Broad is the pathway to destruction.
When did the gospel go to the Gentiles?
- Thread starter Gary K
- Start date
What does that mean?
Right Divider
Body part
Truth is not determined by majority vote, so I'll stick with the truth even if I'm alone with God.
You guys can have falsehood all that you want.
I notice that you NEVER address the things that people post. You are a poser.
Yeah. And dispensationalism is pretty broadly accepted in the Christian community now. This website is a very small sample size.
Right Divider
Body part
That is HILARIOUS. The VAST majority of Churchianity fights against dispensational truth tooth and nail.
Probably the first sensible thing that I've ever seen you post.
I discuss my beliefs with a lot of people on a couple of forums other than this one. I have yet to run across many people other than Messianic Jews and Adventists who hasn't bought into dispensationalism. In fact there is only one guy who is completely independent of all organized religions. He's a Sabbath keeper, btw.
Hyper dispensationalists are a horse of another color. I know of only one on both forums besides the members here. That's what I meant by a small sample size. I'm pretty obviously a minority of one here and belong to a small minority on the other forums. I thank Nick for bringing this up. It helps demonstrate who is really entering in at the strait gate and who is proceeding down the broad path. I belong to an even smaller minority that believes it is possible to keep the 10 commandments.
Which part? The Bible or the rebuke?
I told you he is self righteous and headed for hell. You aren't the first person here to openly reject the gospel of grace.
Right Divider
Body part
I guess we should define this term, because I'm pretty sure that you don't even know what it means. When I say "dispensationalism", I'm talking about Mid-Acts Pauline dispensationalism, i.e., Biblical dispensationalism.
I'm NOT talking about the much more common Acts 2 dispensationalism, which is quite convoluted and confused (and fairly common). I'm also not talking about the Acts 13 or Acts 28 varieties which are completely crazy.
So, true Biblical dispensationalism is quite rare in the "Christian" world.
Sabbath keepers are a terribly confused bunch, which explains why you fall into that category.
DEFINE your terms. I would call the Acts 28 folks the "Hyper dispensationalists" and they are quite loonie.
Who cares? That makes no different whatsoever.
Small sample sizes always make for invalid inferences. Note that the "sample size" is the WHOLE from which samples are extracted.
Sometimes, false beliefs will put you in a minority. Other times true beliefs will put you in the minority (as is the cased with those that believe in Mid-Acts dispensationalism).
Your false beliefs put in on the broad path.
Are you keeping commandments because you think that makes you acceptable to God? Are you keeping commandments because you think that makes you more godly?
The seventh day sabbath has no application to those saved by grace through faith into the body of Christ. The seventh day sabbath was only given to the nation of Israel.
Exod 31:15-17 (AKJV/PCE)
(31:15) Six days may work be done; but in the seventh [is] the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth [any] work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. (31:16) Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, [for] a perpetual covenant. (31:17) It [is] a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
YOU are not "the children of Israel".If you want to know what true Biblical dispensationalism is, ask and ye shall receive.
If you want to continue to beat up your straw-man version of it, never mind.
That's odd. According to Paul he who is a Jew is one who is one inwardly by what he thinks and believes.
Romans 2: 28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Romans 10: 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Galatians 3: 26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Colossians 3: 9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:
11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;
13 Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.
You don't even appear to believe Paul No difference between Jew and Greek and the only circumcision that counts is the inward circumcision which cannot be done physically.
Galatians 2: 10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
So, in an attempt to turn this thread into a discussion that is actually profitable and interesting....
I happen to be reading through the book of Acts right now and, as you well know, I am definitely a Mid-Acts Dispensationalist. I would, however, stop short of saying that the Acts 13 and Acts 28 varieties are completely crazy. The Acts 28 position is clearly more crazy but the Acts 13 position isn't so crazy at all, really.
One thing I always try to do when I do my daily reading of the bible is that I try to make sure that I'm not over thinking it. There is a time and a place for getting into the nitty-gritty but my daily reading isn't that time. During that time I just read it and assume that the author of the book I'm reading has included all the details that are needed in order to convey the point he's making and that whatever it is that the text seems to be saying is almost certainly what it is actually saying. (Interestingly, it is precisely my Mid-Acts Dispensationalism that permits me to do this without pulling my hair out in frustrated confusion!)
When you read Acts in that fashion, you do not get the sense that there was this exact moment when God cut Israel off completely and turned to the Gentiles. What you get is that there was this transition period. The stoning of Stephen in the later part of Acts 7 was this triggering event that started a process where we see Peter being told to "kill and eat" and Saul is converted on his way to Damascus and then is baptized by a Jew and who then goes and preaches with another Jew to Jews, etc. until we finally come to a place where Paul stops preaching to the Jews first, "shaking the dust from their feet" and then Paul eventually separates himself from his Jewish counterpart (Barnabas) in Acts 15 and picks up Timothy, who "coincidentally" had a Jewish mother and a Gentile father after that.
I know that for many years I have always considered myself a "Acts 9 Dispensationalist" owing to the fact that Acts 9 is where Paul became the first member of the Body of Christ and, as far as that goes, I think that's not an inaccurate position to take but it is also not inaccurate (to intentionally use a double negative as Bob sometimes did) say that the dispensational change happened over a fairly long period of time starting with an event in Acts 7 and finding its completion as late as the end of Acts 15, which would make it truly a "Mid-Acts" position.
Agree?
Your points do not connect with anything we believe because you do not know what you're talking about.
It's hardly your fault though, really. It's paradigm blindness.
Your objections are only valid from within your own theological paradigm, which is precisely what is being debated. They call it "question begging" when that happens.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
@Clete I believe that we Mid-Acts dispensationalists identify by where this dispensation begins and not the period over which the transition takes place (which is really just the diminishing of the little flock). Therefore, I believe that Acts 9 is the appropriate designation for our belief.
I'm not that familiar with the Acts 13 position, but the Acts 28 position is, indeed, crazy. They believe that Paul preached the same gospel as the twelve throughout the Acts period up to Acts 28. They then believe that Paul began preaching the mystery of Christ after Acts 28. However, any reading of Paul's epistles prior to Acts 28 clearly demonstrates that Paul was already preaching the mystery of Christ long before that time.
I'm not that familiar with the Acts 13 position, but the Acts 28 position is, indeed, crazy. They believe that Paul preached the same gospel as the twelve throughout the Acts period up to Acts 28. They then believe that Paul began preaching the mystery of Christ after Acts 28. However, any reading of Paul's epistles prior to Acts 28 clearly demonstrates that Paul was already preaching the mystery of Christ long before that time.
Right Divider
Body part
And that has nothing to do with the body of Christ where there is neither JEW NOR GREEK.
Again ALL of those refer to the BODY OF CHRIST, which began with Paul himself.
If a Jew, before the body of Christ was established, was not physically circumcised... He would be CUT OFF from his people.
Gen 17:9-14 (AKJV/PCE)
(17:9) ¶ And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. (17:10) This [is] my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. (17:11) And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. (17:12) And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which [is] not of thy seed. (17:13) He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. (17:14) And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
Again, this refers to the BODY OF CHRIST, which began with Paul.
I agree, the Acts 28 position is more or less ridiculous.
But there were people being added to the faith in significant numbers at the preaching the the Twelve AFTER Paul's conversion and so it wouldn't be accurate to draw too stark of a line at Paul's conversion (Acts 9).
Right Divider
Body part
I still believe that we identify with the beginning of THIS dispensation and are therefore Acts 9 dispensationalists.
Last edited:
Paul said he was the first saved and the prototype. Both of those go together, as we have the same foundation but a different church. Paul was saved by grace. As we all are now, and Peter said as they (Israel) shall be in the future. We can hammer that out in another thread. We haven't done it in a while.
But back to the alleged subject. Posting scripture means nothing to Gary K. But here it is again. In chronological order, but not book order as Paul is retelling the story in Acts 26.
16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; 17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, 18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
So the answer is Acts 9, and no other place. And years later The Lord Jesus Christ appeared to Peter to reveal what he had revealed to Paul on the road to Damascus.
11 and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 13 And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.” 15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.”....28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
This had to happen as The Lord Jesus Christ confirmed the promises to the fathers. In that is how Israel is set apart and will be a light to the world. The 12 apostles did not know because it was hidden from everyone including them that we are reconciled by the cross. Peter was shown the gentiles are being saved by grace. This caused a problem in Israel for the believers. What history called "The Jesus Movement". They weren't called Christians.
2 Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question.... 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”
Peter tells them how that isn't the case any more, and he believes they (Israel) shall be saved (in the future) as the gentiles are (now)
9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.”
The circumcision is under a covenant. Their hearts are not purified by faith, but they will be. When they enter the new covenant.
Paul tells the Galatians of this split.
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; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles
I used NKJV, until I had to use KJV because I read a lot of papers the late Bob Hill wrote regarding the prepositions and other mistakes that can happen in translating. And that isn't a "KJV Only" position. This is a tangent, but in some of his stuff I remember how he said "the NKJV really nails it". His website was taken down, but much of it is accessible by the wayback machine. For now.
I am all but done with Gary. He is isn't stupid which means he is misrepresenting scripture on purpose.
But back to the alleged subject. Posting scripture means nothing to Gary K. But here it is again. In chronological order, but not book order as Paul is retelling the story in Acts 26.
16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; 17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, 18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
So the answer is Acts 9, and no other place. And years later The Lord Jesus Christ appeared to Peter to reveal what he had revealed to Paul on the road to Damascus.
11 and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 13 And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.” 15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.”....28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
This had to happen as The Lord Jesus Christ confirmed the promises to the fathers. In that is how Israel is set apart and will be a light to the world. The 12 apostles did not know because it was hidden from everyone including them that we are reconciled by the cross. Peter was shown the gentiles are being saved by grace. This caused a problem in Israel for the believers. What history called "The Jesus Movement". They weren't called Christians.
2 Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question.... 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”
Peter tells them how that isn't the case any more, and he believes they (Israel) shall be saved (in the future) as the gentiles are (now)
9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.”
The circumcision is under a covenant. Their hearts are not purified by faith, but they will be. When they enter the new covenant.
Paul tells the Galatians of this split.
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; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles
I used NKJV, until I had to use KJV because I read a lot of papers the late Bob Hill wrote regarding the prepositions and other mistakes that can happen in translating. And that isn't a "KJV Only" position. This is a tangent, but in some of his stuff I remember how he said "the NKJV really nails it". His website was taken down, but much of it is accessible by the wayback machine. For now.
I am all but done with Gary. He is isn't stupid which means he is misrepresenting scripture on purpose.
Last edited:
That isn't what he said. He is talking to proselytes who know the scriptures and are circumcised. And you keep posting the dispensation of grace by Paul to show that the Jews were teaching the same thing. You vile pervert.
10 And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” 11 He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given....
This is whom Paul is speaking. And below.
13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. 14 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.
And just for good measure, time to show Gary is another liar who does not keep the red letters or follow Jesus.
1Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.
I don't disagree but I think where some make a mistake is by neglecting the fact that the Kingdom gospel, as we typically call it, was still being preached by some and believed by many AFTER Acts 9, and when we draw too stark of a line at Acts 9 we open ourselves up to objections that are more difficult to overcome than they ought to be when someone happens to point that fact out.
Acts 10, for example is all about a whole Gentile family which was saved through Peter's preaching. Peter certainly didn't preach Paul's gospel and yet we see here a member of Israel, one of the Twelve Apostles, being told by God Himself to go to a gentile and preach the gospel. That sounds to me like a pretty good start to an argument that most Acts 9 dispensationalists wouldn't know how to deal with, except to explain that there was this transition period where the Kingdom Gospel was being wound down and phased out as the Gospel of Grace was getting up to speed - for want of a better analogy. And it just seems to me that we could head that sort of argument off at the pass by simply avoiding making too big a deal out of Acts 9 being THE dividing line.
Clete
This plays out when Paul tells Agrippa about the road to Damascus, as Luke seems to be making it a direct quote of Paul. The Lord Jesus Christ did not reveal all at one time. As a tangent, that is an argument against physical gifts of the Holy Spirit. As Paul said we know in part, and prophecy in part. And at least one translation says when that which is perfect is completed.
16 But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you.
I don't need a direct line in the sand drawn, but I do like to have reasonable answers for people are who exposed to the gospel the first time, and only have a Roman Catholic or "born again" teaching.
I absolutely agree that they were. Paul says a remnant is saved and believed all of Israel shall be saved in the future. As posted in Acts 10, Peter told him it was unlawful for him to even be in the house.
And if I say when did the gospel (or any gospel) go to the gentiles, it has to be Acts 9, or right after he got his sight back. And the dispensation of grace begins with Paul and he calls himself a prototype, the pattern of salvation. I don't deserve it, and he surely didn't either.