Conclusion to my post on other thread

[Pastor Scott Markle]

2 hours ago, wretched said:

Well to be honest I was thinking you were mainly sound Scott.

2 hours ago, wretched said:

No problem NN, you are one of the few on here who show a good example for the ones like me. Bro Scott and John also come to mind.

Brother "Wretched,"

First, I wish to express my appreciation for the honor and respect that you have shown toward me in your above two statements.  I pray that I will continue to be worthy of that honor and respect.
 

2 hours ago, wretched said:

I am curious on this post though. What basis could you possibly have to believe in a regeneration of the Spirit without indwelling?

Second, in order to answer your questions in a complete fashion, we would need to engage in a more in depth discussion concerning the doctrine of regeneration itself, especially concerning the Biblical opposite of spiritual regeneration and concerning the Biblical meaning of spiritual regeneration.  Such a discussion is not the original purpose for this thread, and I do not desire to hijack the thread for that purpose.  If you did whish to engage with me in that more in depth discussion, I would be willing to do so in a thread that was developed for that purpose. 

However, to present an answer with significantly less depth -- I believe that spiritual regeneration is a work of God through the power of God the Holy Spirit that occurs upon the moment of faith, wherein the old, spiritually dead spirit of an individual is completely removed from that individual and destroyed by God, and wherein a completely new, spiritually alive spirit is created within that individual.  I believe that at that very moment this new, spiritually alive spirit becomes a permanent part of the individual; but that this new, spiritually alive spirit is NOT the Holy Spirit Himself.  I do indeed believe that this new, spiritually alive spirit is created by the power of God the Holy Spirit; but I do not believe that this new, spiritually alive spirit must be maintained by the indwelling power of God the Holy Spirit.  Thus I do not believe that the continual indwelling of God the Holy Spirit is a necessary part of regeneration. On the other hand, for us New Testament believers I believe that God the Holy Spirit does indeed dwell continually in us, that is -- in our new, spiritually alive spirit; and I believe that our new, spiritually alive spirit functions in perfect unity with the indwelling Holy Spirit.  As such, I distinguish a difference between the regenerating work of God the Holy Spirit and the indwelling work of God the Holy Spirit.  I pray that this "short" answer will help to answer your question; yet I believe that it may also raise an entire list of additional questions.  Even so, a separate discussion thread for the purpose would be necessary.
 

2 hours ago, wretched said:

So are you saying partially but without eternal security or what?

No sir.  In relation to that which I have presented above, I believe that Old Testament saints were completely regenerated in spirit, such that they did indeed possess eternal security.

Edited January 8, 2016 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Pastor Scott Markle]

9 hours ago, Ronda said:

I would like to clarify that I (myself) believe I fall into the category wherein I (myself) am a part of the audience to which Paul's epistles were intended. I  believe that Paul best teaches to me (part of his audience) the salvation by God's grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ. I attempted to show that the gospel (the same gospel) was presented differently to a different audience by the other apostles/disciples. I do not believe I (myself) am part of the intended audience that the books of Hebrews, James, and Peter were written to. I attempted to show how differently Peter, James, and the book of Hebrews presented the gospel in comparison to Romans, 1st-2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1st-2nd Thessalonians, 1st-2nd Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, and that I (myself) believe I have gained a better understanding of the Bible, (being led by the Holy Spirit in this understanding), in the realization of which audience I (myself) am in.

 Had I been born in the early church years, and had I been born in Israel, born into a Jewish family, and brought up in the Jewish customs and traditions, I would have understood the presentation of the gospel found in books of Peter, James, and Hebrews to have been written to me (as the intended audience). Also, if I were to be alive and present during the time of "Jacob's trouble" AND if I were to have been born into a Jewish family, brought up in the Jewish tradition and customs during my lifetime (I have not) I would also find that the books of Hebrews, James, and Peter would be most relevant to me during the time of "Jacob's trouble".  since I believe that those are to whom those books were written and to whom the intended audience is.  

 However, since I was not born into a Jewish family in either of those timelines, (and I am also of the belief that the rapture will occur prior to the tribulation): I do not believe I am a part of the intended audience of the books of Hebrews, James, and Peter.

 1 Corinthians 14:37 "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I" (Paul) "write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."

I am of the understanding that the presentation of the gospel given by Paul (in his epistles) are what is intended for me (being part of his audience) in this current dispensation of grace. I am not attempting to "mess" with the gospel... I brought out my study in the differences of audience as well as the differences in presentation given between Paul in comparison with Peter, James, and Hebrews (which apparently few other's acknowledge that there any differences at all). I brought all of this out in order to show how much this understanding has enriched my own growth, understanding, and even desire to study. I wanted others to have that same growth, understanding, and desire to study... I truly had good intentions in sharing my own study findings. But I am now of the thought that I shouldn't have bothered since it was not taken at all in the spirit to which I had intended.  

Sister Ronda,

I did indeed understand your presentation concerning the differences in audience between the apostle Paul and the other apostles, and concerning your application of Paul's epistles to the New Testament church and of the other epistles to the Jews during "other" times.  Although I most certainly do not agree with your premise of "divisions," and thus also do not agree with your restrictive application for the non-Pauline epistles, I could actually grant some amount of "agree-to-disagree" room unto your position.

Furthermore, if the following statement was truly what you had done in relation to the gospel --

9 hours ago, Ronda said:

I attempted to show that the gospel (the same gospel) was presented differently to a different audience by the other apostles/disciples. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Then there would not have been any real contention concerning the matter of the gospel.

However, what you actually presented in your article was something altogether different, as is revealed by the following portion of your article --

On ‎1‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 9:51 PM, Ronda said:

And again I say in summary: The contention and differences are noted in the bible for a reason. If they were teaching the same message, it surely wouldn't be difficult for Peter to understand.  Peter didn't understand all of Paul's doctrine because Peter had a different doctrine and audience (Matthew 10:5-6) and Paul had a different doctrine and audience than Peter. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

We are no longer required to be baptized (by water) to receive the Holy Spirit or for salvation. The gospel NOW is (for this current dispensation of grace) are what Paul teached:  Ephesians 2:8 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God": 9 "Not of works, lest any man should boast." (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Ephesians 1:7 " In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace"

Acts 4:12 "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." 
 
2 Thes 2:16 "Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace"  

This is in contrast with Peter: When the Jews asked  Peter, (emboldening originally by Sister Ronda, underlining added by Pastor Scott Markle)
 
“What must we do to be saved?,” notice Peter’s answer: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38)

However, when the Philippian jailor asked Paul and Silas, “What must I do to be saved?,” notice what Paul and Silas declared: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (Acts 16:31). 

Obviously, these are not the same message. Peter told people to repent and then get water baptized, so they could receive forgiveness of sins and receive the Holy Spirit. 
Yet, Paul simply taught that salvation comes by “believing on"  the Lord Jesus Christ, without preaching water baptism or repentance. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

I believe all of the Bible should be taken literally as far as we can.  If words mean anything (and I revere the words of the Bible as being God's Word), Peter and Paul preached two separate Gospels. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

You see, what you ACTUALLY taught by you article was NOT that Peter and Paul preached "the same gospel," although with different emphasis to different audiences, but WAS that "Peter and Paul preached TWO SEPARATE GOSPELS."  You taught that Peter and Paul were NOT "teaching the same message," but that each "had a DIFFERENT doctrine."  You taught that Peter's doctrine of the gospel was for "people to repent and then get water baptized, so they could receive forgiveness of sins," but that Paul's different doctrine of the gospel was simply "that salvation comes by 'believing on' the Lord Jesus Christ," without including the requirement for "baptism or repentance."  You taught that although water baptism was required by the gospel that was for before, water baptism is "no longer required" for salvation by the gospel that is for NOW.

If words mean anything, then you DO NOT believe in only one gospel, but ACTUALLY believe in two different gospels.  Yet you also express distress if someone points out the fact that members may perceive you as "messing" with THE gospel.

Edited January 8, 2016 by Pastor Scott Markle

[wretched]

2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother "Wretched,"

First, I wish to express my appreciation for the honor and respect that you have shown toward me in your above two statements.  I pray that I will continue to be worthy of that honor and respect.
 

Second, in order to answer your questions in a complete fashion, we would need to engage in a more in depth discussion concerning the doctrine of regeneration itself, especially concerning the Biblical opposite of spiritual regeneration and concerning the Biblical meaning of spiritual regeneration.  Such a discussion is not the original purpose for this thread, and I do not desire to hijack the thread for that purpose.  If you did whish to engage with me in that more in depth discussion, I would be willing to do so in a thread that was developed for that purpose. 

However, to present an answer with significantly less depth -- I believe that spiritual regeneration is a work of God through the power of God the Holy Spirit that occurs upon the moment of faith, wherein the old, spiritually dead spirit of an individual is completely removed from that individual and destroyed by God, and wherein a completely new, spiritually alive spirit is created within that individual.  I believe that at that very moment this new, spiritually alive spirit becomes a permanent part of the individual; but that this new, spiritually alive spirit is NOT the Holy Spirit Himself.  I do indeed believe that this new, spiritually alive spirit is created by the power of God the Holy Spirit; but I do not believe that this new, spiritually alive spirit must be maintained by the indwelling power of God the Holy Spirit.  Thus I do not believe that the continual indwelling of God the Holy Spirit is a necessary part of regeneration. On the other hand, for us New Testament believers I believe that God the Holy Spirit does indeed dwell continually in us, that is -- in our new, spiritually alive spirit; and I believe that our new, spiritually alive spirit functions in perfect unity with the indwelling Holy Spirit.  As such, I distinguish a difference between the regenerating work of God the Holy Spirit and the indwelling work of God the Holy Spirit.  I pray that this "short" answer will help to answer your question; yet I believe that it may also raise an entire list of additional questions.  Even so, a separate discussion thread for the purpose would be necessary.
 

No sir.  In relation to that which I have presented above, I believe that Old Testament saints were completely regenerated in spirit, such that they did indeed possess eternal security.

Fair enough brother, thanks

[swathdiver]

8 hours ago, wretched said:

Hebrews 11 which quite clearly indicates that every person mentioned in the OT demonstrated their faith with works. How would any reasonable Christian lead by the Spirit think that is the same as the Gospel of regeneration in the NT.

Absolutely right!  Hebrews 11 tells us of the righteous saints (saved by grace through repentance and faith) who did mighty works for God because of their love and obedience to God.  hehehe  The hyper-dispensationalist loves to tell us about OT works + faith in the book of the Hebrews in the 11th chapter, but somehow misses that near every chapter of that glorious book teaches that it is faith that saves and not works.

Goodness gracious, this OT works salvation stuff is protestant nonsense.  This is a BAPTIST forum folks.  

22 hours ago, wretched said:

Who said anything about that dude? Did I miss something. I am looking and don't see any reference

All that I have scanned with my eyes thus far was/is promoted by Clarence Larkin, Peter Ruckman, Peacock, Stauffer, etc.  The latter three at least consider themselves independent baptists and are vigorous promoters of these evangelical heresies.  Curiously, when queried, these men all hold to heretical views on Baptism and The Lord's Supper.  

Lord Jesus, come quickly!

[wretched]

6 minutes ago, swathdiver said:

Absolutely right!  Hebrews 11 tells us of the righteous saints (saved by grace through repentance and faith) who did mighty works for God because of their love and obedience to God.  hehehe  The hyper-dispensationalist loves to tell us about OT works + faith in the book of the Hebrews in the 11th chapter, but somehow misses that near every chapter of that glorious book teaches that it is faith that saves and not works.

Goodness gracious, this OT works salvation stuff is protestant nonsense.  This is a BAPTIST forum folks.  

All that I have scanned with my eyes thus far was/is promoted by Clarence Larkin, Peter Ruckman, Peacock, Stauffer, etc.  The latter three at least consider themselves independent baptists and are vigorous promoters of these evangelical heresies.  Curiously, when queried, these men all hold to heretical views on Baptism and The Lord's Supper.  

Lord Jesus, come quickly!

Fair enough, thanks

[Ronda]

SALVATION BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST is the GOSPEL, the ONE and the ONLY GOSPEL.

The very SAME gospel (above) was taught by Peter BUT
BUT BUT BUT
I believe Peter, James, Hebrews, et al presented that SAME gospel, but that they ADDED works to the gospel. 
Peter, by COMMANDING water baptism. James, by works justification.
Instead of me attempting to explain again ad nauseum... I will let the word of God do the explaining:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

(Peter) Acts 10:45-48 "47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?"
    48 "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."

1st Peter 3:1 "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ"

James 2:14 "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?"

James 2:24 "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."

Galatians 2:11 "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."
    12 "For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision."
    13 "And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation."
    14 "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In just about every case of the verses I put forth, at least one person (or more) would attempt to tell me that the words that the bible states (above) DO NOT MEAN what the words of the bible state...
there were various reasons - both short and long - explanations. 
I prefer to believe the words meant exactly what they said and said what they meant.
And IF those words mean what they say (and I DO believe they DO mean what they say) then I contend the Bible shows (to me) that Peter and James were presenting the gospel BUT added in works! a Faith PLUS works doctrine. Yes, I believe Peter and James ADDED works to the gospel (the one and only gospel of grace by faith in Jesus).

I didn't even get into Hebrews (nor likely will I)

And again... NO I do not believe Hebrews, Peter, James were written TO me (or to anyone currently alive in this age of grace).
So you can accuse ME of "messing with" the gospel if you'd like. I simply bring forth the true words of the Bible in my defense.
Also I am not the one who wrote THIS:

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;"

SO take that up with Paul if you have a problem with PAUL's wording! But they may be "some things hard to understand" to some?

2 Pet. 3:16 "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

And finally, again I say I will continue to follow the commandment I believe is for this dispensation of which I, myself am a part of (whether I am derided for it or not):

1 Cor. 14:37 "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."
38 "But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."
 

9 hours ago, wretched said:

Just agree to disagree and move on is my recommendation

I did, at one point, ATTEMPT to digress... until I was accused of "messing with the gospel" myself. When, in fact, I had previously stated that my study method was the division of the Pauline epistles being relevant to this dispensation... and was told that was incorrect. However, as I stated above, I WILL continue to study in this method because I HAVE gained understanding, and a desire to study even MORE, as well as my prayer-life has increased exponentially ever since I did start studying with this method many years ago, WELL BEFORE I ever heard the names Ruckman, Felldik, or whoever man names!!! BTW, I do NOT believe in the pre-trib rapture because of some man named Darby whom I never heard of until later in life, nor have I ever studied what he has to say about anything.  

I'm off for the night to do more Bible study and prayer before bedtime. I may not be back on until late tomorrow evening due to personal issues which may preclude me. Good night all and God Bless!

[beameup]

The message to Israel was "repent and be baptized" and started with John the Baptist and continued with Peter ("the Twelve").
 In order to fulfill the promises of Exodus 19:5-6 where (the Nation of) Israel was to become a "kingdom of priests, a holy nation",
 it was necessary for all Israelis to "repent" and then be "baptized" (a necessary step in becoming a priest).  This message continued
 to be preached throughout Acts.  In Acts 9, we have the salvation of Paul, and to Paul was later revealed the "mystery" that Gentiles                        (gentile nations) should receive salvation by faith in Jesus Christ without first becoming Jews (circumcised).

 

Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:   And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.  Exodus 19:5-6

How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge  in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:  Eph 3:3-6

Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,  Romans 16:25

Today,. we do not preach the "Gospel of the Kingdom" because Israel has not been completely "restored", in that, the Temple and Mosaic Law           have not been implemented (having been destroyed in 70AD).  Some would suggest that once the Temple fully restored in Jerusalem, that God will once again focus on Israel and pour out his Spirit on some Israelis to, once again, preach the Gospel of the Kingdom, in preparation for the Second Coming of Messiah.

Edited January 8, 2016 by beameup

[Alimantado]

5 hours ago, Ronda said:

SALVATION BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST is the GOSPEL, the ONE and the ONLY GOSPEL.

The very SAME gospel (above) was taught by Peter BUT
BUT BUT BUT
I believe Peter, James, Hebrews, et al presented that SAME gospel, but that they ADDED works to the gospel. 
Peter, by COMMANDING water baptism. James, by works justification.

I don't understand how a gospel with stuff added to it could be called the same gospel. A few days ago you were calling them separate gospels yourself, Ronda:

"If words mean anything (and I revere the words of the Bible as being God's Word), Peter and Paul preached two separate Gospels."

[No Nicolaitans]

5 hours ago, Ronda said:

In just about every case of the verses I put forth, at least one person (or more) would attempt to tell me that the words that the bible states (above) DO NOT MEAN what the words of the bible state...
there were various reasons - both short and long - explanations.**

Now do you see why I said that this has been discussed before, no minds have been changed, and I was hesitant to post what I did (in the other thread)? 

** I was probably one of the ones who used a "longer" explanation in response to you, but I did so for a particular reason. In each case that I've witnessed, a single verse of scripture is used to prove a point. Whereas, I attempted to show that verses which precede and/or succeed those individual verses gives more information and/or expounds upon the meaning of the single verses that were used. In other words, context.

For instance, one verse that you've used a few times as proof that baptism was required is...

5 hours ago, Ronda said:

1st Peter 3:1 "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ"

You place the emphasis on a certain section of that one verse, yet what precedes and succeeds (your emphasis in the verse) explains what baptism is for; which is...

1st Peter 3:21 "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"

Peter said that baptism is NOT the putting away the filth of the flesh. In other words, it has no part in removing sin (the filth of the flesh). Therefore, it has no part in justification. Yet, if baptism were (or had been) a requirement for salvation, then it WOULD have (or would have had) a part in justification. No, Peter says that baptism saves us...by the answer of a good conscience toward God...

...baptism doth also now save us...by the answer---of a good conscience---TOWARD---God.

Baptism saves us; in that, it's the answer of a good conscience toward God. It's an act that affects our conscience toward God...not an act that God effects toward us (salvation). 

Peter also plainly states that baptism is likened (the like figure) unto the eight souls who were saved by water in the ark of Noah (1 Peter 3:20). Here's the verse...

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Now...were Noah and his family "saved" by water? In other words, were they spiritually saved by the flood? Peter likens baptism to that. Hmmm...

[John81]

¹³ For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

¹⁴ For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

¹⁵ Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

¹⁶ Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

Romans 4:13-16

[Pastor Scott Markle]

10 hours ago, Ronda said:

SALVATION BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST is the GOSPEL, the ONE and the ONLY GOSPEL.

So then, Sister Ronda,

1.  Are you prepared to acknowledge that in YOUR OWN original article YOU YOURSELF said the following:

On ‎1‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 9:51 PM, Ronda said:

Obviously, these are not the same message. Peter told people to repent and then get water baptized, so they could receive forgiveness of sins and receive the Holy Spirit. 
Yet, Paul simply taught that salvation comes by “believing on"  the Lord Jesus Christ, without preaching water baptism or repentance.

I believe all of the Bible should be taken literally as far as we can.
If words mean anything (and I revere the words of the Bible as being God's Word), Peter and Paul preached two separate Gospels.

(emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

2.  Are you also prepared to acknowledge that the claim that "Peter and Paul preached TWO SEPARATE gospels" is directly contradictory to the doctrinal truth that "salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ is the gospel, THE ONE AND THE ONLY gospel"?

3.  Are you prepared to acknowledge that since the claim that "Peter and Paul preached TWO SEPARATE gospels" is directly contradictory to the doctrinal truth that there is ONE and ONLY ONE gospel, then the claim that "Peter and Paul preached TWO SEPARATE gospels" is a faulty claim?

4.  Are you prepared to acknowledge that since YOU YOURSELF made the faulty claim that "Peter and Paul preached TWO SEPARATE gospels," then you did indeed "mess" with the doctrine of the gospel that there is ONE and ONLY ONE gospel specifically by making that faulty claim concerning "TWO SEPARATE gospels"?

[swathdiver]

17 hours ago, Ronda said:

SALVATION BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST is the GOSPEL, the ONE and the ONLY GOSPEL.

The very SAME gospel (above) was taught by Peter BUT
BUT BUT BUT

Peter, by COMMANDING water baptism. James, by works justification.

Ma'am, your theology is a mess.  Throw away those books you've been reading and let the Holy Ghost and your pastor teach you from your King James Bible. (And if your pastor teaches and preaches such, run; separate from their delusions and unite with a sound New Testament Church of the kind that Jesus Christ built and died for during his earthly ministry.  If a pastor says the church age began at Pentecost, keep looking, for it is not a New Testament Church of the kind that Jesus Christ built and died for during his earthly ministry.  If a church has no membership roll, practices open communion, lends credence to a universal, invisible church, keep running, for it is not a New Testament Church of the kind that Jesus Christ built and died for during his earthly ministry.)

All that nonsense about Peter and James is wrong and confusing and God is not the author of confusion or of being wrong.  From Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21, there is but one gospel, one way to get to heaven, one mediator between God and man, and that is now and has always been, Jesus Christ.

We are truly in the last days; the evidence being all these unsound doctrines being promoted by teachers with itching ears, trading truth for fables.

[Ronda]

On 1/8/2016 at 3:58 AM, Alimantado said:

I don't understand how a gospel with stuff added to it could be called the same gospel. A few days ago you were calling them separate gospels yourself, Ronda:

"If words mean anything (and I revere the words of the Bible as being God's Word), Peter and Paul preached two separate Gospels."

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;

Those were the "words" to which I was referring.."Alimantado".  And THE gospel IS grace (for this dispensation). Paul does NOT add works to it. And each person is going to have to come to their own conclusion (hopefully by being prayerfully led by the Holy Spirit in their studies and taking God's word literally and reverently) as to whether or not others (other than Paul) were adding works to the gospel of grace. I contended they were, and brought out many examples. Just one of which was: Galations 2: 14 "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"  Was that Paul teaching them to follow OT "rules"? No, it was Peter, and in fact, Paul was "calling him out" on it.

[Ronda]

22 hours ago, NN said:

Now do you see why I said that this has been discussed before, no minds have been changed, and I was hesitant to post what I did (in the other thread)? 

** I was probably one of the ones who used a "longer" explanation in response to you, but I did so for a particular reason. In each case that I've witnessed, a single verse of scripture is used to prove a point. Whereas, I attempted to show that verses which precede and/or succeed those individual verses gives more information and/or expounds upon the meaning of the single verses that were used. In other words, context.

For instance, one verse that you've used a few times as proof that baptism was required is...

You place the emphasis on a certain section of that one verse, yet what precedes and succeeds (your emphasis in the verse) explains what baptism is for; which is...

1st Peter 3:21 "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"

Peter said that baptism is NOT the putting away the filth of the flesh. In other words, it has no part in removing sin (the filth of the flesh). Therefore, it has no part in justification. Yet, if baptism were (or had been) a requirement for salvation, then it WOULD have (or would have had) a part in justification. No, Peter says that baptism saves us...by the answer of a good conscience toward God...

...baptism doth also now save us...by the answer---of a good conscience---TOWARD---God.

Baptism saves us; in that, it's the answer of a good conscience toward God. It's an act that affects our conscience toward God...not an act that God effects toward us (salvation). 

Peter also plainly states that baptism is likened (the like figure) unto the eight souls who were saved by water in the ark of Noah (1 Peter 3:20). Here's the verse...

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Now...were Noah and his family "saved" by water? In other words, were they spiritually saved by the flood? Peter likens baptism to that. Hmmm...

²⁰ Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

²¹ The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

I respectfully see your reasoning, brother "NN". However, I believe he (Peter) likens it to Noah (wherein 8 souls were saved by water) as to his  (Peter's) own version of being saved (in part) by water (water baptism). I believe that's why he brought forth the comparison. Had it just been that one chapter... I may have considered that Peter was saying otherwise, but taken with the other (of his -Peter's) statements (some of which I brought out), and the fact that Paul admonished him for compelling the "Gentiles to live as do the Jews", I conclude that Peter was adding water baptism as a contingency of salvation.  I also understand (now) that I am in the minority here, but be that as it may, I can't "unsee" what I "see". So I respectfully disagree.

I also (now) understand your own hesitancy in bringing forth the topic, as I now think I should have just kept my study to myself, even though it has made an amazing difference in my life... and which is why I truly wanted to share it... but since I haven't been here even a year yet (on OB),  I don't know what has/hasn't been covered previously in total.  Thank you for the amiable discourse, even though we disagree.

[Ronda]

11 hours ago, swathdiver said:

Ma'am, your theology is a mess.  Throw away those books you've been reading and let the Holy Ghost and your pastor teach you from your King James Bible

I haven't been reading books other than the KJV Bible, and I most certainly will NOT throw that away. I do not leave my house for any reason other than medical necessity, and I do not agree with the local pastor who claims to be IFB but teaches Calvinist and replacement theology (when he bothers to teach at all... which is only for possibly 5 minutes, the rest was always music this and music that, etc. also, he wouldn't touch prophesy with a 10 foot pole... I believe he doesn't understand it ). As I stated previously, I don't "follow" Ruckman or the others you mentioned, which I only even heard of in recent years. I also never heard of Darby until many years AFTER I fully believed in the pre-trib rapture... all of which I believe is clearly presented in the Bible (yes, the KJV) which is what I study... prayerfully, asking God to lead with the Holy Spirit, and also asking His guidance in throwing out any pre-supposition, and allowing His Holy Spirit to guide.