[Brother Tim]

Just a side note:
The helping verb "shall" is not a normal future tense in the Scriptures. Today in English we [should properly] use "shall" for first person singular or plural verb forms (I shall, you will, he will, we shall, you will, they will). In Biblical English, "shall" takes on a stronger emphasis than simply future tense.

Do a comparison of "I will" to "I shall" and "we will" to "we shall". Also note that "shall" and "will" are both used with second person (thou shalt /thou wilt and ye shall / ye will) and third person (he shall / he will and they shall / they will).

[Winman]

Chette

I agree with you there are different baptisms, but I do not believe there are different gospels.

And I do not see the different dispensations they way you and others see it. You say before Acts 9 it is the Gospel of the Kingdom, after it is the Gospel of Grace. I do not see different gospels here, only one.

You have said repeatedly that Peter never preached forgiveness of sins to the Jews in the early chapters of Acts. I have already posted several examples.

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 sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

I have highlighted how I understand this verse. Peter was telling these Jews to repent and believe on Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. He does not talk about the restoration of the kingdom whatsoever. The baptism is simply "believer's baptism" and receiving the Holy Ghost is the result of receiving Christ, not the baptism. Also note that Peter mentions Gentiles in verse 39 "and to all that are afar off"

And further evidence that Peter was preaching forgiveness of sins through faith in Jesus is found in the next chapter.

Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

Here again Peter mentions forgiveness of sins which you claim is not mentioned. It is plain as day. Nothing whatsoever is mentioned of baptism here. Now, I believe vs 20 is speaking of receiving the Holy Ghost, but perhaps Peter is saying that Jesus will come to restore the kingdom.

But all Christians have expected Jesus to shortly return. And this is what the Lord commanded us all, to be always watching and awaiting his return.

But go down to vs. 26 and Peter again mentions the forgiveness of sins.

Acts 3:26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

And notice the word "first" (Unto you first God), I see this as Peter saying that Jesus did indeed come to save the lost sheep of Israel first, but then the Gentiles will be brought in.

And this is how I see the two stories of the woman of Canaan in Matthew 15 and Mark 7 and the centurion in Matthew 8 and Luke 7. Here Jesus shows that the Gentiles would also receive the Gospel. Why do you think these stories were mentoned?

Rom 2:10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Do you not see, that the true Jew is one who has faith in God? The woman of Canaan and the centurion were Jews in this sense.

But you cannot see this, because of your preconceived dispensationalist views. I am not saying there are not dispensations, but I do not agree with your divisions.

More mentions of the gospel and forgiveness of sins in early Acts:

Acts 4:2 Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead.

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Acts 4:33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

So, do you still say Peter never preached forgiveness of sins to the Jews in the early chapters of Acts??

[chette777]

Acts3:20 is the Lord Jesus not the Holy Ghost it is really clear.

sending him is part of the promise if they would repent of killing their Messiah and be baptized for the remission of sins. you will notice they would not have the blotting out until the times of refreshing. we get forgiveness and blotting out the moment we believe.

Again you can have historical narrative of the death Burial and resurrection of our Lord and still not be presenting the gospel of grace.

Peter may have but still he only did so to Israel not Gentiles and it is for the establishment of the Kingdom as part of the Kingdom Gospel.

I refer you to Georges teaching on how to rightly divide the book of Acts thread.

[Winman]

Again, it cannot be more clear than this:

Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

I am not going to get in a big debate over this, this scripture is very easy to read and understand. I have no difficulty understanding it.

[chette777]

But what your are quoting is only Israel, and the repentance is for the Killing of the Messiah. you have to keep the context of the previous chapters and understand the differences between the Kingdom Gospel and the Gospel of Grace.

Acts 5:42 tells us that they were preaching what was taught in Acts chapter 2 through 4 a Kingdom Gospel calling the Jews to repentance for killing their King.

Remember they were teaching in the temple so only Israel is there here this gospel message.

The sad truth of the matter is even though the Lord was adding to the Kingdom church daily 3000, 5000 and here and there it is pitifully small number compared to what should have happened. It was clear sign that Nation of Israel as a whole did not receive the message of the Apostles and come to repentance. their casting aside was inevitable.

This is why Paul is called out and separated for the Gospel of Grace to all men with no distinction Jew and Gentile alike. the two shall become one new man. and the invisible body of Christ will become visible even though even today only God knows who are truly part of the Body of Christ.

[Winman]

Chette and Bro George

I agree with both of you on many points, but not quite all. And that's OK, maybe I will change my viewpoint if I am convinced the scriptures do indeed teach what you are saying.

And I am not being contrary just for the sake of being contrary, or trying to be disrespectful. I sincerely see some problems.

When I said that Peter would have been presumptuous to preach that the Lord would return if all Israel accepted Christ, I was not saying he was presumptuous.

Let me see if I can explain it better.

Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
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.

Now, here the apostles asked a very straightforward and direct question. They asked Jesus if he would restore the kingdom to Israel "at this time".

And Jesus told them it "is not for you to know"

So, I cannot possibly believe that the Holy Spirit would inspire Peter to preach the very information that Jesus had just told them it was not for them to know. This would be the Holy Spirit contradicting Jesus.

So, this is what I meant. If Peter had preached that the Lord would restore the kingdom if the Jews repented and accepted Jesus, he would have been speaking on his own, not the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. To this day, no one can say exactly when Jesus will return.

Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
33 Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.

According to Mark 13:32, Jesus himself does not know the time. So how could Peter preach this? And again, I cannot imagine the Holy Spirit giving this information to Peter under inspiration.

And besides that, I really do not see Peter preaching this message. The only verses where I see Peter saying something like this is Acts 3:20

20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

OK, I do see Peter preaching Jesus's return here. But this is the same message and promise that all Christians have. We know Jesus will return, but we do not know the time.

You have said Peter was preaching to repent of killing Jesus. How do you repent of killing someone? A person can repent and stop drinking, a person can repent and stop gambling (just examples), but how do you repent of killing someone? Once you kill someone, there is no turning it around, it is done forever. You cannot make restitution.

Luke 19:8 And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.

There are somethings you can change, some things you can fix, some things you can restore. But you cannot bring someone back to life if you have killed them, you cannot turn from this act.

No, I believe Peter was preaching a change of viewpoint and belief. The Jews had crucified Jesus, accusing him of blasphemy. They did not believe he was the Son of God. Peter was preaching that Jesus was indeed the Son of God and the promised Messiah. This is what they needed to repent of, their unbelief in Jesus. And this is the same message preached to Gentiles, the same gospel. We must believe Jesus is the true Son of God, believe that he died for our sins upon the cross, and rose from the dead.

I do agree that the gospel was to be first preached to the Jews. But the Lord had also said the gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles.

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

This was before Pentacost.

And Jesus also mentioned the Gentiles in Acts 1:8

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.

That is enough for now.

[chette777]

Mark 13:38 must be kept in context of verse 30 and 24. verse 30 links directly to Matthew 24:34 and these verse are all about the Tribulation. and that the Kingdom would not be set up until after these things took place. Before the cross the son did not know but after the cross He knew. he just told the Apostles it was not for them to know (he did not for us to know that is including Himself) in Acts1.

Acts 3:20, 21 again are speaking of the Kingdom which could have been any moment if the NATION not 5000, not 3000, not a man here or there, but the NATION repented of which as a nation they never did. we learn in Revelation they will mourn over the One whom they crucified and repent.

Peter's point of Belief was not in the shed blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sin of the individual or the Gentiles (at least not until after Acts 10). His belief that he preached was that Jesus was the Messiah, anointed of God, attested of by signs and wonders, killed as prophesied, raised as prophesied, whom they had killed. and if they will believe he is the true King of Israel and repent be baptized, God would have sent his son as preached in Acts3:20 to establish the kingdom. Peter didn't Know but it could have been the day they as a nation repented.

Israel was scattered to the Utter most part of the earth as well. you seemed to have forgotten that Biblical truth or at best it slipped your mind. you must keep the context of the whole scripture. some of the lost sheep were not in Israel at all. so you can't make it a blanket statement that Act1:8 uttermost is reference to Gentiles only. Jesus ministered to more Gentiles during his earthly ministry than is mentioned. But his primary purpose was for Israel to whom he came.

[Winman]

Chette

I'm sorry, I do not agree with you at all.

First, the rejection of Christ by the Jews was before he was crucified, not after. Look up the word "rejected" in a concordance. You will see this word is never applied to Christ after the resurrection, but always before he was crucified.

Mark 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

Luke 9:22 Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.

Luke 17:25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.

And if you read carefully, you will see that Peter said this very thing in Acts.

Acts 3:13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.
14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;
15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses

So the rejection of Christ by the Jews was when they refused to believe Jesus was the Son of God and the promised Messiah, and had him crucified.

And after Jesus was resurrected, he commanded them to teach "all nations"

Matt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

"All nations" means all people, which includes the Gentiles. And this was before Pentacost.

[biblereader]

Originally Posted by George

Ephesians 5:1 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;
2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.


I'm not used to being treated this way by a woman - any woman; and I don't intend to get "used to it" now, not at my age. Maybe next time you'll try to emulate some of the other women on the Forum like sister Jassy, or sister greenbear who both are also newcomers to the Forum, but have been extremely courteous, polite and respectful - instead of rude and insulting.

You can make it "mean" anything you want (typical) - but it was discourteous and impolite (you don't know me nearly that well), and if I have anything to do with it, you never will.
Sounds like you have issues, George. Don't worry, I don't want to pry.
Your reply speaks volumes, though. Sorry you have such bitterness, IMO, or unforgiveness, IMO, towards women, or some woman, I don';t know, God only knows.
One thing I do know is, perhaps you should examine yourself, and ask the Lord to tell you why you're so upset by this.
Forgive, love, and love the unloveable.
Remember, Jesus made us all different. We are all a part of the body of Christ, and we are different members, but have the same head. We are not all feet, or eyes, etc.
All women aren't alike. No woman has to be submissive to anyone but her husband, and my husband happens to like my sense of humor.
If you knew where I came from, you would appreciate it, too.
I won't try to fit you into a mold of what I think a man should be. Certainly not as bitter as you are, IMO.
Don't let that root of bitterness take hold, and grow any more, in you, brother.
Again, I was not being insulting or rude. You might have some distorted view of what I was doing, and you're refusing to ease up, and see it in a light hearted view. Oh well. Sorry to hear that.
I will pray for you. I don't hold your rage against me, personally.
Feel free to chat with me, if the Lord leads you. God help you to have forgiveness, mercy, and whatever else you might need.

[chette777]

we know Israel rejected Jesus before the cross. but in response to Christ prayer "Father forgive them for they know not what they do". God offers them a second chance through the Apostles preaching of Jesus as the risen Messiah, but they had to repent and had to baptized to prove they believed. But their refusal as a nation was their continued rejection of Christ as their King, "We will not have this man rule over us"

the term the people, people, and my people occurs so many times in the scriptures and the majority of the cases it is speaking of Israel. the program hadn't changed yet as pointed out by George. the Apostles still went only and exclusively to the Jew and the proselytes. not until the time of Paul was the change revealed. the Eunuch was a Gentile not under grace but under the kingdom fulfilling the OT prophecy that God will call Gentiles to be his people.

Acts 10 you will see the change in Peter's but even by Acts 15 Peter and the Apostles to the circumcised and Paul to the Uncircumcised.