Forum

Replies

• 

  Jeff Stanley January 23, 2011 at 12:46pm

  Yeah, the abuse stuff got bad in the U.S. too, of course. At HQ and on the field. As a matter of fact it continued here after even after our "early" split.

   

  My email is jeff@biblicalresearchjournal.org

   

  Here, there, or in the air.

   

  God bless,

  Jeff
• 

  Jeff Stanley January 23, 2011 at 12:45pm

  Sorry, I'm still editing out a few errors. I'll post what I had above here...

   

  Okay, this thing is going to get indented too much, methinks. As we keep going back and forth, are these posts going to get narrowed down to one word wide? eek!

   

  "Destroy" my "theory" so you say, Karl. Ho, ho, ho! In your dreams, bubba!... :D

   

  In your last post, where you reworded (fairly accurately) and reorganized (fairly well) what I had written, you say under point 1:

   

  Is it true that Acts does not endorse people’s actions or behaviour, but it does lay out an inspired record of events and the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 is extremely important, if we are to understand the difference between the believing Jews and gentiles of the first century. With that said, careful reading is paramount, and I ask what does this have to do with James? We are talking about Peter. It was Peter who stood up in Acts 15:7 and clearly stated that the gentiles first heard the word by his mouth… this point alone should end this whole discussion.

   

  I agree wholeheartedly that we ought to read carefully, but in this instance it is you who isn't reading the text carefully enough.

   

  Peter didn't say anything about being "first" at all, in verse 7, in any other verse in that chapter, or in any other verse in the entire Bible. You are reading that into the text. James is the only one who said "first," in verse 14.

   

  What you wrote about point 2 included:

   

  There is no indication in that the scattered brethren spoke to any gentiles between Acts 8 and Acts 11.

   

  Of course there is. Haven't you ever seen a flashback in a book or movie? That's exactly what the summary of events in 11:16-21 represent. And it is God's Word that gives the time marker for when those events began. They began with "the persecution that arose about Stephen."

   

  You wrote about point 3:

   

  ...there [is no] evidence that the ecclesiastical authorities would have frowned on believers who had witnessed to gentiles...

   

  You're kidding, right? They called Peter on the carpet, and he was an apostle. Yet you don't think they would have frowned on some hicks from Cyprus and Cyrene flapping their gums to the dogs?

   

  What the record in Acts 11 quite clearly indicates is the grace and mercy of God toward the elders in Jerusalem. Because what God made available on Pentecost through the resurrected, ascended, and seated Christ, He made available to ALL. Which meant that a tidal wave of Gentiles was a'comin', whether James and "they of the circumcision" in Jerusalem liked it or not.

   

  Yes the elders in Jerusalem received the truth, but only after they grilled the Apostle Peter, who had seen fit to take along witnesses for good reason.

   

  Regarding what you wrote about point 4:

   

  Again let me quote Acts 11:18
  "When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." [bold added]

   

  I can’t say it any better than this; to say otherwise is to ignore the plain speech of the text. There were no gentiles saved before this event.

   

  Yes, the verb is "hath ... granted" in verse 18 in the Greek is in the aorist tense, which lines up with the English simple past tense. And which means the "hath" in this verse could be scratched.

   

  But those tenses, in both language, merely indicate a one-time completed action in the past. From the verb, God could have granted repentance to the Gentiles at Cornelius's house or at Pentecost or any other time previously.

   

  In the context, from the point of view of the people speaking, sure. They may have believed the people at Cornelius's house were the first, and so far, only Gentiles to believe. Until the news from Antioch came in, that is. About events they had no clue were occurring.

   

  In what follows, if you don't mind, I want to deal with point 6 then close with point 5. Regarding point 6 you wrote in part:

   

  6. Paul knew that he was to go to the gentiles before Peter actually went to the gentiles, so it was always in Gods mind for gentiles to be saved regardless.
  
  Of course this is true, but it does not mean that Paul witnessed to any gentiles before Acts 10. There is absolutely nothing in the scriptures that even remotely indicates that he did.

   

  Tarus isn't "far hence" from Jerusalem?

   

  Paul started witnessing in Damascus immediately after he was born again and healed of blindness. So after Jesus Christ's statement to this same Paul, recorded in Acts 22:21, "...for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles," I would contend that, logically, the burden of proof falls upon those who say that he didn't witness to them.

   

  Regarding point 5, you wrote:

   

  It’s a good thing that the ecclesiastical authorities in Jerusalem did not know what believers of the diaspora were doing because they were doing Gods will, i.e. getting gentiles saved, (indicating by implication that the saints in Jerusalem were not doing Gods will).
  
  Again echoing point no. 3. Now, this is just my opinion, but I’ll put it out there anyway, I could be wrong, but seeing as I was in Gartmore, I didn’t hear too much teaching from Craig. However just before the split I heard him teach on how James had gone bad and tricked Paul and had all the Jerusalem leaders under his evil control. It seems from your indiscriminate mention of James and your undertones of corrupt leadership that you have been influenced by such teaching. (ignore me if I am wrong). Honestly Jeff, I believe that this is erroneous teaching and IMHO I would steer clear if I were you.

   

  Heh. I wouldn't brag too much about being at Gartmore if I were you. (Some, just not too much, lol.) From what I saw and heard, out of his own mouth and in his own writings, Chris Geer got enmeshed in all kinds of error -- his junk (my characterization) on foreknowledge merely being the most blatant.

   

  But I'm digressing ... sorry about that. For all I know you agree with him on what he taught. So lest we get off on a tangent...

   

  As far as my personal history goes, I was kicked out of the Way Corps in -- I think it was 1991. Could have been '90 or '92. That time frame anyway. I do know it was about a year after Craig had purged the full- and part-time on-the-field staff, including 90 percent of the Limb Coordinators. After which, I continued running my Branch.

   

  I got the boot after I failed to pledge loyalty to him, which was the requirement that he stipulated in an all-mailing to the Corps on the field in the U.S., if we wanted to retain our "active status" as it was called. I replied by citing I Corinthians 1:10-13, to document that his demand was off the Word.

   

  The next communication I received from Craig, was a letter "dismissing" me from the Corps. Since that time I have not heard his voice, recorded or live, nor have read anything that he has written.

   

  Wait a sec, I take that back. I think, years later, I did read a copy of a letter he wrote that someone around here had. Written to kick off his campaign to get rid of the "queers" in "the ministry." But other than that, nothing.

   

  But this point 5 does get the the basic issue where you and I disagree on the Word of God.

   

  To narrow it down precisely, allow me to reiterate something that you said under point 1:

   

  Is it true that Acts does not endorse people’s actions or behaviour, but it does lay out an inspired record of events and the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 is extremely important, if we are to understand the difference between the believing Jews and gentiles of the first century.

   

  As I indicated in my post, yes Acts is a God-breathed record of the events. But does that mean that the "council" of Acts 15 was right? From what I have worked, not necessarily. When it comes to Acts, on its own, "No endorsement is intended or implied."

   

  It is easy not only easy, it is EASIER THAN PIE to establish from the Word of God that the letter endorsed by that council, as recorded in 15:23-29 was off the Word. So easy, as a matter of fact, that there's only two choices left once you see it. Either go with the truth or stick to tradition.

   

  Now, I am conscious enough to realize that basically all Christendom agrees with you and disagrees with me about the Jerusalem Council. Even as basically all Christendom agrees with me and disagrees with you about the significance of the Day of Pentecost to the Church. But to me, when it comes to working the Word of God, that is irrelevant and immaterial.

   

  All that counts is what God's Word says.
• 

  Karl Edwards January 23, 2011 at 12:17pm

  Hi Jeff

   

  I have added to this post because as you quite rightly said the indentation is ridiculous and there is actually no reply option that I can see on your last post. I assume there is a limit on how far the indentation can go.

   

  Had a quick read... there is much to reply to and I'm happy to do it off the forum as I'm pretty sure hardly anyone here is interested in the discussion anyway, let me know what you think.

   

  Just wanted to put on record though that I am no Chris Geer fan and I am not in any way bragging about being at Gartmore. Geer was an abuser, like many of his peers who used their so called leadership position to lord it over honest, decent obedient believers. I have left my Gartmore days behind me, gladly. I was simply making the point that because he cut off communication with headquarters around the time that Craig was beginning his "bad James" conspiracy theory, we didn't hear so much about it after that. I was making the assumption that the corps in the US would have been steeped in it as I've seen it mentioned before on these forums, that's all.

   

  If you want to continue off forum, I'll mail you directly unless you have another suggestion.

   

  Cheers

   

  Karl
• 

  Karl Edwards January 20, 2011 at 1:56am

  Jeff, thank you so much…
  
  This is exactly the kind of discussion I had hoped to instigate when I posted on this blog; yes we can surely disagree without being disagreeable, nicely said. I think it’s a bit sad that people get bent out of shape because someone challenges their belief.
  Let’s face it; Christians will hold many diverse beliefs right up until the time comes that we shall know even as also we are known. For me the most important thing is that we have received eternal life through no work of our own. I commend your attitude and your honesty, in some way it makes me feel guilty that I am about to destroy your theory. lol (I do hope that is taken in a cordial manner in which it is intended:-)
  
  I read and considered what you say and I believe I can summarise as follows, I may have missed something but I think it covers the main thrust of your argument, let me know if I misunderstood :-)
  
  1. Acts does not necessarily endorse what was said or done as being right or true and in Acts 15 James was wrong because believers in Acts 11 had already been witnessing to gentiles.
  
  2. Because Acts 8 mentions that some of those who were scattered were men of Cyprus and Cyrene and because Cyprus is mentioned in Acts 11, it is possible that these scattered brethren had been witnessing to gentiles before it explicitly says so in Acts 11:19 and 20.
  
  3. There was no seal of approval given to the believers from the ecclesiastical authorities in Jerusalem, who were clueless regarding the activities of the scattered believers, (by which I assume you mean that they had never needed a seal of approval at any time and had therefore been witnessing to gentiles long before Acts 11:19, 20).
  
  4. Since the day of Pentecost salvation had been available to all.
  
  5. It’s a good thing that the ecclesiastical authorities in Jerusalem did not know what believers of the diaspora were doing because they were doing Gods will, (indicating by implication that the saints in Jerusalem were not).
  
  6. Paul knew that he was to go to the gentiles before Peter actually went to the gentiles, so it was always in Gods mind for gentiles to be saved regardless.

   

  So, as I said earlier… I disagree :-)
  
  I’ll go through these in a point by point manner giving you my reasons why I think you are wrong and my view. I only ask that you consider what I say and understand it before you reply or we end up going around in circles.
  
  1. Acts does not necessarily endorse what was said or done as being right or true and in Acts 15 James was wrong because believers in Acts 11 had already been witnessing to gentiles.
  
  Is it true that Acts does not endorse people’s actions or behaviour, but it does lay out an inspired record of events and the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 is extremely important, if we are to understand the difference between the believing Jews and gentiles of the first century. With that said, careful reading is paramount, and I ask what does this have to do with James? We are talking about Peter. It was Peter who stood up in Acts 15:7 and clearly stated that the gentiles first heard the word by his mouth… this point alone should end this whole discussion.

  There is not much else to be said unless Peter was lying or had forgotten or wanted to misrepresent the truth, which would bring us down another road altogether. The gentiles first heard the word by Peter’s mouth, this clearly refers to Acts 10 or else the believers in Jerusalem would not have been amazed and it is worth noting that at this point,

  
  “they glorified God saying, then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.” (Acts 11:18) 

  
  They were not in any way against it; yes they were surprised and they did not understand it because it was not time for the gentiles to be brought in, all Israel had not believed yet. The very fact that the event in Acts 10 is recorded in such detail should indicate the sheer importance of it. This was enormous, and the teaching that gentiles were saved on the day of Pentecost minimises the significance of the event.

  There were no gentiles there on the day of Pentecost. Peter spoke only to Israel; this is clear from the following verses.

  
  Acts 2:14 …men of Judea…
  Acts 2:22 …men of Israel…
  Acts 3:12 …men of Israel…
  Acts 3:13 …the God of our fathers…
  Acts 3:17…brethren…
  Acts 3:22 …the fathers…
  Acts 3:25 …You are sons of the prophets, and of the covenant…
  
  Peter had no intention of addressing gentiles because what was happening concerned the “promises made to the fathers", i.e. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. While gentiles would be blessed in the millennium kingdom, it was only ever to be through Israel as per the promise made to Abraham.
  
  Gen 12:3
  And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
  
  Which promise Peter re-iterates on the day of Pentecost
  
  Acts 3:25
  Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

   
  Israel had to be saved first to become capable of being the channel of blessing, and a clear headed reading of the Acts shows that the Jew was first "had the advantage" all through the book.
  
  2. Because Acts 8 mentions that some of those who were scattered were men of Cyprus and Cyrene and because Cyprus is mentioned in Acts 11 it is possible that these scattered brethren had been witnessing to gentiles before it explicitly says so in Acts 11:19 and 20.
  
  If I have interpreted your analysis correctly, I ask in all honesty, do you really think this is a good point? There is no indication in that the scattered brethren spoke to any gentiles between Acts 8 and Acts 11. The fact that Cyprus is mentioned in both chapters simply makes this, an assumption, which of course means nothing.
  
  3. There was no seal of approval given to the believers from the ecclesiastical authorities in Jerusalem, who were clueless regarding the activities of the scattered believers, (by which I believe you mean that they had never needed a seal of approval at any time and had therefore been witnessing to gentiles long before Acts 11:19, 20)
   
  This is similar to the above point, there is no evidence that the scattered Jews spoke to gentiles, nor is there any evidence that the ecclesiastical authorities would have frowned on believers who had witnessed to gentiles. As Acts 11:18 clearly shows that when they heard, they glorified God.
   
  4. Since the day of Pentecost salvation had been available to all.
  
  Again let me quote Acts 11:18
  When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
   
  I can’t say it any better than this; to say otherwise is to ignore the plain speech of the text. There were no gentiles saved before this event.
  
  5. It’s a good thing that the ecclesiastical authorities in Jerusalem did not know what believers of the diaspora were doing because they were doing Gods will, i.e. getting gentiles saved, (indicating by implication that the saints in Jerusalem were not doing Gods will).
  
  Again echoing point no. 3. Now, this is just my opinion, but I’ll put it out there anyway, I could be wrong, but seeing as I was in Gartmore, I didn’t hear too much teaching from Craig. However just before the split I heard him teach on how James had gone bad and tricked Paul and had all the Jerusalem leaders under his evil control. It seems from your indiscriminate mention of James and your undertones of corrupt leadership that you have been influenced by such teaching. (ignore me if I am wrong). Honestly Jeff, I believe that this is erroneous teaching and IMHO I would steer clear if I were you.
  
  6. Paul knew that he was to go to the gentiles before Peter actually went to the gentiles, so it was always in Gods mind for gentiles to be saved regardless.
  
  Of course this is true, but it does not mean that Paul witnessed to any gentiles before Acts 10. There is absolutely nothing in the scriptures that even remotely indicates that he did.
  
  In summary I firmly believe that you have not made a case for gentiles being saved before Acts chapter10, on the basis of:
  
  1. Peter explicitly declares that he was the one who opened the door to the gentiles, and
  2. There is no mention of non-Jews getting saved before this time and any effort to make the scriptures say so must result in scriptural gymnastics.
  
  Of course, the main point I have in opposition to Lonnells blog is that Pentecost is not the start of something new, but the confirmation of something old. Even further, it was the beginning of the end of the age. When the Lord said repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand it was a declaration of the end of the age.
   
  Paul writes to the recipients of Hebrews that Christ came and offered himself as a sacrifice at the “end of the world [age]”.
  
  Heb 9:26  For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world [age] hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
  
  Paul tells the Corinthian believers that the ends of the ages had come upon them.
  
  1Co 10:11  Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world [age] are come.
  
  The expectancy of the fulfilment of OT prophecies which concerned the hope of Israel and the promises made to the fathers is the theme of the book of Acts.
  
  In Acts chapter 2:30 Peter tells his Jewish audience that Christ was raised to sit on the throne of His father David. This is nothing less than the restoration of the earthly kingdom, this was the hope of the Acts period, from 1:6 to 28:20.
  
  The same hope Paul taught in Acts 13:23
  Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus..
  
  and Acts 13:32, 33
  And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers. God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. (Psalm 2 is Christ on the holy hill of Zion).
  
  and Act 26:6 
  And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers:
  
  and Acts 28:20  For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.
  
  With their hope in mind and the expectancy of the restoration of the kingdom they knew the end of the age was imminent.
  
  Heb 10:37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.

  
  1Jn 2:18  ...it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
  
  Jas 5:8  Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.
  
  1Pe 4:7  But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.
  
  Of course, it did not happen because there was a condition for them...

  Act 3:19-21  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; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things.

   

  Nothing less than national repentance would do, which they did not and so, they and their hope was set aside for a future time when they will repent. After which the mystery was revealed and Israel are become as one of the nations.
   
  Finally for your own benefit read Romans 15:4–13, not just verse 4, which we used to prove “the old testament is just for our learning”, instead, read it and see the hope that Paul is talking about, it is the hope of Israel, look up the references, he quotes, Ps. 18, the “song of Moses” in Duet. 32, Ps.117 and the great millennium passage of Isaiah 11.

  
  Romans was written towards the end of the book of Acts and it shows that Israel’s hope of a restored millennium kingdom was foremost on Pauls mind, it was also the only hope which he knew at this time, as Ephesians had not yet been revealed to him.
  
  It defies the plain teaching of scripture to suppose that the hope of Ephesians and Colossians which was hid in God, away from ages and generations can be found in the “promises made to the fathers”, an earthly hope of which the church "which is his body" has no part.
  
  
  God bless you richly

  
  Karl
  
  
  
• 

  Jeff Stanley January 19, 2011 at 1:13pm

  Having reread your posts a little more thoroughly (sorry about that ... :D )...

   

  You may be right about what Bullinger's and Welch's beliefs were. I'd have to look it all up, but to me that's a side issue.

   

  The main issue, for me, except for the "advantage" thing you brought up from Romans 3 -- which to be honest, bro, I have no idea what you're talking about -- I deal with above, documenting my contention that:

   

  It is easy to establish from the Word that Gentiles were becoming part of the Church, not only long before Bullinger and Welch say the Church began, but well before God dragged Peter to Cornelious's house.
• 

  Jeff Stanley January 19, 2011 at 12:43pm

  Bless you brother. Heh…

   

  Of course, I disagree with most of what you have said.

   

  I knew that. But I figure, "with all that in us is" -- Christ in us -- surely we can disagree without being disagreeable. Not to mention what we have in common as Way Corps.

   

  When it comes to using Acts 15:14 (I'll focus there since that's where Acts says "Simeon ... at first did visit the Gentiles") as proof that Peter was the first person to win Gentiles to Christ, what IMHCO we have to realize, is that this verse is a record of what was said at the so-called "Council of Jerusalem" by James. Nothing more and nothing less.

   

  In fact I'd go so far as to say that Acts, in general, is not doctrine. Rather, it is a God-breathed historical record of what was done and said. Nothing more and nothing less. Which means that Acts does not necessarily endorse what was said or done as being right or true.

   

  In this instance, James had his facts wrong. As indicated by Acts 11:19-20:

   

  Now they which were scattered abroad [sown abroad] upon the persecution that arose about Stephen traveled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch [of Syria], preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.

  And ["But" is the text] some of them [sown abroad] were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch [of Syria], spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus.

   

  Although these verses occur in Acts after the events that Peter experienced at Cornelius's house were related to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, the events they record began well before. They began all the way back at the stoning of Stephan and the persecution that followed, recorded in Acts 7 and 8.

   

  Some of those sown abroad from Jerusalem were originally from Cyprus and Cyrene. Perhaps they were Judeans who had traveled to Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost, had believed, and then continued there until the persecution of Acts 8 began.
  
  Whatever the case, when they arrived in Antioch of Syria, after being "sown abroad" from Jerusalem, they began to speak God's Word to the Grecians. Who were Gentiles, of course. And note the results in verse 21:

   

  And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord.

   

  How could the hand of the Lord have been with them? Because as far as God and the Lord Jesus Christ were concerned (from my dividing of God's Word, of course), from the day of Pentecost on salvation had been available to all.

   

  Also note in verse 21 that they spoke to the Grecians without any kind of "a-okay" or "seal of approval" from Jerusalem's ecclesiastical authorities at all:

   

  Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.

   

  Until this point, the church at Jerusalem had remained clueless about what these believers had been up to since they were "sown abroad." But God's timing turned out to be perfect, as always.

   

  And that's a good thing too, remembering how the elders in Jerusalem had taken it upon themselves "to call" Peter himself "on the carpet" for going to the Gentiles. If, lacking Peter's witness, they had disallowed these wonderful believers from speaking to the Grecians, they would have found themselves fighting against the Lord.

   

  Someone in the category of a "holy man of God" had to be willing to receive the new light concerning what came on the Day of Pentecost, otherwise there would have been no way for God to reveal it to anybody. Which is why I believe that the only thing God and the Lord Jesus Christ were waiting for -- from the day of Pentecost onward -- was for someone, anyone, who would be able and willing to rise up to receive, believe, and teach the new light.

   

  Peter played his role, of course. But the Lord was also preparing Paul for his ministry -- as an apostle to the Gentiles -- dating all the way back to his first trip to Jerusalem. Immediately after he had been born again on the road to Damascus, witnessed for Christ there, and escaped the city by being let down in a basket over the city wall.

   

  The primary record of those events is in Acts 9:1-31. But to put the record of events together, you also have to look at Acts 22. I'll cite verses 17-21:

   

  And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance;

  And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me.

  And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee:

  And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him.

  And he [the Lord] said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.

   

  Paul knew from the beginning of his ministry -- long before Peter went to Cornelius's house -- exactly "to whom" the Lord would be sending him.

   

  It is wonderful that, according to Acts 11:22-26, the first place where Paul would minister God's Word would be in Antioch of Syria. The city that happened to be the first place where Gentiles were won to the Lord:

   

  Then tidings of these things [the Grecians in Antioch being won to Christ] came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.

  Who, when he came [to Antioch], and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord.

  For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord.

  Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul:

  And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

   

  God sure is cool.

   

  To summarize: What I believe, from my working of God's Word, is basically what VPW taught, in places like chapter ten of God's Magnified Word. That everything that God intended to make available to mankind in the resurrected, ascended and seated Christ, came in all of its completeness on the day of Pentecost.

   

  And that what the historical records in Acts and the Church Epistles reveal is not God making something more or different available to people. But rather, they reveal the unfolding of the new light to the church -- the called-out of both Judean and Gentile.

   
• 

  Karl Edwards January 18, 2011 at 2:23pm

  and again :-)

   

  I said Acts 15:14 from memory, but I should have said Acts 15:7-14 which is a clear reference to Acts 10 and Cornelious...
• 

  Karl Edwards January 18, 2011 at 12:18pm

  Sorry Jeff one other thing..

   

  I tried to edit this but it didn't work...

   

  It's probably a bit rude of me to say "you misunderstand", sorry... what I wanted to say is that from your statement it seems to me that we have different understandings as to the Acts 28:28 position that Welch was presenting to bullinger, so we probably need to establish how we perceive that particular view.
• 

  Karl Edwards January 18, 2011 at 11:50am

  Hi Jeff

   

  I do enjoy such interactions, especially when they focus on the points of the discussion, but I do find that it becomes very time consuming to communicate effectively in a forum like this. Often posts are not read thoroughly, misintreperations abound and more time is spent fixing these than is profitable, so I am reluctant to write a great deal only to have most of the major points ignored. Hence, I'll keep it brief.

   

  Of course, I disagree with most of what you have said. As an aside, it is worth noting that Bullinger never really agreed with Welch, he was too old and had held a "church began at Pentecost view" for too long, which he later changed to mid Acts (Acts 13) independently of Welch. Welch of course further developed his view of Acts 28:28 after bullinger passed away, for the following 50 years or so, seeing more and more of how specific Pentecost was to Israel and how it fits into the overall framework of Gods plan outlined by the feasts of Israel.

   

  With that said I just want to quickly focus on this statment...

   

  Quote:

  As a matter of fact, from the timeline in the Companion Bible's appendix, the books of Corinthians were already being written at the point at which Bullinger says the Church began. A time when, clearly, Gentiles had been becoming part of the Church for a long while.

   

  I'm not entirely sure, but I think by this statement you misunderstand the Acts 28:28 position that Welch was putting forward to Bullinger, who at this time in his life was a mid Acts dispensationalist, or my view, which is strictly Acts 28:25-28, which puts the gentile believers in Corinth blessed "with faithful Abraham", which was never a secret hidden in God, as was the church which is His body, not un-hidden at this point. They were one in relation to sin and salvation, but not in relation to "advantage", (Romans 3:1,2).

   

  However, you have peaked my interest with this statment ...

   

  Quote:

  "It is easy to establish from the Word that Gentiles were becoming part of the Church, not only long before Bullinger and Welch say the Church began, but well before God dragged Peter to Cornelious's house."

   

  Please do so, bearing in mind Acts 15:14 and then we can have a discussion ...

   

  God bless

   

  Karl
• 

  Jeff Stanley January 18, 2011 at 9:18am

  I am coming to this discussion way late, obviously. But since the subject of the thread is the Word of God, it has by no means gone stale. Not unless the importance of Day of Pentecost in the Word has gone stale.

   

  I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you, Karl, that Dr. Wierwille made a mistake. I believe it was Bullinger and Welch that made the mistake.

   

  I can document the following with page and appendix numbers, if need be. But just off the top of my head, in Juanita Carey's biography of Bullinger, she relates how Welch pointed out to him how his teaching of -- what I call -- the doctrine of Israel's second chance contradicted how he was dividing the Administrations. That was when Bullinger first taught that the beginning of the Church was after Pentecost. As a matter of fact, from the timeline in the Companion Bible's appendix, the books of Corinthians were already being written at the point at which Bullinger says the Church began. A time when, clearly, Gentiles had been becoming part of the Church for a long while.

   

  I know that VPW taught the "second chance" stuff in PFAL, but maybe that's the doctrine that's wrong. Eh? I haven't worked the Word enough to say definitively either way, but it ought to be looked at IMHCO.

   

  I would also respectfully point out that a major premise of your post is incorrect -- according to my working of the Word at least:

  Not to mention that there werre no Gentiles there on the day of Pentecost nor would there be for at least another 5 or 6 years, when God dragged Peter kicking and screaming to Cornelious, even then after 3 visions and a revelation to go with Cornelious' men...

  It is easy to establish from the Word that Gentiles were becoming part of the Church, not only long before Bullinger and Welch say the Church began, but well before God dragged Peter to Cornelious's house.