiated in this text to the extent of the other teachers conveying the Kingdom Gospel unto the Gentiles were to be accursed. Strong language intended to alert the Gentiles to ignore and walk away from those daring to preach to them what was not meant for them. The Kingdom Gospel was still a Gospel message, but it had limits as to its scope, evidenced by to whom it was spoken...always to Israel and Israel only:

Matthew 10:5 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:

Acts 11:19 Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.

That there was a GOSPEL that the preacher of which was to be accursed for preaching that other gospel to Paul's Gentiles and Messianic Jews, that preacher was to be accursed considering the agreement Paul had with Peter.

MM

I have heard your view espoused before and simply chose not to debate the issue. This will be my only response, as I am sure you are firm in your conviction. We simply view the Gospel differently;

Your view interprets certain passages as indicating a fundamentally different gospel message for Jews versus Gentiles. I will offer a respectful alternative interpretation of the key passages:

Regarding Galatians 2:7 - The phrase “gospel of the circumcision/uncircumcision” likely refers to the audience or sphere of ministry rather than different gospel content. Paul is describing how he and Peter had different missionary assignments - Paul primarily to Gentiles, Peter primarily to Jews - but preaching the same essential message. The Greek construction supports this reading, as it’s about the gospel “to” or “for” these groups rather than fundamentally different messages.

On Galatians 1:8-9 - Paul’s strong language about being “accursed” appears directed at those adding requirements (like circumcision for salvation) to the gospel, not at Peter preaching to Jews. Throughout Galatians, Paul’s concern is with Judaizers who were telling Gentile converts they needed to follow Jewish law for salvation. Peter wasn’t doing this - he was simply ministering primarily to Jewish audiences.

Several passages suggest gospel unity:
• Acts 15 shows the apostles agreeing on one gospel for both Jews and Gentiles
• Ephesians 2:11-22 describes Jews and Gentiles being united in “one body”
• Romans 1:16 says the gospel is “to the Jew first, and also to the Greek” - same gospel, different order of proclamation

Different emphasis, same core - While the apostles may have emphasized different aspects (Peter focusing on Jesus as Messiah to Jews, Paul on justification by faith to Gentiles), the core message of salvation through Christ’s death and resurrection is seen by me as remaining consistent.

With a Jewish background I can see how your conclusion may be a natural view for yourself and many Jews. I have spoken to Messianic Jews who view the Gospel as fundamentally the same.

 

[Jordon]

Nobody else has caused you to use language the Lord said comes from the heart. Your words betray a filth within you that's not worth conversing. No need to judge you for what we can clearly see in your words.

MM

well this is often an opinion of the mind.

I' don't think it's an opinion of the heart unless it's still hardened how about you, what do you think ?

 

[Jordon]

Regarding tulip @Musicmaster my response is still the same you don't like.

I can't talk about something you don't like.

The other thing is well you said it was a worthwhile study.

But yet you claim it's not a good doctrine, but I wonder if it's ok for somebody else to like that doctrine.

Because whilst you yourself may not fully agree with it, is there any part you that recognises sometimes people can be wrong.
But that's not necessarily there fault.