SO MANY FALSE PASTORS TODAY!!!!!!!!!!!

[LightBearer316]

This invention of an alleged error on my part is not absolutely consistent with what I have said throughout. I specifically pointed to one particular element, and that being water baptism for remission of sins, which you have consistently failed to show Paul ever teaching that as a central tenet of his gospel to the Gentiles and the Jews who had not yet been reached by Peter or any of the other eleven since they mostly remained in Jerusalem after the other believing Jews fled.

You can continue lying and lying about all this by way of slight misrepresentations that you try to use as a bolster to what you think is your case, but your half truths remain only that.


Yep. I've seen all this before and that is so common with subjectivists who pick and choose which definition fits their agenda. So very pathetic indeed.

You say that at the exclusion of other things written:

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

The subjectivists out there love to claim this verse shows it's the same gospel while overlooking the actual language and grammar whereby this verse denotes two different messages assigned to two different apostles to two different audiences. Circumcision and UNcircumcision are not the same thing any more than the gospel messages to each were different, as proven time and time again in relation to the differing elements and fixation upon the Law versus the lack of fixation upon the Law.

Folks, please don't fall into that other system of thought that's erroneous garbage of philosophical twisting of the texts. Read the relevant texts on your own and let Holt Spirit teach you. Don't believe any of us who are writing in here, but read the texts for yourself in prayerful meditation. (1 John 2:27)

The EMOTIONAL argument of what I've been saying being something that divides, that's just...well...emotional argumentation.

MM

Here’s what’s happening theologically and textually in that thread: Let's let the forum readers decide for themselves:

Summary of Musicmaster's Argument

MM is asserting two distinct gospels:

• One “gospel of the circumcision” (to Jews through Peter)
• One “gospel of the uncircumcision” (to Gentiles through Paul)

He argues that:

• These are not the same message, but two different messages to two different audiences.
• Paul’s “gospel of grace” was separate and independent from Peter’s.
• Galatians 2:7 proves this difference grammatically.
• Water baptism for the remission of sins was part of Peter’s gospel, not Paul’s.

This view is hyper-dispensationalism (or “two-gospel theory”), and it’s considered heretical by virtually all mainstream biblical scholars and historic Christianity.

My Position (LightBearer316)

My post defends the unity of the gospel — one message of salvation by grace through faith in Christ, affirmed by both Peter and Paul (see Acts 15, 1 Cor 15:1-4, Gal 1:6-9).
I'm correctly pointing out that:

• “Another gospel” (Gal 1:6-9) means any different kind is false.
• Peter ultimately affirmed Paul’s gospel (2 Peter 3:15-16).
• Scripture interprets Scripture — and no passage authorizes two separate saving messages.

Biblical Clarification

Galatians 2:7

“But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter…”​

This doesn’t describe two different gospels — it describes one gospel preached to two audiences.
The contrast is in mission field, not message content:

• Peter’s focus: Jews (“circumcision”)
• Paul’s focus: Gentiles (“uncircumcision”)
  Compare this with 1 Corinthians 15:11 — “Whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.”

If Peter and Paul preached two different saving gospels, the early church would have been hopelessly divided. But Acts 15 (the Jerusalem Council) shows they reached perfect agreement: salvation is by grace through faith, not law or ritual.

MM, the issue here isn’t about “agenda-driven definitions” — it’s about letting Scripture interpret itself.

Galatians 2:7 isn’t presenting two different gospels — it’s describing two mission fields under one message. The contrast is “of the circumcision” and “of the uncircumcision,” not “two gospels.” The Greek construction you cite doesn’t change the plain sense of the passage — it’s one gospel going out through two apostles to two audiences.

Paul and Peter preached the same gospel of grace. Paul said plainly: “Whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed” (1 Cor 15:11). That alone dismantles the idea of two distinct messages. And Peter later affirmed Paul’s message, calling it “the wisdom given unto him” (2 Pet 3:15-16).

The “gospel of the uncircumcision” refers to the audience, not a different doctrine. The unity of the gospel is woven all through the New Testament — one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one body (Eph 4:4-5).

If there were truly two saving gospels, the cross itself would be divided. But Paul declared that any “other gospel” is anathema (Gal 1:6-9). Christ’s finished work doesn’t splinter by ethnicity or apostolic assignment.

There’s one gospel, one Savior, and one way of salvation. Anything else isn’t interpretation — it’s fragmentation.

Grace and Peace

 

[LightBearer316]

My only disagreements are with you and what your false teaching pastors have taught you that you choose to embrace as allegedly true interpretation and application.

MM

That’s a classic deflection — MM is avoiding the Scriptural issue and trying to make it personal.
MM, you’ve proven my point. When correction from Scripture comes, you shift from the Word to personal accusation. That’s not discernment — that’s deflection.

You can label pastors “false” all day long, but it doesn’t change what the text says. Paul himself warned against preaching “another gospel,” and then immediately defined what the true one is:
“How that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day” (1 Cor 15:3-4 KJV).

That’s the same message Peter proclaimed in Acts 2, and the same one affirmed at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 — one gospel, one Savior, one cross.

Disagreement with error isn’t “following false teachers.” It’s following the plain truth of God’s Word. The apostles didn’t preach competing messages; they preached one Christ to all people.

You can disagree with me, but you can’t rewrite Scripture to justify division. The Word speaks for itself — and it doesn’t echo your theory of two gospels.

“For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.” (2 Cor 13:8 KJV)

Grace and Peace

 

[Musicmaster]

That’s a classic deflection — MM is avoiding the Scriptural issue and trying to make it personal.
MM, you’ve proven my point. When correction from Scripture comes, you shift from the Word to personal accusation. That’s not discernment — that’s deflection.

You can label pastors “false” all day long, but it doesn’t change what the text says. Paul himself warned against preaching “another gospel,” and then immediately defined what the true one is:
“How that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day” (1 Cor 15:3-4 KJV).

That’s the same message Peter proclaimed in Acts 2, and the same one affirmed at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 — one gospel, one Savior, one cross.

Disagreement with error isn’t “following false teachers.” It’s following the plain truth of God’s Word. The apostles didn’t preach competing messages; they preached one Christ to all people.

You can disagree with me, but you can’t rewrite Scripture to justify division. The Word speaks for itself — and it doesn’t echo your theory of two gospels.

“For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.” (2 Cor 13:8 KJV)

Grace and Peace

Bottom line, why did Paul not command water baptism for remission of sins as did Peter? If it's all one gospel, then it can ONLY be one gospel with no alterations to the elements necessary for salvation within its confines. You keep avoiding that without addressing it at the level it deserves. Pointing ONLY at faith and grace as the only defining elements when Peter clearly stated that water baptism was for the remission of sins...how many people could be saved without the remission of their sins? You conveniently continue to avoid that. Why?

The Kingdom Gospel relied upon OBEDIENCE to the work of water baptism in order for those people to have access to the Power in the Blood of Christ for the remission of their sins. We today are not under that requirement because, if we were, Paul would then have become a liar worthy of our ignoring all that he wrote...and many Messianic Jews do just that today. Why? Simply stated, when Paul said that we are saved by grace through faith, and not one word said about obedience to water baptism as the expression of their faith for access to that cleansing Blood, why you people have a problem with that distinction is of no consequence to reality. Paul called that "another" gospel, not an "inferior" gospel or a "false" gospel as you are trying to INJECT into the texts through manipulative selection of a definition that happens to mesh with what you WANT to believe.

I'm avoiding YOUR use of the scripture because of how nonsensical it is. Your claim for my alleged deflection in the midst of all the copy and paste antics isn't going to win you the day. Claiming "deflection" on the part of someone who disagrees with you is just another of your puny, feeble, false tactics to try and win an illegitimate victory.

Everyone here can see all this, and they will make up their own minds about it all with my encouragement to them to not take yours or my word for it, but to allow Holy Spirit to guide them into ALL Truth.

Love you bro, but just simply disagree with you.

MM

 

[LightBearer316]

Bottom line, why did Paul not command water baptism for remission of sins as did Peter? If it's all one gospel, then it can ONLY be one gospel with no alterations to the elements necessary for salvation within its confines. You keep avoiding that without addressing it at the level it deserves. Pointing ONLY at faith and grace as the only defining elements when Peter clearly stated that water baptism was for the remission of sins...how many people could be saved without the remission of their sins? You conveniently continue to avoid that. Why?

The Kingdom Gospel relied upon OBEDIENCE to the work of water baptism in order for those people to have access to the Power in the Blood of Christ for the remission of their sins. We today are not under that requirement because, if we were, Paul would then have become a liar worthy of our ignoring all that he wrote...and many Messianic Jews do just that today. Why? Simply stated, when Paul said that we are saved by grace through faith, and not one word said about obedience to water baptism as the expression of their faith for access to that cleansing Blood, why you people have a problem with that distinction is of no consequence to reality. Paul called that "another" gospel, not an "inferior" gospel or a "false" gospel as you are trying to INJECT into the texts through manipulative selection of a definition that happens to mesh with what you WANT to believe.

I'm avoiding YOUR use of the scripture because of how nonsensical it is. Your claim for my alleged deflection in the midst of all the copy and paste antics isn't going to win you the day. Claiming "deflection" on the part of someone who disagrees with you is just another of your puny, feeble, false tactics to try and win an illegitimate victory.

Everyone here can see all this, and they will make up their own minds about it all with my encouragement to them to not take yours or my word for it, but to allow Holy Spirit to guide them into ALL Truth.

Love you bro, but just simply disagree with you.

MM

Musicmaster MM’s latest response reveals a classic rhetorical shift — he’s no longer debating what the Scriptures say, but redefining terms and building a theological distinction that Scripture never makes. Here’s what he’s up to:

1. He’s creating a false dichotomy between Peter and Paul

Musicmaster MM is insisting there were two different gospels — one requiring obedience through baptism (Peter’s), and another offering salvation by grace through faith alone (Paul’s).
But Scripture never presents two separate messages.

Peter preached salvation through faith in Christ’s name (Acts 10:43), and Paul practiced baptism as part of the believer’s confession of that same faith (Acts 16:33).
Their audiences differed, not their gospel (Gal. 2:7–9).

2. He’s misreading Acts 2:38 as if it teaches baptism causes forgiveness

Peter said,

“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins…”​

But the Greek eis aphesin hamartiōn can mean “because of” or “in view of” remission (as in Matt. 12:41 — they “repented at the preaching of Jonah”).
Peter was calling them to repent and be baptized because their sins were being forgiven through Christ — not because water itself had saving power.

That’s why he immediately adds, “the promise is to all that believe” (Acts 2:39).

3. He’s ignoring how Peter himself later preached salvation

Later, Peter said to Cornelius’s household:

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

Notice: no mention of baptism first — belief brings remission.
Then they were baptized afterward (Acts 10:47–48) because they were already saved.

4. He’s subtly reframing the conversation to make ME look evasive

When MM says, “you keep avoiding that without addressing it at the level it deserves,” he’s using a debate tactic — to imply intellectual superiority and shift attention away from his inconsistent theology.
But I’ve already addressed the issue biblically: salvation is through faith in Christ’s death and resurrection, not through ritual.

5. What’s really going on

MM is deeply invested in a dispensational two-gospel theory heresy — a belief that Peter’s “kingdom gospel” (to Israel) required baptism, while Paul’s “grace gospel” (to Gentiles) did not.
He’s trying to preserve that distinction by making baptism the dividing line.

But his logic collapses because:

• Peter preached salvation by faith (Acts 15:11; 10:43).
• Paul baptized converts (Acts 16:15, 33; 18:8).
• Both preached one cross, one faith, one Lord (Eph. 4:5).

MM, let’s look carefully at what Scripture actually says.

Paul didn’t reject baptism — he simply kept it in its right place. In Acts 16:31-33, Paul preached, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved,” and then immediately baptized them after they believed. Baptism followed faith; it didn’t produce forgiveness.

Peter’s words in Acts 2:38 are fully consistent with that. The same Peter later preached:

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

That’s the clearest statement of how sins are remitted — through belief in Christ’s name, not by the physical act of immersion. Peter’s audience in Acts 2 was responding to the very ones who crucified Jesus; their baptism was the outward confession of repentance and faith in the One they had rejected.

When Paul said, “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Cor 1:17), he wasn’t minimizing baptism — he was distinguishing between the sign and the substance. The gospel itself is defined in 1 Cor 15:3-4 — Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. Nothing in that core message changes between Peter and Paul.

Both apostles preached the same saving truth:

• Peter: “We believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved.” (Acts 15:11)
• Paul: “By grace are ye saved through faith.” (Eph 2:8)

Different audiences, same gospel — one cross, one Savior, one salvation.
Water baptism is the beautiful testimony of that faith, not the source of it.

Grace and peace in Christ

 

[Musicmaster]

I never said Paul rejected water baptism. Inventing these straw men lies is not going to win anyone to your side.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

1 Corinthians 15:1-4
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

The context of these passages say nothing about any requirement for water baptism for the remission of sins. Please read it for what it says and what it does NOT say. If the WORK of water baptism were still a requirement under the Gospel of Grace for remission of sins, Paul was a liar. Those out there who teach what is contrary to this are preaching ANOTHER GOSPEL, and are accursed.

Does that seem harsh? Judge for yourselves. Read what Paul wrote, observe the elements of his gospel that are unto salvation, and judge for yourselves. Paul was not summarizing, as some have trid to foist upon this text. That would make him guilty of preaching a false gospel to have allegedly left out such a critical element for salvation, for who could be saved except that their sins are remitted.

Acts 2:36-38
36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

So, Peter commanded the element of water baptism for the remission of sins, Paul did not. If faith in the death, burial and crucifixion and resurrection of Christ on the third day were not sufficient for the remission of sins, then Paul was indeed in error and should be rejected, which many Hebrew Roots and Messianic Jews do to this very day.

This fact remains an enigmatic stumbling block to some who want to continue preaching that other Gospel and escape being declared accursed by laying the false claim of it all being the same gospel, when, as you can see for yourselves, it is NOT the same gospel with all the elements Peter preached remaining consistent throughout.

Judge for yourselves.

MM

 

[LightBearer316]

1 Corinthians 15:1-4
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

The context of these passages say nothing about any requirement for water baptism for the remission of sins. Please read it for what it says and what it does NOT say. If the WORK of water baptism were still a requirement under the Gospel of Grace for remission of sins, Paul was a liar. Those out there who teach what is contrary to this are preaching ANOTHER GOSPEL, and are accursed.

Does that seem harsh? Judge for yourselves. Read what Paul wrote, observe the elements of his gospel that are unto salvation, and judge for yourselves. Paul was not summarizing, as some have trid to foist upon this text. That would make him guilty of preaching a false gospel to have allegedly left out such a critical element for salvation, for who could be saved except that their sins are remitted.

Acts 2:36-38
36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

So, Peter commanded the element of water baptism for the remission of sins, Paul did not. If faith in the death, burial and crucifixion and resurrection of Christ on the third day were not sufficient for the remission of sins, then Paul was indeed in error and should be rejected, which many Hebrew Roots and Messianic Jews do to this very day.

This fact remains an enigmatic stumbling block to some who want to continue preaching that other Gospel and escape being declared accursed by laying the false claim of it all being the same gospel, when, as you can see for yourselves, it is NOT the same gospel with all the elements Peter preached remaining consistent throughout.

Judge for yourselves.

MM

Brother, thank you for clarifying that you don’t reject water baptism — that helps keep the conversation focused.

You’re absolutely right that 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 defines the gospel Paul preached. But the key issue isn’t whether baptism is mentioned in that passage — it’s whether Peter and Paul preached two different gospels or the same one revealed under different circumstances. Scripture consistently shows it’s one gospel, centered on Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection.

MM wrote:​

“If the work of water baptism were still a requirement under the Gospel of Grace for remission of sins, Paul was a liar.”​

That statement assumes that Peter and Paul were preaching different messages — but both apostles publicly affirmed they proclaimed the same saving faith.

“We believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.”​

— Acts 15:11​

That’s Peter speaking at the Jerusalem Council — long after Pentecost — and he’s agreeing with Paul’s message of salvation by grace through faith alone.

“By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.”​

— Ephesians 2:8​

Different audiences, same gospel. Neither added any ritual as a condition for forgiveness.

1. Acts 2:38 Doesn’t Establish a Second Gospel

Peter’s command,

“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,”​

must be understood in context. The Greek phrase eis aphesin hamartiōn (“for the remission of sins”) can mean “because of” or “in view of” forgiveness — just as in Matthew 12:41, where the Ninevites “repented at (because of) the preaching of Jonah.”

Peter’s later preaching clarifies this perfectly:

“Through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.”​

— Acts 10:43​

If baptism were the means of remission, Peter would have contradicted himself. Instead, he shows the same sequence Paul did — faith first, baptism following as testimony.

2. Context Explains the Difference in Emphasis

At Pentecost, Peter addressed Israel, a nation that had publicly rejected its Messiah. Baptism was their visible confession of repentance and faith in the One they had crucified.

By the time Paul ministered to Gentiles, that national-repentance context was gone. The same gospel of grace applied, but without the ceremonial sign that identified repentant Israelites with the rejected Christ.

3. Paul’s Warning About “Another Gospel”

When Paul condemned “another gospel” (Galatians 1:8-9), he wasn’t accusing Peter — he and Peter shook hands in fellowship after comparing their ministries (Gal. 2:7-9).

The “other gospel” Paul warned about was the distortion that added works or rituals to grace — precisely what happens when baptism is made the means rather than the mark of salvation.

4. One Cross, One Faith, One Gospel

“One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”​

— Ephesians 4:5​

There aren’t two messages of salvation. Both apostles pointed to the same Savior, the same cross, and the same grace. Baptism, like the Lord’s Supper, is a sign — a public testimony of faith, not the instrument of forgiveness.

Grace and peace, brother.
Let’s keep pointing hearts back to the sufficiency of the cross, not the ceremony around it.

“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us.”​

— Titus 3:5​

 

[Musicmaster]

Brother, thank you for clarifying that you don’t reject water baptism — that helps keep the conversation focused.

You’re absolutely right that 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 defines the gospel Paul preached. But the key issue isn’t whether baptism is mentioned in that passage — it’s whether Peter and Paul preached two different gospels or the same one revealed under different circumstances. Scripture consistently shows it’s one gospel, centered on Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection.

MM wrote:​

“If the work of water baptism were still a requirement under the Gospel of Grace for remission of sins, Paul was a liar.”​

That statement assumes that Peter and Paul were preaching different messages — but both apostles publicly affirmed they proclaimed the same saving faith.

“We believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.”​

— Acts 15:11​

That’s Peter speaking at the Jerusalem Council — long after Pentecost — and he’s agreeing with Paul’s message of salvation by grace through faith alone.

“By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.”​

— Ephesians 2:8​

Different audiences, same gospel. Neither added any ritual as a condition for forgiveness.

1. Acts 2:38 Doesn’t Establish a Second Gospel

Peter’s command,

“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,”​

must be understood in context. The Greek phrase eis aphesin hamartiōn (“for the remission of sins”) can mean “because of” or “in view of” forgiveness — just as in Matthew 12:41, where the Ninevites “repented at (because of) the preaching of Jonah.”

Peter’s later preaching clarifies this perfectly:

“Through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.”​

— Acts 10:43​

If baptism were the means of remission, Peter would have contradicted himself. Instead, he shows the same sequence Paul did — faith first, baptism following as testimony.

2. Context Explains the Difference in Emphasis

At Pentecost, Peter addressed Israel, a nation that had publicly rejected its Messiah. Baptism was their visible confession of repentance and faith in the One they had crucified.

By the time Paul ministered to Gentiles, that national-repentance context was gone. The same gospel of grace applied, but without the ceremonial sign that identified repentant Israelites with the rejected Christ.

3. Paul’s Warning About “Another Gospel”

When Paul condemned “another gospel” (Galatians 1:8-9), he wasn’t accusing Peter — he and Peter shook hands in fellowship after comparing their ministries (Gal. 2:7-9).

The “other gospel” Paul warned about was the distortion that added works or rituals to grace — precisely what happens when baptism is made the means rather than the mark of salvation.

4. One Cross, One Faith, One Gospel

“One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”​

— Ephesians 4:5​

There aren’t two messages of salvation. Both apostles pointed to the same Savior, the same cross, and the same grace. Baptism, like the Lord’s Supper, is a sign — a public testimony of faith, not the instrument of forgiveness.

Grace and peace, brother.
Let’s keep pointing hearts back to the sufficiency of the cross, not the ceremony around it.

“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us.”​

— Titus 3:5​

More copy and paste, with nothing of substance.

MM

 

[Aaron56]

I don't know why you two (@Musicmaster @LightBearer316 ) can't respect one another. I enjoy what you two share often even though I don't always see things from your perspectives. #shrug

 

[Musicmaster]

I don't know why you two (@Musicmaster @LightBearer316 ) can't respect one another. I enjoy what you two share often even though I don't always see things from your perspectives. #shrug

I did tell him that I love him but simply disagree and lack understanding about his denials of the obvious, and his repetitive copy and paste antics have become a juvenile ploy that I would not have expected from someone as seemingly intelligent as he. I was just baffled and so called him out onto the carpet for it, and you can see his responses...

MM

 

[LightBearer316]

More copy and paste, with nothing of substance.

MM

MM’s reply of “More copy and paste, with nothing of substance” is a deflection, not a refutation. When someone dismisses detailed scriptural reasoning as “copy and paste,” it usually signals they don’t want to deal with the argument’s actual content. My post systematically unpacked the passages — Acts 2:38, Acts 10:43, Galatians 1, and Ephesians 4 — with context and Greek nuance. That’s substantive theology, not fluff.

Brother, I understand the “copy and paste” comment, but every verse I shared was chosen to show the internal harmony of Scripture — not to flood the thread, but to let the Word speak for itself.

The substance is in the comparison of what Peter and Paul actually preached. Acts 10:43, Galatians 2:7-9, and Ephesians 4:5 all show one gospel — salvation by grace through faith, with baptism following as testimony.

If you believe these passages teach otherwise, please explain how Peter’s “through His name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins” (Acts 10:43) fits a system where baptism is required for remission. I’m happy to engage on the text itself, verse by verse, not personalities or labels.

The goal isn’t to win an argument, but to uphold the sufficiency of the cross.

Grace and peace, brother.

 

[LightBearer316]

I did tell him that I love him but simply disagree and lack understanding about his denials of the obvious, and his repetitive copy and paste antics have become a juvenile ploy that I would not have expected from someone as seemingly intelligent as he. I was just baffled and so called him out onto the carpet for it, and you can see his responses...

MM

That response from MM is classic tone-shifting — moving away from Scripture and into personal characterization to make my arguments look emotional or evasive. He’s trying to reframe the discussion from “What do the Scriptures actually teach?” to “Look how immature my opponent is.” That’s not debate; it’s reputation management.

Brother, I appreciate that you said you love me — I can honestly say the same. My intent has never been to frustrate you but to stay anchored in the text itself.

When I quote Scripture at length, it’s not a “copy-and-paste ploy”; it’s because the Word is our final authority. If we differ, then the only profitable thing is to keep bringing the verses back to the surface — not personalities, but passages.

I don’t mind disagreement at all; what I do mind is when it turns personal. Let’s both aim higher than that and keep the focus on what the apostles actually preached, not how we perceive one another.

Grace and peace, brother — sincerely.

 

[Aaron56]

@Musicmaster @LightBearer316

Well, I like both you guys. You both have some great insight into the scriptures. Whenever I catch a post from either of you I give them some thought and consideration. I think both of you handle the scriptures with great respect.

 

[Musicmaster]

MM’s reply of “More copy and paste, with nothing of substance” is a deflection, not a refutation. When someone dismisses detailed scriptural reasoning as “copy and paste,” it usually signals they don’t want to deal with the argument’s actual content. My post systematically unpacked the passages — Acts 2:38, Acts 10:43, Galatians 1, and Ephesians 4 — with context and Greek nuance. That’s substantive theology, not fluff.

Brother, I understand the “copy and paste” comment, but every verse I shared was chosen to show the internal harmony of Scripture — not to flood the thread, but to let the Word speak for itself.

The substance is in the comparison of what Peter and Paul actually preached. Acts 10:43, Galatians 2:7-9, and Ephesians 4:5 all show one gospel — salvation by grace through faith, with baptism following as testimony.

If you believe these passages teach otherwise, please explain how Peter’s “through His name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins” (Acts 10:43) fits a system where baptism is required for remission. I’m happy to engage on the text itself, verse by verse, not personalities or labels.

The goal isn’t to win an argument, but to uphold the sufficiency of the cross.

Grace and peace, brother.

Alright, looking at those verses, do you see Peter's understanding of the change God implemented? The Kingdom Gospel and its passing into remission for the duration of the age of grace, it's obvious when we consider the timeline of events outlined in Acts. More specifically, in Acts 7, Stephen is murdered, then in Acts 9 Paul is converted. Stephen's indictment and murder, and the ensuing decline of Israel, as Jesus foretold foretold in Luke13: 6-9. Yes, I've read some commentaries that completely got wrong their silly interpretations, which is not at all surprising given that commentaries routinely disagree with one another. Many of them fail to remain consistent with Systematic Theology's approach to a focus upon the biblical imagery throughout.

So, Peter, through the decline of Israel, who alone was the chosen people to whom Gentiles had to join themselves for salvation and partaking of the blessings and promises to Abraham. The dispensation of grace, then, nullified the need for water baptism preached by Peter before Israel's demise in its decline, which elicited this:

Romans 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

If salvation had come unto the Gentiles, that means it wasn't available to them before. It's logical and consistent with other areas of scripture:

Ephesians 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

A fixation upon the belief that words have meaning helps one to recognize that Gentiles, being without Christ shows to us that it wasn't until a Gentile joined with Israel as a proselyte and then later not having to join with Israel after her fall because salvation then was directly available to the Gentiles apart from Israel.

So, the Gospel dispensation had to change in order for salvation to come unto the Gentiles who did not have it directly available to them before Israel's fall apart from joining with Israel. The difference is in works. The Law was not given to nor any expectation was palced upon Gentils for obedience to the Law and works. Israel had that upon them...still, even after the cross as is shown here:

Acts 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

The believing Jews were still adhering to the Mosaic Law. Not, of course, the ceremonial parts having to do with blood sacrifices, which is further exemplified in the following verse to the one above:

Acts 21:21, 23-24
21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. ...
23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

More can be said about this, but suffice it to say that the typical Evangelical belief system is slanted in a number of ways that distorts the real narratives within scripture of which many are not aware not want to admit.

So, the way in which you utilized the verses you quoted, when framed within their context in relation to other clarifying contexts, that continuity is what was missing in your presentations, and it was therefore that with which I based my disagreement with your presentation, not with the scriptures in and of themselves.

Then you ventured deeper into dark terrain when labeling me as "hyper-dispensational," which is nothing more than a mere label rather than to present a reason why I am absolutely wrong in what I presented regardless of what other belief system it all may somewhat resemble. If we continue to disagree, then that's cool. I don't mind. All I ask of others watching this is to make up their own minds through prayerful meditation, for I have no doubts Holy Spirit guides ALL who ask. (1 John 2:27)

I hope that's more clear.

MM

 

[LightBearer316]

@Musicmaster @LightBearer316

Well, I like both you guys. You both have some great insight into the scriptures. Whenever I catch a post from either of you I give them some thought and consideration. I think both of you handle the scriptures with great respect.

Thank you, brother — that really means a lot. We may see some things from different angles, but I truly believe that as long as we both handle the Scriptures with reverence and seek to honor Christ, the discussion is worthwhile.

Iron sharpens iron (Proverbs 27:17), and even in disagreement, we can still strengthen one another if our goal stays the same — to point hearts toward the truth of the gospel.

I appreciate your kind words and your spirit of unity. Grace and peace to you in Christ Jesus.

 

[LightBearer316]

Alright, looking at those verses, do you see Peter's understanding of the change God implemented? The Kingdom Gospel and its passing into remission for the duration of the age of grace, it's obvious when we consider the timeline of events outlined in Acts. More specifically, in Acts 7, Stephen is murdered, then in Acts 9 Paul is converted. Stephen's indictment and murder, and the ensuing decline of Israel, as Jesus foretold foretold in Luke13: 6-9. Yes, I've read some commentaries that completely got wrong their silly interpretations, which is not at all surprising given that commentaries routinely disagree with one another. Many of them fail to remain consistent with Systematic Theology's approach to a focus upon the biblical imagery throughout.

So, Peter, through the decline of Israel, who alone was the chosen people to whom Gentiles had to join themselves for salvation and partaking of the blessings and promises to Abraham. The dispensation of grace, then, nullified the need for water baptism preached by Peter before Israel's demise in its decline, which elicited this:

Romans 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

If salvation had come unto the Gentiles, that means it wasn't available to them before. It's logical and consistent with other areas of scripture:

Ephesians 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

A fixation upon the belief that words have meaning helps one to recognize that Gentiles, being without Christ shows to us that it wasn't until a Gentile joined with Israel as a proselyte and then later not having to join with Israel after her fall because salvation then was directly available to the Gentiles apart from Israel.

So, the Gospel dispensation had to change in order for salvation to come unto the Gentiles who did not have it directly available to them before Israel's fall apart from joining with Israel. The difference is in works. The Law was not given to nor any expectation was palced upon Gentils for obedience to the Law and works. Israel had that upon them...still, even after the cross as is shown here:

Acts 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

The believing Jews were still adhering to the Mosaic Law. Not, of course, the ceremonial parts having to do with blood sacrifices, which is further exemplified in the following verse to the one above:

Acts 21:21, 23-24
21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. ...
23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

More can be said about this, but suffice it to say that the typical Evangelical belief system is slanted in a number of ways that distorts the real narratives within scripture of which many are not aware not want to admit.

So, the way in which you utilized the verses you quoted, when framed within their context in relation to other clarifying contexts, that continuity is what was missing in your presentations, and it was therefore that with which I based my disagreement with your presentation, not with the scriptures in and of themselves.

Then you ventured deeper into dark terrain when labeling me as "hyper-dispensational," which is nothing more than a mere label rather than to present a reason why I am absolutely wrong in what I presented regardless of what other belief system it all may somewhat resemble. If we continue to disagree, then that's cool. I don't mind. All I ask of others watching this is to make up their own minds through prayerful meditation, for I have no doubts Holy Spirit guides ALL who ask. (1 John 2:27)

I hope that's more clear.

MM

Brother, I genuinely appreciate the time and thought you put into laying that out. You’ve made your position clearer, and I respect your effort to stay consistent within your framework.

I agree that Acts shows a transition — but a transition in audience and stewardship, not in the content of the gospel itself. The same Christ, the same cross, and the same faith remain central from Peter to Paul.

Peter’s own words to Cornelius in Acts 10:43 — “through His name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins” — came before Israel’s national fall in Acts 7–9, yet that message mirrors Paul’s gospel of grace exactly. That suggests continuity of salvation by faith apart from works, even before Paul’s conversion.

Likewise, in Acts 15, long after your identified transition point, Peter reaffirms: “We believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.” (Acts 15:11). That’s not two gospels, but one shared confession.

You’re absolutely right that Israel had a unique covenant role and that Gentile inclusion unfolded progressively — but the basis of salvation never changed. Abraham was justified by faith (Romans 4), David was forgiven by grace, and believers today stand on the same promise fulfilled in Christ.

So I’d say the distinction lies not in “different gospels,” but in different dispensations of the same grace — one message, revealed with greater clarity through Paul’s ministry, but never contradictory to Peter’s.

I deeply appreciate your heart for Scripture and your closing reminder from 1 John 2:27. May the Spirit truly guide us both into truth. Grace and peace, brother.

 

[Musicmaster]

Brother, I genuinely appreciate the time and thought you put into laying that out. You’ve made your position clearer, and I respect your effort to stay consistent within your framework.

I agree that Acts shows a transition — but a transition in audience and stewardship, not in the content of the gospel itself. The same Christ, the same cross, and the same faith remain central from Peter to Paul.

Peter’s own words to Cornelius in Acts 10:43 — “through His name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins” — came before Israel’s national fall in Acts 7–9, yet that message mirrors Paul’s gospel of grace exactly. That suggests continuity of salvation by faith apart from works, even before Paul’s conversion.

Likewise, in Acts 15, long after your identified transition point, Peter reaffirms: “We believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.” (Acts 15:11). That’s not two gospels, but one shared confession.

You’re absolutely right that Israel had a unique covenant role and that Gentile inclusion unfolded progressively — but the basis of salvation never changed. Abraham was justified by faith (Romans 4), David was forgiven by grace, and believers today stand on the same promise fulfilled in Christ.

So I’d say the distinction lies not in “different gospels,” but in different dispensations of the same grace — one message, revealed with greater clarity through Paul’s ministry, but never contradictory to Peter’s.

I deeply appreciate your heart for Scripture and your closing reminder from 1 John 2:27. May the Spirit truly guide us both into truth. Grace and peace, brother.

I'd like to address this to you for consideration: Given that Paul was taught of men the Kingdom Gospel, which is the basis for his persecutions of the early Church, how can anyone say that Paul's Gospel of Grace was the same gospel message in every way given that what he preached:

Galatians 1:11-12 — But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

So, it makes no sense to say that Paul preached the same gospel as did Peter and the eleven given that he already knew what their gospel was in order for him to think their gospel a heresy worthy of being put to death. He knew their gospel from what he heard them preaching or that he was told by some other man what they were preaching. Either way, he was aware of their gospel by way of man, not Christ.

Do you see the difficulty behind the claim that Paul preached the same gospel that allegedly had no differences? One he got from men and the other he got directly from Christ.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Brother, I genuinely appreciate the time and thought you put into laying that out. You’ve made your position clearer, and I respect your effort to stay consistent within your framework.

I agree that Acts shows a transition — but a transition in audience and stewardship, not in the content of the gospel itself. The same Christ, the same cross, and the same faith remain central from Peter to Paul.

Peter’s own words to Cornelius in Acts 10:43 — “through His name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins” — came before Israel’s national fall in Acts 7–9, yet that message mirrors Paul’s gospel of grace exactly. That suggests continuity of salvation by faith apart from works, even before Paul’s conversion.

Likewise, in Acts 15, long after your identified transition point, Peter reaffirms: “We believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.” (Acts 15:11). That’s not two gospels, but one shared confession.

You’re absolutely right that Israel had a unique covenant role and that Gentile inclusion unfolded progressively — but the basis of salvation never changed. Abraham was justified by faith (Romans 4), David was forgiven by grace, and believers today stand on the same promise fulfilled in Christ.

So I’d say the distinction lies not in “different gospels,” but in different dispensations of the same grace — one message, revealed with greater clarity through Paul’s ministry, but never contradictory to Peter’s.

I deeply appreciate your heart for Scripture and your closing reminder from 1 John 2:27. May the Spirit truly guide us both into truth. Grace and peace, brother.

I agree that Peter did come around to an understanding of the Gospel of Grace, but that does not nullify the fact that even his gospel message changed over time through revelation...not of the Gospel of Grace itself, but rather through the lesson the Lord taught him through the vision of the sheet coming down from Heaven and commanded to eat what the Mosaic Law forbade.

Additionally, Peter was never declared the or an apostle to the Gentiles. He was taught that Gentiles were no longer unclean, but he was not tasked with a responsibility to any peoples as he was for Israel.

Galatians 2:7-9 — But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles, and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Reiterating a point, that there were gospels with differing elements, that is indisputable, for Paul would not have had to meet secretly with Peter and James had it all been the same gospel in every respect, and the gospels would not have been differentiated on the basis of the gospel OF the circumcision and the gospel OF the uncircumcision.

Please address post 277 above.

Thank you.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

LightBearer316, your silence on this seems to indicate that perhaps the scriptures are beginning to help you see the error in the singular gospel doctrine. Any thoughts?

MM

 

[Ceph]