Loss of salvation???

sawdust said:

I know what the other poster said but Peter said it fell on them as it fell on us. Acts 11:15

How do you explain that? If it filled the disciples then it must have also filled the household of Cornelius or ... what else are you trying to say happened? Peter said it was the same falling you are saying it was different. Prove it.



I know what the other poster said. I am responding to what you said. You said OT saints "did not need to be born again". How could OT saints write scripture if they were not born again? How could they understand God if they were still spiritually dead in their sins? You have always said dead people can't know God. Do you think only the named saints of scripture were born again, all other believers remained spiritually dead? Explain how it was suppose to work please.

Click to expand...

I didn't say the same thing didn't happen. There is no mention in Acts 2 or 10 of the Spirit filling anyone. It says it fell on them. The Spirit falling on someone isn't the same as the Spirit filling someone. One is outward, experiential, and noticeable to all those present. The later is inward and only perceptible to the one experiencing it.

I didn't say old testament saints don't need to be born again. I asked the other poster if that was what they were saying.

Genez said:

All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever ​

comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from ​

heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. ​

And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none ​

of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day." John 6:37-39​

If someone lost his salvation?

It would mean that Jesus failed to do the will of the Father!

For I have come down from heaven not to do my will ​

but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will ​

of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he ​

has given me, but raise them up at the last day." ​

Anyone who says he can lose his salvation?
Is saying that Jesus can fail to please the Father!
That is blasphemy!


Grace and peace ...............

Click to expand...

Unless that person were not saved to begin with.

Just_A__Follower said:

Unless that person were not saved to begin with.

Click to expand...

That would have to be the case.

But, they could not lose what they never really had to begin with.
Just religious people trying to fit in with Christians.

Just_A__Follower said:

I try not to put myself in situations where I need to stay underwater longer than I can hold my breath. Honestly though I have to google some of the acronyms I see on here sometimes. Take longer for me to figure out what they mean than it would to just type out the words.

Click to expand...

"I know that googling feeling" (sung to the tune of "You've Lost that Loving Feeling" by the Righteous Brothers )

"You never spell out words anymore when I post to you oo oo"

Cameron143 said:

It says it fell on them. The Spirit falling on someone isn't the same as the Spirit filling someone.

Click to expand...

Really? Can you show us from scripture the difference? How does one prophesy and/or speak in tongues without being filled with the Spirit?

If the Spirit only "fell" on the disciples and Cornelius' household, when were they filled?

And what do you think happens when we are baptized with the Spirit?

And what do you think the "filling" of the Spirit is exactly?

sawdust said:

Really? Can you show us from scripture the difference? How does one prophesy and/or speak in tongues without being filled with the Spirit?

If the Spirit only "fell" on the disciples and Cornelius' household, when were they filled?

And what do you think happens when we are baptized with the Spirit?

And what do you think the "filling" of the Spirit is exactly?

Click to expand...

The baptism with the Spirit by Jesus is what happened in Acts 2 and 10, and throughout the book of Acts.

The filling of the Spirit is the same as the filling of the tabernacle and temple with God's presence. Just as God filled those places with His presence, He fills the believer with His presence.

Excuse me, everybody!
Please help,

I have been searching all over for about a week now.
Can't find it anywhere.

Has anybody seen my salvation?

Just_A__Follower said:

I don’t like any of the letters. I just don’t like acronyms period. Haven’t been able to stand them since the navy. I know @GWH may not like it but I say we ban all acronyms.

Click to expand...

We have an anacrophobe in our midst.

Just_A__Follower said:

I don’t like any of the letters. I just don’t like acronyms period. Haven’t been able to stand them since the navy. I know @GWH may not like it but I say we ban all acronyms.

Click to expand...

Being in the Navy and Army is when I got used to using acronyms.
The ones I use are listed in the About section of my profile.
Would you like to ban me/my ID initials?

Cameron143 said:

You said they were filled with the Spirit. That was false. The Spirit fell on them. Do you know the difference between the two?

Click to expand...

NOPE!!

Kroogz said:

Love you brother. What about communion for the Church/bride? Do we need to follow this for salvation?

Israel is the same. It is ALWAYS faith alone in Christ alone for salvation.......There are ALWAYS ways to follow for sanctification.

Water baptism was NEVER required for salvation........Israel/Jews KNEW the teaching /significance of Water dipping. They knew full well that dunking in water would not save them.

Isr

Click to expand...

Why did John the Baptist have a line at the River Jordon?

Genez said:

So... in the Ouch Version, of Ephesians 2:9?
What do we read?

8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, ​

it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. ​

Water baptism is definitely a work.

Click to expand...

Morning, we are saved by grace all of HIS word is good.

First Paul is speaking to one of the church's he started in Ephesus not the unsaved.

Ephesians 1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

Second this was the begining or the building of that church.

Acts 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
7 And all the men were about twelve.
8 And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.
9 But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.
10 And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.

The foundation of that church was the same as Acts 2.

You will not see anywhere after the book of Acts specific instructions on how to be saved because they are letters to those who have been saved, off the milk on the meat.

Do you know all of the trouble that GOD went thougth to put water in place for us to remove our sins?

I'm sure you know the story of John how he was born?

What does the name John mean in Hebrew?

In Hebrew, the name John originates from Yochanan (יוֹחָנָן), which means "God is gracious," "Yahweh has been gracious," or "God is merciful". It is derived from two Hebrew components: Yo (a shortened form of YHWH/Jehovah) and chanan (to be gracious, show favor, or endow).

GOD GRACIOSLY gives us the water to remove our sins.

You clam baptism is a work, who is doing the work?

Is it the one obeying HIS word and in obidence going in the water?

That's called obidence.

Or is it the one who has been reborn batizing you?

Yep, after we are reborn it's our job to do HIS will.

Or is it JESUS, HE is the one who is forgiving all of your sins.

Yep, HE said it in HIS word and if we are obident HE has to do it.

If you don't belive all the above a couple of questions.

1. Are we born in sin?

2. If so how de we get rid of them?

Just_A__Follower said:

You do realize that all the other versions weren’t translated from the KJV right? This is another reason it’s important as I said to look at the translation yourself whether it’s from Greek or Hebrew. Also 1600’s English words don’t all have the same meaning as they do today. You have to translate the old English to modern English. That why it’s important to verify with other versions or from a concordance. I use multiple versions KJV being one of them but I use it less than most of the others.

Let’s take one more look at that verse since you say I’m wrong. I’ll even do KJV for ya.
Mark 16:16
“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”
So if one believes and is baptized he will be saved.

“but he that believeth not shall be damned.”
If he doesn’t believe he won’t be saved.

Ok now we know what it says. What does it not say? It doesn’t say “he who is not baptized won’t be saved”. The condemnation comes from not believing. Condemnation does not come from the lack of baptism. There is not one verse in the Bible that states that baptism is required to be saved nor that one not baptized is condemned. Am I saying we shouldn’t be baptized? No. Baptism is an outward sign of faith. A visible public expression of the invisible faith.

Click to expand...

Condemnation comes from not believing.
Correct.

But Mark 16:16 is stating that IF one BELIEVES...
then he MUST be baprized.

Plain English JAF....
in any version.

As is stated in the OP, loss of salvation is nothing more than a concoction of those who preach another legalistic gospel, as Paul identified, for that loss inevitably elicits the requirement for self effort in the alleged retention of salvation, which, at its root, is works-based salvation that cannot save anyone nor can it retain what one never had in the first place dare they appeal to another gospel that is no longer in force.

The claim for this being a matter of easy believism, I have not yet seen a plausible refutation against salvation to the uttermost for all who believe Paul's Gospel of Grace as defined in 1 Cor. 15:1-4. He clearly stated in that context the absolute nature of that gospel. The feeble claim that he was only summarizing while declaring the absolute of salvation on the basis of faith in Christ's death, burial and resurrection on the third day without mention of any other alleged elements not stated by Paul in that context, such is a horrid example of eisegetical crap that has become such a manic endeavor by those who so badly want to create parallels across scripture that do not mix.

There is no such thing as easy believism within Paul's gospel nor his epistles. He called ALLto righteous living in Christ Jesus, condemned sin in the lives of all believers, and laid down the groundwork understanding that when we do those things we would not, it is no longer we who sin but sin within us that will remain in us all so long as we live in this fallen world in these bodies of death.

All the meaningless hypotheticals that are so popularly put forth in an attempt to use them as allegedly effective battering rams against the label of "once saved always saved," most generally spoken with a sneer, as if that leads any measure of support whatsoever to the legalistic gang's rhetorical denials of what scripture teaches, not one of them has yet backed up their claims with solid, scriptural backing for their alleged line in the beach sands that theoretically marks that point of loss. The bankrupt nature of that case is pathetically lacking in every way, but some brave souls do try by referencing or quoting verses ripped from their contexts they think is plausible proof for the false case of salvation loss.

That non-existent line in the sand is never clearly defined by them, such as allegedly being somewhere between stealing a candy bar and robbing a bank, or stealing a branch off a neighbor's tree and killing his dog with that same branch...nothing is ever put forth by any of that gang to show us definitively where that line rests. The popular crank is to demand a hand full of hypotheticals as allegedly being at least some of the items on the other side of that line they have yet to define with clarity of distinction.

So, the soap opera of theological thought alomg that line continues undefined and ineffectively defended.

MM

Musicmaster said:

That's cool.



Yes. Only one is valid for today since the fall of Israel.

Click to expand...

When was the fall of Israel?
70AD?

Do you mean that there was one gospel before that and one after that??

Agreed, which is the one to come in the Millennium with the world ruled by Christ through Israel.

Click to expand...

The Kingdom is future.
It is also now.
Jesus came to establish a different way of living....
THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS LIKE.....
Finding a pearl.
Being humble.

Jesus said REPENT FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS AT HAND.
Matthew 4:17

Yes,,we have discussed this....

Hmm, perhaps Abraham and his descendants didn't understand that. Anyone who knows and has talked with my fellow Jews of the Judeo flavor knows that they today are still looking to the coming of Messiah as a powerful and influential leader, even though they missed Him by centuries, thus their acceptance of the man of sin as the Messiah until he demands personal worship.



Allegorizing that kingdom is a common practice, but we do have this that some also allegorize into something that it clearly is not saying:

Matthew 16:27-28
27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
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.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to be able to have this conversation.
We don't agree on basic orthodox Christian theology.
I was taught by 3 differenet denominations, which all agreed with each other...
I read the ECFs and accept what they taught because they were taught by the Apostles.

Those people, every one of them, died without seeing that fulfillment...unless, as I have stated above, one allegorizes the text in order to make it conform to personal whims and fancy...especially considering that there are no absolute rules for interpretation of allegory thrown over texts like a blanket that is clear and precisely stated that places it outside the realm of allegory.

Click to expand...

I don't have personal whims.

There are rules for interpreting the bible,,,
and they cannot be personal.

Now, some may do a sharp intake of breath thinking that I just called Christ liar. Not so. The Lord has license to make changes to stated plans on the basis of realities that alter the course He ultimately chooses to take. In Genesis 2 the Lord gave to man vegetables, fruits and seed for his diet, then in Genesis 9 He changed that rule to everything that moved on the face of the earth as food, and then in Leviticus He changed it all once again for Israel by limiting their diet to certain animals while forbidding others.

Click to expand...

There were reasons for the dietery changes.
Do you know what they are?

Replacement theology manifests itself in many, many forms and can be seen rooted in many different doctrinal beliefs within most of Christendom. At its root, it is the belief that the "church" has replaced Israel with all the promises, blessings and covenant made with Abraham and with Israel. Up from that grounding are various nuances of various types and sizes in the falsehoods in doctrinal beliefs about the Church and Israel. In other words, the errors are exhaustively too numerous to list, but that's the tap root from which they all spring.

Click to expand...

OK
Yes...not going to be learning any new stuff.
Thanks for the explanation.

Think along the lines of the Judaizers. James didn't at any time say that what the Judaizers taught to Paul's churches was wrong. All he said about them is that they were not sent out by any of the twelve. James didn't correct the Judaizers by telling them they were wrong about the requirement for circumcision. Silence speaks loud volumes to many things for the understanding within observant student of the Bible.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that James agreed that circumcision was a correct ritual?
I do apologize MM....I'm finding it difficult to go back to my post in order to reply to yours.

We know that the Jews in Jerusalem were ALL zealous for the Law, so the Judaizers were simply making the mistake that the Kingdom Gospel, which was completely comfortable with observance of the Mosaic Law, was one and the same as what Paul preached. It's intellectually dishonest to then say Peter preached the same Gospel as Paul, for had the twelve preached the same as Paul, then why would Paul have had such resistance against that gospel being preached to his churches populated mostly by Gentiles?

Paying close attention to the wording tells us the story:

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

Paul therefore wasn't saying that the twelve and the Judaizers were preaching a false gospel, but only if they or any other entity, even an angel, preach any OTHER gospel (he didn't say false gospel, but any OTHER gospel) is preached UNTO YOU. they are to be accursed.

Click to expand...

The problem here is that I don't undersand the point your making.
Your'e saying there are two gospels?
You're saying the Kingdom is not here right now?

I'm not going to agree with either and the only way to discuss this is if you make a clear statement and then post scripture to support it.

For instance, I don't understand why you posted Galatians 1:8-9

Indeed?

Matthew 8:1-4
1 When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him.
2 And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
3 And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

So, if everything in the NT applies to us today, as you stated, that would mean that healing would be a basis for continued animal sacrifices as gifts unto God. When the healing processes the Lord gave to our bodies, did you offer up an animal sacrifice when your body overcame the cold, or the cut in your skin healed up...et al?

Click to expand...

I see quite a disconnect here.
You don't believe persons are healed today?

Jesus told the leper to offer a testimony.
Jesus followed all of the commands of the OT.
HE wrote them!

I assume you know better, but this should motivate you to be more consistent with reality about saying ALL in relation to the NT:

Mark 16:17-18
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Please tell me you didn't mean what you said about ALL the NT applying to us today. I can show a number of other examples, but perhaps modification of that statement is expedient at this time.

Click to expand...

I meant that every rule, every commandment that Jesus gave is for us today.

I also believe
IN EXORCISM
TONGUES
LAYING ON OF HANDS

snakes?
that might have been added in - not sure so I cannot discuss.

There are a couple of passages in Mark that were probably added. (by a scribe).

For one, the requirement for water baptism for the remission of sins, as preached by the twelve from Pentecost onward, isn't a requirement upon us today. Our sins are remitted on the basis of our salvation by grace through faith, which is coupled with nothing else for the receiving of it. The legalistic aspect of which I spoke is in the teaching of water baptism for the remission of sins, which nullifies grace, and thus is an avenue for boasting as I've heard many today bragging about.

Hope that gives context to what I was saying.

MM

Click to expand...

The early church baptized with water.
Maybe the Apostles lied when they passed on the teachings of Jesus.
Maybe those they taught didn't understand properly.
Could be I suppose.
But the early church DID baptize...and even infants. (but not for the remission of sins).

Musicmaster said:

As is stated in the OP, loss of salvation is nothing more than a concoction of those who preach another legalistic gospel, as Paul identified, for that loss inevitably elicits the requirement for self effort in the alleged retention of salvation, which, at its root, is works-based salvation that cannot save anyone nor can it retain what one never had in the first place dare they appeal to another gospel that is no longer in force.

The claim for this being a matter of easy believism, I have not yet seen a plausible refutation against salvation to the uttermost for all who believe Paul's Gospel of Grace as defined in 1 Cor. 15:1-4. He clearly stated in that context the absolute nature of that gospel. The feeble claim that he was only summarizing while declaring the absolute of salvation on the basis of faith in Christ's death, burial and resurrection on the third day without mention of any other alleged elements not stated by Paul in that context, such is a horrid example of eisegetical crap that has become such a manic endeavor by those who so badly want to create parallels across scripture that do not mix.

There is no such thing as easy believism within Paul's gospel nor his epistles. He called ALLto righteous living in Christ Jesus, condemned sin in the lives of all believers, and laid down the groundwork understanding that when we do those things we would not, it is no longer we who sin but sin within us that will remain in us all so long as we live in this fallen world in these bodies of death.

All the meaningless hypotheticals that are so popularly put forth in an attempt to use them as allegedly effective battering rams against the label of "once saved always saved," most generally spoken with a sneer, as if that leads any measure of support whatsoever to the legalistic gang's rhetorical denials of what scripture teaches, not one of them has yet backed up their claims with solid, scriptural backing for their alleged line in the beach sands that theoretically marks that point of loss. The bankrupt nature of that case is pathetically lacking in every way, but some brave souls do try by referencing or quoting verses ripped from their co texts they think isnplausible proof for the false case of salvation loss.

That non-existent line in the sand is never clearly defined by them, such as allegedly being somewhere between stealing a candy bar and robbing a bank, or stealing a branch off a neighbor's tree and killing his dog with that same branch...nothing is ever put forth by any of that gang to show us definitively where that line rests. The popular crank is to demand a hand full of hypotheticals as allegedly being at least some of the items on the other side of that line they have yet to define with clarity of distinction.

So, the soap opera of theological thought alomg that line continues undefined and ineffectively defended.

MM

Click to expand...

Here's easy believism MM:

A member, on another Forum, who clearly stated that he could blaspheme God and STILL BE SAVED.
That is also known as greasy grace by some.

And THIS is what the non-biblical teaching by some of OSAS will bring to.

This incorrect teaching will CAUSE some to lose their salvation because they will be living lives of sin...
and the NT teaches that we are to live a very particular way.

Just_A__Follower said:

You do realize that all the other versions weren’t translated from the KJV right? This is another reason it’s important as I said to look at the translation yourself whether it’s from Greek or Hebrew. Also 1600’s English words don’t all have the same meaning as they do today. You have to translate the old English to modern English. That why it’s important to verify with other versions or from a concordance. I use multiple versions KJV being one of them but I use it less than most of the others.

Let’s take one more look at that verse since you say I’m wrong. I’ll even do KJV for ya.
Mark 16:16
“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”
So if one believes and is baptized he will be saved.

“but he that believeth not shall be damned.”
If he doesn’t believe he won’t be saved.

Ok now we know what it says. What does it not say? It doesn’t say “he who is not baptized won’t be saved”. The condemnation comes from not believing. Condemnation does not come from the lack of baptism. There is not one verse in the Bible that states that baptism is required to be saved nor that one not baptized is condemned. Am I saying we shouldn’t be baptized? No. Baptism is an outward sign of faith. A visible public expression of the invisible faith.

Click to expand...

I appriacate you understand we need to be baptized.

What makes me sad and confuse is why the battle with how we get rid out our sins?

Why not just take HIS word for what it says and do it????

Thank you, for your imput, you are right I really thought they did since they all same just about the same thing with some words moved around, altered, deleted or mipulated.

I asked AI, "in what sense are the new bible translations knockoff of the kjv"

AI Overview
New Bible translations, particularly the New King James Version (NKJV), are often considered derivatives of the 1611 King James Version (KJV) because they largely retain the same Textus Receptus manuscript base and formal equivalence (word-for-word) translation philosophy. While updating archaic language for modern readers, these translations preserve the structure, phrasing, and beauty of the original KJV.
Textual Basis: The NKJV, in particular, maintains the same, or very similar, Hebrew and Greek manuscripts (Textus Receptus) that were used in the original 1611 KJV, rather than the older manuscripts used in more modern translations like the NIV or ESV.
"Complete Equivalence": The NKJV translates using a "complete equivalence" philosophy, which mirrors the literal, word-for-word approach of the original KJV, rather than a phrase-by-phrase or thought-for-thought approach.
Retained Phrasing: Despite updating words like "thee" and "thou," the NKJV often retains the cadence and phrasing of the original 1611 text, making it feel like a "knockoff" or a modernized update rather than a completely new translation.
Goal of Accuracy: The goal of the NKJV was specifically to update the language while retaining the authority and accuracy of the KJV's original rendering.
While other translations like the NIV rely on different manuscripts, the NKJV is specifically designed to be a direct successor, making it the primary example of a modern "knockoff" (or updated version) of the KJV.

So which one is right?

I beleive the KJV bible was put together buy men lead by the Holy Spirit.

Just like Moses the first 5 books of the OT which was not born for hundreds of years later, and was written with PERFECTION.

One fact, if we have different rule books with different meanings then we have differetn rules.

GODS rules WILL NOT CHANGE HE gave us a book to follow, so it's our choice which one to pick, and I'm sticking with the KJV.

So to me what ever book your reading double check with the KJV, as it appears you do.

One would ask, why of men or orgizations have the disire to make a new set of rules for all to follow? Now I can understand, like the NKJV but why the rest?

To move on, Mark 16:16 is very clear.

If you believe you will be baptized and you will be saved.

That lines up with what JESUS said in John 3:5 and Peter in Acts 2:38.

JESUS goes on to say if you don't believe NOT you are damned, if you don't believe HIS WORD TO BE TRUE why would you get baptized so you will be damned.

So it's not just believing gets you saved, it's ALL OF HIS WORD put together.

Now let's look at the last thing you said,

"No. Baptism is an outward sign of faith. A visible public expression of the invisible faith."

WHY WOULD YOU SAY THAT? Really why?

Cameron143 said:

You said they were filled with the Spirit. That was false. The Spirit fell on them. Do you know the difference between the two?

Click to expand...

I said, NOPE because there is no difference.

Toknow said:

Here's easy believism MM:

A member, on another Forum, who clearly stated that he could blaspheme God and STILL BE SAVED.
That is also known as greasy grace by some.

And THIS is what the non-biblical teaching by some of OSAS will bring to.

This incorrect teaching will CAUSE some to lose their salvation because they will be living lives of sin...
and the NT teaches that we are to live a very particular way.

Click to expand...

Is there any man alive who is without sin to this day, apart from Christ?

If you would, please define that line for us...assuming it exists at all.

MM

Musicmaster said:

Are you implying that the term "washed" means water baptism? How do you differentiate as to what that washing is, whether it be the washing of Holy Spirit through the spiritual baptism or not?

What we CAN say that Paul stated is this:

Ephesians 4:4-5
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

Some force meaning into that context by trying to insert water baptism by eisegetically ramming it into where it clearly is not stated nor implied. What we can know is this:

1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

So, where we do see here Paul addressing spiritual baptism, we find not one instruction from him for water baptism as an element of salvation.

Click to expand...

Yes sir.
I am STATING, not implying,
that baptism is accomplished with WATER.

We BY ONE SPRIT ARE BAPTIZED INTO ONE BODY... 1 Cor 12:13

Did you not know that when we are baptized we are joined to the BODY OF CHRIST?
By ONE SPIRIT...
unless you believe that there is more than one God or one Spirit.

Well, no. You can see in the reference above that I quoted from i Cor. 12:13 that baptism into Christ is a spiritual baptism, not one of water. You're not alone in this false assumption. You have many standing with you on this, but as for me, I will not be accursed by preaching another gospel that is not in accordance with Paul's Gospel. That's just a choice that I've made.

I'm still wanting to see even one verse where Paul instructed Gentiles that they had to be water baptized for salvation.

MM

Click to expand...

Perhaps you're like many Christians that REFUSE to learn any chuch history.

When the last Apostle died....
the teaching of the Apostles did not end...or maybe you believe that it did.

Let's see wha the Apostles taught in the Didache...
teachings of the Apostles collected in one document (not all their teachings).

Baptism is spoken of here.
The Didache
The Teaching of the Apostles
Approx 90AD is the new dating


And concerning baptism, baptize this way:

Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water.

But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm.

But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

The Didache, Chapter 7


source: https://cwhisonant.wordpress.com/20...150-baptism-is-by-immersion-and-for-converts/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





If you’re interested in learning more about the Didache, I recommend the following resources. I would start with O’Loughlin’s short commentary. That’s the best introduction to the Didache available today. For more detailed study, you’ll need Milavec and Niederwimmer.
The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary by Aaron Milavec
The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. by Aaron Milavec
The Didache: A Window on the Earliest Christians by Thomas O’Loughlin
The Didache by Kurt Niederwimmer


Glen Clary



source: https://reformedforum.org/baptism-in-the-didache/


I posted two different sources because it is accepted by all denominations that accept church history.
Also, there is A LOT more on this, but of course, persons such as yourself will state that those the Apostles taught were not inspired....

But, of coures, the persons YOU are learning from must surely be inspired.