Gospel Confusion...

[LightBearer316]

I'm afraid I will have to ask you where that text ever even hinted at the other gospel as being corrupt, false or anything akin to being anything but legitimate for those to whom it was intended?

Pauls gospel said nothing about a requirement for water baptism unto the remission of sins in 1 Cor. 15 as did Peter to Israel in Acts 2. The differences are striking and very obvious. Please, if you would, explain these differences. Others keep injecting into those texts things that are not at all stated nor implied. I prefer we all stick strictly to what is actually stated. I'm sure you can appreciate that.

Thanks for your response.
MM

Great questions—thanks for asking to “stick to the text.”

1) Does Galatians 1 call the “other gospel” false?
Yes—note Paul’s wording:

• “I marvel that ye are so soon removed… unto another (heteron) gospel” (Gal 1:6).
• “Which is not another (allo); but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.” (Gal 1:7, KJV)

Paul contrasts a different kind (heteron) with another of the same kind (allo). He then says it is a perversion (metastrepsai) of the gospel. That is, not a parallel legitimate gospel, but a corrupted one—specifically, a works-tinged message in Galatia.

2) Acts 2:38 vs. 1 Corinthians 15—do these teach different saving messages?
Read both in their own contexts and in the flow of Acts.

• Paul’s summary: “Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again… by which also ye are saved…” (1 Cor 15:1–4).
• Paul’s distinction: “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” (1 Cor 1:17)
  
  By Paul’s own words, water baptism is not part of the gospel’s saving instrumentality.​
• Peter in Acts 2:38 (to Jews cut to the heart after crucifying the Messiah): “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.”
  Three textual observations that keep Scripture harmonized:
  (a) Grammar: Repent is a 2nd-person plural command; be baptized is 3rd-person singular (“each of you”). The nearest grammatical tie to “for the remission of sins” naturally goes with the plural call to repent (the heart-turn to Christ), while baptism is the public identification that follows.
  (b) Peter elsewhere: Peter himself later preaches forgiveness through believing before baptism—e.g., Acts 10:43–48 (“Whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins… The Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard… Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water…?”). They received the Spirit prior to water baptism.
  (c) Apostolic consensus: At the Jerusalem Council, Peter affirms God “purifying their hearts by faith” and concludes, “through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved” (Acts 15:9–11). No water rite is added as a condition.

• Other corroborating texts:
  – “To him that worketh not, but believeth… his faith is counted for righteousness” (Rom 4:5).
  – “By grace are ye saved through faith… not of works” (Eph 2:8–9).
  – “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:19).
  – “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16) — the participle clarifies the appeal to God as the cleansing instrument (cf. 1 Pet 3:21: “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer (appeal) of a good conscience toward God… by the resurrection of Jesus Christ”).

3) So what are the “differences” really?
Not two valid gospels, but one gospel applied across redemptive history and audiences. In Acts 2 Peter addresses repentant Jews in Jerusalem right after the crucifixion; public baptism in Jesus’ name is the marker of allegiance to the Messiah they had rejected. In Acts 10 and Acts 15, the same Peter makes crystal clear that forgiveness and the Spirit are granted through faith, with baptism following as obedient identification.

Bottom line (from the text):

• The “other gospel” in Galatians is a perversion, not a parallel saving message (Gal 1:6–9).
• Justification/forgiveness is consistently tied to repentance/faith in Christ.
• Baptism is commanded and precious, but it follows saving faith as the sign of union with Christ—not the instrument that secures pardon.

Grace and peace—thankful for the sharpening and for staying close to the words of Scripture.

 

[Musicmaster]

Great questions—thanks for asking to “stick to the text.”

1) Does Galatians 1 call the “other gospel” false?
Yes—note Paul’s wording:

• “I marvel that ye are so soon removed… unto another (heteron) gospel” (Gal 1:6).
• “Which is not another (allo); but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.” (Gal 1:7, KJV)

Paul contrasts a different kind (heteron) with another of the same kind (allo). He then says it is a perversion (metastrepsai) of the gospel. That is, not a parallel legitimate gospel, but a corrupted one—specifically, a works-tinged message in Galatia.

2) Acts 2:38 vs. 1 Corinthians 15—do these teach different saving messages?
Read both in their own contexts and in the flow of Acts.

• Paul’s summary: “Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again… by which also ye are saved…” (1 Cor 15:1–4).
• Paul’s distinction: “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” (1 Cor 1:17)
  
  By Paul’s own words, water baptism is not part of the gospel’s saving instrumentality.​
• Peter in Acts 2:38 (to Jews cut to the heart after crucifying the Messiah): “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.”
  Three textual observations that keep Scripture harmonized:
  (a) Grammar: Repent is a 2nd-person plural command; be baptized is 3rd-person singular (“each of you”). The nearest grammatical tie to “for the remission of sins” naturally goes with the plural call to repent (the heart-turn to Christ), while baptism is the public identification that follows.
  (b) Peter elsewhere: Peter himself later preaches forgiveness through believing before baptism—e.g., Acts 10:43–48 (“Whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins… The Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard… Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water…?”). They received the Spirit prior to water baptism.
  (c) Apostolic consensus: At the Jerusalem Council, Peter affirms God “purifying their hearts by faith” and concludes, “through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved” (Acts 15:9–11). No water rite is added as a condition.

• Other corroborating texts:
  – “To him that worketh not, but believeth… his faith is counted for righteousness” (Rom 4:5).
  – “By grace are ye saved through faith… not of works” (Eph 2:8–9).
  – “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:19).
  – “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16) — the participle clarifies the appeal to God as the cleansing instrument (cf. 1 Pet 3:21: “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer (appeal) of a good conscience toward God… by the resurrection of Jesus Christ”).

3) So what are the “differences” really?
Not two valid gospels, but one gospel applied across redemptive history and audiences. In Acts 2 Peter addresses repentant Jews in Jerusalem right after the crucifixion; public baptism in Jesus’ name is the marker of allegiance to the Messiah they had rejected. In Acts 10 and Acts 15, the same Peter makes crystal clear that forgiveness and the Spirit are granted through faith, with baptism following as obedient identification.

Bottom line (from the text):

• The “other gospel” in Galatians is a perversion, not a parallel saving message (Gal 1:6–9).
• Justification/forgiveness is consistently tied to repentance/faith in Christ.
• Baptism is commanded and precious, but it follows saving faith as the sign of union with Christ—not the instrument that secures pardon.

Grace and peace—thankful for the sharpening and for staying close to the words of Scripture.

The Greek reference 2087, according to Thayer's Greek Lexocon for Gal. 1:6 doesn't at all indicate the other gospel as being false or corrupt.

another i. e. one not of the same nature, form, class, kind; different (so in Greek writings from Homer down): Romans 7:23; 1 Corinthians 14:21; 1 Corinthians 15:40; 2 Corinthians 11:4; Galatians 1:6; Hebrews 7:11, 13, 15; James 2:25; Jude 1:7. (Synonym: see ἄλλος.)

That other gospel, then, had to be the Kingdom Gospel preached by such as Peter to Israel, as you commented upon. You also somewhat observed that Peter's gospel evolved away from the work of baptism as a salvational element through remission of sins. We need more people to understand that.

The rub, however, is when trying to lay a foundation of harmonization when there are strikingly differing elements within each. Paul never stated any requirement akin to Peter's command to Israel for the requirement of the work of water baptism for the remission of sins. As an Israeli, I have an insider's view through the decades of studying the Law and the rudiments therein. The foundational harmony between the Law and the work of water baptism for remission sins AND the requirement for enduring unto the end SHALL (future tense) be saved.

Paul's gospel was very different in its scope and it's lack for laying down any works whatsoever for the obtaining of salvation and its permanence through the sealing and earnest giving of Holy Spirit. Nowhere did the twelve ever speak that to Israel, who were still zealous for the Law without any criticism from the twelve for holding to that zeal among the Jews and the Jewish converts to Messianic Judaism who also were circumcized and zealous for the Law.

James was most specific about none of that being laid upon the Gentile believers.

So, the two primary gospels were absolutely true but were not both meant fornthe same groupings nor for harmonization since trying to do sonthrough word manipulations as some out there have attempted time after time, Paul was adamant about warning the Gentiles and the Jews under his ministry to consider accursed any other preachers of the Kingdom Gospel given the dichotomy that is created in the mixture that ends up being toxic because of the inharmonious nature of the two in relation to one another. The Gospel of Grace absolutely cannot be harmonized with the Mosaic Law given that we are now dead to the Law, just as the Kingdom Gospel as an offshoot from the Law cannot be harmonized with the Gospel of Grace.

If we find that our differences along this line are polar opposites, then we simply will have to agree to disagree, because if there were total harmony between the two gospels, then one must believe that we today are still held to the requirement for water baptism for remission of sins. That simply is false.

We shoud indeed seek to do good works and store up treasure in Heaven, but our salvation is sealed through Paul's gospel as given to him by Christ, of which had Satan and his princes known of that gospel and its implications, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory, as is stated in scripture. Satan had all Gentiles in his back pocket (so to speak) except they join with Israel.

MM

 

[Ouch]

The Greek reference 2087, according to Thayer's Greek Lexocon for Gal. 1:6 doesn't at all indicate the other gospel as being false or corrupt.

another i. e. one not of the same nature, form, class, kind; different (so in Greek writings from Homer down): Romans 7:23; 1 Corinthians 14:21; 1 Corinthians 15:40; 2 Corinthians 11:4; Galatians 1:6; Hebrews 7:11, 13, 15; James 2:25; Jude 1:7. (Synonym: see ἄλλος.)

That other gospel, then, had to be the Kingdom Gospel preached by such as Peter to Israel, as you commented upon. You also somewhat observed that Peter's gospel evolved away from the work of baptism as a salvational element through remission of sins. We need more people to understand that.

The rub, however, is when trying to lay a foundation of harmonization when there are strikingly differing elements within each. Paul never stated any requirement akin to Peter's command to Israel for the requirement of the work of water baptism for the remission of sins. As an Israeli, I have an insider's view through the decades of studying the Law and the rudiments therein. The foundational harmony between the Law and the work of water baptism for remission sins AND the requirement for enduring unto the end SHALL (future tense) be saved.

Paul's gospel was very different in its scope and it's lack for laying down any works whatsoever for the obtaining of salvation and its permanence through the sealing and earnest giving of Holy Spirit. Nowhere did the twelve ever speak that to Israel, who were still zealous for the Law without any criticism from the twelve for holding to that zeal among the Jews and the Jewish converts to Messianic Judaism who also were circumcized and zealous for the Law.

James was most specific about none of that being laid upon the Gentile believers.

So, the two primary gospels were absolutely true but were not both meant fornthe same groupings nor for harmonization since trying to do sonthrough word manipulations as some out there have attempted time after time, Paul was adamant about warning the Gentiles and the Jews under his ministry to consider accursed any other preachers of the Kingdom Gospel given the dichotomy that is created in the mixture that ends up being toxic because of the inharmonious nature of the two in relation to one another. The Gospel of Grace absolutely cannot be harmonized with the Mosaic Law given that we are now dead to the Law, just as the Kingdom Gospel as an offshoot from the Law cannot be harmonized with the Gospel of Grace.

If we find that our differences along this line are polar opposites, then we simply will have to agree to disagree, because if there were total harmony between the two gospels, then one must believe that we today are still held to the requirement for water baptism for remission of sins. That simply is false.

We shoud indeed seek to do good works and store up treasure in Heaven, but our salvation is sealed through Paul's gospel as given to him by Christ, of which had Satan and his princes known of that gospel and its implications, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory, as is stated in scripture. Satan had all Gentiles in his back pocket (so to speak) except they join with Israel.

MM

HIS word sure is confusing.

Which gospel is for which people?

How do those different sets of people get reborn?

Specific, what does a person have to do to be reborn in each case?

 

[LightBearer316]

HIS word sure is confusing.

Which gospel is for which people?

How do those different sets of people get reborn?

Specific, what does a person have to do to be reborn in each case?

The Greek reference 2087, according to Thayer's Greek Lexocon for Gal. 1:6 doesn't at all indicate the other gospel as being false or corrupt.

another i. e. one not of the same nature, form, class, kind; different (so in Greek writings from Homer down): Romans 7:23; 1 Corinthians 14:21; 1 Corinthians 15:40; 2 Corinthians 11:4; Galatians 1:6; Hebrews 7:11, 13, 15; James 2:25; Jude 1:7. (Synonym: see ἄλλος.)

That other gospel, then, had to be the Kingdom Gospel preached by such as Peter to Israel, as you commented upon. You also somewhat observed that Peter's gospel evolved away from the work of baptism as a salvational element through remission of sins. We need more people to understand that.

The rub, however, is when trying to lay a foundation of harmonization when there are strikingly differing elements within each. Paul never stated any requirement akin to Peter's command to Israel for the requirement of the work of water baptism for the remission of sins. As an Israeli, I have an insider's view through the decades of studying the Law and the rudiments therein. The foundational harmony between the Law and the work of water baptism for remission sins AND the requirement for enduring unto the end SHALL (future tense) be saved.

Paul's gospel was very different in its scope and it's lack for laying down any works whatsoever for the obtaining of salvation and its permanence through the sealing and earnest giving of Holy Spirit. Nowhere did the twelve ever speak that to Israel, who were still zealous for the Law without any criticism from the twelve for holding to that zeal among the Jews and the Jewish converts to Messianic Judaism who also were circumcized and zealous for the Law.

James was most specific about none of that being laid upon the Gentile believers.

So, the two primary gospels were absolutely true but were not both meant fornthe same groupings nor for harmonization since trying to do sonthrough word manipulations as some out there have attempted time after time, Paul was adamant about warning the Gentiles and the Jews under his ministry to consider accursed any other preachers of the Kingdom Gospel given the dichotomy that is created in the mixture that ends up being toxic because of the inharmonious nature of the two in relation to one another. The Gospel of Grace absolutely cannot be harmonized with the Mosaic Law given that we are now dead to the Law, just as the Kingdom Gospel as an offshoot from the Law cannot be harmonized with the Gospel of Grace.

If we find that our differences along this line are polar opposites, then we simply will have to agree to disagree, because if there were total harmony between the two gospels, then one must believe that we today are still held to the requirement for water baptism for remission of sins. That simply is false.

We shoud indeed seek to do good works and store up treasure in Heaven, but our salvation is sealed through Paul's gospel as given to him by Christ, of which had Satan and his princes known of that gospel and its implications, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory, as is stated in scripture. Satan had all Gentiles in his back pocket (so to speak) except they join with Israel.

MM

Thanks for the thoughtful pushback and for citing Thayer on ἕτερος (heteros). I actually agree with your lexical point: heteros means “another of a different kind.” That’s precisely why Paul’s contrast in Galatians 1:6–7 matters:

• “unto another (heteron) gospel” — i.e., different in kind
• “which is not another (allo)” — i.e., not another of the same kind
  

Paul then immediately labels it a perversion (metastrepsai) of the gospel of Christ and twice pronounces anathema on anyone who preaches it (Gal 1:7–9). Whatever that “other” was, Paul does not treat it as a parallel, valid gospel for a different audience; he treats it as accursed. The heteros/allo contrast supports that conclusion: different in kind, and therefore not a legitimate alternative.

On Peter, Acts, and baptism:

1. Acts 2:38 must be read alongside Acts 10:43–48 and Acts 15:7–11. Peter himself preaches remission of sins through believing (10:43), the Spirit falls prior to water (10:44–48), and at the council he concludes, “purifying their hearts by faith… we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved” (15:9–11). No rite is added as an instrument of justification.
2. Grammar in Acts 2:38: “Repent” (2nd-person plural) and “be baptized each of you” (3rd-person singular) naturally tie “for the remission of sins” to the plural repent—the heart-turn to Christ—while baptism functions as the public identification that follows.
3. Paul’s summary of the saving message is explicit and non-sacramental: “Christ died for our sins… was buried… rose again… by which also ye are saved” (1 Cor 15:1–4). And he distinguishes his commission accordingly: “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Cor 1:17).

About “two true gospels” (Kingdom vs. Grace):

• Galatians 2:7–9 speaks of the same gospel administered to different spheres (“gospel of the uncircumcision” to Paul; “of the circumcision” to Peter). The genitives there most naturally mark audience, not two substantively different saving messages.
• Ephesians 4:4–6 anchors unity: “one body… one Spirit… one hope… one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.”
• Romans 10:12–13 erases a Jew/Gentile soteriological split: “no difference between the Jew and the Greek… whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
• 2 Peter 3:15–16 shows Peter publicly endorsing Paul’s gospel, not cordoning off a separate plan.

As for “endure unto the end” (Matt 24:13), Jesus is describing perseverance amidst tribulation; it characterizes the saved, not a works-addendum to procure justification. Likewise, 1 Pet 3:21 explicitly denies water’s external efficacy (“not the putting away of the filth of the flesh”) and grounds salvation in the appeal (answer) of a good conscience toward God, “by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”


So my contention isn’t that Peter “evolved” from a baptism-for-remission gospel to Paul’s; it’s that, read canonically, Peter himself preaches forgiveness through faith (Acts 10; Acts 15), with baptism following as the sign of union with Christ (cf. Rom 6:3–4; Col 2:11–12)—not the instrument of pardon. That harmonizes Peter and Paul without positing two concurrently valid saving gospels, and it aligns with Paul’s anathema in Galatians 1:6–9, which leaves no room for parallel, audience-specific plans of justification.

Grace and peace—grateful for the sharpening and for keeping our feet planted in the text.

 

[LightBearer316]

HIS word sure is confusing.

Which gospel is for which people?

How do those different sets of people get reborn?

Specific, what does a person have to do to be reborn in each case?

Good question — and one that Scripture actually answers plainly when we stay within its own framework.

Which gospel is for which people?
Paul says there is only one true gospel that saves anyone, Jew or Gentile:

“There is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.” (Romans 10:12 KJV)​

​

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel… let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8 KJV)​

So, there are not different saving gospels — only one message of grace, applied to different audiences in history. Peter preached it first to Israel; Paul to the Gentiles. The content (Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection for sins) is the same.

How are people reborn?
Jesus said plainly:

“Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3 KJV)​

And He explained how:​

“That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” (John 3:6)​

​

The new birth is not through water, works, or ritual, but by the Spirit through faith:

“Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.” (1 John 5:1)​

What must a person do to be reborn?
The same answer applies to all:

“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” (Acts 16:31 KJV)​

“By grace are ye saved through faith… not of works.” (Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV)​

​

Baptism, repentance, obedience, and good works all flow after that new birth — as fruit, not as the root.

So, whether Jew or Gentile, past or present, salvation and rebirth come one way only:
by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

Grace and peace.

 

[LightBearer316]

I appreciate the dialogue, but Scripture is clear there is one gospel of grace revealed in Christ — not two. The apostles themselves affirmed that in Acts 15. Anything beyond that isn’t deeper revelation, it’s deviation. Grace and peace.

 

[Musicmaster]

Thanks for the thoughtful pushback and for citing Thayer on ἕτερος (heteros). I actually agree with your lexical point: heteros means “another of a different kind.” That’s precisely why Paul’s contrast in Galatians 1:6–7 matters:

• “unto another (heteron) gospel” — i.e., different in kind
• “which is not another (allo)” — i.e., not another of the same kind

Paul then immediately labels it a perversion (metastrepsai) of the gospel of Christ and twice pronounces anathema on anyone who preaches it (Gal 1:7–9). Whatever that “other” was, Paul does not treat it as a parallel, valid gospel for a different audience; he treats it as accursed. The heteros/allo contrast supports that conclusion: different in kind, and therefore not a legitimate alternative.

On Peter, Acts, and baptism:

1. Acts 2:38 must be read alongside Acts 10:43–48 and Acts 15:7–11. Peter himself preaches remission of sins through believing (10:43), the Spirit falls prior to water (10:44–48), and at the council he concludes, “purifying their hearts by faith… we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved” (15:9–11). No rite is added as an instrument of justification.
2. Grammar in Acts 2:38: “Repent” (2nd-person plural) and “be baptized each of you” (3rd-person singular) naturally tie “for the remission of sins” to the plural repent—the heart-turn to Christ—while baptism functions as the public identification that follows.
3. Paul’s summary of the saving message is explicit and non-sacramental: “Christ died for our sins… was buried… rose again… by which also ye are saved” (1 Cor 15:1–4). And he distinguishes his commission accordingly: “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Cor 1:17).

About “two true gospels” (Kingdom vs. Grace):

• Galatians 2:7–9 speaks of the same gospel administered to different spheres (“gospel of the uncircumcision” to Paul; “of the circumcision” to Peter). The genitives there most naturally mark audience, not two substantively different saving messages.
• Ephesians 4:4–6 anchors unity: “one body… one Spirit… one hope… one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.”
• Romans 10:12–13 erases a Jew/Gentile soteriological split: “no difference between the Jew and the Greek… whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
• 2 Peter 3:15–16 shows Peter publicly endorsing Paul’s gospel, not cordoning off a separate plan.

As for “endure unto the end” (Matt 24:13), Jesus is describing perseverance amidst tribulation; it characterizes the saved, not a works-addendum to procure justification. Likewise, 1 Pet 3:21 explicitly denies water’s external efficacy (“not the putting away of the filth of the flesh”) and grounds salvation in the appeal (answer) of a good conscience toward God, “by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”


So my contention isn’t that Peter “evolved” from a baptism-for-remission gospel to Paul’s; it’s that, read canonically, Peter himself preaches forgiveness through faith (Acts 10; Acts 15), with baptism following as the sign of union with Christ (cf. Rom 6:3–4; Col 2:11–12)—not the instrument of pardon. That harmonizes Peter and Paul without positing two concurrently valid saving gospels, and it aligns with Paul’s anathema in Galatians 1:6–9, which leaves no room for parallel, audience-specific plans of justification.

Grace and peace—grateful for the sharpening and for keeping our feet planted in the text.

If I may, something I'd like to interject here as a response to the overall landscape of the quoted post above, is your assuming the perversion of the gospel of Christ as meaning that the other gospel Paul was addressing was itself a perversion in any sense of the word. The Kingdom Gospel was/is a perversion only when preached as a replacement of the Gospel of Grace, which is precisely what the Judaisers were doing, which resulted in the ensuing chaos associated with the attempted inclusion of Kingdom Gospel preached by the twelve in the lives of the Gentiles.

The counsel of apostles did not put down the message preached to the Gentiles given that they themselves were practitioners of that kingdom gospel preached by the Judaisers. In its time and to the audience to whom it was intended, the Kingdom Gospel was true and legitimate to those to whom it was intended. As stated, we are not under the Kingdom Gospel and it's requirements.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

I appreciate the dialogue, but Scripture is clear there is one gospel of grace revealed in Christ — not two. The apostles themselves affirmed that in Acts 15. Anything beyond that isn’t deeper revelation, it’s deviation. Grace and peace.

I've been somewhat going into the rethink tank of terms. Perhaps it's not so much that the Kingdom Gospel is a separate gospel, but rather it's one step in the evolutionary build toward the Gospel of Grace within the line of a singular gospel. I can probably go along with that in the spirit of finding some common ground. John the Baptist preached only repentance and the coming kingdom rather than the cross. The twelve didn't even understand the cross when walking with Christ on this earth, and were afraid to ask. So, yes, the progression toward what we now have today is a take on the concepts we've been discussing.

MM

 

[LightBearer316]

If I may, something I'd like to interject here as a response to the overall landscape of the quoted post above, is your assuming the perversion of the gospel of Christ as meaning that the other gospel Paul was addressing was itself a perversion in any sense of the word. The Kingdom Gospel was/is a perversion only when preached as a replacement of the Gospel of Grace, which is precisely what the Judaisers were doing, which resulted in the ensuing chaos associated with the attempted inclusion of Kingdom Gospel preached by the twelve in the lives of the Gentiles.

The counsel of apostles did not put down the message preached to the Gentiles given that they themselves were practitioners of that kingdom gospel preached by the Judaisers. In its time and to the audience to whom it was intended, the Kingdom Gospel was true and legitimate to those to whom it was intended. As stated, we are not under the Kingdom Gospel and it's requirements.

MM

Appreciate the thoughtful exchange, but Scripture never presents two concurrent or sequential saving gospels. The apostles stood together on one message: salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone. At the Jerusalem Council, Peter affirmed that both Jew and Gentile are saved “through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 15:11), and Paul declared “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4:5). Galatians 1:6–9 leaves no category for an “earlier but valid” gospel—any other is accursed. The “gospel of the circumcision” and “of the uncircumcision” (Gal 2:7) mark distinct audiences, not different salvations. From Abraham to the Church, justification has always been by faith in God’s promise, fulfilled in the risen Christ (Rom 4:3; 10:12–13).
Grace and Peace

 

[LightBearer316]

I've been somewhat going into the rethink tank of terms. Perhaps it's not so much that the Kingdom Gospel is a separate gospel, but rather it's one step in the evolutionary build toward the Gospel of Grace within the line of a singular gospel. I can probably go along with that in the spirit of finding some common ground. John the Baptist preached only repentance and the coming kingdom rather than the cross. The twelve didn't even understand the cross when walking with Christ on this earth, and were afraid to ask. So, yes, the progression toward what we now have today is a take on the concepts we've been discussing.

MM

I appreciate your willingness to find common ground. The distinction you’re describing fits better as progressive revelation than as evolution. God’s redemptive plan didn’t change—it unfolded. From the promise to Abraham (Gal. 3:8) to John’s call to repentance and the full revelation of the cross, the message of salvation has always been by grace through faith in God’s provision. The cross didn’t evolve the gospel; it fulfilled it. What was shadowed before is now made plain in Christ (2 Tim. 1:9–10).
Grace and peace.

 

[Musicmaster]

I appreciate your willingness to find common ground. The distinction you’re describing fits better as progressive revelation than as evolution. God’s redemptive plan didn’t change—it unfolded. From the promise to Abraham (Gal. 3:8) to John’s call to repentance and the full revelation of the cross, the message of salvation has always been by grace through faith in God’s provision. The cross didn’t evolve the gospel; it fulfilled it. What was shadowed before is now made plain in Christ (2 Tim. 1:9–10).
Grace and peace.

The caveat I will suggest here is that there was indeed a change...or, rather, a delay with the insertion of the dispensation of grace given that this did not come to pass:

Matthew 16:28 — Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Those people are long dead to this world with none of them having seen that coming because of the prerogative the Lord exercised in the decline of Israel. Some have tried to claim that the transfiguration was that coming, which is bogus nonsense. That Millenial Kingdom is yet to be realized upon this earth after that Second Coming of which He was speaking.

MM

 

[Ouch]

Thanks for the thoughtful pushback and for citing Thayer on ἕτερος (heteros). I actually agree with your lexical point: heteros means “another of a different kind.” That’s precisely why Paul’s contrast in Galatians 1:6–7 matters:

• “unto another (heteron) gospel” — i.e., different in kind
• “which is not another (allo)” — i.e., not another of the same kind

Paul then immediately labels it a perversion (metastrepsai) of the gospel of Christ and twice pronounces anathema on anyone who preaches it (Gal 1:7–9). Whatever that “other” was, Paul does not treat it as a parallel, valid gospel for a different audience; he treats it as accursed. The heteros/allo contrast supports that conclusion: different in kind, and therefore not a legitimate alternative.

On Peter, Acts, and baptism:

1. Acts 2:38 must be read alongside Acts 10:43–48 and Acts 15:7–11. Peter himself preaches remission of sins through believing (10:43), the Spirit falls prior to water (10:44–48), and at the council he concludes, “purifying their hearts by faith… we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved” (15:9–11). No rite is added as an instrument of justification.
2. Grammar in Acts 2:38: “Repent” (2nd-person plural) and “be baptized each of you” (3rd-person singular) naturally tie “for the remission of sins” to the plural repent—the heart-turn to Christ—while baptism functions as the public identification that follows.
3. Paul’s summary of the saving message is explicit and non-sacramental: “Christ died for our sins… was buried… rose again… by which also ye are saved” (1 Cor 15:1–4). And he distinguishes his commission accordingly: “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Cor 1:17).

About “two true gospels” (Kingdom vs. Grace):

• Galatians 2:7–9 speaks of the same gospel administered to different spheres (“gospel of the uncircumcision” to Paul; “of the circumcision” to Peter). The genitives there most naturally mark audience, not two substantively different saving messages.
• Ephesians 4:4–6 anchors unity: “one body… one Spirit… one hope… one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.”
• Romans 10:12–13 erases a Jew/Gentile soteriological split: “no difference between the Jew and the Greek… whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
• 2 Peter 3:15–16 shows Peter publicly endorsing Paul’s gospel, not cordoning off a separate plan.

As for “endure unto the end” (Matt 24:13), Jesus is describing perseverance amidst tribulation; it characterizes the saved, not a works-addendum to procure justification. Likewise, 1 Pet 3:21 explicitly denies water’s external efficacy (“not the putting away of the filth of the flesh”) and grounds salvation in the appeal (answer) of a good conscience toward God, “by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”


So my contention isn’t that Peter “evolved” from a baptism-for-remission gospel to Paul’s; it’s that, read canonically, Peter himself preaches forgiveness through faith (Acts 10; Acts 15), with baptism following as the sign of union with Christ (cf. Rom 6:3–4; Col 2:11–12)—not the instrument of pardon. That harmonizes Peter and Paul without positing two concurrently valid saving gospels, and it aligns with Paul’s anathema in Galatians 1:6–9, which leaves no room for parallel, audience-specific plans of justification.

Grace and peace—grateful for the sharpening and for keeping our feet planted in the text.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Notice the word shall? Not do.

Why would you alter HIS word by saying "Peter himself preaches remission of sins through believing"

So when Peter COMMANED them to be bapttize if it wasn't for remmions of sins what was it for?

Paul and JESUS wasn't sent to baptized, that does not deleat it.

How do we get rid of our sins without it?

Did you share how we get reborn with the to different gospels?

 

[Ouch]

Good question — and one that Scripture actually answers plainly when we stay within its own framework.

Which gospel is for which people?
Paul says there is only one true gospel that saves anyone, Jew or Gentile:

“There is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.” (Romans 10:12 KJV)​

​

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel… let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8 KJV)​

So, there are not different saving gospels — only one message of grace, applied to different audiences in history. Peter preached it first to Israel; Paul to the Gentiles. The content (Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection for sins) is the same.

How are people reborn?
Jesus said plainly:

“Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3 KJV)​

And He explained how:​

“That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” (John 3:6)​

​

The new birth is not through water, works, or ritual, but by the Spirit through faith:

“Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.” (1 John 5:1)​

What must a person do to be reborn?
The same answer applies to all:

“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” (Acts 16:31 KJV)​

“By grace are ye saved through faith… not of works.” (Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV)​

​

Baptism, repentance, obedience, and good works all flow after that new birth — as fruit, not as the root.

So, whether Jew or Gentile, past or present, salvation and rebirth come one way only:
by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

Grace and peace.

So your really think that we can be reborn without getting rid of our sins?

 

[LightBearer316]

The caveat I will suggest here is that there was indeed a change...or, rather, a delay with the insertion of the dispensation of grace given that this did not come to pass:

Matthew 16:28 — Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Those people are long dead to this world with none of them having seen that coming because of the prerogative the Lord exercised in the decline of Israel. Some have tried to claim that the transfiguration was that coming, which is bogus nonsense. That Millenial Kingdom is yet to be realized upon this earth after that Second Coming of which He was speaking.

MM

That’s a classic hyper-dispensational pivot — using an eschatological delay (the kingdom postponed) to argue for a fundamental change in God’s redemptive plan.

I agree that the earthly kingdom promised to Israel awaits fulfillment, but that delay doesn’t imply the gospel itself changed. God’s timetable shifted; His plan didn’t. The same grace offered through faith before the cross is the grace revealed in fullness after it. Matthew 16:28 pointed to the preview of Christ’s glory that followed immediately in the transfiguration (Matt 17:1-8; 2 Pet 1:16-18)—a foretaste of the coming kingdom, not a failed promise. God’s Word never “paused” salvation by faith; it only postponed Israel’s national restoration. The gospel of grace remains the same message of redemption for all who believe.

Grace and peace.

 

[LightBearer316]

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Notice the word shall? Not do.

Why would you alter HIS word by saying "Peter himself preaches remission of sins through believing"

So when Peter COMMANED them to be bapttize if it wasn't for remmions of sins what was it for?

Paul and JESUS wasn't sent to baptized, that does not deleat it.

How do we get rid of our sins without it?

Did you share how we get reborn with the to different gospels?

This type of response is not genuine engagement with Scripture, but a provocative twisting of words designed to trap me into an endless loop rather than sincere discussion. Let’s unpack what’s really happening.

1. What Ouch doing

This poster is using three classic tactics that are common in works-based or sectarian teachers online:

• Word-baiting: he seizes on one verb (“shall”) and accuses you of “altering God’s Word,” ignoring context, Greek grammar, and the flow of Acts. That’s not exegesis — it’s rhetorical bait meant to provoke emotion.
• False equivalence: he insists that because baptism is commanded, it must therefore cause remission — conflating obedience with instrumentality.
• Loaded questioning: “How do we get rid of our sins without it?” assumes his premise (that water removes sin) and demands you play on his ground. It’s the same trap the Judaizers set in Acts 15: “Except ye be circumcised… ye cannot be saved.”

2. What it reveals

That mindset rejects grace’s sufficiency. It elevates ritual over repentance and faith.
It’s not about misunderstanding syntax — it’s about denying substitutionary atonement’s sufficiency.
Such people often present as “Bible literalists,” but they weaponize isolated verses to add to the gospel rather than defend it (Gal. 1:7–9 again fits perfectly).


3. How to discern motive

Does Ouch's comment point people to Christ’s finished work, or to a work of man (baptism) as the cleansing agent?
He’s not defending truth; he’s testing orthodoxy by seeing if I'll concede that baptism saves. It’s the same spirit Paul rebuked in Galatians 3: “Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?”

“Acts 10:43 indeed says ‘shall receive remission of sins’—that promise is fulfilled the moment one believes (v. 44 ‘the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard’). Peter then commanded baptism as a sign of that cleansing, not the cause of it. The text itself shows they received forgiveness before the water. Scripture consistently ties new birth to faith in Christ’s finished work, not to ritual performance (Eph 2:8–9; Titus 3:5).”​

I won't be drawn into “prove it again” debates — Titus 3:9 warns against “foolish questions… and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.”


4. Bottom line

Ouch is not seeking clarity; he’s attempting to re-assert a works-salvation doctrine and accuse me of corrupting Scripture when I quote it in context.

Acts 10:43 says “whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins”—and verse 44 immediately shows when that happened: “the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard.” They were forgiven and indwelt before the water. Peter then commanded baptism as a sign of that cleansing, not the cause of it. The new birth is by grace through faith in Christ’s finished work alone (Eph 2:8-9; Titus 3:5).

Grace and peace.

 

[LightBearer316]

2 Corinthians 11:3 (KJV):

“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.”

It’s Paul’s warning against being drawn away from the pure, uncomplicated truth of the gospel — salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone — toward clever distortions or “another Jesus… another gospel” (vv. 4–5).

Matthew 7:21–23 (KJV)

“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.​

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name?... And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”​

Jesus Himself warned that many will use His name while rejecting His authority.


2 Corinthians 11:13–15 (KJV)

“For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.​

And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.​

Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.”​

Some appear righteous and “biblical,” yet subtly twist the gospel.


1 John 4:1 (KJV)

“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.”​

True discernment means testing teaching against Scripture, not credentials or confidence.


Matthew 24:24 (KJV)

“For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.”​

Even persuasive “Bible talk” can mislead if it strays from the gospel of grace.

Grace and Peace

 

[Ouch]

This type of response is not genuine engagement with Scripture, but a provocative twisting of words designed to trap me into an endless loop rather than sincere discussion. Let’s unpack what’s really happening.

1. What Ouch doing

This poster is using three classic tactics that are common in works-based or sectarian teachers online:

• Word-baiting: he seizes on one verb (“shall”) and accuses you of “altering God’s Word,” ignoring context, Greek grammar, and the flow of Acts. That’s not exegesis — it’s rhetorical bait meant to provoke emotion.
• False equivalence: he insists that because baptism is commanded, it must therefore cause remission — conflating obedience with instrumentality.
• Loaded questioning: “How do we get rid of our sins without it?” assumes his premise (that water removes sin) and demands you play on his ground. It’s the same trap the Judaizers set in Acts 15: “Except ye be circumcised… ye cannot be saved.”

2. What it reveals

That mindset rejects grace’s sufficiency. It elevates ritual over repentance and faith.
It’s not about misunderstanding syntax — it’s about denying substitutionary atonement’s sufficiency.
Such people often present as “Bible literalists,” but they weaponize isolated verses to add to the gospel rather than defend it (Gal. 1:7–9 again fits perfectly).


3. How to discern motive

Does Ouch's comment point people to Christ’s finished work, or to a work of man (baptism) as the cleansing agent?
He’s not defending truth; he’s testing orthodoxy by seeing if I'll concede that baptism saves. It’s the same spirit Paul rebuked in Galatians 3: “Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?”

“Acts 10:43 indeed says ‘shall receive remission of sins’—that promise is fulfilled the moment one believes (v. 44 ‘the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard’). Peter then commanded baptism as a sign of that cleansing, not the cause of it. The text itself shows they received forgiveness before the water. Scripture consistently ties new birth to faith in Christ’s finished work, not to ritual performance (Eph 2:8–9; Titus 3:5).”​

I won't be drawn into “prove it again” debates — Titus 3:9 warns against “foolish questions… and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.”


4. Bottom line

Ouch is not seeking clarity; he’s attempting to re-assert a works-salvation doctrine and accuse me of corrupting Scripture when I quote it in context.

Acts 10:43 says “whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins”—and verse 44 immediately shows when that happened: “the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard.” They were forgiven and indwelt before the water. Peter then commanded baptism as a sign of that cleansing, not the cause of it. The new birth is by grace through faith in Christ’s finished work alone (Eph 2:8-9; Titus 3:5).

Grace and peace.

Did you tell me what I have to do to be reborn?

You can think they were reborn in Acts 10:43 all you like, doing so means people can be reborn and never get rid of their sins. But you do you.

What do these verses say and mean?

Acts 2:38-39
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.

39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

FYI, being baptized in not a work it's a commandment look at what JESUS said in John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

So which way is it, JESUS says we have to be born of water and of spirit to enter.

Who is doing the work when someone is baptized?

The person obeying HIS word? No,

The person doing the baptizing? Yes,

Or is it JESUS who was responsible for telling us we need to be?

Acts 10, they believe, JESUS filled them with the Holy Ghost first and then they were baptized.

Which all of the pieces fit, being reborn in verse 43 alone don't so JESUS didn't mean what HE said.

 

[Ouch]

2 Corinthians 11:3 (KJV):

“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.”

It’s Paul’s warning against being drawn away from the pure, uncomplicated truth of the gospel — salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone — toward clever distortions or “another Jesus… another gospel” (vv. 4–5).

Matthew 7:21–23 (KJV)

“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.​

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name?... And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”​

Jesus Himself warned that many will use His name while rejecting His authority.


2 Corinthians 11:13–15 (KJV)

“For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.​

And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.​

Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.”​

Some appear righteous and “biblical,” yet subtly twist the gospel.


1 John 4:1 (KJV)

“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.”​

True discernment means testing teaching against Scripture, not credentials or confidence.


Matthew 24:24 (KJV)

“For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.”​

Even persuasive “Bible talk” can mislead if it strays from the gospel of grace.

Grace and Peace

I would like to plant a seed.

You as many do say that it was done at the cross which is not true, HIS mission was not done.

May have been millions who died on the cross ONLY ONE ROSE AGAIN.

Many say that being baptized is a work.

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

You can see by HIS word, when JESUS died on the cross HE had all of our sins and GOD turned HIS back on HIM.

That is what happens to us if we never get rid of our sins.

What made JESUS special HE ROSE AGAIN.

Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

When we are baptized INTO HIM we are baptized into HIS death and we will be like HIM in our resurrection.

JESUS said in Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

If we believe HIM we will be baptized and SHALL be saved, if we don't we will not be baptized and shall be damned.


Was it a work when GOD told the army to march around Jericho 7 times or a commandment?

If they didn't obey what HE said would the walls fall down, did their work make the walls fall?

Was that a work, or them being obedient to what HE told them what to do to make the walls fall?


John 9:6 When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay,
7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.

If that man didn't obey and go wash in the pool of Siloam would he have been able to see, did his work make him see again?

Was that a work, or them being obedient to what he told them what to do to make the blind man see?


John 5:8 Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.
9 And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked: and on the same day was the sabbath.

If this man didn't obey and get up would he have been healed, was it his getting up that healed himself?

Was that a work or was it being obedient to what he was told to do?

How many more stories like this in HIS word??

 

[LightBearer316]

I would like to plant a seed.

You as many do say that it was done at the cross which is not true, HIS mission was not done.

May have been millions who died on the cross ONLY ONE ROSE AGAIN.

Many say that being baptized is a work.

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

You can see by HIS word, when JESUS died on the cross HE had all of our sins and GOD turned HIS back on HIM.

That is what happens to us if we never get rid of our sins.

What made JESUS special HE ROSE AGAIN.

Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

When we are baptized INTO HIM we are baptized into HIS death and we will be like HIM in our resurrection.
JESUS said in Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
If we believe HIM we will be baptized and SHALL be saved, if we don't we will not be baptized and shall be damned.
Was it a work when GOD told the army to march around Jericho 7 times or a commandment?
If they didn't obey what HE said would the walls fall down, did their work make the walls fall?
Was that a work, or them being obedient to what HE told them what to do to make the walls fall?
John 9:6 When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay,
7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.
If that man didn't obey and go wash in the pool of Siloam would he have been able to see, did his work make him see again?
Was that a work, or them being obedient to what he told them what to do to make the blind man see?
John 5:8 Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.
9 And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked: and on the same day was the sabbath.
If this man didn't obey and get up would he have been healed, was it his getting up that healed himself?
Was that a work or was it being obedient to what he was told to do?
How many more stories like this in HIS word??

Ouch is teaching baptismal regeneration — the false doctrine that says water baptism is required for salvation.

Here’s what he’s doing point by point:

1. Mixing faith + works

He quotes verses about obedience (Jericho, blind man, lame man) to argue that baptism is not a “work,” but an act of obedience required to be saved.
That’s a clever tactic: he tries to redefine works as obedience, but in salvation terms, anything you do to obtain grace is still a work (Romans 4:4–5).


2. Ignoring the finished work of the cross

He says Jesus’ mission “was not done at the cross” — which flatly contradicts John 19:30 (“It is finished”).
That’s a serious red flag. It denies the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement. Paul warned exactly about that in Galatians 2:21 — “If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.”


3. Pulling verses out of context

He uses Romans 6 and Mark 16:16 as if they teach salvation through baptism, but both are misunderstood:

• Romans 6 describes what baptism pictures (our identification with Christ), not what it accomplishes.
• Mark 16:16 condemns unbelief, not lack of baptism. If baptism were essential, the verse would say “He that believeth not or is not baptized shall be damned.” It doesn’t.

4. Equating outward ritual with inward faith

By comparing baptism to marching around Jericho or washing in Siloam, he’s implying that physical acts are how grace is released — as if God saves through performance.
But that’s the exact error Paul fought in Galatia — turning the gospel of grace into a gospel of ritual (Galatians 1:6–9; 3:1–3).


5. Using Scripture but twisting its purpose

Everything he quotes is biblical text, but the interpretation is backwards — using examples of obedience after faith to support a requirement before faith is effectual.
It sounds spiritual, but it subtly makes human response part of what saves — which nullifies grace (Romans 11:6).


In short:
He’s doing what Paul warned about — “another gospel” that looks biblical, uses the right verses, and talks about Jesus — but shifts the focus from Christ’s finished work to our ritual obedience.


That’s exactly why you posted 2 Corinthians 11:3 and 13-15 — and, ironically, he proved your point perfectly.


The issue isn’t whether obedience is important; it’s what saves.

Scripture is clear that salvation is by grace through faith — not of works, “lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8–9). Baptism is an act of obedience after salvation, not the cause of it. It is the outward testimony of an inward reality — a picture of what has already occurred through faith in Christ’s finished work.


You referenced Romans 6, but notice Paul isn’t teaching that baptism produces death and resurrection — he is showing what it symbolizes:

“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?”
Paul is using baptism as the visible expression of spiritual truth — that we are united with Christ by faith. The context of Romans 3–5 already settled that justification is by faith apart from works (Romans 3:28; 4:5).

As for Mark 16:16, Jesus said:

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”
Notice the condemnation is based solely on unbelief, not lack of baptism. Faith saves; baptism follows.​

The examples you cited (Jericho, the blind man, the lame man) are examples of obedience after hearing God’s word — not means of earning grace. The walls of Jericho didn’t fall by human effort, and the blind man didn’t heal himself; God did the miracle when they responded in faith. Likewise, salvation is not earned by ritual or effort, but received through trusting in Christ’s finished work.

Jesus said, “It is finished” (John 19:30).
Not “to be finished after baptism,” but finished. The resurrection proved His sacrifice was accepted (Romans 4:25). We are justified not by water, but by blood — the blood of the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world.

True obedience flows from salvation, not for it. Anything else corrupts the “simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:3).

Grace and peace in Christ alone.

 

[Ouch]

Ouch is teaching baptismal regeneration — the false doctrine that says water baptism is required for salvation.

Here’s what he’s doing point by point:

1. Mixing faith + works

He quotes verses about obedience (Jericho, blind man, lame man) to argue that baptism is not a “work,” but an act of obedience required to be saved.
That’s a clever tactic: he tries to redefine works as obedience, but in salvation terms, anything you do to obtain grace is still a work (Romans 4:4–5).


2. Ignoring the finished work of the cross

He says Jesus’ mission “was not done at the cross” — which flatly contradicts John 19:30 (“It is finished”).
That’s a serious red flag. It denies the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement. Paul warned exactly about that in Galatians 2:21 — “If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.”


3. Pulling verses out of context

He uses Romans 6 and Mark 16:16 as if they teach salvation through baptism, but both are misunderstood:

• Romans 6 describes what baptism pictures (our identification with Christ), not what it accomplishes.
• Mark 16:16 condemns unbelief, not lack of baptism. If baptism were essential, the verse would say “He that believeth not or is not baptized shall be damned.” It doesn’t.

4. Equating outward ritual with inward faith

By comparing baptism to marching around Jericho or washing in Siloam, he’s implying that physical acts are how grace is released — as if God saves through performance.
But that’s the exact error Paul fought in Galatia — turning the gospel of grace into a gospel of ritual (Galatians 1:6–9; 3:1–3).


5. Using Scripture but twisting its purpose

Everything he quotes is biblical text, but the interpretation is backwards — using examples of obedience after faith to support a requirement before faith is effectual.
It sounds spiritual, but it subtly makes human response part of what saves — which nullifies grace (Romans 11:6).


In short:
He’s doing what Paul warned about — “another gospel” that looks biblical, uses the right verses, and talks about Jesus — but shifts the focus from Christ’s finished work to our ritual obedience.


That’s exactly why you posted 2 Corinthians 11:3 and 13-15 — and, ironically, he proved your point perfectly.


The issue isn’t whether obedience is important; it’s what saves.

Scripture is clear that salvation is by grace through faith — not of works, “lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8–9). Baptism is an act of obedience after salvation, not the cause of it. It is the outward testimony of an inward reality — a picture of what has already occurred through faith in Christ’s finished work.


You referenced Romans 6, but notice Paul isn’t teaching that baptism produces death and resurrection — he is showing what it symbolizes:

“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?”
Paul is using baptism as the visible expression of spiritual truth — that we are united with Christ by faith. The context of Romans 3–5 already settled that justification is by faith apart from works (Romans 3:28; 4:5).

As for Mark 16:16, Jesus said:

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”​

Notice the condemnation is based solely on unbelief, not lack of baptism. Faith saves; baptism follows.​

The examples you cited (Jericho, the blind man, the lame man) are examples of obedience after hearing God’s word — not means of earning grace. The walls of Jericho didn’t fall by human effort, and the blind man didn’t heal himself; God did the miracle when they responded in faith. Likewise, salvation is not earned by ritual or effort, but received through trusting in Christ’s finished work.

Jesus said, “It is finished” (John 19:30).
Not “to be finished after baptism,” but finished. The resurrection proved His sacrifice was accepted (Romans 4:25). We are justified not by water, but by blood — the blood of the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world.

True obedience flows from salvation, not for it. Anything else corrupts the “simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:3).

Grace and peace in Christ alone.

I don't teach anything, just sharing HIS word.

You think HIS work was done on the cross?

Then you don't believe HE went to Hell and rose again.

You, like most try to explain what HIS word says instead of reading it and it says what it says.

What do these verses mean and say?

Acts 2:38 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.

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.