Have I gone MAD???

[Lon]

Am I Mid Acts?

I've been told a couple of times now, that my stance on books being written to Jews distinguishing carefully 'not to me' makes me MAD. I've been told that appreciating anything a Mid Acts Dispensationalist has to say makes me a MAD sympathizer and likely MAD as well, and I've been told that my view on Grace and no works plants me well within MAD walls. I've been told that If I recognize and agree that Paul's 'Mystery' really was secret before Paul, that I'm with out a doubt of Mid Acts persuasion.

In a sense, I've always been Grace plus nothing. I'm told that Grace Theology IS Mid Acts theology.

Two weeks ago, one TOL member, while arguing over Sabbath keeping called me Mid Acts, whether I wanted to admit it or not....


What is the mark of Mid Acts theology? How best would I know if I am Mid Acts?

I've always enjoyed MidActs discussion (as did AMR btw. I've long since come to realize that Mid Acts is nowise heresy or hetrodox as far as 10 years ago. It would surprise me if I fall within the acceptance of Mid Acts fellowship but I'm not opposed to the idea, just wondering what I really do have in common. Thanks for your ear. -Lon

 

[Idolater]

Do you think that the dispute recorded in Acts was resolved during the Apostolic era, or not? MAD believes not, and they believe it so hard that they think there was a rift in the Church /Body of Christ that occurred during the Apostles' lifetimes and persisted thereafter until the 1800s when someone realized what had happened, long, long after the fact. In contrast is the majority view, that the dispute was resolved during the Apostolic era, and the Church was one unified Body thereafter. imo and fwiw.

 

[Lon]

Do you think that the dispute recorded in Acts was resolved during the Apostolic era, or not? MAD believes not, and they believe it so hard that they think there was a rift in the Church /Body of Christ that occurred during the Apostles' lifetimes and persisted thereafter until the 1800s when someone realized what had happened, long, long after the fact. In contrast is the majority view, that the dispute was resolved during the Apostolic era, and the Church was one unified Body thereafter. imo and fwiw.

Good question. I'm not sure. It 'seemed' to have been healed. Peter called Paul's writing scripture, John Mark rejoined Paul. I also do not agree with a lot of Bullinger's posits, but it seems you don't have to agree with Bullinger to be Mid Acts.

My question comes from spending some time Saturday with a good friend who is Grace/Mid Acts (he doesn't prefer M.A.D.). He said, after a long conversation that I was 'well within Mid Acts Parameters.' Whatever that means, it certainly means 1) I agree: Grace and nothing else. and 2) that Hebrews, James, Peter weren't my gentile mail.

Appreciate the discussion, thank you for your input here. :e4e: -Lon

 

[Idolater]

Good question. I'm not sure. It 'seemed' to have been healed. Peter called Paul's writing scripture, John Mark rejoined Paul. I also do not agree with a lot of Bullinger's posits, but it seems you don't have to agree with Bullinger to be Mid Acts.

My question comes from spending some time Saturday with a good friend who is Grace/Mid Acts (he doesn't prefer M.A.D.). He said, after a long conversation that I was 'well within Mid Acts Parameters.' Whatever that means, it certainly means 1) I agree: Grace and nothing else. and 2) that Hebrews, James, Peter weren't my gentile mail.

Appreciate the discussion, thank you for your input here. :e4e: -Lon

OK. What about Hebrews, James, and Peter do you find objectionable? Reason I ask is that a lot of the texts in these books that sound different from your crudely put "grace and nothing else" have relatives in Paul's books too. iow maybe in English some two thousand years later there seems superficially to be some sort of categorical difference between the Pauline books and all the other NT, but maybe, there really isn't any such categorical difference at all and all the books of the NT were written to the one Church /Body of Christ, even if this or that one was written to this or that local assembly of the one Church, with one or another ethnic or cultural or racial makeup, perhaps distinct from other local assemblies, to whom other books were addressed.

btw as a Catholic convert I perceive in Catholicism grace and nothing else, mercy and nothing else, faith and nothing else, Christ and nothing else, and even, the Scripture and nothing else. And naturally all for God's own glory and nothing else, that's the most obvious one of all in Catholicism, and that's really saying something since all the other ones are so plainly manifested by Catholicism.

 

[steko]

MAD means that Christ began a new dispensation of the gospel of the grace of GOD through the Apostle Paul in the middle of Acts when Israel's rejection of her Messiah came to it's fullness and GOD postponed the prophetic program for national Israel. GOD then began to bless the nations thru the cross in spite of Israel's failure.

Israel's program thru the twelve:

Luk 22:28 Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.
Luk 22:29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
Luk 22:30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Peter addressing Israel under the prophetic program, the ministry of the twelve:

Act 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;
Act 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
Act 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

The nations/gentiles program thru the Apostle Paul:

Rom 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

The difference between what was prophesied for national Israel and what was newly revealed thru the Apostle Paul according to the mystery is the main divide and that distinction began in mid-Acts.

When one acknowledges that Paul was not one of the twelve and that his ministry was unique to the nations/gentiles then one is on the road to understanding and accepting mid-Acts dispensationalism MAD.

Bullinger was Acts 28 dispensational or Ultra- dispensational, not MAD.

I recommend the book "Things That Differ" by C.R. Stam.

https://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/products-page/books/ebooks/ebook-things-that-differ/

 

[Right Divider]

Do you think that the dispute recorded in Acts was resolved during the Apostolic era, or not? MAD believes not, and they believe it so hard that they think there was a rift in the Church /Body of Christ that occurred during the Apostles' lifetimes and persisted thereafter until the 1800s when someone realized what had happened, long, long after the fact. In contrast is the majority view, that the dispute was resolved during the Apostolic era, and the Church was one unified Body thereafter. imo and fwiw.

Please learn what MAD actually believes. Your straw-man is not it.

 

[Right Divider]

MAD means that Christ began a new dispensation of the gospel of the grace of GOD through the Apostle Paul in the middle of Acts when Israel's rejection of her Messiah came to it's fullness and GOD postponed the prophetic program for national Israel. GOD then began to bless the nations thru the cross in spite of Israel's failure.

Israel's program thru the twelve:

Luk 22:28 Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.
Luk 22:29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
Luk 22:30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Peter addressing Israel under the prophetic program, the ministry of the twelve:

Act 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;
Act 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
Act 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

The nations/gentiles program thru the Apostle Paul:

Rom 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

The difference between what was prophesied for national Israel and what was newly revealed thru the Apostle Paul according to the mystery is the main divide and that distinction began in mid-Acts.

When one acknowledges that Paul was not one of the twelve and that his ministry was unique to the nations/gentiles then one is on the road to understanding and accepting mid-Acts dispensationalism MAD.

Bullinger was Acts 28 dispensational or Ultra- dispensational, not MAD.

I recommend the book "Things That Differ" by C.R. Stam.

https://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/products-page/books/ebooks/ebook-things-that-differ/

:thumb:

 

[Lon]

MAD means that Christ began a new dispensation of the gospel of the grace of GOD through the Apostle Paul in the middle of Acts when Israel's rejection of her Messiah came to it's fullness and GOD postponed the prophetic program for national Israel. GOD then began to bless the nations thru the cross in spite of Israel's failure.

Israel's program thru the twelve:

Luk 22:28 Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.
Luk 22:29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
Luk 22:30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Peter addressing Israel under the prophetic program, the ministry of the twelve:

Act 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;
Act 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
Act 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

The nations/gentiles program thru the Apostle Paul:

Rom 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

The difference between what was prophesied for national Israel and what was newly revealed thru the Apostle Paul according to the mystery is the main divide and that distinction began in mid-Acts.

When one acknowledges that Paul was not one of the twelve and that his ministry was unique to the nations/gentiles then one is on the road to understanding and accepting mid-Acts dispensationalism MAD.

Bullinger was Acts 28 dispensational or Ultra- dispensational, not MAD.

I recommend the book "Things That Differ" by C.R. Stam.

https://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/p...s-that-differ/

Thanks. I'm reading Finck at the moment, will move on to Stam. I'm a little surprised I agree at this point. I do acknowledge what you are saying is scripture so have to agree with it at this point.

 

[Lon]

OK. What about Hebrews, James, and Peter do you find objectionable?

:nono: Not objectionable, just that when I finally got Hebrews as a uniquely Hebrew problem, I had to see how Hebrews applied to them (at one time, they no longer sacrifice animals). It is very needful to read books as they are intended because application isn't direct. Hebrews 6:4 isn't a warning against an unpardonable sin (I used to think it at least might be, but I was wrong). It is telling Hebrews they cannot, as Christians, go back to temple and give sin offering. It puts Jesus' blood in contempt and the whole purpose is trust in His work. "It is finished." It wouldn't hurt to pay attention to what Mid Acts teaches. They get this part exactly right. I'm not trying to make you Mid Acts, just saying they get this right more often than others do. Things start making sense when you pay attention.

Reason I ask is that a lot of the texts in these books that sound different from your crudely put "grace and nothing else" have relatives in Paul's books too.

Yes they do. No Mid Acts believes otherwise. If I 'am' Mid Acts, I love these other books, it is just that I run them through the filter of 'a Christian Jew's mail.' You are also correct that Paul said we are to follow Jesus' teaching, but I don't believe any Mid Acts would say otherwise, just qualify/clarify. Paul says 'as I follow Christ' in a manner that shows he, himself, showed the way, and then he describes in his letters exactly how to do that. For a very long time, I've said the mark of any Christian is being spiritual, filled with the Spirit. "If any man is in Christ, he is a new creation." There is no need to tell a person who is a new creation to 'follow Jesus' they already have Him living in them and He has made them a new creation. Rather, we learn how better to fulfill our part in body life so we gather, teach, encourage etc. but the days of teaching a believer 'how' to be a believer are over. We plant, sow, and the Holy Spirit does His own work, without our help. The days of 'playing' Holy Spirit are over.

]iow maybe in English some two thousand years later there seems superficially to be some sort of categorical difference between the Pauline books and all the other NT, but maybe, there really isn't any such categorical difference at all and all the books of the NT were written to the one Church /Body of Christ, even if this or that one was written to this or that local assembly of the one Church, with one or another ethnic or cultural or racial makeup, perhaps distinct from other local assemblies, to whom other books were addressed.

Mid Acts teaching, like Steko's post above, proves out by substantiation of Paul's writing, that there is a difference, so much so that Peter said Paul's writings were hard to understand. If there are two different approaches to scripture today, it is partially (or wholly) due to the confusion the churches have proffered to date. We are all, in some form or another, versions of judaisim. That is, Galatians needs to be applied to us, we've got to be careful that we aren't applying Jewish mail else we are to some degree confusing people. I'm convinced God is doing something new today, with shrinking churches. Something is just not adding up to the world at large. We need to give the RIGHT message without the confusions.

btw as a Catholic convert I perceive in Catholicism grace and nothing else, mercy and nothing else, faith and nothing else, Christ and nothing else, and even, the Scripture and nothing else. And naturally all for God's own glory and nothing else, that's the most obvious one of all in Catholicism, and that's really saying something since all the other ones are so plainly manifested by Catholicism.

I understand. The most important discussion is whether these books are all 'our' mail or not. They are in the sense that they are all in our Bibles, but Mid Acts teaching says we learn 'from' certain books rather than are directly addressed by certain books. As I also said, there is no harm in listening to them, only learning what they say and seeing if it is actually scriptures (and I think they can defend that rigorously). So simply listening and learning is my challenge and I'm convinced, even if you never become Mid Acts, you'll 1) appreciate what is said because it'll make good sense and 2) you'll understand your own bible reading better for having done it.

 

[Idolater]

'a Christian Jew's mail.'

MAD says that things that differ are not the same, like for example, if there is something Old, and something New, they differ and are not the same. MAD introduces a new New, apart from the New that was promised in the Old, and apart from the New mentioned in Hebrews. In fact Paul himself in 1st Corinthians mentions this New.

"Love your neighbor as yourself". Clearly, this is, to use your word, a Jew's mail, since it's found in the Old. So there's something different (part of the Old) and yet this same command is mentioned all throughout the New, including in Pauline epistles.

Paul also wrote about Communion, about the bread and the cup, writing to a church in Corinth, a Gentile city, with some dispersed Jews but a Gentile city and a Gentile assembly, and he wrote about Communion as if the Corinthian church was celebrating it.

Now as I'm sure you're aware, there are elements of MAD who teach against going to church weekly, and against celebrating Communion, with the same basic reasoning as you give with "a Christian Jew's mail".

You are also correct that Paul said we are to follow Jesus' teaching, but I don't believe any Mid Acts would say otherwise, just qualify/clarify. Paul says 'as I follow Christ' in a manner that shows he, himself, showed the way, and then he describes in his letters exactly how to do that.

Right. Like, MAD would say that when Christ teaches us to, "Seek ye first the kingdom of God", that that's not for the Body of Christ. Even though Acts records Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, teaching the kingdom of God.

The days of 'playing' Holy Spirit are over.

Well that's good.

...Galatians needs to be applied to us, we've got to be careful that we aren't applying Jewish mail else we are to some degree confusing people.

One thing I would expect to see if indeed any of the New Testament is "Jewish mail" is something about circumcision. According to MAD I would expect to see Paul teaching against circumcision (he does), and teaching for circumcision in at least one of these supposedly "Jewish mail" books (there isn't any, not a single one).

I'm convinced God is doing something new today, with shrinking churches. Something is just not adding up to the world at large. We need to give the RIGHT message without the confusions.

Agreed in concept, though we probably disagree in content.

I understand. The most important discussion is whether these books are all 'our' mail or not. They are in the sense that they are all in our Bibles, but Mid Acts teaching says we learn 'from' certain books rather than are directly addressed by certain books. As I also said, there is no harm in listening to them, only learning what they say and seeing if it is actually scriptures (and I think they can defend that rigorously). So simply listening and learning is my challenge and I'm convinced, even if you never become Mid Acts, you'll 1) appreciate what is said because it'll make good sense and 2) you'll understand your own bible reading better for having done it.

What's your thought on the institution of the office of bishop? Paul mentions the office, and wrote to two bishops that he personally consecrated, and taught one of them to continue the practice of teaching and consecrating new bishops, so that the office would continue. Also, Peter addressed this same group of authentic pastors, calling them elders. Whether they are elders, or overseers, or bishops, they are of Apostolic origin, including Paul, and not just Paul.

 

[Lon]

MAD says that things that differ are not the same, like for example, if there is something Old, and something New, they differ and are not the same. MAD introduces a new New, apart from the New that was promised in the Old, and apart from the New mentioned in Hebrews. In fact Paul himself in 1st Corinthians mentions this New.

I understand. I've read a bit of MAD that I don't agree with (Bullinger, for instance), but a man I respect, with a seminary degree, told me I was well 'within' the Grace movement (grace alone) and within acceptable parameters of Mid Acts teaching 'so as to be indistinguishable." I do often agree with Mid Acts on many things and I also believe their instructions for reading the word of God are best for anyone to grasp the meaning of scriptures, but I'm unsure if it actually makes me Mid Acts. Likely just very sympathetic.

"Love your neighbor as yourself". Clearly, this is, to use your word, a Jew's mail, since it's found in the Old. So there's something different (part of the Old) and yet this same command is mentioned all throughout the New, including in Pauline epistles.

Agree. For me, there is a lot that is 'the same' but Mid Acts cautions against those. Because of the continuity of scriptures I see, I'm pretty sure it keeps me from a Mid Acts label. Bullinger tags almost anything "Jewish" as not for us. Jesus and the Apostle Paul were, in fact Jews, so I disgree with the extreme of Bullinger's 'difference.' I cannot help BUT accept a lot of 'Jewish' attached to my Christianity.

Paul also wrote about Communion, about the bread and the cup, writing to a church in Corinth, a Gentile city, with some dispersed Jews but a Gentile city and a Gentile assembly, and he wrote about Communion as if the Corinthian church was celebrating it.

Agree. There is evidence that the 7 churches were not all Jewish either. I'd want to ensure my theology was conclusive, but I do believe Grace alone saves us.

Now as I'm sure you're aware, there are elements of MAD who teach against going to church weekly, and against celebrating Communion, with the same basic reasoning as you give with "a Christian Jew's mail".

Right, there are different types of Mid and Late Acts believers and you have to know which ones you are talking with. Some are barely past the 2nd Acts (Dispensationalists) and some are at the other end of the extreme where nothing "Jewish" is for them.

Right. Like, MAD would say that when Christ teaches us to, "Seek ye first the kingdom of God", that that's not for the Body of Christ. Even though Acts records Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, teaching the kingdom of God.

Once discussion becomes difficult, even among Mid Acts one, to another, it is, if I'm correct, well 'within' Mid Acts discussion. I know a lot of Mid Acts disagree with Bullinger, for instance.

Well that's good.

It is. So many 'authoritative' people can leave the job of brow-beating to God and I've been pleased to not have to be a liaison between them and the Holy Spirit to another person. I don't need that headache.

One thing I would expect to see if indeed any of the New Testament is "Jewish mail" is something about circumcision. According to MAD I would expect to see Paul teaching against circumcision (he does), and teaching for circumcision in at least one of these supposedly "Jewish mail" books (there isn't any, not a single one).

As far as "Jewish" mail, there is no way to read and grasp Hebrews 6:4 without realizing it isn't talking about loss of salvation, not at all. It is specifically addressing a Jewish problem (that doesn't exist today, but did then), of offering two sacrifices for sin, one the Lord Jesus Christ, and two, the presentation at the temple.

Agreed in concept, though we probably disagree in content.

Probably not, because I may have some inkling, but am 'wait and see' as I am with almost all eschatology.

What's your thought on the institution of the office of bishop? Paul mentions the office, and wrote to two bishops that he personally consecrated, and taught one of them to continue the practice of teaching and consecrating new bishops, so that the office would continue. Also, Peter addressed this same group of authentic pastors, calling them elders. Whether they are elders, or overseers, or bishops, they are of Apostolic origin, including Paul, and not just Paul.

A bishop is simply the keeper of doctrine, thus any denomination that adheres to theology is in line and 'fall under' the teaching and doctrine. I can never be Catholic because I believe strongly they've a lot of Judaized doctrine and structure, especially concerning 'playing Holy Spirit' in another's life. There is no mark of Christianity but the Holy Spirit dwelling within His own. The 'fruit' is encouraged, but in no way 'qualified' by any but Christ. We do not judge Another Man's servant. He/she stands before his/her Maker, not me or anybody else in 'supposed' authority. The RC, interposes often between in all of its practice (different discussion, different thread).

 

[Right Divider]

I understand. I've read a bit of MAD that I don't agree with (Bullinger, for instance), but a man I respect, with a seminary degree, told me I was well 'within' the Grace movement (grace alone) and within acceptable parameters of Mid Acts teaching 'so as to be indistinguishable." I do often agree with Mid Acts on many things and I also believe their instructions for reading the word of God are best for anyone to grasp the meaning of scriptures, but I'm unsure if it actually makes me Mid Acts. Likely just very sympathetic.

To REPEAT for everyone's benefit: Bullinger is NOT MAD.

So please quit referring to his Acts 28 position as MAD... it's NOT.

 

[Lon]

To REPEAT for everyone's benefit: Bullinger is NOT MAD.

So please quit referring to his Acts 28 position as MAD... it's NOT.

Thanks. "Hyperdispensationalism?"

 

[Right Divider]

Thanks. "Hyperdispensationalism?"

You're welcome.

I don't really like that term either, as many Acts 2 folks like to call MAD "Hyperdispensationalism".

That's why I simply refer to Bullinger's position as "Acts 28".

 

[Lon]

You're welcome.

I don't really like that term either, as many Acts 2 folks like to call MAD "Hyperdispensationalism".

That's why I simply refer to Bullinger's position as "Acts 28".

:up: Appreciate the input

 

[Idolater]

I understand. I've read a bit of MAD that I don't agree with (Bullinger, for instance), but a man I respect, with a seminary degree, told me I was well 'within' the Grace movement (grace alone) and within acceptable parameters of Mid Acts teaching 'so as to be indistinguishable."

Well this reminds of Hillston (Hilston?), he or she was MAD but also not Open like most MADs here, more like you in apprehending God's sovereignty over the world, not so much emphasizing an Open future like most MADs here do. Do you remember Hillston? His or her posts might be worth a look to you.

I do often agree with Mid Acts on many things and I also believe their instructions for reading the word of God are best for anyone to grasp the meaning of scriptures, but I'm unsure if it actually makes me Mid Acts. Likely just very sympathetic.

Agree. For me, there is a lot that is 'the same' but Mid Acts cautions against those. Because of the continuity of scriptures I see, I'm pretty sure it keeps me from a Mid Acts label. Bullinger tags almost anything "Jewish" as not for us. Jesus and the Apostle Paul were, in fact Jews, so I disgree with the extreme of Bullinger's 'difference.' I cannot help BUT accept a lot of 'Jewish' attached to my Christianity.

That's why we keep the Old Testament, it's not just the Jewish history but it's the Church history as well. We learn from Hebrews, that there were already a great deal of very famous OT heroes who were, before Christ came, nonetheless already Christians with the same Christian faith me and you and all MADs believe, namely the single idea that He died and on the third day He rose again (we start to differ from there, but this one idea is the Christian idea, the idea that all our ancestor martyrs died believing). The promise of the New Covenant /Testament was given to and through the ancestors of the Jewish people, and it would not only join together the then divided northern and southern kingdoms (Samaritans and Jews), but Isaiah and other promise it would be Gentile-inclusive as well.

Since Christ, we have actually witnessed the unfolding of the Jewish religion side-by-side with the religion that Christ instituted, the former being the Jewish religion based upon the negation of the characteristic Christian idea of Christ's Resurrection, and the latter being the also Jewish religion based upon the Resurrection being nonfiction historical fact. Both traditions hold the Old Testament in the highest regard, one is living according to the belief that the New Covenant has arrived and the other is still convinced that the Old Covenant is in force, this is all obvious from a careful reading of Hebrews.

Agree. There is evidence that the 7 churches were not all Jewish either. I'd want to ensure my theology was conclusive, but I do believe Grace alone saves us.


Right, there are different types of Mid and Late Acts believers and you have to know which ones you are talking with. Some are barely past the 2nd Acts (Dispensationalists) and some are at the other end of the extreme where nothing "Jewish" is for them.

Once discussion becomes difficult, even among Mid Acts one, to another, it is, if I'm correct, well 'within' Mid Acts discussion. I know a lot of Mid Acts disagree with Bullinger, for instance.


It is. So many 'authoritative' people can leave the job of brow-beating to God and I've been pleased to not have to be a liaison between them and the Holy Spirit to another person. I don't need that headache.



As far as "Jewish" mail, there is no way to read and grasp Hebrews 6:4 without realizing it isn't talking about loss of salvation, not at all. It is specifically addressing a Jewish problem (that doesn't exist today, but did then), of offering two sacrifices for sin, one the Lord Jesus Christ, and two, the presentation at the temple.

And of course, there's no mystery, that the book titled Hebrews is written to Hebrews /Jews /the ancestors of Jewish people. So that's the plain context of the book. While MAD lumps this distinctively and clearly Jewish book /epistle together with all the non-Pauline books and calls the whole collection 'Jewish mail' is where I remain unconvinced by their argument. In fact a number of these supposedly 'Jewish' books pretty plainly refer to the Church, even if it is explicitly sometimes the Hebrew subpopulation, there are also plenty of teachings that are for the whole Body and not just the ancestors of the Jewish people. But even all that aside, the fact that there were Jews 'going to church' along with Gentiles, means that the MAD idea of two different clusters of people who both believed in Christ but who followed very different ideas otherwise, does not hold water.

The Corinthian church celebrated Communion. The Corinthian assembly was not exclusively Jewish. Communion is granted by MAD to be a sacrament (not their word) of the New Covenant, a thing that MAD says is only for the ancestors of the Jewish people. Yet Paul obviously approved in not condemning that Gentiles were celebrating Communion along with however many Jews there were in that congregation in first century Corinth.

Probably not, because I may have some inkling, but am 'wait and see' as I am with almost all eschatology.

The only thing I know for certain is that the Church will play a dominant role in the End times, but beyond that, I'm like you; wait and see.

A bishop is simply the keeper of doctrine, thus any denomination that adheres to theology is in line and 'fall under' the teaching and doctrine. I can never be Catholic because I believe strongly they've a lot of Judaized doctrine and structure, especially concerning 'playing Holy Spirit' in another's life. There is no mark of Christianity but the Holy Spirit dwelling within His own. The 'fruit' is encouraged, but in no way 'qualified' by any but Christ. We do not judge Another Man's servant. He/she stands before his/her Maker, not me or anybody else in 'supposed' authority. The RC, interposes often between in all of its practice (different discussion, different thread).

Different thread for sure. But there is something to the historical fact that all the first generation bishops were created by the Apostles' own hands, and the literary fact that Paul instructed one of these bishops to repeat the process with other new bishops. But different thread, yes.

 

[Lon]

Well this reminds of Hillston (Hilston?), he or she was MAD but also not Open like most MADs here, more like you in apprehending God's sovereignty over the world, not so much emphasizing an Open future like most MADs here do. Do you remember Hillston? His or her posts might be worth a look to you.

Yes, and have talked with him.

That's why we keep the Old Testament, it's not just the Jewish history but it's the Church history as well. We learn from Hebrews, that there were already a great deal of very famous OT heroes who were, before Christ came, nonetheless already Christians with the same Christian faith me and you and all MADs believe, namely the single idea that He died and on the third day He rose again (we start to differ from there, but this one idea is the Christian idea, the idea that all our ancestor martyrs died believing). The promise of the New Covenant /Testament was given to and through the ancestors of the Jewish people, and it would not only join together the then divided northern and southern kingdoms (Samaritans and Jews), but Isaiah and other promise it would be Gentile-inclusive as well.

A bit awkward, here. The Lord Jesus Christ preached to 'captives in prison' when He was in Hades, thus Abraham and all O.T. saints are now 'Christians' but imposing "Christian" upon the O.T. is confusing things.

Since Christ, we have actually witnessed the unfolding of the Jewish religion side-by-side with the religion that Christ instituted, the former being the Jewish religion based upon the negation of the characteristic Christian idea of Christ's Resurrection, and the latter being the also Jewish religion based upon the Resurrection being nonfiction historical fact. Both traditions hold the Old Testament in the highest regard, one is living according to the belief that the New Covenant has arrived and the other is still convinced that the Old Covenant is in force, this is all obvious from a careful reading of Hebrews.

:nono: If anything, we read that sacrifices are over and fulfilled in Christ AND the warnings thereof are no longer available to Jews, who have no system of sacrifice any longer BUT for the Lord Jesus Christ.

And of course, there's no mystery, that the book titled Hebrews is written to Hebrews /Jews /the ancestors of Jewish people. So that's the plain context of the book. While MAD lumps this distinctively and clearly Jewish book /epistle together with all the non-Pauline books and calls the whole collection 'Jewish mail' is where I remain unconvinced by their argument. In fact a number of these supposedly 'Jewish' books pretty plainly refer to the Church, even if it is explicitly sometimes the Hebrew subpopulation, there are also plenty of teachings that are for the whole Body and not just the ancestors of the Jewish people. But even all that aside, the fact that there were Jews 'going to church' along with Gentiles, means that the MAD idea of two different clusters of people who both believed in Christ but who followed very different ideas otherwise, does not hold water.

Argument over details, but all Christians believe Jews, at the moment, have no access to the Father BUT through Jesus Christ. It demands something the same, but 'what that same thing(s) is(are) is in question. While Jews and gentiles may have attended together, it was less than the norm. Most Jews stayed in Jewish circles and most gentiles remained in gentile groups.

The Corinthian church celebrated Communion. The Corinthian assembly was not exclusively Jewish. Communion is granted by MAD to be a sacrament (not their word) of the New Covenant, a thing that MAD says is only for the ancestors of the Jewish people. Yet Paul obviously approved in not condemning that Gentiles were celebrating Communion along with however many Jews there were in that congregation in first century Corinth.

I'm not sure all MAD agree on this point, that communion isn't for Mid Acts believers. It depends on where they divide. Right Divider has been helpful in thread to show the differences. I'd have to defer to Mid Acts to address this one.

The only thing I know for certain is that the Church will play a dominant role in the End times, but beyond that, I'm like you; wait and see.
Different thread for sure. But there is something to the historical fact that all the first generation bishops were created by the Apostles' own hands, and the literary fact that Paul instructed one of these bishops to repeat the process with other new bishops. But different thread, yes.

The debate would be over 'authority' and there is definitely a mixing when it comes to Catholicism, between Israel and gentiles. There may be a thread, or you can start another.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

MAD means that Christ began a new dispensation of the gospel of the grace of GOD through the Apostle Paul in the middle of Acts when Israel's rejection of her Messiah came to it's fullness and GOD postponed the prophetic program for national Israel. GOD then began to bless the nations thru the cross in spite of Israel's failure.

EXACTLY!

Here are three quotes from the pen of Paul where he speaks of a "dispensation" that has been committed or given to him:

"If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me toward you" (Eph. 3:2).

"Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God" (Col.1:25).

"...a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me" (1 Cor.9:17).

The "dispensation" which was committed to Paul is in regard to "God's grace", a "ministry", and a "gospel." Here Paul sums up his dispensational responsibility:

"But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20: 24).

Paul began to preach that gospel to the Gentiles at Acts 13:46-48 so the present dispensation of the grace of God began at Acts13.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Thanks. I'm reading Finck at the moment, will move on to Stam. I'm a little surprised I agree at this point. I do acknowledge what you are saying is scripture so have to agree with it at this point.

Don't bother with Fink because he teaches that those who lived under the law could not be saved apart from works or one kind or another. The Lord Jesus' following words spoken to the Jews who lived under the law clearly contradict the teaching of Finck:

"Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life" (Jn.6:47).

If you really want to know what Mid Acts teaches read Sir Robert Anderson.

 

[Lon]

Don't bother with Fink because he teaches that those who lived under the law could not be saved apart from works or one kind or another. The Lord Jesus' following words spoken to the Jews who lived under the law clearly contradict the teaching of Finck:

"Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life" (Jn.6:47).

If you really want to know what Mid Acts teaches read Sir Robert Anderson.

Thank you, Jerry. Appreciate the input. -Lon