genuineoriginal
New member
Oh, I can see that as an alternate interpretation of his words now.
Thank you for pointing it out.
Is Baptism a requirement for Salvation
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
Thank you for pointing it out.
Right Divider
Body part
genuineoriginal
New member
Then you should stop doing it.
Right Divider
Body part
More childishness from a habitual liar.
I have no choice but to put you back on my ignore list.
Greetings again Jerry,
Why I asked the following is that the writer to the Hebrews claims that the Hebrews had their sins purged, and Christ offered up himself in sacrifice for the people’s sins. Now some of the Hebrews who were converted on the day of Pentecost would still be alive to receive the Letter to the Hebrews, so I am interested in your view of these two quotations below.
Hebrews 1:1–3 (KJV): 1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Hebrews 7:26–27 (KJV): 26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
Are you suggesting that Peter did not understand that the death and resurrection of Jesus purged the sins of those he addressed, or that Jesus offered up himself for the people's sins? Possibly another view, you may claim that Jesus’ death and resurrection did not actually purge the sins of Peter’s audience or that Jesus only offered himself for those who Paul preached to.
Also genuineoriginal mentioned Passover, and this prompts the thought that Peter would now understand the significance of the bread and wine and that Jesus was the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.
John 1:29 (KJV): The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
Kind regards
Trevor
Paul knew what the other Apostles were preaching, but when he went to Jerusalem it was not for the purpose of learning what to teach. When I was in my early 20s I moved to a new meeting and a youth leader led us in a study of Galatians and he taught us that Paul is answering the various arguments of the Judaisers who had subverted the Galatians soon after their conversion. Paul is answering their suggestion that Paul was only a second hand Apostle, in that he had learnt the Gospel from the other Apostles when he went up to Jerusalem and the Galatians should follow the example of the other Apostles who were still subject to the Law and still advocated circumcision. There is no evidence that Paul preached another Gospel, as there is only One Gospel, the forgiveness of sins through the death and resurrection of Christ and the hope of the Kingdom.
Why I asked the following is that the writer to the Hebrews claims that the Hebrews had their sins purged, and Christ offered up himself in sacrifice for the people’s sins. Now some of the Hebrews who were converted on the day of Pentecost would still be alive to receive the Letter to the Hebrews, so I am interested in your view of these two quotations below.
Hebrews 1:1–3 (KJV): 1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Hebrews 7:26–27 (KJV): 26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
Are you suggesting that Peter did not understand that the death and resurrection of Jesus purged the sins of those he addressed, or that Jesus offered up himself for the people's sins? Possibly another view, you may claim that Jesus’ death and resurrection did not actually purge the sins of Peter’s audience or that Jesus only offered himself for those who Paul preached to.
Also genuineoriginal mentioned Passover, and this prompts the thought that Peter would now understand the significance of the bread and wine and that Jesus was the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.
John 1:29 (KJV): The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
Kind regards
Trevor
genuineoriginal
New member
Peter was there when Jesus said the following:
Matthew 26:28 28 [JESUS]For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.[/JESUS] |
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
If Paul learned the gospel which he preached to the Gentiles from the other Apostles why would it be necessary for the Lord Jesus to tell him what to preach to the Gentiles?:
"But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus" (Gal.1:15-17).
When Paul realized on the Damascus road that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, he immediately went to Damascus (Acts 9:6-8). But when he received the gospel which he preached among the Gentiles he went immediately into Arabia. That can only mean that two different gospels were preached during the Acts period.
You still have not addressed this passage with any reasonable explanation. You still throw your reason to the wind and argue that the "good news" that Christ died for our sins is the same "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
At some point you need to abandon your mistaken idea that there was only one "gospel" preached during the Acts period. Paul preached two different gospels, and the following one was promised by the OT prophets:
"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3. Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead" (Ro.1:1-4).
That was the gospel which Paul preached to the Jews, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. The OT prophets foretold of the coming Messiah and that was the "good news" or "gospel" to which Paul made reference at Romans 1:1-4.
On the other hand, the gospel which he preached to the Gentiles was not promised by the OT prophets because it was" hidden from long ages past." Paul called it "my gospel...in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past:
"Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith" (Ro.16:25-26).
A gospel which was promised by the OT prophets cannot be the same gospel which was kept secret or hidden for long ages past.
And the "good news" that Christ died for our sins is not the same "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
But when on the day of Pentecost did Peter preach the "gospel of grace," that believers are "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Ro.3:24).
There is absolutely no reason to believe that those who heard Peter preach on the day of Pentecost understood the truth that believers are ""justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Ro.3:24).
On the other hand, the Gentiles who Paul preached to understood that they were saved by the grace of God:
"Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints, For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth" (Col.1:4-6).
We have an uninterrupted sermon preached by Peter on the day of Pentecost beginning at Acts 2:14 and ending at Acts 2:36. in that sermon there is not a word about God's "grace."
According to your misguided ideas Peter was preaching the "gospel of grace" but he just forgot to mention that salvation is by the grace of God!
Greetings again Jerry,
Paul could preach initially that Christ was the Son of God based upon his experience on the Damascus road, but to become the Apostle to the Gentiles required instruction over a long period of time. One of our speakers explains the need for the transformation of Paul’s whole process of thinking in the following terms:
“It pleased God to reveal His Son in, in him, and that revelation of His Son in Paul could not have been done without some entire re orientation of the thought of the apostle. The old habits of his thought had to be broken down and new habits of thought established. It is true there was revelation but that revelation through Paul and the visions that he saw, which he tells us about in his letter to the Corinthians, had all to be re thought into the very fabric of his own mind, so that the message given through Paul became Paul's own faith, and Paul's own guiding light.”
Kind regards
Trevor
I have already stated that Paul learnt the One Gospel directly from Jesus, not from the other Apostles.
I suggest that it is a matter of quantity and quality. I can suggest that the Gospel can be summarised as the things of the Kingdom and Name, but to elaborate and teach someone this Gospel can take some time, especially if a person has a different view.
Paul could preach initially that Christ was the Son of God based upon his experience on the Damascus road, but to become the Apostle to the Gentiles required instruction over a long period of time. One of our speakers explains the need for the transformation of Paul’s whole process of thinking in the following terms:
“It pleased God to reveal His Son in, in him, and that revelation of His Son in Paul could not have been done without some entire re orientation of the thought of the apostle. The old habits of his thought had to be broken down and new habits of thought established. It is true there was revelation but that revelation through Paul and the visions that he saw, which he tells us about in his letter to the Corinthians, had all to be re thought into the very fabric of his own mind, so that the message given through Paul became Paul's own faith, and Paul's own guiding light.”
But Paul is not writing to the Jews here, he is writing to the Jews and Gentiles at Rome. And the theme is the One Gospel Romans 1:16-17. You claim that he is preaching a particular Gospel in Romans 1:1-4, but in your next Post you claim he is preaching a different Gospel in Romans 3:24:
What was hidden was that the door was going to be opened up directly to the Gentiles “so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith”. Same Gospel, different recipients.
Yes, it is.
Kind regards
Trevor
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
I see that you are not going to use your reason and instead throw it to the wind. According to your mistaken ideas the "good news" that Christ died for our sins is the same "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
That is ridiculous and if you don't realize that it is ridiculous you are living in a fantasy world and not living in reality.
And according to your mistaken ideas the "good news" which was promised in the OT is the same "good news" which was kept secret:
"But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Cor.2:7-8).
According to you the "hidden wisdom" was promised by the OT prophets. If the gospel that was promised in the OT is the same one which Paul refers to as the "hidden wisdom" then the LORD did a poor job of hiding it.
This is just another example of your standing reason on its head because of your preconceived idea that only one gospel was preached during the Acts period.
Greetings again Jerry,
To hopefully leave our discussion on a positive note where I assume we will agree, I have been interested in Isaiah and how Isaiah is quoted in the NT. In the Second Servant Song it is prophesied that the Servant would in His ministry fail to bring Israel to repentance, at least initially, but he would be effective as far as the Gentiles were concerned.
Isaiah 49:5–6 (KJV): 5 And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength. 6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.
Now it is not clear when Jesus would effective as a light to the Gentiles, but we find Paul quoting or alluding to these words and applying them to his own ministry.
Acts 13:46–48 (KJV): 46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. 47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. 48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
Galatians 1:15–16 (KJV): 15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, 16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
Thank you again for your interaction
Kind regards
Trevor
I appreciate the interaction and I am happy to leave this here with some disagreement.
To hopefully leave our discussion on a positive note where I assume we will agree, I have been interested in Isaiah and how Isaiah is quoted in the NT. In the Second Servant Song it is prophesied that the Servant would in His ministry fail to bring Israel to repentance, at least initially, but he would be effective as far as the Gentiles were concerned.
Isaiah 49:5–6 (KJV): 5 And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength. 6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.
Now it is not clear when Jesus would effective as a light to the Gentiles, but we find Paul quoting or alluding to these words and applying them to his own ministry.
Acts 13:46–48 (KJV): 46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. 47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. 48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
Galatians 1:15–16 (KJV): 15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, 16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
Thank you again for your interaction
Kind regards
Trevor
popsthebuilder1
New member
By baptism are you referring to baptism by water or fire?
Sent from my moto g(7) supra using Tapatalk
popsthebuilder1
New member
Uhm....in your first statement, you say it is all the doing of GOD alone; then, but n your second, you say disbelief is a choice made.
Sent from my moto g(7) supra using Tapatalk
popsthebuilder1
New member
I thought it was symbolism for being washed clean of past sins committed in relative ignorance...
Sent from my moto g(7) supra using Tapatalk
Greetings popsthebuilder1,
Acts 22:16 (KJV): And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Nevertheless Paul in Romans 6:1-14 associates water baptism into Christ with the death and resurrection of Jesus. It is not clear whether John’s preaching and baptism fully developed the concept of repentance and a new way of life or was fully connected with burial in water (death) and rising from the water (resurrection). Part of the teaching of John the Baptist is revealed in Isaiah 40:
Isaiah 40:6–8 (KJV): 6 The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field: 7 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass. 8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
Peter takes up this teaching and my understanding of this is that it is teaching the mortality of man and this could lead to a wider discussion as I do not believe man has an immortal soul:
1 Peter 1:23–25 (KJV): 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
I suggest that even the baptism by John the Baptist had more teaching than simply washing, but it is not clear how much was fully understood.
Kind regards
Trevor
Perhaps you may like to show where you get this concept. Washing is associated with Paul’s baptism in the following:
Acts 22:16 (KJV): And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Nevertheless Paul in Romans 6:1-14 associates water baptism into Christ with the death and resurrection of Jesus. It is not clear whether John’s preaching and baptism fully developed the concept of repentance and a new way of life or was fully connected with burial in water (death) and rising from the water (resurrection). Part of the teaching of John the Baptist is revealed in Isaiah 40:
Isaiah 40:6–8 (KJV): 6 The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field: 7 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass. 8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
Peter takes up this teaching and my understanding of this is that it is teaching the mortality of man and this could lead to a wider discussion as I do not believe man has an immortal soul:
1 Peter 1:23–25 (KJV): 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
I suggest that even the baptism by John the Baptist had more teaching than simply washing, but it is not clear how much was fully understood.
Kind regards
Trevor
popsthebuilder1
New member
We seem to be speaking about two different things. I was speaking about baptism with water, not the Spirit. They are different. Everyone who is baptised I'm water does not receive the Holy Spirit of the Lord; nor is reception of the Spirit contingent upon water baptism.
Sent from my moto g(7) supra using Tapatalk
genuineoriginal
New member
You seem to have a problem understanding the Bible.
Peter and Paul both preached the gospel of the kingdom to both Jews and Gentiles.
If the "gospel of grace" you follow will keep people out of the kingdom, then you are following a false gospel created by twisting Paul's words.
ttruscott
Well-known member
Where were these first and second statements made? I do not follow what you are saying... it is all the doing of GOD alone does not sound like my kind of emphasis not matter what IT refers to...
ttruscott
Well-known member
No gospel claims the unforgivable will be saved to enter the kingdom.
popsthebuilder1
New member
You only made two statements in the post I quoted.
Sent from my moto g(7) supra using Tapatalk