Have I gone MAD???

[Jerry Shugart]

You are a Bible blender par excellence and hardly a dispensationalist at all.

Your ability to rightly divide the word of truth: zero or below.

All I see from you is your ability to just IGNORE any Scripture passage which contradict your ideas. You say that you believe the Lord Jesus and if you do then tell us if you believe what He said here to the Jews who lived under the law:

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

Do you actually believe His words there and do you admit that the only thing which a Jew who lived under the law had to do to be saved was to believe?

 

[Right Divider]

All I see from you is your ability to just IGNORE any Scripture passage which contradict your ideas. You say that you believe the Lord Jesus and if you do then tell us if you believe what He said here to the Jews who lived under the law:

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

Do you actually believe His words there and do you admit that the only thing which a Jew who lived under the law had to do to be saved was to believe?

Falsely accusing me again and again. Stop it Jerry.

Now in the cases of Abraham and David, works were required for salvation, whereas in our case works for salvation are distinctly forbidden; yet it is clear from the passages above that Abraham, David and we were all saved essentially by grace through faith and that works as such have never had any saving value.

Stam, Cornelius. Things That Differ (Kindle Locations 366-368). Berean Bible Society. Kindle Edition.

I guess that, in this case, you must disagree with "one of the giants of MAD".

 

[Lon]

Lon, I've read you over the years and I appreciate your openness to consider other points of view.
Most others on TOL who have opposed MAD have not appeared to be able to question their own position at least experimentally and listen to what the MAD position actually is.

I would not have anyone blindly accept MAD dispensationalism on any authority than rightly dividing the Word of Truth and coming to a firm conviction according to sound reason.

Press on, brother!

Thank you. I've enjoyed reading you over these 20 years as well.

 

[Lon]

Lon, do you think it is possible that the word "we" in that verse can be referring to "all" of the Gentile believers but only "some" of the Jewish believers but not "all" of them?

Lon, I appreciate your background material, but I would appreciate it if you would answer my question.

Thanks!

A bit of background, but feel free to skip to the last paragraph:


I do see Acts talking about churches and Galatians addresses gentiles and Jews mixing. Paul calls for a specific 'separation' but I'm not sure if such entails separate eschatologies (It may since the Apostle Paul mentions it in Romans). Right Divider is correct that Paul is the Apostle to the gentiles so he is also correct that something must be 'gentile' oriented. That said, Peter says he's read all of Paul's 'scriptures' so it is important to argue/discuss through 'what is the same' and 'what is different.' I again appreciate the conversation.

I'm in 'trying to see the points' mode so let me answer as to what I'm open to seeing:

Yes, it is 'possible' that 'we' can be refering to all of one group thus 'some' from another.

Do I find it likely? Peter's response to all of Paul's scriptures 'in all his writings' must mean he's familiar with them all.
It does not, however mean, that these were addressed to them. Galatians, for example, was specifically applicable to gentiles. No Jew would have applied it other than being careful not to judiaze a gentile.

So yes, possible. Likely? I'm still reading the thread and weighing. In one sense, in order to weigh carefully, it is better to listen on some of these because I'm trying to find out what Mid Acts believes, not rehash all that I believe. If it helps, as discussion proceeds, I will try to input meaningfully, but I'd rather be listening more, talking less as this thread progresses.

 

[Lon]

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

I'd guess at this point, that you are 2nd Acts Dispensational. I do know Mid Acts see the Gospel of John as Jewish in nature. While all Mid Acts (as far as my understanding at this point), does read Jewish mail, they divide more than they unify all of scripture. It isn't that they wouldn't disagree that all who believe have eternal life, but that works were evidence.

Now in the cases of Abraham and David, works were required for salvation, whereas in our case works for salvation are distinctly forbidden; yet it is clear from the passages above that Abraham, David and we were all saved essentially by grace through faith and that works as such have never had any saving value.

Stam, Cornelius. Things That Differ (Kindle Locations 366-368). Berean Bible Society. Kindle Edition.

Do you actually believe His words there and do you admit that the only thing which a Jew who lived under the law had to do to be saved was to believe?[/QUOTE]

They'd disagree (I'm pretty sure). James said 'faith without works is dead

Spoiler

James 2:14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without [a]your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is [c]dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made [d]perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was [e]accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

One has to wonder why James had to write a letter to Jewish believers to do what the Holy Spirit would have motivated already.

James 2:14 would make most sense from Mid Acts, if it were only talking about Jewish believers specifically because Jews were still in an intrinsic/extrinsic dynamic. The Holy Spirit indeed indwelled them, but they were in a society where 'no works' would only have them 'extrinsically' identified by word only. James was also concerned with community where some were being neglected in the body.

It doesn't mean believers need to be warned in doing works (extrinsic) but that as new creations, they will 'new naturally' do as the Holy Spirit living inside leads. We can 'quench' the Holy Spirit so God has placed us in a body as another check to help us live and grow as new creations.

Clearly, however, works were needed prior to the Lord Jesus Christ sending the Holy Spirit, because the Spirit would not indwell men until after this time. Works were an outward sign of authenticity. The Spirit, in Mid Acts, is the ONLY sign that a believer is saved by Grace (specifically in Mid Acts theology) that I've read so far.

Totally open to correction/input. This is just what I'm understanding so far. -Lon

 

[Lon]

You are a Bible blender par excellence and hardly a dispensationalist at all.

I think he's 2nd Acts, from most of what he's saying. There may be a nuance of something I'm missing, but I'll have to do some reading on Sir Robert Anderson, J.C. O'Hair, and Cornelius Stam to better grasp where they fall on the Dispensational spectrum.

A bit of reading from Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperdispensationalism:

The hallmark is that the church is served uniquely with Paul's ministry and upon that, there is a complete agreement. (Stam and O'hair).

Interestingly, O'hair had Calvinist leanings and was more aligned with Darby and Scofield than Mid Acts by this assessment:

John Nelson Darby, the father of dispensationalism, believes that the church began at Pentecost, but his dispensational scheme is not like Scofield's and later American dispensationalists (except classic Pauline dispensationalism). It is also unlike that of hyperdispensationalists. The church does not begin with a new dispensation for Darby, as the administrations upon Earth are not relevant for the heavenly church body. One can study R.A. Huebner, who sees the Church's advent at Acts 2, to get a better understanding of Darby's scheme of dispensations which is different than Scofield's. Also, Miles J. Stanford (classic Pauline dispensationalism) follows Darby's dispensational scheme and criticizes Acts 28 as well as Mid-Acts dispensationalists for not following Darby. Stanford drew heavily upon Darby's soteriology of "spiritual growth" and considered himself a "classic Pauline dispensationalist" in the line of the Plymouth Brethren Darbyite dispensationalists.[19]

However, classic (Pauline) dispensationalism's earliest teachers (Darbyite) were the source for J.C. O'Hair's consistent dispensational doctrines, but he seems to have adopted Scofield's dispensational scheme, adapting it to the Mid-Acts position.[20] Also, early Calvinism does not seem to be in evidence so much today and is being fully rejected in more and more churches.

This article says O'hair eventually came to a Mid Acts position. It may be important to distinguish between his early and latter writings. The above is when he was closer to 2nd Acts Dispensationalism.

 

[Right Divider]

I think he's 2nd Acts, from most of what he's saying.

He explicitly claims to be Acts 13, which is also why he claims to be MAD.

There may be a nuance of something I'm missing, but I'll have to do some reading on Sir Robert Anderson, J.C. O'Hair, and Cornelius Stam to better grasp where they fall on the Dispensational spectrum.

Jerry's main problem is that he takes verses out of context. Many people have that problem and I don't claim to be completely free from that myself.

But Jerry does not make any distinction between the calling of those in Israel (like the 12 apostles) from those in the body of Christ (like Paul). So he takes passages talking about the body of Christ and forces them to be universal.

So for him... all believers are in the "body of Christ". He even claims that all of the believers in Jerusalem were "put in the body" in Acts 7.

I believe that the whole company of Jewish believers were baptized into the Body of Christ at Acts 7 when Stephen was stoned and that was the same time when Israel was temporarily set aside.

This puts Jerry outside the realm of most MAD because we believe that Paul was the first member of the body of Christ.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Yes, it is 'possible' that 'we' can be refering to all of one group thus 'some' from another.

Lon, then you must believe that only " some" but not "all" of the Jewish believers called in the name of the Lord Jesus. In the introduction found in the first epistle to the church at Corinth we read the following:

"Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's" (1 Cor.1:2).​

Paul's words in this epistle were not just addressed to the church at Corinth but also to "all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord." That can only mean that Paul addressed this epistle to every Christian, whether they be Gentile or Jew, who were alive when he wrote this epistle. It is obvious that the Twelve are members of the Body of Christ because this is what Paul told all believers later in the same epistle:

"For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit" (1 Cor.12:13).​

Paul tells all the believers on the face of the earth at that time that we are "all" baptized into the Body of Christ.

Lon, do you believe that only some of the Jewish believers called on the name of the Lord Jesus but not all of them?

Thanks!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

This puts Jerry outside the realm of most MAD because we believe that Paul was the first member of the body of Christ.

So far you have given ZERO evidence that Paul was the first member of the Body of Christ. On the other hand, Paul speaks of those who were " in Christ" before he was:

"Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me" (Ro.16:7).​

In the same epistle Paul makes it plain that the Body of Christ is "in Christ":

"So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another" (Ro.12:5).​

It is your time to give the evidence which you think proves that Paul was the first member of the Body of Christ. Surely you have something?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I'd guess at this point, that you are 2nd Acts Dispensational.

No, I am a Mid Acts believer. Here are three quotes from the pen of Paul where he speaks of a "dispensation" that has been committed or given to him:

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

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

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

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

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

Paul began to preach that gospel to the Gentiles at Acts 13:46-48 so the present dispensation of the grace of God began at Acts13. Those in the Acts 2 community place the beginning of the present dispensation at Acts 2.

What do you say determines the beginning of the present dispensation, Lon?

 

[Right Divider]

So far you have given ZERO evidence that Paul was the first member of the Body of Christ.

1Ti 1:16 KJV Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

It doesn't get any clearer than that.

Paul is the PATTERN that the body of Christ follows. Not the believers in Acts 7 or the twelve or....etc. etc. etc.

The PATTERN comes first.... then those made like the PATTERN.

 

[Lon]

He explicitly claims to be Acts 13, which is also why he claims to be MAD.


Jerry's main problem is that he takes verses out of context. Many people have that problem and I don't claim to be completely free from that myself.

As I'd read in the article, O'hair would have been in line for most of his life, with Darby. I'd think you have a history of people who 'became Mid Acts' but started out with trying to bounce between Darby, Scofield, and perhaps trying to see where they agreed and disagreed with Bullinger.

But Jerry does not make any distinction between the calling of those in Israel (like the 12 apostles) from those in the body of Christ (like Paul). So he takes passages talking about the body of Christ and forces them to be universal.

So for him... all believers are in the "body of Christ". He even claims that all of the believers in Jerusalem were "put in the body" in Acts 7.

This puts Jerry outside the realm of most MAD because we believe that Paul was the first member of the body of Christ.

If he's reading the early works, perhaps there is a sense 1) where you are correct for current times, but perhaps allowable in by-gone years where Mid Acts was struggling (very limited evaluation, I've not read enough to this point).

 

[Jerry Shugart]

It doesn't get any clearer than that.

Paul is the PATTERN that the body of Christ follows. Not the believers in Acts 7 or the twelve or....etc. etc. etc.

The PATTERN comes first.... then those made like the PATTERN.

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting" (1 Tim.1:15-16).​

This passage says nothing about the Body of Christ. ZERO!

Paul is saying that since he was the chief sinner then he is a "pattern" to show forth the LORD's "longsuffering."

In other words, if Paul can be saved then anyone can be saved since he was the chief sinner.

 

[Lon]

Lon, then you must believe that only " some" but not "all" of the Jewish believers called in the name of the Lord Jesus.

It'd depend where I wound up in Mid Acts theology, at least for making sense. It'd rather be, I think, that there is a distinction between how Jews were following, and how gentiles were directed to follow. I'm not sure any theology system can deny that Galatians calls for distinction and difference, nor is it easy for them (I've seen attempts) to understand Acts 15:1-31, other than with a clear and different directive between Jews and gentiles. While yes, I think 'we being many, form one body' that each member is also not an eye or a foot and so even if I never realize I'm Mid Acts, I do see and appreciate the need to 'divide.' It is my understanding, that the larger portion of Mid Acts emphasis, is upon assuming 'something different' from God (dispensation) for gentiles. Covenant theologians emphasize 'what is the same' but even they (I?) must see, and clearly, that not all is or can be the same. Often, as I acquiesced points made by Mid Acts members, I'd say "yes" and AMR (in God's hands) would often add his agreement as well.

In the introduction found in the first epistle to the church at Corinth we read the following:

"Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's" (1 Cor.1:2).​

"both their's and our's" Same Lord, but clearly a distinction as well. There is a 'their's' in there.

Paul's words in this epistle were not just addressed to the church at Corinth but also to "all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord." That can only mean that Paul addressed this epistle to every Christian, whether they be Gentile or Jew, who were alive when he wrote this epistle. It is obvious that the Twelve are members of the Body of Christ because this is what Paul told all believers later in the same epistle:

"For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit" (1 Cor.12:13).​

As I said prior, 'possible' was the question and I believe I and you as well, must read carefully if we are not supporting 'possible.' For a very long time, End Acts (hyperdispensationalism) was always seen as heresy and Mid Acts close behind. I'm no longer convinced that it is. "Possible" has helped me in my own Bible studies these past years and I owe thanks to these discussions for helping me to read 'what is different' without a gloss over. It has made me pay better attention.

Paul tells all the believers on the face of the earth at that time that we are "all" baptized into the Body of Christ.

Lon, do you believe that only some of the Jewish believers called on the name of the Lord Jesus but not all of them?

Thanks!

I appreciate being pressed as it makes me 'choose' or study. This one will come after study for any definitive answer. From my own theology, the answer is/would have been "of course not!"

I'd however remind, as above, that they do indeed have differing directions given to them, and different apostles. I have bought-in, as it were, that Paul certainly is the Apostle to the gentiles (why so many do not believe Hebrews is written by Paul, and not all of them Mid Acts).

In this case, the assumption isn't (at least for me and what I understand) that they weren't part of the Body (the evidence is that they were worshiping and spending time together in at least some churches at times), but that they had letters and directions to them that differed.

Perhaps another Mid Acts will be able to better address this, I'm not sure my specific input on this is of much help or benefit to the thread. Mid Acts members will have to help/decide on that point. I don't 'feel' my input does much but helps steer questions whenever I have one, according to the thread intent. -Lon

 

[Lon]

What do you say determines the beginning of the present dispensation, Lon?

Too far down the road yet. I'd not be able to commit to any particular 'start' but some of what I'm reading from Mid Acts (a lot of reading material at present) makes sense that this dispensation started with Paul revealing the mystery that was hidden until he shared it. -Lon

 

[Right Divider]

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting" (1 Tim.1:15-16).​

This passage says nothing about the Body of Christ. ZERO!

Sure... Jerry... sure....

Paul is the PATTERN for those HEREAFTER.... but you cannot see because it does not agree with your "story".

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Sure... Jerry... sure....

Paul is the PATTERN for those HEREAFTER.... but you cannot see because it does not agree with your "story".

The verses say nothing about the Body of Christ, much less that Paul was the first member of the Body of Christ. Paul was the "pattern" in regard to the LORD's longsuffering for those who should follow.

Surely you have more than this, don't you?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Perhaps another Mid Acts will be able to better address this, I'm not sure my specific input on this is of much help or benefit to the thread. Mid Acts members will have to help/decide on that point. I don't 'feel' my input does much but helps steer questions whenever I have one, according to the thread intent.

Lon, Cornelius Stam was the founder of the Berean Bible Society (the largest organization which teaches the Mid Acts view) said the following about the verses under discussion at 1 Corinthians:

"There are other evidences that the kingdom saints of Paul's day became members of the Body of Christ. In I Corinthians 1:2, Paul addresses his letter to the Corinthian church, 'with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs [those in every place] and ours [those with Paul].' And he says to 'all' these believers 'in every place': 'For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one Body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles' (I Cor. 12:13). How can this be made to exclude the Judean believers?" (Cornelius Stam, Commentary on Galatians [Stevens Point, WI: Worzalla Publishing Co., 1998], 198).​

Those in the Mid Acts community on the other side of the issue will tell you that Hebrews, the epistles of Peter and the epistles of John, do not contain doctrine intended for you.

 

[Idolater]

It doesn't get any clearer than that.

Paul is the PATTERN that the body of Christ follows. Not the believers in Acts 7 or the twelve or....etc. etc. etc.

The PATTERN comes first.... then those made like the PATTERN.

I think mostly that what people read there is that Paul was basically a murderer, but he was shown mercy, the first very grave sinner, the first murderer, to obtain mercy, it was this pattern that Paul was talking about here, and not that he was the first individual member of the Body of Christ. He was forgiven or absolved of his murder by Christ, it sets the edge for who in the future will be permitted, allowed, welcomed, invited into the Body. There is no limit to who you are or to what you've done, the Lord's mercy is available to you. Paul was a pattern.

 

[Lon]

Lon, Cornelius Stam was the founder of the Berean Bible Society (the largest organization which teaches the Mid Acts view) said the following about the verses under discussion at 1 Corinthians:

"There are other evidences that the kingdom saints of Paul's day became members of the Body of Christ. In I Corinthians 1:2, Paul addresses his letter to the Corinthian church, 'with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs [those in every place] and ours [those with Paul].' And he says to 'all' these believers 'in every place': 'For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one Body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles' (I Cor. 12:13). How can this be made to exclude the Judean believers?" (Cornelius Stam, Commentary on Galatians [Stevens Point, WI: Worzalla Publishing Co., 1998], 198).​

Those in the Mid Acts community on the other side of the issue will tell you that Hebrews, the epistles of Peter and the epistles of John, do not contain doctrine intended for you.

Is it the contention of some Mid Acts, then that the BoC and Jews are separate groups completely? That they are often in the same church, but one is signified differently? and/or that there is their books are available, but not addressed to every believer?

As I'm looking how it is all 'separate' I will appreciate, how it it is all 'put back together' and 'if' it is all put back together. Thanks. -Lon