Baptism

[Dispy]

When considering why the Jewish Christians (including the apostle Peter) were so astonished in Acts 10:45, I allow the text to speak for itself. The Holy Spirit had just come upon the Gentiles as it did upon the apostles in Acts 2:1-4. Peter's conclusion? Look at verses 47-48. What did Peter conclude in those verses? All I see is his conclusion that is based on what has just happened -- the Gentiles are now candidates for baptism in water. Thus, Peter commands them to be baptized in the name of the Lord -- which is synonymous with the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ in Acts 2:38, which was "for the remission of sins" (to have one's sins taken away -- see Matt. 26:28). Note who the promise is offered to in Acts 2:39 -- it includes "all who are afar off." This is referring to the Gentiles (see Eph. 2:13). What we see in Acts chapter 10 is the confirmation from God that the time is right for the gospel to be extended to the Gentiles. God first has to convince the apostle Peter. He sends him a vision that will help in this regard. Note Peter's conclusion in Acts 10:34-35. He realizes what the vision meant. When God sends the baptism with the Holy Spirit upon the Gentiles, the proof is evident now to all the Jews who are there. Thus, Peter commands them to be baptized in the name of the Lord just like the Jews were commanded in Acts 2:38. That is the only conclusion I can draw as I consider the text of Acts 10, and Acts 11 when Peter later explained these things to his Jewish brethren that were NOT there to personally witness what had happened. And, like the Jews in Acts 2:47, the Gentiles were added to the Lord's church when they were saved from their sins i.e. Acts 2:38. What was new or different in Acts 10 compared with Acts 2. Gentiles. That was the difference.

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

Acts 10:44: While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Where are the instructions "repent and be baptized" in Acts 10:44? If those in Acts Acts 10:44 could receive the Holy Ghost without first being baptized in water, Why could those at Pentecost have received the Holy Ghost without water baptism? Isn't this a departure from Acts 2:38?

Cornelius, and his house, are now members of the Jewish Church and Jewish proselytes; just as the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8. The Body of Christ, Jew and Gentile on equal footing, without distinction and not under the Law, was not formed yet. It wasn't formed until after Israel was set aside. Peter was still preaching "the gospel of the kingdom," NOT "the gospel of the grace of God"[/B] which was revealed to the Apostle Paul who wasn't even saved yet.

If you could show me some where in OT prophesy and the 1st 8 chapters of Acts that the Gentiles could serve the true and living God with out becoming a Jewish proselyte and place themselves under the Law, I WILL BELIEVE THE THINGS YOU ARE SAYING.

In Acts 2:39 Peter is not referring to Gentiles. At the time of Acts 2:39, there isn't even an hint that the Gentiles are going to be equal with the Jews. Peter, having his understanding of the Scriptures opened, is referring back to "that are afar off" in Daniel 9 - future Jewish generations.

Jesus nailed the law of Moses to His cross (Col. 2:14). It ended. Jesus' covenant or will was declared in Acts chapter 2. The old covenant was obsolete (see Heb. 8:6-13). Note Acts 2:42. Did the disciples continue in the law of Moses, or in the apostles' doctrine? I find that they were following the teaching of the apostles, not the law of Moses. This point should not be overlooked.

It is in Col.2:14 that we learn that the Laws of Moses were nailed to the Cross. Did anyone prior to the raising up of Saul/Paul, in Acts 9, know this? The book of Colossians isn't written until approximately 30 years after Pentecost. It was part of the "mystery," which "was kept secret since the world began." How can something be in effect prior to it being made known? The book of Colossians should not were read into Acts 10. You wouldn't read "the Law" into the Garden of Eden" would you? I'm quite certain that you wouldn't read the battles of WWII into the battles of WWI either. So, Why read future revelation to the Apostel Paul, who wasn't even saved yet in Acts 10, into Acts 10? Comon sense should tell one that.

Galatians 2:7 "But contrawise, when they (the disciples) saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision (grace) was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision (law) was unto Peter:"

Hey, the gospel of the cirucumcision was THE LAW! The gospel that Paul preache was "uncircumcision" - GRACE/NON-LAW!

Galatians 2:9 "And when James, Cephas (Peter), and John, who seemed to be pillars, preceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen (Gentiles), and they unto the circumcision (Jews)."

Wait a minute, I thought the 12 were commissioned to "GO YE INTO ALL THE WORLD, and preach the gospel" (Mark 16:15). Are the disciples of Jesus now out of the will of God?

After Jesus had given the 12 disciples the "so called" great commission to "go to all the world," Why would God then raise up one apostle to go to kings, gentiles and Jews, when Jesus had already appointed 12 to do so? Wouldn't it seem more logical to send 12 into the world and only one to the Jews?

Why did Cornelius bow down to Peter? What does the text reveal to us? Doesn't it tell us about Cornelius' vision and whom God is going to send to Cornelius to tell him what he should do? And, isn't Peter the one that comes -- the one sent from God -- to tell Cornelius what he should do? That is the text as I see it. Peter doesn't accept Cornelius bowing down to him. He wasn't superior to Cornelius.

The text tells me that also, I was pointing out that show that a Roman officer was bowing down to a subject of Roman Law, which is not what one would expect.

You will notice that I respond to everything that you post. PLEASE have the courtesy to do the same for me.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Much and Love The Lord!

 

[MbiaJc]

In Acts 2:38 it is not the Holy Spirit that is the baptizer. It is Jesus who is the baptizer as John says in Matthew 3:11 "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier then I, ...:he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire."

Those believer in Acts 8:16 and Acts 19:2-6 were already baptized under John's baptism and didn't have to be re-baptized in order to receive the Holy Spirit.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

I don't think you are gleaming all that can be gotten from Acts 2:38.

Peter is saying

Repent of sins
Be baptized (in water)
Then you will receive the gift, "baptism" of the Holy Ghost.

When did the Holy Ghost rest on Jesus? Was it not when He came up out of the water?

Makes one wonder if the baptism required crowd is not right? My hunch is that everyone that received the Holy Spirit on the day of Penecost had been baptized unto repentance by John.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: Dispy

You will notice that I respond to everything that you post. PLEASE have the courtesy to do the same for me.

You are right. Sorry, but I have been very busy the past few days and will be for a few more. Lord willing, I will try to get back with you by this weekend. I have one other study that has become very active but is just about finished.

However, I don't intend to cover every specific point that you've brought up. Truthfully, there is much that we don't see eye-to-eye on. I do appreciate the time you've taken to respond. I have read over the posts. I do better understand where you are coming from. However, one quick observation. You still haven't acknowledged that the kingdom that was promised has been set up i.e. Mark 9:1, Col. 1:13, Rev. 1:9. Consider Col. 1:13. If there's no kingdom, then we are still in (or under) the power of darkness (or sin). Think about the implications of this position. It negates Jesus' sacrifice upon the cross. And, considering Mark 9:1, it implies that the Lord doesn't keep His promise. I believe He does. And, I believe He did the very thing He promised to do. Think about it.

 

[Dispy]

Originally Posted by: Dispy

You will notice that I respond to everything that you post. PLEASE have the courtesy to do the same for me.

You are right. Sorry, but I have been very busy the past few days and will be for a few more. Lord willing, I will try to get back with you by this weekend. I have one other study that has become very active but is just about finished.

However, I don't intend to cover every specific point that you've brought up. Truthfully, there is much that we don't see eye-to-eye on. I do appreciate the time you've taken to respond. I have read over the posts. I do better understand where you are coming from. However, one quick observation. You still haven't acknowledged that the kingdom that was promised has been set up i.e. Mark 9:1, Col. 1:13, Rev. 1:9. Consider Col. 1:13. If there's no kingdom, then we are still in (or under) the power of darkness (or sin). Think about the implications of this position. It negates Jesus' sacrifice upon the cross. And, considering Mark 9:1, it implies that the Lord doesn't keep His promise. I believe He does. And, I believe He did the very thing He promised to do. Think about it.

The "kingdom of God" was displayed in Mark 9:3. There is a difference between the "kingdom of God" and "the kingdom of heaven" which is to be established upon the earth at Christ's 2nd coming. (see the footnote of Matthew 6:22 in the Scofield Bible.)

Concerning Col.1:13. Believers today are members of "the Body of Christ."
Our hope to in heaven "to ever be with the Lord" (1Thes.4:17). See also 2Cor.5:1 and Philipians 3:20.

The Body of Christ will have been raptured to heaven prior to the resumption of the Tribulation. It (the Body of Christ) is not found in the book of the Revelation.

Yes, The Lord does keep His promises. They just haven't all been fulfilled yet.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[MbiaJc]

Dispy

The Body of Christ will have been raptured to heaven prior to the resumption of the Tribulation. It (the Body of Christ) is not found in the book of the Revelation.

This is off topic, but do you have scripture for this?

 

[Dispy]

Dispy previously posted:
"The Body of Christ will have been raptured to heaven prior to the resumption of the Tribulation. It (the Body of Christ) is not found in the book of the Revelation."

This is off topic, but do you have scripture for this?

Yes, I know that this is off topic, but it was in response to DRA's previous post.

Being the Chruch, the Body of Christ, is not in the book of the Revelation, it therefore cannot be found in that book.

To understand what I am about to post, one must understand that the Chruch, the Body of Christ, and the nation of Israel are not the same thing.

The subject, of the book of the Revelation is the 70th week of Daniel - the Tribulation, and all has to do with the fulfillment of OT prophesy. One cannot find the Chruch, the Body of Christ in prophesy. It "was a kept secret since the world began." The 70th week of Daniel has to do with the nation of Israel.

Many today believe that the Chruch, the Body of Christ is found in the 7 churches mentioned in the first 4 chapters of the book of the Revelation. This, IMHO, is totally in error. The error is based upon the wrong interpretation of Rev.1:19, 20. "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which sahall be hereafter; The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches."

First of all, one will never find the Chruch, the Body of Christ, connected with angels and candelsticks. Angels were God's messengers to the nation of Israel and candelsticks are never associated with the Body of Christ.

Further, when one reads Rev.1:12-20, one should be able to see the connection to Isreal be comparing those verses with Dan. 7:9; 10:5-6; and Isaiah 11:4.

The severn churches IMHO were the Jewish churches that were started by the Jews that were scattered during the persecution in Jerusalem. They were save during the preaching of "the gospel of the kingdom," and also I believe that they are the ones that the disciples of Jesus who agreed with Paul in Galatians 2:9 that they would stay with the circumcision.

Hope this is helpful.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[MbiaJc]

Dispy previously posted:
"The Body of Christ will have been raptured to heaven prior to the resumption of the Tribulation. It (the Body of Christ) is not found in the book of the Revelation."




Yes, I know that this is off topic, but it was in response to DRA's previous post.

Being the Chruch, the Body of Christ, is not in the book of the Revelation, it therefore cannot be found in that book.

To understand what I am about to post, one must understand that the Chruch, the Body of Christ, and the nation of Israel are not the same thing.

The subject, of the book of the Revelation is the 70th week of Daniel - the Tribulation, and all has to do with the fulfillment of OT prophesy. One cannot find the Chruch, the Body of Christ in prophesy. It "was a kept secret since the world began." The 70th week of Daniel has to do with the nation of Israel.

Many today believe that the Chruch, the Body of Christ is found in the 7 churches mentioned in the first 4 chapters of the book of the Revelation. This, IMHO, is totally in error. The error is based upon the wrong interpretation of Rev.1:19, 20. "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which sahall be hereafter; The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches."

First of all, one will never find the Chruch, the Body of Christ, connected with angels and candelsticks. Angels were God's messengers to the nation of Israel and candelsticks are never associated with the Body of Christ.

Further, when one reads Rev.1:12-20, one should be able to see the connection to Isreal be comparing those verses with Dan. 7:9; 10:5-6; and Isaiah 11:4.

The severn churches IMHO were the Jewish churches that were started by the Jews that were scattered during the persecution in Jerusalem. They were save during the preaching of "the gospel of the kingdom," and also I believe that they are the ones that the disciples of Jesus who agreed with Paul in Galatians 2:9 that they would stay with the circumcision.

Hope this is helpful.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

Hi Dispy, grace and peace to you.

All you gave given is your openion, you have in no way given any scripture that the Church is raptured before the tribulation. You have not given any scripture of a rapture period.

BTW that is not a mistransulation of the Churches in Rev. For the Bible plainly tells us that the candlesticks are the seven Churches. I have never heard one deny this before?

First there is no rapture, there is a resurrection and it takes place at the 7th trumphet. Which sounds after the tribulation.

 

[Freedom&Light]

The severn churches IMHO were the Jewish churches

Actually, the seven churches are Christian churches in Asia minor used by Jesus to warn the first century about the persecution they are experiencing. The number 7 is used here- not because there were only 7 churches, because there were a lot more than that- but because 7 is a symbolic number used in Apocraphal writings.

 

[Dispy]

Hi Dispy, grace and peace to you.

All you gave given is your openion, you have in no way given any scripture that the Church is raptured before the tribulation. You have not given any scripture of a rapture period.

BTW that is not a mistransulation of the Churches in Rev. For the Bible plainly tells us that the candlesticks are the seven Churches. I have never heard one deny this before?

First there is no rapture, there is a resurrection and it takes place at the 7th trumphet. Which sounds after the tribulation.

Hello MbiaJc

My opinion is derived from what I do believe the Bible teaches.

I do agree that the candelsticks mentioned in the book of the Revelation are churches. But they are Jewish Churches as I have said. They are not "the Body of Christ" Chruches of today; as they will have already been raptured to heaven.

The rapture cannot be found in OT prophesy. We find the rapture mentioned in 1Cor.15:51-53. It is part of the mystery/secret that was revealed to the Apostle Paul. Also, we find Paul mentioning it again in 1Thess.4:14-18.

In chapter 5 we find the following: 1 But of the times and the seasons,(of the Tribulation) brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord (Tribulation) so cometh as a thief in the night.
3 For when they (unbelievers) shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction (the Tribulation) cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
4 But ye (believers), brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.
7 For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night.
8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.
9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath,(the Tribulation) but to obtain salvation (rapture) by our Lord Jesus Christ,
10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.

The "trump" that Paul mentions in 1Thess.4:16 is not the 7the trumpet mention in the book of the Revelation. The book of the Revelation was not written until approx 40 years after Paul wrote the books of Thessalonians.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[Dispy]

Actually, the seven churches are Christian churches in Asia minor used by Jesus to warn the first century about the persecution they are experiencing. The number 7 is used here- not because there were only 7 churches, because there were a lot more than that- but because 7 is a symbolic number used in Apocraphal writings.

THANKS for your reply.

I knew that the seven churches were in Asia as Rev.1:4 says. They were Jewish Churches as I have shown earlier.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[MbiaJc]

Hello MbiaJc

My opinion is derived from what I do believe the Bible teaches.

I do agree that the candelsticks mentioned in the book of the Revelation are churches. But they are Jewish Churches as I have said. They are not "the Body of Christ" Chruches of today; as they will have already been raptured to heaven.

The rapture cannot be found in OT prophesy. We find the rapture mentioned in 1Cor.15:51-53. It is part of the mystery/secret that was revealed to the Apostle Paul. Also, we find Paul mentioning it again in 1Thess.4:14-18.

In chapter 5 we find the following: 1 But of the times and the seasons,(of the Tribulation) brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord (Tribulation) so cometh as a thief in the night.
3 For when they (unbelievers) shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction (the Tribulation) cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
4 But ye (believers), brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.
7 For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night.
8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.
9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath,(the Tribulation) but to obtain salvation (rapture) by our Lord Jesus Christ,
10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.

The "trump" that Paul mentions in 1Thess.4:16 is not the 7the trumpet mention in the book of the Revelation. The book of the Revelation was not written until approx 40 years after Paul wrote the books of Thessalonians.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

All you are doing is giving your openion! You can not back up one thing you say with scripture.

The 7 Churches in Rev. are the Churches of Jesus Christ.

It doesn't matter if Paul wrote the letter 1000yr before John wrote Rev. The 7th trumpet is the last trumpet given in prophecy.

 

[Dispy]

All you are doing is giving your openion! You can not back up one thing you say with scripture.

The 7 Churches in Rev. are the Churches of Jesus Christ.

It doesn't matter if Paul wrote the letter 1000yr before John wrote Rev. The 7th trumpet is the last trumpet given in prophecy.

Yes I agree, the 7 Churches in Rev. are the Chruches of Jesus Christ. However, they consist of those Jewish believers that did believe that Jesus was their Christ. They were the ones saved during the preaching of "the gospel of the kingdom." They are not the members of "the Body of Christ" - those saved under the preaching of "the gospel of the grace of God."

Yes I do know that the 7th trumpet is the last trumpet in prophesy. I was pointing out that the trump that Paul speaks of is not the 7th trump of prophesy.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[IXOYE<><]

Baptism

Hey guys. I had a question for you, I am in the denomination Disciples of Christ, and I have not been baptized since I was a baby. My question to you all is do I have to be baptized again, or was the one baptism good enough?

I do want to hear your opinions, but I also would like to see some scripture if it is possible to back up what you are saying (not necessary because I DO want to hear your opinions too.)

I would say get re-baptized. If only, for the sake of reconfirming your commitment to Christ. On the other hand, if you accept your infant baptism as valid and carry no animosity toward those who carried it out on you, then just accept that as your official baptism.IMHO

 

[Dispy]

Suggest you read my posts #18, 19 & 20 on page 2.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[- DRA -]

Acts 19:1-5 teaches us the necessity of being baptized in the name of the Lord for those who have not been. Those disciples had been baptized with John's baptism, which was NO longer applicable. They were rebaptized in the name of the Lord.

The baptism in the name of the Lord must be coupled with faith (see Mark 16:16 & Acts 8:37) and repentance (Acts 2:38). It is "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). Anyone who was baptized without faith, without repenting of their sins, or for some reason other than the remission of sins should be rebaptized -- this time with the necessary factors and/or for the right reason.

 

[- DRA -]

Response to Post #56 (part 1)

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

Later, Peter explains these events to his Jewish brethren in Acts chapter 11. Acts 11:15-16 identifies the Holy Spirit coming upon the Gentiles as being the same as what occurred to the apostles in Acts 2:1-4 -- the baptism with the Holy Spirit promised by Jesus.

Now, can you find any other place in the N.T. where this particular baptism occurs and is identified as being the baptism with the Holy Spirit? And, I need some Scriptural information about this baptism that the Holy Spirit is supposed to baptize with. Others I have studied with have explained 1 Cor. 12:13 as being the baptism with the Holy Spirit that Jesus promised, but you claim that it is a totally different baptism than this -- the one you say is “not for the remission of sins and [not to] receive the gifts of the Holy Ghost, but it is for entrance into The Body of Chris [sic], the Chruch [sic] for today.” Frankly, I only find in the Scriptures that Jesus promised to build one church (singular) -- not two churches -- in Matt. 16:18, and that He built the church in Acts chapter 2 when the Jews repented of their sins and were baptized to be saved (Acts 2:38,41,47). Especially note verse 47. Once one meets the terms of salvation one is added to the church. The church is identified as the body of Christ in Eph. 1:22-23, and Eph. 4:5 declares that there is one body (church). The Scriptures reveal that the one church is made up of individual Christians (1 Cor. 12:27) who live in different geographical regions e.g. the seven churches of Asia in Revelation chapters 2-3. In the plural sense, churches are referred to as the churches of Christ in Romans 16:16. To summarize my point, the church of Christ and the body of Christ are one in the same. The church is the (spiritual) body of Christ. And, if you study and carefully consider Ephesians chapters 2 through 4:6 you will find that this spiritual body is made up of both Gentiles and Jews.

At Pentecost the baptism with the Holy Ghost is the same baptism that John the Baptist said: "...he that cometh after me is mightier then I,...; he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire" (Matt.3:11).

As I stated earlier, there are at least 12 baptisms mentioned in the Bible. However, Paul tells us in Ephesiand 4:5 that today there is "One Lord, one faith, one baptism. It is the bapitism of 1Cor. 12:13. The Holy Spirit baptizing the believer into the Body of Christ. I would take God's Word over anyone that I study with. Read for yourself what 1Cor.12:13 says. I don't recall reading anywhere else in Scripture were anyone, beside Jesus, that baptize with the Holy Spirit. All others that I recall reading about baptized in the name of Jesus/Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Agreed. There is only one applicable baptism from the various one discussed in the N.T. The baptism discussed in 1 Cor. 12:13 is “by one Spirit.” What you have failed to do is show how this baptism is the baptism with the Holy Spirit that Jesus Himself gives. Acts 2:38, 41, and 47 show us that the baptism in the name of the Lord (the baptism in water -- see Acts 10:47-48) was the baptism that the Holy Spirit taught through the apostle Peter that led to those who obeyed being added to the church.

The word "Church" just simply means: a called out assembly. Even satan has a church. Surely you don't think that is the one Chruch that Jesus spoke of do you? I'm sure you don't. Wasn't Isreal "a church in the wilderness?"

The Greek word “ekklesia” sometimes is used in a broad sense of an assembly i.e. Acts 19:32, 39-41. However, the word is predominately used to designate the called out of God. I believe the one church that Jesus promised to build in Matt. 16:18 is the one that He purchased with His own blood (see Acts 20:28). Yes, in a sense Israel was a “church” in the wilderness. Moses was in it (see Acts 7:38). However, this is not the “church” that Jesus promised to build in Matt. 16:18. Note Hebrews 3:1-6. Moses was in the “house” of God, but Jesus built the “house.” This house is likened to a “holy temple” made up of both Jews and Gentiles in Eph. 2:19-22. Initially, the church was made up of Jews e.g. Acts 2, but later included Gentiles i.e. Acts 10.

The Church at Pentecost, I believe, was strictly a Jewish Church under the Law. For one that was a Gentile who wanted to become a member of that Church; that one had to become a Jew (proselyte) and place themselves under the Law. The Gentiles at that time were considered "unclean," "heathen," "dogs," and "outside the gate."

Like you, I believe we can demonstrate from Scripture that the church established in Acts 2 was made up of Jews at that time. However, I cannot support the idea that this church was under the law of Moses. That law ended at the cross (Col. 2:14) and Jesus’ testament (or will) was established after His death (Heb. 9:15-17). Consider the point of the gospel sermon that was preached in Acts 2. Psalm 16:10 was not fulfilled in David – but in the Messiah that was to descend from David. It was referring to the resurrection of Jesus – whom God had sworn He would raise to sit on His throne. Note Psalm 110:1. The LORD [Jehovah] is speaking to David’s Lord [the Christ], not to David. The Holy Spirit, through the apostle Peter, is presenting the baptism with the Holy Spirit that had just occurred to the apostles in Acts 2:1-4 as proof that Jesus was seated at God’s right hand (see Acts 2:33). In conclusion, Jesus is declared to be both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36). He is seated at God’s right hand and reigning on His throne. Note Col. 1:13. Christians are translated out of darkness into the kingdom. This is what is being described in Acts 2:38,41,47. Those who obeyed the gospel of Christ had their sins taken away (were translated out of darkness) and added to the church (the kingdom that Jesus promised in Mark 9:1). Note Acts 2:42-47. What evidence do you see that they were giving any attention to the law of Moses? Wasn’t their attention upon the apostle’s doctrine? Note John 16:13. Jesus is promising that the Holy Spirit will come upon the apostles and guide them to all truth. The Holy Spirit came in Acts 2:1-4. Following that, the Holy Spirit was doing what the Lord promised He would. The truth being revealed was based on the law of Christ, not upon the law of Moses.

Prior to Acts chapter 10 the gospel was NOT extended to the Gentiles. I believe your reference to a proselyte is based on your understanding of the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch. Note Acts 8:35. Did Philip preach the law of Moses . . . or did Philip “preach Jesus.” He used Isaiah 53 as a starting point and preached Jesus. He wasn’t trying to convert the eunuch to Judaism, but to Jesus.

The Church, the Body of Christ, is made up of believing "set aside Gentiles (Genesis 11, at the Tower of Babel) and set aside Jews (Romans 11:7-12). They are on equal footing, without distinction and not under the Law. That condition didn't exist at anytime in the OT, the Gospels or the first 8 chapters of Acts.

According to Matt.16:18 Jesus said "And I say unto thee (Peter), That thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Paul said in 1Cor.3:10 "According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and other buildeth thereon. But let every man take head how he buildeth thereupon."

Both the Jewish Church and the Church, the Body of Christ are both built upon Jesus. He (Jesus) is the foundation that both Church are built upon.

I’m afraid that you’ve lost with this reference to the “set aside Gentiles” from the tower of Babel. Can you provide a Scriptural reference or basis for your thinking?

Concerning the Jews, please note Romans 9:27 and 11:5. Just as all the Jews did NOT return from captivity in the O.T. -- only the remnant returned -- only a remnant will be saved today under the gospel of Christ. Note Paul’s statement in Rom. 11:14 to saving some of the Jews.

I guess I somehow missed the part where Jesus promised to build two churches. And, I also missed the part where he built two churches. Scriptural support please. What I find is the Lord’s promise to build His church in Matthew 16:18, and Him building it in Acts 2:47. Note verse 39. See that part about who the blessings promised in verse 38 are extended to? They are extended to “to all who are afar off.” This same language is used in reference to the Gentiles in Eph. 2:13. Thus, the blessings promised in Acts 2:38 were extended to both Jew and Gentile. It just so happened that the Jews received the gospel first i.e. Romans 1:16. However, both groups received the same gospel and were united in the same body (the one church -- see Ephesians chapters 2-4:6).

 

[- DRA -]

Response to Post #56 (part 2)

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

As for the Ethiopian eunuch, I encourage you to consider his conversion from a different perspective. After Jesus was preached to him, the eunuch confessed his faith in the Lord and was baptized in water. This harmonizes with what Jesus said in Mark 16:16 – “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” Frankly, I don’t understand how can say that belief and baptism made the eunuch a Jewish proselyte. Did you possibly overlook Acts 8:35? Philip “preached Jesus.” Somehow, you have concluded that Philip preached the need to be a proselyte to Judaism. The Scriptural evidence does not support this. In fact, considering that the eunuch was traveling to Jerusalem to worship (Acts 8:27) suggests that he was a Jew or a already a proselyte. Note the context. After worshipping in Jerusalem, the eunuch was returning. Then Philip met up with him and “preached Jesus.” In response to hearing Jesus preached -- not Judaism -- the eunuch desired to be baptized in water.

I agree with you as to the Ethiopian eunuch's salvation. "The gospel of the kingdom" was still being preached and for one that wanted to serve the ture and Living God, at that time, were still required to repent (believe) and be water baptized. "the Body of Christ," Jew and Gentile on equal footing, without distinction and not under the Law, wasn't "MADE" yet (2Tim.2:15). Therefore, the enuch became a Jewish proselyte, the economy of that day. The Church, the Body of Christ, was still future revelation to the Apostle Paul. It is not proper to read future revelation into a past event.

Actually, the eunuch was already a Jewish proselyte. Note: he traveled to Jerusalem to worship before meeting Philip. And, he was reading from the book of Isaiah when Philip caught up with him. As previously mentioned, Philip did NOT preach Judaism to the eunuch – he preached Jesus! What the eunuch became was the same thing that the Jews became in Acts 2:38,41,47 who obeyed what they were told to do. Like the Jews who were baptized in water “for the remission of sins,” the eunuch was baptized for the remission of sins and added to the church. Just as the Samaritans were in Acts 8:12,13. And, just like the Gentiles would be later in Acts 10:47-48.

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

As for how Gentiles compare to Jews under the gospel of Christ, Romans 3:23, Gal. 3:28-29, and Ephesians 2:19 (fellow citizens) address this issue.

In Romans 11:7-12 we find that God had set the nation of Israel aside temporarily (vs 25). The fulness of the Gentiles is when the Church, the Body of Christ, is raptured. Then, according to vs 26, "And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written. There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer (Christ's 2nd coming) and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob."

Verse 32 says: "For God hath concluded them all (Jews and Gentiles), in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all."

As I previously stated, you are overlooking the references to the “remnant” in Rom. 9:27 and 11:5. Just as God had said that a remnant of the Jews would return from captivity, only a remnant would be saved under the gospel of Christ. “All Israel” in Romans 11:26 was explained earlier in the epistle. Note Rom. 4:12. The true descendants of Abraham are those who have the faith that he had. They make up the true Israel, which is composed of both faithful Jews and Gentiles who have followed Jesus and turned from their iniquities (Acts 3:26).

If all are now in unbelief, how is the good news of the Gospel going to go out to the nations. Here is where God Plan that was formed before the foundation of the world comes into play. It was "the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began," and revealed to the Apostle Paul.
Ephesians 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off (Genatiles) are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both (Jew and Gentile) one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances (Law); for to make in himself of twain (Jew and Gentile) one new man (a new creation), so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God (believing Jew and Gentile) in one body (the Body of Christ) by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off (Gentiles), and to them that were nigh (Jews).
18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

We have discussed Matthew 16:18 several times. Note the following verses. Peter was given the keys of the kingdom. Following that thought, who taught the gospel sermon and the terms of salvation in Acts chapter 2 to the Jews? Likewise, who preached the gospel of Christ and the terms of salvation in Acts chapter 10 to the Gentiles? Later, Paul wrote that the kingdom was in existence in Col. 1:13, as did the apostle John (see Rev. 1:9). Consider what I have previously stressed: Jesus promised to build His church (Matt. 16:18) and did it (Acts 2:47). Likewise, He promised to establish the kingdom (Mark 9:1) and did it (Col. 1:13, Rev. 1:9). I suspect that you have not quite yet come to realize that the church is the kingdom prophesied of in the O.T.

 

[- DRA -]

Response to Post #56 (part 3)

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

Two things I think you’ve overlooked:
1.) The kingdom was set up that Jesus promised (see Mark 9:1, Col. 1:13, and Rev. 1:9)

Jer.23:5 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth."

Where and how is the above happening today?

Matt.19:28 "And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

Where are these twelve thrones and how are the disciples of Christ judging the 12 tribes of Israel today?

Today the Body of Christ is not under the Law. So, what are the disciples doing judging? Don't there have to be Laws to judge by?

First off, decide whether or not Jesus is exalted at God's right hand (Acts 2:33 & 7:55,56), whether or not He is a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek -- who was both priest and king (Heb. 7:1, 17), and whether or not Jesus is “King of kings and Lord of lords” (1 Tim. 6:15). Then, decide if the Jesus you follow is one who is able to keep His word (Mark 9:1; Heb. 13:8). Consider the nature of the kingdom that He described (John 18:36). It is spiritual, not physical. Finally, determine why the kingdom referred to in Col. 1:13 and Rev. 1:9 is not the one prophesied of in the O.T. and alluded to by Jesus.

Concerning Jer. 23:5, Jesus is declared to be the son of David in Matt. 1:1. Romans 1:3 also states this, but then adds an extra perspective to who Jesus was in the next verse. The point? The N.T. presents Jesus as being the Messiah of the O.T.

Are the 12 thrones of Matt. 19:28 literal or figurative? The kingdom is spiritual. What makes you think the thrones are literal?

We are under the law of Christ today, not the law of Moses (see “the perfect law of liberty” in James 1:25). Ultimately, we will all (both saint and sinner) be judged by the Lord (2 Cor. 5:10). However, there is a sense in which the saints shall judge the world and the angels (1 Cor. 6:2-3). There is also a sense in which the apostles will sit on 12 thrones and judge the 12 tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28). Think about the principle the Lord taught in Luke 11:31,32. Understanding that others have responded favorably (or would have) to God’s message and warning will be a factor when it comes judgment time for those that didn’t.

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

2.) The great commission was fulfilled (see Mark 16:15 and Col. 1:23)
Accepting what the Scriptures say about these things should help rethink your reasoning on Gal. 2:9. Paul is referring to the events after his conversion to Christ. Paul and Barnabas went on what is commonly called Paul’s first missionary journey to preach the gospel (see Acts chapters 13-14) while the apostles continued to labor among the Jews. This is what the passage is alluding to. The passage does NOT say what you say it says. You said, “James, Cephas (Peter) and John recognized that their commission could not be carried out,” but this is NOT what Gal. 2:9 says. Evidently, your misunderstanding of the apostles’ fulfillment of the great commission has allowed you the liberty to read something into the passage that simply is NOT there.

IMHO the "so called" great commission was never fulfilled. That commission was given to the 12, not Paul.

There is only one incident where I find the Jews going to a Gentiles. That was Peter going to the house of Cornelius in Acts 10. In Acts 11:19 we find the "...preaching the word to non but unto the Jews only." Check out Acts 1:8 and show me where they accomplished that. Paul wasn't even saved yet when that commission was given.

Just think, Jesus appointed the twelve to preach to the world. But we find them agreeing with Paul, in Gal.2:9 that they would stay with the circumcision (Jews) and that he should go to the heathen (Gentiles.)

Why would God raise up Saul/Paul to go to the Gentiles, Kings and Jews when He had already commissioned 12 others to do it? Wouldn't it have seemed more logical to have 12 go to the world and one to stay with the Jews?

Not only that, the 12 were commissioned to preach "the gospel of the kingdom." Paul was sent to preach "the gospel of the grace of God." Can't seem to find where Paul ever offered the kingdom to anyone.

Actually, if you look carefully, you'll see that the great commission was given to the ELEVEN apostles -- Judas had already committed suicide at that time and Matthias had not yet been selected to replace Him. (12-1=11, see Matt. 28:16 & Mark 16:14. Then 11+1=12 in Acts 1:26).

Is Acts chapter 10 the only reference to a Jew other than Paul going to Gentiles? First off, read Gal. 2:11-21. Peter had some interaction with the Gentiles. Second, read Paul’s journeys and the epistles really close and you will see a mix of both Jews and Gentile Christians taking the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles in various cities.

As far as Mark 16:15, Matt. 28:19, and Acts 1:8 are concerned, Col. 1:23 addresses the issue pretty clearly.

Saul became the 13th apostle (12+1=13). This meant that He carried the same responsibilities as the others. They were commanded to preach just as He was. With their combined efforts, they were able to faithfully fulfill what Jesus commanded.

Concerning Galatians. Paul begins this epistle by stating that he is an apostle (1:1). He then explains the origin of the gospel that he teaches -- by revelation from the Lord (1:11-12). Paul explains that after he was converted it was three years before he was even around the apostles – and that was just the apostle Peter for a 15-day period (1:18). It was 14 years before Paul was with the apostles again (2:1). This occurred during the council in Acts chapter 15. Notice how Paul conducts himself during the council in Acts 15. After Peter speaks, Paul and Barnabas state what God has done through them as they labored among the Gentiles. Then James speaks. The council concluded that circumcision could not be bound upon the Gentiles. In Gal. 2:9 the leaders of the council agree that Paul and Barnabas should go to the Gentiles while the other apostles labor among the Jews. Now, reflect for a moment. Paul had just completed what is commonly called his 1st missionary journey. Spend a few minutes with the text of Acts chapters 13-14. Paul was the apostle sent to the Gentiles, but there were still many Jews that heard his preaching also. That should tell us that generally speaking Paul preached to the Gentiles, but specifically we learn that he also taught Jews. I am confident that the same could be said for the labors of the other apostles. They labored among the Jews (at least for the time period in Gal. 2:9) but still had some interaction with the Gentiles.

Concerning the kingdom. How would you explain Col. 1:13? No kingdom means that no one is translated out of darkness. BTW, who wrote the epistle to the Colossians? And, was John in the kingdom or not according to Rev. 1:9?

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

Your quote in the last paragraph of your post deserves some attention --“The gospels, and early Acts, have to do with the nation of Israel under the Law.” Generally speaking, the Gospels occur while the law of Moses was in effect. However, Jesus nailed that law to His cross (Col. 2:14). It ended. Consider Heb. 9:15-17. Jesus’ covenant went into effect after His death. In fact, if you think of it in the terms that this passage uses, you can view Acts chapter 2 as the reading of Jesus’ will.

We don't learn about the Law being nailed to the Cross until it was revealed to Paul. Paul wasn't even saved until approx 7-10 years after Pentecost. So, How can the Law not be in effect prior to it being revealed?

The first covenant was made with the nation of Israel. However in Jeremian 31:31-34 it is prophesied that God will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.

In Matthew 15:24 Jesus said: "I am not come but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

We find Jesus celebrating the new covenant (testament) in Matthew 26:28-29. Also it is referred to in Hebrews 8:7-8. No where do I find the Body of Christ, Jew and Gentile on equal footing, without distinction and not under the Law in any of these vereses.

Isn't Jesus saying that the Law will be written upon their heart? Can you tell me of a time when Israel, after Moses, was never under the Law, and won't be under the Law in the kingdom?

First off, you making a case built on an assumption. How do you know Col. 2:14 is the first time that it was taught that the law of Moses was nailed to the cross? Consider Acts 2:40. Was every specific detail that was taught always recorded? I suggest that it wasn't. What I suggest is what was taught was in harmony with the N.T. Scriptures. I imagine that there must have been teaching about the necessity of following the law of Christ, because that is what we see in Acts 2:42-47.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 is quoted in Hebrews 8. It refers to the promise of the new covenant. Notice the characteristic described in Heb. 8:12. Isn't that what we see preached starting in Acts chapter 2:38? And, was this only promised to the Jews? What about to those afar off in Acts 2:39 -- the Gentiles (Eph. 2:13)? The evidence is showing us that you are reaching conclusions that simply won't harmonize with other passages of Scripture.

Compare Matt. 15:24 with John 3:16. And, continue reading in the text of Matthew 15. Note verse 28. Did the Gentile woman get what she came after? Harmonize what you seem to be suggesting with what this passage reveals to us.

I understand the new covenant being written on people’s hearts as being a comparison to the old covenant written on stone i.e. 2 Cor. 3:3. Bottom line. The law of Moses was nailed to the cross. It ended there. The new covenant went into effect on Pentecost in Acts chapter 2, which was after the death of Christ (Heb. 9:15-17).

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

Bottom line. The kingdom was set up that was promised. The kingdom is the church. Both Jews and Gentiles make up the church. The apostles only taught one plan of salvation under the gospel of Christ. God has done what He promised He would do. Simple as that. And, if it is necessary for us to be united with Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection to die to sin, be freed from it, and become alive to God, then baptism is still necessary today (see Romans 6:3-11).

The kingdom upon the earth is still future. It is believing Jews and Gentiles without distinction and not under the Law that make up the Church for today. The Jewish Church has an earthly kingdom to look forward to; while the Body of Christ has a heavenly hope to look forward to. Also, the rite of water baptism is not a requirement for members of the body of Christ.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

You have Jesus setting up two churches -- which you have shown no Scriptural support for. If you would simply accept the language of the Scriptures you would find that Jesus promised to His church (Matt. 16:18) and built it (Acts 2:47). You would also find that the blessings you are describing are found in that church, which is identified as the body of Christ in Eph. 1:22-23. In essence, you are portraying the church of Christ and the body of Christ as being separate and distinct things -- but they are NOT. They are the same synonymous terms. Just like the church of God in Acts 20:28. It is not a separate thing. The body is the church and it belongs to Christ, who is God. They all are Scriptural designations for the same thing. Plus, you still fail to understand the nature of the kingdom that was prophesied of in the O.T. and established under the N.T. It is a spiritual kingdom – not earthly (see John 18:36).

Water baptism is a requirement for salvation i.e. Romans 6:3-11. It is where we are united with Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection to die to sin, become free from it, and become alive to God. And, according to Col. 2:12-13, it is based on faith.

 

[- DRA -]

Response to Post #57

DRA:

THANK YOU for correcting me about the birth place of Jesus. I did know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and why I wrote Jerusalem is beyond me. Must have been one of my "senior moments."

I feel that by anwering your last post that we will again be covering "old ground." Therefore, instead of me writing another long posting, it would be better to have you understand my beliefs from a much better writer then I.

Tracy Plessinger, at the Grace Alive web-site has written 3 very good articles that express my veiws quite acurately. These are views that I have held many years prior to reading his articles, however, I will say that they have helped me greatly in broading my understanding of the Bible. There are many good articles at that site.

The three articles that I wish for you to read are "Lets Get Things Started Right" at http://www.gracealive.us/startedright.html, "The Bible's Most Misunderstood verse" at http://www.gracealive.us/misunderstood.html, and "Giving Dignity to the Dogs" at http://www.gracealive.us/dignity.html.

To understand what God's will for our lives should be we must first know how to study the Bible. This is what the 1st article is about.

The second article tells us what was God's plan when He created the earth, and how we fit into that plan.

The third article explains how we "set aside" Gentiles (Genesis 11) are blessed through the Cross work of Christ.

I strongly recommend that you read each article twice for a really good understanding in what they say. That is what I do when I read articles that are foreign to me. I get a good idea what the article is about in my first reading, and in my 2nd reading I have a better understanding and see things that I don't recall reading the first time.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

As far as hermeneutics are concerned, I use a two-step approach to interpreting Scripture.
Step 1 (see Nehemiah 8:8) -- Read God's law and gain an understanding of what God says.
Step 2 (see Matthew 4:5-7 & 22:23-33) -- Harmonize your understanding derived from one passage or text of Scripture with your understanding from other relevant Scriptures. If the passages don’t harmonize, additional study must be done to ensure that the understanding derived considers all that the Scriptures say about the particular topic of study.

I read the articles at the links you posted. Don’t necessarily agree with all that was said, but I did read them.

 

[- DRA -]

Response to Post #61 (part 1)

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

When considering why the Jewish Christians (including the apostle Peter) were so astonished in Acts 10:45, I allow the text to speak for itself. The Holy Spirit had just come upon the Gentiles as it did upon the apostles in Acts 2:1-4. Peter's conclusion? Look at verses 47-48. What did Peter conclude in those verses? All I see is his conclusion that is based on what has just happened -- the Gentiles are now candidates for baptism in water. Thus, Peter commands them to be baptized in the name of the Lord -- which is synonymous with the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ in Acts 2:38, which was "for the remission of sins" (to have one's sins taken away -- see Matt. 26:28). Note who the promise is offered to in Acts 2:39 -- it includes "all who are afar off." This is referring to the Gentiles (see Eph. 2:13). What we see in Acts chapter 10 is the confirmation from God that the time is right for the gospel to be extended to the Gentiles. God first has to convince the apostle Peter. He sends him a vision that will help in this regard. Note Peter's conclusion in Acts 10:34-35. He realizes what the vision meant. When God sends the baptism with the Holy Spirit upon the Gentiles, the proof is evident now to all the Jews who are there. Thus, Peter commands them to be baptized in the name of the Lord just like the Jews were commanded in Acts 2:38. That is the only conclusion I can draw as I consider the text of Acts 10, and Acts 11 when Peter later explained these things to his Jewish brethren that were NOT there to personally witness what had happened. And, like the Jews in Acts 2:47, the Gentiles were added to the Lord's church when they were saved from their sins i.e. Acts 2:38. What was new or different in Acts 10 compared with Acts 2. Gentiles. That was the difference.

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

Acts 10:44: While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Where are the instructions "repent and be baptized" in Acts 10:44? If those in Acts Acts 10:44 could receive the Holy Ghost without first being baptized in water, Why could those at Pentecost have received the Holy Ghost without water baptism? Isn't this a departure from Acts 2:38?

Repentance is not mentioned anywhere in the text of Acts 10:43-48. It is implied -- just like faith in Acts 2:38. The baptism “in the name of the Lord” (synonymous with “in the name of Jesus Christ” in Acts 2:38) was commanded in Acts 10:48. It was after they were baptized with the Holy Spirit. Notice verse 47. The ONLY conclusion that Peter makes is that no one can forbid the Jews from being baptized in water. What conclusion do you draw from the text?

Is Acts 10:44 a departure from Acts 2:38? Nope. Not if you believe that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16a). Note Acts 2:39. It says, “For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” The promises of the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit applied to both Jews and Gentiles. The difference between Acts 2 and Acts 10 is the audience of those hearing the gospel. Think back to Acts 2:36. Jesus was declared to be both Lord and Christ -- the Messiah of the O.T. -- the king of the Jews. Acts 10 is the first time the gospel is preached to the Gentiles. Even the apostle Peter gets some extra help (a vision) in seeing that God is indeed extending the gospel to the Gentiles. When the Holy Spirit comes upon the Gentiles, the Jews clearly cannot forbid them from being baptized in water (NOTE: this is the only conclusion Peter draws). Thus, Peter commands them to be baptized “in the name of the Lord” – just as the apostle Paul would do later in Acts 19:5 to the disciples in Ephesus who had only been baptized with John’s baptism. The baptism of Acts 2:38, Acts 8:12-13, Acts 8:35-39, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:30-34, Acts 18:8, Acts 19:5, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:3-11, Galatians 3:26-27, Colossians 2:12-13, and 1 Peter 3:20-21 all refer to the same baptism. It was the baptism in water “in the name of the Lord” (which means by His authority).

As for the order of events that is explained in Acts 2:38 -- baptism followed by the gift of the Holy Spirit, let’s follow the sequence of conversions that will help us see what really occurred. Note Acts 8:12-16. The Samaritans believed and were baptized. But no Holy Spirit. Not until the apostles came later and laid hands on them (see Acts 8:17-18). At some point, Saul received the Holy Spirit i.e. Acts 9:17 & 13:9. We just don’t know when it was. However, one thing we can know for sure, that He still had his sins when Ananias commanded him to be baptized -- calling on the “name of the Lord” in Acts 22:16. After Saul, the Holy Spirit comes upon the Gentiles in Acts 10:44. Finally, we find the Ephesians being baptized and then receiving the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the apostle Paul’s hands in Acts 19:6. So, in order to see the “big picture” we have only ONE instance where the Holy Spirit came before baptism in water -- Acts 10:44. And, we have THREE clear examples where the Holy Spirit came after baptism in water -- Acts 2:38, Acts 8:17-18, and Acts 19:6. NOTE: the details given in the last two of these examples. The Holy Spirit was given by the laying on of the apostles’ (or an apostle’s) hands. My question is this: is this the baptism with the Holy Spirit that Jesus Himself promised to send? Or, is this a different measure of the Holy Spirit -- and NOT the baptism with the Holy Spirit? Think about it.

Now, back to Acts 10:44. This example stands alone. It is the only example of the Holy Spirit coming before baptism in water was commanded in the name of the Lord. What does the text tell us about this event. Like I have pointed out several times previously, what is the only conclusion that Peter draws in Acts 10:47? Isn’t it that the Gentiles are clearly candidates to be baptized in the name of the Lord?

Cornelius, and his house, are now members of the Jewish Church and Jewish proselytes; just as the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8. The Body of Christ, Jew and Gentile on equal footing, without distinction and not under the Law, was not formed yet. It wasn't formed until after Israel was set aside. Peter was still preaching "the gospel of the kingdom," NOT "the gospel of the grace of God"[/B] which was revealed to the Apostle Paul who wasn't even saved yet.

The Gentiles in Acts 10 obey the gospel and are saved. Thus, they are added to the church, which is the body (Eph. 1:22-23). The church was established on Pentecost in Acts chapter 2 (note verse 47). Romans 1:16 helps us put things in chronological order. The gospel was extended first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles. Which is what we see occurring in the book of Acts. There is no Scriptural basis whatsoever to suggest or imply that Jesus established two churches. I don’t think you have quite come to grips with the “mystery” that Paul declared in Ephesians chapter 2-4:6. Jews and Gentiles were united in one church. God didn’t have to reinvent the wheel, so to speak. The church, the body of Christ, was already established. It was just a matter of getting the Jews to understand that the Gentiles were now “fellow citizens” in the church (which is the kingdom).

If you could show me some where in OT prophesy and the 1st 8 chapters of Acts that the Gentiles could serve the true and living God with out becoming a Jewish proselyte and place themselves under the Law, I WILL BELIEVE THE THINGS YOU ARE SAYING.

You are assuming a point that you have not yet shown to be true – that the law of Moses is still in effect during the first 8 chapters of Acts. I know I must seem quite repetitious at times, but I once again bring Col. 2:14 to your attention. Carefully consider what it says. Now compare what it says to what the apostles and first-century Christians were teaching and doing in those chapters in Acts. What exactly do you see them teaching or doing that would suggest to us that the law of Moses was in effect? Are they teaching that law? I read that where the 3,000 were attentive to the “apostles’ doctrine” in Acts 2:42 -- and not to the law of Moses. I also read that Philip taught about the kingdom, the name of Jesus Christ, and Jesus in Acts 8:12,35 -- and not the law of Moses. NOTE: John the Baptist and Jesus both taught that the kingdom was “at hand” (close). Jesus elaborated on just how close it was in Mark 9:1. Approximately 33 years later, the apostle Paul wrote that the kingdom was established in Col. 1:13. That passage connects entrance into the kingdom with being translated from darkness (or sin). In a nutshell, that is what we see occurring in Acts 2:38,41,47. Jews obeyed what they were told to do to have their sins taken away and were added to the church -- or translated out of darkness into the kingdom.

And, you are also assuming that there was NO prior knowledge of Jesus nailing the law of Moses to the cross before Paul’s epistle to the Colossians was written. Actually, the only conclusion that can be drawn is the epistle was written while Paul was in prison in Rome (approximately A.D. 63) -- not the first time this point was taught.

In Acts 2:39 Peter is not referring to Gentiles. At the time of Acts 2:39, there isn't even an hint that the Gentiles are going to be equal with the Jews. Peter, having his understanding of the Scriptures opened, is referring back to "that are afar off" in Daniel 9 - future Jewish generations.

I beg to differ with you. Those “afar off” are identified in Eph. 2:13 as being the Gentiles. As far as to a hint of Gentiles being blessed under the new covenant, do I need to remind you of the “seed” or “blessing” from Abraham that was to “bless ALL the families of the earth in Gen. 12:3 (see Matt. 1:1 and Acts 3:25-26)? And, do I need to remind you of the “hints” in the latter part of Romans chapter 10 that are quoted from the O.T.?