Jerry,
Francisco,
Those of us who have learned to study the Scriptures by the dispensational method have explained over and over exactly why Paul needed a special revelation before he went to any Gentiles.However,those who reject the dispensational method reject that explanation,so at this time I will not be diverted from the subject at hand.
I showed you in my last 3 posts that Peter and the apostles did not know they were even allowed to associate with the Gentiles, much less preach to them or baptize them. If your 'dispensational method' overlooks this fact, then your method is flawed.
You should try my method. I call it the 'believe the plain words of scripture method.' I think your Reformers were pretty excited about that method in the beginning of the 16th century. I wonder why it has changed???
However,for the sake of argument,let us say that Peter did not understand that he was supposed to go to the Gentiles.But once there in front of Cornelius and his household,it is evident that he finally got the clue.He obviously knew at that time that the commission to preach the gospel and to baptize was in regard to Cornelius and the rest of the Gentiles in his household.
In fact,his own words in answer to the following words of Cornelius demonstrate that he knew exactly what he should do.Cornelius said:
"Now,therefore,are we all here present before God,to hear all things THAT ARE COMMANDED THEE OF GOD"(Acts10:33).
At this point in time,there can be no doubt that Peter now knew that he was to preach the gospel and baptize these people.After all,Cornelius said that they were waiting to hear ALL THE THINGS WHICH THE LORD COMMANDED PETER TO SAY.
And Peter did in fact preach the gospel to them.And there can be no doubt whatsoever that he knew that he was also going to baptize them.After all,here are the words of the Lord where He commanded Pater to do just that:
Jerry, your 'dispensational method' continues with the same flaw. You constantly fall into the trap of misunderstanding scripture, because your dispensational method does not consider scripture in it's entirety, but prefers to take this verse, or that chapter, out of the context of the remaining scripture.
So you claim Peter knew, as soon as Cornelius explained his vision to him, that he was supposed to preach AND BAPTIZE. Unfortunately for you and your 'dispensational method' I will very easily prove you wrong again.
First, when Peter began to preach to the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius, notice that Peter mentions his commission to preach but MAKES NO MENTION OF HIS COMMISSION TO BAPTIZE:
'He commissioned us to preach to the people and testify that He is the one appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead.'
Peter never mentions baptism to the Gentiles at all, even though the commission he spoke of was to preach and baptize. That in itself is very telling. However, that's not all that proves Peter still had no intention of baptizing the Gentiles.
After Peter preached the Word to Cornelius and friends, at the point where Peter tells them they will receive forgiveness of their sins through His name, the Holy Spirit falls on Cornelius.
The Jews were AMAZED. They still had no idea, until this point, that the Gentiles would receive the Holy Spirit, even though they had realized the Word should be preached to the Gentiles. They were AMAZED, Jerry.
That is when Peter says:
'Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, as we see they have received the Holy Spirit even as we have?'
It is clear that seeing the Gentiles receive the Holy Spirit is what prompted Peter to baptize them.
Now I know what you're thinking at this point Jerry. You would say that the Jews who were with Peter were the ones who were AMAZED, not Peter, because he already knew he was going to baptize them. However, you and your 'dispensational method' will be proven wrong again. You see, my 'believe the plain words of scripture method' does not take verses out of context. My method allows the consideration of the entirety of scripture.
So we will follow my method, and continue to read the entire context of Peter's thoughts and actions concerning Cornelius.
After the baptism of Cornelius, Peter stayed with them a few days. But when he returned to Joppa, he was confronted by some upset apostles and brothers waiting there for him. They couldn't believe he would do something so blatantly unlawful. Peter had some serious explaining to do.
Peter began to explain his visions of the unclean animals and how he came to realize, because of the visions, that it was OK to associate with Gentiles:
Now the apostles and the brothers who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles too had accepted the word of God. So when Peter went up to Jerusalem the circumcised believers confronted him, saying, "You entered the house of uncircumcised people and ate with them." Peter began and explained it to them step by step, saying, "I was at prayer in the city of Joppa when in a trance I had a vision, something resembling a large sheet coming down, lowered from the sky by its four corners, and it came to me. Looking intently into it, I observed and saw the four-legged animals of the earth, the wild beasts, the reptiles, and the birds of the sky. I also heard a voice say to me, 'Get up, Peter. Slaughter and eat.' But I said, 'Certainly not, sir, because nothing profane or unclean has ever entered my mouth.' But a second time a voice from heaven answered, 'What God has made clean, you are not to call profane.' This happened three times, and then everything was drawn up again into the sky. Just then three men appeared at the house where we were, who had been sent to me from Caesarea. The Spirit told me to accompany them without discriminating. These six brothers also went with me, and we entered the man's house.
So the reason Peter went with the messengers to see Cornelius was, as I showed in my previous posts, he had come to realize he could associate with Gentiles. There was to no longer be any discrimination in who the Christian Jews could associate with.
Then Peter explains to the other apostles and brothers that Cornelius' visions made him realize he was to preach the Word to them:
'He (Cornelius) related to us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, saying, 'Send someone to Joppa and summon Simon, who is called Peter,
who will speak words to you by which you and all your household will be saved.'
Then Peter explains the big one, why he baptized the household of Cornelius:
'As I began to speak, the holy Spirit fell upon them as it had upon us at the beginning, and I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, 'John baptized with water but you will be baptized with the holy Spirit.' If then God gave them the same gift he gave to us when we came to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to be able to hinder God?"
So Peter REMEMBERED what Jesus said about baptism with the Holy Spirit only WHEN THE HE SAW THE SPIRIT DESCEND ON CORNELIUS. He had no thoughts of baptizing them until the Holy Spirit descended upon Cornelius to make Peter REMEMBER what Jesus had said. Peter even goes further, saying, 'after I saw them receive the Spirit, just like we did in the beginning, how could I hinder God's wish that they be baptized, so I baptized them'.
At this, all the apostles and brothers STOPPED OBJECTING and glorified God.
Scripture is very clear on this Jerry. Peter had no intentions of baptizing a Gentile until he saw the Holy Spirit descend on cornelius, causing him to REMEMBER what Jesus said. And the other apostles and brothers didn't stop objecting until Peter explained that by SEEING THE HOLY SPIRIT DESCEND on the Gentiles he REMEMBERED what Jesus said. So who was Peter to continue 'hindering' God by preventing the baptism of Gentiles.
I'm sorry Jerry, but your 'dispensational method' is flawed! You should try my 'believe in the plain words of scripture method'. That is the only way to discern the true message of the bible, without the use of parans and ignoring the words that don't fit, and only by considering all verses in the context of the entirety of scripture.
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.Therefore,you are left with no explanation as to why Cornelius received the gift of the Holy Spirit BEFORE he was baptized with water.By the SCRIPTUAL FACTS surrounding Cornelius it is obvious that being baptized with water was NOT a requirement for receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Well, no Jerry, my argument makes perfect sense. Why? Because it is the truth reveled by the plain words of scripture rather than some man-made substitute like your 'dispensational method.'
And that proves my point that the following is the correct rendering of Acts 2:38:
"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 Spirit."
The remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit was contigent upon "repenting",and not on "repenting and being baptized with water":
"Repent for the remission of sins,and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Cornelius and his household had heard the gospel and they had repented (had a change of mind) and therefore they received both remission of sins as well as the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Therefore,it becomes obvious that submitting to the rite of water baptism was not necessary to receive either the remission of sins or to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
And this is reinforced by other instances of Scripture.The Philippian jailer asked Paul,"What must I do to be saved?"
In answer,Paul did NOT say,"Repent and be baptized",but instead said:
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,and thou shalt be saved"(Acts16:30,31).
Peter likewise told the Jews EXACTLY how they could have their sins forgiven,and he did not say a word about them having to take part in the rite of water baptism in order to have their sins "blotted out":
"Repent,therefore,and be converted,THAT YOUR SINS MAY BE BLOTTED OUT"(Acts3:19).
What was proven is your method is flawed and hides the true meaning of the messages contained in scripture.
You would have us believe that both Paul and Peter just forgot to tell their listeners that in order to have their sins forgiven it was necessary for them to be baptized with water.
You would also have us believe that even after Peter had received a special revelation sending him to the Gentiles that he still did not remember his commission to preach the gospel and baptize every creature.
I wouldn't have you believe this Jerry.
Scripture would have you believe it, as I have proven once again.
There may be many in the church at Rome who will believe these "fables",but I do not think you will convince many on this Forum with these ridiculous arguments.
Fables are man-made inventions, like your dispensational method of reading scripture out of context, with words you have to place parans around and ignore as if they weren't written. I'm afraid it is your dispensational method that creates the fables, not the Catholic Church who abides by the plain words of scripture.
Oh, and I see another 'church at rome' insult. I told you before, I take your insults as compliments. Thanks again!
God Bless,
Francisco
Acts 10:36