He did, but Barnabas popped into my head first.
I am glad He had mercy on several Gentiles too, not being afraid to break the "LAW".
Proving it was, again, a fluid moratorium.
If God told you "you are", you are.
Care to be precise?
Paul did not write Hebrews; we do not know who did
- Thread starter Right Divider
- Start date
Proving it was, again, a fluid moratorium.
Why Mid-Acts Dispensationalism is clearly the superior systematic theology....
There are actually several reasons but one of the most elegant arguments I know of is the ability to read the bible and take it to mean what it says.
There are, of course, lots of places where the bible is written in figurative language and there are figures of speech on practically every single page of the bible but, generally speaking, the bible is not difficult to understand and most all of it can be read and understood by the average twelve year old child. The confusion comes from people "interpreting" the scripture on the basis of their doctrine. For example, those who believe that works are required for salvation read James (their "proof texts") and take it to mean what it says and then interpret Paul's teachings (their "problem texts") so as to make them agree. On the other hand, those who don't believe that works are not required for salvation, read Paul's epistles and take them to mean what they say and then interpret James so as to make it agree. Mid-Acts Dispensationalism does no such "interpretation". We simply read passages like Romans 4:5 and James 2:24 and take them both to mean precisely what they say. They both support our doctrine, on their face, and leave us with no "problem texts".
What's more is that this advantage isn't limited to a small handful of doctrines. The same dynamic is present with a whole range of doctrines that the church has fought and split over for thousands of years. There are, have been, controversies over whether Christians should circumcise their children, should we eat "unclean" foods, is water baptism necessary, are works required, is the rapture actually going to happen, do we end up in heaven or on the New Earth, can we lose our salvation, should be follow the ten commandments, do physical miracles happen today, should all Christians be wealthy and healthy, is speaking in tongues a real thing, etc, etc, etc.
Mid-Acts Dispensationalism resolves all of those issues and more and leave the believer WITH NO PROBLEM TEXTS! What more elegant of an argument could be asked for?
Some of those things are obviously related to one another and others might not seem related to the others at all, but, in actual fact, they are all very closely related. So much so that I can usually (not always) tell what someone believes about any one of those issues based solely on what they believe about any one of the others. All of those issues, and several others as well, are touched by how you answer one single question.
When did the Body of Christ begin?
Did it start in Genesis?
Did it begin at some point while Christ was on Earth (i.e. in the gospels)?
Did it begin with the resurrection?
Did it begin with Pentecost (i.e. Acts 2)?
Did it begin with Paul's conversion (i.e. Acts 9)?
Did it begin later in Paul's ministry (i.e. Acts 28)?
The way you answer that question impacts practically every aspect of your doctrine. It is the single most important theological question that can be asked from within the Christian worldview and you WILL answer it. Every single Christian has answered it whether he knows it or not in that the doctrines contained within his preferred flavor of Christianity are predicated on the answer to that question.
So, a lot of the work has been done for you! The only real question you have to decide about is whether you want to read the bible and be able to take it to mean what it says and have it all be in perfect sync, not only with itself, but also with your doctrine, OR do you want to have to read certain portions of the bible and struggle to figure out how it fits with certain other portions of the bible, which just means interpreting the parts that disagree with your doctrine so as to make them agree, which is a game that is played from both sides of the table with neither side able to establish why their side is more valid than the other and thus leads to all sorts of fights and splits and just problems all over the place.
Seems like a pretty easy choice to me!
Last edited:
As if that means anything at all other than "but I'm right and just going to ignore everything you just said."
Why do you assume I am?
What if you're not paying enough attention to the Scripture?
What I'm the Berean, and you're just you're typical "random Bible verse in the morning" kind of Christian? (I'm being hyperbolic to make a comparison, by the way, don't too much into that (ha).)
I'm going to assume by your "OA" and "OS" that you mean "the Twelve Apostles."
What is written is this:
And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question.So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, describing the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the brethren.And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them.But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us,and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.”Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles.And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me:Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name.And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:‘After this I will return And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins, And I will set it up;So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name, Says the Lord who does all these things.’“Known to God from eternity are all His works.Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God,but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.They wrote this letter by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings.Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “ You must be circumcised and keep the law”—to whom we gave no such commandment—it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth.For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.So when they were sent off, they came to Antioch; and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the letter.When they had read it, they rejoiced over its encouragement.Now Judas and Silas, themselves being prophets also, exhorted and strengthened the brethren with many words.And after they had stayed there for a time, they were sent back with greetings from the brethren to the apostles.However, it seemed good to Silas to remain there.Paul and Barnabas also remained in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also. - Acts 15:1-35 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts15:1-35&version=NKJV
And this:
Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me.And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage),to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me.But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter(for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles),and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do. - Galatians 2:1-10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians2:1-10&version=NKJV
The agreement was that Peter, James, and John, and the rest, should go to the Circumcision (Israel), and Paul to the Uncircumcision.
The point is that Paul's ministry was completely different to the ministry of the Twelve.
Try letting scripture inform your beliefs, rather than your beliefs inform your reading of scripture.
And?
Right Divider
Body part
Paul should be first in mind, since he is the apostle to whom God gave His current message.
That is pretty confused.
I guess that you think there are a lot of mystery apostles out there. That's very odd.
Like so much of Churchianity, you are not rightly dividing the Word of Truth. You mash is all together and make a complete mess of it.
What are you talking about?
I just agreed with you !
A man, would be my assumption.
What if you are wrong?
Yeah, they both should have been "Original Apostles"...OAs.
My keyboard is so old the letters have worn off, so I make an inordinate amount of spelling errors that the computer misses.
It was nice of them to divvy up the populations, but do you really think the Jerusalem apostles, OAs, would refuse to try to convert any Gentiles?
Or that Paul and Barnabas would quit teaching at synagogues?
I don't.
To do so would just be instituting more Laws to what had just been aboloished.
Not really, as they both taught the gospel...that Jesus died for our sins and was raised from the dead.
The scriptures have always been capable of doing just that, thanks be to God.
Divvying up the population wasn't segregation.
They both would have taught anyone who approached them with questions on the ways of God.
In fact, all but John and James were murdered in the foreign countries they ministered in...according to the references I found.
Only James died in Israel.
More laws?
It seemed orderly to me.
We can only hope so, because of the need for them.
I pray there are apostles in every country on earth.
And diligent disciples of the Lord to support them.
To me, no part of the bible need stand alone.
That truth can make you free of service to sin, Jesus said in John 8:32-34.
Right Divider
Body part
I have no clue what you're talking about.
You continue to be very confused.
Wrong again. You don't even seem to understand what an apostle is.
We now have the completed Word of God.
Again, you don't know what an apostle is.
Do you have wonder why Paul never writes about making disciples?
And that is why you do not understand context.
Get with the current program.
What you said completely dismissed literally everything I had just said.
What are you talking about?
I asked you first.
Ok.
You'd think that if they were divvying up the world, the majority of it would go to the Twelve, and Paul would get a small portion to go to. But the complete opposite is true. Why?
I think, as Scripture states, that they recognized, after Paul went into them to explain his doctrine to them, that preaching to gentiles would be ineffective for them, since the doctrine they were taught directly by Christ was different (with similarities) to what Paul was given, and as such, agreed with him, that he would go to the uncircumcision, and they to the circumcision, Israel.
Why would Paul or Barnabas stop teaching at synagogues where the Jews there did not believe in Christ the Savior, and were effectively Gentiles?
What laws were abolished?
Why do you continue to deny what Jesus said?
The Twelve taught that Jesus died for our sins and was raised from the dead, before He was crucified?
Then He called His twelve disciples together and gave them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases.He sent them to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick.And He said to them, “Take nothing for the journey, neither staffs nor bag nor bread nor money; and do not have two tunics apiece.“Whatever house you enter, stay there, and from there depart.And whoever will not receive you, when you go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet as a testimony against them.”So they departed and went through the towns, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere. - Luke 9:1-6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke9:1-6&version=NKJV
Or could it be that there were two different gospels, one that Jesus taught the Twelve, called the gospel of the Kingdom of Israel, where Jesus was to be the King and Israel's Messiah, and another, called the gospel of the grace of God, where Jesus was crucified, buried, and was raised, so that the entire world could be reconciled to God, and be saved from eternal suffering in hell?
Not what I asked. Why won't you let it do so for you?
Except that it was.
Because you say so?
Why does the Bible not mention, except in passing in a very few instances, such mission trips done by the Twelve? You'd think that since Jesus Himself told them to go into the world, such missions would have been the main focus of the Bible, but instead, we have Paul going into the world, while the Bible shows the Twelve staying in Jerusalem for the majority of the rest of their lives.
I'm not saying that the Twelve didn't go on mission trips, only that the Bible minimizes those trips, but magnifies the trips Paul went on, and that it does so for a reason, which you so far seem ignorant of, or have ignored.
This might have already been answered and so forgive me if this is redundant but the resurrected Jesus transferred His authority to the remaining Apostles so that they could act in His absence, even to the point of remitting or retaining a person's sins.
John 20:21 So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
Additionally, as I mentioned in an earlier post, God Himself confirmed their choice when all twelve of the Apostles, including Matthias, were filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
Acts 1:23 And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen 25 to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.” 26 And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
2 When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Note that what is quoted above is all one continuous piece of scripture.
Derf
Well-known member
I still need to go back through and respond to your, @Right Divider's, and @JudgeRightly's previous posts, as I haven't had time to do so.
Just so you all know, I am in some significant agreement with dispensationalism, and I do think there will be an earthly kingdom, characterized by Jesus sitting on "David's throne". In fact, I'm currently attending a church that teaches all that, though they teach that the church started at Pentecost (which I'm inclined to agree with). I've read, or at least started reading, at your or someone else's suggestions, Bullinger's commentary on Revelation, and Bob Enyart's "The Plot". My biggest hurdle is the dichotomous treatment of the two "churches", since Paul is explicit in his insistence that he was making one body of the two, as in Eph 2:14--For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall. I had some issues with Bob's treatment of a couple passages. Maybe I ought to find a thread (I think there's one) about his thesis to discuss some of that, but I wanted to finish reading it first. And I'm having a difficult time understanding my pastor's viewpoint when he says stuff like "The sermon on the mount is only for the Jews of the millennial kingdom," giving me sources that either say the opposite or are very weak. It's like has been pointed out (by me and others in this thread), that our system/doctrine is shaping how we read the scripture rather than the other way around.
I'm not necessarily hard over on who actually wrote Hebrews, but it's an interesting topic to discuss, and I'd like to think we can go beyond just repeating what others have said about it (which aren't unimportant, either) in the discussion. We can probably narrow it down some by eliminating some potential authors. I'll start by eliminating Timothy (the easy one).
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
The Dispies here don't grant that.
I believe Peter for instance went to Antioch and then to Rome, but that's not clearly and explicitly in the Scripture and I think that's why Dispies do not grant it.
Derf
Well-known member
I understand that, and that's why I don't buy into the MAD doctrine--they take it too far. There is significant evidence that all of them eventually went elsewhere and preached to Gentiles, especially right before 70 AD when Jerusalem was destroyed. The evidence may not be as trustworthy as the bible, but it is evidence that still needs to be considered, since the the bible doesn't say "and they all stayed in Jerusalem and disobeyed the Lord's command to go to all the world," and it doesn't say they all died before 70 AD. It would make sense to me that they, in general, kept the agreement with Paul for a time, because they felt the need to evangelize the Jews--until the Jews were destroyed for their rejection of their messiah. After that, the agreement was null and void (Paul and Peter were both dead--something we know from extra-biblical sources), if it was that strict in the first place. Peter's dalliances with Gentiles, spoken of by Paul in Galatians, tells us that He was already meeting with and eating along with Gentiles even before Galatians was written.
But I'm getting off topic...
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
We know that from Acts too:
Acts 10
28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
Acts 11
2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, 3 Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.
Glass houses, Sir. Glass houses.
Right Divider
Body part
Good choice.
Poor choice.
The day of Pentecost was nothing more than a continuation of the program that God had with Israel.
Yes, that removal of the division happened LONG after Pentecost and was introduced by Paul. When Christ returns, the difference between Jew and Greek (gentile) will once again be in place. See Revelation 21
All of the components in the Sermon on the mount can be found in the old testament prophets, like Isaiah.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
It's not just "not clearly and explicitly in the Scripture", it's not there are all.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
The question is WHEN was Peter shown this? That's right... after Christ called Paul.
No worries!
Good!
Acts 2 dispensationalism.
Not good.
Also consider Things That Differ: The Fundamentals of Dispensationalism by Cornelius R. Stam.
Excellent!
Consider this:
God went to a gentile, and out of the gentiles, separated for Himself a man whose descendants would (eventually) be called Jews (or more generally, "Hebrews"), His own nation called Israel.
Believers who were part of Israel, who accepted Christ as their Messiah, were (and will be) part of the Kingdom Jesus reigns over in the future. They were required to circumcise, if they weren't already circumcised (meaning they were a Gentile), and to keep the law (which is what circumcision was a part of), and endure to the end (meaning they had to follow the law until their deaths in order to achieve salvation). This is what God defines the New Covenant as, or also known as the gospel of the Kingdom.
On the other hand, believers who are members of the Body of Christ, who believed in Paul's dispensation, which was given to him by Jesus Christ Himself, were/are saved by simply putting their faith in Him, and are defined as neither Jew nor Gentile, despite their ethnic background. This is what is meant by the gospel of the grace of God
What that means is that, even though there could have been some overlap between the two dispensations (it's easy to imagine that someone was about to be circumcised right at the moment Paul was converted or soon after, perhaps up to 14 years after it, as Galatians 2 would indicate), when it was finally decided that Peter, James, John, and the other of the Twelve who were still alive would go to the circumcision, and Paul would go to the uncircumcision, any Jews (ethnically speaking) who had not acknowledged Christ as their Messiah were at that point no longer distinct from the Gentiles. They were simply sinners, lost, and in need of a Savior.
In other words, at least by the time Paul and the Twelve agreed to go to the uncircumcised and the circumcised, respectively, and probably earlier than that, say, around the time that Paul was converted on the roat do Damascus, access to the New Covenant had been cut off, and anyone who was not saved under Paul's dispensation of grace remained under the New Covenant until the day they died, while anyone who was saved under Paul's gospel remained in it, except unlike the New Covenant, which died with those who were under it, and put on hold until a later time, and was not preached to new ears, Paul's gospel continued to spread, and to this day.
Anyways, the point I'm trying to make is that unbelieving Jews PRIOR to Paul's conversion were candidates for the New Covenant, which has a distinction between Jew and Gentile, while unbelieving Jews AFTER Paul's conversion were no different than Gentiles, and were just as much in need of a Savior as the Gentiles were.
Something else to consider is that prior to Paul's conversion, the believing Jews (again, under the New Covenant at that time), were practically already in the end times, otherwise known as "the time of Jacob's Trouble," what we call "The Great Tribulation." It's very likely that, had Israel, instead of rejecting her Messiah, accepted Christ as her King, that Nero would have been THE Antichrist (capital A) described in Revelation. However, because Israel ultimately rejected her Messiah, God's plans for Israel going through the Great Tribulation were put on hold, and so, the pieces didn't quite come together, but still resulted in the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
This is what I was just talking about above in this post. The Jews WERE ABOUT TO GO THROUGH the Great Tribulation, and on the other side of that the Millennial Kingdom.
Everything Jesus preached, the Beatitudes, how to behave, all of it was for life in the Kingdom of Israel, in which Jesus would be ruling with a scepter of iron (a symbol of the law, by the way, not of grace), where punishments for wrongdoing would be swift and painful, but just.
I'm glad you recognize it! VERY FEW manage to even nudge their perspective slightly off-kilter, let alone have an entire paradigm shift!
I'm not necessarily hard over on who actually wrote Hebrews, but it's an interesting topic to discuss, and I'd like to think we can go beyond just repeating what others have said about it (which aren't unimportant, either) in the discussion. We can probably narrow it down some by eliminating some potential authors. I'll start by eliminating Timothy (the easy one).
I don't think we'll find out who did write it until we get to heaven, but I do think we can rule out Paul, simply because of the evidence presented in this thread.
Liar.
I remember the very discussion you and I were having a while back where I acknowledged that some of the Twelve had gone on mission trips to other parts of the world, and that I specifically pointed out that even though they did go, the Bible mentions it hardly at all, and for a reason. It minimizes their trips because by the time they DID go on those trips, Paul had already been converted, and God's dispensation of Grace had already been started, and so the story being told by the Bible would reflect that by hardly mentioning such trips, since they would distract from Paul's gospel.
The Bible was written the way it was written for a reason, and the authors were very careful to include or exclude, magnify or minimize some things to make certain points.
Beating up straw men doesn't make your position stronger.
I don't really recommend learning what Mid-Acts Dispensationalists believe from a Catholic, but rather from MADs themselves.
Supra, as per my previous post.
Except that that's what it shows, whether they went outside of Jerusalem or not. Not that the Bible is wrong, just that such missions, had they been included in the Bible, probably would have confused anyone who read it.
Don't forget that even prior to 70 AD there were Jews living abroad.
And it was a point of conflict between Paul and Peter. Paul "withstood him to his face, for he was to be blamed" is rather harsh language, and shouldn't be brushed aside and dismissed easily simply because one believes that Peter and Paul taught the same thing. There was indeed conflict between the two parties, but most people aren't even aware of that verse, let alone the rest of the conflicts that Paul had with the converts of the Twelve.
Fair.