What is Acts 9 Dispensationalism?

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by BChristianK

Lighthouse,

I don't deny that these passages exist, I do question that they mean what many mid-acts dispensationalists claim they mean.

My intention was not to support any specific dispensationalism. Although I am an Acts 9er, myself. I merely wanted to show you that it may be possible for you to come to the conclusion that there is a dispensational model, in the Bible. That was all.

I question that we can go from Paul saying that God has given him a responsibility to proclaim the gospel to claiming that his conversion inaugurated a change in God's economy. I think that it is a stretch to say that the dispensation of grace is a parenthesis of time that originated at the conversion of Paul and will culminate at a rapture that precedes a tribulation period of exactly 7 years, during which, a salvation by works economy will return.

I have yet to see an Acts 9er claim that salvation will come by works, in the future.

I have a hard time getting from Paul being given a dispensation (responsibility) to carry out a particular ministry to the conclusions I described above.

I agree that the final conclusion you stated is not one that one would come to. But the others are pretty easy.

And I have come to these conclusion based on a number of things. Here are some things that trouble me about mid-acts dispensationalism.

1. The arbitrariness of the rapture.
There is literally only one mention of such an event that is described in 1 Th 4:17 and the similarities to Matthew 24:30-31 are too hard to explain away. I found myself saying, “had I not come to the text assuming these two events were different, I would probably have concluded that they were the same.
In fact, I can’t find any scriptural reason to conclude that the event in 1 Th 4:17 and Matthew 24:30-31 aren’t the same.

If I understand correctly the Mid-Acts dispensational belief is that the event described in 1 Thess. is pre-tribulational [the Body of Christ departs] and the event described in Matthew is post-tribulational [the Bride of Christ departs]. I may be wrong about this, ecause this seems very unlikely.

There are also other verses, which I'm sure someone can provide, because I can't even remember the words that I need to look them up in my concordance.

2. Too much of dispensational theology hangs on a singular interpretation of the 70 weeks of Daniel. There are many interpretations of this passage, and to assume that there is somehow some mysterious break in the sequence where a church age can be inserted is a textbook case of eisegesis. But this is a lynchpin for dispensationalists because unless you can pull a 7 year tribulation out of Daniel you can’t get it anywhere else in scripture. My problem with a dispensational reading of the 70 weeks of Daniel is that the church age is arbitrarily inserted, why not just assume that the 70th week follows the 69th week, as weeks tend to do. Were this not enough, not even John, who was told not to seal up his prophecy (Rev 22:10), mentions in revelation that the tribulation is 7 years. Not even once.

Just a few things to ponder…

Grace and Peace

The idea of a 7 year tribulation is not just a Mid-Acts belief. I believed it before I even knew of Acts 9 dispensationalism.

I'm sure someone can address this.

 

[BChristianK]

Originally posted by lighthouse

My intention was not to support any specific dispensationalism. Although I am an Acts 9er, myself. I merely wanted to show you that it may be possible for you to come to the conclusion that there is a dispensational model, in the Bible. That was all.

I understand, and I appreciate your referring me to those verses. Having previously held an acts 2 dispensational position, I have used those verses myself to justify a dispensational mode. I have since come to understand that oikonomia does not contain the meaning that I had ascribed to it.

I have yet to see an Acts 9er claim that salvation will come by works, in the future.

I don’t know if Bob Hill and Bob Enyart agree on this, but if memory serves me correct, Bob Hill claims that during the tribulation, salvation will come by faith+works, under the terms of the circumcision gospel.

I will stand corrected if anyone is willing to inform me otherwise.

If I understand correctly the Mid-Acts dispensational belief is that the event described in 1 Thess. is pre-tribulational [the Body of Christ departs] and the event described in Matthew is post-tribulational [the Bride of Christ departs]. I may be wrong about this, because this seems very unlikely.

That is the mid-acts dispensational view. The church is raptured in the order of a dispensational interpretation of 1 Thess 4:7, which is proceeded by a 7 year tribulation, and then Christ returns which Matthew 24:30-31 is descriptive of.

The problem that I have with this interpretation is that it appears to be a very artificial distinction. Unless one came to 1 Thess with a theology that assumes a pretribulation rapture, one would come to the conclusion that these two descriptions (1 Thess and Matthew 24) are of the same event, not different events, one a rapture, and the other a return of the Lord seven years later.

There are also other verses, which I'm sure someone can provide, because I can't even remember the words that I need to look them up in my concordance.

Other verses describing a rapture? Not to my knowledge, but then again perhaps you are right and someone will be able to point them out for us.

The idea of a 7 year tribulation is not just a Mid-Acts belief. I believed it before I even knew of Acts 9 dispensationalism.

Right, it is also a belief held by acts 2 dispensationalists (which tends to be more widely held to.) Incidentally, that is why I am no longer an acts 2 dispensationalist either. I think that extrapolating a 7 year tribulation that follows a parenthesis in the 70 weeks of Daniel is still somewhat tenuous, be it an acts 2 interpretation or an acts 9 interpretation. Rather, it makes more sense, to me at least, to allow for the fact that the 70th week of Daniel follows directly from the 69th week of Daniel, as weeks are in the habit of doing, rather than following some unspoken parenthesis wherein the current dispensation can be found.

Finally, I would commend to you the historical problem of Paul baptizing and allowing baptisms to occur well after his gospel was revealed to him. Scholars date the book of Galatians as being written sometime in 48 A.D., Paul allowed baptisms and even practiced baptism himself during his second missionary journey which began no earlier than 52 A.D.

Finally, were I looking to embrace an acts 9 dispensational model that renounces water baptism as a practice of the contemporary church, I would look for a verse in scripture that clearly tells us that God has set that aside.

Scripture is very good about telling us when things have been set aside, and it is very good about telling us in clear and certain terms.

One can see clearly where the Old Covenant was set aside. One can see clearly where the dietary restrictions have been set aside. One can see clearly where circumcision is no longer needed, but I can't find one verse where Paul (or anyone for that matter) declares water baptism as antiquated, tells folks not to be baptized, and explains to us that baptism doesn't matter, or even tells us that he has stopped doing it himself.

Granted, he does tell the Corinthians that he was not sent to them for the primary purpose of getting in the water and baptizing them, but, as I have pointed out to Hilston, Paul still baptized in Corinth during his second missionary journey. He allowed others to be baptized that he himself did not personally baptize during that same visit, and he did this after he would have known better than to do so.

So why is Paul preaching one gospel but practicing another?

Just some things to think about.

Grace and Peace

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by BChristianK
I don’t know if Bob Hill and Bob Enyart agree on this, but if memory serves me correct, Bob Hill claims that during the tribulation, salvation will come by faith+works, under the terms of the circumcision gospel.

I will stand corrected if anyone is willing to inform me otherwise.

Well it all depends on what you mean. If you asked 10 Christians today whether or not works are required today to be saved you'd probably get 10 different answers to that "yes or no" question.

If I understand Enyart's and Hill's theology (which are virtually identical) then the epistles of Paul apply directly to the Body of Christ in this dispensation. The "gospel" according to Jesus, Peter, James and John applied directly prior to Paul and even overlapped Paul ministry in that their Gospel continued to apply to their converts until they died. And that same Gospel will apply directly again once this dispensation is over. It will apply for the final 7 year period that God has allotted to Israel, the last of it's so called 40 weeks of years.
So if you think that James' statement that "faith without works is dead" applies today as a nondispensationalist, then we as dispensationalists do not beleive that the future gospel will be any more of a works based salvation than you beleive todays gospel to be.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[BChristianK]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Well it all depends on what you mean. If you asked 10 Christians today whether or not works are required today to be saved you'd probably get 10 different answers to that "yes or no" question.

You probably would.

If I understand Enyart's and Hill's theology (which are virtually identical) then the epistles of Paul apply directly to the Body of Christ in this dispensation. The "gospel" according to Jesus, Peter, James and John applied directly prior to Paul and even overlapped Paul ministry in that their Gospel continued to apply to their converts until they died.

That was my understanding of both Bob Enyart and Bob Hills theology.

And that same Gospel will apply directly again once this dispensation is over. It will apply for the final 7 year period that God has allotted to Israel, the last of it's so called 40 weeks of years.

Again, that is what I understood them to have believed.

So if you think that James' statement that "faith without works is dead" applies today as a nondispensationalist, then we as dispensationalists do not believe that the future gospel will be any more of a works based salvation than you believe today’s gospel to be.

I thought that Bob Hill and Bob Enyart believed that, in the 7 years following the conclusion of this dispensation, one will need to be circumcised, keep the Sabbath and the dietary laws in order to maintain their salvation, but again, I could be wrong. If that is the case, then the works salvation of the tribulation will be very much different than the nondispensationalist believes today’s gospel to be.


Grace and Peace

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by BChristianK

I understand, and I appreciate your referring me to those verses. Having previously held an acts 2 dispensational position, I have used those verses myself to justify a dispensational mode. I have since come to understand that oikonomia does not contain the meaning that I had ascribed to it.

Dispensation means nothing other than 'set of rules.'

I am not responding to some of your points, because I kind of agree with you.

Finally, I would commend to you the historical problem of Paul baptizing and allowing baptisms to occur well after his gospel was revealed to him. Scholars date the book of Galatians as being written sometime in 48 A.D., Paul allowed baptisms and even practiced baptism himself during his second missionary journey which began no earlier than 52 A.D.

Finally, were I looking to embrace an acts 9 dispensational model that renounces water baptism as a practice of the contemporary church, I would look for a verse in scripture that clearly tells us that God has set that aside.

Scripture is very good about telling us when things have been set aside, and it is very good about telling us in clear and certain terms.

One can see clearly where the Old Covenant was set aside. One can see clearly where the dietary restrictions have been set aside. One can see clearly where circumcision is no longer needed, but I can't find one verse where Paul (or anyone for that matter) declares water baptism as antiquated, tells folks not to be baptized, and explains to us that baptism doesn't matter, or even tells us that he has stopped doing it himself.

Granted, he does tell the Corinthians that he was not sent to them for the primary purpose of getting in the water and baptizing them, but, as I have pointed out to Hilston, Paul still baptized in Corinth during his second missionary journey. He allowed others to be baptized that he himself did not personally baptize during that same visit, and he did this after he would have known better than to do so.

Baptism isn't for salvation. That doesn't mean it is forbidden as a confession of faith. Hilston is a legalist.

So why is Paul preaching one gospel but practicing another?

Just some things to think about.

Grace and Peace

He's not.

 

[BChristianK]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Dispensation means nothing other than 'set of rules.'

I agree that if you combine oikoV with nomoV you get oikonomia which is the word translated dispensation. However, one of the improvements that BDAG has made to the field of lexiconography is to look at the contemporary usage of the word in addition to its etymology. We have words that use all the time that have slightly different nuances of meaning that boil down to the usage of common parlance and not to the strict etymology of the words. BDAG takes that into consideration as well.

That being said, I don't see how oikonomia legitimates the dispensational charts I used to use as visual aids when I taught acts 2 dispensationalism, nor do I see it legitimating the mid-acts dispensational charts I have seen as well.

Baptism isn't for salvation. That doesn't mean it is forbidden as a confession of faith. Hilston is a legalist.

I am pretty sure that both Bob Hill and Bob Enyart both teach that Jesus' ministry was one that required baptism for salvation and the same requirement will be true during the tribulation.


Now I said that it didn't make sense for Paul to have taught two different gospels, one at Corinth and another Galatia. You said:

He's not.

I agree. I agree that he certainly isn't. But what troubles me is that it appears as if mid-acts dispensationalism comes to this conclusion. Historically, Paul founded the Corinthian church during his second missionary journey, and wrote 1 Corinthians during his third missionary journey from Ephesus (where, interestingly, he continue to practice water baptism according to Acts 19).

Now what does Paul claim in Galatians?

Galatians 1:11-12 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Now, there is good reason to assume that Paul founded the church in Galatia during his first missionary journey. Some would claim that it was founded during the second missionary journey, but that is of no consequences to the argument in any event. What we know for certain is that Paul founded the Galatian church before he founded the church in Corinth and we know that Paul himself baptized in Corinth (as well as Philippi).

Now the mid-acts dispensationalist must have you believe that Paul, having received his gospel directly from Jesus, got it wrong in Corinth and baptized by mistake. And continued in this errant practice (despite receiving his gospel directly from Jesus) until his third missionary journey after having founded nearly all of the churches that he would start in his apostolic missionary, when he wrote back to the Corinthians that he is glad he only baptized a few of them.


He had already written 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Galatians, probably, at this point already, being totally confused as to the role and place of baptism in the church. And when he gets the chance to correct the huge mess he made by baptizing all those folks on his first and second missionary journeys, Paul doesn't. Neither first nor second Corinthians has a clear abrogation of baptism.

Doesn't that sound even the slightest bit suspect to you?

Does it sound right that Christ Himself would impart to Paul a gospel and then Paul would go about his work evangelizing among the gentiles, baptizing all the while, and then unfortuitously finding at the end of his traveling apostolic ministry that he goofed the whole time? We must conclude that Paul:

1. didn't listen very well to the clear instructions of Christ when Christ imparted to Paul the message he was sent out with,

or

2. that Jesus was unclear as to the role of baptism to Paul (where he had not been the slightest bit unclear to the 12),

or

3. that Paul was absolutely clear as to the place of baptism in his ministry to the gentiles but chose to ignore Jesus anyway,

or

4. (and this the option I go with) conclude that Paul was correct in baptizing in Corinth, in Philippi and in Ephesus and that the mid-acts dispensational interpretation of 1 Cor 1:17 is in error, the consequence is that baptism is an ordinance for the church today.

If you see other options, I'm open to hearing them

CariV kai Eirhnh

 

[God_Is_Truth]

BChristianK, you may find this of interest:

http://midacts.net/studies/progressive_revelation.html

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by BChristianK

I agree that if you combine oikoV with nomoV you get oikonomia which is the word translated dispensation. However, one of the improvements that BDAG has made to the field of lexiconography is to look at the contemporary usage of the word in addition to its etymology. We have words that use all the time that have slightly different nuances of meaning that boil down to the usage of common parlance and not to the strict etymology of the words. BDAG takes that into consideration as well.

That being said, I don't see how oikonomia legitimates the dispensational charts I used to use as visual aids when I taught acts 2 dispensationalism, nor do I see it legitimating the mid-acts dispensational charts I have seen as well.


I am pretty sure that both Bob Hill and Bob Enyart both teach that Jesus' ministry was one that required baptism for salvation and the same requirement will be true during the tribulation.


Now I said that it didn't make sense for Paul to have taught two different gospels, one at Corinth and another Galatia. You said:



I agree. I agree that he certainly isn't. But what troubles me is that it appears as if mid-acts dispensationalism comes to this conclusion. Historically, Paul founded the Corinthian church during his second missionary journey, and wrote 1 Corinthians during his third missionary journey from Ephesus (where, interestingly, he continue to practice water baptism according to Acts 19).

Now what does Paul claim in Galatians?

Now, there is good reason to assume that Paul founded the church in Galatia during his first missionary journey. Some would claim that it was founded during the second missionary journey, but that is of no consequences to the argument in any event. What we know for certain is that Paul founded the Galatian church before he founded the church in Corinth and we know that Paul himself baptized in Corinth (as well as Philippi).

Now the mid-acts dispensationalist must have you believe that Paul, having received his gospel directly from Jesus, got it wrong in Corinth and baptized by mistake. And continued in this errant practice (despite receiving his gospel directly from Jesus) until his third missionary journey after having founded nearly all of the churches that he would start in his apostolic missionary, when he wrote back to the Corinthians that he is glad he only baptized a few of them.


He had already written 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Galatians, probably, at this point already, being totally confused as to the role and place of baptism in the church. And when he gets the chance to correct the huge mess he made by baptizing all those folks on his first and second missionary journeys, Paul doesn't. Neither first nor second Corinthians has a clear abrogation of baptism.

Doesn't that sound even the slightest bit suspect to you?

Does it sound right that Christ Himself would impart to Paul a gospel and then Paul would go about his work evangelizing among the gentiles, baptizing all the while, and then unfortuitously finding at the end of his traveling apostolic ministry that he goofed the whole time? We must conclude that Paul:

1. didn't listen very well to the clear instructions of Christ when Christ imparted to Paul the message he was sent out with,

or

2. that Jesus was unclear as to the role of baptism to Paul (where he had not been the slightest bit unclear to the 12),

or

3. that Paul was absolutely clear as to the place of baptism in his ministry to the gentiles but chose to ignore Jesus anyway,

or

4. (and this the option I go with) conclude that Paul was correct in baptizing in Corinth, in Philippi and in Ephesus and that the mid-acts dispensational interpretation of 1 Cor 1:17 is in error, the consequence is that baptism is an ordinance for the church today.

If you see other options, I'm open to hearing them

CariV kai Eirhnh

First, please provide scripture that shows that Paul baptized.

Secondly, do you believe that baptism is a must?

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by lighthouse

First, please provide scripture that shows that Paul baptized.

Secondly, do you believe that baptism is a must?

1 Corinthians 1
14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.)

clear scripture that Paul baptized.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

1 Corinthians 1
14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.)

clear scripture that Paul baptized.

Thank you. That's all I was looking for.

Now, can anyone provide evidence that Paul preached it as a must? Can anyone prove that it profits us anything?

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Thank you. That's all I was looking for.

Now, can anyone provide evidence that Paul preached it as a must? Can anyone prove that it profits us anything?

that i cannot.

 

[BChristianK]

Originally posted by lighthouse

First, please provide scripture that shows that Paul baptized.

In Phillipi during his second missionary journey.

Acts 16:14-15 A certain woman named Lydia, a worshiper of God, was listening to us; she was from the city of Thyatira and a dealer in purple cloth. The Lord opened her heart to listen eagerly to what was said by Paul. 15 When she and her household were baptized, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come and stay at my home." And she prevailed upon us.

Acts 16:29-33 The jailer called for lights, and rushing in, he fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 Then he brought them outside and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" 31 They answered, "Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." 32 They spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 At the same hour of the night he took them and washed their wounds; then he and his entire family were baptized without delay.

In Corinth when the church was founded:

Acts 18:7-8 Then he left the synagogue and went to the house of a man named Titius Justus, a worshiper of God; his house was next door to the synagogue. 8 Crispus, the official of the synagogue, became a believer in the Lord, together with all his household; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul became believers and were baptized.

In Ephesus:

Acts 19:4-5 Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus." 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

And, of course, as God is Truth pointed out, I Cor 1:13-17 makes it pretty clear that Paul baptized...

Secondly, do you believe that baptism is a must?

I think that Baptism is the biblically prescribed method of making a public confession of Christ. So yes, I think it is a must. I am not a baptismal regenerationalist, so I don't think that those who aren't baptized are necessarily unsaved

Grace and Peace

 

[OMEGA]

Necessity

Necessity

Why would PAUL admit that he baptised the house of Stephanas

and a few others if it was Not a Necessity for a Christian to be

Baptised.

Mt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
----------------------------------------

Mt 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Mr 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

-----------------1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
---------------------------------------------------------

1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
1Co 1:15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

1Co 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
-------

1Co 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
-------
1Co 12:13 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.
-------
1Co 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
-------
Ga 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.:think:

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by BChristianK

I think that Baptism is the biblically prescribed method of making a public confession of Christ. So yes, I think it is a must. I am not a baptismal regenerationalist, so I don't think that those who aren't baptized are necessarily unsaved

Grace and Peace

Wow!:noway:

What a contradiction!

 

[BChristianK]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

BChristianK, you may find this of interest:

http://midacts.net/studies/progressive_revelation.html

GIT, Thanks for the info. I read it and I do think that this may alleviate some of the tension that is presented by a mid-acts dispensational rendering of Acts. However, I still have some issues with it. Among these are :
1.The fact that Paul may have been the recipient of progressive revelation, but we still don't have the results of that progressive revelation anywhere in a clear biblical abrogation of baptism. The linchpin passage of the mid-acts dispensational position on baptism is 1 Cor 1:17. Unfortunately, I see other, more probably interpretations for this passage than an abrogation of baptism.

If that is the only passage that can be pointed to, then in my opinion, it isn't clear enough to start hanging theological hats on.

2. The concept of progressive revelation is somewhat contradictory to dispensationalism anyway. If God didn't reveal to Paul that baptism was done away with until sometime after he baptized in Ephesus and before his writing of 1 Corinthians, then can we really say that the folks who came to Christ under the ministry of Paul before Act 19 were saved by the same gospel that we are saved under today? Is there, even another gospel, perhaps called the gospel of uncircumscision without baptism that is different from the gospel preached by Paul during his first missionary journey which is a gospel of uncircumscision with baptism?

When did baptism stop being an ordinance to be practiced by the church if not when it was supposedly revealed to us by Paul in 1 Cor 1:17? Can something be considered part of the “good news” that Paul preached if it isn’t even “news” yet? So shouldn't all the acts 9rs start calling themselves 1 Cor 1:17'rs? Or Acts 19-20'rs? Paul came to Christ in A.D. 33, He didn't write 1 Corinthians until A.D. 53 at the earliest. Can we really say, even if we assume 1 Cor 1:17 is a retraction of baptism, that those who were saved in the 20 years between A.D. 33 and A.D. 53 were saved under the same "good news message" that we are?

Isn't a "gospel" defined by the information that is presented in it and the expectation of those under it? Wasn't the expectation of those in that 20 year period between Paul's conversion and his writing of 1 Cor 1:17 that they would be baptized? Weren’t they expected to do what they knew to do?

Is it really true for them...

Ephesians 4:4-5 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism...

?

Couldn't be by Hilston's logic. The Corinthians had two baptisms. So now, let’s test things that differ.

Did Paul practice baptism before Acts 19?
Did he, according to the mid-acts dispensationalists, after acts 19?

OK, so why does everyone pin the date of the new gospel at 33 A.D. at the conversion of Paul?


Don’t get me wrong, I agree that revelation is indeed progressive. Incidentally that is what led me completely away from dispensationalism in the first place. A dispensation included all those people who heard a message and what made that dispensation different from others was the content of the message and the expectations of the message. If the content of the message of Paul before Acts 19 included baptism, and it very clearly did, and those who received Paul’s message were expected to follow that message, and they very clearly did, then isn’t that grounds for another dispensation? The gospel of the uncircumscision plus baptism, dispensation?

Grace and Peace

P.S. If anyone else would like to answer the questions I posed to GIT, i'm open to hearing those answers.

 

[BChristianK]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Wow!:noway:

What a contradiction!

Ok, you tell me, was it necessary for the disciples in Acts 19 to be baptized? Was it a must for them?

If no, how would they have known that?

Last few questions for you, or God is Truth or Hilston or Turbo or Knight or any of the mid-acts dispensationalists...

When does a dispensation begin?

Is it the moment in time that God decides to start it?
Is it the moment in time when God communicates the new message to a person whose responsibility it is to communicate that new message to others?
Is it when that persons begins to communicate that new message, when the first person is told?
Is it when the first person responds and obeys the new message?

When is it, when does a dispensation change?

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by BChristianK

Ok, you tell me, was it necessary for the disciples in Acts 19 to be baptized? Was it a must for them?

No.

If no, how would they have known that?

Did they think they were saved by it? I didn't think so.

Last few questions for you, or God is Truth or Hilston or Turbo or Knight or any of the mid-acts dispensationalists...

When does a dispensation begin?

Is it the moment in time that God decides to start it?
Is it the moment in time when God communicates the new message to a person whose responsibility it is to communicate that new message to others?
Is it when that persons begins to communicate that new message, when the first person is told?
Is it when the first person responds and obeys the new message?

When is it, when does a dispensation change?

I'd think it begins when God communicates the new message. But, I would also venture to say that it might begin when it is first communicated by the one responsible to preach it.

 

[BChristianK]

Lighthouse,

I asked of the folks in Acts 19 needed to be baptized, you said:

No.

Then I asked how they would have known that, you replied:

Did they think they were saved by it? I didn't think so.

I never claimed that they thought they were saved by it. What I hoped to get an answer to was how anyone was supposed to know that they weren’t supposed to be baptized. I don't claim that anyone is saved by baptism in any dispensation (or covenant). Nonetheless, they were baptized, the Phillipian jailer was baptized and these guys were baptized in addition to the many Corinthians.

All of this happened during a time when the mid-acts dispensationalists say baptism was put away.

Now my next questions becomes very pertinent. I asked when a dispensation starts, you said:

I'd think it begins when God communicates the new message. But, I would also venture to say that it might begin when it is first communicated by the one responsible to preach it.

Ok, since a dispensation begins either when God communicates the new message or when the person responsible starts preaching it. Lets work with the first since it gives you the most latitude. When did God communicate to Paul that baptism was abrogated?


If you say before Acts 19, you make Paul both stupid and disobedient. Stupid for knowing full well that baptism was set aside and disobedient for baptizing for 20 years anyway.

If you say that God didn’t reveal that baptism was put away until approx Act 19 (A.D. 52+) then you can’t very well say that the dispensation wherein baptism is set aside was inaugurated in acts 9 now can you? Because a dispensation doesn’t start until God communicates the new message to the person responsible to preach it, at the earliest, according to your own admission.

So which is it, is Paul a disobedient oaf or are you now an Acts 19 Dispensationalist?



Grace and Peace

 

[Hilston]

BChristianK,

Your last post to me slipped through the cracks! I'm very sorry for the delay. Your post was rather long, so it may take a little while to compose my reply. I may offer my response in parts, so you won't have to wait as long. Your post was obviously well thought and carefully written, and deserves an appropriate reply.

Thanks for the discussion; I'll be in touch.

 

[Hilston]

Lighthouse,

So I know what I'm being accused of, please define "legalist."

Also, I'm curious. Have you ever read the Bible?