Can One’s Salvation Be Given Up?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
A gentile could join himself to the nation of Israel if he wanted to. But clearly the Jews themselves were in the majority. There was no reason to even acknowledge the presence of the observant gentiles among them.
Indeed he could have, but under the Law of Moses which was still valid then, they had to be circumcised and follow the Law to do so.
Exodus 12:48, and Acts 15:1

An easier explanation would be that Jesus commanded Peter not to preach the gospel of the kingdom to the Gentiles (Matthew 10:5)
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,170
3,699
113
Only because it was to go to the Jew first.
Any gentile could join himself to the nation of Israel at that time and before.

But I think the issue for you is you think Jesus' message sounds like a works gospel, so you have concluded that he taught another kingdom message than Paul.
It really baffles me that you think the gospel Paul taught (how Christ died for our sins and was resurrected) is the same gospel that the disciples taught (the gospel of the kingdom). And yet, I showed you many scriptures where the disciples had no clue of Christ’s d,b,r for sins. It was hid from them on purpose. Why was it hid?

1 Corinthians 2 (Paul)
6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

The cross had to be hidden from man. If Satan knew the outcome of the cross, he would have never initiated it to happen. He thought he was gaining the victory by having Jesus killed.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,170
3,699
113
Indeed he could have, but under the Law of Moses which was still valid then, they had to be circumcised and follow the Law to do so.
Exodus 12:48, and Acts 15:1

An easier explanation would be that Jesus commanded Peter not to preach the gospel of the kingdom to the Gentiles (Matthew 10:5)
He still believes the gospel of the kingdom is how Christ died for our sins, was buried and resurrected the third day.
 
Nov 16, 2019
3,441
860
113
It really baffles me that you think the gospel Paul taught (how Christ died for our sins and was resurrected) is the same gospel that the disciples taught (the gospel of the kingdom).
No, I'm not saying they preached the death and resurrection of Christ. :giggle:

17I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them 18to 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.’

19“So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven. 20First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and then to the Gentiles, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and demonstrate their repentance by their deeds.


It's the same message, but now with the sacrifice of Christ as the specific object of faith in God and the power of that salvation.
 
Nov 16, 2019
3,441
860
113
He still believes the gospel of the kingdom is how Christ died for our sins, was buried and resurrected the third day.
Not including Christ by name, of course.
That goes without saying.
 
Nov 16, 2019
3,441
860
113
14However, I admit that I worship the God of our ancestors as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets, 15and I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. - Acts 24:14-15
 
Nov 16, 2019
3,441
860
113
He still believes the gospel of the kingdom is how Christ died for our sins, was buried and resurrected the third day.
"I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen— 23that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles.” - Acts 26:22-23
 

Roughsoul1991

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2016
8,888
4,539
113
We did the Q&A already. Since my time here I have come across some interesting and disturbing beliefs from so called Christians. Christ isn’t God, the Millennial Kingdom is a Jewish myth, people claiming have a different Gospel, people believe God is giving them some kind of new revelation, etc.

This will be the last time I answer this because it has become completely unfruitful. I understand the 2 types of ministries that Jesus and Paul did. The Jews were looking for an earthly kingdom and the Gentiles need grace. The fact is we all need grace. By saying we don’t need to listen to Jesus teachings simply because Paul received a different Gospel is something I never heard before nor do I know anyone who preached it.

I hope this puts a close to this strange and yet informative conversation.
Very true. You will hear all sorts of theologies and usually everyone has the true interpretation lol. I'm guilty though. To me my current interpretation is true. It may get tweaked but ultimately in my opinion we make the Gospel way more complicated than it needs to be.

Not much has influenced my overall interpretation from just plainly reading the Bible from cover to cover. All the study and research has added details but nothing really affected the core message. If the Bible was all we had without the commentary, bible studies, scholars etc. We would still be perfectly equipped to be saved and to preach the Word.
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
He still believes the gospel of the kingdom is how Christ died for our sins, was buried and resurrected the third day.
That is the result of anticipating revelation, inserting Paul into the 4 Gospels and early Acts.
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
"I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen— 23that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles.” - Acts 26:22-23
There is a difference between saying:
  1. Jesus died because you murdered him, and rose again because he is the Son of God, the grave could not hold him (Acts 2:24-36), VERSUS
  2. Jesus died for your sinful nature you inherited from Adam (Romans 5:12-19), and rose again as a sign that you are now righteous before God. (2 Cor 5:21)
 

Aerials1978

Well-known member
Dec 10, 2019
1,707
987
113
Yep, it will take time for people to realize the distinction between what Peter was preaching to the Jews during early Acts, and what Paul received as revelations from the ascended Christ himself, after he was saved.
It’s nothing against you. I just find it to a case of erroneous theology.
 
Nov 16, 2019
3,441
860
113
There is a difference between saying:
  1. Jesus died because you murdered him, and rose again because he is the Son of God, the grave could not hold him (Acts 2:24-36), VERSUS
  2. Jesus died for your sinful nature you inherited from Adam (Romans 5:12-19), and rose again as a sign that you are now righteous before God. (2 Cor 5:21)
I really think you're making this way to complicated.

Go all the way back to God's promise to Abraham and work your way forward.
It's always been about God's promise to Abraham about a son.
That's where the gospel starts.
Same message, additional details.

(Yes, I know, we see hints of the gospel in the garden.)
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
I really think you're making this way to complicated.

Go all the way back to God's promise to Abraham and work your way forward.
It's always been about God's promise to Abraham about a son.
That's where the gospel starts.
Same message, additional details.
Okay, if you insist its the same, I can understand why you do.
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
It’s nothing against you. I just find it to a case of erroneous theology.
Fortunately, all of us are saved by Paul's gospel of grace so for people who want to hold the doctrine that the Jews had exactly the same gospel then, even though the bible call that the gospel of the kingdom, its okay, we can agree to disagree there.
 

Aerials1978

Well-known member
Dec 10, 2019
1,707
987
113
Fortunately, all of us are saved by Paul's gospel of grace so for people who want to hold the doctrine that the Jews had exactly the same gospel then, even though the bible call that the gospel of the kingdom, its okay, we can agree to disagree there.
The Bible also said the Angel Gabriel called Ezekiel the Son of Man. It’s all about the context.
 

Roughsoul1991

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2016
8,888
4,539
113
Fortunately, all of us are saved by Paul's gospel of grace so for people who want to hold the doctrine that the Jews had exactly the same gospel then, even though the bible call that the gospel of the kingdom, its okay, we can agree to disagree there.
So would you agree with this statement?

Do you adhere to Pauline theology (also called Paulism or Paulanity the Gentile Christianity? And support this idea, "Paul's writings contain teachings that are different from the original teachings of Jesus, the earliest Jewish Christians, as documented in the canonical gospels, and early Acts?
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
So would you agree with this statement?

Do you adhere to Pauline theology (also called Paulism or Paulanity the Gentile Christianity? And support this idea, "Paul's writings contain teachings that are different from the original teachings of Jesus, the earliest Jewish Christians, as documented in the canonical gospels, and early Acts?
Yes, scripture itself stated it clearly, that the revelations Paul received was something that was new, new enough that made apostle Peter, for example, remarked that he found it difficult to understand too.

We call this the mystery, that God had hidden since the foundations of the world began, and only revealed that to Paul after he was saved.

Is that belief really that heretical to you?
 

Roughsoul1991

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2016
8,888
4,539
113
Yes, scripture itself stated it clearly, that the revelations Paul received was something that was new, new enough that made apostle Peter, for example, remarked that he found it difficult to understand too.

We call this the mystery, that God had hidden since the foundations of the world began, and only revealed that to Paul after he was saved.

Is that belief really that heretical to you?
Thank you. I cannot make a judgment if this theology is heretical until I understand what are you denying from the 4 eyewitness accounts and early acts?
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113

Roughsoul1991

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2016
8,888
4,539
113
Many of you would deny this, for example, even though Jesus did mentioned it in the 4 eyewitness account. That is the problem of not rightly dividing the word of truth.

https://christianchat.com/threads/not-by-works.146296/post-4148476
Yes, Jesus does require works to be saved.

He clearly stated in The Sermon on The Mount that in order to have our sins forgiven, we must first forgive others their trespasses. He also clearly stated if we do not forgive others The Father will not forgive us. Forgiveness of others is a righteous act we must perform to be forgiven by The Father.

Do not argue with me, argue with Jesus.
You are correct with understanding who Jesus was talking to, time period, culture, place and topic. All can provide us with clarity.

No Jesus wasn't promoting a legalistic system but was in fact providing a clear example of the law and how more than likely anyone who heard the Beatitudes saw their own imperfections. Which is the main idea behind most of Jesus's teachings. The law was Holy and perfect so by us taking what Jesus said in the Beatitudes and applying it to our lives, we would be acting from love as Jesus said if you love me you will keep my commands.

Jesus made a hard push to show the hypocrisy of the day by providing countless examples of how people just didn't measure up. The whole idea was to get them to understand the true role of the Messiah.

Matthew 5:17-20 New International Version (NIV)
The Fulfillment of the Law
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Of course the Gentiles at first wasn't the main focus even though it had been prophesied and Jesus did in fact have many different occasions with Gentiles including 1 who he said had the greatest of faith. Or the woman at the well who he told to believe in him. When Peter first preached after receiving the Spirit, he was preaching to people from all over the known world including Gentiles. Many came to faith.

Paul was obviously more of a scholarly man so of course his teachings was often deeper and even hard for scholars today to agree on. But that doesn't prove anything. Paul and the Disciples taught the same Gospel. Paul was sent more to the Gentiles while the disciples mainly focused on the Jews but also spread out to the gentile world.