When did the gospel go to the Gentiles?

Nick M

Plymouth Colonist
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
God sets us free from the dominion of sin, not by strengthening our old man but by crucifying him
As Paul said, the cross is foolishness to those that are perishing. It sounds terrible, but many on TOL (and every where else) who say they believe Jesus died for their sin, and in the same breath reject the idea that they are dead to sin and they need to endure and repent and everything else. According to Paul, they are not saved.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Here's a hint:

What did Paul customarily do whenever he visited a new city?
So how does the fact that Paul typically went to the synagogue when he went to a city help to explain the fact the Lydia was baptized after heading the words of Paul?

Was Lydia saved under the Kingdom Gospel or the Gospel of Grace? If the former, then why Paul? If the latter, then why the baptism?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
As Paul said, the cross is foolishness to those that are perishing. It sounds terrible, but many on TOL (and every where else) who say they believe Jesus died for their sin, and in the same breath reject the idea that they are dead to sin and they need to endure and repent and everything else. According to Paul, they are not saved.
If so, then there are almost no saved Christians anywhere in the world!

Care to establish that biblically?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
So how does the fact that Paul typically went to the synagogue when he went to a city help to explain the fact the Lydia was baptized after heading the words of Paul?

I means that, as far as I can tell, Lydia was not just another Gentile woman.

She was, in all likelihood, a descendant of Israel.

Baptism would have been a logical step.

Was Lydia saved under the Kingdom Gospel or the Gospel of Grace? If the former, then why Paul? If the latter, then why the baptism?

I'm not entirely sure, though, if I were to hazard a guess, Paul's gospel.

I would argue that there simply isn't enough information to say definitively either way, since baptism is technically a part of both the Kingdom gospel and Paul's gospel of grace, just that they're different kinds of baptism.

If she was saved under the latter, then (as far as the English translation is concerned) there's enough leeway in the text for it to be either baptism by water (since they were literally standing next to a river, as shown by the photo in the above video), or given that it was Paul, baptism into the Body of Christ with no water needed, which Paul does describe as part of the process (and which the text does not necessarily exclude) of "being saved":

Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. For in fact the body is not one member but many.

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it. So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God. Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.

One more thing to point out: Lydia was baptized on a Sabbath, praying with the other women present (the word used for "place of prayer" (G4335 proseuchen) is, specifically, as defined by Strong's, one "used by Jews, perhaps when there was no synagogue"), and worshipping God.

On the other hand, if it was the Gospel of the Kingdom of Israel, then there is certainly evidence for that, too, as 1) there was water present, 2) she, along with the other women present, was a Jewess, or at least of Hebrew descent, and 3) it was a Sabbath (which would be odd to mention if she was a Gentile).

Thoughts: I wonder if it was an anti-type of Peter's baptising of Cornelius, who was (as far as I could tell, but am willing to be shown to be wrong, or maybe I'm forgetting my stance that he was saved by grace?) baptized under the gospel of the Kingdom of Israel by Peter after he was told that the Gentiles had been made clean.
 

Nick M

Plymouth Colonist
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
If so, then there are almost no saved Christians anywhere in the world!

Care to establish that biblically?
Paul said it.

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Right here on TOL we went round and round in circles with the same people. Not the dispensation of grace and when did it start, but those that reject that it did not start in Acts 2 typically argue against being dead to sin. I have a hard time believing they believe him and trust him. No, I don't have the answer, but as Delmar said here once, I'm pretty sure our creator will make the right choice with people when they stand before him after death.

You know the rest of the chapter as it is right where the dispute over water baptism is, so I didn't post context.

I am going to give a few samples of people right here rejecting Romans 5 and 6.

godrulz;1635679 said:
I believe it in context, not as a proof text for your views. Justification is about our initial coming to Christ when we are declared righteous (legal term) and our past sins are dealt with. At that point of conversion, there are no future sins yet. Reconciliation deals with our past sins....My objection is to think we can persist in sheer rebellion, sin, and disobedience with impunity because non-existent sins have blanket forgiveness just because our past sins were dealt with at justification.

godrulz;2343987 said:
You seem to reduce it to an irreversible metaphysical change parallel to physical birth. In reality, it is a reciprocal love relationship, not an unconditional zapping. Past sins can be dealt with, but this does not preclude the possibility of heinous future sins, including blasphemy, that cannot be swept under the carpet by a holy God ....

These links do not work on the new forum software.

Adoration;2296131 said:
A dead faith, ie. faith without works, will not save us.

chrysostom;2489735 said:
I do not know what you all are talking about


I have not been crucified with Christ

my sins have not been nailed to the cross

I only walk in the darkness at night


is this another language?

To me, this is the majority of the "Christian church" in America. The vast majority argue against Romans 5 and 6. Meaning when you mention salvation is a gift and he exchanged his life for our life. You can't sin your way out of salvation. The scripture bears it out, and they reject it.

Now, those arguing against it are different than the cliche of "backsliding". If they believed in their heart and confessed his name, you know they are sealed by the Holy Spirit. He is faithful when we are faithless.

 

Nick M

Plymouth Colonist
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
And then their are the Calvinists. If you peel the onion back just a little, you will see they also do not actually believe. They say God forces them to believe.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I means that, as far as I can tell, Lydia was not just another Gentile woman.

She was, in all likelihood, a descendant of Israel.

Baptism would have been a logical step.



I'm not entirely sure, though, if I were to hazard a guess, Paul's gospel.

I would argue that there simply isn't enough information to say definitively either way, since baptism is technically a part of both the Kingdom gospel and Paul's gospel of grace, just that they're different kinds of baptism.

If she was saved under the latter, then (as far as the English translation is concerned) there's enough leeway in the text for it to be either baptism by water (since they were literally standing next to a river, as shown by the photo in the above video), or given that it was Paul, baptism into the Body of Christ with no water needed, which Paul does describe as part of the process (and which the text does not necessarily exclude) of "being saved":

Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. For in fact the body is not one member but many.

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it. So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God. Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.

One more thing to point out: Lydia was baptized on a Sabbath, praying with the other women present (the word used for "place of prayer" (G4335 proseuchen) is, specifically, as defined by Strong's, one "used by Jews, perhaps when there was no synagogue"), and worshipping God.

On the other hand, if it was the Gospel of the Kingdom of Israel, then there is certainly evidence for that, too, as 1) there was water present, 2) she, along with the other women present, was a Jewess, or at least of Hebrew descent, and 3) it was a Sabbath (which would be odd to mention if she was a Gentile).

Thoughts: I wonder if it was an anti-type of Peter's baptising of Cornelius, who was (as far as I could tell, but am willing to be shown to be wrong, or maybe I'm forgetting my stance that he was saved by grace?) baptized under the gospel of the Kingdom of Israel by Peter after he was told that the Gentiles had been made clean.
I think there's no question that Cornelius was preached the Kingdom gospel. There's no way Peter would have even know what the Gospel of Grace was.

As for the rest of your post, it is, as usual, very well thought out and presented. I have nothing to add except to say that I fully understand why there would be confusion about the issue of water baptism and I really understand why Bob would have elected to punt on answering my question about water baptism all those years ago.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Paul said it.

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Right here on TOL we went round and round in circles with the same people. Not the dispensation of grace and when did it start, but those that reject that it did not start in Acts 2 typically argue against being dead to sin. I have a hard time believing they believe him and trust him. No, I don't have the answer, but as Delmar said here once, I'm pretty sure our creator will make the right choice with people when they stand before him after death.

You know the rest of the chapter as it is right where the dispute over water baptism is, so I didn't post context.

I am going to give a few samples of people right here rejecting Romans 5 and 6.





These links do not work on the new forum software.





To me, this is the majority of the "Christian church" in America. The vast majority argue against Romans 5 and 6. Meaning when you mention salvation is a gift and he exchanged his life for our life. You can't sin your way out of salvation. The scripture bears it out, and they reject it.

Now, those arguing against it are different than the cliche of "backsliding". If they believed in their heart and confessed his name, you know they are sealed by the Holy Spirit. He is faithful when we are faithless.

I entirely see your point here but it seems to me like you're conflating justification with sanctification. "Justification" being the act of getting saved and "sanctification" being the process by which we grow in Christ and learn to let Him live His life through us.

This feels like a topic that would fit nicely in another thread of mine....

Thread 'The Gospel Proper'

Would you modify the list of doctrines given in the opening post of that thread and, if so, how so?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I think there's no question that Cornelius was preached the Kingdom gospel. There's no way Peter would have even know what the Gospel of Grace was.

Agreed.

As for the rest of your post, it is, as usual, very well thought out and presented.

Thank you, and praise God!

I have nothing to add except to say that I fully understand why there would be confusion about the issue of water baptism and I really understand why Bob would have elected to punt on answering my question about water baptism all those years ago.

Indeed.
 

Nick M

Plymouth Colonist
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Would you modify the list of doctrines given in the opening post of that thread and, if so, how so?
I will look at it and give my best guess. Other wise, I go with what the Bible says. And with Paul's slowly revealing letters, sometimes that can be iffy. But not with the important stuff.

Here Paul is reminding them what complete dog poop they were. Yes, he said life outside of Christ is that.

11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

It's my understanding sanctified or Holy means set apart. We are set apart by salvation. I'll go to that thread.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I will look at it and give my best guess. Other wise, I go with what the Bible says. And with Paul's slowly revealing letters, sometimes that can be iffy. But not with the important stuff.

Here Paul is reminding them what complete dog poop they were. Yes, he said life outside of Christ is that.

11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

It's my understanding sanctified or Holy means set apart. We are set apart by salvation. I'll go to that thread.
You aren't technically wrong but the meaning of sanctification depends on the context, and the terminology I used in my post is often used in Christian vernacular to distinguish between issues having to do with getting saved (Justification) vs. issues that have to do with living a Christian life ("Sanctification"). The idea being that you can get the latter wrong without it undoing the former. I'm not the biggest fan of the use of the term "sanctification" myself but it is pretty commonly used in that context and I have no other term to replace it with that wouldn't create a similar issues and so I just go with it and stand ready to explain it's usage when confusion happens.
 

Nick M

Plymouth Colonist
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You aren't technically wrong but the meaning of sanctification depends on the context, and the terminology I used in my post is often used in Christian vernacular to distinguish between issues having to do with getting saved (Justification) vs. issues that have to do with living a Christian life ("Sanctification"). The idea being that you can get the latter wrong without it undoing the former. I'm not the biggest fan of the use of the term "sanctification" myself but it is pretty commonly used in that context and I have no other term to replace it with that wouldn't create a similar issues and so I just go with it and stand ready to explain it's usage when confusion happens.
Paul exhorts that people act better. Quit being immoral. But he never says it pulls you from God. As you know. We are complete in him. So I don't have a daily use of the word either.
 
Top