[George]

Originally Posted by chette777

George,

Can you explain the difference between the New Covenant found only 4 times in the Bible once in the OT and thrice in Hebrews only. And "New Testament" found only in the NT three times in the Gospel books and twice in Paul's writings and once in Hebrews.

What is the difference between a covenant and a testament? Newer translations change new testament to new covenant.

Great Study on Biblical dispensations

Aloha brother Chette,

Believe it or not - I never gave this issue much thought. I will look into it (when I find the time). In the meantime sister Jassy may be on to something:

A "Covenant" is an "agreement" between two parties {All of God's "Covenants" emanate ONLY from God - they are NOT agreements "hammered out" between two individuals}

A "Testament" is a "testimony" declaring the "WILL" of the "Testator".

Could it be: that the "New Testament" is God's declaration to the world - as to WHO the Lord Jesus Christ is; and WHAT He has DONE?

While the "New Covenant" would be God's NEW "covenant" with those individuals who have BELIEVED the RECORD in the "New Testament" and who have RECEIVED the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour?

Like I said, I haven't given the issue much thought, so I wouldn't take what I have said here as the "final word" from yours truly. Good question though.

[Winman]

Bro George asked

Aloha brother Winman,

IF brother Peter Ruckman is correct, (you seem to agree with him - at least in this case) and IF it is true that: "God taught Peter the Gospel in Acts 10:43"; then the QUESTION arises - WHAT was Peter "preaching" between Acts Chapter 1 and Acts Chapter 10, IF he did NOT "know" the "Gospel" UNTIL Acts 10:43?

Some of these threads are overlapping. First, I do not agree with Ruckman that God taught Peter the gospel in Acts 10:43. What I agree with Ruckman on is that there is only one gospel.

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

And I believe the same gospel we have today started in the four gospels.

Matt 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

No mention of the restoration of the kingdom, it says Jesus shall save his people from their sins.

And Jesus clearly taught that he came to save those who were lost.

Matt 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

Luke 19:10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

And we all know John 3:16

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Jesus always taught that he came to save those which were lost in sin. I do not know of one verse where Jesus says he will restore the kingdom at "this time".

And Paul shows in Acts that John the Baptist taught the same gospel.

Acts 19:4 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.

And Peter preached the forgiveness of sins through Christ.

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 think it is very clear that starting with Matthew the scriptures show Jesus came to save those who were lost, and that by believeing on him we could have forgiveness of sins and everlasting life. There are many verses besides these I could show.

[Winman]

And what did Peter preach in Acts 10?

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all: )
37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

1) The word was sent unto the children of Israel
2) This word began in Galilee after the baptism which John preached
3)They were commanded to teach Jesus was the Judge of the quick and dead
4) All the prophets gave witness through believeing on Jesus they would receive the remission of sins

Note that the these Gentiles received the Holy Ghost upon hearing the word of God and believeing. And that the Jews were astonished because they received the Holy Ghost "as well as we?"

I can't be dogmatic about this, but I believe this is a strong argument that the Jews in early Acts received the Holy Ghost by hearing and believeing the word of God, and were baptized afterward, just as these Gentiles.

But it is clear that the message was the forgiveness of sins upon believeing on Jesus, not the restoration of the kingdom.

[chette777]

Winamn,

You are misquoting Ruckman or at best you are twisting his words making him agree with you when he does in fact teach that John the Baptist, Peter taught a Gospel different than Paul BEFORE acts 10.

AFTER Acts 10 Peter is preaching the same a Paul and that is when there is only one Gospel for today is being taught.

I have some of his books. I have read sure word of Prophecy, his commentary of Acts, Hebrews, Genesis, Romans, General Epistles, Proverbs and Exodus. Also Black is Beautiful, Ruckman's Apocalypse.

so you can't fool me with your Misuse of the Ruckman statement.

When are we going to get that testimony BRO? WHO ARE YOU?

[George]

Aloha brother Winman,

I do not refer to brother Peter Ruckman as an “authority” for anything, but since you introduced his “testimony” as being in support of your position of there being ONLY ONE “Gospel” - I must set the record straight.

Winman’s Post #13 > Dispensationalism

Bro Parrish

”I also enjoyed those links. Now I understand some of the viewpoints of those I have been wrestling with here lately much better. I have been saying there is only one gospel, and Ruckman agrees.”

Ruckman’s Quote:

“I have been studying this on my own every night. And you know what? I came to the same conclusions as Ruckman.”

First off your “conclusions” are faulty.

Peter Ruckman has NEVER taught that there has been ONLY ONE “Gospel”. Ruckman clearly says in the quote that you cited that: “God taught Peter the Gospel in Acts 10:43”, which clearly indicates that BEFORE Acts 10:43 Peter did NOT know the “Gospel” (“the Gospel of the Grace of God” – i.e. “Paul’s Gospel”).

Ruckman NEVER said “there is only one gospel”, as you “claim” (READ HIS “WORDS”). You are “reading into” what he clearly said - what you “think” he “meant”. Ruckman was pointing out the “False Teachings” of some Hyper-Dispensationalists which say that Peter and Paul “preached different Gospels” - AFTER Acts 10:43. It wasn’t until Acts 10:43 that Peter “learned” of the “Gospel of the Grace of God”, so HOW could he have possibly been preaching “the Gospel of the Grace of God BEFORE Acts 10:43 – IF he didn’t know it?

I gave away almost all of Ruckman’s Commentaries and books (that I owned) four years ago. If I still had his Commentaries on Matthew and Acts, and his book “the Sure Word of Prophecy” (formerly known as “The Kingdom of God vs. The Kingdom of heaven) I could point out to you where brother Peter Ruckman clearly taught that there is MORE than just ONE “Gospel”.

However, fortunately I still have his book “Bible Study Charts & Outlines” and I shall quote from page 55 of that book:

“In this age the only “GOOD NEWS” (GOSPEL) is the “Gospel of the Grace of God” (Acts 20:24). Every FALSE TEACHING in this age comes from diluting this Gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-5) with works of some kind (see Romans 4:1-8). Paul says a man is “ACCURSED” (Galatians 1:8-9) if he teaches Acts 2:38 or the “Sermon on the Mount” as a “PLAN OF SALVATION” (see Romans 10:1-14).”

“EVERY “HERESY IN THIS AGE COMES FROM FAILURE TO PUT A VERSE INTO ITS PROPER TIME PLACEMENT!”

In speaking about the “Tribulation” Ruckman said:

“Since this is not the time of the church’s trouble, but “the time of Jacob’s trouble” (Jeremiah 30:7), The LAW COMES BACK INTO EFFECT (see Revelation 12:17 and 14:12) FOR ISRAEL (see Matthew 24:15, 20).”

“A man must “ENDURE UNTO THE END” (Matthew 24:13) and NOT TAKE “THE MARK” (Revelation 13:1-8, 12:10-12). ”

“In this period, “The Gospel of the Grace of God” is NOT PREACHED. An “EVERLASTING GOSPEL” IS PREACHED to Gentiles (Revelation 14:6) and THE GOSPEL OF “THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN” IS PREACHED to Israel (see Matthew 24:13-15, 3:2, 4:17, 5:10, 19, 6:10, 7:21, 8:11, 10:7, 11:11, 13:11, 24).” {Underlines are mine – G.A.}

Now, by my count – Peter Ruckman cited THREE (3 )“GOSPELS”:

#1. “The Gospel of the Grace of God”.

#2. An “EVERLASTING GOSPEL”.

#3. THE GOSPEL OF “THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN”.

You said: “I have been saying there is only one gospel, and Ruckman agrees.” Obviously “RUCKMAN DOES NOT “AGREE”! (You misread and misinterpreted what he actually said.)

You Said: “I came to the same conclusions as Ruckman.” Obviously you DID NOT! IF you had truly “reached the SAME CONCLUSIONS as Ruckman”, as you said, you would have had to “conclude” that there are MORE than ONE “Gospel”!

This is what comes of someone desperately searching for “something” – i.e. ANYTHING (or ANYONE) to support their “position” on a Biblical issue. If you had read Peter Ruckman’s words more carefully you would have seen that he did NOT SAY: “there is only one gospel”. If you had carefully researched some of Ruckman’s other books (articles, etc.) and done your “homework” on brother Ruckman’s position on this issue, you would NOT have enlisted him as being in “agreement” with you. Sadly, all I can say is that, this careless approach extends to many of your Posts regarding this issue.

Winman’s Post #32 > Dispensationalism

“First, I do not agree with Ruckman that God taught Peter the gospel in Acts 10:43. What I agree with Ruckman on is that there is only one gospel.”

In your Post #13 you said: “I came to the same conclusions as Ruckman.” After I pointed out WHAT Peter Ruckman actually said (and its implications) - you suddenly back away from your statement, and indicate that you did NOT reach ALL of “the same conclusions as Ruckman”. But that’s NOT what you said in your Post #13.

I have proven that Peter Ruckman NEVER said: “there is only one gospel”, as you claimed.

I have proven that Peter Ruckman does NOT “agree” with you – that “there is only one gospel”.

I have proven that Peter Ruckman believes there are at least Three (3) “Gospels”.

I have proven that you have NOT come “to the SAME CONCLUSIONS as Ruckman”.

I am growing weary of disproving what you say. You are determined not to believe what I have presented here in this Thread. I have NO power over you, and I seek NO power over you. You are “free” to believe whatever you want to believe, but I would think at some point you might get tired of repeating the same arguments - taking the Scriptures out of “context” to prove your point; making the Scriptures “MEAN” something other than what they “SAY”; and now doing the same with what brother Peter Ruckman has said also.

I am going to proceed with the rest of my comments on the first few Chapters of the Book of Acts, and, if I find the time (or have the inclination) I may deal with some of your other Posts on this Thread; but it is pretty clear to me that we are never going to come to an agreement on this issue.

The question you should be asking yourself at this point is - WHY is it that you misquoted brother Ruckman. WHY did you take his words out of context? WHY did you twist his words around to “mean” something other than what they said? And WHY have you ignored most of the questions that I have posed to you on this Thread?

There is a distinct DIFFERENCE between the ways that the two of us approach the study of God’s Holy word.

You seek to “HARMONIZE” the Scriptures and MAKE them “MEAN” whatever you have predetermined you think they “MEAN”.

I seek to “RIGHTLY DIVIDE” the Scriptures and try to SEE where they FIT. I want to know WHAT God’s words SAY – NOT WHAT THEY “MEAN”.

No where’s in the Holy Bible are we instructed to “HARMONIZE” the word of truth; on the contrary we are clearly told that we should be “rightly DIVIDING” the word of truth.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

[George]

Winman’s Post #33 > AV1611 Bible Forums > Doctrine > Dispensationalism

Originally Posted by Winman

And what did Peter preach in Acts 10?

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all: )
37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

1) The word was sent unto the children of Israel
2) This word began in Galilee after the baptism which John preached
3)They were commanded to teach Jesus was the Judge of the quick and dead
4) All the prophets gave witness through believeing on Jesus they would receive the remission of sins

Note that the these Gentiles received the Holy Ghost upon hearing the word of God and believeing. And that the Jews were astonished because they received the Holy Ghost "as well as we?"

I can't be dogmatic about this, but I believe this is a strong argument that the Jews in early Acts received the Holy Ghost by hearing and believeing the word of God, and were baptized afterward, just as these Gentiles.

But it is clear that the message was the forgiveness of sins upon believeing on Jesus, not the restoration of the kingdom.

Aloha brother Winman,

Your above Post is a big disappointment to me because it does NOT “PROVE” that the Jews in Acts 2-7 were saved under “the Gospel of the Grace of God”. (You are attempting to HARMONIZE the words of God here.) What the Scriptures that you cited do PROVE is that the CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER of RECEIVING the Holy Spirit was entirely “DIFFERENT” from how the Jews in Acts 2:37-38 RECEIVED the Holy Spirit and how the Gentiles RECEIVED the Holy Spirit in Acts 10:44.

Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
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.

The order in Acts 2:38 is:

#1. REPENT
{Of WHAT? Of having crucified their Lord and Christ}

#2. Be BAPTIZED
{In water - for WHAT? - “for the remission of sins”}

#3. Ye shall RECEIVE the GIFT of the HOLY GHOST
{WHEN will they RECEIVE the HOLY SPIRIT? – Only AFTER they “REPENT” and are “BAPTIZED” (in water) – NOT BEFORE!}

It’s as easy as 1 – 2 - 3; unless you want to “PROVE” otherwise!

And what about the SAMARITANS (part Jew – the descendants of the 10 Tribes of Israel) in Acts Chapter 8? {I’m getting ahead of myself on my Thread: “Rightly Dividing the Book of Acts”}

Acts 8:5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.
6 And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.
7 For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed.
8 And there was great joy in that city.
9 But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one:
10 To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God.
11 And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries.

12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptizedin the name of the Lord Jesus.)

17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

I shall expound on these verses later, (in the Thread: “Rightly Dividing the Book of Acts”) but right now please notice the CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER for the SAMARITANS (part Jew – the descendants of the 10 Tribes of Israel)

The order in Acts 8:12-17 is:

#1. They BELIEVED
{The “THINGS” concerning the KINGDOM OF GOD. They did NOT have to REPENT (of anything) – because they did NOT "consent" to the Lord Jesus Christ’s death!}

#2. They were BAPTIZED
{In water – For WHAT? Notice the OMISSION of: “for the remission of sins”. They were NOT GUILTY of REJECTING Israel's Messiah & King.}

#3. They RECEIVED the HOLY SPIRIT
{AFTER they were BAPTIZED – but ONLY AFTER the Apostles laid their hands on them.}

Notice the DIFFERENCE? We are commanded to rightly DIVIDE the word of truth – There is a DIFFERENCE!

And now on to Acts Chapter 10:

Acts 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

The order in Acts 10:44-48 is:

#1. They HEARD the “word”

#2. They BELIEVED

#3. They RECEIVED the HOLY SPIRIT

#4. They were BAPTIZED – in water

What was that that the Apostle Paul said?

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Romans 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

This is the “ORDER” of “the Gospel of the Grace of God” (i.e. Paul’s “Gospel”), which ASTONISHED Peter and the Jews that were with him (because up to this moment they DID NOT KNOW IT!) And the only thing that CONVINCED Peter (and the Jews that with him) that these Gentiles had ALREADY RECEIVED the GIFT of the HOLY SPIRIT (WITHOUT water Baptism and WITHOUT the laying on of hands) was the EVIDENCE of the Gentiles speaking in tongues.

Remember: “The Jews REQUIRE a SIGN” [1Corinthians 1:22], and “tongues are for a SIGN” [1Corinthians 14:22].

Up until this moment SIGNS, MIRACLES, and HEALING had been an INTEGRAL PART of the preaching of the Apostles and Disciples. That is - the Jews (and the Samaritans) actually SAW PHYSICAL SIGNS and MIRACLES along with the preaching of the word of God. But in Acts Chapter 10, the Gentiles – only HEARD (the “word”) and they BELIEVED (WITHOUT the SIGNS or MIRACLES).

This was something DIFFERENT from what Peter (and the Jews that were with him) was used to. All during the Lord Jesus Christ’s earthly ministry Peter had observed SIGNS and MIRACLES being performed by the Lord (and the Disciples, themselves, also performed some signs, miracles, and healings). After the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, and up to this point in time, SIGNS, MIRACLES, and HEALINGS had been an INTEGRAL PART of the preaching of the Apostles and Disciples – the reason being is: “THE JEWS REQUIRE A SIGN” (in order to BELIEVE) – and the Holy Spirit had OBLIGED them!

Then what was DIFFERENT now (at this place, and at this point in time)? The Gentiles did NOT “require a sign” (in order to believe) – they HEARD (God’s “words”) and BELIEVED (WITHOUT SIGNS) and so God blessed them for their “FAITH” and gave them the GIFT of the Holy Spirit WITHOUT water Baptism, and WITHOUT the laying on of hands.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

The purpose of the SIGN of the “gift of tongues” was NOT to CONVINCE the Gentiles to BELIEVE (they ALREADY BELIEVED). The purpose of the SIGN of “the gift of tongues” was to CONVINCE Peter (and the Jews that were with him) that these Gentiles were indeed saved (just like the Jews), but WITHOUT the necessity of water Baptism or the laying on of hands!

For you to say: ”I believe this is a strong argument that the Jews in early Acts received the Holy Ghost by hearing and believing the word of God, and were baptized afterward, just as these Gentiles.”is a flagrant abuse of the Scriptures – in the face of the clearly written testimony. You have openly CHANGED God’s Holy words in order to support your personal private beliefs!

The Biblical testimony clearly states:

Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
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.

In order for those Jews (at this point in time) to RECEIVE the “gift of the Holy Ghost”, they would have had to: REPENT (1st.); and then be BAPTIZED (in water – 2nd.). There is NO WAY that they would have RECEIVED the Holy Spirit just by BELIEVING Peter’s “words”! You CAN NOT MAKE Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:44 the SAME – WITHOUT CHANGING THE HOLY WORDS OF GOD - AS THEY ARE WRITTEN AND RECORDED IN THE KING JAMES BIBLE!

I am absolutely amazed at the lengths that “Christians” will go to, in order to justify and support their beliefs! It is obvious, to genuine Bible believers, that “speculation” and “supposition” should play no part in determining sound Bible doctrine; but the twisting of the Holy words of God, and the wresting of verses of Scripture out of their “context” – in order to “prove a point”, is a perverse practice that no sincere Bible believer should ever engage in.

2 Corinthians 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

2 Corinthians 4:1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

Psalms 33:4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.

[Winman]

Bro George

I am also amazed at your beliefs. I could very well also accuse you of going to lengths to prove your own personal interpretation. For instance, you say the signs and miracles were only for the Jews. There are exceptions to this that argue against you.

Acts 14:5 And when there was an assault made both of the Gentiles, and also of the Jews with their rulers, to use them despitefully, and to stone them,
6 They were ware of it, and fled unto Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and unto the region that lieth round about:
7 And there they preached the gospel.
8 And there sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother's womb, who never had walked:
9 The same heard Paul speak: who stedfastly beholding him, and perceiving that he had faith to be healed,
10 Said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and walked.
11 And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.
12 And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker.
13 Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people.
14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,
15 And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:
16 Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways.
17 Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.
18 And with these sayings scarce restrained they the people, that they had not done sacrifice unto them.

And in Acts 28

Acts 28:1 And when they were escaped, then they knew that the island was called Melita.
2 And the barbarous people shewed us no little kindness: for they kindled a fire, and received us every one, because of the present rain, and because of the cold.
3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand.
4 And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.
5 And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm.
6 Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.

Now, in both these instances we have Gentiles who were convinced by miracles that Paul was a god (in their belief). Now, we do not know for absolute certain that these people got saved, but I think the chances are very good. I would imagine they would have listened to every word Paul told them after seeing these miracles.

And you completely misrepresented what I said here;

For you to say: ”I believe this is a strong argument that the Jews in early Acts received the Holy Ghost by hearing and believing the word of God, and were baptized afterward, just as these Gentiles.”is a flagrant abuse of the Scriptures – in the face of the clearly written testimony. You have openly CHANGED God’s Holy words in order to support your personal private beliefs!

You left out the most important part of this statement I made. Here is what I said.

I can't be dogmatic about this, but I believe this is a strong argument that the Jews in early Acts received the Holy Ghost by hearing and believeing the word of God, and were baptized afterward, just as these Gentiles.

So, Bro George, you completely misrepresented what I said. I said I believed these verses to be a strong argument that the Jews in early Acts received the Holy Ghost by hearing the word of God and were baptized later, but I made it perfectly clear that I was not absolutely certain.

Bro George, I am not going to keep debating this subject. I have presented my case with scriptures for all to see and decide for themselves. It is obvious we are not going to agree, so there is not much sense in going further.

[Winman]

Bro George, you also said;

In order for those Jews (at this point in time) to RECEIVE the “gift of the Holy Ghost”, they would have had to: REPENT (1st.); and then be BAPTIZED (in water – 2nd.). There is NO WAY that they would have RECEIVED the Holy Spirit just by BELIEVING Peter’s “words”! You CAN NOT MAKE Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:44 the SAME – WITHOUT CHANGING THE HOLY WORDS OF GOD - AS THEY ARE WRITTEN AND RECORDED IN THE KING JAMES BIBLE!

You think I have some erroneous view that the Jews could receive the Holy Ghost without being baptized. But I have scripture to back this belief.

John 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

You see, not one mention of having to be baptized here, these scriptures clearly say the Holy Ghost should be received by those who BELIEVE. And the Lord was speaking to Jews here. And the only reason mentioned that they had not already received the Holy Ghost simply by believeing is that Jesus was not yet glorified.

I do not appreciate you and others accusing me of twisting or changing God's Word, or of failing to rightly divide. I have provided very straightforward and clear scriptures to support everything I believe.

[George]

Aloha brother Winman,

You said:

"I am also amazed at your beliefs. I could very well also accuse you of going to lengths to prove your own personal interpretation. For instance, you say the signs and miracles were only for the Jews. There are exceptions to this that argue against you."

You could accuse me of ANYTHING (accusations are EASY); but can you PROVE your accusations - as I just have in my Posts #25, #35, and #36; most of which you have completely IGNORED. (see Post #35 on your "claims" and Ruckman's actual teachings. What NO Comment?)

Could you point out where I said: "signs and miracles were only for the Jews"? I said "the Jews REQUIRE A SIGN"; because that's what it says in 1Corinthians 1:22. In my Thread on "Rightly Dividing the Book of Acts" > Post #65 I said:

Paul truly had “the SIGNS of an Apostle” [2Corinthians 12:12] for several reasons:

1. To convince the other Apostles and the Lord’s Disciples that he (Paul) was a genuine Apostle.

2. To prove his “Apostleship” to unbelievers {Apostles were supposed to have “signs”.}.

3. To prove he was a genuine Hebrew Apostle to the Jews who were “scattered abroad” in the various cities where Paul preached (always “to the Jew FIRST, and also to the Greek” i.e. Gentile) [Romans 1:16; 2:10]. You see, the Jews “require a sign” [1Corinthians 1:22] and God was obligated to give them signs. So as Paul went from town to town and city to city, he always went to the Jews’ synagogues FIRST. God’s “commission” to Paul was that he was to go “to the Jew FIRST”, and so God gave Paul the “signs of an apostle” to PROVE to those Jews (that were scattered abroad) that he was, indeed, truly an Apostle from God.

Does my "reason" Number 2: {"To prove his “Apostleship” to unbelievers {Apostles were supposed to have “signs”.} LIMIT Paul's "SIGNS" to just the Jewish UNBELIEVERS? Did I say that or even "intimate" it? This is what bothers me with how you "handle" words; both God's "WORDS" and my words. I NEVER said that the "signs and miracles were only for the Jews". And yet you say that I did. You should be able to cite "Thread" & Post Number - IF I said it. WHERE IS IT?

"The Jews require a sign" - the Gentiles DON'T "require" a sign. It's that simple. The Apostles (and some of the Disciples) had "Signs" and extraordinary "Gifts". Were these Signs, Miracles, and Healings ONLY for the Jews, anyone familiar with the Scriptures knows the answer is NO they were NOT! BUT the Jews legitimately REQUIRED "SIGNS" (to Believe), whereas the Gentiles DID NOT!

Winman said:

"And you completely misrepresented what I said here;

For you to say:
George's quote:

Winman said:
"You left out the most important part of this statement I made. Here is what I said.
I can't be dogmatic about this, but I believe this is a strong argument that the Jews in early Acts received the Holy Ghost by hearing and believeing the word of God, and were baptized afterward, just as these Gentiles.

So, Bro George, you completely misrepresented what I said. I said I believed these verses to be a strong argument that the Jews in early Acts received the Holy Ghost by hearing the word of God and were baptized later, but I made it perfectly clear that I was not absolutely certain."

If your "not absolutely certain" about "a strong argument" in favor of your "private interpretation" - then WHY did you bring it up in the first place? I didn't "misrepresent" anything. I included your complete Post #33, which included the complete quote, in my Post #36. The most important part of your statement was NOT where you said: "I can't be dogmatic about this"; it was WHAT you said thereafter: "I believe this is a strong argument that the Jews in early Acts received the Holy Ghost by hearing and believeing the word of God, and were baptized afterward, just as these Gentiles." The most important part of your statement was NOT the fact that you couldn't be "dogmatic" about it - it was the fact that in SPECULATING about a private interpretation of Scripture, you IGNORED the very "words" of God, and MADE THEM SAY SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT THEY ACTUALLY SAID!

Whether you were being "DOGMATIC" or not, was NOT nearly as important as the fact that you twisted and wrested the Holy words of God to "FIT" your preconceived beliefs. IF you were not sure of what you believe WHY propose it as: "a strong argument" in favor of your private interpretation? WHY not leave all "SPECULATION" out of your defense of your personal beliefs, instead of stating that you believe you have "a strong argument" in favor of them; and when someone points out your fallacious thinking and your misuse of the Holy words of God - you suddenly "Crawfish" out of it by emphasizing the fact that you weren't being "dogmatic" about it in the first place?

You did say: "I believe this is a strong argument that the Jews in early Acts received the Holy Ghost by hearing and believeing the word of God, and were baptized afterward, just as these Gentiles." Didn't you? I clearly demonstrated in my Post #36 that what you said is absolutely FALSE - that is if you believe the Scriptures AS THEY ARE WRITTEN, and NOT AS YOU "PRIVATELY INTERPRET" THEM!

Winman said:

"Bro George, I am not going to keep debating this subject. I have presented my case with scriptures for all to see and decide for themselves. It is obvious we are not going to agree, so there is not much sense in going further."

I'm happy for that. Maybe I can now proceed without you naysaying, nitpicking, and straining at gnats every time I make a Post on this issue.

[Winman]

Could you point out where I said: "signs and miracles were only for the Jews"? I said "the Jews REQUIRE A SIGN"; because that's what it says in 1Corinthians 1:22. In my Thread on "Rightly Dividing the Book of Acts" > Post #65 I said:

You may not have absolutely said that signs and miracles were only for the Jews, but I would say you implied it. You said;

Remember: “The Jews REQUIRE a SIGN” [1Corinthians 1:22], and “tongues are for a SIGN” [1Corinthians 14:22].

Up until this moment SIGNS, MIRACLES, and HEALING had been an INTEGRAL PART of the preaching of the Apostles and Disciples. That is - the Jews (and the Samaritans) actually SAW PHYSICAL SIGNS and MIRACLES along with the preaching of the word of God. But in Acts Chapter 10, the Gentiles – only HEARD (the “word”) and they BELIEVED (WITHOUT the SIGNS or MIRACLES).

That's pretty strong if you ask me.

And the reason I said I could not be dogmatic about the Jews receiving the Holy Ghost by hearing and believeing only is Acts 2:38

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.

I will admit that this verse can easily be understood to be Peter teaching the Jews to repent, and be baptized for the the remission of sins, and then receiving the Holy Ghost. It can be read that way.

But there are many other verses that in my opinion clarify what Peter was really teaching.

John 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Now, when you read John 7:37-38, Acts 2:38 takes on a new meaning. Here in John, Jesus himself clearly says that he that believeth shall receive the Holy Ghost. And the only reason mentioned that believers had not yet received the Holy Ghost is that Jesus was not yet glorified.

Not one single mention of being baptized here. Not one single mention of repenting of killing Jesus (yes, I realize he was not crucified yet).

You and others are always accusing me of not rightly dividing the word of truth, but in my opinion, it is you that is in error. There are quite a few verses besides John 7:37-38 to support the belief that the Jews received the Holy Ghost by hearing and believeing without baptism. And the verses in Acts 10 are an example.

Acts 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

You see, I do not have any conflicts. Everything I believe fits without having to weave and bob.

And how about those in Acts 2?

Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

I see no mention of preaching the repentance of killing Jesus and the requirement to be baptized to receive the Holy Ghost here. These were all believers, and it is most likely that all had been baptized. But not necessarily, we do not know for sure. But we do see them all filled with the Holy Ghost, with no mention of this preaching the repentance of killing Jesus, or the requirement to be baptized.

I don't know what else to say. I think it is so very clear, I do not see how you can disregard so many scriptures that argue in my favor, and against yours.