Featured The “Rebaptisms” of Acts 19

Is that the context it is used in this text, Biblicist?

Could you get someone else to agree with you that in view is salvation that is not in regards to eternal redemption?

Christ told His disciples they were clean through the Word He spoke to them. Doesn't change the fact that they had not received the Comforter, had not been Baptized with the Holy Ghost, had not had revealed to the the Mystery of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and did not even believe the Lord arose from the dead on the Third day.

You are preaching another gospel: that men can be saved apart from faith in the Risen Christ.


Continued...

 

Why don't you slow down and actually read what I said and think about it before responding with nonsense? I said that the term "fell" is further described as "the gift of the Spirit" which is the conclusion of the observers because they "heard" them speak in tongues. So yes, what occurred is what occurred in Acts 2:2-4 upon already water baptized believers in the former case. However, these believers COULD NOT obtain water baptism because the ALL JEWISH congregation would not administer it to them because they were GENTILES and refused to allow them EQUALITY in the house of God WITHOUT DIVINE INTERVENTION. The threefold vision to Peter and the Baptism in the Spirit with accompanying signs (tongues) provided that DIVINE INTERVENTION in order to force the all Jewish church to recognize them as proper subjects for baptism and equal membership.

The "saved" refers to "baptism", not that baptism obtained literal savlation but DECLARED they already were had "life" as baptism is the baptism of repentance or the declaration of life.

You chop and split scripture to suite your view. What Peter is actually doing here is showing the CONSISTENCY between what John preached and all the prophets preached. What all the prophets preached was fulfilled with the ministry of John, the last predictive gospel prophet as John could say "it is at hand" while all other prophets could only preach according to the present revelation they had and say He is coming. In both cases the gospel preached was SUFFICIENT to save (justify/regenerate).

The "mystery" revealed now (cross, gentiles) did not make the gospel prior to these mysteries any less sufficient or effective for salvation.

To prove my point, the house of cornelius was due to the entire Jewish church being IGNORANT OF THIS MYSTERY of the gospel to the gentiles (Eph. 3:1-5). However, could none be saved until they understood that mystery???

They had already embraced the fullness of the Old Testament predictive gospel (Acts 10:43) and confessed Jesus to be the Christ or promised redeemer. Their problem here is simply understanding how the "cross" and resurrection fit that promise.

I run into people who are genuinely saved today by simple faith in the simple gospel but who are yet having problems understanding the fuller revelations of the gospel - LIKE YOU! Yet I don't doubt their salvation because they lack understanding in areas.

The house of Cornelius, Apollos and no doubt many other truly born again persons AFTER PENTECOST needed to know the progressive revelation that JESUS OF NAZARETH was the Christ and had fulfilled it through the cross. As with Apollos they knew the way of the Lord, but needed to know more perfectly or fully the gospel of their salvation.

I know very few today who understand the fullness of the gospel even after its completed fulfillment. To SAVINGLY understand the gospel and to FULLY understand the gospel are two different birds. The latter is not necessary to be saved. You don't need to understand what is NOT REVEALED, but only what IS REVEALED to be saved as Peter says they could "believe" and could have "remission of sins" and so what they DID UNDERSTAND was sufficient to save them.

 

Doesn't change the fact that Cornelius was not saved.

He was not Baptized with the Holy Ghost.

He had not received the Spirit of God.

He was a Proselyte to Judaism, Biblicist, not a Christian.

You are equating proselytization to Judaism to Christianity.

That is a false gospel.


Continued...

 

So all one has to do is fear God and they are saved, is that it? All one has to do is have faith that God is going to send a Messiah, is that it?

Your gospel lacks the definitive demand that men believe on Christ Himself.

Your gospel teaches that all Jews still awaiting Messiah are born again and Spirit indwelt Christians.

This is a false gospel.


Continued...

 

God heard and answered the prayers of many...doesn't mean they had received the Spirit that would not come until after Christ was glorified.

So why did God send Cornelius to Peter? lol

Your gospel becomes more absurd with each new attempt to nullify some very basic truths.

So only Jews were saved prior to Pentecost.

Again, we see salvation through the Covenant of Law in your gospel.

In your gospel, Gentiles are inducted into Israel. Neither Israel nor Gentiles were members of the Church, Biblicist. Both Jew and Gentile are brought into the Church through immersion into God.


Continued...

 

When?

According to your gospel there is no difference between John's baptism unto repentance and that of Christians preaching Christ crucified.

Men were born again by both according to your gospel.

So water baptism results in equal membership in the Church?

Amazing.


Continued...

 

And there is a difference between being baptized unto repentance and being granted repentance...unto life.

The validation is centered on the Gentiles...also being saved.

The beginning in view...


Acts 11:15

King James Version (KJV)

15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.


...is Pentecost.


Continued...

 

Great. Then they were abiding in Christ when He was taken, crucified, and arose.

No, wait, that can't be right...not even one of the disciples believed He arose from the dead.

How are they the "New House of God" if they were the Church by being baptized by John?


Continued...

 

Oh, so now Cornelius is "immersed in the Spirit?"

And being immersed in the Spirit has nothing to do with salvation, it is just a sign that they could be water baptized and given full membership of the New House of God which isn't new because one could be in that house by being baptized with John?

As I said, this gets more absurd the more you try to justify this false gospel.


Continued...

 

So men are saved by being water baptized.

Absurd.


Continued...

 

Oh, so the Baptism with the Holy Ghost refers to progressive sanctification.

And Jews were members of the House of of God in the Old Testament, and here Gentiles are confirmed as members of a New House which is not new.

You are saying that Jews were saved by being Jews.

Being born of God is not of blood, Biblicist.

So he was already a member of the New House of God which Gentiles could not be a part of?


Continued...

 

So being confirmed as members of a New House which already existed is all that the Baptism is. It is simply public accreditation of men being placed in Christ.

Amazing.

You do understand that faith did not begin with the creation of the Nation of Israel, right? That there were Gentiles who had faith in God long before the Law was even established, right?

Of course you don't. That is why you present a gospel which has Jews born again though they do not trust in the Risen Savior.

No, Biblicist, what peter speaks of is that knowledge of Christ's ministry was known to him. It was a well known issue.

The confirmation here that is central to Peter's preaching is that Christ arose from the dead.

Cornelius, a Proselyte to Judaism...had to have the Gospel of Jesus Christ preached unto him...that he might be saved.

You are teaching a gospel that allows men to be born of God apart from faith in the Risen Savior.

So did the disciples, Biblicist, but the disciples did not believe Christ had risen from the dead until Christ made it clear to them:


Luke 24

King James Version (KJV)


1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.

2 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.

3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.

4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

5 And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?

6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,

7 Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.

8 And they remembered his words,

9 And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.

10 It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.

11 And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.


Men cannot be born again apart from faith in the Risen Savior.

That is the fundamental truth that escapes the gospel you preach.

They did not understand, even though Christ told them directly, that Christ would rise from the dead.


24 And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not.

25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:

26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.


So where is this understanding of the Gospel you teach, Biblicist?

It's certainly not found in Scripture, and clearly taught that the Gospel of Christ was a Mystery not revealed in other Ages.

So you can teach that men were born again and eternally indwelt of the Spirit not sent prior to Acts 2, and I will preach the Risen Savior.

You can misconstrue the progressive nature of the revelation of the Gospel Mystery, and I will preach the Word of God.

So there is no New House? This actually dismantles all of the nonsense you have been spouting.


God bless.

 

Again I ask those who also feel that men were born again and had received the Promised Spirit...to affirm they believe that which Biblicist is teaching.

Anyone?


God bless.

 

Shouting does not make the nonsense you teach any more valid. You need to learn some manners.

But I guess someone who thinks he can rewrite what Scripture actually states would not have a problem rewriting forum etiquette.


God bless.

 

And this is a basic principle in my teaching, Biblicist: God will judge every man according to their obedience to His revealed will.

You have already denied this principle for Gentiles who did not have the Law but performed the works of the Law which were written on their hearts. Men have always been saved by grace through faith, and the Gospel has always been the revealed will of God to men.

That does not nullify the fact that the Gsopel of Jesus Christ was a Mystery not revealed in prior Ages.


Romans 16:24-26

King James Version (KJV)


24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:


I can promise you, the more you kick at this goad the more absurd your gospel will become. That is fair warning, brother.


God bless.

 

False Arguments:

1: Darrell teaches the Gospel is not in the Old Testament.

2: Darrell's teaching is "perverted Roman Catholic Sacramental church salvation doctrine."

3: Darrell does not include relevant portions of the passages he uses to proof-text his doctrine.

4: Implication that I am teaching one cannot be saved apart from tongues...when I never even mentioned tongues.

5: Darrell teaches men were not saved in the Old Testament.


God bless.

 

Sorry, but the text is clear, they are saved, not by baptism with water, which is the only other baptism in view, but by the Word preached:


Acts 11:13-18

King James Version (KJV)

13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;

14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.


By the way, it's just not possible to slow down any further than that which I am doing.

So God wanted to make sure that Gentiles could baptized in water too? You need to make up your mind. Why is this relevant if they ha already been saved through being baptized by John?


Continued...

 

I am quite confident the Scriptural presentations given to you maintain their proper context.

False Arguments:

1: Darrell teaches the Gospel is not in the Old Testament.

2: Darrell's teaching is "perverted Roman Catholic Sacramental church salvation doctrine."

3: Darrell does not include relevant portions of the passages he uses to proof-text his doctrine.

4: Implication that I am teaching one cannot be saved apart from tongues...when I never even mentioned tongues.

5: Darrell teaches men were not saved in the Old Testament.

6: Darrell denies the consistency of the Gospel between Post-Pentecost preaching of the Gospel and Pre-Pentecost Preaching of the Gospel.


This last false argument has also been addressed numerous times.

Once again, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is consistent beginning in the Garden and on up through John's preaching. Did I not show you the distinction between John and those of the Kingdom?


Matthew 11:11

King James Version (KJV)

11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.


Set your carnal understanding to bear on this statement, Biblicist.

And what you are forced to admit is that there is a future fulfillment in the Gospel as preached by God Himself in the Garden, God Himself to Abraham, through the Prophets, in the Law, and in the Psalms.

While it is the same Gospel, what is not the same is to what extent the Gospel is revealed, and to what extent understanding is given to men.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ was a Mystery, Biblicist, and no amount of carnal commentary is going to change that simple, basic Bible truth.


Continued...

 

Wait, what is that, "The "mystery" revealed...now?

But as to your further statement, let me explain another Basic Bible Truth of the Gospel, Biblicist: men did not receive remission of sins through Christ prior to His death.

I agree that obedience to the revelation and understanding men received in the Old Testament was sufficient to save...that is a primary basic of what I teach.

But, what you do not understand is that being saved does not mean that they were born again. You have to ignore a great deal of New Testament Teaching in order to arrive as such a conclusion.

As I said...you need to work on your manners. Shouting does not make this nonsense any more valid.

And now you are saying "the entire Jewish 'church' was ignorant of this mystery."

Simply amazing.


Continued...

 

Carnal, absolutely carnal.

You do understand that men cannot understand the spiritual things of God except they be revealed to them, right?

Here is an example of truth being revealed to men:


Matthew 16:15-17

King James Version (KJV)


15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.


Now let's see how you can possibly say Peter is trying to understand how the Cross works into the Gospel, lol.

Here is Peter trying to understand the Gospel:


Matthew 16:20-23

King James Version (KJV)


20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.


Your understanding, like Peter's here...is carnal.


Continued...