What is the Promise in Acts 2:39?

What is the promise in Acts 2:39?

In a previous question, we talked about the gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38. Summarizing what was said in regard to that question, the gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38 must be the ability to do miracles. The evidence for that is this: 1) That all references made to the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:1-37 are references made to the miraculous manifestation of the Holy Spirit. There is no compelling reason in the immediate context to make any changes to this idea in verse 38. Why would Peter change from talking about the miraculous manifestation of the Holy Spirit to some other manifestation of the Holy Spirit? There is no reason to do so in this text. 2) Peter in Acts 10:45 uses the exact same phrase, “The Gift of the Holy Spirit” in reference to the miracle of tongues. So the only other time the phrase “The gift of the Holy Spirit” is used it refers to the miraculous. 3) Peter says in Acts 11:17 that the same “gift” was given to “us” at the beginning (the day of Pentecost). The “us” in this passage is the apostles and the brethren as indicated in Acts 11:1. So the gift of the Holy Spirit had to be given in Acts 2 both to the apostles and the brethren. It was given to the apostles in Acts 2:1. Where was it given to the brethren? Acts 2:38 was the first promise of this gift to they who would eventually be brethren and then they received it with the laying on of the apostles hands as indicated in Acts 8:14-20 and Acts 19:5, 6.. Peter in fact calls this “the gift of God” in verse 20. So “the gift of the Holy Spirit” in Acts 2:38 must refer to the miraculous manifestation of the Holy Spirit; all of the evidence in both the immediate and the remote context leads us to this conclusion.

Someone says, however, what about verse 39 which reads, “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.” Doesn’t this indicate that “the gift of the Holy Spirit” is to be given to believers? How can one reconcile this with the idea that “the gift of the Holy Spirit” is the miraculous manifestation of the Holy Spirit? However, for one to interpret the promise in verse 39 to be referring only to the gift of the Holy Spirit is to ignore the context. There are two promises made in the context of Acts 2. There is first the promise of the Father that the Holy Spirit is going to come. We see this promise discussed in Acts 1:4, Acts 2:17 and Acts 2:33. But there is another promise interwoven with these promises. This second promise is the promise of salvation. We find this promise in Acts 2:21, “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” We know from Acts 22:16 that this refers to the promise that comes as a result of baptism–remission of sins. This is what Peter states in the first part of Acts 2:38. Verse 39 is merely referring back to that promise–the promise of the remission of sins; the promise that “whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” The promise of the coming of the Holy Spirit and the promise of salvation are closely related, because one is a sign for the other. That is the force of the Joel’s prophecy. When you see the miraculous manifestation of the Holy Spirit then you will KNOW that the promise of salvation has been made available for all men. Peter is simply restating the same concept in Acts 2:38 and 39 as Joel stated in prophecy.

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , | Comments Off on What is the Promise in Acts 2:39?

When Did God Make Dinosaurs?

When did God make dinosaurs?

In Genesis 1:24 we read, “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” All the “beasts of the earth” were made on day six. We read in Exodus 20:11 “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” Everything that was made that ever lived upon the face of the earth was made in those six days. God made dinosaurs within those six days; he made the ones that live in the sea and fly on the fifth day and the ones that roamed around on the earth on the sixth day.

So did men and dinosaurs live together as contemporaries? Yes. We read in the book of Job regarding dinosaurs. Job 40:15-24 “Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.”

There is also much physical evidence that shows that men lived in the same time as Dinosaurs. One such example can be found in the town of Glen Rose, Texas. Through that town runs the Paluxy River. In the bed of this river were discovered dinosaur footprints. Some of these dinosaur footprints are on display at the University of Texas at Austin. The interesting thing about these footprints is that right along side there are human footprints. The human footprints were made in the same time frame as the dinosaur footprints. How could this be true if dinosaurs did not live in the same time as humans?

There is other evidence as well. In some old Indian dwellings in Havasupai Canyon in Arizona there are pictures of dinosaurs that were drawn on the wall by humans. Human footprints have been found in rock that is supposed to be 500 million years before man appeared. Human footprints have been found with trilobites. Human skulls found 130 feet below the earth under 5 separate layers of lava. There have even been some fossilized dinosaur bones found that have human carvings on them done with a flint stone. The evidence points to the fact of the coexistence of dinosaurs and man together in the same period of time.

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , | Comments Off on When Did God Make Dinosaurs?

Is a Person Responsible for the Sins of their Children?

Is a person responsible for their children’s personal relationship with God after they leave the home? What does this do to the qualifications of the elder?

The answer to the first part of this question is clearly related to us in the scriptures. We read in Ezekiel 18:20, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.” Each person is responsible for his or her own relationship with God when the person reaches the age where they can be held responsible for their sins before God whether the child is still in the home or not. So the answer to the first part of this question is, “No, a person is not responsible for their children’s personal relationship with God after they leave the home.” Is a person responsible to teach their children? Yes. Is a person responsible to train up their children? Yes. Is a person responsible to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4)? Yes. However, these are things that are done by the adult, not by the child. One may influence a child in the right direction and hope to teach that child to become a Christian one day, but that decision belongs to the child and not to the adult. The relationship is a personal relationship between God and the individual person.

In regard to the second part of the question, the qualification for an elder of having believing children is found in Titus 1:6. It merely says, “having believing children” or “having children that believe.” The qualification does not state whether these children are in the home or not in this passage. However, if we look back to 1 Timothy 3:4, 5 there we find a little more information. We see here that the elder is to be one who “ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?).” Is this describing children who are in the home or out of the home? I believe that it is describing children who are in the home, literally, in “his own house.” So, when we put these two things together, we find that an elder must at least have had believing children who are in his own house.

Having these things in mind, the question is really this, “Can an elder become disqualified from being an elder if his child stops being faithful to God?” If we were to answer “Yes” to this question, then we must also say that the children have to be in the house. The answer to this question is, “No.” The qualification for the elder is an examination of the person who is to become an elder. Has he trained his children in such a way that they believed the gospel while living in his house? Yes, he has. He is qualified. Once the children leave the house and go their own ways, and fall away from the faith, one can still answer this question in the same way. Has he trained his children in such a way that they believed the gospel while living in his house? Well, yes, he did train them this way. They did, while they were in his house, believe the gospel. He remains qualified, though the child, of his own will, leaves the faith. So the qualification is not one of the ongoing faith of the child, but rather, it is a qualification of the man who would become an elder. He met that qualification at the time that he was appointed to the eldership. He continues to meet that qualification because at the time he was appointed, he had believing children. He will always be one, of whom it can be said that he raised his children to be believers.

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Is a Person Responsible for the Sins of their Children?