What is Acts 9 Dispensationalism?

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by BChristianK
Yes.

God knows every possible future that could arise out of the free will choices of free will agents. God is never surprised.
I also believe that God had determined some things to be true regardless of our free will. As such, I believe that God’s purpose has always been to institute the Law for the purpose of pointing to Christ, and that God’s purpose has always been to institute a New Covenant that He extended beyond the bounds of Israel to include the whole world.

Now, do I think that God knows the entire future pre-determinately?
No.

Grace and Peace

so as to be clear, can God be suprised that something occurs without being surprised at what occurs?

for example, the possibility of me cheating on a test exists. but since it's against my character to do so, God would be suprised when i actually do cheat on a test even though he foreknew it as a possibility from eternity past. so he was not suprised at what came to pass, only that it in fact did come to pass.

is that close to your position? that seems to be mine for the current time.

 

[BChristianK]

Originally posted by lighthouse

If anyone can be saved apart from baptism it isn't a must.

Ah, so the entirety of the Christian life consists of the absolute bare necessities of getting one’s rump into heaven?? Everything else is considered, optional, unnecessary and unimportant?
:nono:

The gospel to the circumcision began after Christ's ascension.

Ok, I hope you will further enlighten me by answering a few things for me.
1. If the gospel of the circumcision began after Christ’s ascension, then what gospel was preached during Christ’s ministry?
2. How does the gospel preached during Christ’s ministry differ from the gospel of the circumcision? Meaning, what are the requirements (baptism, endurance, circumcision, etc…) and how are these requirements different from the gospel of circumcision?
3. Since you disagree with both Bob Enyart and Bob Hill on the interpretation of John 3:5, can you please tell us what Jesus meant by being born of water?
4. Since you disagree with Enyart and Hill as to when the gospel of the circumcision was preached, please tell me the first time it was proclaimed, when did it start?

So the thief doesn't actually negate anything in a dispensational system.

And, since you don’t agree with Bob Hill or Bob Enyart that baptism was necessary for salvation during the dispensation that preceded the ascension of Jesus, John’s baptism was unnecessary and optional and all of the people who were baptized by Jesus or by the 12 prior to the ascension engaged in an unnecessary ritual as well, right?

One question does arise from this, did everyone who was baptized as a result of Christ’s ministry need to be re-baptized after the ascension since their baptism was during a time when it was unnecessary?


I asked:

That’s great. Do you then believe the mid acts dispensational theology as described in The Plot?

You said:

For the most part. I do disagree with some of the terminology.

For the most part? Which part?
:doh:


I only got to read half of it, but the half I read doesn’t look anything like anything consistent with what you have posted to me in this thread.

I think you may need to re-read The Plot. Actually, I would start with “testing things that differ” from Bob Hill. Enyart’s theology is totally contradictory to yours on the role of baptism during the time of Christ’s ministry. Furthermore, the argument that baptism is not for the Body of Christ is one of the more notable distinctions of Enyart’s and Hill’s theology.

Both of them says baptism was necessary for salvation during the time of Christ, you claim it wasn’t. Both of them say that baptism isn’t for this dispensation, you say you aren’t against it, go ahead and get baptized, it doesn’t matter.

I’d call these inconsistencies more than disagreements of “terminology” wouldn’t you?

Now you said:

1] Paul did not confront Peter for preaching to Gentiles. He confronted him for preaching the circumcision gospel to those it did not apply.

What’s the difference? Who are those to whom the circumcision gospel did not apply if not Gentiles?

Second, are you are now rescinding your agreement with Delmar in post 12 of this thread?

‘member this?


Nimrod said:

The church under Peter was a distinctly Jewish church, not members of the body of Christ, and not equal to Paul's church.

DearDelmar Said:

I don't have a problem with any of this except for no. 4. The church under Peter was a distinctly Jewish church. The Body of Christ includes both the Jewish believers and the Gentile believers.

YOU said:

I'm goin' with delmar on this one.

So have you now changed your mind? Have you parted ways from DearDelmar’s viewpoint on this one?
You seem to now think that Peter is ok preaching to gentiles, so you don’t think the church under Peter was “distinctly Jewish” do you?

2] Peter did not preach the gospel of circumcision to Cornelius.

What gospel did Peter preach to Cornelius?

I’ll make it easy for you, just choose one:
1. The gospel of the circumcision
2. The gospel of the uncircumcision (you know, the one given to Paul)
3. Some other gospel (please explain)

The interaction between Peter and Cornelius took place right after Paul's conversion, so Paul was very new on the scene.

So? What gospel was preached to Cornelius?
In case you haven’t picked up on it, I’d really love to hear your answer to this question.

BTW, you previous evasion of this question saying it was the “Gospel of Jesus” is lame. According to acts 9 theology, both gospels, the one given to Peter and the one given to Paul, were gospels of Jesus. The question is, did Peter preach the gospel of the circumcision or the gospel of the uncircumcision to Cornelius?

I don't see any evidence that Peter was preaching the gospel of circumcision in 2 Peter.

No, I don’t, but then I do not claim to be an acts 9 dispensationalist either. I am not a mid-acts dispensationalist of any stripe and apparently, despite your claim earlier in this thread, neither are you !

With this question you demonstrate that you have either have a fundamental lack of understanding of The Plot and the mid acts dispensational theology of Bob Hill or Bob Enyart or a fundamental disagreement with The Plot and the mid acts dispensational theology of Bob Hill and Bob Enyart, or both.

Both Enyart and Hill teach that 2 Peter contains theology that is clearly distinct from Pauline theology and foreign to the gospel given to Paul.

Here’s what Bob Hill says on the subject.

They could lose their state of salvation if they are entangled in their sins again. 2 Pet 2:20 (Bob Hill, the “Two Gospel Teaching?” Thread in the “Dispensationalism” section of the forums on Biblicalanswers.com)

Cleary, Bob Hill believes that 2 Peter 2:20 teaches the loss of salvation, and that such doctrine is inconsistent with Paul’s gospel. And I’d be willing to put money on the fact that Bob Enyart agrees with Bob Hill on this.
The reason I’d be willing to put money on it is because I've read the first half of The Plot.


So far you have three very glaring inconsistencies with Hill’s and Enyart’s acts 9 theology.
1. You think baptism was unnecessary before the ascension of Christ. Both Hill and Enyart say that it was more than necessary, you couldn’t be saved without it.
2. You don’t think the church Peter ministered to was exclusively Jewish (being required to follow the law, circumcision, etc). Both Hill and Enyart claim that the only way to be a part of the Church Peter was over was to either be Jewish by birth or become a full proselyte.
3. You don’t seem to see anything that conflicts with the gospel Paul preached and the theology of 2 Peter. Both Hill and Enyart see 2 Peter as a book that was written employing the theological assumptions of the gospel of the circumcision which they claim differ significantly from Pauline doctrine.

I don’t know what kind of acts 9 dispensationalist you think are, but you have demonstrated that you either don’t understand The Plot to any significant degree, or you disagree with Enyart's theology far beyond what could be considered differences of “terminology."

Finally, I would go so far as to say that you think you are an acts 9 dispensationalist that agrees with The Plot but you don’t hold views consistent with this position at all.

Attempting to be cleaver, perhaps in order to mitigate your novice to the doctrine, you said:

:sozo:Quit arguing with me like I believe baptism shouldn't happen!

One problem with this. If don't believe baptism shouldn't happen, it is because you...


:sozo:aren’t an acts 9 dispensationalist!!!!!!!!

From “The Basics of Mid Acts Dispensationalism” {Linked from this site to “Bearean Dispensationalism”}

It is therefore the mid-Acts Dispensational view that because Old Testament prophecies have temporarily ceased (1 Cor. 13:8), water baptism is no longer necessary (see 1 Cor.1:17; 1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 4:5); although it was absolutely required at one time for believers in the house of Israel (Mk.16:16; Acts 2:38). While some churches actually recognize the fact that believers in the previous dispensation were required to be baptized, many of them still fail to understand the "mystery" that Paul speaks of. Consequently, they still allow (or maybe even require) their members to be baptized today.

Lighthouse, if you aren’t arguing that baptism shouldn’t be practiced today, then you aren’t arguing from a commitment to mid-acts dispensational theology.

And if you are an acts 9’r you're theologically apathetic about baptism.

Bob Hill, Bob Enyart, Knight, Turbo, 1Way, Clete, Hilston, etc… will all tell you.
:sozo: Water baptism isn’t for this dispensation!

Lighthouse if you want to be an acts 9 dispensationalist in the order of Bob Enyart or Bob Hill then I hope you will realize that You can’t take the answers you have given me on this thread and even get through the first chapter of iThe Plot without seeing some glaring inconsistencies on some fundamental aspects of mid acts theology.

For example, you said:

I don't see any evidence that Peter was preaching the gospel of circumcision in 2 Peter.

:shocked:

Enyart clearly interprets 2 Peter 2:20-22 as teaching that the loss of salvation is possible for those under the gospel of the circumcision. Enyart contrasts this with Pauline eternal security to get one of the justifications for his theme in The Plot.

In fact, the percieved inconsistency of Pauline letters to 1 and 2 Peter with Pauline theology…
:sozo: is a fundamental justification that Enyart and Hill use for mid-acts dispensationalism.

Look at “Testing Things that Differ” from Bob Hill, you will see that Bob Hill contrasts 2 Peter 1:10 with other Pauline scriptures. He does so in order to substantiate the claim that there are two gospels, and those two gospels differ on the matter of the security of the believer.

So when you say:

I don't see any evidence that Peter was preaching the gospel of circumcision in 2 Peter.

I say, me niether.
But I don't see Peter preaching a gospel of circumcision that differs from Paul's gospel. I am not an acts 9 dispensationalists and I don’t agree with The Plot. And if you really believe what you have just posted, then neither do you!

The Plot considers the evidence that Peter was preaching the gospel of circumcision in 2 Peter, and the inconsistency with Paul’s theology in 2 Peter as a reason to accept the premise of The Plot!


Enyart says:

A typical doctrinal argument emphasizes certain biblical passages (its proof texts) while de-emphasizing other passages (its problem texts). This very approach makes many students uncomfortable because they want to embrace the whole word of God. Ignoring or diminishing certain texts that appear to contradict a conclusion unsettles them and rightly so.
Any number of arguments can be presented for or against the ten doctrinal disputes listed above. These arguments traditionally pit one set of Bible verses against another. Someone trying to prove that a believer cannot lose his salvation will cite certain proof texts (i.e., Eph. 4:30; Phil. 1:6) {Paul’s theology} and dispute other problem texts (i.e., Heb. 6:4 6; 2 Pet. 2:20 22). Those who argue that a believer can lose his salvation swap the passages, so that they heartily endorse their proof texts (i.e., Heb. 6:4 6; Pet. 2:20 22), while contending with their problem texts (i.e., Eph. 4:30; Phil. 1:6). {Bob Enyart, The Plot First chapter, online edition at www.kgov.com/docs/ThePlot }

And yet you say:

I don't see any evidence that Peter was preaching the gospel of circumcision in 2 Peter.

Exactly what gospel do you think Peter was preaching in 2 Peter?

It is at this point, Lighthouse, I will make a request on your behalf.


:help: Can someone, Clete, Turbo, Knight, someone… who understands mid-acts dispensationalism and The Plot please take Lighthouse aside and help him to understand this theology? Lighthouse is under the impression he is an act 9 dispensationalist and that he agrees with The Plot but has demonstrated in his replies to me that he really just doesn’t understand either yet.

Grace and Peace

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by BChristianK

Ah, so the entirety of the Christian life consists of the absolute bare necessities of getting one’s rump into heaven?? Everything else is considered, optional, unnecessary and unimportant?
:nono:

Not what I said. Yes, baptism is optional, but that doesn't mean it's not of importance.

Ok, I hope you will further enlighten me by answering a few things for me.
1. If the gospel of the circumcision began after Christ’s ascension, then what gospel was preached during Christ’s ministry?

Well, it didn't involve Christ's death and resurrection.:think:

2. How does the gospel preached during Christ’s ministry differ from the gospel of the circumcision? Meaning, what are the requirements (baptism, endurance, circumcision, etc…) and how are these requirements different from the gospel of circumcision?

The difference is that Christ's death and resurrection were not included.

3. Since you disagree with both Bob Enyart and Bob Hill on the interpretation of John 3:5, can you please tell us what Jesus meant by being born of water?

I'm not sure. He may have meant water baptism, He may have meant born of the flesh. But I think it was the former. So I guess I don't disagree with them. I'm actually taking things they have said to their logical conclusions.

4. Since you disagree with Enyart and Hill as to when the gospel of the circumcision was preached, please tell me the first time it was proclaimed, when did it start?

Well, I would venture to say that there are technically two versions fo the gospel of circumcision. The one without Christ's death and resurrection and the one with it.

[qutoe]And, since you don’t agree with Bob Hill or Bob Enyart that baptism was necessary for salvation during the dispensation that preceded the ascension of Jesus, John’s baptism was unnecessary and optional and all of the people who were baptized by Jesus or by the 12 prior to the ascension engaged in an unnecessary ritual as well, right?[/quote]
Maybe not unecessary. But the thief makes for some good questions in that area. If the thief was a Jew, then he may have been baptized, at some point in his life. But Jesus didn't need to be baptized for salvation. That much we know for certain. Yet, He was baptized, by John.

One question does arise from this, did everyone who was baptized as a result of Christ’s ministry need to be re-baptized after the ascension since their baptism was during a time when it was unnecessary?

No. It's a very good question. And one that needs some answers, I guess. But I think the best is that the thief was either a Jew who had been baptized, or a Gentile for whom it was never required.

I asked:

You said:

For the most part? Which part?
:doh:

I disagree with the idea that when a Christian does something wrong it is still considered a sin. If it does not seperate us from God, and it does not lead us to death, and we are not condemned for it, then it isn't sin, by defenition. There is still right and wrong, though. And I agree that Christians are no longer sinners, even though they do things that are still immoral, sometimes.

I only got to read half of it, but the half I read doesn’t look anything like anything consistent with what you have posted to me in this thread.

Well, I don't know that it was as fleshed out as I have gone. I am curious to see what Bob would think of what I have said here. But you should read the rest of it. It is definitely some good reading, even if you don't agree.

I think you may need to re-read The Plot. Actually, I would start with “testing things that differ” from Bob Hill. Enyart’s theology is totally contradictory to yours on the role of baptism during the time of Christ’s ministry. Furthermore, the argument that baptism is not for the Body of Christ is one of the more notable distinctions of Enyart’s and Hill’s theology.

Actually it's not. I don't need to re-read The Plot. I just have some ideas that I would like to go over Bob E. with.

Both of them says baptism was necessary for salvation during the time of Christ, you claim it wasn’t. Both of them say that baptism isn’t for this dispensation, you say you aren’t against it, go ahead and get baptized, it doesn’t matter.

Actually, I'm not saying it wasn't necessary during the ministry of Christ. Just that the thief may have already been baptized, or that he was a Gentile [most likely Roman].

I’d call these inconsistencies more than disagreements of “terminology” wouldn’t you?

Yes. But that wasn't what i was referring to, when I mentioned terminology.

Now you said:


What’s the difference? Who are those to whom the circumcision gospel did not apply if not Gentiles?

It wasn't who Peter was preaching to, as much as what he was preaching. If Peter had preached what Paul preched, then there would not have been the confrontation.

Second, are you are now rescinding your agreement with Delmar in post 12 of this thread?

‘member this?


Nimrod said:


DearDelmar Said:


YOU said:


So have you now changed your mind? Have you parted ways from DearDelmar’s viewpoint on this one?
You seem to now think that Peter is ok preaching to gentiles, so you don’t think the church under Peter was “distinctly Jewish” do you?

Te curch under Peter was distrinctly Jewish. But that doesn't preclude Peter from preaching to Gentiles, as long as he was preaching the same thing Paul preached.

What gospel did Peter preach to Cornelius?

Christ's death and resurrection.

I’ll make it easy for you, just choose one:
1. The gospel of the circumcision
2. The gospel of the uncircumcision (you know, the one given to Paul)
3. Some other gospel (please explain)

#3. see above.

Although, it seems Peter may have set out to preach the gospel of circumcision.

So? What gospel was preached to Cornelius?
In case you haven’t picked up on it, I’d really love to hear your answer to this question.

BTW, you previous evasion of this question saying it was the “Gospel of Jesus” is lame. According to acts 9 theology, both gospels, the one given to Peter and the one given to Paul, were gospels of Jesus. The question is, did Peter preach the gospel of the circumcision or the gospel of the uncircumcision to Cornelius?

See above for my answer.

No, I don’t, but then I do not claim to be an acts 9 dispensationalist either. I am not a mid-acts dispensationalist of any stripe and apparently, despite your claim earlier in this thread, neither are you !

Well, I'm very new to the theology. So I'm searching it. But it makes sense, at least at the beginning. But it may need some more explanantion, as time goes on. I still believe that Paul preached differently than Peter and the rest of the disciples.

With this question you demonstrate that you have either have a fundamental lack of understanding of The Plot and the mid acts dispensational theology of Bob Hill or Bob Enyart or a fundamental disagreement with The Plot and the mid acts dispensational theology of Bob Hill and Bob Enyart, or both.

I understand The Plot. But I don't know that much about Mid-Acts, as I just learned of it earlier this year.

Both Enyart and Hill teach that 2 Peter contains theology that is clearly distinct from Pauline theology and foreign to the gospel given to Paul.

They do?

Here’s what Bob Hill says on the subject.

Cleary, Bob Hill believes that 2 Peter 2:20 teaches the loss of salvation, and that such doctrine is inconsistent with Paul’s gospel. And I’d be willing to put money on the fact that Bob Enyart agrees with Bob Hill on this.
The reason I’d be willing to put money on it is because I've read the first half of The Plot.

Okay. I concede. They are wrong. 2 Peter 2:20 is not about the people Peter was writing to. It was about people who were never saived, to begin with.

So far you have three very glaring inconsistencies with Hill’s and Enyart’s acts 9 theology.
1. You think baptism was unnecessary before the ascension of Christ. Both Hill and Enyart say that it was more than necessary, you couldn’t be saved without it.

Not too sure I disagree with them on that. The thief is the focal point. More study is required.

2. You don’t think the church Peter ministered to was exclusively Jewish (being required to follow the law, circumcision, etc). Both Hill and Enyart claim that the only way to be a part of the Church Peter was over was to either be Jewish by birth or become a full proselyte.

Peter preaching to the Gentiles does not mean he was over them.

3. You don’t seem to see anything that conflicts with the gospel Paul preached and the theology of 2 Peter. Both Hill and Enyart see 2 Peter as a book that was written employing the theological assumptions of the gospel of the circumcision which they claim differ significantly from Pauline doctrine.

Yes, I disagree with them on that.

I don’t know what kind of acts 9 dispensationalist you think are, but you have demonstrated that you either don’t understand The Plot to any significant degree, or you disagree with Enyart's theology far beyond what could be considered differences of “terminology."

Hopefully you have come to a clearer understanding of what you have perceived in our discourse.

Finally, I would go so far as to say that you think you are an acts 9 dispensationalist that agrees with The Plot but you don’t hold views consistent with this position at all.

I hold quite a few views consistent witht hat position. I differ on maybe a few things, but not many. But I agree witht eh basic premise that Paul preached a different version of the gospel than Peter did.

Attempting to be cleaver, perhaps in order to mitigate your novice to the doctrine, you said:



One problem with this. If don't believe baptism shouldn't happen, it is because you...


:sozo:aren’t an acts 9 dispensationalist!!!!!!!!

I believe it isn't necessary, or a must, but I don't believe it's wrong, or a sin. And neither does Enyart.

From “The Basics of Mid Acts Dispensationalism” {Linked from this site to “Bearean Dispensationalism”}

Lighthouse, if you aren’t arguing that baptism shouldn’t be practiced today, then you aren’t arguing from a commitment to mid-acts dispensational theology.

And if you are an acts 9’r you're theologically apathetic about baptism.

Bob Hill, Bob Enyart, Knight, Turbo, 1Way, Clete, Hilston, etc… will all tell you.
:sozo: Water baptism isn’t for this dispensation!

And all of them, except Hislton, will say it isn't wrong to be baptized. And we would all agree that it does not save in this dispensation.

Lighthouse if you want to be an acts 9 dispensationalist in the order of Bob Enyart or Bob Hill then I hope you will realize that You can’t take the answers you have given me on this thread and even get through the first chapter of iThe Plot without seeing some glaring inconsistencies on some fundamental aspects of mid acts theology.

You're going nowhere.

For example, you said:

:shocked:

Enyart clearly interprets 2 Peter 2:20-22 as teaching that the loss of salvation is possible for those under the gospel of the circumcision. Enyart contrasts this with Pauline eternal security to get one of the justifications for his theme in The Plot.

Yes, I disagree with him on this.

In fact, the percieved inconsistency of Pauline letters to 1 and 2 Peter with Pauline theology…
:sozo: is a fundamental justification that Enyart and Hill use for mid-acts dispensationalism.

I do see disagreements between Paul's epistles and 1 Peter.

Look at “Testing Things that Differ” from Bob Hill, you will see that Bob Hill contrasts 2 Peter 1:10 with other Pauline scriptures. He does so in order to substantiate the claim that there are two gospels, and those two gospels differ on the matter of the security of the believer.

And I say that he misinterprets it.

[qutoe]So when you say:

I say, me niether.
But I don't see Peter preaching a gospel of circumcision that differs from Paul's gospel. I am not an acts 9 dispensationalists and I don’t agree with The Plot. And if you really believe what you have just posted, then neither do you!

The Plot considers the evidence that Peter was preaching the gospel of circumcision in 2 Peter, and the inconsistency with Paul’s theology in 2 Peter as a reason to accept the premise of The Plot![/quote]
I would like a chance to discuss this with Bob.

[qutoe]Enyart says:

And yet you say:

Exactly what gospel do you think Peter was preaching in 2 Peter?[/quote]
The same thing Paul preached.

 

[BChristianK]

Originally posted by lighthouse
Yes, baptism is optional, but that doesn't mean it's not of importance.

You're tough to pin down. I feel like I am having a conversation with a different person every time you respond.

In Post #132 of this thread you quoted me and responded:

I said:
BTW, I would invite Knight or anyone more closely identified with Bob Hills teaching to keep me honest, but I don't think that Bob Hill teaches that baptism is prohibited, as if being baptized is a sinful act, but I do know that he thinks it is unnecessary, and that, in light of the current dispensation shouldn't be practiced.

you replied
Well, that's partially my stance. But I'm not going to tell anyone who gets baptized that it was wrong, unless they think it was necessary for the purpose of salvation or for the remission of sin.

So what part of that stance do you agree with? Do you think that baptism should or should not be practiced? Bob Hill and Bob Enyart aren't wemblesome on this question; they both say that one shouldn't.

Above, you have said that baptism is optional, but important. That just isn't consistent with saying that it shouldn't be practiced.
If you agree with Bob, then it's neither important nor optional. In fact, a mid-acts dispensational position is that it isn't an option for this dispensation at all, and is important that one isn't baptized.

Now I asked what the difference was between the gospel preached during Christ's ministry and after his ascension and you said:

Well, it didn't involve Christ's death and resurrection.:think:

And

The difference is that Christ's death and resurrection were not included.

You're probably right, they weren't included.

Now, is this the only difference between the gospel preached by Christ and gospel preached by the 12 after His ascension?

What else, if anything, was different?

Think in terms of: works, the Law, baptism, circumcision, eternal security/loss of salvation.

An answer of "I don't know" will earn you more respect than an evasion of the question lighthouse.


Regarding John 3:5 and "born of water, you said:

I'm not sure.

:thumb:

An honest man is a wise man, lighthouse. My respect for you has just increased a measure.

Now you say:

He may have meant water baptism,...

And if He did, then do you conclude that baptism is necessary or unnecessary based on this passage?

He may have meant born of the flesh.

He may, though I have come to doubt that this phrase is a hendiadys.

But I think it was the former.

So do I.

So I guess I don't disagree with them.

So you are now convinced that during the time of Christ's ministry, baptism was important and necessary, right?

Now, I’ll explain how my position differs from Enyart’s and Hill’s., I do not view baptism legalistically. I don’t think it is necessary such that the thief on the cross couldn't be saved without it. I think that God has set aside baptism as an ordinance to be obeyed, but one who cannot be baptized is not penalized for their inability. It is not a part of a magic formula such that it becomes a work unto salvation, and, in my opinion, it never was.

At the same time, if someone understands that God has instituted as an ordinance for the church, and refuses to publicly acknowledge Christ in this way, there is something wrong.

Perhaps the something wrong is that they have not become convinced as to the importance of baptism.

Perhaps they are not willing to be so identified with Christ. If it is the latter, I think there is cause to question their faith.

You bring up a relevant point when looking at the thief on the cross.

Maybe not unnecessary. But the thief makes for some good questions in that area. If the thief was a Jew, then he may have been baptized, at some point in his life.

Perhaps, but scripture doesn't say that he was so we would just be guessing...

You said:

No. It's a very good question. And one that needs some answers, I guess. But I think the best is that the thief was either a Jew who had been baptized, or a Gentile for whom it was never required.

Ah, but according to Hill and Enyart, no gospel was sent to the gentiles until after Paul's conversion, so if the thief was a gentile, he got in a bit earlier than mid-acts dispensationalists are comfortable allowing.

If he was a jew, we can dream that he may have been baptized, but we have no biblical reason to conclude that he was. And if we are to believe that baptism was necessary for the remission of sins during this time (as Enyart and Hill do) then we have a very important acceptation that falls through the cracks of their theology.

Remember when I said that I had, at one time, embraced mid-acts dispensationalism only to realize that it generated more unanswered questions than it solved?

This is one of those questions.


Perhaps it is just better to realize that salvation isn't a contract that both God and we are bound to if we satisfy all the requirements. Perhaps God was not looking for a loophole to throw the thief on the cross into hell.

Perhaps the thief on the cross was justified by his faith (just as we are), and were he able to do so, would have been expected to undergo baptism, but his given circumstances prevented it.

But Jesus didn't need to be baptized for salvation.

I think we have miscommunicated here. When I spoke of Jesus' baptism, I wasn't speaking of Jesus being baptized, I was speaking of Jesus baptizing.

Now regarding 2 Peter you said:

It wasn't who Peter was preaching to, as much as what he was preaching. If Peter had preached what Paul preached, then there would not have been the confrontation.

Right, and if there is no evidence that Peter wasn't preaching what Paul preached, then there isn't enough evidence to conclude that there are 2 separate and incompatible gospels.

Te curch under Peter was distinctly Jewish. But that doesn't preclude Peter from preaching to Gentiles, as long as he was preaching the same thing Paul preached.

Oh, and do you think that Peter preached what Paul preached to Cornelius?

You sort of answer this question..

Although, it seems Peter may have set out to preach the gospel of circumcision.

Or Peter may have set out to preach the gospel, and the gospel Peter preached and the gospel Paul preached aren't incompatible or substantively different such that they can be considered two different gospels.

Well, I'm very new to the theology. So I'm searching it. But it makes sense, at least at the beginning. But it may need some more explanation, as time goes on. I still believe that Paul preached differently than Peter and the rest of the disciples.

You mean with 2 Peter and Acts 10 being notable exceptions, right?
Remember when I asked:

What gospel do you think Peter was preaching in 2 Peter?

You said:

The same thing Paul preached.

Do you think that is the case for 1 Peter as well?

You have conceded that Peter (in 2 Peter) was preaching the same gospel Paul preached. 2 Peter is, incidentally, the second letter to the same region (Galatia) and it doesn't make a great deal of sense for Peter to have preached a gospel of circumcision in 1 Peter and then the gospel of the uncircumcision in 2 Peter does it?

Now concerning baptism for this dispensation, you say:

And all of them, except Hislton, will say it isn't wrong to be baptized. And we would all agree that it does not save in this dispensation.

No, you are wrong here. Bob Hill has clearly said, in his opinion water baptism is "wrong."

He says as much in a question he answered on his website: biblicalanswers.com/questionsanswered
The question was...

Is it implied anywhere in the Bible that it is "necessary" to be water baptized?...
Bob's Answer was...

Dear Dave,
Not only do I believe that water baptism is not necessary, I believe it is confusing and wrong... (emphasis added)

Bob Hill goes on to explain why he thinks baptism is wrong for this dispensation.

I am pretty sure, Bob Enyart (who studied with Bob Hill) agrees with Hill's conclusion. So I am afraid you are incorrect; Hillston, Enyart and Hill all agree that baptism is, in fact, wrong.

I think if you IM Knight and ask him if he thinks water baptism is wrong for this dispensation, he will tell you in no uncertain terms that he thinks it is.

Their theology leads them to their conclusion and if you agree with then or not, I think you can give them the benefit of saying that they are not theologically apathetic.

Lighthouse, I appreciate that you are exploring theology and that you are seeking knowledge. I think you have some very important misconceptions about what Bob Enyart's flavor of mid-acts dispensationalism is thought you claim to agree with it.

And at the end of the day, that ends up being a bit unfair for a number of folks.
1. It is unfair to Bob Enyart and Bob Hill and Knight for you to claim to subscribe to their tenants of mid-acts dispensationalism, and even go so far as try to explain that theological stance to folks like Nimrod, while not really understanding that which you are defending.

2. It is unfair to people who are trying to dialog with you about this theology. Most people don't want to debate a misrepresentation of a theology, that's really just a waste of time.

3. It is unfair to you, because you may want to agree Enyart and Hill, but really, you don't. And that will end up causing you confusion later on when you really do start understanding their theology.

I can understand how you may have felt like the rug has been ripped out from under you in this discussion. I think you make some excellent posts on matters that you understand. I just don't think this happens to be one of them right now. And that is in no way an indictment to your knowledge or to your character.

we are all still learning.

Grace and Peace

 

[BChristianK]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

so as to be clear, can God be surprised that something occurs without being surprised at what occurs?

I think that God can be disappointed. I feel more comfortable using those terms though I think that we may be describing the same thing. So though I think that God knows all possible futures exhaustively, I don't think He has chosen to predetermine all of our choices. And if God knows not only that I could lie, but that I will lie, then, in my mind, there is no freedom for me not to lie, and therefore I am predestined to lie.

I don't agree with that, so I argue that God knows that I could, but he has chosen not to know that I will.

You give your own example.

for example, the possibility of me cheating on a test exists. but since it's against my character to do so, God would be surprised when I actually do cheat on a test even though he foreknew it as a possibility from eternity past. so he was not surprised at what came to pass, only that it in fact did come to pass.

Yeah, sort of. I wouldn't go so far as to say that God was surprised (that, to me, assumes that something unanticipated happened).

Rather, I think that God anticipates all possibilities and is prepared for all of them as well, but does not lock us into things like cheating on tests and being deceptive by virtue of exclusively foreknowing them. If God knows what I will do before I do it, even before I was born, then I am locked into doing it by virtue of the foreknowledge.

You see, I have some friends who will say that God knows both, what could happen and what [/b]will[/b] happen.

My argument is "what is the point of creating more than one possible scenario of what could happen, if there is only one scenario of what will happen?"

To me, Calvinism and simple foreknowledge arguments end up splitting hairs. The only difference is whether God decree’s the behavior or whether He just chose to know it in advance. Either way, I’m locked in.

So, contrary to lighthouses assertion, I am not a closed theist.

I am somewhat of a neo-molinist who follows Greg Boyd to a large degree.

I am somewhat more closed of a theist than some here on TOL as I believe that God has exhaustive foreknowledge of all possible futures. And I believe that God has chosen to limit the number of futures that are possible.

I think the number is near, infinite, but not infinite.

I think there was, from the moment of creation, God determined that all possible futures would have Christ as the Messiah. There are no futures in which He is not. Furthermore, there was no possible future in which Christ’s was born, and was gored by a bull before his 10th birthday, thus rendering the world without a Savior.

I hope I have explained this to your satisfaction.

Grace and Peace

 

[God_Is_Truth]

BChristianK,

:thumb:

i like Boyd's stuff too, although up till about a week ago all i'd read was from his web site. i just started reading "seeing is believing" by him and hope to get some of his other books in the future.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by BChristianK

You're tough to pin down. I feel like I am having a conversation with a different person every time you respond.

In Post #132 of this thread you quoted me and responded:



So what part of that stance do you agree with? Do you think that baptism should or should not be practiced? Bob Hill and Bob Enyart aren't wemblesome on this question; they both say that one shouldn't.

I don't think that either is how it should be. It doesn't matter, either way.

Above, you have said that baptism is optional, but important. That just isn't consistent with saying that it shouldn't be practiced.

It's important to some people. But I don't think it's important to God.

If you agree with Bob, then it's neither important nor optional. In fact, a mid-acts dispensational position is that it isn't an option for this dispensation at all, and is important that one isn't baptized.

It's optional. Also, I really think you should finish The Plot, so you know more about Bob's stance on baptism.

Now I asked what the difference was between the gospel preached during Christ's ministry and after his ascension and you said:


And


You're probably right, they weren't included.

Exactly.

Now, is this the only difference between the gospel preached by Christ and gospel preached by the 12 after His ascension?

It seems that way. As far as I currently know.

What else, if anything, was different?

I don't know. I'm not exactly sure there was anything different. Not what was preached to Israel, anyway.

Think in terms of: works, the Law, baptism, circumcision, eternal security/loss of salvation.

I'm not completely sure that anyone was ever able to lose their salvation. Other than that, I think all the other ones were in effect.

An answer of "I don't know" will earn you more respect than an evasion of the question lighthouse.

I don't mean to evade questions.

Regarding John 3:5 and "born of water, you said:

:thumb:

An honest man is a wise man, lighthouse. My respect for you has just increased a measure.

Okay.

Now you say:

And if He did, then do you conclude that baptism is necessary or unnecessary based on this passage?

If He did, then it was necessary, for the Jews.

He may, though I have come to doubt that this phrase is a hendiadys.

So do I.

Okay.

So you are now convinced that during the time of Christ's ministry, baptism was important and necessary, right?

Yes. At least for the Jews.

Now, I’ll explain how my position differs from Enyart’s and Hill’s., I do not view baptism legalistically. I don’t think it is necessary such that the thief on the cross couldn't be saved without it. I think that God has set aside baptism as an ordinance to be obeyed, but one who cannot be baptized is not penalized for their inability. It is not a part of a magic formula such that it becomes a work unto salvation, and, in my opinion, it never was.

Okay. I disagree with the last thing. I think it was a work unto salvation, at one point in time.

At the same time, if someone understands that God has instituted as an ordinance for the church, and refuses to publicly acknowledge Christ in this way, there is something wrong.

Well, if they just plain refuse, it may be there beliefs. I don't think anyone would refuse to do it if they thought they should. But there are also people who may believe it isn't necessary, and they won't look for it.

Perhaps the something wrong is that they have not become convinced as to the importance of baptism.

I don't think it is important.

Perhaps they are not willing to be so identified with Christ. If it is the latter, I think there is cause to question their faith.

There's more than cause to question their faith.

You bring up a relevant point when looking at the thief on the cross.

Yeah, but a lot of it seems to be an argument from silence.

Perhaps, but scripture doesn't say that he was so we would just be guessing...

Agreed.

You said:


Ah, but according to Hill and Enyart, no gospel was sent to the gentiles until after Paul's conversion, so if the thief was a gentile, he got in a bit earlier than mid-acts dispensationalists are comfortable allowing.

Possibly. But his faith in Christ would allow for that. There were Gentiles who became proselyte Jews, before that. So, a Gentile who came directly to Christ would be let in.

If he was a jew, we can dream that he may have been baptized, but we have no biblical reason to conclude that he was. And if we are to believe that baptism was necessary for the remission of sins during this time (as Enyart and Hill do) then we have a very important acceptation that falls through the cracks of their theology.

Quite. But either one is an argument from silence.

Remember when I said that I had, at one time, embraced mid-acts dispensationalism only to realize that it generated more unanswered questions than it solved?

This is one of those questions.

I underrstand.

Perhaps it is just better to realize that salvation isn't a contract that both God and we are bound to if we satisfy all the requirements. Perhaps God was not looking for a loophole to throw the thief on the cross into hell.

No, He wasn't. God is always looking for a way to bring us to Him, and keep us from hell.

Perhaps the thief on the cross was justified by his faith (just as we are), and were he able to do so, would have been expected to undergo baptism, but his given circumstances prevented it.

I agree that he was justified by faith alone, but I don't know that he would have been expected to undergo baptism.

I think we have miscommunicated here. When I spoke of Jesus' baptism, I wasn't speaking of Jesus being baptized, I was speaking of Jesus baptizing.

I know. I wasn't making a reference to what you had said.

Now regarding 2 Peter you said:

Right, and if there is no evidence that Peter wasn't preaching what Paul preached, then there isn't enough evidence to conclude that there are 2 separate and incompatible gospels.

2 Peter not including evidence of Peter preaching a different version of the gospel [without being a different gospel] does not exclude that he may have elsewhere. I think the verses in Acts where the leadership of the Messianic Jewish church discussed what Paul should preach as requirements for the Gentiles to whom he preached is evidence that there were differences in what was to be preached to the two dfferent groups.

Oh, and do you think that Peter preached what Paul preached to Cornelius?

No. I think Peter only got out some of what he was prepared to preach when Cornelius' family was indwelt with the Spirit.

You sort of answer this question..

Or Peter may have set out to preach the gospel, and the gospel Peter preached and the gospel Paul preached aren't incompatible or substantively different such that they can be considered two different gospels.

They are different. Acts 15, especially verse 5.

You mean with 2 Peter and Acts 10 being notable exceptions, right?

Yeah.

Remember when I asked:



You said:

Do you think that is the case for 1 Peter as well?

No. In 1 Peter, Peter wrote that baptism saves us. I know he said thet he wasn't taling about water, but baptism is not the only answer of a good conscience towards God.

You have conceded that Peter (in 2 Peter) was preaching the same gospel Paul preached. 2 Peter is, incidentally, the second letter to the same region (Galatia) and it doesn't make a great deal of sense for Peter to have preached a gospel of circumcision in 1 Peter and then the gospel of the uncircumcision in 2 Peter does it?

No. You're right. But it seems wierd that he would preach certain things, after what he said in Acts 15, about Paul's preaching, when he was talking to people Paul preached to. However, Galatians 2 is obviously a point in which he did that exact thing. But I am curiious as to how it would end up in the canon, if he was. It's a curious question.

Now concerning baptism for this dispensation, you say:

No, you are wrong here. Bob Hill has clearly said, in his opinion water baptism is "wrong."

He says as much in a question he answered on his website: biblicalanswers.com/questionsanswered
The question was...

Bob Hill goes on to explain why he thinks baptism is wrong for this dispensation.

I am pretty sure, Bob Enyart (who studied with Bob Hill) agrees with Hill's conclusion. So I am afraid you are incorrect; Hillston, Enyart and Hill all agree that baptism is, in fact, wrong.

Hilston believes it to be a sin. I don't know that either of the Bob's feel that way.

I think if you IM Knight and ask him if he thinks water baptism is wrong for this dispensation, he will tell you in no uncertain terms that he thinks it is.

Alright. I did that. I will let you know when he answers me.

Their theology leads them to their conclusion and if you agree with then or not, I think you can give them the benefit of saying that they are not theologically apathetic.

I don't believe it's wrong. I think that the Bible would have made it abundantly clear if it was.

Lighthouse, I appreciate that you are exploring theology and that you are seeking knowledge. I think you have some very important misconceptions about what Bob Enyart's flavor of mid-acts dispensationalism is thought you claim to agree with it.

Well, I haven't found much to disagree with, in The Plot.

And at the end of the day, that ends up being a bit unfair for a number of folks.
1. It is unfair to Bob Enyart and Bob Hill and Knight for you to claim to subscribe to their tenants of mid-acts dispensationalism, and even go so far as try to explain that theological stance to folks like Nimrod, while not really understanding that which you are defending.

I've told Nimrod that I was new to it. But he keeps asking me questions I don't yet have the answers to. But I still think I can say I beleive in Mid-Acts. Just a different version than the one the Bobs preach. But I would like to discuss these things with them.

2. It is unfair to people who are trying to dialog with you about this theology. Most people don't want to debate a misrepresentation of a theology, that's really just a waste of time.

I know. But Nimrod likes to waste time.

3. It is unfair to you, because you may want to agree Enyart and Hill, but really, you don't. And that will end up causing you confusion later on when you really do start understanding their theology.

I don't care if I agree with them. I care if I agree with the Bible. I used to despise Bob Enyart, so I obviously don't care if I agree with him on the whole theology of Mid-Acts.

I can understand how you may have felt like the rug has been ripped out from under you in this discussion. I think you make some excellent posts on matters that you understand. I just don't think this happens to be one of them right now. And that is in no way an indictment to your knowledge or to your character.

Actually, I don't feel that any rug has been ripped out from under me. I don't remember any mention that baptism was wrong, in The Plot. So I had no reason to question that issue. And I already agreed that it wasn't necessary unto salvation. But I do believe it may heve been, at one time.

we are all still learning.

Yes we are.