Okay, Kurt from New Hampshire.
Kurt writes, Were women baptized in Israel's program?
I thought only men could be kings and priests.
Why did Paul baptize Lydia in Acts 16:15?
Or the jailer and his family in Acts 16:33?
Why were they baptized in Acts 18:8?
Why did he baptize John's disciples in Acts 19:5?
If baptism was a part of Israel's program and that stopped at the stoning of Stephen, why would Paul or any in the body of Christ continue to baptize?
How do you explain Acts 21:17-26?
What is going on here if grace is to be accepted by Jew and Gentile at this point?
Why would Paul take this vow?
Did he accept a blood sacrifice?
I have many other questions.
Okay, Kurt, sounds like you do.
Those are some good questions.
First, were women baptized in Israel's program?
Well prior to the cross, I find no examples of women being baptized in water, John's baptism.
However, after the cross, and as the apostles reached out to other cities, we see entire households being water baptized as Jesus instructed in Mark 16, preaching to every creature.
And Peter instructed in Acts 2, repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.
Next here, concerning what you said about, I thought only men could be kings and priests.
And that's correct.
The ritual cleansings for Old Testament Israel were for kings and priests who could only be men.
Next you said, why did Paul baptize Lydia in Acts 16:15?
Or the jailer and his family in Acts 16:33?
Why were they baptized in Acts 18:8?
And why did he baptize John's disciples in Acts 19:5?
Kurt, for the same reason that Paul had Timothy circumcised in the 16th chapter, here in the book of Acts.
It was in order to be accepted by the believing Jews in the kingdom program.
And because miracles, signs, and wonders were still in operation at this time, Jews required a sign.
And all of these things were still happening as the Bible was being written.
It was not yet complete.
Okay, next you said, if baptism was a part of Israel's program and that stopped at the stoning of Stephen, why would Paul or any in the body of Christ continue to baptize?
Well, neither Israel's program nor water baptism came to an abrupt halt, as you suppose, there at the stoning of Stephen.
There's a period of transition in which the miracle signs and wonders start to fade away.
And Paul's ministry becomes more directed away from unbelieving Israel, and exclusively onto Gentiles.
And they didn't require a sign in order to believe his gospel.
As the gospel of the kingdom, Israel's gospel, declined, the gospel of the grace of God, Paul's gospel, increased.
There's not a hard stop here.
There's not a precipitous stop to the gospel of the kingdom for Israel being preached to Israel.
Instead, what we do see when we widen our scope is that it begins to fade with the stoning of Stephen.
And after Paul is saved, he begins preaching the gospel of grace apart from the works of the law.
And that happens, you'll see that as early as Acts chapter 13.
Next question.
How do you explain Acts 21:17 through 26?
What is going on here if grace is to be accepted by Jew and Gentile at this point?
Why would Paul take this vow?
You'll find your answer in 1 Corinthians chapter 9.
Read verses 19 through 22.
Starting at verse 19, For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
And unto the Jews I became as a Jew.
Did you catch that?
Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews.
So, if Jews required a sign, then Paul's going to give them one.
If they required him to take a vow, he'll take it.
If they required Timothy to be circumcised, so be it.
Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews.
That has nothing to do with our program.
Let's keep reading.
To them that are under the law, that ain't you, that ain't me, that's the Jews.
To them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law.
I was just speaking on the last Q&A program, answering a question someone had about eating meat.
And while that has nothing to do with our program today, we're under grace.
If I were to go to someone's home and they didn't believe in eating meat, then guess what Trey's not eating that night.
And especially if I were there to witness to them, let's say they're lost, I'm definitely not going to come in and step all over their beliefs before I even get started telling them about the good news, about the word of reconciliation.
So, I don't eat meat.
Why?
To gain them, who are under that law.
They've made that a law unto themselves, so I'll relax a little bit and go with the program.
Abstain from meat for one night.
No big deal.
Verse 21.
To them that are without law, as without law, being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ, that I might gain them that are without law.
To the weak become I as weak, that I might gain the weak.
I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
Oh, this word is good when we dig in and we get the clear picture, the clear perspective on what Paul is telling us.
You see, Paul notes, hey, he's well aware of this transition.
A transition is the process or a period of changing from one state or condition to another.
These are good questions, Kurt.
Thank you, sir.
Next, did he accept a blood sacrifice?
When referring to a blood sacrifice here, I assume you are talking about Acts 21:25.
If so, this is only the instructions coming from the church at Jerusalem pertaining to Gentiles observing the law.
This is what James declared, that the Gentiles were not expected to keep the whole law as the kingdom saints of Israel were, but instead that they should abstain from the things that are listed here in verse 25.
Something to keep in mind while reading through the book of Acts is that it contains events that took place during transition.
The first part is the beginning of the rise of Israel.
They are being elevated toward their kingdom status.
But when they reject Christ, there at the stoning of Stephen, the nation begins to dwindle, to fade away and decline.
They begin to experience their Romans 11:12 diminishing.
Remember there in Romans 11, Paul tells us all about it, diminishing, not rising, no more Isaiah 60, to the brightness of thy rising, oh no, something is changing.
I looked here to see what Mr. Webster had to say about the word, diminishing.
And for our long time listeners, you know we do not always support definitions coming from the dictionary.
As I've stated many times, the Bible is its own dictionary.
It's axiomatic.
But when he's right, he's right.
And here Mr. Webster gets it right.
Webster says to diminish is to make less or cause to appear less, to lessen the authority.
That is a great definition of what's going on in the book of Acts.
Even though we didn't have to go to Webster to find out, Paul tells us all about it when he says the diminishing of Israel, the falling away, the fall of Israel, the blinding in part has happened to Israel.
Keep all this in mind, Paul was formerly Saul who persecuted the very people that ended up accepting him as an apostle of Christ.
Therefore he had a lot to prove to the kingdom saints in order for him to be accepted by them.
In the beginning of his ministry, he went to unbelieving Jews with his gospel, to the Jew first.
Remember?
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth to the Jew first.
The Jew first.
But as we see in Acts 22, the Lord told him to get out of Jerusalem, for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me.
And by Acts 28, Paul has focused all of his attention toward the Gentile nations, because those unbelieving Jews in Jerusalem, not the little flock, oh no, but those unbelieving Jews who were Paul's kinsmen and who he had a longing to see saved, now hated him.
They wanted him dead.
Okay, great questions there, Kurt.
Next, Mary says, Hi Trey, can you send me a link on your biblical take of the false dreams and visions of God speaking to us?
Alright, and I was informed by my wife, she's already taken care of that.
Lia says, Regarding the message on forgiven but didn't know it, reconciliation, my brother took it literally that once forgiven, he doesn't have to ask forgiveness again in his life, even if he makes a mistake or sins.
Would you mind broadening the teaching about forgiveness or repentance that is effective as long as we live here on this earth?
Your brother is correct.
Once you're forgiven, and he already is, as is everyone, he doesn't have to ask for forgiveness again every time he makes a mistake or sins against God, which believers will do.
How can you get forgiveness with no blood sacrifice?
God requires blood for forgiveness, not words, and the blood was shed on the cross.
Christ has done the work, completed, finished, nothing left to do.
Sins were forgiven.
Now, when you sin, if you want to confess that sin to God, ask him for his help to abstain from doing that ever again, that's one thing.
But asking him to forgive the sin he's already forgiven is not even logical.
So there's nothing broader about this teaching.
Sins forgiven on the cross.
People are saved once they believe the gospel.
Those are not the same thing.
And I notice here you mentioned repentance.
By your question, I would assume, after talking to so many people during my ministry, I would assume you think repenting means repenting of sin.
And that's not the case.
Repentance is a change of mind.
Repentance is not involving something you would do to get forgiveness of sins.
Repentance would be changing your mind from that religious perspective that says you can do something to get forgiveness of your sins.
You change your mind and say, wait a minute, there's nothing I can do.
Religion has tried to talk me into going down all these roads, all these avenues, jumping through all the hoops to try to get my sins forgiven, come down to an old-fashioned altar, cry a hot scalding bucket of tears, lay in my bed staring at the ceiling recounting my sins to God and then asking him to forgive them.
To repent from that would be to change your mind, recognize what he did on the cross, the blood sacrifice.
That was good enough for God.
No words can measure up.
You can't merit forgiveness.
Christ did the work, the work that you couldn't do.
The wages of sin was death.
Not asking him to forgive you.
The wages of sin required a death.
He supplied that very death on the cross.
Sins are forgiven.
Change your mind.
Come away from the religious thinking.
Rest in the fact that you're already forgiven, just as I said in this program you're talking about.
Believe the gospel and be saved.
Now that's good news.
Okay, thank you, Leta.
Next, Damian writes, Hello, Brother Trey.
How are you doing?
I listened to your program, Is All Sin Equal?
And I'd just like to add to your answer to April that all sins aren't equal because Jesus said so in John 19:11.
Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above.
Therefore, he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
Oh, yeah, good one.
That's a good catch, Damian.
I'm glad you brought that out.
It's awesome to see and to watch so many that are growing in truth.
And then he goes on here.
Oh, okay.
This is then he goes on to just ask me to do a video on some other subjects.
And I'll look these over.
Thank you, sir.
All right.
Next question from Mr. Ammatuzzo.
I hope I'm saying that right.
He said, Hi, Trey.
Could you possibly critique this on your show?
And then he gives me a link to an article.
Oh, yeah, I'm familiar with this.
Salvation is Everyone Forgiven.
And yep, already did that.
Probably about a year and a half ago, maybe two years.
You can find it on YouTube or on one of our podcasts.
I cannot at this moment remember the title of that program, but you can find it.
Yeah, this is written by a guy out of Indiana, an opponent of the word of reconciliation.
He's one that believes your sins are forgiven at the moment you believe.
One question.
Those in the Old Testament, before the cross, they had a sin issue.
When the, when the priest would take a sin sacrifice, a sin offering for the nation of Israel.
Did that offering only work if the entire nation believed?
Or were they forgiven because of the blood sacrifice brought by the priest?
Did their belief merit their forgiveness or were they forgiven because of the blood?
Show me the verse or verses that state only the sins of those who believed had their sins forgiven.
Okay, let's see what we got here.
Oh, and while I'm looking for our next question here, let me say I'm trying to play catch up on our listener questions.
So listen, if you haven't heard your email question, if you haven't heard that addressed, just hang on.
I'll get to it.
It'll either be addressed live here on the program or you'll get an inbox message back from us.
And by the way, our voicemail box was full of your questions.
It had reached its capacity.
So what I did is I took them from there and transferred them to individual recordings on my desktop, and I lost them all due to a computer crash.
So there were, I don't know, 30, 40, I can't remember, questions that are down the drain.
I blew it.
Sorry about that.
And now there are more coming in.
But if you had previously left your question on our toll-free number there, you may want to do it again.
Either that or email us this time, whichever.
But I apologize.
Troy writes, regarding Gentiles not being under the New Testament, how would I explain 2 Corinthians 3:6?
Well, okay, Troy, I've taught on this already.
But I will say this.
Try comparing what Paul wrote, what he wrote there, with the prophet Jeremiah in chapter 31.
Look here at verses, let me, verse 33.
Watch this.
But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, the house of Israel, not us.
After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Okay.
Write my law where?
In their hearts.
This is about the Lord giving them one heart, Jeremiah 32:39.
Diametrically speaking, in 2 Corinthians chapter 3, Paul is addressing his fellow laborers, those who ministered alongside him.
These were both Jews and Gentiles.
And Paul, just like the prophet Jeremiah, is speaking of the hearts of men.
Under Israel's New Testament, it is the law that will be written in their hearts.
But watch, conversely, what's being written in 2 Corinthians about the New Testament is people.
And it's why Paul said, ye, ye, are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men.
Verse 3: For as much as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ, you see that?
This is people, not the law.
Ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart.
In other words, saved people, people like you and I, and in this case, those there at the seaport city of Corinth, members of the body of Christ are proof, living proof of Paul's ministry, his apostleship.
That's what we have here.
And notice, don't miss it, notice how he starts out this chapter.
Do we begin again to commend ourselves, or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?
No.
The living proof is these at Corinth, saved and in Christ, all the proof needed.
This is not about Paul writing these at Corinth into a new covenant with God.
No, just let the verse say what it says.
Ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink.
As verse 6 says, it wasn't the letter or the New Testament law.
It was the Spirit.
We don't have the law written in our hearts, and we are not empowered to keep it.
I got a couple of verse comparisons for you.
Take 2 Peter chapter 1, get that in one hand, and get Ephesians chapter 3 in the other.
In 2 Peter 1:21, Peter to the little flock wrote, For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man.
But holy men of God spake, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
While Paul to the body of Christ wrote, Whereby when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ.
Verse 5.
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.
Peter revealed that in time past, under the new covenant, the Spirit wrote according to prophecy.
That's what Peter is writing about, and he's writing to a different people.
He's writing to the little flock, while Paul says, but now, writing to members of the body of Christ, but now the Spirit writes according to the mystery of Christ.
You see, under Paul's current administration, instead of the Spirit writing God's law into the hearts, he's writing mankind into the church, the body of Christ.
And the Spirit will continue doing this until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.
Hope this helps, Troy.
Many times we get these types of questions from our listeners who are out there and they're trying to convey the word of reconciliation, and they run into these who are bent on diminishing the distinctfulness of Paul's apostleship, in their vain attempt to make his writings say the same thing all the other apostles said.
But you can't, period.
And those who study the word and actually believe what they read, believe the words on the pages, they know this.
Okay, you only get two educations, the one you're given, and the one you give yourself.
Add comment
Comments