Loss of salvation???

GWH said:

Jesus also entrusted other believers with the keys (Matt. 18:18), so no pope.
Secondly, Paul implied correcting Peter in Acts 15 per Gal. 2:1-6 and explicitly stated that he corrected Peter in Gal. 1:11-21,
as you rightly agreed.
Lastly, being saved via faith most definitely and grammatically means works such as WB are not necessary unless
stated otherwise, which is done several times with regard to the necessity of love/SB.

Click to expand...

You are reading things into the text that just do not exist.

I said nothing about Peter being a pope. And clearly my point was Jesus knew what He was doing when He tasked Peter with presenting the gospel.

Also, even a cursory reading of Acts 15 reveals Peter was at no time in support of requiring circumsion. Thus, needed no correction.

Your belief that water baptism is a work is faulty.

Ouch said:

That is all you got out of my whole response?

Click to expand...

As to what you wrote in another post, most of it was prevarication.

Just give me a straight answer. Were Cornelius and his household in saved states when they received the Holy Spirit as the disciples did at Pentecost and spoke in tongues? The answer is yes or no

PennEd said:

Works, works. Works, works, works, works….

Although we should be obedient in getting Baptized,

Water Baptism never saved anyone!

Jesus Did!

Click to expand...

Who said anything about works?

Works is what I am doing not to try to steal people from Satan.

So happy you agree with HIS WORD and the need to be baptized to remove ours sins.

You are right water baptism does not save anyone, being obedient to HIS word having faith in it and being baptized to remove our sin is just a part of it.

We also need for JESUS to fill us with HIS spirit, like HE filled HIS disciples in Acts 2:4.

Are you a JESUS disciple? Has HE filled you???

So tell me, exality, how does his blood save us?

Is there anything we need to do??

James456 said:

This was the post of yours I responded to:
''''No, just like your not today.''''

Click to expand...

Yea, sorry I realized that after I said what I said.

Ouch said:

Yea, sorry I realized that after I said what I said.

Click to expand...

Ouch said:

Yea, sorry I realized that after I said what I said.

Click to expand...

No problem

James456 said:

As to what you wrote in another post, most of it was prevarication.

Just give me a straight answer. Were Cornelius and his household in saved states when they received the Holy Spirit as the disciples did at Pentecost and spoke in tongues? The answer is yes or no

Click to expand...

NO, BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT BE SAVED WITH YOUR SINS, YOU HAVE TO GET BAPITZED IN JESUS NAME TO REMOVE OUR SINS!!

THAT IS WHY PEPER BAPTIZED THEM, PETER KNEW WHAT HE WAS SENT TO DO AND DID IT.

NO, THEY WERE NOT WITH JUST RECEIVING THE HOLY GHOST, COPY?

Ouch said:

NO, BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT BE SAVED WITH YOUR SINS, YOU HAVE TO GET BAPITZED IN JESUS NAME TO REMOVE OUR SINS!!

THAT IS WHY PEPER BAPTIZED THEM, PETER KNEW WHAT HE WAS SENT TO DO AND DID IT.

NO, THEY WERE NOT WITH JUST RECEIVING THE HOLY GHOST, COPY?

Click to expand...

You stagger me, you are the first person who has ever said they were not in saved states. Even people who believe you must be baptised to be saved do not answer as you have
The unsaved CANNOT receive the Holy Spirit as the disciples did at Pentecost and speak in tongues. The Spirit does not dwell in the unsaved, only the saved.
Your inflexible rule book has left you in a very bad place indeed. This conversation is over

Wansvic said:

The Gospel of Grace was begun at Acts 2.

Click to expand...

The so called "gospel of grace" is a perversion of the Gospel of the Kingdom that Jesus and His Apostles taught, aka the Doctrine of Christ.

Sure we are saved by grace thru faith, but it's faith that is the gift of God that enables one to access the grace of God to enter in to His Kingdom (the King's Domain)

The so called "gospel of grace" in modern times is the false gospel that teaches one is secure and saved as they continue in sin, aka the "security in sin" false gospel

mailmandan said:

There are a handful of alleged proof texts that certain people use to try and prove that baptism is absolutely required for salvation, yet after a careful examination of each of those texts in context will show that none of them prove that baptism is absolutely required for salvation, athough they do prove that baptism was an assumed initiatory response to the gospel of salvation. In other words, those texts prove only that baptism is regularly associated with conversion and salvation, rather than absolutely required for salvation.

These Gentiles in Acts 10 received the gift of the Holy Spirit and were manifesting the spiritual gift of tongues from the Holy Spirit (which is ONLY for the body of Christ - 1 Corinthians 12) after believing the gospel but before being water baptized. (Acts 10:43-47) Now baptism was not considered an "optional extra" for these Gentiles; it was a command (Acts 10:48) that they were expected to obey. However, it was not obedience to this command that saved them, but their believing in Christ for salvation. (Acts 10:43)

Click to expand...

Can you believe he wrote that? I cant. It kinda testifies to his other beliefs being wrong. Ive been on the internet debating for many years, never before has anyone claimed Cornelius and his household were in unsaved states when they received the Holy Spirit as the disciples did at Pentecost and spoke in tongues

James456 said:

You stagger me, you are the first person who has ever said they were not in saved states. Even people who believe you must be baptised to be saved do not answer as you have
The unsaved CANNOT receive the Holy Spirit as the disciples did at Pentecost and speak in tongues. The Spirit does not dwell in the unsaved, only the saved.
Your inflexible rule book has left you in a very bad place indeed. This conversation is over

Click to expand...

I'm not reponsible for others people actions.

So how about this question, in Acts 10, when did they get rid of their sins.

Ouch said:

I'm not reponsible for others people actions.

So how about this question, in Acts 10, when did they get rid of their sins.

Click to expand...

Im not prepared to discuss with you anymore, and because I feel so strongly about what you wrote, I will probably put you on ignore. It is my hope, that one day, you see the error of your inflexible rulebook and the major errors it leads you into

James456 said:

Im not prepared to discuss with you anymore, and because I feel so strongly about what you wrote, I will probably put you on ignore. It is my hope, that one day, you see the error of your inflexible rulebook and the major errors it leads you into

Click to expand...

I will answer for you, after JESUS filled them they were baptized. After they were baptized they completed what JESUS said in John 3:5. Need to be born of water and of spirit.

You do you, keep this in mind, I'M JUST SHARING his word I'm not going to lie to make you feel good.

Since I did NOT give you my opinion your problem is not with me but JESUS HIMSELF.

Ouch said:

I'M JUST SHARING his word

Click to expand...

False. If this were true not one of your own words would be in your posts. Instead you should say “I’m just sharing my interpretation of His word”. That would be a true statement. Is that not what we all do here, share our interpretations of His word?

Just_A__Follower said:

False. If this were true not one of your own words would be in your posts. Instead you should say “I’m just sharing my interpretation of His word”. That would be a true statement. Is that not what we all do here, share our interpretations of His word?

Click to expand...

Of course I have to use my own words, but I don't use them in place of GODS word.

I don't interpreter HIS word, I let JESUS talk for HIMSELF.

John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

Like what HE told Philip, if you have seen me you have seen the father.

Not my words but JESUS himself.

Wansvic said:

The scripture in my entire post reveal that the gospel message never changed:
The same message along with its requirements given by Peter was not limited to Jews; "For the promise is unto... as many as the Lord our God shall call." (Acts 2:39)

Click to expand...

I quoted precisely the differences, and one can either accept the evidence or reject it. Whatever...

MM

Just_A__Follower said:

I thought it was a fairly simple question. If one has his faith in Christ and becomes a Muslim two years from now would God force him to spend eternity with Him?

Click to expand...

A non sequitur and begging the question don't have to be complex.

Now, on the topic of your hypothetical, who have you ever known who was truly saved and became a muslim?

This is probably where you say well he was never saved to begin with. Then I say well he knew he was saved two years before. Then that will bring the question of is it possible for us to know we are saved into eternity or only in the moment?

Click to expand...

Not at all. I wasn't going to say anything of the kind. However, given that you think you know where my thoughts will go, the well of this discussion is already poisoned by your assumptions about me, whom you have never met nor taken the time to get to know, so what's the use?

And a seal that God creates is strong indeed but is it so strong that He can’t break it?

Click to expand...

How do you know He would ever break it? What you seem to be missing in all this is that Holy Spirit is given in earnest...that's a financial term leading to the forfeiture of what was given on the part of God if He chose to withdraw the salvation given in earnest. Paul didn't choose that term, he was inspired to write it, so what's the basis for your questioning what God inspired to be written, clearly leading to His forfeiture of His own Spirit should He withdraw the salvation He gave to anyone? That is what you're avoiding in all this. I'm just curious how you would get around this in the midst of any hypothetical you can dream up, none of which proves anything.

MM

Wansvic said:

The Gospel of Grace was begun at Acts 2. It was God's grace that provided a way for believers to take hold of what Jesus died to provide.

Peter initially presented the gospel message, and Paul provided intricacies of the necessary conditions. Both Peter and Paul preached the same gospel. After the gospel was presented, Peter's primarily focus was the Jews, and Paul's was the Gentiles.

Click to expand...

You seem to have no concept for grace, because Acts 2 clearly lays down the requirement for water baptism for remission of sins, which is not grace...not as Paul defined it in his epistles by inspiration directly from God.

MM

Wansvic said:

Sad you feel compelled to ridicule when I would venture to say you know exactly what I'm saying.

Again, whether the word "Since" or "When" is used in Acts 19:2 does not change what Paul's question conveys. And that is, people do not experience receiving the Holy Ghost the instant they choose to believe the gospel message. The account actually goes on to confirm that the Holy Ghost was not received at the point of belief (verse 4-5) but when Paul laids hands upon the men in verse 6.


Acts 19:2-7
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.

Click to expand...

Yes I do know what you are saying but you seem to think that by using the word "since" it means anything but simultaneous which is incorrect.

"The town flooded since the dam broke". It can be used as causation and in this case it would mean believing caused the receiving.

I explained why they were not filled with the Spirit, they had not received the Gospel properly. They knew only of John's baptism. Paul's question expected people to receive when they believed. Both words, when and since, are words indicating cause.

You say after believing. How long after? If people hear the Gospel preached correctly and they believe, what stops them receiving the promise? Some will say baptized in water but here they had to have hands laid on them as well. When does it end? How many hoops must be jumped through before the Father keeps His word? Or is it the lack of believing due to incomplete/incorrect teaching that people do not receive?

Wansvic said:

The command to be water baptized in the name of Jesus for remission of sin is not an Old but a New Testament commandment.

Click to expand...

According to you baptism is with water, according to Christ it is with the Spirit. It is not either or, nor is it both, but only one baptism. The command is to immerse people into the fullness of who God is Matt.28:19 The outcome is to be immersed into Christ's death and resurrection by which we are saved and placed into a brand, never seen before, new life. Rom.6:3 Gal.3:27 2Cor.5:17 Water simply will not cut it as evidenced by those who do not receive the Spirit at water baptism hence, the promise of the Spirit. Acts 8:16

Acts 1:4-5
4 And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

Ephesians 4:5
one Lord, one faith, one baptism;

Musicmaster said:

A non sequitur and begging the question don't have to be complex.

Now, on the topic of your hypothetical, who have you ever known who was truly saved and became a muslim?



Not at all. I wasn't going to say anything of the kind. However, given that you think you know where my thoughts will go, the well of this discussion is already poisoned by your assumptions about me, whom you have never met nor taken the time to get to know, so what's the use?



How do you know He would ever break it? What you seem to be missing in all this is that Holy Spirit is given in earnest...that's a financial term leading to the forfeiture of what was given on the part of God if He chose to withdraw the salvation given in earnest. Paul didn't choose that term, he was inspired to write it, so what's the basis for your questioning what God inspired to be written, clearly leading to His forfeiture of His own Spirit should He withdraw the salvation He gave to anyone? That is what you're avoiding in all this. I'm just curious how you would get around this in the midst of any hypothetical you can dream up, none of which proves anything.

MM

Click to expand...

I’ve never known if another person was truly saved as that is impossible to know. Have I known people who claimed to know they were saved and no longer believe Jesus is who He says he is? Yes.

my apologies if you thought I was putting words in your mouth. That is the reason I started with probably. That is usually the answer I would get. So as to speed up the conversation I threw it in adding probably as I could be wrong.

I’m not saying God would break but only that He could. I personally don’t believe He would either.

Wansvic said:

Such an odd statement, especially since Jesus saw fit to use Peter to present the gospel message, that included water baptism in the name of Jesus I might add, to both Jews and Gentiles.

Peter wasn't clinging to old ways. Jesus told Peter and others that repentance and remission of sin was to be preached in all nations, beginning in Jerusalem. (Luke 24:47) What Jesus prophesied began on the Day of Pentecost, and continues even unto today. Regardless of who chooses to believe it is the truth does not change the fact that it is.

Click to expand...

And not once did Jesus ever say baptize them with water. The Church has done a lot of things for a very long time but it doesn't make everything right, that's why the Church is still to be evaluated. Considering before the first century ended, five out of seven churches got things terribly wrong, I am not going to trust in Church practices but will rely on what the scriptures say.