Baptism

[- DRA -]

Response to Post #61 (part 2)

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

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.

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?

The apostles were indeed charged with taking the gospel to “every creature” (Mark 16:15). You are trying to read something into Gal. 2:9 that is NOT necessarily there. You are suggesting that an agreement was made for Paul to be only one that would be going to the Gentiles. This is NOT necessarily the case. Why couldn’t the understanding have been for that particular time an agreement was made for Paul to continue his labors among the Gentiles and the other apostles would continue to labor among the Jews? The agreement doesn’t necessarily mean that this is the way it would continue throughout their lives as they taught the gospel of Christ. But, in all fairness, let’s consider what you are suggesting for a moment. The agreement was for Paul to go to the Gentiles. This agreement was made at the council in Jerusalem following Paul’s first journey. Let’s think about Paul’s second and third journeys, as well as his trip to Rome. Did he only teach Gentiles during those journeys, or did he teach both Jews and Gentiles? I think that answer is rather obvious. He taught both. So, what makes you think the other apostles didn’t do the same thing. Take Peter. He came to Antioch of Syria and spent some time with the church there – made up of both Jews and Gentiles (see Gal. 2:11-15). Do you actually think an apostle of our Lord came there and didn’t teach the brethren -- made up of both Jews and Gentiles?

Simply stated, we don’t know where the majority of the apostles taught and who they taught. That information is simply not recorded for us in the inspired account. However, we do know from their combined efforts -- along with other first-century Christians -- that they were indeed obedient to the command that Jesus gave them in Mark 16:15. They gospel was preached to every creature under heaven (Col. 1:23).

 

[Dispy]

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.

Those at Ephesus were not rebaptized. You are reading that into it.

Acts 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

Paul asks:
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?

They replied:
And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Paul said
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

What did they at Ephesus hear John say, and what did they do upon hearing it?
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Paul DID NOT rebaptize them.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
7 And all the men were about twelve.

DRA, Those at Ephesus did not have to be rebaptized for the remission of sins. They had already done that at John's baptism. At Pentecost, the baptism with the Holy Ghost was given by Jesus as promised AFTER the water baptism of repentance. It WAS NOT another water ceremony.

If water baptism was required in Acts 19, WHY weren't those in Acts 8:14-17 rebaptized?

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

 

[western kentucky]

Those at Ephesus were not rebaptized. You are reading that into it.

Acts 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

Paul asks:
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?

They replied:
And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Paul said
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

What did they at Ephesus hear John say, and what did they do upon hearing it?
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Paul DID NOT rebaptize them.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
7 And all the men were about twelve.

DRA, Those at Ephesus did not have to be rebaptized for the remission of sins. They had already done that at John's baptism. At Pentecost, the baptism with the Holy Ghost was given by Jesus as promised AFTER the water baptism of repentance. It WAS NOT another water ceremony.

If water baptism was required in Acts 19, WHY weren't those in Acts 8:14-17 rebaptized?

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

Dispy,

Verse 5 is pretty clear: When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

The people were first baptized into John's baptism, but John's baptism was just for repentance (v 4; Matt. 3). After realizing this, the people were then baptized in the name of the Lord. Why were they baptized in the name of the Lord? Looking back to Acts 2:38, we realize that the baptism in the name of the Lord is for the remission of sins. This also explains why the Gentiles were commanded to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (synonamous with "In the name of the Lord") in Acts 10:48 after recieving the Holy Spirit. Notice how the passages harmonize quite nicely.....

After the people in Acts 19 were baptized in the name of the Lord, they recieved the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was to confirm the validity and power of the gospel (Mark 16:20).

The people in Acts 8:14-17 had already been baptized in the name of the Lord. They already had their sins washed away (Acts 22:16, Acts 2:38); they were just waiting to recieve the Holy Spirit -- as noted above, the confirmation of the gospel.

 

[Dispy]

Part I

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.

I must admit that the baptism those in Acts 10 (Cornelius and his group) received was the same baptism that the diciples, and the believers that were baptized with at Pentecost is the same baptism. However the circumstances were quite different.

The disciples had already been water baptized by Jesus (John 4:2). The had already been given the Holy Ghost by Jesus in John 20:22. However, they were told to tarry in Jerusalem "until ye be enduded with power from on high" (Luke 24:49). Therefore, it was not necessary for them to again be water baptized.

Those others at Pentecost that received the Holy Ghost, as promised in Matthew 3:11, had to fulfill two requirement before receiveing the Holy Ghost. #1 was to repent and #2 was to be water baptized. It was after those two requirements were met that they recieved the promise of Matt. 3:11 that Jesus baptized them with the Holy Ghost. There was no water ceremony involved. It was given AFTER repentance and water baptism.

The manner in which Cornelius, and his house, were baptized with the Holy Ghost was quite a departure from what I have just posted above. There was no repentance or water baptism prior to their recieving the Holy Ghost. Now wonder those of the circumcision were astonished. Nothing like this has happened before.

Keep in mind that those in Jerusalem knew nothing of the vision that Peter received in Acts 10. It was in Acts 10 that Peter first learned that it was now lawful to go to one of another nation (cf Acts 12:28). That is why Peter had to rehearse these happenings before he got back to James and the others. They contended with him over the fact that he went to a Gentile.

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

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.

In Acts 8:14-17 and Acts 19:2-7 we can find that they were baptized with the Holy Spirit without being rebaptized in water. Jesus is still the baptizer and is in fulfillment of Matthew 3:11.

My beliefs come from what the Bible says, not from those I study with say or believe.

1Cor.12:13 "For by one Spirit (Holy Spirit) ARE WE BAPTIZED INTO ONE BODY..." (The Body of Christ).

That verse tells me that it is the Holy Spirit that is the baptizer, NOT Jesus. It is the Spirit that baptizes the believer into the Body of Christ.

When Jesus came upon the earth, the Jewish Chruch was already established. According to OT prophesy it was time for the OT promised kingdom to be established. That is why Jesus and the 12 preached "the gospel of the kingdom" "at hand." Paul tell us in Romans 15:8 that Jesus came "...to comfirm the promises made to the fathers."

Where those promises fulfilled? NO! WHY? Because the Jews, as a nation, rejected their King and His Kingdom by crucifying Him.

Because the Jews, as a nation rejected their King and HIs Kingdom, God set the nation of Israel aside, Rms 11:7-12, (temporarily), vs 25, and MADE "the one new man" of Ephesians 2:15. This "one new man" is today what we call "the Body of Christ."

All believers from Adam on are members of the "ONE Chruch." Every member of that Church are members of "the kingdom of God." Those believers that were saved under the preaching of "the gosple of the kingdom" (Jewish Church) will inherit a kingdom here upon the earth. Those believers that were saved during the preaching of "the gospel of the grace of God" will inherit a heavenly home (2Cor.5:1; Philippians 3:20). If you will read the article at http://www.gracealive.us/misunderstood.html you should understand what I am saying.

The Chruch, the Body of Christ, cannot be found in the book of the Revelation. There was no need to write to them because they will have been raptured to heaven prior to the Tribulation.

Originally Posted by: - Dispy -
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.

Originally Posged by: -DRA-
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 baptism of 1Cor.12:13 IS NOT the baptism of Acts 2:38, 41, and 47. It is the "one baptism" of Ephesians 4:5. It isn't the Spirit that is the baptizer in Act 2:28, 41, and 47, or Acts 10:47-48. Jesus was the baptizer WITH the Holy Spirit, as John says in Matthew 3:11 - READ IT.

You have failed to show me where anyone else baptized with the Holy Spirit besides Jesus. NAME THEM, chapter and verse.

Originally Posted by: - Dispy -
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?"

Reply Posged by: -DRA-
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.

All the "called out of God," "the Church," is made up of all believers since the fall of Adam. All the saved since the fall of Adam were saved through the blood of Christ. All believers will have a place in God's Kingdom either here upon the earth in the earthly kingdom, or in heaven in the heavenly kingdom.

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

 

[Dispy]

Part II

Originally Posted by: - Dispy -
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."

Reply Posted by: -DRA-
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 Law was given to the nation of Israel through Moses. The Gentiles were never given the Law or were they ever subject to the Laws of Moses. The only time a Gentile would become subject to the Law of Moses is if they wanted to serve the true and Living God, THEN they had to become a Jew (proselyte) and place themselves under the Law.

BEFORE PAUL can you show me just one verse of Scripture that says or shows that the Law was not in effect? [/B]NO YOU CAN'T![/B] You are reading, in Col.2:14), what was revealed to Paul AFTER Israel was set aside. Paul was not saved until 7-10 years AFTER Pentecost. You are reading future revelation into past events. Do you read the Laws of Moses into the Garden of Eden also. I don't think so, they why are you reading future revelation to Paul into the Gospels? It just doesn't make sense to me.

From Moses on; when God was dealing with the nation of Israel, Israel was ALWAYS under the Law. After the Israel was set aside temperarily, so was the Law - temporarily. When God resumes His dealings with Israel again, after the rapture, THEN the Law will again be in effect. Didn't Jesus promise His disciples that they would be sitting on 12 thrones JUDGING the 12 tribes of Israel. Don't Laws have to exist in order for them to judge?

The New Testament (covenant) of Matthew 26:28, and referenced in Hebrews 8:7-13, and promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 is with the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Israel). THE LAW THEN will be written upon their hearts. The fulfillment of Jeremian 31:31-34 will be when Christ returns to earth to establish His Kingdom.

Jesus did not come to do away with the Law, He came to fulfill it (Matt.5:17). When He returns to establish His Kingdom, the Law again will be in effect, but written upon everyone's heart.

DRA, You are mixing "kingdom gospel," which Jesus came to fulfill, with "the gospel of the grace of God," which "was kept secret sicne the world began," and revealed to the Apostle Paul. You are mixing the two opposing doctrines (gospel) of LAW and GRACE and treating them as one gospel. That only leads to confusion and denominations.

In Acts 8, the Ethiopian was reading from the book of Isaias. He asked Philip who the prophet was speaking of. Philip explained to him that it was about Jesus. When the enunch believed, he was allowed to be baptized. He couldn't very well become a member of "the Body of Christ" because Israel was still not set aside and Paul was still not converted. Therefore, he had to become a member of the existing Chruch at that time which was the Jewish Church.

Originally Posted by: - Dispy -
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.

Reply Posted by: -DRA-
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).

Well the Lord scattered those Gentiles as the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11) and we can no longer find where God had dealt with them as a people. From the raising up of Abram/Abraham, for one who was a Gentile to serve the true and living God, that one had to become a Jew (proselyte).

Even after God set the nation of Israel aside, there was ALWAYS a remnant of Israel that was saved, as you have pointed out. I do believe that and don't deny it.

Peter, in Acts 2:39 is not referring to Gentiles. He is referring back to Daniel 9:7.

Again, you are mixing taking Paul's gospel and putting it into kingdom gospel. That is mixing Law and Grace.

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

 

[Dispy]

Dispy,

Verse 5 is pretty clear: When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

The people were first baptized into John's baptism, but John's baptism was just for repentance (v 4; Matt. 3). After realizing this, the people were then baptized in the name of the Lord. Why were they baptized in the name of the Lord? Looking back to Acts 2:38, we realize that the baptism in the name of the Lord is for the remission of sins. This also explains why the Gentiles were commanded to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (synonamous with "In the name of the Lord") in Acts 10:48 after recieving the Holy Spirit. Notice how the passages harmonize quite nicely.....

After the people in Acts 19 were baptized in the name of the Lord, they recieved the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was to confirm the validity and power of the gospel (Mark 16:20).

The people in Acts 8:14-17 had already been baptized in the name of the Lord. They already had their sins washed away (Acts 22:16, Acts 2:38); they were just waiting to recieve the Holy Spirit -- as noted above, the confirmation of the gospel.

You are quite right. Verse 5 does say that they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Now when John the Baptist was baptizing, I am quite sure he was doing it with the authority of God; who is also Jesus and the Holy Spirit. He surely wasn't doing it by his own authority.

When those mentioned in Acts 19 were baptized I am sure that John baptized them by at least of of those I mentioned above. He no doubt baptized in the name of the Lord in which case he was baptizing in the name of God or Jesus. Even if he was baptizing in the name of the Holy Ghost, he would be baptizing by one of the Trinity. So, I don't really think it makes any difference as to what name he was baptizing in. His authority still came from God.

I can't find at Pentecost that Peter ever mentioned the authority by which he baptized. He was baptizing for the remission of sins just as John the Baptist was.

So what does baptizing "in the name of the Lord" have to do with receiving the Holy Spirit upon water baptism.

Those at Ephesus were not re-baptized. They received the Holy Ghost when Paul laid his hands upon them. The verse doesn't say he baptized them "in the name of the Lord." It says that they received the Holy Ghost "when he laid his hands on them."

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

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: - 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.

Those at Ephesus were not rebaptized. You are reading that into it.

Acts 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

Paul asks:
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?

They replied:
And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Paul said
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

What did they at Ephesus hear John say, and what did they do upon hearing it?
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Paul DID NOT rebaptize them.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
7 And all the men were about twelve.

DRA, Those at Ephesus did not have to be rebaptized for the remission of sins. They had already done that at John's baptism. At Pentecost, the baptism with the Holy Ghost was given by Jesus as promised AFTER the water baptism of repentance. It WAS NOT another water ceremony.

If water baptism was required in Acts 19, WHY weren't those in Acts 8:14-17 rebaptized?

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

Acts 19:3 clearly tells us that the disciples at Ephesus under consider at this time has been baptized with John’ baptism. End of discussion, right? Wrong. Paul’s discussion with these disciples began with his question about their receiving the Holy Spirit (verse 2a). Their response -- “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit” (verse 2b) -- was an indicator to Paul that something was amiss. Investigating further, Paul inquires about the baptism they were baptized with (verse 3a). Their answer was, “Into John’s baptism ” (verse 3b). End of discussion, right? Wrong. This is NOT okay. These disciples been baptized with John’s baptism, but had NOT received the Holy Spirit -- and had NOT even heard if there was a Holy Spirit. Paul then states the purpose of John’ baptism in verse 4 -- repentance. Now, notice CAREFULLY what happened in verse 5. They were baptized “in the name of the Lord.” This expression should ring a bell. It was used in both Acts 2:38 and in Acts 10:48. Acts 2 tells us the purpose of this baptism, and Acts 10 reveals to us that this baptism was in water. Hmmm. But wait a minute. Wasn’t John’s baptism also in water? Yes, but its purpose was different. It was a baptism “unto repentance” (Matt. 3:11) that was designed to get the Jews prepared to meet and receive their Messiah, but the baptism in the name of the Lord was “for the remission of sins.” This baptism was preached after Jesus shed his blood and his testament (or will) went into effect (see Matt. 26:28; Heb. 8:6,12; 9:12-17). Hmmm. Okay, now it makes sense. These disciples had been baptized with John’s baptism but had NOT received the Holy Spirit. So, when Paul points out that the purpose of the baptism of John, the disciples were then baptized in the name of the Lord -- obviously, because there was a difference in the two baptisms. Thus if our reasoning through the text is correct, the problem with receiving the Holy Spirit should now be corrected. Let’s see if it is. Voila! Acts 19:6 plainly tells us the Paul then laid his hands upon them and they received the Holy Spirit. Hmmm. The problem is fixed. Now, let’s reflect. The disciples had been baptized with John’s baptism and then were baptized in the name of the Lord. I don’t see anyway around it. It’s too clear. They were rebaptized. I don’t have to read anything into the text to reach that conclusion.

I encourage you to go back and reconsider your understanding of what occurred in Acts chapter 2. The only time I see the baptism with the Holy Spirit occurring in that chapter is in the first four verses. The Comforter came upon the apostles just as Jesus promised in John 16:7-14. The “gift of the Holy Spirit” is promised in verse 38, but no details are given. But, let’s assume what you are suggesting occurred -- the baptism with the Holy Spirit was given to each one who repented and were baptized in the name of the Lord as commanded in Acts 2:38. Now, let’s go over to Acts 8:12-18a. Did the baptism with the Holy Spirit come upon the disciples after they believed and were baptized? Nope. In fact, how did they obtain the Holy Spirit? Some time elapsed after their conversions and word reached the apostles in Jerusalem. They sent Peter and John to them. Then, they laid hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. My question to you is, “Was this the baptism of the Holy Spirit that Jesus Himself promised to give (see Acts 1:5)? Consider. Acts 2:1-4 and Acts 10:44 are identified in Acts 11:15-17 as the baptism with the Holy Spirit. Wasn’t the Holy Spirit sent directly from the Lord in those instances? Is that what occurred in Acts 8:17-18a (and in Acts 19:6)? Nope. The Holy Spirit came through the laying on of the apostles’ (or an apostle’s) hands? Can you show us how these events qualify to be called the baptism with the Holy Spirit?

You ask, “If water baptism was required in Acts 19, WHY weren't those in Acts 8:14-17 rebaptized? Let me so bold as to suggest the logical answer. Because they were baptized in the name of the Lord and NOT into John’s baptism as those in Acts 19:3 were. There was simply no need for the Samaritans to be rebaptized. They were baptized correctly the first time.

 

[Dispy]

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.

In Acts 8 we find that the enunch went to Jerusalem to worship. That means that he believed that Israel's God was the true and Living God and that he (the eunuch) went to Jerusalem in search for him. Therefore, God led Philip to the eunuch. We find that the eunuch was reading from the book of Isaias. The eunuch's question was as to who the prophet was speaking of. Philip's reply was Jesus, and he preached Jesus unto him. The eunuch believed in Jesus and was baptized.

At the time of this happening, Saul/Paul was still not saved, and the preaching of "the gospel of the kingdom" was still being preached. We still havn't learned that Israel was set aside (Rms 11:7-12), therefore, the only Church in existance at that time was the Jewish Church. The Church, the Body of Christ, still was formed, and wasn't formed until after Saul/Paul was converted, and Israel was set aside. Therefore, one must conclude that the eunuch became a member of the existing Jewish Church.

DRA - Originally Posted by: - Dispy -
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.

Reply Posted by: - DRA -
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.

See my remarks above. Isaias was an OT Jewish prophet and under the Law. Jesus lived the Law and fulfilled it. Therefore, we must conclude that the Law was in effect. Yes, those that believed in Jesus in Acts 8 were saved and baptism was still a requirement. The same holds true for Cornelius and his house. Paul had not yet received the fullknowledge of the mystery.

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.

When Paul wrote the books of Romans, Galatians and Ephesians, The Jews and Gentiles were now on equal footing and without distinction. The gospel of the grace of God was being preached and whosoever (Jew or Gentile) put their faith and trust in the Cross (death, burial and resurrection of Christ) for their salvation, were saved. The Gentile no longer had to become a Jewish proselyte and place themselves under the Law. All mankind, regardless of any physical charactoristics, can NOW approach God on equal footing. We are all "fellow citizens" of the same Body, Body of Christ.

DRA - Originally Posted by: - Dispy -
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."

Reply Posted by: - DRA -
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).

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, again you are mixing "the gospel (doctrine) of the kingdom" with "the gospel (doctrine) of the grace of God." Paul's gospel is not found in the books of Mathew, Mark, Acts or Revelations. So please quit mixing them.

Please SHOW ME the Church, the Body of Christ, Jew and Gentile on equal footing, and not under the Law, in the OT, or prior to the raising up of Saul/Paul in Acts 9. YOU CAN'T

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

 

[- DRA -]

My beliefs come from what the Bible says, not from those I study with say or believe.

1Cor.12:13 "For by one Spirit (Holy Spirit) ARE WE BAPTIZED INTO ONE BODY..." (The Body of Christ).

That verse tells me that it is the Holy Spirit that is the baptizer, NOT Jesus. It is the Spirit that baptizes the believer into the Body of Christ.

This short excerpt from post #84 is a good place for our discussion to focus upon.

I, like you, base my faith or beliefs on what I understand the Bible to say (see Romans 10:17). I have the utmost respect for God's word and study it diligently to better understand what God has revealed to us. I think that it is fair to say that neither of us will be persuaded by the mere words of the other without Scriptural support that shows the reasoning is correct. Now, having said this, please allow me to explain what I see happening.

When we gain an understanding from a particular passage or text of Scripture we must ensure that it agrees with other passages or texts of Scripture i.e. Matt. 4:5-7; 22:23-33. That is what I see lacking when I consider what you are promoting from a Scriptural perspective. No harmony. No agreement. Consider. God’s word says that the Lord added to the church those who were being saved (Acts 2:47) and that the Spirit baptizes us into the body (1 Cor. 12:13 -- which is the church (Eph. 1:22-23). Look at what is stated in Acts 2:38 to obtain the remission of sins. NOTE: The remission of sins means that sins are taken away. Thus, if our sins separate us from God i.e. Isaiah 59:1-2, by having our sins taken away we are reunited with God -- which means we are saved from our sins. Three thousand Jews believed the message that was preached in Acts chapter 2 and repented of their sins and were baptized in the name of the Lord as they were commanded i.e. Acts 2:37-38,41, and as a result, were saved and added to the church (Acts 2:47). NOTE: The baptism in the name of the Lord is identified in Acts 10:47-48 as being in water. 1 Corinthians 12:13 describes this same process from a different angle. The Holy Spirit baptized them into the one body. How? The baptism in Acts 2:38 was in water. What role did the Spirit play in that baptism? He came upon the apostles’ in Acts 2:1-4 and was guiding them to all truth, just as the Lord promised in John 16:13. Thus, it was the Spirit working through the teaching of the apostle Peter that commanded the Jews to be baptized in Acts 2:38. That is the sense is which He baptized them into the body, which is the church according to Eph. 1:22-23. It harmonizes. It agrees.

 

[stone]

you know, after reading everyone's replies here i forgot what the original question was! LOL

I don't feel that i need to back up my beliefs with scripture.

I'm not sure that it is necessary to be baptized as a requirement to enter the kingdom of heaven. Proof to that would be as one mentioned earlier here about when Jesus mentioned to the prisoner up on a cross next to him that he will see him in the kingdom of god.

What i do know for a fact is that you must believe in the word of Jesus to enter the kingdom of god. well... at least i know that it how it is for me, i'm not sure about the jewish? They are a little bit different, being that they are gods chosen people from before the ot was written.

I must say, i am actively learning of such things and of many others, and i will add, that if i was learning of baptism, many issue's would be cleared from these previous conversations, but many more have been opened! lol

I'm told that i was baptised once as a child in a pentecostal church and later at about the age of 22 at a baptist church. I was asked at the age of 22 if i had ever been baptised, i was volunteering to work at a baptist church, they wanted me to be baptised if i had not been. At the time i didn't know that i had been baptised as a child so i assumed no and went ahead with the baptism. I've always believed in god, jesus and the spirit for as long as i can remember, i never knew this was called trinity till i came here, i just thought it was the name of that chic from the matrix movie.

now that i think about it, baptism is necessary for the soul, i believe. it's a good thing. you should do it.

 

[western kentucky]

You are quite right. Verse 5 does say that they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Now when John the Baptist was baptizing, I am quite sure he was doing it with the authority of God; who is also Jesus and the Holy Spirit. He surely wasn't doing it by his own authority.

When those mentioned in Acts 19 were baptized I am sure that John baptized them by at least of of those I mentioned above. He no doubt baptized in the name of the Lord in which case he was baptizing in the name of God or Jesus. Even if he was baptizing in the name of the Holy Ghost, he would be baptizing by one of the Trinity. So, I don't really think it makes any difference as to what name he was baptizing in. His authority still came from God!

.

Sure, John baptized with the authority of God, but does this necessarily mean that his baptism was for the same purpose? Clearly not. The baptism of John was for "repentance" (Matt. 3:11) and was meant to lead the way for Christ (Matt. 3:3).

If I understand you correctly, you are claiming that John the baptist and Peter both baptized believers in the name of the Lord for the remission of sins. Maybe you can offer an explanation why those who been baptized by John the baptist in Acts 19 were then rebaptized by Paul (v 5) and then given the Holy Spirit?

Thoughts to consider:

Jesus instructed the disciples to go make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in Matt. 28:18-20. Considering Eph. 4:4, we can understand there is "one baptism." The "one baptism" in mind is obviously not the baptism of John because not only have we missed the opportunity but even the 1st century Christians who had been baptized into the baptism of John were re-baptized baptized in the name of the Lord (Acts 19). The options are now narrowed down to either the Holy Spirit baptism or water baptism in the name of the Lord. When considering Holy Spirit baptism, we understand that not everyone recieved it (Acts 8:14-17) and that even believers who had been baptized by the Holy Spirit were still commanded to be baptized into water in the name of Jesus Christ. Water baptism is the "one" baptism Eph. 4:4 is referring to.

From the scriptures, we can understand that the "one" baptism (water baptism) is: "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16), "saves us" (1 Pet. 3:21), "is to put on Christ" (Gal. 3:27), and "is to benefit from Christ's resurrection" (Rom. 6:5). Now, things are falling in place. The scriptures harmonize quite well.

 

[Dispy]

.

Sure, John baptized with the authority of God, but does this necessarily mean that his baptism was for the same purpose? Clearly not. The baptism of John was for "repentance" (Matt. 3:11) and was meant to lead the way for Christ (Matt. 3:3).

If I understand you correctly, you are claiming that John the baptist and Peter both baptized believers in the name of the Lord for the remission of sins. Maybe you can offer an explanation why those who been baptized by John the baptist in Acts 19 were then rebaptized by Paul (v 5) and then given the Holy Spirit?

Matthew 3:11 " I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I,...: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.:"

Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, REPENT, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin,..."

According to the above Scriptures; both John and Peter required baptism for the remission of sins.

My contention is that Paul NEVER re-baptized them in Acts 19:5. They received the Holy Ghost by Paul just laying hands on them (vs 6). They were already baptized by John for the remission of sins (vs 3).

.
Thoughts to consider:

Jesus instructed the disciples to go make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in Matt. 28:18-20. Considering Eph. 4:4, we can understand there is "one baptism." The "one baptism" in mind is obviously not the baptism of John because not only have we missed the opportunity but even the 1st century Christians who had been baptized into the baptism of John were re-baptized baptized in the name of the Lord (Acts 19). The options are now narrowed down to either the Holy Spirit baptism or water baptism in the name of the Lord. When considering Holy Spirit baptism, we understand that not everyone recieved it (Acts 8:14-17) and that even believers who had been baptized by the Holy Spirit were still commanded to be baptized into water in the name of Jesus Christ. Water baptism is the "one" baptism Eph. 4:4 is referring to.

From the scriptures, we can understand that the "one" baptism (water baptism) is: "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16), "saves us" (1 Pet. 3:21), "is to put on Christ" (Gal. 3:27), and "is to benefit from Christ's resurrection" (Rom. 6:5). Now, things are falling in place. The scriptures harmonize quite well.

Matthew 28:18-20 and Mark 16:15-18 are both accounts of the "so called" great commission that Jesus gave His disciples.

Besides Peter going to the house of Cornelius, When do we find the disciples going "to all the world?" Suggest you read Acts 11:19 and Galatians 2:9. Looks to me that they never got "off the ground" with their commission. Also, it cannot be carried out in this dispensation of grace.

BTW, If you are attempting to carry out the "so called" great commission, How much of Matthew chapters 5-7 and you actually doing today? If you are not doing it all, your hous is built upon the sand (Matt.7:24-27).

In Acts 22:19 Paul is recounting the days following his conversion in Acts 9. Baptism was still required and practised at that time. Why didn't you use Acts 9:17-18 instead?

Ephesians 4:5 " One Lord, one faith, ONE BAPTISM,"

The ONE BAPTISM is the baptism of 1 Cor.12:13 "For by ONE SPIRIT (Holy Spirit) are we all baptized into one body (dry cleaned), whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink one spirit." This happens the moment one puts their faith and trust in the Cross work (death, burial and resurrection) of Christ for their salvation.

Jesus was the baptizer with the Holy Spirt at Pentecost, BUT NOW we find that the Holy Spirit is the baptizer.

The water baptism at Pentecost was for the remission of sins. Once the repentant sinner was water baptized, THEN Jesus baptized them with the Holy Ghost. This was not another water ceremony, but a fulfillment of Matt.3:11.

Keep in mind that the word "baptism" doesn't always mean water. It also means "identification." I received my "baptism of fire" on Oct. 3, 1952 when we were "run off" a hill in Korea by the Chinese.

The book of 1 Peter was not addressed to members of the Body of Christ. It was address to the Jewish "kingdom saints" that James, Cephas (Peter) and John agreed to stay with in Gal.2:9.


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

 

[Dispy]

DRA:

Our dialogue is getting quite long, and I am finding it very difficult to respond to everything that is being posted. Your mixing "the gospel of the kingdom," which has to do with the fulfillment of prophesy, with "the gospel of the grace of God," which has to do with the revelation of the mystery to the Apostle Paul, based upon the Cross work of Christ.

I'm going to use a term that I normally use for persons who mix gospel (doctrine) of the Law, and the gospel (doctrine) of Grace. The term is not meant to be derogitory or insulting by any means. It is just an expression I use. The term is "scrambled egg doctrine."

I derived at that term by comparing the Bible to an egg. The entire Bible is one book and contains all that God wants us to know. It has to primary doctrines. They can be studied seperately or mixed. When mixed, they are scrambled, and lead to confusion and denominations.

An egg, like the Bible, contains two parts. The clear liquid (white), and the yoke. (yellow). The egg can be cooked and eaten without mixing to two ingrediences or they can be mixed. When mixed they are scrambled. They can be scrambled and adding anything one would like to make a omlet.

The two primary doctrines in the Bible, like I said, are Law and Grace. God gave His instructions to the children through Moses who was given the Law. The Law was a good system, and is based on "do what the Law requires," or pay the penalty. So under the Law, one had to do the deed/works of the Law, BY FAITH, for their justification. The purpose of the Cross was still a secret (1Cor2:7,8).

God gave His instructions in righteousness to members of the Body of Christ through the Apostle Paul. Those instructions are on the doctrine of Grace. Grace simply means "unmerritted favor," and based on FAITH ALONE in the Cross work of Christ.

Both doctrines are good workable systems based upon FAITH, but are opposing systems.

IMHO the "so called" great commission given to the 12 disciples cannot be carried out today, and that the disciples understood that when they agreed with Paul in Gal.2:9 that they would stay with the circumcision (Jews) and he unto the heathen (Gentiles).

Yes, Paul did go to the Jews also, but that too was part of his commission (Acts 9:15).

In my next post I am going to post an article written by Joel Finck, in his book "Common Questions About the Grace Message", that will explain why the "so called" great commission cannot be carried out today.

I would be more then happy to send you, or anyone else, a copy of this book, at my expense. All I will need to know is your mailing address, which I PROMISE to keep confidential, and not send any other materials that are not requested. You can e-mail me you mailing address at jellema@alliancecom.net.

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

 

[Dispy]

From the book Common Questions About the Grace Message" by Joel Finck.

Question 13) Aren’t we supposed to be carrying out the Great Commission?

To answer the question, let’s take a mental stroll through the Bible. From the fall of Adam and Eve until this present day, God has always sought the salvation of mankind. He has always provided some way for man to approach Him on His terms. Throughout the ages, God has even gone the extra step of commissioning certain individuals or groups to carry His message to the people of the earth so that they clearly understand just what God expects of them. Before the flood, Noah was commissioned as a preacher of righteousness. For 120 years, as he was building that ark, he proclaimed God’s righteousness to an increasingly sinful and wicked world.

After the flood, the world soon turned away from God once again. Mankind showed its rebellion against God by building a tower and a city to make a name for themselves. To this day we know the name of that tower - the Tower of Babel, the city of Babylon. At this point, God commissioned someone else to become a separate nation through whom He could reach these unbelieving Gentile nations. That person was Abram, soon to become Abraham. This nation, which eventually was known as the nation of Israel, inherited the commission to be a light to the other nations, to lead them to the true and living God. Here is how it was supposed to work: God promised the people of Israel that if they would obey His covenant, then He would be their God and they would be His people. As the nations round about Israel looked at the blessing of God falling upon this one nation, they would ask why they were so blessed? Then they would come and inquire, and Israel would point them to their God and say, “We’re blessed because we serve the living and true God.”

Let us give an Old Testament passage to illustrate how this was supposed to operate. This was God’s order for bringing the nations of the earth to Himself through Israel. We sometimes call this the Kingdom program or the prophetic program. We call it the prophetic program because it was revealed in the prophets. It was spoken of by the mouth of all the holy prophets since the world began (Acts 3:21). Isaiah 60:1-3, “Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee. For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.” Who is He talking about? In this context, He is referring to Zion. Zion is another name for Jerusalem, the capital city of the nation of Israel, in biblical times. In verse 3 we read, “And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.” God’s intention and plan was to bring Israel as a light to the nations and to lift her up on high so that the nations would see that light and so that kings would seek out the glory of God through Israel. This was how it was supposed to work. But unfortunately, many times, it did not work that way. Israel, as the centuries rolled on, failed to be the light that God wanted her to be. Israel, herself, slipped into apostasy. She slipped away from the truth of God’s word and God’s revelation to her. This was the condition that Christ found her in when He came to the earth as a babe in the manger. As our Lord ministered on the earth, His first commission to His apostles was not for them to go out unto all the world. In order for the world to be saved according to that kingdom or prophetic program through the nation of Israel, first Israel had to rise up as a great light. Israel herself was in great darkness when Christ came.

Notice how He first commissioned His apostles. Matthew 10:1-4: “And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican;James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbeaus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.”

Verse 5, “These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, ‘Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not." We should ask the question, why not? Did not God love the Gentile nations at this time? Did not Christ desire to see them saved? Of course He did. But He was operating according to knowledge and understanding that God would bring His light to the nations through Israel. If Israel herself was lost, she first needed to come to the Lord, then Israel could be a light to the nations. This is why He says in verse 6, “But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.” In Matthew 15 we see that this commission applied even to our Lord. Matthew 15:21 says, “Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts.” Notice that the Holy Spirit inspires the writer to show us this is a Gentile woman; a woman of Canaan. Why is that so important? Because of what the Lord is about to say. She comes with a request in verse 22: “She cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Does that sound like our loving, caring Lord? He does not even talk to her. Why does He do this?

Verse 25, ”Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.” This is going from bad to worse it seems. The Lord knew His commission, didn’t He? He knew he was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He knew that the nations could not be blessed until the children were filled. What children? The children of Israel. Let the children first be filled. But notice her faith in verse 27, “And she said, Truth, Lord.” Her answer shows that she understood the program under which she lived. She understood she did not have a claim on God’s blessings directly. She understood she did not have access to the glorious blessings that God promised to Israel. But then notice her statement of faith, [/B]“Yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.”[/B] She is saying in effect, Lord I don’t expect the direct blessing that you have promised to your children of Israel. I do not expect that. I just want a few leftovers. I just want a few crumbs. The Lord at that point saw her great faith and so He blessed her. Verse 28, “Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.”

You see that principle being well established that the nations are not to be blessed under this kingdom and prophetic program until Israel is first blessed. Once Israel was straightened out, then and only then, was the message to go out to the nations. Christ made this perfectly clear when He commissioned the twelve apostles.

Luke 24:46, “And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” Here is that same principle. Let the children first be filled. Acts 1:8, “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” When Israel was filled, then the message could go on to the nations. The only problem was that Israel rejected the kingdom offer.

This was a problem from our point of view. But was it a problem for God? Of course not. God had in His mind a plan by which He could reach the nations in spite of the stubbornness of Israel. He had a plan whereby the nations could hear His word and they would not have to come through Israel’s rising. Remember Isaiah 60:3 where God says the nations would come to the light of Israel’s rising. Now consider a contrast to that in Romans 11:11. Here the Apostle Paul draws a contrast between how God reaches the nations today as opposed to how the prophets spoke of Israel’s rising. Under the prophetic program, the kingdom program, the nations were to be reached through Israel’s rising. But in Romans 11:11 we read, “I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? [Referring to Israel] God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.” Do you see the difference? In Isaiah, the nations are to come through Israel’s rising. In Romans, the nations are blessed through Israel’s fall. How can that be? And how does that tie into the Great Commission?

God revealed his plan to reach the nations in spite of Israel through the Apostle Paul. God determined that if Israel would not go to the nations, He would temporarily by-pass that nation and go directly to the Gentiles. He chose a messenger by the name of Saul of Tarsus to become the great apostle of the Gentiles. When He did so, He temporarily suspended the Great Commission which was given to the Twelve. This leads to the next questions:

14)Where in Scripture do we ever find the Great Commission that was given to the Twelve being suspended."

>SNIP<

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

 

[- DRA -]

When Jesus came upon the earth, the Jewish Chruch was already established. According to OT prophesy it was time for the OT promised kingdom to be established. That is why Jesus and the 12 preached "the gospel of the kingdom" "at hand." Paul tell us in Romans 15:8 that Jesus came "...to comfirm the promises made to the fathers."

Where those promises fulfilled? NO! WHY? Because the Jews, as a nation, rejected their King and His Kingdom by crucifying Him.

Because the Jews, as a nation rejected their King and HIs Kingdom, God set the nation of Israel aside, Rms 11:7-12, (temporarily), vs 25, and MADE "the one new man" of Ephesians 2:15. This "one new man" is today what we call "the Body of Christ."

All believers from Adam on are members of the "ONE Chruch." Every member of that Church are members of "the kingdom of God." Those believers that were saved under the preaching of "the gosple of the kingdom" (Jewish Church) will inherit a kingdom here upon the earth. Those believers that were saved during the preaching of "the gospel of the grace of God" will inherit a heavenly home (2Cor.5:1; Philippians 3:20). If you will read the article at http://www.gracealive.us/misunderstood.html you should understand what I am saying.

The Chruch, the Body of Christ, cannot be found in the book of the Revelation. There was no need to write to them because they will have been raptured to heaven prior to the Tribulation.

Jesus promised to build the church in Matthew 16:18. Now, why would He say, "I will build [future tense] my church", if it already existed?

When Jesus came it was indeed time for the kingdom to be established. Nebuchadnezzer's dream in Daniel chapter 2 was interpreted to mean 4 kingdoms, starting with the Babylonians. The vision of chapter 8 identifies the next two kingdoms -- the Medians and Persians, and the Grecians (verses 20-21). The fourth kingdom or last kingdom is NOT identified in the book, but it is during this kingdom that God's kingdom would be set up i.e. Dan. 2:44. One only has to look at history to see that the Romans were that unidentified kingdom. Now, let's check our answer. The Romans were reigning during the N.T. times (Luke 2:1). John's message was the "kingdom of heaven is at hand [close]" (Matt. 3:2). Jesus said that some of the disciples there would NOT die until they had seen the kingdom come with power (Mark 9:1). Later, in approximately A.D.63, the apostle Paul wrote that the kingdom was established (Col. 1:13), as did the apostle John in Rev. 1:9. John was in the kingdom. And Paul was stating that people are translated out of darkness into the kingdom. Hmmm. The Scriptures present quite a different story than you present. The Scriptures teach us that God does what He says He will do, and He does it when He said He will do it. God promised to establish the kingdom. He did it. Now, ask yourself when the "power" came that Jesus was alluding to in Mark 9:1. What happened in Acts 2:1-4? Wasn't that the "power" coming upon the apostles -- just as Jesus had promised them i.e. Luke 24:49? Yep. Was it during the days of some of those that heard Jesus speak in Mark 9:1? Yep. Was it during the days of the fourth kingdom in Daniel chapter 2? Yep. And, after Pentecost in Acts chapter 2, the Scriptures plainly show us the kingdom was established. Nice story. NO . . . actually it's a GREAT STORY. Why mess it up? Ooops. Almost forgot. Jesus promised to build [future tense] the church in Matt. 16:18. What happened in Acts 2:47? The church was established. Hmmm. Let's see now. The kingdom was to come with power and did. And the church was established at the same time. Could it be that the church and the kingdom are one in the same thing? Think about it. It might help to consider the terms Jesus uses in Matt. 16:18-19. Jesus promises to build the church and give Peter the keys to the kingdom. Who taught the Jews what was necessary to do to enter the church in Acts 2:38? Wasn't it Peter? And, think about Acts 10. Who taught the Gentiles? Peter. Yep. Hmmm. Makes you think, doesn't it? And, looking at Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:47-48, it is clear that Peter taught the necessity of baptism in water in the name of the Lord. Remind you of anything? How about John 3:5? Water and the Spirit? Ring a bell? Let's see know. Water baptism was taught, and the Holy Spirit was directing the teaching. Hmmm. Okay. I imagine you can get the picture by now. I'll let you work on connecting the dots.

I am amazed how someone can conjure up a line of reasoning that promotes that God doesn't fulfill his promises. The N.T. is built upon the principle that God does fulfill his promises. As an example, look at the depth of Abraham's faith in Heb. 11:17-19. Abraham knew what God had promised and knew that God would keep His promise. This example is given to strengthen our faith. Not only does your reasoning weaken and/or destroy faith, it stands directly opposed to what Scripture teaches -- the Lord established His kingdom when He said He would do it (Col. 1:13).

The church and the body of Christ are synonymous terms according to Eph. 1:22-23.

Already been to the link(s) you provide. No thanks. Need Scriptural references that are based on truth and will harmonize. Ones that don't assume points and build reasoning by reading between the lines and directly opposing what the Scriptures plainly say.

 

[Dispy]

DRA:
You premise is that the kingdom is already established in the earth. I reject that belief in total.

I have yet to see the famlies (nations) of the earth being blessed through Israel as a nation. Had Israel repented of the crucifiction of Christ, He would have returned as Peter said He would in Acts 3:20. I do not see the restoration of all things as mentioned in Acts 3:21. And you are telling me that we are now living in the kingdom. I can't see it.

Read Matthew 5, 6 and 7, and then tell me that is how you are living. If you are not DOING those things to the letter, then you have built you house upon the sand.

To find out what will happen to those in the kingdom who break the least commandment; read Matt.5:19.

It is impossible for me to live by the standards that Jesus set forth in His "Sermon on the Mount." If you tell me that is the exact manner you are living, then I will know that I am dealing with a liar. If you admit that you are not living in that exact manner, then you house is built upon sand and will fall in on you.

My friend, I strongly believe that God will keep His Word. He will restore this earth to its original condition and Christ will reign for 1,000 years upon it. The Chruch, the Body of Christ, will have it's home in heaven during this time.

Presently all believers are members of God Kingdom. All believers today are already positionall seated with Christ in the heavens (Ephesians 2:6). My glorified body will also be there at the rapture.

This present earth does not look like it has been restored and can't find where the 12 disciples are sitting on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.

Yes, Jesus is sitting at the right hand of God the Father. and He will sit there until He makes His enemies His footstool; at His second coming, which is still future.

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

 

[- DRA -]

DRA:

Our dialogue is getting quite long, and I am finding it very difficult to respond to everything that is being posted. Your mixing "the gospel of the kingdom," which has to do with the fulfillment of prophesy, with "the gospel of the grace of God," which has to do with the revelation of the mystery to the Apostle Paul, based upon the Cross work of Christ.

I'm going to use a term that I normally use for persons who mix gospel (doctrine) of the Law, and the gospel (doctrine) of Grace. The term is not meant to be derogitory or insulting by any means. It is just an expression I use. The term is "scrambled egg doctrine."

I derived at that term by comparing the Bible to an egg. The entire Bible is one book and contains all that God wants us to know. It has to primary doctrines. They can be studied seperately or mixed. When mixed, they are scrambled, and lead to confusion and denominations.

An egg, like the Bible, contains two parts. The clear liquid (white), and the yoke. (yellow). The egg can be cooked and eaten without mixing to two ingrediences or they can be mixed. When mixed they are scrambled. They can be scrambled and adding anything one would like to make a omlet.

The two primary doctrines in the Bible, like I said, are Law and Grace. God gave His instructions to the children through Moses who was given the Law. The Law was a good system, and is based on "do what the Law requires," or pay the penalty. So under the Law, one had to do the deed/works of the Law, BY FAITH, for their justification. The purpose of the Cross was still a secret (1Cor2:7,8).

God gave His instructions in righteousness to members of the Body of Christ through the Apostle Paul. Those instructions are on the doctrine of Grace. Grace simply means "unmerritted favor," and based on FAITH ALONE in the Cross work of Christ.

Both doctrines are good workable systems based upon FAITH, but are opposing systems.

IMHO the "so called" great commission given to the 12 disciples cannot be carried out today, and that the disciples understood that when they agreed with Paul in Gal.2:9 that they would stay with the circumcision (Jews) and he unto the heathen (Gentiles).

Yes, Paul did go to the Jews also, but that too was part of his commission (Acts 9:15).

In my next post I am going to post an article written by Joel Finck, in his book "Common Questions About the Grace Message", that will explain why the "so called" great commission cannot be carried out today.

I would be more then happy to send you, or anyone else, a copy of this book, at my expense. All I will need to know is your mailing address, which I PROMISE to keep confidential, and not send any other materials that are not requested. You can e-mail me you mailing address at jellema@alliancecom.net.

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

No offense is taken by the reference to the "scrambled egg doctrine." I understand the point you are making. You think that I am mixing things up that shouldn't be mixed. However, what I am failing to see is where you suggest the old covenant ended. Aren't you suggesting that it ended at the end of Acts chapter 8? I don't see that being taught from a Scriptural perspective. Jesus nailed that old covenant or law to the cross i.e. Col. 2:14. The writer of Hebrews also elaborates on the end of the old law and the beginning of the new one. Consider the veil in the temple being torn in two from top to bottom when Jesus died on the cross (Matt. 27:51) and Heb. 10:17-20. Heb. 9:15-17 should also be considered. Jesus' testament or will went into effect after His death. And, like I have stated before, using the language of that passage, we can think of Acts chapter as the reading of the Lord's will. From that point on, the emphasis is placed upon doing the Lord's will under the new covenant -- not the old one.

Concerning the gospel of the grace of God, I strongly encourage you study and consider Eph. 2:5 in its context. In the NKJV that passage says, "Even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)". Notice that part where the passage discusses being dead in trespasses or sins and being made alive together with Christ. Now compare those thoughts with Romans 6:3-11, which is discussing what occurs in baptism -- which involves our being freed from sin (verse 7) -- which is equivalent to the remission of sins in Acts 2:38 -- in which baptism in water was commanded. Therefore, by harmonizing the thoughts, we see the Scriptural connection between grace and what occurs during baptism. It is by God's grace that we are baptized in water to become united with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection to die to sin, be freed from it, and become alive to God.

Is salvation by grace based on faith alone? Not so, according to Eph. 2:5-9 in its context. We just considered verse 5. And, look closely at verses 8-9. Do you see the word "alone" or "only" coupled with faith in those verses? Nope. Consider the Ephesians. They were baptized only with John's baptism, but when the apostle Paul realized this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord (Acts 19:5). Consider. Baptism is based on faith i.e. Col. 2:12-13. In fact, it must be coupled with faith i.e. Mark 16:16, Acts 8:35-39.

Sorry, but the inspired commentary says that the "great commission" was fulfilled i.e. Mark 16:15-16, Col. 1:23. And, reading things into Gal. 2:9 that are NOT there is an act that is NOT authorized by 1 Pet. 4:11a -- "If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles [words] of God."

 

[- DRA -]

From the book Common Questions About the Grace Message" by Joel Finck.

Question 13) Aren’t we supposed to be carrying out the Great Commission?

To answer the question, let’s take a mental stroll through the Bible. From the fall of Adam and Eve until this present day, God has always sought the salvation of mankind. He has always provided some way for man to approach Him on His terms. Throughout the ages, God has even gone the extra step of commissioning certain individuals or groups to carry His message to the people of the earth so that they clearly understand just what God expects of them. Before the flood, Noah was commissioned as a preacher of righteousness. For 120 years, as he was building that ark, he proclaimed God’s righteousness to an increasingly sinful and wicked world.

After the flood, the world soon turned away from God once again. Mankind showed its rebellion against God by building a tower and a city to make a name for themselves. To this day we know the name of that tower - the Tower of Babel, the city of Babylon. At this point, God commissioned someone else to become a separate nation through whom He could reach these unbelieving Gentile nations. That person was Abram, soon to become Abraham. This nation, which eventually was known as the nation of Israel, inherited the commission to be a light to the other nations, to lead them to the true and living God. Here is how it was supposed to work: God promised the people of Israel that if they would obey His covenant, then He would be their God and they would be His people. As the nations round about Israel looked at the blessing of God falling upon this one nation, they would ask why they were so blessed? Then they would come and inquire, and Israel would point them to their God and say, “We’re blessed because we serve the living and true God.”

Let us give an Old Testament passage to illustrate how this was supposed to operate. This was God’s order for bringing the nations of the earth to Himself through Israel. We sometimes call this the Kingdom program or the prophetic program. We call it the prophetic program because it was revealed in the prophets. It was spoken of by the mouth of all the holy prophets since the world began (Acts 3:21). Isaiah 60:1-3, “Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee. For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.” Who is He talking about? In this context, He is referring to Zion. Zion is another name for Jerusalem, the capital city of the nation of Israel, in biblical times. In verse 3 we read, “And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.” God’s intention and plan was to bring Israel as a light to the nations and to lift her up on high so that the nations would see that light and so that kings would seek out the glory of God through Israel. This was how it was supposed to work. But unfortunately, many times, it did not work that way. Israel, as the centuries rolled on, failed to be the light that God wanted her to be. Israel, herself, slipped into apostasy. She slipped away from the truth of God’s word and God’s revelation to her. This was the condition that Christ found her in when He came to the earth as a babe in the manger. As our Lord ministered on the earth, His first commission to His apostles was not for them to go out unto all the world. In order for the world to be saved according to that kingdom or prophetic program through the nation of Israel, first Israel had to rise up as a great light. Israel herself was in great darkness when Christ came.

Notice how He first commissioned His apostles. Matthew 10:1-4: “And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican;James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbeaus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.”

Verse 5, “These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, ‘Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not." We should ask the question, why not? Did not God love the Gentile nations at this time? Did not Christ desire to see them saved? Of course He did. But He was operating according to knowledge and understanding that God would bring His light to the nations through Israel. If Israel herself was lost, she first needed to come to the Lord, then Israel could be a light to the nations. This is why He says in verse 6, “But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.” In Matthew 15 we see that this commission applied even to our Lord. Matthew 15:21 says, “Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts.” Notice that the Holy Spirit inspires the writer to show us this is a Gentile woman; a woman of Canaan. Why is that so important? Because of what the Lord is about to say. She comes with a request in verse 22: “She cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Does that sound like our loving, caring Lord? He does not even talk to her. Why does He do this?

Verse 25, ”Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.” This is going from bad to worse it seems. The Lord knew His commission, didn’t He? He knew he was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He knew that the nations could not be blessed until the children were filled. What children? The children of Israel. Let the children first be filled. But notice her faith in verse 27, “And she said, Truth, Lord.” Her answer shows that she understood the program under which she lived. She understood she did not have a claim on God’s blessings directly. She understood she did not have access to the glorious blessings that God promised to Israel. But then notice her statement of faith, [/B]“Yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.”[/B] She is saying in effect, Lord I don’t expect the direct blessing that you have promised to your children of Israel. I do not expect that. I just want a few leftovers. I just want a few crumbs. The Lord at that point saw her great faith and so He blessed her. Verse 28, “Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.”

You see that principle being well established that the nations are not to be blessed under this kingdom and prophetic program until Israel is first blessed. Once Israel was straightened out, then and only then, was the message to go out to the nations. Christ made this perfectly clear when He commissioned the twelve apostles.

Luke 24:46, “And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” Here is that same principle. Let the children first be filled. Acts 1:8, “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” When Israel was filled, then the message could go on to the nations. The only problem was that Israel rejected the kingdom offer.

This was a problem from our point of view. But was it a problem for God? Of course not. God had in His mind a plan by which He could reach the nations in spite of the stubbornness of Israel. He had a plan whereby the nations could hear His word and they would not have to come through Israel’s rising. Remember Isaiah 60:3 where God says the nations would come to the light of Israel’s rising. Now consider a contrast to that in Romans 11:11. Here the Apostle Paul draws a contrast between how God reaches the nations today as opposed to how the prophets spoke of Israel’s rising. Under the prophetic program, the kingdom program, the nations were to be reached through Israel’s rising. But in Romans 11:11 we read, “I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? [Referring to Israel] God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.” Do you see the difference? In Isaiah, the nations are to come through Israel’s rising. In Romans, the nations are blessed through Israel’s fall. How can that be? And how does that tie into the Great Commission?

God revealed his plan to reach the nations in spite of Israel through the Apostle Paul. God determined that if Israel would not go to the nations, He would temporarily by-pass that nation and go directly to the Gentiles. He chose a messenger by the name of Saul of Tarsus to become the great apostle of the Gentiles. When He did so, He temporarily suspended the Great Commission which was given to the Twelve. This leads to the next questions:

14)Where in Scripture do we ever find the Great Commission that was given to the Twelve being suspended."

>SNIP<

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

My response can be summed up in a few passages of Scripture.
John 6:15 -- The Jews were willing to make Jesus a king.
Mark 9:1 -- Jesus stated that some of the disciples there would not taste of death until they would see the kingdom come . . . with POWER.
John 18:36 -- explains the nature of the kingdom Jesus would establish -- it would be spiritual, not earthly or physical
Col. 1:13 -- the kingdom was established -- people were being translated out of darkness into it
Romans 9:27 & Romans 11:5 -- only a remnant of the Israelites returned from captivity to the promised land, and only a remnant of the Jews would accept Jesus and be saved

Already discussed the great commission given to the apostles. It was fulfilled by about A.D. 62-63 (Col. 1:23).

 

[- DRA -]

DRA:
You premise is that the kingdom is already established in the earth. I reject that belief in total.

Col. 1:13 says that the kingdom is established. The apostle John also wrote that he was in the kingdom in Rev. 1:9. John 18:36 describes the spiritual nature of the kingdom. You are looking for an earthly kingdom.

I have yet to see the famlies (nations) of the earth being blessed through Israel as a nation. Had Israel repented of the crucifiction of Christ, He would have returned as Peter said He would in Acts 3:20. I do not see the restoration of all things as mentioned in Acts 3:21. And you are telling me that we are now living in the kingdom. I can't see it.

Generally speaking, the Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah. He didn't fit whatever image they had in their minds about what the Messiah would be. Rejecting the kingdom that has been established would be falling victim to the same mindset.

BTW, as has previously been pointed out, Jesus is that seed or blessing that would bless all families of the earth i.e. Gen. 12:3, Matt. 1:1, Acts 3:25-26.

Read Matthew 5, 6 and 7, and then tell me that is how you are living. If you are not DOING those things to the letter, then you have built you house upon the sand.

To find out what will happen to those in the kingdom who break the least commandment; read Matt.5:19.

It is impossible for me to live by the standards that Jesus set forth in His "Sermon on the Mount." If you tell me that is the exact manner you are living, then I will know that I am dealing with a liar. If you admit that you are not living in that exact manner, then you house is built upon sand and will fall in on you.

Whew. It sounds like you are telling us that the Lord has set up standards that are just too high for us to achieve. Whew. You know, if the Lord didn't really mean what he said in the sermon on the Mount, can you tell us which points we should follow, or what percentage of obedience is acceptable, and the Scriptural basis for your answer?

My intent is do what Jesus expects under His law or covenant. Am I perfect following His will? Nope. When I fall short of doing what I should, I turn from those things that are wrong and pray to God for forgiveness e.g. Acts 8:22.

My friend, I strongly believe that God will keep His Word. He will restore this earth to its original condition and Christ will reign for 1,000 years upon it. The Chruch, the Body of Christ, will have it's home in heaven during this time.

How about the Lord's promise in Mark 9:1? And, how about accepting that He did what He said that He would do i.e. Col. 1:13? And, how about accepting the spiritual nature of His kingdom (John 18:36)?

Presently all believers are members of God Kingdom. All believers today are already positionall seated with Christ in the heavens (Ephesians 2:6). My glorified body will also be there at the rapture.

This present earth does not look like it has been restored and can't find where the 12 disciples are sitting on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.

Yes, Jesus is sitting at the right hand of God the Father. and He will sit there until He makes His enemies His footstool; at His second coming, which is still future.

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

Hmmm. This seems to be a change. Before, I clearly understood you to be reasoning that the kingdom hadn't been established.

Consider the spiritual nature of the kingdom, then look for the 12 disciples and the sense in which they judge Israel.

 

[Dispy]

Originally posted by Dispy
DRA:
You premise is that the kingdom is already established in the earth. I reject that belief in total.[/Quote}

Replied by DRA
Col. 1:13 says that the kingdom is established. The apostle John also wrote that he was in the kingdom in Rev. 1:9. John 18:36 describes the spiritual nature of the kingdom. You are looking for an earthly kingdom.

Col. 1:13, 14 "Who hath delivered us from the power of ddarkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In who we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins:"

Paul is writing to believers who are now members of "the Body of Christ," the Chruch for today, which has a heavenly hope, []NOT an earthly kingdom to look forward to. We are already positionaly seated with Him in the heavenlies (Ephesians 2:6)

Rev.9:1 does say that he is in the kingdom, but that is true of all believers. We belong to the kingdom of God. He didn't say that he was in the earthly kingdom, but he did say that he was on the Isle of Patmos.

In John 18:36 Jesus is saying that the authority of His kingdom is from heaven. If His authority came from earthly sources, then He would have had armies to defend it.

Originally posted by Dispy
I have yet to see the famlies (nations) of the earth being blessed through Israel as a nation. Had Israel repented of the crucifiction of Christ, He would have returned as Peter said He would in Acts 3:20. I do not see the restoration of all things as mentioned in Acts 3:21. And you are telling me that we are now living in the kingdom. I can't see it.

Replied by DRA

Generally speaking, the Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah. He didn't fit whatever image they had in their minds about what the Messiah would be. Rejecting the kingdom that has been established would be falling victim to the same mindset.

BTW, as has previously been pointed out, Jesus is that seed or blessing that would bless all families of the earth i.e. Gen. 12:3, Matt. 1:1, Acts 3:25-26.

Please explain your 1st sentence. It just doesn't make sense to me. The earthly kingdom that Jesus will establish had not been established yet.

I do agree that Jesus is the physical seed of Abraham. However so is the nation of Israel. In Genesis 12:2 God is refering to the nation of Israel as Abram's seed that will bless the famlies (nations) of the earth.

Originally posted by Dispy

Read Matthew 5, 6 and 7, and then tell me that is how you are living. If you are not DOING those things to the letter, then you have built you house upon the sand.

To find out what will happen to those in the kingdom who break the least commandment; read Matt.5:19.

It is impossible for me to live by the standards that Jesus set forth in His "Sermon on the Mount." If you tell me that is the exact manner you are living, then I will know that I am dealing with a liar. If you admit that you are not living in that exact manner, then you house is built upon sand and will fall in on you.[/Quote]

Replied by DRA

Whew. It sounds like you are telling us that the Lord has set up standards that are just too high for us to achieve. Whew. You know, if the Lord didn't really mean what he said in the sermon on the Mount, can you tell us which points we should follow, or what percentage of obedience is acceptable, and the Scriptural basis for your answer?

My intent is do what Jesus expects under His law or covenant. Am I perfect following His will? Nope. When I fall short of doing what I should, I turn from those things that are wrong and pray to God for forgiveness e.g. Acts 8:22.

Matthew 6:19-34
19Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
20But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
21For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

22The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

23But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

24No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

25Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

26Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

27Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

28And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

29And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

30Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

31Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

32(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.

33But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

34Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

If you are not living the above to the letter, you are building your house upon the sand. If you have saved money for your future, better get rid of it. It says you shouldn't plan ahead.

In the "Sermon on the Mount" Jesus is speaking of how things will be when He establishes His kingom upon the earth. He has yet to establish His kingdom upon the earth, and I cannot find where the 12 disciples are sitting on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Isreal. Chapter and Verse PLEASE.

The above verses don't say "try." They say "DO"

The instructions in righteousness that I try to follow are the ones addressed to the Body of Christ in Paul's Epistles.

Originally posted by Dispy

My friend, I strongly believe that God will keep His Word. He will restore this earth to its original condition and Christ will reign for 1,000 years upon it. The Chruch, the Body of Christ, will have it's home in heaven during this time.

Replied by DRA

How about the Lord's promise in Mark 9:1? And, how about accepting that He did what He said that He would do i.e. Col. 1:13? And, how about accepting the spiritual nature of His kingdom (John 18:36)?

My reply to Mark 9:1 is Luke 9:27-36.

I have alread explained John 16:36 above.

Originally posted by Dispy

Presently all believers are members of God Kingdom. All believers today are already positionall seated with Christ in the heavens (Ephesians 2:6). My glorified body will also be there at the rapture.

This present earth does not look like it has been restored and can't find where the 12 disciples are sitting on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.

Yes, Jesus is sitting at the right hand of God the Father. and He will sit there until He makes His enemies His footstool; at His second coming, which is still future.

Replied by DRA

Hmmm. This seems to be a change. Before, I clearly understood you to be reasoning that the kingdom hadn't been established.

Consider the spiritual nature of the kingdom, then look for the 12 disciples and the sense in which they judge Israel.

The promised kingdom on earth to Isreal has yet to be established. That is still future and the subject of yet unfulfilled prophesy. I explained earlier that all of God's creation is His kingdom.

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