Mid -Acts Dispensational Doctrine

[redleghunter]

Which means you ignored the plain words spoken. Each of those passages at length preached Jesus Christ as crucified, died, and Risen. That is the Gospel proclaimed in 1 Corinthians 15 by the apostle Paul.

As demonstrated from Luke 24, Christ did indeed tell His disciples in verses 44-49 what the Gospel was. Christ died and rose from the dead.

No way around this they all preached the same Gospel from the very beginning of the Great Commission.


H.A. Ironside is not anti-Dispensationalist. He's an accomplished Dispensationalist theologian and author.

Edit: add to the list Schoefield, Walvood and Ryrie, all Dispensationalists who acknowledged only one Gospel and no division of the church age.

The Gospel has always been Grace from before the foundations of the world (Ephesians 1).

Did you mean to respond to the above with your quote below?

The Acts 2dispensationalists, like those you mentioned, are by far the weakest of the bunch. They say a Gentile church started in Acts 2, but the very first Gentile involved was Cornelius in Ac 10, about 8 years after Acts 2. There were no Gentiles in the upper room and none of the 3000 believers were Gentiles. All Israelites until Acts 10.

The Great Commission never got started. It was given only to the 11, after Christ's resurrection. There is no scripture saying it was ever started. It's certainly not for the church to accomplish.

Actually the dispensationalists I quoted are in fact real dispensationalist theologians and not the variant which preach another gospel on YouTube.

The church indeed started on the day of Pentecost. The Samaritans and Gentiles were added later. It is no mistake Peter was present at all three conversion events (Pentecost, Samaritans, Gentiles--Acts 10).

I'll ask again, when in Acts 28 did the gospel change?

And yes the Great Commission of Matthew 28 did indeed get started and continues. It started on the day of Pentecost when "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. ." (Acts 2:41)

 

[DeaconDean]

Did you mean to respond to the above with your quote below?



Actually the dispensationalists I quoted are in fact real dispensationalist theologians and not the variant which preach another gospel on YouTube.

The church indeed started on the day of Pentecost. The Samaritans and Gentiles were added later. It is no mistake Peter was present at all three conversion events (Pentecost, Samaritans, Gentiles--Acts 10).

I'll ask again, when in Acts 28 did the gospel change?

And yes the Great Commission of Matthew 28 did indeed get started and continues. It started on the day of Pentecost when "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. ." (Acts 2:41)

In fact, Gentiles were present at Pentecost too. (cf. Acts 2:9-11)

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[ac28]

In fact, Gentiles were present at Pentecost too. (cf. Acts 2:9-11)

God Bless

Till all are one.

Totally wrong.

Acts 2:5"And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven."

Acts 2:10 "Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,"

These were only Jews, from are those countries listed. As vs 5 says, there were Jews in every country in the world. All were Jews or proselytes (Gentiles who were circunsised, kept the law, and became Jews), vs 10. In vs 10, the word "strangers" does not mean Gentiles - Strong's #1927.

There are zero indications that any of these people were Gentiles, unless one wants to cheat with the scriptures, and make them say something that they don't say. There are many reasons why there are no Gentiles. One is that, except for proselytes, they would never allow themselves to be in the same breathing space as a Gentile. Gentiles were unclean dogs to them. Also, there was no scriptural reason or proof that any Gentiles should be involved.This was a purely Jewish thing. The ONLY reason Gentiles were admitted much later was that, since nothing was working to convert Israel to accept Christ, maybe getting Gentiles involved would provoke Israel to jealousy and cause them to repent. I repeat, the very first Gentile to be associated with these Jews, was Cornelius, 7-8 years after Acts 2. Nothing in scripture proves otherwise.

The milky, weak doctrined, Acts dispensationalists, like those mentioned by redleghunter, (who seems to know nothing about dispensationalism) are totally wrong in their basic premise that the Gentile church started in Acts. I'm sure they have some way they cheat, to get around this 8 year, non-Gentile gap but, no matter what they say, there were no Gentiles involved, in what they wrongly call the Gentile Church, until 7-8 years after Acts 2. However, in saying that, the Acts 2 people are more knowledgeable than ANY non-dispensational, denominational church or group on the planet, although that's not saying much. Since ONLY dispensationalists rightly divide God's word, ONLY dispensationalists are approved unto God - 2Tim 2:15. Even the milky (no meat) Acts2 people that just barely rightly divide, sort of.

Those given what Joel spoke of, in Acts 2, were not a Church, as we think of a Church. The Greek ekklesia simply means an assembly called out for a specific purpose. The pagan silversmiths in Acts 19, were called an ekklesia. The assembly in Acts 2 was called out for ONE SINGLE PURPOSE, to witness to the nation of Israel and convince them to accept Christ as the Messiah, so the promised Kingdom of Heaven would enter in. The only purpose of the gifts was that Israel required signs. And, the ONLY purpose of the Gentiles being involved was to provoke Israel to jealousy, so they might believe. The repentance and conversion of Israel was the #1,all important, sole purpose during the entirety of the Acts period, from start to finish. It certainly wasn't to start a Church.

 

[redleghunter]

The milky, weak doctrined, Acts dispensationalists, like those mentioned by redleghunter, (who seems to know nothing about dispensationalism) are totally wrong in their basic premise that the Gentile church started in Acts.

That's rich since Walvood, Schofield, Ryrie and J. Dwight Pentecost are actually dispensationalists and wrote the theological works on such. Who may I ask do you see as a dispensationalist theologian holding your views? Scholarly works please and not YouTube videos.

 

[redleghunter]

Totally wrong.

Acts 2:5"And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven."

Acts 2:10 "Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,"

These were only Jews, from are those countries listed. As vs 5 says, there were Jews in every country in the world. All were Jews or proselytes (Gentiles who were circunsised, kept the law, and became Jews), vs 10. In vs 10, the word "strangers" does not mean Gentiles - Strong's #1927.

There are zero indications that any of these people were Gentiles, unless one wants to cheat with the scriptures, and make them say something that they don't say. There are many reasons why there are no Gentiles. One is that, except for proselytes, they would never allow themselves to be in the same breathing space as a Gentile. Gentiles were unclean dogs to them. Also, there was no scriptural reason or proof that any Gentiles should be involved.This was a purely Jewish thing. The ONLY reason Gentiles were admitted much later was that, since nothing was working to convert Israel to accept Christ, maybe getting Gentiles involved would provoke Israel to jealousy and cause them to repent. I repeat, the very first Gentile to be associated with these Jews, was Cornelius, 7-8 years after Acts 2. Nothing in scripture proves otherwise.

The milky, weak doctrined, Acts dispensationalists, like those mentioned by redleghunter, (who seems to know nothing about dispensationalism) are totally wrong in their basic premise that the Gentile church started in Acts. I'm sure they have some way they cheat, to get around this 8 year, non-Gentile gap but, no matter what they say, there were no Gentiles involved, in what they wrongly call the Gentile Church, until 7-8 years after Acts 2. However, in saying that, the Acts 2 people are more knowledgeable than ANY non-dispensational, denominational church or group on the planet, although that's not saying much. Since ONLY dispensationalists rightly divide God's word, ONLY dispensationalists are approved unto God - 2Tim 2:15. Even the milky (no meat) Acts2 people that just barely rightly divide, sort of.

Those given what Joel spoke of, in Acts 2, were not a Church, as we think of a Church. The Greek ekklesia simply means an assembly called out for a specific purpose. The pagan silversmiths in Acts 19, were called an ekklesia. The assembly in Acts 2 was called out for ONE SINGLE PURPOSE, to witness to the nation of Israel and convince them to accept Christ as the Messiah, so the promised Kingdom of Heaven would enter in. The only purpose of the gifts was that Israel required signs. And, the ONLY purpose of the Gentiles being involved was to provoke Israel to jealousy, so they might believe. The repentance and conversion of Israel was the #1,all important, sole purpose during the entirety of the Acts period, from start to finish. It certainly wasn't to start a Church.

Still looking for the verse in Acts 28 where ultra-dispensationalists claim the church began. Perhaps you can shed light on that.

 

[redleghunter]

Many preachers I listen to agree with what you say. I am still learning about this subject, but it does appear that for a certain time period two gospels existed——The Kingdom Gospel for the Jews and Pauls Gospel of Grace for the Gentiles.The former was eventually supplanted by the latter and now in this age of Grace,Paul’s Gospel is the only one relevant to entering the Body of Christ. Let me emphasize.....I am a neophyte in these matters.

Btw.....excellent ,informational post

Acts actually argues against such an assertion.

 

[ac28]

That's rich since Walvood, Schofield, Ryrie and J. Dwight Pentecost are actually dispensationalists and wrote the theological works on such. Who may I ask do you see as a dispensationalist theologian holding your views? Scholarly works please and not YouTube videos.

Charles H. Welch - the main man - wrote 60 books - all free on internet
Charles H. Welch - Wikipedia
Free books on Welcome - Charles Welch

EW Bullinger - as prolific as Welch - all works free on internet
E. W. Bullinger - Wikipedia
Free books, etc., on Welcome - Charles Welch and
and: Fellowship Bible Church, Orlando, FL

Oscar Baker - Current Issue

heavendwellers.com - my son's website - old, but lots of good Ac 28 stuff.

And a slew of lesser know Ac28 scholars - many of whom wrote books. Everyone I've every known or heard of, that sees the truth in Ac 28:28 dispensationalism, is a scholar.

As far as complete Bible truth is concerned, as known by Ac28 dispensationalists, all those you mentioned are know-nothings. I've read many of the so-called ultra or hyper-dispensationalists books and, after a few pages, it's obvious that these authors have NO concept of what they think they are writing about. If they truly were bible believers, and if they truly understood Ac28 dispensationalism, it would be impossible for them not to convert.

I would estimate (actually, a wild guess) that there are about 500,000 Ac28 dispensationalists worldwide. I would also guess that there are none making a living from preaching Ac28 dispensationalism and, if there are, they need a 2nd job to make ends meet. The books are all free, with only one exception I can think of. However, most of the books are available hardbound, at cheapo prices, if you're like me and hate reading on the computer.vI think the reason for all this is that everyone in it absolutely knows that Ac28 is the definite last word, the pinnacle of Bible truth and that to peddle what belongs to God would be sacrilege. You can't go any further in true Biblical knowledge. Converts are rare, I must admit. Acts 28 dispensationalism is so different from any of the untrue, mainly Jewish, doctrines taught by every mainstream denominational church in existence, that it's hard to the penetrate the intense brainwashing that most everyone has been subjected to.

 

[redleghunter]

As far as complete Bible truth is concerned, as known by Ac28 dispensationalists, all those you mentioned are know-nothings.

They are only the founding theologians on dispensational theology. But thank you for the list of authors you listed.

What in Acts 28 leads you to believe the church started at that point in time?

 

[now faith]

''

The Acts 2dispensationalists, like those you mentioned, are by far the weakest of the bunch. They say a Gentile church started in Acts 2, but the very first Gentile involved was Cornelius in Ac 10, about 8 years after Acts 2. There were no Gentiles in the upper room and none of the 3000 believers were Gentiles. All Israelites until Acts 10.

The Great Commission never got started. It was given only to the 11, after Christ's resurrection. There is no scripture saying it was ever started. It's certainly not for the church to accomplish.

All I can say be it Jew or Gentile, Christ was is and will always be The Lamb of God.


Ephesians 1: 3. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: 4. According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5. Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6. To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. 7. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

 

[now faith]

Charles H. Welch - the main man - wrote 60 books - all free on internet
Charles H. Welch - Wikipedia
Free books on Welcome - Charles Welch

EW Bullinger - as prolific as Welch - all works free on internet
E. W. Bullinger - Wikipedia
Free books, etc., on Welcome - Charles Welch and
and: Fellowship Bible Church, Orlando, FL

Oscar Baker - Current Issue

heavendwellers.com - my son's website - old, but lots of good Ac 28 stuff.

And a slew of lesser know Ac28 scholars - many of whom wrote books. Everyone I've every known or heard of, that sees the truth in Ac 28:28 dispensationalism, is a scholar.

As far as complete Bible truth is concerned, as known by Ac28 dispensationalists, all those you mentioned are know-nothings. I've read many of the so-called ultra or hyper-dispensationalists books and, after a few pages, it's obvious that these authors have NO concept of what they think they are writing about. If they truly were bible believers, and if they truly understood Ac28 dispensationalism, it would be impossible for them not to convert.

I would estimate (actually, a wild guess) that there are about 500,000 Ac28 dispensationalists worldwide. I would also guess that there are none making a living from preaching Ac28 dispensationalism and, if there are, they need a 2nd job to make ends meet. The books are all free, with only one exception I can think of. However, most of the books are available hardbound, at cheapo prices, if you're like me and hate reading on the computer.vI think the reason for all this is that everyone in it absolutely knows that Ac28 is the definite last word, the pinnacle of Bible truth and that to peddle what belongs to God would be sacrilege. You can't go any further in true Biblical knowledge. Converts are rare, I must admit. Acts 28 dispensationalism is so different from any of the untrue, mainly Jewish, doctrines taught by every mainstream denominational church in existence, that it's hard to the penetrate the intense brainwashing that most everyone has been subjected to.

Through the years many Theologians have written Books.
They base their interpretation of the Bible according to their own Theory
Simply defined a Theory consists of presumption of truth.
A presumption is ignorance of fact.
If this statement is incorrect, then we must validate all others.
Joseph Smith, Ellen White, and many more have their own legacy that people follow.
Yet with this dispensationism it does not give credit to the many verses contrary to it's validity.
In a previous post it was clear not all at Pentacost were Jews.
Paul is clear on their being no biased in the Body of Christ.
We have different Apostles ministering to Gentiles and teaching salvation to them.
Phillip and the Ethiopian?
Peter and John after Phillip laying hands on the Samaritans.
Jesus and the Centurian .
The Phoenician woman who begged for her daughter, at the feet of Jesus.
She said even dogs eat crumbs from the masters table, Jesus seeing her Faith healed her daughter.

God's Word states Christ did many other great works, too many to account.
How many of Christ works were for Gentile believers?
We do not know, but we certainly cannot but God in our way of thinking.
If Paul's Epistles were for Gentiles only and the rest of God's Word was for Jews only,then that would be our Bibles.
God is not the author of confusion.
How much do you have to presume to deny Paul's teaching as well.

1 Timothy 6: 2. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. 3. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; 4. He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, 5. Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. 6. But godliness with contentment is great gain. 7. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. 20. O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21. Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

 

[now faith]

How does any one over look this verse that is spoken directly to the Apostles?
Jewish Apostles for a matter of fact.

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 Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

The uttermost part of the earth was not exclusively Jew.
God's will is clear.

 

[redleghunter]

Yet with this dispensationism it does not give credit to the many verses contrary to it's validity.

Indeed. This brand of Dispensationalism seems to ignore a lot.

 

[now faith]

Totally wrong.

Acts 2:5"And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven."

Acts 2:10 "Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,"

These were only Jews, from are those countries listed. As vs 5 says, there were Jews in every country in the world. All were Jews or proselytes (Gentiles who were circunsised, kept the law, and became Jews), vs 10. In vs 10, the word "strangers" does not mean Gentiles - Strong's #1927.

There are zero indications that any of these people were Gentiles, unless one wants to cheat with the scriptures, and make them say something that they don't say. There are many reasons why there are no Gentiles. One is that, except for proselytes, they would never allow themselves to be in the same breathing space as a Gentile. Gentiles were unclean dogs to them. Also, there was no scriptural reason or proof that any Gentiles should be involved.This was a purely Jewish thing. The ONLY reason Gentiles were admitted much later was that, since nothing was working to convert Israel to accept Christ, maybe getting Gentiles involved would provoke Israel to jealousy and cause them to repent. I repeat, the very first Gentile to be associated with these Jews, was Cornelius, 7-8 years after Acts 2. Nothing in scripture proves otherwise.

The milky, weak doctrined, Acts dispensationalists, like those mentioned by redleghunter, (who seems to know nothing about dispensationalism) are totally wrong in their basic premise that the Gentile church started in Acts. I'm sure they have some way they cheat, to get around this 8 year, non-Gentile gap but, no matter what they say, there were no Gentiles involved, in what they wrongly call the Gentile Church, until 7-8 years after Acts 2. However, in saying that, the Acts 2 people are more knowledgeable than ANY non-dispensational, denominational church or group on the planet, although that's not saying much. Since ONLY dispensationalists rightly divide God's word, ONLY dispensationalists are approved unto God - 2Tim 2:15. Even the milky (no meat) Acts2 people that just barely rightly divide, sort of.

Those given what Joel spoke of, in Acts 2, were not a Church, as we think of a Church. The Greek ekklesia simply means an assembly called out for a specific purpose. The pagan silversmiths in Acts 19, were called an ekklesia. The assembly in Acts 2 was called out for ONE SINGLE PURPOSE, to witness to the nation of Israel and convince them to accept Christ as the Messiah, so the promised Kingdom of Heaven would enter in. The only purpose of the gifts was that Israel required signs. And, the ONLY purpose of the Gentiles being involved was to provoke Israel to jealousy, so they might believe. The repentance and conversion of Israel was the #1,all important, sole purpose during the entirety of the Acts period, from start to finish. It certainly wasn't to start a Church.

Have you ever heard of Persia or Medo Persia?

• of Croton wins the stadion race at the Olympic Games Circa 548 BC the Medo-Persian Empire was established after Belshazzar, the last king of Babylon, was
  2 KB (244 words) - 06:48, 31 March 2018
• Xenophon (category Greco-Persian Wars)
  beginning of the Medo-Persian Empire under just one monarch. The Cyropaedia as a whole lavishes a great deal of praise on the first Persian emperor, Cyrus
  39 KB (5,299 words) - 13:42, 21 March 2018
• Number of the Beast
  sequence of future events in history, from the Babylonian empire, through Medo-Persian period, Greece and Rome continuing until the end of the current civilization
  45 KB (4,962 words) - 14:29, 18 March 2018
• Chaber
  "Urschrift," p. 124), is not very probable, since in the later period of the Medo-Persian rule over the Land of Israel no great formative events are on record
  15 KB (2,155 words) - 22:46, 31 March 2017
• Arsacid dynasty of Armenia
  Sassanids were determined to restore the old glory of the Achaemenid Persia (Medo-Persian Empire), so they proclaimed Zoroastrianism as the state religion and
  21 KB (2,103 words) - 05:11, 27 March 2018
• Assyrian captivity
  had been conquered by Babylon, and Babylon had been conquered by the Medo-Persians. According to the Books of Chronicles chapter 9 line 3, the Israelites
  15 KB (2,227 words) - 16:19, 3 February 2018
• Hippolytus of Rome
  as with the other fathers, specifically relates to the Babylonians, Medo-Persians, Greeks, and Romans. His interpretation of events and their significance
  26 KB (3,109 words) - 14:24, 28 March 2018
• Daniel 8
  7: where chapter 7 spoke only cryptically of the change-over from the Medo-Persian empire to the age of the Greek kings, chapter 8 makes this explicit;
  75 KB (5,854 words) - 23:34, 28 March 2018
• List of snakes of South Asia
  stejnegeri Trimeresurus purpureomaculatus Pope's Pit Viper Trimeresurus popeiorum Medo Pit Viper Trimeresurus medoensis Trimeresurus labialis Trimeresurus erythrurus
  12 KB (1,157 words) - 23:39, 6 January 2018
• Battle of Nineveh (612 BC)
  become restive, whereas neighbouring states and groups, such as the Medes, Persians, Babylonians, Chaldeans, Scythians, Cimmerians became increasingly hostile
  9 KB (1,217 words) - 15:55, 30 March 2018
• Piphilology (section Persian)
  número. — "We and all the world memorize pi using letter for number." Sou o medo e temor constante do menino vadio. — "I'm the constant fear and dread of
  35 KB (4,425 words) - 08:14, 25 March 2018
• Medicine
  the best course for", from PIE base *med- "to measure, limit. Cf. Greek medos "counsel, plan", Avestan vi-mad "physician" "Medicine" Online Etymology
  77 KB (8,962 words) - 23:37, 25 March 2018
• Anthony Eden
  Anthony Eden: a political biography, 1931–1957 (1992) Ruane, Kevin. "SEATO, MEDO, and the Baghdad Pact: Anthony Eden, British Foreign Policy and the Collective
  114 KB (14,005 words) - 11:57, 31 March 2018
• Prehistory of the Armenians
  whereby under the leadership of Haykak Manavazean they would attack the Medo-Schythian army. It is also thought that the remnants of the Arartian (Armens)
  18 KB (2,808 words) - 17:45, 10 February 2018
• Apocalyptic literature
  the fourth and final world empire is considered to be Rome since Babylon, Medo-Persia (Achaemenid Empire), Greece, and Rome were world empires which all
  20 KB (2,710 words) - 20:24, 22 February 2018

Results from sister projects

• Prophets and Kings/In the Days of Queen Esther
  Thus did God in mercy provide another opportunity for the Jews in the Medo-Persian realm to return to the land of their fathers. The Lord foresaw the troublous
  Texts from Wikisource

Daniel certianly had, and they were not Hebrew.
Research the people mentioned in Acts 2 you will find Gentiles.

 

[now faith]

The Elamites were black skinned, as well the people of eastern Iran whom Herodotus refered to as "Asiatic Ethiopians"
Source : race and history fourm.

How can anyone deny Pentecost was not inclusive of Gentiles?

Acts 2: 7. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? 8. And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9. Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10. Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

 

[ac28]

The Elamites were black skinned, as well the people of eastern Iran whom Herodotus refered to as "Asiatic Ethiopians"
Source : race and history fourm.

How can anyone deny Pentecost was not inclusive of Gentiles?

Acts 2: 7. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? 8. And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9. Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10. Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

Wishful thinking will not change the scriptures. Acts 2.5 says there were Jews in every country in the world. There is no slight hint that there were Gentiles present at Pentecost, let alone, proof. Saying Gentiles were present is an assumption, and assumptions are truth's greatest enemy. If you understood your Bible and rightly divided as instructed, you would know no church could possibly start in Acts 2 and that no Gentile could be present. You're probably one of those people that thinks people will go to Heaven at the rapture. Here again,with zero proof. You make up scripture to fit your private interpretation, like the bulk of Christendom and most every denominational preacher.

Galilee was/is a region. Strangers doesn't mean Gentiles. Like it says, Jews and proselytes, and that's all it says were there. By saying there were Gentiles there, you are adding your own private interpretation to scripture.

Show me direct proof that there were Gentiles in the upper room or even in the 3000. If you can't, then you must be wrong. And, of course, you can't. The 1st Gentile in Acts was Cornelius in Acts 10, 8 years after Pentecost. Accept it if you're a Bible believer.

 

[now faith]

Wishful thinking will not change the scriptures. Acts 2.5 says there were Jews in every country in the world. There is no slight hint that there were Gentiles present at Pentecost, let alone, proof. Saying Gentiles were present is an assumption, and assumptions are truth's greatest enemy. If you understood your Bible and rightly divided as instructed, you would know no church could possibly start in Acts 2 and that no Gentile could be present. You're probably one of those people that thinks people will go to Heaven at the rapture. Here again,with zero proof. You make up scripture to fit your private interpretation, like the bulk of Christendom and most every denominational preacher.

Galilee was/is a region. Strangers doesn't mean Gentiles. Like it says, Jews and proselytes, and that's all it says were there. By saying there were Gentiles there, you are adding your own private interpretation to scripture.

Show me direct proof that there were Gentiles in the upper room or even in the 3000. If you can't, then you must be wrong. And, of course, you can't. The 1st Gentile in Acts was Cornelius in Acts 10, 8 years after Pentecost. Accept it if you're a Bible believer.

Well since you nor I were there, the nation's listed were Gentile.
That is fact.
The notion that Jews were mingled among them, voids the Text.
How would the hear in their native tongue if all the tongues were Hebrew ?
It would be pointless unless you make another presumption the Jews were never taught Hebrew that were living in Gentile counties.
Your premises is self defeating.
As well you have not reconciled Acts 1 the uttermost parts of the earth, that was a direct commandment from Christ.

Even the common language used in that day ( Koine Greek)
Should tell us it was a multicultural environment.

From the first conquest of the Hebrew people, Babylon, then Persia,
Greece and Rome, would you think it reasonable that Gentiles were part of the culture?
Our Lord gave praise to a Centurion who showed great faith.
Samaria was Cainites until invaded by Israel,it was a mixed culture.

Ezra 9: 10. And now, O our God, what shall we say after this? for we have forsaken thy commandments, 11. Which thou hast commanded by thy servants the prophets, saying, The land, unto which ye go to possess it, is an unclean land with the filthiness of the people of the lands, with their abominations, which have filled it from one end to another with their uncleanness. 12. Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever: that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever.

I hope I do not need to prove Christ teaching salvation in Samaria as well Phillip , John and Peter.

 

[now faith]

The Bible tells us Gentiles were at the first Pentacost.
That's about.....
as direct as you can get.

What does my belief of the rapture have to do with this thread.?
To say this is simply a straw man to create a diverson from the facts set before you.
But if your a Pauline only follower read 1st Thessalonians, you may find another contradiction in your theology.

 

[ac28]

Well since you nor I were there, the nation's listed were Gentile.
That is fact.
The notion that Jews were mingled among them, voids the Text.
How would the hear in their native tongue if all the tongues were Hebrew ?
It would be pointless unless you make another presumption the Jews were never taught Hebrew that were living in Gentile counties.
Your premises is self defeating.
As well you have not reconciled Acts 1 the uttermost parts of the earth, that was a direct commandment from Christ.

Even the common language used in that day ( Koine Greek)
Should tell us it was a multicultural environment.

From the first conquest of the Hebrew people, Babylon, then Persia,
Greece and Rome, would you think it reasonable that Gentiles were part of the culture?
Our Lord gave praise to a Centurion who showed great faith.
Samaria was Cainites until invaded by Israel,it was a mixed culture.

Ezra 9: 10. And now, O our God, what shall we say after this? for we have forsaken thy commandments, 11. Which thou hast commanded by thy servants the prophets, saying, The land, unto which ye go to possess it, is an unclean land with the filthiness of the people of the lands, with their abominations, which have filled it from one end to another with their uncleanness. 12. Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever: that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever.

I hope I do not need to prove Christ teaching salvation in Samaria as well Phillip , John and Peter.

Nothing you've said about Gentiles in Pentecost has any scriptural backing. If it doesn't say there were Gentiles there, then there weren't any Gentiles there. You cannot ASSUME otherwise. Concerning Gentiles at Pentecost, everything you said was an assumption. Standard protestant teaching incorrectly puts Gentiles everywhere in scripture, where, besides a few minor places, like with the woman at the well, the only places in scripture saved Gentiles truly exist in any numbers after Gen 11, are those few thousand (maybe) in Acts that were ALL grafted into Israel, starting with Cornelius, and the billions in the only true Gentile Church, Biblically, that started in Ac28:28 or 70AD - take your pick. As far as 2018 is concerned, I'm talking Protestant Church here. I'm still not sure that anyone that buys into the corrupt, non-Biblical Catholic doctrine is even saved. They believe in Jesus Christ, of course, but there are those non-Biblical salvation attachments that any Bible believer would be uncomfortable with.

Scripturally, it's well settled there were no Gentiles at Pentecost and the first Gentile in Acts was 8 years later. This pretty much destroys Darby's, Scofield's, and Larkin's Acts 2 dispensationalism. Not only was no Gentile church started in Acts 2, no truly Gentile Church was started until the very end of Acts. The fact that saved Gentiles during Acts were grafted into Israel and the fact that no one during Acts had a calling to be in Heaven pretty much wipes out mid-Acts dispensationalism. The Gentile church today started in Ac28:28, which is obvious to any true bible believer who rightly divides.

Those nations being Gentile nations is worthless information. Rome was Gentile but there were a lot of Jews there. Acts 2:5 is the clincher. Jews were in every country. There were ZERO Gentiles in Ac2 and ZERO Gentiles involved until Cornelius, 8 years later. Period.

 

[Danoh]

And I will add that Ironside was known not only as a Dispensationalist but was also Plymouth Brethren and was known as "the archbishop of Fundamentalism." I think he knew his own theology quite well.

Ironside held to Acts 2 Dispensationalism.

His booklet "Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth" was written against O'Hair's Mid-Acts Dispensationalism and is poorly written and chockful of misinformation against O'Hair and his views.

That booklet was written way back when (1934) when both men were going back and forth in public on these issues.

These issues were a huge controversy way back then.

O'Hair publicly proved Ironside not only willfully misinformed about Mid-Acts, but willfully dishonest in his handling of his dealings with O'Hair on these issues.

https://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/...12/11/WRONGLY-DERIDING-CHRISTIAN-BRETHREN.pdf

Rom. 14:5; 5:6-8.

 

[redleghunter]

Ironside held to Acts 2 Dispensationalism.

His booklet "Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth" was written against O'Hair's Mid-Acts Dispensationalism and is poorly written and chockful of misinformation against O'Hair and his views.

That booklet was written way back when (1934) when both men were going back and forth in public on these issues.

These issues were a huge controversy way back then.

O'Hair publicly proved Ironside not only willfully misinformed about Mid-Acts, but willfully dishonest in his handling of his dealings with O'Hair on these issues.

https://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/...12/11/WRONGLY-DERIDING-CHRISTIAN-BRETHREN.pdf

Rom. 14:5; 5:6-8.

There's really not much to debate. Just show me where in Acts the defining passage is where the church started. I asked an Acts 28 adherent the same thing and never received an answer. I do get replies but not answers.