Theology Club: The Basics

chickenman

a-atheist
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
For those who are new to any kind of understanding of MidActs Dispensationalism, I thought I'd go back to some basics and give a very basic overview of the position. This is taken from a thread I started a while back...here.

THE BASICS
I'll kick it off by stating that MidActs Dispensationalism is an approach to reading and studying the Bible. Those of us who hold to this approach believe that we must read and study the Bible FORWARD, rather than BACKWARD. By this, I mean that we must understand what comes before Exodus before we can understand Exodus. We must understand "Old Testament" prophecy before we can understand Matthew. We must understand those things before we can understand what's going on in Acts. We believe that it is highly dangerous (to a doctrinal position that one formulates) for a person to read BACKWARD, meaning that he/she interprets an epistle, for instance, and then forces the things written previously to mean the same thing. We also believe it is dangerous to evaluate a book, chapter, or verse in and of itself. A verse HAS TO BE read and studied within the context of a book/epistle. That book/epistle HAS TO BE read and studied within the context of the commission of the human author (in the case of the epistles). And a book HAS TO BE read and studied through a biblical theology that does not neglect prophecy and God's stated plans.

If one labors over a verse or chapter but does not understand God's covenants, prophecy, and dispensed commissions, then the doctrine based on those verses will at best be accidentally correct and at worst downright heretical.

We also believe that we must take God's Word literally, unless the text demands that we don't. For example, when John sees a vision of a woman on a scarlet beast in Rev. 17, we can understand that when his vision plays out, God's intention isn't for it to actually involve a literal woman riding a literal scarlet beast, for the text defines what those two things represent. We gladly accept figurative language when the text demands it.

And we believe that God's Word is what is inspired, so we must rely in it, rather than relying on scholars' varying opinions on history, culture, or even the underlying Greek/Hebrew text. Scholarly opinions (appreciated and sometimes valued) will always differ from one another, but God's Word will always remain steadfast. So we rest on it as our ONLY authority.



Where the distinctions begin:
  • God called out a chosen nation to be His special people above all the nations of the earth.
  • The nation continually rebelled against God, to the point that they even rejected His Son Jesus Christ Who physically came to earth to get them to repent and turn to God.
  • For one year after Jesus' earthly ministry, God gave them repeated chances to accept the good news of His Son and the coming kingdom and to bear fruit.
  • Because the masses still rejected Him, God put a halt to the prophesied timeline of delivering the kingdom to them. He relegated the chosen nation to the status of the disobedient Gentile nations, thus putting ALL people in the same boat (as opposed to Israel being the preeminent nation).
  • Upon doing so, God called out Paul to be the "apostle to the Gentiles", delivering the "gospel of the uncircumcision" - a message that was different in many ways from that which was previously delivered by those apostles that Jesus chose during His earthly ministry.
  • Jesus Christ from heaven dispensed to Paul a gospel message that was specifically pertinent to "the one new man", whereas He had previously from earth dispensed a gospel message to the Twelve that was specifically pertinent to the chosen nation of Israel who awaited their coming tribulation and promised kingdom.
  • These two messages were different. The book of Acts shows the transition away from one to the other and displays the resulting confusion…a confusion which, by the way, still exists today and for pretty much the same reason as back then.
If anyone would like to discuss any of these points, then I and others would love to do so.

Thanks,
Randy
 
Last edited:

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I'll kick it off by stating that MidActs Dispensationalism is an approach to reading and studying the Bible. Those of us who hold to this approach believe that we must read and study the Bible FORWARD, rather than BACKWARD. By this, I mean that we must understand what comes before Exodus before we can understand Exodus. We must understand "Old Testament" prophecy before we can understand Matthew. We must understand those things before we can understand what's going on in Acts. We believe that it is highly dangerous (to a doctrinal position that one formulates) for a person to read BACKWARD, meaning that he/she interprets an epistle, for instance, and then forces the things written previously to mean the same thing.
:thumb:

I hear some say that they don't bother reading the OT because it does not apply to them.
I cringe when I hear that.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
we must understand what comes before Exodus before we can understand Exodus. We must understand "Old Testament" prophecy before we can understand Matthew. We must understand those things before we can understand what's going on in Acts. We believe that it is highly dangerous (to a doctrinal position that one formulates) for a person to read BACKWARD, meaning that he/she interprets an epistle, for instance, and then forces the things written previously to mean the same thing. We also believe it is dangerous to evaluate a book, chapter, or verse in and of itself. A verse HAS TO BE read and studied within the context of a book/epistle. That book/epistle HAS TO BE read and studied within the context of the commission of the human author (in the case of the epistles). And a book HAS TO BE read and studied through a biblical theology that does not neglect prophecy and God's stated plans.

I agree this is a sound and ideal hermenuetic.

Unfortunately, this is not usually how Christians come to faith, for most preaching of gospel is NT preaching, and education of the OT in most believers' lives follows.

But I would not argue the point you make at all.



If one labors over a verse or chapter but does not understand God's covenants, prophecy, and dispensed commissions, then the doctrine based on those verses will at best be accidentally correct and at worst downright heretical.

Amen.

We also believe that we must take God's Word literally, unless the text demands that we don't. For example, when John sees a vision of a woman on a scarlet beast in Rev. 17, we can understand that when his vision plays out, God's intention isn't for it to actually involve a literal woman riding a literal scarlet beast, for the text defines what those two things represent. We gladly accept figurative language when the text demands it.

Another Amen. With you so far . . .

And we believe that God's Word is what is inspired, so we must rely in it, rather than relying on scholar's varying opinions on history, culture, or even the underlying Greek/Hebrew text. Scholarly opinions (appreciated and sometimes valued) will always differ from one another, but God's Word will always remain steadfast. So we rest on it as our ONLY authority.

Indeed.



THE BASICS

Where it all starts:
  • God called out a chosen nation to be His special people above all the nations of the earth.
  • The nation continually rebelled against God, to the point that they even rejected His Son Jesus Christ Who physically came to earth to get them to repent and turn to God.
  • For one year after Jesus' earthly ministry, God gave them repeated chances to accept the good news of His Son and the coming kingdom and to bear fruit.
  • Because the masses still rejected Him, God put a halt to the prophesied timeline of delivering the kingdom to them. He relegated the chosen nation to the status of the disobedient Gentile nations, thus putting ALL people in the same boat (as opposed to Israel being the preeminent nation).
  • Upon doing so, God called out Paul to be the "apostle to the Gentiles", delivering the "gospel of the uncircumcision" - a message that was different in many ways from that which was previously delivered by those apostles that Jesus chose during His earthly ministry.
  • Jesus Christ from heaven dispensed to Paul a gospel message that was specifically pertinent to "the one new man", whereas He had previously from earth dispensed a gospel message to the Twelve that was specifically pertinent to the chosen nation of Israel who awaited their coming tribulation and promised kingdom.
  • These two messages were different. The book of Acts shows the transition away from one to the other and displays the resulting confusion…a confusion which, by the way, still exists today and for pretty much the same reason as back then.
If anyone would like to discuss any of these points, then I and others would love to do so.

Thanks,
Randy

My question:

Regarding the good hermenuetic established above, why do you begin your "Basics" with the election of the nation of Israel as being "where it all starts?"

Can we really begin our study of the bible learning about the formation of the Israelite nation, without first understanding the basic truths and purposes of creation (including the Adamic fall), and subsequent events of Genesis, such as the cause of the flood during the time of Noah, and the covenant promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?

I quote you: "we must understand what comes before Exodus before we can understand Exodus."

Agreed.

So I question why you premise "where it all starts" thousands of years after the beginnings of all revealed history between God and men?

Nang
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
For those who are new to any kind of understanding of MidActs Dispensationalism, I thought I'd go back to some basics and give a very basic overview of the position. This is taken from a thread I started a while back...here.

I'll kick it off by stating that MidActs Dispensationalism is an approach to reading and studying the Bible. Those of us who hold to this approach believe that we must read and study the Bible FORWARD, rather than BACKWARD. By this, I mean that we must understand what comes before Exodus before we can understand Exodus. We must understand "Old Testament" prophecy before we can understand Matthew. We must understand those things before we can understand what's going on in Acts. We believe that it is highly dangerous (to a doctrinal position that one formulates) for a person to read BACKWARD, meaning that he/she interprets an epistle, for instance, and then forces the things written previously to mean the same thing. We also believe it is dangerous to evaluate a book, chapter, or verse in and of itself. A verse HAS TO BE read and studied within the context of a book/epistle. That book/epistle HAS TO BE read and studied within the context of the commission of the human author (in the case of the epistles). And a book HAS TO BE read and studied through a biblical theology that does not neglect prophecy and God's stated plans.

If one labors over a verse or chapter but does not understand God's covenants, prophecy, and dispensed commissions, then the doctrine based on those verses will at best be accidentally correct and at worst downright heretical.

We also believe that we must take God's Word literally, unless the text demands that we don't. For example, when John sees a vision of a woman on a scarlet beast in Rev. 17, we can understand that when his vision plays out, God's intention isn't for it to actually involve a literal woman riding a literal scarlet beast, for the text defines what those two things represent. We gladly accept figurative language when the text demands it.

And we believe that God's Word is what is inspired, so we must rely in it, rather than relying on scholar's varying opinions on history, culture, or even the underlying Greek/Hebrew text. Scholarly opinions (appreciated and sometimes valued) will always differ from one another, but God's Word will always remain steadfast. So we rest on it as our ONLY authority.



THE BASICS

Where it all starts:
  • God called out a chosen nation to be His special people above all the nations of the earth.
  • The nation continually rebelled against God, to the point that they even rejected His Son Jesus Christ Who physically came to earth to get them to repent and turn to God.
  • For one year after Jesus' earthly ministry, God gave them repeated chances to accept the good news of His Son and the coming kingdom and to bear fruit.
  • Because the masses still rejected Him, God put a halt to the prophesied timeline of delivering the kingdom to them. He relegated the chosen nation to the status of the disobedient Gentile nations, thus putting ALL people in the same boat (as opposed to Israel being the preeminent nation).
  • Upon doing so, God called out Paul to be the "apostle to the Gentiles", delivering the "gospel of the uncircumcision" - a message that was different in many ways from that which was previously delivered by those apostles that Jesus chose during His earthly ministry.
  • Jesus Christ from heaven dispensed to Paul a gospel message that was specifically pertinent to "the one new man", whereas He had previously from earth dispensed a gospel message to the Twelve that was specifically pertinent to the chosen nation of Israel who awaited their coming tribulation and promised kingdom.
  • These two messages were different. The book of Acts shows the transition away from one to the other and displays the resulting confusion…a confusion which, by the way, still exists today and for pretty much the same reason as back then.
If anyone would like to discuss any of these points, then I and others would love to do so.

Thanks,
Randy

I think I understand and agree with what you have posted here. The future of the Nation of Israel is what I'm not sure about. The millenium kingdom on earth is one of those. I can see God using the Nation of Israel during these end times, but still believe salvation is on an individual basis.
 

chickenman

a-atheist
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I agree this is a sound and ideal hermenuetic.

Unfortunately, this is not usually how Christians come to faith, for most preaching of gospel is NT preaching, and education of the OT in most believers' lives follows.

But I would not argue the point you make at all.





Amen.



Another Amen. With you so far . . .



Indeed.





My question:

Regarding the good hermenuetic established above, why do you begin your "Basics" with the election of the nation of Israel as being "where it all starts?"

Can we really begin our study of the bible learning about the formation of the Israelite nation, without first understanding the basic truths and purposes of creation (including the Adamic fall), and subsequent events of Genesis, such as the cause of the flood during the time of Noah, and the covenant promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?

I quote you: "we must understand what comes before Exodus before we can understand Exodus."

Agreed.

So I question why you premise "where it all starts" thousands of years after the beginnings of all revealed history between God and men?

Nang
With my statement, "Where it all starts", I was referring to the start of that which seems to distinguish MidActs Dispensationalism from other viewpoints. I wasn't referring to where one should start bible study. We should start with Genesis 1, beginning our quest for understanding there.

Thanks for the question, Nang, and allowing me to clarify. :up:
 

chickenman

a-atheist
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I think I understand and agree with what you have posted here. The future of the Nation of Israel is what I'm not sure about. The millenium kingdom on earth is one of those. I can see God using the Nation of Israel during these end times, but still believe salvation is on an individual basis.

Hi, glorydaz.

Do you have a specific question we can try to work through together? Would love to try, if so.

Thanks, Randy
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
With my statement, "Where it all starts", I was referring to the start of that which seems to distinguish MidActs Dispensationalism from other viewpoints. I wasn't referring to where one should start bible study. We should start with Genesis 1, beginning our quest for understanding there.

Thanks for the question, Nang, and allowing me to clarify. :up:


Then I must ask if MidActs Dispensationalism is distinguished by starting from a different hermeneutical viewpoint than what you advocate, why it would be acceptable to you, considering your stated view of where and how sound bible study should commence.

???
 

chickenman

a-atheist
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Then I must ask if MidActs Dispensationalism is distinguished by starting from a different hermeneutical viewpoint than what you advocate, why it would be acceptable to you, considering your stated view of where and how sound bible study should commence.

???

I clarified what I meant by "Where it all starts.". My point was clear, Nang. Again, my "Where it all starts" comment wasn't about hermeneutics. It had nothing to do with where to begin bible study, as I very clearly noted in my last post. It was all about where the position begins to differ from many others.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
I clarified what I meant by "Where it all starts.". My point was clear, Nang. Again, my "Where it all starts" comment wasn't about hermeneutics. It had nothing to do with where to begin bible study, as I very clearly noted in my last post. It was all about where the position begins to differ from many others.

So you actually disagree with the MidActs version of "where it all starts?"

Are we readers to understand you inform us of the MidActs "basics" which do not happen to be in accord with your own "basic" and recommended hermeneutics?
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I clarified what I meant by "Where it all starts.". My point was clear, Nang. Again, my "Where it all starts" comment wasn't about hermeneutics. It had nothing to do with where to begin bible study, as I very clearly noted in my last post. It was all about where the position begins to differ from many others.
I understood you perfectly!
:thumb:
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
I understood you perfectly!
:thumb:

Please help me also understand then . . .

Is chickenman discussing the basics of sound bible study, or is chickenman presenting the basics of MidAct Dispensational apologetics?
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Please help me also understand then . . .
I'll do my best.

Is chickenman discussing the basics of sound bible study, or is chickenman presenting the basics of MidAct Dispensational apologetics?
The name of this forum is MidAct Dispensationalism.

While Chickenman did throw in his view of how one should study the whole bible, the MAIN interest is in MidActs views.

And one of (but not exclusive to) the main differences between MidActs and non-MidActs is God's special dealings with Israel and their future restoration.

So, the main purpose of this thread is to discuss the basic differences between MidActs and non-MidActs, and not how to study the bible from front to back.

Hope that helps.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
While Chickenman did throw in his view of how one should study the whole bible, the MAIN interest is in MidActs views.

Chickenmans OP clearly stated how MADists (supposedly) approach bible study:

"MidActs Dispensationalism is an approach to reading and studying the Bible. Those of us who hold to this approach believe that we must read and study the Bible FORWARD, rather than BACKWARD. By this, I mean that we must understand what comes before Exodus before we can understand Exodus."

So, the main purpose of this thread is to discuss the basic differences between MidActs and non-MidActs, and not how to study the bible from front to back.

Hope that helps.

So you are answering that the purpose of this thread is only MidActs apologetics, and that the "basics" Thread Title has nothing to do with chickenman's stated premise of what he claims is the MidActs "approach to reading and studying the bible."

Got it . . .

I would just say that before any of us can really understand the divine purposes of God's election of the nation of Israel, we must first understand what God revealed in Genesis and promised to Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. prior to raising up the Jewish nation.

Nang
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
Hi, glorydaz.

Do you have a specific question we can try to work through together? Would love to try, if so.

Thanks, Randy

Well, I do have some, but my mind is kind of blank at the moment....either that or I'm just dog-tired.

I guess my main problem has to do with the idea that the Jews will be given another chance during the "1000 year" kingdom on earth. I'm not even sure if that relates to the mid-acts dispensation or not...or if it's off topic.

I do see a distinct change that came about with Paul...so I suppose I lean toward MAD in that respect. Anyway, I'll keep reading and I do thank you for offering to share what you have learned.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
So you are answering that the purpose of this thread is only MidActs apologetics, and that the "basics" Thread Title has nothing to do with chickenman's stated premise of what he claims is the MidActs "approach to reading and studying the bible."
Almost.

I will add and bold one word to your statement, and then it will better reflect what I was saying.

So you are answering that the main purpose of this thread is only MidActs apologetics, and that the "basics" Thread Title has nothing to do with chickenman's stated premise of what he claims is the MidActs "approach to reading and studying the bible.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
:thumb:

I hear some say that they don't bother reading the OT because it does not apply to them.
I cringe when I hear that.

I do, too. But don't we hear the same thing from Mad about the Gospels not applying to us? I know when I read Matt. 5, for instance, that Jesus is talking to the Jews concerning how "impossible" it is for them to "keep" the Law....and I see the reason for it. But if we keep that in mind, there is a lot for us there, as well.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I do, too. But don't we hear the same thing from Mad about the Gospels not applying to us? I know when I read Matt. 5, for instance, that Jesus is talking to the Jews concerning how "impossible" it is for them to "keep" the Law....and I see the reason for it. But if we keep that in mind, there is a lot for us there, as well.

I do believe that some of what the bible says does not apply directly to us (BOC).
That is one of the tenets of MidActs ---- that some things apply only to Israel.

BUT
, most of scripture is about God's dealings with Israel.
And we should KNOW about it whether it directly relates to us or not.
Just as some of scripture is about God's dealings with Gentile nations; and Israel should KNOW about it whether it directly applies to themselves or not.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
I do believe that some of what the bible says does not apply directly to us (BOC).
That is one of the tenets of MidActs ---- that some things apply only to Israel.

BUT
, most of scripture is about God's dealings with Israel.
And we should KNOW about it whether it directly relates to us or not.
Just as some of scripture is about God's dealings with Gentile nations; and Israel should KNOW about it whether it directly applies to themselves or not.

Good point. Thanks.
 

chickenman

a-atheist
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
So you actually disagree with the MidActs version of "where it all starts?"

Are we readers to understand you inform us of the MidActs "basics" which do not happen to be in accord with your own "basic" and recommended hermeneutics?

This post makes it look like you didn't read my previous two posts, Nang. If you had, there's no way you could have honestly asked this. For the last time, the "basic" hermeneutic that I laid out is how I approach the scriptures. The "Where it all starts" bullet list that I then showed (I've gone back and changed the section header in the OP) does not elaborate on the hermeneutic. It is SIMPLY a list showing some of the distinctions of the MidActs position. It's NOT showing where or how to start studying the bible. It's showing distinctions.
 

chickenman

a-atheist
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Thank you, tambora, for understanding me and for attempting to explain to Nang. :up:

Nang...
Chickenmans OP clearly stated how MADists (supposedly) approach bible study:

"MidActs Dispensationalism is an approach to reading and studying the Bible. Those of us who hold to this approach believe that we must read and study the Bible FORWARD, rather than BACKWARD. By this, I mean that we must understand what comes before Exodus before we can understand Exodus."



So you are answering that the purpose of this thread is only MidActs apologetics, and that the "basics" Thread Title has nothing to do with chickenman's stated premise of what he claims is the MidActs "approach to reading and studying the bible."

Got it . . .
The "basics" hermeneutic is how I arrive at what I believe about God and the bible. And while the list (formerly called "Where it all starts") is NOT the hermeneutic, it is derived from the hermeneutic.

I would just say that before any of us can really understand the divine purposes of God's election of the nation of Israel, we must first understand what God revealed in Genesis and promised to Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. prior to raising up the Jewish nation.

Nang
Exactly right. We have to strive for understanding right from the very beginning.
 
Top