For Sincere Inquisitors ONLY: MAD Explained

[Town Heretic]

I know for a fact that there are some around here who are interested in learning (regardless of how they conclude) about the MidActs position. But they don't like the non-stop debate. And I know for a fact that they'd like to either participate in or at least just follow a conversation on the topic that isn't constantly interrupted. That's why I respectfully asked that you and others like you stay away.

Then let me add my support to this idea. Why must TOL limit itself to debate? Isn't there room for discourse of another nature here? It's frustrating when naysayers interrupt the flow of what is otherwise the clear enumeration of principles and a study in their application. That's the goal here and I, for one, don't require anyone playing the devil's advocate to keep me from falling into anyone's ideological trap.

If those who feel set against the propositions here are moved by their conscience to object I should think a thread could be created by them for THAT particular purpose. I'd read it as readily as I do here and consider it as fully, as I think people interested in the truth of any matter would.

 

[chrysostom]

Then let me add my support to this idea. Why must TOL limit itself to debate? Isn't there room for discourse of another nature here? It's frustrating when naysayers interrupt the flow of what is otherwise the clear enumeration of principles and a study in their application. That's the goal here and I, for one, don't require anyone playing the devil's advocate to keep me from falling into anyone's ideological trap.

If those who feel set against the propositions here are moved by their conscience to object I should think a thread could be created by them for THAT particular purpose. I'd read it as readily as I do here and consider it as fully, as I think people interested in the truth of any matter would.

did you know we have a thread for insincere mad critics?

 

[Town Heretic]

did you know we have a thread for insincere mad critics?

No, but if you hum a few bars...lain: Sorry cm, won't happen again.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

It is odd that you do not have to stay away when someone starts a thread against MAD, yet we have to stay away when you start one for it. So much for mature dialogue and freedom of speech.

I have a bruxism splint, so it protects my gnashed teeth somewhat.

You have been asked nicely. Please cooperate. (I have done similar things for you in past)

 

[Nathon Detroit]

FYI: for all you thread derailers this is your final notice. Infractions are the next step.

 

[bybee]

Ponderable things

Ponderable things

Since I've received notes from others that are following the thread but not chiming in, then how about a slight shift to keep the thread progressing.

In my Tuesday night Bible study, we're studying Acts. I'd love to pick up here where we are in that study. Since we MidActs'ers have slightly varying ideas on some areas, then your insights will help me in the Bible Study (so this is obviously a self-serving request ). ANY MidActser...please offer whatever insights you have. And again, the sincere inquirers are welcome to ask questions, make comments, play devil's advocate, or whatever.



So far in our Acts study, we've covered the first 7 chapters where we've seen no evidence of the Body of Christ and tons of evidence that God's prophetic program is progressing along as planned. Of note, we've seen:

• After 40 days of Jesus teaching His chosen apostles things pertaining to the kingdom (Acts 1:3), they ask him if it is at this time that He would "restore the kingdom to Israel". After 40 days of training, we have to assume that they were asking an appropriate question based on an accurate understanding of the kingdom.
• Matthias is chose to replace Judas, bringing the number of apostles to sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes (Matt. 19:28) back up to the necessary 12.
• The Spirit is poured out, according to prophecy.
• Peter, having just been filled with the Spirit, makes it abundantly clear that the event is that of which Joel spoke. It's the beginning of events leading up to the Day of the Lord and the end.
• Peter preaches to the Jews that the one they murdered had risen to life, and He is the One promised to sit on David's throne, the promise that is to them, their children and to all who are afar off (their dispersed brethren).
• All believers begin living communally, selling all they have and dispersing to the needy, in keeping with the Lord's command of Luke 12:33 and in preparation of the coming kingdom.
• Peter's second sermon is like his first: you (his audience of Jews) murdered Jesus, who was raised back to life. Repent so that you can receive: 1) blotting out of sins (according to prophecy); 2) times of refreshing (as described in prophecies about the kingdom); 3) the return of Jesus, who was waiting in heaven until the times of restoration of all things (brining to mind the Ez. 37 prophecy about Him restoring Israel and Judah to the land and being their Prince and One Shepherd forever).
• Persecutions growing, beginning with Peter and John taken into custody and question, then imprisoned and beaten, then Stephen stoned and killed.
• Jesus stands, apparently ready to begin His judgments (see Mark 16:19 and compare with Ps. 110:1, Is. 3:13).

Before talking about events starting in chapter 8, does anyone have any thoughts on this other information? Any disagreements, comments, questions (from the MidActs or "sincere other")?

Thanks,
Randy

Hi Randy. I've thought, pondered and muddled around with the ministry of the original twelve apostles. Did they continue to preach, teach and read the Torah in the same synagogues as the Jewish worshipers who did not acknowledge Jesus? I'm thinking that once they entered into the "communal" living phase they must have had their own worship centers? I'm speaking of that time before Paul received his dispensation.It must have been a desperate time for them. They were being assailed from all sides. Since they believed that Jesus would return in their lifetime they must have lived for today without much concern for tomorrow? peace, bybee

 

[chickenman]

Thank you, Knight, for supporting this effort.

bybee,
I'm just sort of "driving by" right now. I'll address your post later when I have time.

Thanks,
Randy

 

[chatmaggot]

Just a passing word of encouragement Chickenman.

I appreciate your willingness and patience in starting this thread and not abandoning it. Thank you for helping me out earlier when I was putting together my lesson and I appreciate you telling people your position and showing them why through the scriptures you believe so.

 

[godrulz]

You have been asked nicely. Please cooperate. (I have done similar things for you in past)

I have made no comments about MAD on this thread (as requested), just a passing point and a joke or two.

Have mercy, I just read the next post from Knight and the warning.

 

[tetelestai]

Genesis 15
4: And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.
5: And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
6: And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

So, Abraham, a heathen, yet uncircumcised, was counted as righteous by faith alone. No action was required in believing God's promise..

Hi STP

In James 2:23, James refrences Gen 15:6, and says the following about Abraham:

21Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?

22You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected;

23and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called the friend of God.

24You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Is it me, or is James saying Abraham was justified by faith + works?

 

[Tico]

Hi STP

In James 2:23, James refrences Gen 15:6, and says the following about Abraham:

21Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?

22You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected;

23and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called the friend of God.

24You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Is it me, or is James saying Abraham was justified by faith + works?

Hey Tet,

While wandering through the threads, I noticed your post and the important question you ask.

Yes, James is saying that Abraham was justified by faith and works. What was the work that James uses as an example of Abraham's justification by works and not by faith alone? It was the (almost) sacrifice of Isaac. This occurred in Gen. 22. What is significant is that just a few chapters earlier in Gen. 17 is that God made the covenant of circumcision with Abraham:

Gen. 17:10This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 12And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 13He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

This is a works covenant that Abraham and his descendants had to keep to remain within God's people.

In the NT, circumcision is synonymous with keeping the law (Rom. 2:26-28, Gal. 5:2-3). While God did not revoke His covenant of faith (Gen. 15:6), He added a covenant of works. To this He added the Law (Ex. 19:5-6). This remained through the ministry of Jesus (Mat. 5:17-20, Luke 10:25-28). In fact, the Apostles continued to preach the law and works (Acts 6:13-14, 7:52-53, Acts 10:35).

The gospel preached in James is much different than ours:

Rom. 4:1What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Notice that Paul refers only to Gen. 15:6 and the imputation of righteousness by only believing. This is the gospel of the uncircumcision while James preached the gospel of the circumcision (Gal. 2:7-9).

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Hi STP

In James 2:23, James refrences Gen 15:6, and says the following about Abraham:

21Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?

22You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected;

23and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called the friend of God.

24You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Is it me, or is James saying Abraham was justified by faith + works?

James references Genesis 22, when Abraham is tested after circumcision. And, then says the scripture (Genesis 15) was fulfilled.

We can't escape the fact that Paul relies on Abraham before circumcision, and James relies on Abraham after circumcision.

 

[chickenman]

Hi Randy. I've thought, pondered and muddled around with the ministry of the original twelve apostles. Did they continue to preach, teach and read the Torah in the same synagogues as the Jewish worshipers who did not acknowledge Jesus? I'm thinking that once they entered into the "communal" living phase they must have had their own worship centers? I'm speaking of that time before Paul received his dispensation.It must have been a desperate time for them. They were being assailed from all sides. Since they believed that Jesus would return in their lifetime they must have lived for today without much concern for tomorrow? peace, bybee

Hi bybee.

It seems that the Twelve were almost completely unable to persuade the high and lofty leaders of Israel, instead experiencing growing persecution at their hands. So I suppose I'd have to agree with you, about where they worshipped. In Acts 12:12, we can see that the believers are gathered together at John Mark's mother's house. So they've gone from synagogues to homes.

And this is after Paul's conversion. Even after Paul's conversion, they still operated under the understanding that Jesus would return soon. We can see that pretty clearly in Heb-Rev (Heb. 4:11; 13:14; James 5:8-9; II Pet. 3:10-13; e.g.). And even as late as Acts 21, there are still many Jews (includng James) who live zealously for the law (Acts 21:20-25). So the only thing that Paul's conversion changed for the apostles was that they eventually perceived the grace given to him (Gal. 2:9) and agreed to him ministering the gospel of the uncircumcision without any interference from them (Gal. 2:7-9).

Just a passing word of encouragement Chickenman.

I appreciate your willingness and patience in starting this thread and not abandoning it. Thank you for helping me out earlier when I was putting together my lesson and I appreciate you telling people your position and showing them why through the scriptures you believe so.

Thanks so much for your encouragement, chatter. Please don't hesitate to share your insights in this thread. The more the merrier.

 

[chickenman]

Starting at 8:1...

Starting at 8:1...

Tomorrow night, we'll begin in Chapter 8. Right off the bat, I find something interesting...

Now Saul was consenting to [Stephen's] death. At that time a great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. Acts 8:1
​

We commonly hear the generalization that Acts represents the successful fulfilling of the "Great Commission". General statements like, "They start at Jerusalem, spread to Judea and Samaria, and then out the the Gentile world...just like Jesus commanded", are part of an attempt to morph the apostles' commision at the end of each of the four gospel accounts into something for us in the Body today. We can talk more about the validity (or non-validity) of that idea more as we go through Acts.

But a note about 8:1. The chosen apostles were given the commission. Acts 8:1 represents a scattering according to the persecution of that Jerusalem church. But, the text is clear that the apostles - the ones to whom the commission was specifically given - remain right there in Jerusalem. So Acts 8:1 does not seem to represent the fulfilling of the Great Commission to go to Judea and Samaria.

With that being said, Philip (who fled for refuge to Samaria) preaches to the Samaritans, and many believe and are baptized. Which leads to a comment and question...

These Samaritans are Jews, according to Acts 11:19. So they constitute part of the "...and those that are afar off" (Acts 2:39) to which Peter said the promise pertained. So their conversions fit within the context of the kingdom program and everything that has happened to this point. But the Spirit is not poured out on the believing Samaritans as a result of them believing Philip's message and being baptized. Peter and John have to come to Samaria for that to happen. So the question is: Under the kingdom program, was a member of the Twelve always required to be present in order for one to receive the Spirit?

Please don't hesitate to bring out any other points from the first half of Acts 8 (we'll get to the Ethiopian shortly).

Thanks,
Randy

 

[bybee]

This begs the question....

This begs the question....

Tomorrow night, we'll begin in Chapter 8. Right off the bat, I find something interesting...

Now Saul was consenting to [Stephen's] death. At that time a great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. Acts 8:1
​

We commonly hear the generalization that Acts represents the successful fulfilling of the "Great Commission". General statements like, "They start at Jerusalem, spread to Judea and Samaria, and then out the the Gentile world...just like Jesus commanded", are part of an attempt to morph the apostles' commision at the end of each of the four gospel accounts into something for us in the Body today. We can talk more about the validity (or non-validity) of that idea more as we go through Acts.

But a note about 8:1. The chosen apostles were given the commission. Acts 8:1 represents a scattering according to the persecution of that Jerusalem church. But, the text is clear that the apostles - the ones to whom the commission was specifically given - remain right there in Jerusalem. So Acts 8:1 does not seem to represent the fulfilling of the Great Commission to go to Judea and Samaria.

With that being said, Philip (who fled for refuge to Samaria) preaches to the Samaritans, and many believe and are baptized. Which leads to a comment and question...

These Samaritans are Jews, according to Acts 11:19. So they constitute part of the "...and those that are afar off" (Acts 2:39) to which Peter said the promise pertained. So their conversions fit within the context of the kingdom program and everything that has happened to this point. But the Spirit is not poured out on the believing Samaritans as a result of them believing Philip's message and being baptized. Peter and John have to come to Samaria for that to happen. So the question is: Under the kingdom program, was a member of the Twelve always required to be present in order for one to receive the Spirit?

Please don't hesitate to bring out any other points from the first half of Acts 8 (we'll get to the Ethiopian shortly).

Thanks,
Randy

This begs the question, once a person has received the Holy Spirit can he pass it on? The "Apostolic Succession" believes that the Holy Spirit has been passed from Peter's hands down through the generations to our present day. The Anglican belief is that only bishops can lay on hands and pass the Holy Spirit. Once Paul was inspirited he and his chosen assistants baptized. So I am assuming that "The Twelve" must have also had chosen assistants who were empowered to baptize? I'm interested to hear what others have to say here. peace, bybee

 

[Lighthouse]

Well, Randy, I haven't seen a problem yet.

 

[chickenman]

This begs the question, once a person has received the Holy Spirit can he pass it on? The "Apostolic Succession" believes that the Holy Spirit has been passed from Peter's hands down through the generations to our present day. The Anglican belief is that only bishops can lay on hands and pass the Holy Spirit. Once Paul was inspirited he and his chosen assistants baptized. So I am assuming that "The Twelve" must have also had chosen assistants who were empowered to baptize? I'm interested to hear what others have to say here. peace, bybee

Apparently others could water baptize. But under the kingdom program, I'm not SURE that others had the authority to impart the gift of the Holy Spirit to others. It appears to me that they couldn't. Philip could only preach and baptize, not facilitate the receiving of the Holy Spirit by his listeners. The Ethiopian doesn't receive the Spirit in Acts 8 at the hands of Philip (I'm not sure he would have even at the hands of Peter either, though; next topic). And remember that Philip was one of the direct appointees by the apostles. So there had to be a reason why the Samaritans didn't receive the Spirit after his preaching and baptism.

I'm not exactly sure what happens with Ananias and Paul in Acts 9. Ananias said that he was sent so that Saul would receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit. Though we don't see that he actually did receive the Spirit there, I assume that he did. So perhaps that was indicative of a change of sorts (since Paul wasn't saved under the kingdom program).

I'm not sure on this, so I too look forward to others' responses.

Thanks, bybee.

RA

 

[heir]

With that being said, Philip (who fled for refuge to Samaria) preaches to the Samaritans, and many believe and are baptized. Which leads to a comment and question...

These Samaritans are Jews, according to Acts 11:19. So they constitute part of the "...and those that are afar off" (Acts 2:39) to which Peter said the promise pertained. So their conversions fit within the context of the kingdom program and everything that has happened to this point. But the Spirit is not poured out on the believing Samaritans as a result of them believing Philip's message and being baptized. Peter and John have to come to Samaria for that to happen. So the question is: Under the kingdom program, was a member of the Twelve always required to be present in order for one to receive the Spirit?

The apostles had the authority from the Lord.

Matt. 18:18-20 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
19 “Again I say[a] to you that if TWO of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. 20 For where TWO or THREE are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”

 

[chickenman]

The apostles had the authority from the Lord.

Matt. 18:18-20 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
19 “Again I say[a] to you that if TWO of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. 20 For where TWO or THREE are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”

Great point, JU! Which explains why Peter and John went (2 of them). They were given great authority to act in Jesus' absence, for sure. They even had the authority to forgive and retain others' sins (Jn. 20:23).

Thanks for bringing that up.

 

[john w]

The authority of the 12 under the prophetic kingdom program-explaining "early Acts"

"And I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning: afterward thou shalt be called, The city of righteousness, the faithful city." Isaiah 1:26

A King, ruling a kingdom, on earth=land. And just when did the preceding happen? It hasn't. Thus, by rightly dividing the word of truth(everyone divides), the following scriptures make sense in a millennial, 1000 year framework, i.e., and just who are those princes ruling in judgment, these that will be in "The city of righteousness"? :

On earth-the 12:

"And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Mt. 19:28

"And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Luke 22:29,30

And this explains the following scripture, when viewed in context of the 1000 year millennial kingdom,and the preceding verses with respect to "judgment"/serving as judges(all the apostles), where the Jews will be "the head, not the tail", and have privileged status. The following scripture has been used by the RCC to justify priests "forgiving sins"- apostolic succession, Peter is "the vicar of Christ", the "pope"=the head of 'the' church on earth, as Peter's alleged successor......


And this has resulted in "protestants" doing little more than ignoring these verses, these clear statements, preferring to "water them down" with nonsensical reservations and/or apologies. And thus, those who refuse to view the Holy Bible dispensationally perform mental gymnastics in explaining this verse away,by "spiritualizing" them, or dismissing them("Well, it does not really mean......." )

"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Mt. 16:19

"Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matthew 18:18

"Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." John 20:21-23

No, the answer is dispensational(this is a biblical word, and a good one at that) and concerns the position which the 12 and other apostles will have in the promised, literal, earthly millennial kingdom according to prophecy-AUTHORITY:

"And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Luke 22:29,30

The 12 were were to be the official rulers of Israel on earth in the Lord Jesus Christ's kingdom. An official must have authority! Mt. 21:43 stresses that the kingdom was to be taken away from them then ruling Israel-the apostate, unbelieving Jewish leadership:

"Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.' Mt. 21:43

And to what "nation" was this earthly kingdom to be given?:

"Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." Luke 12:32 (not he body of Christ, which is never referred to a "nation").

We learn from:

"And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Mt. 19:28


That authority in the kingdom was to centralized in the 12. And we learn from Matthew 16:19 that the Lord Jesus Christ chooses Peter as the chief of the 12, and personalizes this authority in him:

"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matthew 16;19

And hence, this explains the early Acts occurrence of Peter :

"And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)...' Acts 1:15

"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?' Acts 2:37

Thus Peter personally, and "the little flock" represented by the 12, were given divine authority. Mt. 18:18-20 is not a "prayer promise", but identifies what would constitute a quorum for official action. And this authority extended to the remission of sins per John 20:21-23. And how could this authority be put into the hands of "fallible", sinful men?:

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John 14:26

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come." Jn. 16:13

"But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak." Mt. 10:19


"But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost." Mk. 13:11


"And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost." John 20:22

Remember, per Acts 1:3, the Lord Jesus Christ taught his followers for 40 days his specific instructions="Boot Camp" for 40 days!

Again:

"To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:... Acts 1:3
Realized at Pentecost:

"And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." Acts 1:4,5

"And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." Acts 2:4

"This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear." Acts 2:32,33

"And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness." Acts 4:31

(vs. Paul's instruction in this dispensation: "And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;..." Ephesians 5:18)


And Ezekiel 36:27 declares regarding this:

"For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God." Ezekiel 36:24-28

Thus, they were fully equipped for such an authoritative position, being endued with "power from on high", and thus "100%/no error" capable of executing the authority the Lord Jesus Christ placed in their hands, including JUDGMENT. And this explains the official action Peter took in the "absence of the King" in Acts 4/5(previous posts on other threads).

Another infallible action-choosing the successor to Judas per Acts 1-Matthias. And this explains the urgency of choosing, by divine "lot", Matthias to replace Judas-12 apostles for 12 thrones set up in the millennial kingdom.