When did the gospel go to the Gentiles?

Gary K

New member
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.
Hmmm....

Romans 8: 15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

Basically Paul is saying we must be born again. After the death of Jesus the Jews were no longer God's chosen instruments to show the world He is.

John 13: 34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!
35 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Isaiah 11: 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.
10 ¶ And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

Isaiah prophecied this centuries before Jesus' birth.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Hmmm....

Romans 8: 15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

Basically Paul is saying we must be born again.

No, he's not.

After the death of Jesus the Jews were no longer God's chosen instruments to show the world He is.

John 13: 34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!
35 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Isaiah 11: 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.
10 ¶ And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

Isaiah prophecied this centuries before Jesus' birth.

So what?
 

Right Divider

Body part
Hmmm....

Romans 8: 15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

Basically Paul is saying we must be born again.
Nope!

A NEW creature is NOT a "reborn" creature.
A NEW creature is NOT a "RENEWED" creature.

You're suffering from one of the worst cases of confirmation bias that I've seen here on TOL.
After the death of Jesus the Jews were no longer God's chosen instruments to show the world He is.
Only TEMPORARILY.

Rom 11:25-27 (AKJV/PCE)​
(11:25) For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. (11:26) And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: (11:27) For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.​

Romans 11 makes it CRYSTAL clear that Israel's fall is only TEMPORARY.
John 13: 34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!
35 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.
Indeed, this is a future restoration of the nation of Israel.
Isaiah 11: 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.
10 ¶ And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

Isaiah prophecied this centuries before Jesus' birth.
When is "in that day"?

Ever seen this one?

Isa 60:16 (AKJV/PCE)​
(60:16) Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I the LORD [am] thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.​
Yet future ... when Israel is restored and is a blessing to the nations as the nations will be a blessing to Israel.

Compare with this:
Rev 21:24-26 (AKJV/PCE)​
(21:24) And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. (21:25) And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. (21:26) And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.
 
Last edited:

Gary K

New member
Nope!

A NEW creature is NOT a "reborn" creature.
A NEW creature is NOT a "RENEWED" creature.

You're suffering from one of the worst cases of confirmation bias that I've seen here on TOL.

Only TEMPORARILY.

Rom 11:25-27 (AKJV/PCE)​
(11:25) For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. (11:26) And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: (11:27) For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.​

Romans 11 makes it CRYSTAL clear that Israel's fall is only TEMPORARY.

Indeed, this is a future restoration of the nation of Israel.

When is "in that day"?

Ever seen this one?

Isa 60:16 (AKJV/PCE)​
(60:16) Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I the LORD [am] thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.​
Yet future ... when Israel is restored and is a blessing to the nations as the nations will be a blessing to Israel.

Compare with this:
Rev 21:24-26 (AKJV/PCE)​
(21:24) And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. (21:25) And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. (21:26) And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.
So did you become an entirely new person with a new body when you became a Christian?

Verb: renew ri'n(y)oo
  1. Reestablish on a new, usually improved, basis or make new or like new
    "We renewed our friendship after a hiatus of twenty years"; "They renewed their membership";
    - regenerate
  2. Cause to appear in a new form
    "the old product was renewed to appeal to a younger market";
    - reincarnate
I don't see a difference in being born again and being reestablished on an improved basis. That's exactly the meaning of being born again spiritually. We must become new. improved people. That is the strait and narrow gate that leads to life as very few people take it.

The text I quoted refers to heaven, not this earth.

That takes care of all the rest of your assertions.
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Temp Banned
There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.... The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?
 

Right Divider

Body part
So did you become an entirely new person with a new body when you became a Christian?
Yes, except for the body.
I don't see a difference in being born again and being reestablished on an improved basis.
That's because you believe a mythological idea that is not in the Bible.

"Born again" is a term that has been abused by Churchianity for many years.
That's exactly the meaning of being born again spiritually.
I know that is the claim. It's mythology.
We must become new. improved people.
No, we need to be dead and a new creature.
That is the strait and narrow gate that leads to life as very few people take it.
Nope, again... this is your mythology.
The text I quoted refers to heaven, not this earth.

That takes care of all the rest of your assertions.
😂🤣

Israel will be born again, just like the scripture says. Get a Bible and read all about it.

BTW, I noticed that you completely IGNORED most of my post.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
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.
Well said.

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.
...or at least it had been up until God said, "Rise Peter, kill and eat." at which point it was no longer.

Do you think there is anything to the idea that God had in mind at first to take Paul's gospel, the gospel of salvation through grace apart from the law, to the world through the Jews, or at least to offer that privilege to them and that it wasn't until after they rejected that gospel that God turned fully away from the Jews as a nation? (see Acts 13:46)

I see where Paul himself says in Acts 22:21 that God told him right away that He would send him to the Gentiles but, still, what was going on there in Acts 13 with the Jews?

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.
What then was Paul doing in Acts 13?

I agree that Paul was the first member of the Body of Christ and since his conversion happens in Act 9 then it makes sense to say that this is where it started but Paul was water baptized and most Mid-Acts Dispensationalists do not follow that practice. Also, Paul saw some logic in going to the Jews first rather than to the Gentiles only and so, were these Jews that believed and were water baptized by Paul saved under their Kingdom gospel or were they members of the Body of Christ?

Speaking of water baptism, why was Paul water baptizing people at least as late as Acts 19?

I remember the first time I met Bob Enyart. It was back in the late 1990s. He had come to Tulsa to do a seminar on The Plot shortly after having completed his manuscript which I had purchased only a few weeks earlier. At the end of the seminar, he opened it up for questions and I raised my hand and asked him about water baptism. He immediately responded by saying that he was going to punt and not give much of an answer at that time except to say that the 30 second ritual is probably responsible for more division in the church than any single other issue.
His lack of a direct and detailed answer bothered me for a long time until one time when I was just doing a casual reading through the book of Acts, as I am in the process of doing now, that I figured out why it would be such a difficult issue to cover in a straight forward answer to someone's question at the end of an already quite lengthy seminar. I've since been persuaded that water baptism isn't for the Body of Christ but I also can't say that I'd fault anyone for thinking otherwise and practicing water baptism, no matter when they believed this dispensation started.
 

Right Divider

Body part
I agree that Paul was the first member of the Body of Christ and since his conversion happens in Act 9 then it makes sense to say that this is where it started but Paul was water baptized and most Mid-Acts Dispensationalists do not follow that practice.
Paul was water baptized by "a devout man according to the law". Neither one of them knew the "new stuff" at that time.

Acts 22:12 (AKJV/PCE)​
(22:12) And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt [there],​
Speaking of water baptism, why was Paul water baptizing people at least as late as Acts 19?
I don't think that Paul was water baptizing anyone in Acts 19. I believe that this is another of many misunderstood passages that many anti-dispensationalists try to use to prove that Paul did not have a unique ministry.

Acts 19:1-7 (AKJV/PCE)​
(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, (19:2) 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. (19:3) And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. (19:4) 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. (19:5) When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (19:6) And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. (19:7) And all the men were about twelve.​

I believe that Verse 5 is a continuation of Paul's story about John from verse 4. It is NOT Paul water baptizing these twelve.

Do you believe that all of those Jews that were water baptized by John the baptizer needed to be re-baptized with water a second time in the name of the Lord Jesus?

I remember the first time I met Bob Enyart. It was back in the late 1990s. He had come to Tulsa to do a seminar on The Plot shortly after having completed his manuscript which I had purchased only a few weeks earlier. At the end of the seminar, he opened it up for questions and I raised my hand and asked him about water baptism. He immediately responded by saying that he was going to punt and not give much of an answer at that time except to say that the 30 second ritual is probably responsible for more division in the church than any single other issue.
JC O'Hair wrote some great articles about this topic of water baptism being one of, if not the most, divisive issues in the church which is His body.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Paul was water baptized by "a devout man according to the law". Neither one of them knew the "new stuff" at that time.

Acts 22:12 (AKJV/PCE)​
(22:12) And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt [there],​
Nevertheless, he was water baptized and does point to himself as the prototype.

I don't think that Paul was water baptizing anyone in Acts 19. I believe that this is another of many misunderstood passages that many anti-dispensationalists try to use to prove that Paul did not have a unique ministry.

Acts 19:1-7 (AKJV/PCE)​
(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, (19:2) 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. (19:3) And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. (19:4) 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. (19:5) When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (19:6) And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. (19:7) And all the men were about twelve.​

I believe that Verse 5 is a continuation of Paul's story about John from verse 4. It is NOT Paul water baptizing these twelve.
But it was done as the result of Paul's preaching. Paul brought up baptism and then they got water baptized in Jesus name. Whether he physically did the dunking is a matter of speculation and isn't the point.

Do you believe that all of those Jews that were water baptized by John the baptizer needed to be re-baptized with water a second time in the name of the Lord Jesus?
Well, that is what a simple reading of the text seems to say. It seems like a doctrine to the contrary would have to be in place prior to reading it to get anything else.

Now, the fact that they received John's baptism of repentance would seem to me to indicate that they were already saved believers in Christ under the previous dispensation and so their water baptism in Jesus name would not be surprising except that it was done as the behest of Paul, which is what prompts my question.

JC O'Hair wrote some great articles about this topic of water baptism being one of, if not the most, divisive issues in the church which is His body.
I have no doubt that it definitely has been.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
But it was done as the result of Paul's preaching. Paul brought up baptism and then they got water baptized in Jesus name. Whether he physically did the dunking is a matter of speculation and isn't the point.

I think you missed the jist of what RD just said.

This is how the NKJV renders it:
Screenshot_20240212-125441.png

What RD is saying is that it should, or at least, could, read as if verse 5 is part of the previous paragraph, and thus part of Paul's recounting of John's actions, and that verse 6 is the start of a new paragraph.

In other words, it would read more like this:


And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”

So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”

And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?”

So they said, “Into John’s baptism.”

Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. Now the men were about twelve in all. And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. And this continued for two years, so that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.



I don't know if the grammar of the original language texts would support this, but certainly it would make more sense, given how long after Paul's conversion Acts 19 was, and especially considering what he said in 1 Corinthians 1:14...

I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

They were already baptized "into John's baptism."
The "people who heard this" in verse 4 are the ones who were baptized in verse 5.
Paul finishes his history lesson of John, and lays hands on them, and the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they began to prophesy.
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Temp Banned
Do you think there is anything to the idea that God had in mind at first to take Paul's gospel, the gospel of salvation through grace apart from the law, to the world through the Jews, or at least to offer that privilege to them and that it wasn't until after they rejected that gospel that God turned fully away from the Jews as a nation?
To make my best guess off of letters people saved by the works of the Holy Spirit, let's go way back. And this isn't my original thought, but another dispensationalist teacher. The idea of a mystery, and we are not entitled to know. Unless he wants us to know.

Deuteronomy 29:29 “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.

So, I'm not sure. Paul said to the proselytes in Rome (Peter's actual church) to the Jew first. But since he did not go to the Jew first, he probably doesn't mean grace first. With Israel's 70 weeks, one of the last thing the prophet says (In English) is you will not go unpunished. They had to earn it.

Speaking of water baptism, why was Paul water baptizing people at least as late as Acts 19?
I will guess. Because The Lord Jesus Christ said things I will yet reveal to you. We probably don't have to know the specifics. But I like to know myself.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Nevertheless, he was water baptized and does point to himself as the prototype.
You are falsely associating two unrelated things.
Well, that is what a simple reading of the text seems to say. It seems like a doctrine to the contrary would have to be in place prior to reading it to get anything else.

Now, the fact that they received John's baptism of repentance would seem to me to indicate that they were already saved believers in Christ under the previous dispensation and so their water baptism in Jesus name would not be surprising except that it was done as the behest of Paul, which is what prompts my question.
Do you know of any support, anywhere in scripture, for a re-baptizing with water?
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Temp Banned
Occasionally, someone will inquire further after pointing out The Lord Jesus Christ isn't talking to us in those red letters. They sometimes ask what is most like us today. My best answer is Ephesians. I'm an American with pagan ancestors of western Europe. Strangers to the covenants of promise, unlike the mixed churches in many of the letters. Without hope. And Paul has very little to say about "doctrine", and only that we are to rest easy. As Moses said on the shore to the stiff necked people Stand still and see the salvation of the LORD. I'm amazed at how many don't want to stand still. If you want to share something with people, it doesn't get more beautiful than this.

And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others. But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I think you missed the jist of what RD just said.

This is how the NKJV renders it:
View attachment 9977

What RD is saying is that it should, or at least, could, read as if verse 5 is part of the previous paragraph, and thus part of Paul's recounting of John's actions, and that verse 6 is the start of a new paragraph.

In other words, it would read more like this:


And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”

So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”

And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?”

So they said, “Into John’s baptism.”

Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. Now the men were about twelve in all. And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. And this continued for two years, so that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.



I don't know if the grammar of the original language texts would support this, but certainly it would make more sense, given how long after Paul's conversion Acts 19 was, and especially considering what he said in 1 Corinthians 1:14...

I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

They were already baptized "into John's baptism."
The "people who heard this" in verse 4 are the ones who were baptized in verse 5.
Paul finishes his history lesson of John, and lays hands on them, and the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they began to prophesy.
I love it.

My favorite sentence in this whole post is....

"I don't know if the grammar of the original language texts would support this, but...."​

If every Christian tried this hard to both make actual arguments that make sense and displayed even half this much intellectual honesty, the world would be a very different place.

You were right, I had not followed Nick's point. You cleared it up nicely and I have no rebuttal except to say that there seems to be no motive for changing the reading in this manner other than a pre-existing baptism doctrine, which, by itself, is no rebuttal at all.

So, what about Lydia, in Acts 16?....

Acts 16:14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.​
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Occasionally, someone will inquire further after pointing out The Lord Jesus Christ isn't talking to us in those red letters. They sometimes ask what is most like us today. My best answer is Ephesians. I'm an American with pagan ancestors of western Europe. Strangers to the covenants of promise, unlike the mixed churches in many of the letters. Without hope. And Paul has very little to say about "doctrine", and only that we are to rest easy. As Moses said on the shore to the stiff necked people Stand still and see the salvation of the LORD. I'm amazed at how many don't want to stand still. If you want to share something with people, it doesn't get more beautiful than this.

And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others. But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
This reminded me of something I read about thirty years ago...
"God's way of deliverance is altogether different from man's way. Man's way is to try to suppress sin by seeking to overcome it; God's way is to remove the sinner. Many Christians mourn over their weakness, thinking that if only they were stranger all would be well. The idea that, because​
failure to lead a holy life is due to our impotence, something more is therefore demanded of us, leads naturally to this false conception of the way of deliverance. If we are preoccupied with the power of sin and with our inability to meet it, then we naturally conclude that to gain the victory over sin we must have more power.​
"'If only I were stronger,' we say, 'I could overcome my violent outbursts of temper,' and so we plead with the Lord to strengthen us that we may exercise more self-control. But this is altogether wrong; this is not Christianity. God's means of delivering us from sin is not by making us stronger and stronger, but by making us weaker and weaker. This is surely a peculiar way of victory, you say; but it is the divine way. God sets us free from the dominion of sin, not by strengthening our old man but by crucifying him; not by helping him to do anything but by removing him from the scene of action." - Watchman Nee - The Crucified Life (excerpted from Principles of Spiritual Growth by Miles J. Stanford)​

(The ONLY book of Nee's that's worth actually reading is "The Normal Christian life", by the way. There are nuggets like the above quotation in his other works but they're hardly worth wading through the errors to get to.)


I used to close all of my posts in the following manner. I have no good explanation for having stopped...

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I love it.

My favorite sentence in this whole post is....

"I don't know if the grammar of the original language texts would support this, but...."​

If every Christian tried this hard to both make actual arguments that make sense and displayed even half this much intellectual honesty, the world would be a very different place.

You were right, I had not followed Nick's point.

I think you meant Right Divider's point.

You cleared it up nicely and I have no rebuttal except to say that there seems to be no motive for changing the reading in this manner other than a pre-existing baptism doctrine, which, by itself, is no rebuttal at all.

So, what about Lydia, in Acts 16?....

Acts 16:14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.​

Here's a hint:

What did Paul customarily do whenever he visited a new city?

Will Duffy doesn't touch on the baptism part necessarily, but what he says gives important context that you might have missed. Watch from 11:45 (video should play from that timestamp):

 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I think you meant Right Divider's point.
YES!

Here's a hint:

What did Paul customarily do whenever he visited a new city?

Will Duffy doesn't touch on the baptism part necessarily, but what he says gives important context that you might have missed. Watch from 11:45 (video should play from that timestamp):

Has Will turned into a terrific pastor or what?! Bob would be so proud of him!
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
This reminded me of something I read about thirty years ago...

"God's way of deliverance is altogether different from man's way. Man's way is to try to suppress sin by seeking to overcome it; God's way is to remove the sinner. Many Christians mourn over their weakness, thinking that if only they were stranger all would be well. The idea that, because failure to lead a holy life is due to our impotence, something more is therefore demanded of us, leads naturally to this false conception of the way of deliverance. If we are preoccupied with the power of sin and with our inability to meet it, then we naturally conclude that to gain the victory over sin we must have more power.

"'If only I were stronger,' we say, 'I could overcome my violent outbursts of temper,' and so we plead with the Lord to strengthen us that we may exercise more self-control. But this is altogether wrong; this is not Christianity. God's means of delivering us from sin is not by making us stronger and stronger, but by making us weaker and weaker. This is surely a peculiar way of victory, you say; but it is the divine way. God sets us free from the dominion of sin, not by strengthening our old man but by crucifying him; not by helping him to do anything but by removing him from the scene of action." - Watchman Nee - The Crucified Life (excerpted from Principles of Spiritual Growth by Miles J. Stanford)​

(The ONLY book of Nee's that's worth actually reading is "The Normal Christian life", by the way. There are nuggets like the above quotation in his other works but they're hardly worth wading through the errors to get to.)

I used to close all of my posts in the following manner. I have no good explanation for having stopped...

Resting in Him,
Clete

I think Paul put it best:

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory? The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.
 
Top