Mid Acts Disponsationalism

Mid Acts Disponsationalism


  • Total voters
    45

chickenman

a-atheist
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Hi, Doormat.

Since that information is from my other thread, then feel free to post your same questions over there. I'll do my best to address them. No point in taking from one thread to try to get answers elsewhere, though. So I'll be on the lookout over there.

Thanks!

Randy
 

vegascowboy

New member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
In what way was Israel put away, brother? I'm still not seeing it.

Ask yourself...to whom was Christ speaking? To whom was Paul speaking?

Did they say the same thing? Was their message the same?

Did both instruct others to follow the law?
 

Doormat

New member
I gave you that link for you to read through at your leisure.

Thank you, sister, but I don't have much leisure time.

Did not any of the posts in that thread address your questions?

Brother Randy has offered to respond on his thread, so I may not have to read all 90 pages to understand whether this is an argument over form, an argument over substance, or both.
 

Doormat

New member
Ask yourself...to whom was Christ speaking? To whom was Paul speaking?

Both were speaking to His sheep. Anyone else?

Did they say the same thing? Was their message the same?

Identical in substance, and very similar in form. The contradictions that people keep thinking they see are due to a number of factors, but not because there were allegedly two gospels, one works-based and one not.

Did both instruct others to follow the law?

Yes and no. Neither instructed others that anyone is justified by the deeds of the law. Both instructed others to not sin. Both instructed the just shall live by faith.

Tell me brother, do you believe the narrow way is the righteousness of God without the law?

Brother NickM believes that the narrow way is that; I know because he gave me a thumbs up for pointing it out on another thread. Maybe his view is not that of mid-Acts? :idunno: But I want to know your answer, and if anyone knows, the "official" mid-Acts position on what the narrow way is.

Also, is the righteousness of God without the law the substance of the gospel that Paul preached? He seems to indicate it is. Romans 3:21.
 

DAN P

New member
:up: Why not participate in the poll.


Hi , and I feel uneasy for me to say that I am Mid-Acts , when I know that Acts 9:6 is the right position that explains it and makes all other Acts positions or MAD OBSOLETE .

I normally write against MAD , because many refuse to take a stand for Acts 9:6 as some in my Assembly and they hear it from me .

A lot of dispensationalist do not feel like me and refuse to take a stand one way or the other and will not defend their position !!

Some in our Assembly are also Acts 13 and also Acts 28 Hyper-disps !!

dan p
 

Lighthouse

Star-Spangled Kid
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Here is what brother Lighthouse claimed on another thread is the idea behind mid-Acts theology:

Is that really what all those who hold to MAD theology believe? It seems incredible.
At least you finally understand where I'm coming from.
 

vegascowboy

New member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Both were speaking to His sheep. Anyone else?

Hello Friend, and thank you for responding.

May I ask you, how do you define sheep?

Identical in substance, and very similar in form. The contradictions that people keep thinking they see are due to a number of factors, but not because there were allegedly two gospels, one works-based and one not.

Please drag this out a bit more for me, if you will. Similar, as you know, is not equal. What was different? You say this is not because there were two gospels. What defines a Gospel, and what would it require for one to be different from another?


Yes and no. Neither instructed others that anyone is justified by the deeds of the law. Both instructed others to not sin. Both instructed the just shall live by faith.

Brother, I think that you are not reading carefully. I do not doubt that you read and love the Bible, but it seems that you are missing a few key factors. Please show where those under the Law were instructed to live simply by faith and NOT by the Law. Is there a difference between living under the Law and under Grace?

Tell me brother, do you believe the narrow way is the righteousness of God without the law?

One cannot be saved under the Law today. The Kingdom was cut out. It was removed. This will not always be the case. The time will come when Israel will be grafted back in. Today, however, Jews and Gentiles are the same. We all come to Christ and are saved through His redeeming blood. Most of the early Kindgom rejected this and were cast off (as Paul describes very clearly). Those who believed (such as Peter) were still under the Law and they were accepted. They continued to preach the Kindgom to their followers. This happened until their death. Paul preached something new...something that he was commissioned to teach by God. He was sent to the Gentiles. We are all gentiles. We are saved and justified through the death of our Lord and Savior and in no other way. Works has no part in it. To say so is to deny God's work on the cross. It is to place ourselves as equals with God, which, obviously, cannot be done.

We cannot pick and choose which works do or do not justify our salvation. No work does.
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Do you consider them a "done deal" - put away?

Kingdoms blessings or curses are conditional. Israel did not meet the conditions. The Bible says after the fullness of the gentiles comes in, blindness in part will be lifted.
 

Doormat

New member
May I ask you, how do you define sheep?

Those who follow the good Shepard, the ones who hear his voice.

John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

One fold, not two.

Please drag this out a bit more for me, if you will. Similar, as you know, is not equal. What was different? You say this is not because there were two gospels. What defines a Gospel, and what would it require for one to be different from another?

I assume you know the difference between form and substance. Well, if the substance of the gospel is the same, it doesn't matter what form the message takes, whether it be in the form of parables like Jesus told, a ritual like the Lord's Supper, or Paul's sermon on Mars Hill. All have very different forms, but are identical in substance.

Brother, if you read through the first few pages of Bright Raven's Rightly Divinding the Word of Truth thread, you can read all my posts where I show the gospel Peter preached and the gospel that Paul preached were the same, even in form. I used their own writings to prove it. Just read what I wrote there and ask me about it here, so I don't have to explain all that again.

Please show where those under the Law were instructed to live simply by faith and NOT by the Law.

Under the law:

Hab 2:4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.

Under grace:

Ro 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Ga 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Heb 10:38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.

Brother, will you now argue that Paul was teaching something new when the prophets under the law taught the same? Will you argue that when Paul taught "no man is justified by the law in the sight of God" that he meant some men under a different gospel are justified by the law in the sight of God (as MAD teaches)? Romans 3:20, 28, and I already showed you Galatians 3:11.

Is it possible that you are not reading something correctly, as you've suggested of me?

Is there a difference between living under the Law and under Grace?

Yes. For example, under the law when you touched something unclean you became unclean and separate from God. Under grace, not so. The ordinances under Mosaic law were meant to convince people that they could not be reconciled to God through works of the flesh. The law condemned flesh. The ten commandments exist to keep the wicked in check. Those who have the righteousness of God without the law, by grace through faith, don't need a law to keep them in check because ... "when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts..."

Does Paul think you should be showing the work of the law written in your heart? What did he mean by the work of the law written in your heart?

One cannot be saved under the Law today.

I've not argued anyone could be saved under the law today, brother.

The Kingdom was cut out. It was removed. This will not always be the case.

I've refuted all those claims in post #45 on this thread. Did you read that post? Please do, so I don't have to repeat the same arguments that have been ignored.

The time will come when Israel will be grafted back in.

Grafted back into what? The Olive Tree is Israel.

Jeremiah 11:16 The LORD called thy name, A green olive tree, fair, and of goodly fruit: with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken.

Brother, do you think Paul was making up stuff on the fly? The terms and symbols he used come straight out of the law and the prophets. Doesn't common sense tell you, that if they were broken off something, that they were part of that something before being broken off? Israel = Olive Tree = Christ. Read post #45, search the scriptures, see for yourself.

Most of the early Kindgom rejected this and were cast off (as Paul describes very clearly). Those who believed (such as Peter) were still under the Law and they were accepted.

Again, read post #45. And to claim that Peter believed but was still subject to the law for justification doesn't make any sense. Why would God prefer Paul over Peter and give one a easy yoke and the other an unbearable yoke?

They continued to preach the Kindgom to their followers. This happened until their death.

Brother, that is illogical on so many levels, I don't know where to begin. Hopefully my other points will convince you to rethink that.

Paul preached something new...something that he was commissioned to teach by God.

I've already shown you that Paul was not teaching something new. "The just shall live by faith."

He was sent to the Gentiles.

Not only to the Gentiles, brother.

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he [Paul] is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

We are all gentiles.

I'm not, and never was.

We are saved and justified through the death of our Lord and Savior and in no other way.

We are not saved by his death, but by his life. Very important distinction. Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Works has no part in it.

But you seem to think that works of the law were necessary for Peter's salvation. It is the mid-Acts position that argues men could be saved through law keeping, not me.

To say so is to deny God's work on the cross.

Then how is it you can say that about Peter and not deny God's work on the cross? :idunno:

It is to place ourselves as equals with God, which, obviously, cannot be done.

But you have implied that it could be done, else Peter was given a worthless other "gospel."

We cannot pick and choose which works do or do not justify our salvation. No work does.

Then the mid-Acts second gospel theory is false, right?

Anyway, you didn't respond to my question about the righteousness of God without the law, but instead said all that, implying that I believe things I don't, and implying you believe things you shouldn't.

Again, brother, I ask you: Do you believe the narrow way is the righteousness of God without the law?

And ... Is the substance of the gospel that Paul preached the righteousness of God without the law?

Thanks for responding, brother. I hope you will answer my questions.
 

Doormat

New member
Go to any church that does not recognize the unique and exclusive message of paul. You will find your proof there after hearing several sermons.

I don't go to church. None I know of teach the narrow way.

Do you know what the narrow way is, brother? Please explain it.

I guarantee you will find yourself doubting your salvation because they will have you examining your BEHAVIOR.

I already told you that I don't play morality, brother. I'm free from sin, not in bondage. I have the mind of Christ. So you are making assumptions about me that are incorrect, which is unfair. I don't think you want people to do that to you, right?

After they have you look closely at your behavior, they have you ask yourself if you really are saved or not.

Because they are judging me according to the flesh, according to their subjective standards. I don't question my salvation and cannot lose it, so they could not do what you are claiming ... to me.

If they understood the exclusivity of pauls gospel to the church age, they would know that behavior has no bearing whatsover upon ones salvation.

Why you think it's unique to Paul is what I am trying to learn about mid-Acts theology. The message that no flesh is justified by the deeds of the law is throughout scripture.

You know good and well what I am saying is true because I am certain you have been exposed to the same message all of your life.

I see the the truth in your point about the legalistic teachings of various church denominations, but if you are as certain about mid-Acts theology as you are about me, then perhaps you are just as wrong about mid-Acts being the way as you are about the message I've been exposed to all my life and what I believe.
 
Last edited:

godrulz

New member
Hall of Fame
Red lights flash with those who think no church teaches the narrow way (Jesus).

Doormat, are you door/sozo? Do you worship Jesus as God Almighty? Trinity?
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
Red lights flash with those who think no church teaches the narrow way (Jesus).

Doormat, are you door/sozo? Do you worship Jesus as God Almighty? Trinity?

"Red"

Your favorite color. And your favorite chemical element/compound is sulfur. You'll see both, for a long time, soon.

Get saved.
 
Top