Hello Sandy!
Monday November 10 1997 07:57, SANDY HOOPER wrote to MICHAEL MCREARY:
 SH> Now for a mess of other problems.  No matter what you do with the
 SH> text in Acts 2, verse 38 teaches that "the gift of the Holy
 SH> Ghost" (not the gift of "speaking in tongues) IS NOT AVAILABLE TO
 SH> A MAN UNLESS HE HAD BEEN BAPTIZED IN WATER.
There is a simple problem with your logic.  What happened to the household
of Cornelius?  They received the gift of the Holy Ghost prior to water
baptism.  Acts 2:38 does NOT teach a specific order, apparently.  How did
Peter know that those in the household of Cornelius had received the Holy
Ghost?  They spake with tongues as the Spirit of God gave them utterance.
Again, you try to complicate and do away with a very vital part of
Christianity.
 SH> And Acts 8:15, 16 and Acts 10:44-47 show conclusively that
 SH> this was a TEMPORARY SETUP in accordance with the truth
 SH> revealed up to that time.
Do me one favor.  Show me where the Baptism of the Holy Ghost as evidenced
by speaking in tongues has been done away with.  Show me where it is
temporary, as you say.  SPECIFICALLY, show me when it was supposed to have
ended.
 SH> To go on with this transitional
 SH> passage through 19 centuries of church history, applying it
 SH> to unsaved sinners as "the plan of salvation" or as
 SH> "obeying the gospel" (cf. Romans 6:17; 16:26, and 10:16),
 SH> is theological and spiritual INSANITY.
First, it is NOT transitional.  Secondly, the Holy Ghost baptism does not
apply to unsaved sinners.  One must be a believer before receiving this
baptism.
 SH> As far as verse 39?
 SH> Now, "THAT ARE AFAR OFF."  Compare scripture with scripture.  The
 SH> key to this verse was found in Daniel 9, (pay attention to v.7)
Daniel 9:7? "O Lord, righteousness [belongeth] unto thee, but unto us
confusion of faces, as at this day; to the men of Judah, and to the
inhabitants of Jerusalem, and unto all Israel, [that are] near, and [that
are] far off, through all the countries whither thou hast driven them,
because of their trespass that they have trespassed against thee."
How in the world do you pull a scripture that speaks specifically about
Israel and relate it to Acts 2:39?  There is no connection.
The reference in Acts says "39  For the promise is unto you, and to your
children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God
shall call."  "...even as many as the Lord our God shall call."  Take your
own advice.  Compare scripture with scripture.  Look at this promise of
the give of the Holy Ghost.  Now look at the household of Cornelius.  This
was CLEARLY connected with that promise.  Yes, Peter and the Jews were
astonished, but it was very apparent to them that God had given the Holy
Ghost baptism to the Gentiles.  After so many hundreds of years, why is it
so surprising to you?
I'm afraid you are searching for "keys" instead of simply believing.  You
spend so much time trying to explain why the Holy Ghost baptism isn't for
us, that you're missing the boat.
 SH> Furthermore, the great passage in Galatians 3:18 shows that
 SH> the "PROMISE" (vs. 38) could have had NOTHING to do with
 SH> the Gentiles, for the Gentiles receive the "PROMISE of the
 SH> SPIRIT by FAITH (Gal. 3:14).
How do you make this connection?  If what you are purport is true, then
the gift of the Holy Ghost never came upon the household of Cornelius.
Was this a fraud?
Galatians 3:18 does NOT prove any such thing.  "18  For if the inheritance
[be] of the law, [it is] no more of promise: but God gave [it] to Abraham
by promise."  The inheritance, speaking of salvation, was given to Abraham
and to his seed, by promise.
Tell me, does God currently distinguish between Jew and Gentile?  Yes,
under the law of Moses, there was a distinction.  Hasn't God opened up the
New Testament promises to all, now?
 SH> So what are you doing applying verse 39 to UNSAVED GENTILES
 SH> "afar off"?  If they were "afar off," they would NOT have
 SH> to be baptized in water *to receive "the promise," for the
 SH> promise is by FAITH-+-not works.
I have already proven that water baptism is NOT necessary to receive the
baptism of the Holy Ghost.  Look at Cornelius.  Secondly, I never applied
39 to anyone unsaved.  One must be a believer.  It's really quite simple.
The term "afar off" does not refer to unsaved ones.  It refers to a global
picture.  It clearly speaks of those, other than the people who were
present at that moment.  That's it.
 SH> 1) There are no Christians in Acts 2.
So, the disciples weren't followers of Jesus Christ?  You are playing
semantics here, Sandy.  Salvation was originally of the Jews, true.  Yet a
quick look at John 1:11-12 makes it quite clear that salvation is to all.
I hope I don't need to quote John 3:16.
John 1 "11  He came unto his own, and his own received him not.  12  But
as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God,
[even] to them that believe on his name:"
 SH> 2) None of the Apostles are baptized according to Acts
 SH> 2:38.
You know this?
 SH> 3) No one asked, "What must I do to be saved?"
So you are saying that the question in Acts 2:37, "...Men and brethren,
what shall we do?" is not in reference to salvation?  It wasn't in
reference to how to accept Jesus Christ?  I hope I am reading you wrong,
because if you can't grasp some very basic bible, you are REALLY
off-track.
 SH> 4) NO "baptism of fire" occurs to "any saved person" in the
 SH>    whole chapter.
Did to.  Regarding the 120 in the upper room, when did they become saved?
When did they accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior?
 SH> 5) Acts 2:1-5 is NOT the fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32.
Let's see here. . . .  Peter said, "15  For these are not drunken, as ye
suppose, seeing it is [but] the third hour of the day.  16  But this is
that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;"
You said, it is "NOT the fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32"
Peter said "it is".
You said "it is not".
Who should I believe?  Another easy choice.
 SH> Another problem.  If someone claims to get the "Baptism of
 SH> the Holy Ghost," sometime *AFTER* he is saved, then he has
 SH> nothing but ANOTHER SPIRIT. Romans 8:9 plainly tells
 SH> us,"Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is
 SH> NONE OF HIS."
So you are saying that the Spirit of Christ and the Holy Ghost are
incompatible?
Again, your "knowledge" far transcends that of the bible.  I am just SO
amazed at your wisdom.
Acts 19:1  "1  And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth,
Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding
certain disciples,
2  He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?
And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any
Holy Ghost."
They were believers.  They had some missing knowledge about certain
things, but they were believers.  If you read on a little further, you'll
find that the Holy Ghost came upon them and they spake with tongues.
 MM>> And now for the big question, "Who is this gift promised
 MM>> to?"
 MM>> Look at Acts 2:39, again.
 SH>  They are JEWS. (already explained above).
And to them that are afar off (e.g. household of Cornelius).
 MM>> I'll grant you that Paul made reference to these in past
 MM>> tense.
 SH>  You don't have to grant me anything.  Just believe what you
 SH> read. It is spoken of in "past tense."
 MH>> Yet,
 MM>> Jesus made reference to them as FUTURE tense.
 SH>  Of course.  It would be kind of silly to speak of something as
 SH> past tense when it is yet to happen.  Jesus comes before Paul.
This still does not prove that it is passed.  You have yet to demonstrate
that the Holy Ghost baptism is not for believers, today.
Michael McReary
mcreary@oz.net
michael.mcreary@pss.boeing.com
---
---------------