Mid Acts Disponsationalism

Mid Acts Disponsationalism


  • Total voters
    45

WoundedEgo

New member
Romans 2:14-15 doesn't say that. You are adding to the text. And you have neither addressed my points regarding the verses nor answered my question.

That is *precisely* what it says.

And I've addressed you point by point. But you are stubbornly repeating yourself, so I'll drop out and you may have the last word.

Cheers.
 

Doormat

New member
When your conclusion does not follow from your premises, that is a logical fallacy called "a non sequitur". That's what you have provided.

You have not shown that my conclusion does not follow from my premise.

Here is the logic of my argument: Since God said He was Abraham's reward (Gen 15:1 KJV), and God is Spirit (Jn 4:24 KJV), and God promised Abraham his descendents would inherit the reward (Gen 15:4-6 KJV), it follows that Abraham's reward and the promise was the gift of the Holy Spirit (Gal 3:14 KJV).

Absent any other logical, scriptural explanation of how God Himself could be a reward, and in light of Paul's clear statement in Galatians 3:14 and its context, I have no reason to conclude otherwise.

First of all, God stated (assuming for the moment the correctness of the translation) that he was *Abram's* reward, not yours. When did God say that he was your reward or that of the nations?

Genesis 18:18 Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?

And regarding you doubting the translation of Genesis 15:1 KJV, I suggest you look at the Hebrew. It states what I have said. The KJV is a good translation.

Second of all, there is nothing in the context to associate his being his own breath (the correct translation of RUACH/PNEUMA), so there is no reason at all that he should presume that it was not a reference to YHVH himself.

God is Spirit. John 4:24. You are arguing against that fact. When God tells you that He is your reward, it can only mean one thing, as I see it. Feel free to list all the ways that God could give Himself to a person without giving that person His Spirit. I believe your list would look like a blank page.

And thirdly, this was not a promise, nor a blessing but an assertion: "I am", not "you shall be" or "I will send".

The promise was that Abraham's seed would receive the reward. See Genesis 15:1-6.

And the statement "I am your great reward", as Paul points out, occurs *prior* to the covenant, and it is on this basis that it can be passed on to the uncircumcised!:

Paul states what the promise is (gift of Holy Spirit) in Galatians 3:14. He calls that promise a covenant in Galatians 3:17, and in the same verse states the law (old covenant) that came 430 years after that promise/covenant cannot annul it. It's very clear what Paul is saying.

Now, it is unreasonable and unnecessary for me to readdress the rest of your post because I have established over and over that your first step is on the wrong foot and in the wrong direction, so the rest is as well.

You have not established that. And if you wish to let my other points stand, that's fine with me.

Below is a list of all occurrences of the phrase "the promise" in the KJV:

You haven't used them to make a point that alters Galatians 3:14, as far as I can see.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Is there anything in that video that you didn't say, other than the part about having a demon?

I imagine he cut and pasted some of my quotes. Yes, there were things I did not say or things out of context of everything I say and believe.

The older I get, the less I care about people making fun of me (I make fun of me).
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
Do you want a line-by-line forensic audit of the video? It should be obvious what I would not say. Context is also important.

"out of context ...Context is also important"-Christ rejecting "god"rulz

No, the context is you, and your spam after spam cliches, that say nothing, biblical illiterate, as you wouldn't know the difference between the book of Jude, and John Lennon's nickname for his son.

"in context....etc."=his standard spam, when he is getting picked apart on every post, as his stack of commentaries do not address the doctrinal points

Clown.
 
Last edited:

Doormat

New member
Based on several exchanges I've had with those kind enough to share their mid-Acts beliefs, it seems a mid-Acts position generally holds that while Jesus was the final sacrifice at the cross, He commanded his Apostles (excluding Paul) to continue to keep the sacrificial law for justification.

Am I mistaken? Anyone.
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Give me one example.

Autorulz

"I quote the bible when necessary...(forget exact verse).. I have books in my library that refute you in detail that you cannot refute. They do a better job than I would in a few posts…...Google may also help....If you study biblical theology (looking at books, authors, etc.) instead of systematic theology or ultradispensationalism, you would see that... As it is, commentators disagree on… I believe sound evangelical scholarship totally refutes what you are saying … He is not worth reading in light of the sound scholarship that exists ..Sound NT scholarship recognizes.... Whole books have been written on it… The vast majority of godly Christians have not heard of MAD. The best of conservative, biblical, evangelical scholarship rejects it if they have heard of it…. Exact reference again? Did you check other versions or a commentary?... Buy a good commentary for the various opinions on… Hermeneutical books point out that… Even in your traditional view, scholars do not express your issues…I am not an expert on MAD and do not consider it a prominent enough view to gain much academic attention…Sound NT scholarship comes to different conclusions…Who was the prominent author (s) who held to it in your movement?.. I think you will be hard pressed to find commentators who would agree with you…As the Bible Knowledge Commentary points out,… it is not even on the radar of credible NT scholars…. I can't condense 30 years of study from a variety of sources into a few posts… any credible commentary or systematic theology will give you the arguments and verses…. I agree with the commentary. .. Listen to the Doctor (D. M. L-Jones), not radio preachers with weak NT backgrounds. …There is a reason it is a marginal view that lacks credibility among NT scholars…"Feel free to refute the many books written that contradict your views…. There is a reason no NT scholar… It is enough solid scholarship to silence MAD… an ignorant JW who blindly follows an organization or their misquoting of our scholars…. You underestimate the caliber of scholars that God has raised up to keep the sheep from falling for false teaching and ignorance on important subjects. Why should I trust you as an expert on things, and reject those with proven track records and godly character/insights? Eph. 4:11-13 vs internet wannabees with no training or accountability…Any credible biblical theology of John and Paul or any credible commentary or NT scholar or average believer has no problem with I Jn. vs Paul.....There are many resources to help you, but you prefer fringe writers over ones that can give you more biblical answers….but I should ignore more credible sources and their documented evidence? Why, pray tell?!.... What school did you go to again?... I went to Bible College in the early 80s, but have no scholastic club except TOL (which is not very scholastic)...MAD confuses corporate, missional issues with individual, redemptive issues....I did not read this in a book (except the Bible), but I think it is a valid observation..They confuse these concepts, a rookie mistake...OSAS makes sense in deterministic Calvinism, not in a free will, relational theism....Nick's view seems to reduce us to sock puppet automatons and requires ignoring large sections of Scripture. He also misunderstands the nature of faith vs works, morals vs metaphysics, Star Trek vs Star Wars, Venus vs Mars, etc You are simplistic to think it is a matter of what the Bible says when you interpret and twist to fit a preconceived idea. It is arrogant to assume that godly, capable, great thinkers through the centuries who reject MAD (new doctrine anyway) are clueless or without the leading of the Spirit….Mormons have a false gospel and false Christ. Pentecostals affirm the same essential, historical, biblical, orthodox truths that you do, but they do not dispensationalize away the gifts of the Spirit for the first century only. Even those who disagree with our distinctives generally do not dispute our common faith in Christ​
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Autorulz

"I quote the bible when necessary...(forget exact verse).. I have books in my library that refute you in detail that you cannot refute. They do a better job than I would in a few posts…...Google may also help....If you study biblical theology (looking at books, authors, etc.) instead of systematic theology or ultradispensationalism, you would see that... As it is, commentators disagree on… I believe sound evangelical scholarship totally refutes what you are saying … He is not worth reading in light of the sound scholarship that exists ..Sound NT scholarship recognizes.... Whole books have been written on it… The vast majority of godly Christians have not heard of MAD. The best of conservative, biblical, evangelical scholarship rejects it if they have heard of it…. Exact reference again? Did you check other versions or a commentary?... Buy a good commentary for the various opinions on… Hermeneutical books point out that… Even in your traditional view, scholars do not express your issues…I am not an expert on MAD and do not consider it a prominent enough view to gain much academic attention…Sound NT scholarship comes to different conclusions…Who was the prominent author (s) who held to it in your movement?.. I think you will be hard pressed to find commentators who would agree with you…As the Bible Knowledge Commentary points out,… it is not even on the radar of credible NT scholars…. I can't condense 30 years of study from a variety of sources into a few posts… any credible commentary or systematic theology will give you the arguments and verses…. I agree with the commentary. .. Listen to the Doctor (D. M. L-Jones), not radio preachers with weak NT backgrounds. …There is a reason it is a marginal view that lacks credibility among NT scholars…"Feel free to refute the many books written that contradict your views…. There is a reason no NT scholar… It is enough solid scholarship to silence MAD… an ignorant JW who blindly follows an organization or their misquoting of our scholars…. You underestimate the caliber of scholars that God has raised up to keep the sheep from falling for false teaching and ignorance on important subjects. Why should I trust you as an expert on things, and reject those with proven track records and godly character/insights? Eph. 4:11-13 vs internet wannabees with no training or accountability…Any credible biblical theology of John and Paul or any credible commentary or NT scholar or average believer has no problem with I Jn. vs Paul.....There are many resources to help you, but you prefer fringe writers over ones that can give you more biblical answers….but I should ignore more credible sources and their documented evidence? Why, pray tell?!.... What school did you go to again?... I went to Bible College in the early 80s, but have no scholastic club except TOL (which is not very scholastic)...MAD confuses corporate, missional issues with individual, redemptive issues....I did not read this in a book (except the Bible), but I think it is a valid observation..They confuse these concepts, a rookie mistake...OSAS makes sense in deterministic Calvinism, not in a free will, relational theism....Nick's view seems to reduce us to sock puppet automatons and requires ignoring large sections of Scripture. He also misunderstands the nature of faith vs works, morals vs metaphysics, Star Trek vs Star Wars, Venus vs Mars, etc You are simplistic to think it is a matter of what the Bible says when you interpret and twist to fit a preconceived idea. It is arrogant to assume that godly, capable, great thinkers through the centuries who reject MAD (new doctrine anyway) are clueless or without the leading of the Spirit….Mormons have a false gospel and false Christ. Pentecostals affirm the same essential, historical, biblical, orthodox truths that you do, but they do not dispensationalize away the gifts of the Spirit for the first century only. Even those who disagree with our distinctives generally do not dispute our common faith in Christ​
Is the blue something he didn't actually post?
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Is the blue something he didn't actually post?

The world is going to hell and he has nothing better to do than cut and paste and make-up endless quotes. He has no right to complain about my posts that actually have substance and try to defend/proclaim biblical truth.
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The world is going to hell

Some of it is, and you are going with them.

cut and paste and make-up endless quotes

I believe it in context, not as a proof text for your views. Justification is about our initial coming to Christ when we are declared righteous (legal term) and our past sins are dealt with. At that point of conversion, there are no future sins yet. Reconciliation deals with our past sins....My objection is to think we can persist in sheer rebellion, sin, and disobedience with impunity because non-existent sins have blanket forgiveness just because our past sins were dealt with at justification.

I have no need to "make up" posts when you make them yourself. This is a post full of cliches and no content.

....I think you are jumping to conclusions in a reactive vs responsive way, becoming a godplayer, quick to deny the same grace you have in your fellow believer's lives. You should be going after the Mormons, JWs, Unitarians, etc. here, not your fellow believer who avoids license and legalism by following the way of love demonstrated by Jesus and Paul (loving obedience flowing from grace/faith is not legalism or self-righteousness, but the fruit of yielding to the Spirit).
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
The world is going to hell and he has nothing better to do than cut and paste and make-up endless quotes. He has no right to complain about my posts that actually have substance and try to defend/proclaim biblical truth.
Answer the question.

No, that is saved in the word document. I was originaly seperating John W's original work from the rest, but decided to not do it while leaving that portion.
What?
 

Paulos

New member
Based on several exchanges I've had with those kind enough to share their mid-Acts beliefs, it seems a mid-Acts position generally holds that while Jesus was the final sacrifice at the cross, He commanded his Apostles (excluding Paul) to continue to keep the sacrificial law for justification.

Am I mistaken? Anyone.

All of your posts and answers on this thread have been very insightful, Doormat! :thumb:
 

Danoh

New member
Hi , and it takes a real dispensationalist to understand what I write , and begin GRACE and the Body of Christ in Acts 9:6 , dan p

Lol, how true that is; people think we make this stuff up.

And yeah, on the Acts 9:6. Though I know many who are very strong on 9:6 who still use the label Mid-Acts.

Acts 9D or , 1/3 Acts, lol
 

DAN P

Well-known member
Lol, how true that is; people think we make this stuff up.

And yeah, on the Acts 9:6. Though I know many who are very strong on 9:6 who still use the label Mid-Acts.

Acts 9D or , 1/3 Acts, lol


Hi and I have been an elder for many years and left over 10 years ago and still clash with the 2 remaining elders , concerning Acts 9 !

One is Acts 9 and the other one is Acts 9 and a part of Acts 13 !

The strong Acts 9 believer feel it is not his job to correct him , and of course I disagree and Eph 3:9 is very explicit !!

dan p
 
Last edited:

lifeisgood

New member
I say like Paul:

1 Corinthians 1:17-18 --- For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 2:2 --- For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

This is like when people say, "I'm African-American", " I'm White-American", "I'm Black-American", "I'm Italian-American", "I'm Chinese-American", "I'm Mexican-American", "I'm Tall-American", "I'm Short-American", "I'm Pokat Dots-American", "I'm Fat-American", "I'm Skinny-American", ad infinitum.

No! No! No! I'm an American!

I am not of Apollos. I am not of Paul. I am not of Cephas.
I am of Christ and what He did at the Cross of Calvary, exclusively, plus nothing.
 
Top