Eschatologist:
1)I guess it is your belief that the ENTIRE process of the new covenant was completed upon the resurrection Christ? What was Pentecost for? Was it some unneeded circus show? How about Antioch? Was that in your eyes unneeded as well? Then what happened in AD 70 to the Jewish nation, as prophesized by Jesus, something you probably believe was nothing more than secular history! (It would be moot to even begin to explain this latter event, it would probably fly right over your head. Although I should start a post on eschatology just to see what you think!).
First of all I do not believe in covenantal theology. God made a covenant with the nation of Israel, which is yet to be fulfilled. We partake of some of the blessings of that covenant. The only covenant that God has made with New Testament believers is that which He has made with His blood, when He died for us. One might call it the covenant of the gospel. It does not dispense of the covenant that God has made with the Jewish nation, though it does fulfill the law.
The entire gospel is the death, the burial and the resurrection of Jesus Christ, as defined in 1Cor.15:1-4. Baptism does not play a role in salvation, and never has. Salvation was provided at the cross by Jesus Christ and by him alone. When man adds baptism, he takes away from the work of Christ. It is Christ’s work, not man’s. It is God’s grace, not man’s work of baptism. Paul spent much time in the first chapter of First Corinthians differentiating between the gospel and baptism. The one he was called to preach. The other he thanked God that he didn’t.
What happened in 70 A.D.? The Roman general Titus came and destroyed the city of Jerusalem. It was a judgement against the nation of Israel for their rejection of the Messiah. But the Lord did not cast them off forever, as He promised, and as is explained in Romans 11. God has not yet fulfilled his covenant with the nation of Israel. That is still to come.
There was a maturation process from the time Christ commissioned the apostles just before He departed, until the church had arrived at maturity, when the old system, which was slowly fading away, had finally run its course, and the rebellious apostate Jews then met their violent end as predicted by our Lord.
Not at all. The church began at the Day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was sent to indwell every believer. That is when the “church age,” or this age of grace began. All, whether Jew or Gentile, who were to be saved, from this day forward must put their trust in Christ alone and in His shed blood. Nothing else would do. Every Jew would leave his Judaism and become a Christian, just like the Apostles did. Every Gentile would leave his paganism and become a Christian, just like the Gentiles did. There was no difference between Jew and Gentile; we are all one in Christ.
The Book of Acts shows a transitional period during the period of the Apostles. That is why the book is called the “Acts of the Apostles.” It was the history of the churches during the first century, and the changes that happened among them. The first twelve chapters center around Peter and his ministry, and from chapter 13 to the end of the book it centers around Paul and his ministry. Signs and wonders were given to the Apostles during this time to authenticate the gospel message. They were given as a sign to the Jews that the message was from God. Take a look at 1Cor.14:21,22 where it explains that tongues is a sign to the unbelieving Jew. In 70 A.D. judgement did fall upon the Jews, but by that time, many of them had believed and had become Christians. And still God had kept his Word to preserve unto Himself a remnant.
When Christ said "It is Finished," He had completed the work(yes, He said WORK!!![Jo.17:4]) of the Father. What He had accomplished was to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy. (Unless you are like some people and believe He failed in accomplishing this!) After Jesus' death, burial and resurrection, what was left was to restore the kingdom of Israel. This is what took place from the time Christ departed until AD 70. His kingdom, the church(this is sure to cause a few shivers from the Baptists and the like), had navigated its way to completion(though at uneasy times), where then God's promised interdiction took its vengeance upon the unbelieving Jews by destroying their city, sanctuary and covenantal system.
John 17:4 I glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which thou hast given me to do.
--Notice that “having accomplished the work” is in the past tense. It is also the work of Christ that Christ Himself refers to. Nothing but the work of Christ saves. Not our work, such as baptism, but only the work of Christ can save.
Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
--The seventieth work of Daniel points to a future event, at the end of which Christ will finish the transgression, make an end of sin, make a reconciliation for iniquity, and bring in everlasting righteousness. If you can point to me any age where there has been “everlasting righteousness” between the time of Christ and now, I may accept a different interpretation. But I don’t see any period in history where there has been everlasting righteousness, and I mean
everlasting righteousness in this sin-sick, sin-filled, murderous, God-hating, idolatrous, wicked, crime-filled world of ours. Everlasting Righteousness?? How about continuous wickedness that prevails on the face of this earth. Not until the Second Advent when Christ comes for His own, to set up his Millennial Kingdom will there be everlasting righteousness and will he finish the transgression and make an end of sins.
If we still live in a sinful world, and there is no everlasting righteousness, then the Kingdom has not been restored to Israel.
The Church did not take the place of Israel, for Israel still lives today. Israel again will be restored in the future as a nation when they turn to their Messiah, and as a nation will be saved (Rom. 11:26) To say that the church has replaced Israel is a heresy, and lends itself to anti-semitism.
2)He did not baptize unbelievers. He baptized believers who knew the gospel, had repented and confessed their sins to God, then had even received the same power of the Holy Spirit that the apostles had received, as an example that the gentiles COULD be saved just as the Jews could. The baptism they then received completed and fulfilled their salvation, as they then became dead to their old self, had their sins washed away, and arose from being dead in their sins to walk in the newness of life. It was then that they were truly born again.
Salvation is a one time even. It is not progressive. It happens at the moment that a person calls upon the name of the Lord in faith believing that He will forgive his sins on the basis of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. I was baptized two years after I was saved. Does that mean that I was progressively being saved for two years and my salvation was not complete until I was saved. If I had died before I was baptized, would I have gone to Hell? Is that your belief? Progressive salvation is not an option in the Bible. It doesn’t exist. Call upon the name of the Lord an you shall be saved—instantly.
These were Gentiles (unsaved) who had come with Cornelius, to hear the Gospel. The reason they had come was to hear the gospel that they had never heard before. That is why God sent Peter to them—as a missionary to preach the gospel to them. Your theory doesn’t hold water. They heard the Word that Peter preached to them (for the first time), and were saved. At that time they received the Holy Ghost (it came upon them). It was some time after that they were baptized. Their baptism obviously had nothing to do with their salvation.
Acts 10:44 did NOT say they were saved upon receiving the POWER of the Holy Spirit. What you fail to understand is that there is a difference between the GIFT of the Holy Spirit and the POWER of the Holy Spirit. The GIFT of the Holy Spirit is what all believers receive when being baptized, as GIFT from God when the become saved by grace through faith.
You will have a hard time demonstrating that. When I was baptized I got wet. If getting wet is your idea of receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, then you have a pretty anemic view of salvation, in fact it isn’t salvation at all. Nobody is saved by getting wet. That is simply a superstition. Nobody receives the gift of the Holy Spirit by getting immersed in H2O. Again, more superstition. The Bible teaches no such thing. Baptism gets you wet.
Acts 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
--The Holy Ghost fell on them which heard the Word. This is not a difficult concept. It is the same thing that happened in Acts 2.
Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
--They heard his Word; they received his Word; they were saved, and then they were baptized. This is the Biblical pattern throughout Scripture.
The POWER of the Holy Spirit is what the apostles conveyed upon the seven disciples who were chosen(who by the way had already received the GIFT of the Holy Spirit[Act.6:3]), and the apostles laid hand on them(they then received the POWER) to which then went on and did great wonders and miraculous signs(Act.6:8). This is the same POWER of the Holy Spirit that Simon the Sorcerer wanted to buy when he witnessed the apostles transferring it to others by the laying on of hands. The apostles also passed on this POWER to Timothy by the laying on of hands(1Tim.1:14; 2Tim.1:6), who by the way was already saved, which allowed him to do miraculous things as a witness for God. Why this has escaped you I do not know, but the bible shows there is a defined difference in the GIFT of the Holy Spirit and the POWER of the Holy Spirit. You may continue to be ignorant of this fact, but that would be between you and God.
The power of the Holy Spirit is available to those who pray for it, for those who pray to be filled for the Holy Spirit as in Eph. 5:18.
But what is the result of the power of the Holy Spirit. The disciples prayed for power in Acts chapter 4:
Acts 4:29-31 And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word, By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus. And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and
they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.
The result of being filled with the Holy Spirit is speaking the Word with boldness. Likewise when one speaks with the power of the Holy Spirit, it is for the same purpose—to witness or speak boldly of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Speaking in tongues is not an evidence of salvation as you have claimed. It was a powerful and miraculous event, yes, but was used by those who had the POWER to glorify and magnify God and strengthen and establish His church. Just as when the POWER of the Holy Spirit was used to drive out a demon, raise someone from the dead, or in healing someone, that person did not need to be saved in order for this Power to be effective. Yes in many cases it took faith in that individual that it could be done.
So a person can be unsaved, a child of the devil, and still have the Power of the Holy Spirit ?

What kind of theology permits the unsaved to be filled with the power of the Holy Spirit?
Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now
if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
You know as I have read through your comments and have argued the same thing over and over again, my spirit has made me feel that I am beating a dead horse on this issue-- to knock the dust off my feet and move on. I am so sorry, for your benefit, that you put so much of your faith on uninspired men. Are many of these men wise-- yes. Are they intelligent-- yes. Are they always right-- NO! Just as I enjoy reading the writings of the early church fathers, I can conclude this-- they are not always accurate. When the contradict the bible-- go with God! When Paul said, "Let God be true and every man a liar," this is what I feel he had in mind.
Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. My faith is in the Word of God. Do you consider the writers of the Word of God uninspired? I don’t read much of the church fathers, if at all. My time is spent primarily in the Word of God. Scripture does not contradict Scripture. The Bible teaches clearly that salvation is by faith and not by works. Baptism is a work. What you have done is taken a few verses of Scripture and tried to fit them into a predetermined theology invented by men (Cambell and Strong), and then claim you are the only ones that have the truth. That is fairly presumptuous on your part. Did no one have the truth before the Church of Christ come on the scene? Before Cambell was born?
I hope that you are in obedience so that Jesus will be your source! If not, well I believe you already know the consequences.
John 6:28-29 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
The only work that God requires of us to be saved is to believe on Him. That is all. Baptism has nothing to do with salvation. Those who believe it does, and put their trust in as much, are putting their trust in a works based salvation, and are in danger of trusting their works instead of Christ alone for salvation. If so, how can such a one be saved? Only Christ can save. Believe and thou shalt be saved.
DHK