Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Actual Origin of Mid-Acts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    Do you deny that both Gentiles and Jews have been baptized into the Body of Christ by one Spirit? See 1 Corinthians 12:13.

    What Paul is saying at Galatians 3:28 is that there are no distinctions between those who are in the Body.



    The Acts 9 position has never been proved. The Acts 13 position has been proved.

    Hi Jerry and glad you are O K , YES , but when Jews and Gentiles Bond or Free and there are NO MALE or FEMALE in the Body of Christ , JERRY we are a New Man Eph 2:15 !!

    All lose there INDENTITY in the Body as the 4 verbs tenses in Gal 3:28 are in the Present tense , SORRY !!

    DAN P

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
      Darby made it plain that he thought that the "present dispensation" began upon the killing of Stephen in Acts 7. Sir Robert Anderson preached with Darby and he was the first to systemize Mid-Acts dispensation and when reading his books one gets the distinct impression that it started at Acts 13 when Paul preached to the Gentiles.

      I believe it was at Acts 7 when the Body of Christ came into existence. In The Berean Searchlight Win Johnson wrote:
      "Matthew 12:31,32 states: 'Wherefore I say unto you, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world [age], neither in the world to come.'
      "These words of warning came from the lips of the Son of God while He walked among men in His earthly ministry. They were addressed to the religious leaders of the nation Israel. Their blasphemy against Him even when He hung on the Cross was forgiven by the Father in answer to the prayer, 'Father forgive them, for they know not what they do' (Luke 23:34).
      "But when at Pentecost, Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, announced the return of Messiah on the condition of Israel's national repentance, these leaders instigated a persecution that reached its climax in the stoning of Stephen, a godly man, 'full of the Holy Ghost' (Acts 7:54-60). It was here that the 'unpardonable sin' was committed by Israel's leaders. The Third Person of the Trinity had been blasphemed and His pleadings through the Apostles ignored. This sin will never be forgiven" (Win Johnson, "The Unpardonable Sin," The Berean Searchlight, Feb.2001, p.6).

      The "unpardonable sin" was committed at Acts 7, and I believe that at that point in time national Israel was temporarily set aside. I believe that at that time the Holy Spirit baptized all believers into the Church, which is His Body.

      After all, what was the Lord to do with the Jewish believers since He had concluded the nation of Israel as a whole in unbelief?:
      "For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all" (Ro.11:30-32).

      That explains why Paul could speak of some being "in Christ" before him:
      "Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me" (Ro.16:7).
      Was their sin unpardonable then?

      Was not Saul among them? he too heard the gospel and saw Stephens' godliness, he also gnashed upon him with his teeth.
      One lavished upon in the Beloved
      sigpic

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by DAN P View Post
        All lose there INDENTITY in the Body as the 4 verbs tenses in Gal 3:28 are in the Present tense , SORRY !!
        Sometimes you have to use your brain, Dan!

        Are you willing to argue that you are no longer a male?
        "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal3:28).

        All Paul is saying is that "in Christ" all believers are on the same level, no longer some being free men and some being their bond servants.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Totton Linnet View Post
          Was their sin unpardonable then?

          Was not Saul among them? he too heard the gospel and saw Stephens' godliness, he also gnashed upon him with his teeth.
          The reference is to the "nation" of Israel previously being the Lord's special people. That generation of Jews as a "nation" fell from their previous position of a people above all people on the face of the earth but yet "individual" Jews could still be saved.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
            Sometimes you have to use your brain, Dan!

            Are you willing to argue that you are no longer a male?
            "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal3:28).

            All Paul is saying is that "in Christ" all believers are on the same level, no longer some being free men and some being their bond servants.

            Hi and I believe you are mis-understanding , what will happen at the DEPARTUTE /what others call thre RAPTURE , and that is when there will not be MALE nor FEMALE , think a little BIT MORE Jerry !!

            dan p

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
              The reference is to the "nation" of Israel previously being the Lord's special people. That generation of Jews as a "nation" fell from their previous position of a people above all people on the face of the earth but yet "individual" Jews could still be saved.
              That won't do...Saul was a rejector he was not passive in the matter of Stephen's martyrdom, so if that were the unpardonable sin then Saul could not have been pardoned.

              ...how could the slaying of Stephen be more heinious than the slaying of the Prince of glory.
              One lavished upon in the Beloved
              sigpic

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by DAN P View Post
                Hi and I believe you are mis-understanding , what will happen at the DEPARTUTE /what others call thre RAPTURE , and that is when there will not be MALE nor FEMALE , think a little BIT MORE Jerry !!
                In case you forgot the subject was not in regard to the future at the rapture. After all, Paul does not use the "future" tense when he writes that there is no bond nor free in the Body of Christ but instead the "present" tense.
                "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal3:28).

                All Paul is saying is that "in Christ" all believers are on the same level, no longer some being free men and some being their bond servants.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Totton Linnet View Post
                  That won't do...Saul was a rejector he was not passive in the matter of Stephen's martyrdom, so if that were the unpardonable sin then Saul could not have been pardoned.

                  ...how could the slaying of Stephen be more heinious than the slaying of the Prince of glory.
                  To "consent" to something is not the same as actively participating in that same thing.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Sure it is


                    He held their coats so that they could better lob their stones.
                    One lavished upon in the Beloved
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Totton Linnet View Post
                      Sure it is

                      He held their coats so that they could better lob their stones.
                      Where in the Bible do we read that?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
                        In case you forgot the subject was not in regard to the future at the rapture. After all, Paul does not use the "future" tense when he writes that there is no bond nor free in the Body of Christ but instead the "present" tense.
                        "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal3:28).

                        All Paul is saying is that "in Christ" all believers are on the same level, no longer some being free men and some being their bond servants.

                        Hi and there are just 4 verbs in Gal 3:28 and all are in the Greek PRESENT TENSE so we agree on that but can not agree that there is a there is a Greek for RAPTURE as it is a Latin word !!

                        When the Lord comes for as recorded in 2 Thess 2:1 the Greek word for " COMING /is PAROUIA and in 2 Thess 2:3 is DEPARTURE / APOSTASIA !!

                        At the DEPARTURE /PAROUIA there are no MALES nor FEMALES as Gal 3:28 is written !!

                        dan p

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
                          Darby:

                          "Reference to the second chapter of Galatians will confirm and establish the point historically as to the present dispensation, where not only is the fact stated of Paul having the ministry of the Gentiles, as Peter of the circumcision; but it was actually agreed on their conference, consequent upon the grace given, that Paul and Barnabas should go to the uncircumcision; and James, and Cephas, and John should go to the circumcision. And so far was the apostle's mind under Judaising influence, that it required a positive fresh revelation to induce him to go into company with a Gentile at all, and even after this he would not eat when certain came from James. In fact the Gentile dispensation, as a distinct thing, took its rise on the death of Stephen, the witness that the Jews resisted the Holy Ghost: as their fathers did, so did they" (Darby, The Apostasy of the Successive Dispensations).
                          Jerry, good to see you back in action!

                          A thought...

                          Darby's words "And so far was the apostle's mind under Judaising influence, that it required a positive fresh revelation to induce him to go into company with a Gentile at all" appear to imply that Peter's Acts 10 vision, etc., had been because Peter had been in error.

                          If so, Darby's is Classic Acts 2 Dispensational Thought there.

                          Per Matthew 23 and Matthew 28, etc., Peter was following THEIR Christ given marching orders in Acts 10.

                          It appears Darby was reading Mystery into Prophecy.

                          Peter was off in the latter part of Galatians 2 (re: his behavior at Antioch).

                          At the same time, also per a Galatians 2, he was not off-base in Acts 10, he had in fact been following his "Apostleship of the circumcision" in Acts 10, just as he had been instructed to.

                          Anyway, again; glad to see you pulled through!

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X