The main issues .

I believe the Liberal invasion in public schools, coupled with the welfare state is the main cause

Prior to the 70's a girl was responsible to her family & Church

Now they get pregnant and become accountable to the welfare state, and this creates future votes for the democrats who created it.

Of course the political elite want complete dedication to them. Since ww1 Christianity has been on the decline, and has really hit it's down hill stride after ww2.

There is one "program" between God and man, the sacrifice of the Lamb upon Calvary and the precious shed blood

It appears you espouse the false teaching of Dispensationalism known as (Dual Covenant Theology)

Excellent!
Precious friend, see you In God's Great GloryLand!! ♫ ↑

Yes I agree. We are a unified body of Christ.

Galatian 3:26-29
26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

please show where it says the Ethiopian was not a jew / proselyte please ?

ok which doctrine are you referring to from Acts ?

I'm not suggesting the Holy spirit was not working then ..And your reading Paul's teaching back into Acts ,instead of allowing Acts 2 38 to be a specific instance at that time for Israel . What s wrong with Peter telling Israel to be baptised in order to recieve the Holy Spirit, as it actually says ?? Or later when its through laying on of hands ?

??

This is the problem. Acts 2.38 doesn't say that . Folks change what it says to try make it fit what Paul says .

So if you see those differences ,why not Acts 2.38 ?

A eunuch is someone who has either had their stones broken or their privy member cut off.

The ethiopian eunuch was decidedly not Jewish or even a proselyte. Under the Law he would have been immediately disqualified from being a proselyte or assembling with the Jews:

Regarding restrictions against those with blemishes:

Leviticus 21:20
20Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;

Regarding exclusion from the congregation:

Deuteronomy 23:1
1He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

Meaning the Ethiopian eunuch was neither Jewish or a proselyte. By process of elimination, he was a gentile in the fullest definition of the word.

He converted directly to Christianity through belief in Jesus Christ and then afterwards had a water baptism.

Read the whole chapter: the people who repented and got water baptized were believers and they received the Holy Spirit.

You're the one who made the assertion. Which doctrine(s) are you referring to?

I already showed you why not Acts 2:38. So let's go back to Mark 16:16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Here we get the superficial impression that baptism is necessary for salvation.

Then we go to Luke 24:47: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Here we learn from Christ Himself that repentance is necessary for the forgiveness of sins.

Then we go to Acts 3:19: 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. Here we see that Peter is preaching what Christ taught above.

Then we go to Acts 10:44,45: While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the Word [the Gospel]. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. Here we see that water baptism is not required in order to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Then we go to Acts 10:47,48: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. Here we see that water baptism follows immediately upon receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit.

And this brings us right back to Acts 2:38 which gives us the teaching that (1) repentance is necessary for salvation, (2) faith in Christ is necessary for salvation (implied in the context), (3) the gift of the Holy Spirit is given to those who obey the Gospel, and (4) water baptism (by immersion) immediately follows conversion. That water baptism comes after is clear from Acts 10.

The eunuch (Matt. 19:12) is an Ethiopian (Hebrew: Cushite), and he had “great authority” (vs. 27) in the imperial palace of the Queen of Ethiopia. Undoubtedly he had brought some of the “treasure” (vs. 27) with him for an offering to the Lord (see John 12:3), exactly as the Queen of Sheba had done many years ago (1 Kings 10). He is reading Isaiah the prophet from a scroll like the “Isaiah Scroll.” (The variations between the New Testament Greek text [vs. 33] and the Old Testament Hebrew are the same variations one finds in quotations such as Matt. 8:17 and Acts 28:27.

Which verse says this please?

Baptism as necessary for salvation. Either regeneration or a ' first act of obedience ' . Initial evidence, Second blessing, laying on of hands, and a whole host of issues that certain denominations declare .

Which doctrines are you referring to ,that you feel are true doctrines that should be accepted, from the book of Acts ?

You said ///
I already showed you why not Acts 2:38. So let's go back to Mark 16:16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Here we get the superficial impression that baptism is necessary for salvation.//
" superficial impression " Why not believe as it says . It could literally mean as it says . Either it means believe and be baptised to be saved at that time . Or the baptism here is spirit baptism .

Then we go to Luke 24:47: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Here we learn from Christ Himself that repentance is necessary for the forgiveness of sins.
This is still Jews . Notice no gentiles mentioned . It says amoung all the nations . So its the places to reach Jews . No mention of gentiles but locations.
//
Then we go to Acts 3:19: 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. Here we see that Peter is preaching what Christ taught above.//
This is referring to sins being blotted out in the Future. Does this sound like our sins being dealt with. Are not our sins paid for at the cross? Again this is presented to Israel. "when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord" When??
//
Then we go to Acts 10:44,45: While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the Word [the Gospel]. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. Here we see that water baptism is not required in order to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.//
Exactly. Because now we are TRANSITIONING TO THE GENTILES through receiving the Holy Spirit no longer after water baptism, laying on of hands ( samaritans ) ect .

Then we go to Acts 10:47,48: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. Here we see that water baptism follows immediately upon receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit.
// Yes unlike what Peter told those Jews they HAD to follow in order to receive the Holy Spirit.
//
And this brings us right back to Acts 2:38 which gives us the teaching that (1) repentance is necessary for salvation, (2) faith in Christ is necessary for salvation (implied in the context), (3) the gift of the Holy Spirit is given to those who obey the Gospel, and (4) water baptism (by immersion) immediately follows conversion. That water baptism comes after is clear from Acts 10.// Ok this is where you lose the plot . Now your going backwards to the start of the transitions importing the changes that come towards the end (ten years later ) to gentiles transition after the pivotal transition after the rejection by the counsel when they stone Stephen ..Then we start to see a major shift beginning with a samaritan then the gentiles. Unlike Acts 2.38 .NOW !!! Water baptism is not the prerequisite to receive the Holy spirit . This then is solidified in the epistles. No longer is water baptism mentioned in order to recieve the Holy spirit . Literally scores of ' theologians , denominations ect miss this completely. Just as your doing in support of this thinking. Simply because you don't believe Peter is telling those Jews to DO something that was required and it not being required to the gentiles in a completely different context. What is the big deal with letting Acts 2. 38 stand as it actually reads . The same with the laying on of hands. What's wrong with a particular incident where the Holy spirit was given upon the laying on of hands when a samaritan was converted. Why can't that be ? Is there something wrong with God doing something different in one place to another?