Acts 9 Eschatology!

[Amazing Rando]

At the request of a few popcorn munching smilies from the other Acts 9 eschatology thread, I humbly agree to post my views on the subject.

Here's a post from Truthman from the other thread that I shall go through point by point.

I am an Acts 9 dispensationalist and will be very concise in my answer as I have very little time.

Okay, no problems yet. :lol:

Acts chapter 9.

Indeed.

Saul of Tarsus got saved.

Preach it, brother Truthman!

God had just begun the 'cutting off' of Israel in Acts chapter 7 after the stoning of Stephen.

Say what?

God was weary of Israel's spiritual adultery.

Dude, God had been weary of Israel's spiritual adultery ever since the days of the Golden Calf! The whole Old Testament is the story of the Israelites rejecting God, then repenting in response to God's judgment- either through wars, prophets, plagues, etc. Reject God, repent. Rinse and repeat.

So, God brings in a new dispensation and makes Paul the Apostle the steward of this dispensation.

I don't buy that dispensation stuff at all. This should be an interesting talk eh?

This dispensation is called the Dispensation of Grace and continues to this day.

Call it whatever you want...

Meaning, the only way to come to God for salvation is through faith alone.

Agreed. A faith that produces good fruits.

Meanwhile, back in Acts, from chapter 9 through chapter 28, God is progressively cutting off Israel.

Despite the fact that our salvation comes through Israel? That's not quite "cutting off," in my opinion.

So, James, John and Peter are preaching a different gospel than Paul at that time.

Truthman, that's just not true dude! :rock: Why in the world would Jesus give his disciples a different gospel if he was going to make the gospel he was giving them completely irrelevant in only a few short years?

This gospel was a gospel of faith and works.

Not all true. Let's get exegetical! :fight:

Two different gospels ~ one period of time.

:hrm:

Now there is only one gospel.

Well, you got that part right at least!

Acts 9 Eschatology simply says, God will not reinstate signs wonders or the gospel of faith and works until after the rapture.

Then again, many Christians question whether or not there will even be a rapture...

After the rapture, Hebrews, James, 1, 2, and 3 John, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation will have instructive power again.

What in the.... Huh? What are they now, chopped liver? :huh:

Revelation and John were probably not even written until well after Paul was dead circa AD 64 or so.

truthman

Though I think you're quite wrong, I love ya anyway Truthman! :chat:

I don't want to be mean here, but the biggest thing against your hermeneutic approach is the fact that it is conspicuously absent from Christian thought throughout all of church history until the mid 20th century.

[Solly]

Honey, did you programme the video recorder?

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

:popcorn:

[Solly]

Yes its a great day here at Tweb bowl, and we are promised a great match. Already in the ring and limbering up is The Amazing Rando!!! [cheers] The challenger certainly looks cool and collected, and is probably riding high from his recent bout with The Right Idea.
We're still waiting for the contender The Truth Man to make his appearance, but the audience are certainly expectant, and we are hoping that the large gap in the crowd will be filled real soon.

Meanwhile, a word from your sponsor...

[Amazing Rando]

Aww you guys... :blush:

[Rubia Warren]

:popcorn:

[Amazing Rando]

:bravo:

[truthman]

Say what?Yep, God was beginning to cut off Israel in fulfillment of the prophecy in the parable inHe spake also this parable; A certain [man] had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung [it]: And if it bear fruit, [well]: and if not, [then] after that thou shalt cut it down.You'll notice two numeric figures there. 3 years and 1 year. Jesus ministry here on earth was to Israel to bring her back (reconcile) into right relationship with God. She would not have it. One year later, at Stephen's stoning, she, Israel, the fig tree, still produced no fruit, so God began the cutting off period. You'll notice that at the stoning of Stephen, Jesus was standing at the right hand of the Father, not sitting. He was standing in judgment. Also, at this time, the tribulation, which had already begun, was put on hold.=Amazing Rando]Dude, God had been weary of Israel's spiritual adultery ever since the days of the Golden Calf! The whole Old Testament is the story of the Israelites rejecting God, then repenting in response to God's judgment- either through wars, prophets, plagues, etc. Reject God, repent. Rinse and repeat.Yes, He had been weary for a very long time. But, He is long suffering. This length of God's longsuffering doesn't apply to this discussion too much, so we'll leavy it aside for now and revive it if we need to.I don't buy that dispensation stuff at all. This should be an interesting talk eh?Yes, quite. And I'm thoroughly enjoying it already.

BTW, you don't buy the dispensation stuff? Let me ask you this. Do you believe that God changes the rules, ever? Do you believe that capital punishment was commanded against by God before the flood and was commanded by God after the flood? Or how about Jesus instructions to the disciples in Luke 10 and Luke 22? In Luke 10, He tells them to take no money on their evangelistic journey, but in Luke 22, He tells them to take money. That's because the tribulation is about to start soon after His coming death.Call it whatever you want...I will, thank you.Agreed. A faith that produces good fruits.There you go, putting conditions on it. I can see Amazing Rando out on the street corner telling someone, "Yes, you can come to Jesus, but only if you have good works afterwards." Rando, you're seeking fruit before you set the root.

Now, I do agree that true faith will produce good works for we were created in Christ Jesus unto good works. But, they are not necessary, before or after salvation in order to get or keep salvation.Despite the fact that our salvation comes through Israel? That's not quite "cutting off," in my opinion.Chapter and verse that for me please, the fact that our salvation comes through Israel.Truthman, that's just not true dude! :rock: Why in the world would Jesus give his disciples a different gospel if he was going to make the gospel he was giving them completely irrelevant in only a few short years?Because He didn't know that it would be irrelevant. He expected to ascend and then continue with the tribulation for the cleansing of Israel. (Yes, my Open Theism shines through here and no, we don't need to debate it in this thread).Not all true. Let's get exegetical! :fight:James 2 clearly says that Abraham and Rahab were justified by their faith and their works. (yes, I brought it up, and yes, it will be discussed):hrm:Right. There were 2 gospels at this time. One gospel was the Kingdom Gospel up until the cutting off of Israel in Acts 28:28 and the other was the Gospel of Grace which continued from Acts 9 to present day. So, we have an overlap from Acts 9 to Acts 28. However, we have no record that the Kingdom Gospel was actively shared after Acts 10.Then again, many Christians question whether or not there will even be a rapture...No preterism now, please.What in the.... Huh? What are they now, chopped liver? :huh:Nope. All scripture is profitable. Those books, each of them have numerous teachings on how to live a Godly life. James' work on the tongue is a masterpiece. John's theology and humility is incredible. Revelation shows us God's power. Hebrews teaches us faith in a powerful way. These are a few out of a lifetime of examples that these Circumcision letters show us. HOWEVER, these books hold no soteriological value for us today in the age of Grace. They teach eternal insecurity and a faith/works salvation which was and will be instrumental for the Kingdom Gospel and the Kingdom Believers.Revelation and John were probably not even written until well after Paul was dead circa AD 64 or so.How true. These letters contain instruction to the Jewish Christians/Kingdom Believers who were not cut off. (Keep in mind here that while Israel was cut off, the faithful individuals were not).Though I think you're quite wrong, I love ya anyway Truthman! :chat:Love you too BROTHER!I don't want to be mean here, but the biggest thing against your hermeneutic approach is the fact that it is conspicuously absent from Christian thought throughout all of church history until the mid 20th century.And your point is??? To quote someone's sig line "Absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence." Also, if something is true, it's always been true, whether or not anyone holds to it as being true. Popular or unpopular opinion doesn't make something right or wrong.

Well, this has been fun. I now have to go to work. When I return, I expect I'll have my work cut out for me.

truthman

[Amazing Rando]

Good response, truthman! I can tell you're well prepared. Thansk for obliging me! And any lurkers, please feel free to jump in. This is an open forum!

Yep, God was beginning to cut off Israel in fulfillment of the prophecy in the parable inHe spake also this parable; A certain [man] had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung [it]: And if it bear fruit, [well]: and if not, [then] after that thou shalt cut it down.

A good start. But you've got to be careful about parables- they can be quite tricky. Let's take a look at the context immediately before the parable: 1Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them -- do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

It looks to me like Jesus is answering a question about a version of the "problem of evil." Hmm. Interesting. Quick question- why are you using the ol' King Jimmy? It's not exactly the most up-to-date version (as far as accuracy goes), and the archaic language makes it pretty difficult to follow sometimes.

You'll notice two numeric figures there. 3 years and 1 year. Jesus ministry here on earth was to Israel to bring her back (reconcile) into right relationship with God. She would not have it.

You mean like the prophets of old, right? Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, etc. Jesus was a whole lot more than that, man! The Bible is quite clear that Jesus came for a number of reasons, but one reason more than any other- to die. It was God's plan all along that Jesus should suffer and die, and it was the plan from the very beginning! I can get some Scripture if you'd like. Jesus was bearing the terrible burden of knowledge that above all, the only reason he came was to die, and mend the rift of sin between God and man. (Mark 10:45).

One year later, at Stephen's stoning, she, Israel, the fig tree, still produced no fruit, so God began the cutting off period.

No fruit? Peter and the apostles preaching their hearts out and winning converts in droves was "no fruit?" I'd beg to differ with you there, mate. :bonk:

You'll notice that at the stoning of Stephen, Jesus was standing at the right hand of the Father, not sitting. He was standing in judgment. Also, at this time, the tribulation, which had already begun, was put on hold.

You're reading into the fact that Jesus was standing a bit too much. In his trial (as recorded in Mark), Jesus tells the priests and Pharisees: "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." (Mark 14:62)

Now does that sound like judgment to you? :innocent: It does to me. And he's sitting in judgment. :ahem: Whether Stephen saw Jesus standing, sitting, hovering, dancing, or cartwheeling doesn't really matter in this case.

Yes, He had been weary for a very long time. But, He is long suffering. This length of God's longsuffering doesn't apply to this discussion too much, so we'll leavy it aside for now and revive it if we need to.

Okay, we can ignore that for now... But it seems to me that you're suggesting God just got fed up with his chosen people, so he had to sned Jesus to bail us out- sort of like a "Plan B." You're not Open View, are you?

Yes, quite. And I'm thoroughly enjoying it already.

BTW, you don't buy the dispensation stuff? Let me ask you this. Do you believe that God changes the rules, ever? Do you believe that capital punishment was commanded against by God before the flood and was commanded by God after the flood? Or how about Jesus instructions to the disciples in Luke 10 and Luke 22? In Luke 10, He tells them to take no money on their evangelistic journey, but in Luke 22, He tells them to take money. That's because the tribulation is about to start soon after His coming death.

That's not changing the rules, Truthman. That's teaching them a lesson, like a good teacher does. In Luke 10, he was teaching them to rely on God.

I don't think God changes the rules. The rules don't change, only the means changes. I see a remarkable continuity between Old Testament and New Testament that the critics who read to shallowly miss out on. I'll elaborate if you'd like.

Okay, perhaps we ought to talk about this tribulation. What does the tribulation mean to you? I know the preterists think it was referring mainly to the Jewish Rebellion from AD 66-70 and the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. I'm not a preterist (at least I don't think so), but I don't think the idea is without merit.

I will, thank you. There you go, putting conditions on it. I can see Amazing Rando out on the street corner telling someone, "Yes, you can come to Jesus, but only if you have good works afterwards." Rando, you're seeking fruit before you set the root.

Now, I do agree that true faith will produce good works for we were created in Christ Jesus unto good works. But, they are not necessary, before or after salvation in order to get or keep salvation.

Agreed. It's the faith that saves. However, if your faith doesn't bear any fruit, you've good reason to doubt how earnest and sincere your faith is. That's what James means in the "faith without works is dead" passage that Martin Luther hated so much.

Chapter and verse that for me please, the fact that our salvation comes through Israel.

What I mean is that Jesus is Israel. He's the living embodiment of Israel. He comes from the line of David, whom himself was a prototypical Christ-figure and also the greatest of Israel's kings. There's a reason Jesus is referred to so often with imagery of royalty, you know. That's how we're saved through Israel.

Because He didn't know that it would be irrelevant. He expected to ascend and then continue with the tribulation for the cleansing of Israel. (Yes, my Open Theism shines through here and no, we don't need to debate it in this thread).

He didn't know it would be irrelevant? Oh boy. I don't see how we can avoid debating your Open Theism here, but I'll put it off as long as possible.

Jesus knew that he would have to die for the sins of the world. He also knew that the temple would be destroyed. He knew that the fig tree would be withered and dead the next time he came through. He knew that the world would hate the disciples, and that they would be greatly persecuted because of Him. Jesus clearly had a great deal of foreknowledge. How can you say he didn't know the future? :huh:

James 2 clearly says that Abraham and Rahab were justified by their faith and their works. (yes, I brought it up, and yes, it will be discussed)

Nope- James 2:23 says: "23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend." Notice what happened first- he believed God (that's faith!) and then was credited with righteousness. In addition, Paul himself believes Abraham was not justifed by his works, but by his faith. Take a look:

2If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about--but not before God. 3What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."

That's a big "if," implying that Abraham was not justified by works, but rather by his faith. Later in the same chapter, Paul continues:

13It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.

See? Abraham's righteousness came by faith not works. Even your "steward of the dispensation of Grace" is against you, my friend.

Right. There were 2 gospels at this time. One gospel was the Kingdom Gospel up until the cutting off of Israel in Acts 28:28 and the other was the Gospel of Grace which continued from Acts 9 to present day. So, we have an overlap from Acts 9 to Acts 28. However, we have no record that the Kingdom Gospel was actively shared after Acts 10.

Just because Acts ceases to talk about Peter and the Jewish apostles after Acts 10 you assume they simply gave up or retired or something? All the earliest extrabiblical traditions tell us that after the council of Jerusalem, the apostles scattered and went all around the ancient world, preaching and making converts. I can get you some references for this if you'd like. Every account we have tell us that the apostles all continued to be faithful, effective witnesses to the gospel until their deaths. Did you know that every apostle except for John was martyred? Acts isn't the only history of the early church, you know. By all accounts, the Twelve continued their mission work and preaching long past Acts 10.

No preterism now, please.

If you insist, but I'm not fully a preterist. :whistle: Their ideas are pretty interesting, however.

Nope. All scripture is profitable. Those books, each of them have numerous teachings on how to live a Godly life. James' work on the tongue is a masterpiece. John's theology and humility is incredible. Revelation shows us God's power. Hebrews teaches us faith in a powerful way. These are a few out of a lifetime of examples that these Circumcision letters show us. HOWEVER, these books hold no soteriological value for us today in the age of Grace. They teach eternal insecurity and a faith/works salvation which was and will be instrumental for the Kingdom Gospel and the Kingdom Believers.

That's a very... unique way of looking at them, Truthman. :twitch:

You call them "circumcision letters." Interesting. That reminds me:

19Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts.

Paul thought that circumcision (or lacktherof) meant absolutely nothing in the New Covenant. (I say New Covenant, not new dispensation). He thought there was no difference between his Jewish Christian brothers and his Gentile Christian brothers.

And notice the second half of that verse: "Keeping God's commandments is what counts." You'd think that the sola fide apostle wouldn't worry about keeping God's commandments, yet here, he clearly does. This does NOT mean he preached works righteousness, because it's obvious from elsewhere that he didn't. But there's more than meets the eye going on here.

It simply follows- if one has faith in the Lord, then one will keep obey his commandments. Not the other way around. True faith produces good works, but faith always comes first.

How true. These letters contain instruction to the Jewish Christians/Kingdom Believers who were not cut off. (Keep in mind here that while Israel was cut off, the faithful individuals were not).

:eh: I thought you just said the "other" gospel, the "Jewish Gospel," died off after Acts 28!

Paul was dead (Martyred in Rome) in circa AD 64 (shortly after Peter). I don't know about the other apostles, yet John continued to write, teach, and evangelize well through the AD 70's 80's and even into the 90's! It's likely that he didn't even write his gospel until 85-90 or so! :dizzy:

What should we conclude here? Did the "overlap" continue after Paul's death, or did it end in Acts 28? If it continued, when did it end? How do you know?

My point is, I believe that the gospel of Jesus and the gospel of Paul are precisely one in the same! That is how Christians have always interpreted the Bible, and to suggest otherwise borders on heterodoxy IMO.

Love you too BROTHER!

:cheers:

And your point is??? To quote someone's sig line "Absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence."

You're right about that, but 2000 years of Christian history is against your position here. You will never find one Early Church Father (except for Marcion the heretic), or any other orthodox Christian prior to the mid to late 20th century who proposes that the gospels of Jesus and Paul were different. Yes, it's an argument from silence, but it's a deafening silence. If not a single Christian writing prior to 1950 or so says that Jesus and Paul taught different gospels (or that we shouldn't be baptized :hehe:) don't you think that there's something fishy in Denmark?

Also, if something is true, it's always been true, whether or not anyone holds to it as being true. Popular or unpopular opinion doesn't make something right or wrong.

True, true. And Jesus also taught that "small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." (Matthew 7:14). Or was that only for the Jews? :ahem:

My point in bringing up the historical argument was that it seems very, very likely to me that someone just invented this interpretation (and only quite recently at that). If this was how Jesus and Paul intended the faith to be interpreted, don't you think that those ideas would have caught on somewhere along the line? If an idea about the Christian faith does not appear until very very recently, it's quite likely that it wasn't part of the historic Christian faith.

Can you link me to the oldest articulation of the Mid-Acts Dispensationalist view that you know of? I had a terrible time trying to trace the history of the movement while I was doing some research yesterday. It would be a big :help:!

Well, this has been fun. I now have to go to work. When I return, I expect I'll have my work cut out for me.

truthman

Well Truthman, I hope I haven't disappointed you! Thanks for doing this with me.

-Rob

[truthman]

Got home from work a bit ago, you will have a full reply by tomorrow morning.

truthman

[Amazing Rando]

Hey lurkers! let's have some comments! I'd rather this not be just a two man show here!

[Solly]

These letters contain instruction to the Jewish Christians/Kingdom Believers who were not cut off. (Keep in mind here that while Israel was cut off, the faithful individuals were not

I picked this comment just for its convenience. It's about the idea Dispies have that Israel as a nation, was offered something, which it apparently rejected, but that individuals within Israel accepted what was on offer, yet it was not the same offer, but turned into something else.
Please outline what was on offer to Israel, and yet what it was that the individuals accepted which was not on offer through Jesus' ministry.
Please define who Israel is who could accept such an offer - those within certain political borders? Those of a certain standard in their Judaism?
The whole point about Paul's case in Rom 9-11 centres around this fact, that all Israel seemed to reject Jesus' ministry. No, says Paul, Rom 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,
Rom 9:7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named."
Mere passport membership is not, and was not enough.

And though not a preterist myself, I must protest the idea that preterism does not get a look in, yet we are expected to accept your own hermeneutic, such as...
These letters contain instruction to the Jewish Christians/Kingdom Believers who were not cut off. (Keep in mind here that while Israel was cut off, the faithful individuals were not.
If it must be the case that preterism is not allowed, then you must accept that all the NT scriptures are relevant to this debate, and you cannot write some off as for Jewish Christians only, now or in the millennium. Preterism is to a large extent the only serious contender to Dispensationalism, and there is no reason why its opposers should have their hands tied behind their backs.
HOWEVER, these books hold no soteriological value for us today in the age of Grace. They teach eternal insecurity and a faith/works salvation which was and will be instrumental for the Kingdom Gospel and the Kingdom Believers
Neither are we bound to accept such sentiments.

[Amazing Rando]

Thanks Solly, I was gettin lonely! And congrats on TEN freakin' little green boxes! WOW! :shocked:

[dizzle]

No preterism now, please.

Why not? Further, you do realize that preterists aren't the only ones who deny the "rapture" (as popularly) defined don't you? The "rapture" is simply the resurrection. That view has been around held by nonpreterists since Christ.

[Rubia Warren]

Hey lurkers! let's have some comments! I'd rather this not be just a two man show here!
:popcorn: I am too busy picking these annoying kernels out of my teeth. GAH!

[Xmansmommy]

:popcorn: Is anyone sitting here? :wink:

[Amazing Rando]

Why not? Further, you do realize that preterists aren't the only ones who deny the "rapture" (as popularly) defined don't you? The "rapture" is simply the resurrection. That view has been around held by nonpreterists since Christ.

Yes! In fact, if I'm not mistaken, it even predates Christ. The pre-Christian Jews also believed in a large scale resurrection of the righteous.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

:lol: I am actually eating pop corn as I am veiwing this thread.


(ACT II Kettlecorn to be exact)


:popcorn:

[Xavier]

:popcorn2:

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm... Eschatology... :hehe:

[Solly]

Yeh, it's like that feeling you get when you've been out in the driving rain, soaked from head to toe, and you finally get home to wife and family, warm fire and clothes. Only the wife's out, and you forgot your key. :eek:

[truthman]

I picked this comment just for its convenience. It's about the idea Dispies have that Israel as a nation, was offered something, which it apparently rejected, but that individuals within Israel accepted what was on offer, yet it was not the same offer, but turned into something else.
Please outline what was on offer to Israel, and yet what it was that the individuals accepted which was not on offer through Jesus' ministry.
Please define who Israel is who could accept such an offer - those within certain political borders? Those of a certain standard in their Judaism?
The whole point about Paul's case in Rom 9-11 centres around this fact, that all Israel seemed to reject Jesus' ministry. No, says Paul, ESV Rom 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,
Rom 9:7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named."
Mere passport membership is not, and was not enough.

And though not a preterist myself, I must protest the idea that preterism does not get a look in, yet we are expected to accept your own hermeneutic, such as...
If it must be the case that preterism is not allowed, then you must accept that all the NT scriptures are relevant to this debate, and you cannot write some off as for Jewish Christians only, now or in the millennium. Preterism is to a large extent the only serious contender to Dispensationalism, and there is no reason why its opposers should have their hands tied behind their backs.Based on your comments here, along with Dee Dee's and Amazing Rando's, Preterism and Open Theism will be included in this discussion as they are necessary for continuity.

Also, based on the above contents, I would like to reiterate that Israel the nation was cut off. While she remains God's chosen nation, individuals in that nation do not get a free ride because of it. They didn't then and they certainly don't now. Salvation for Israel during the Kingdom Dispensations was unconditional for the nation and conditional for individuals (note: this is not a widely held view within the dispy camp).Good response, truthman! I can tell you're well prepared. Thansk for obliging me! And any lurkers, please feel free to jump in. This is an open forum!
Yep, God was beginning to cut off Israel in fulfillment of the prophecy in the parable in Luke 13:6-9 He spake also this parable; A certain [man] had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung : And if it bear fruit, [well]: and if not, [then] after that thou shalt cut it down. A good start. But you've got to be careful about parables- they can be quite tricky. Let's take a look at the context immediately before the parable: [i]Luke 13 1Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them -- do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

It looks to me like Jesus is answering a question about a version of the "problem of evil." Hmm. Interesting.Ummm, He was done answering the 'problem of evil' and moved on to the fig tree parable. Later He moved on to mustard seeds and leaven, those don't have much to do with the 'problem of evil' either. Quick question- why are you using the ol' King Jimmy? It's not exactly the most up-to-date version (as far as accuracy goes), and the archaic language makes it pretty difficult to follow sometimes.I personally like the NKJV better, but grew up with the KJV. I was unaware that biblegateway.com had the NKJV, I'll use it from now on.


You'll notice two numeric figures there. 3 years and 1 year. Jesus ministry here on earth was to Israel to bring her back (reconcile) into right relationship with God. She would not have it. [/url]

You mean like the prophets of old, right? Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, etc. Jesus was a whole lot more than that, man! The Bible is quite clear that Jesus came for a number of reasons, but one reason more than any other- to die. It was God's plan all along that Jesus should suffer and die, and it was the plan from the very beginning! I can get some Scripture if you'd like. Jesus was bearing the terrible burden of knowledge that above all, the only reason he came was to die, and mend the rift of sin between God and man. (Mark 10:45).Yes, I agree that Jesus was 'born to die'. Peter tells us that He was foreknown. But, His priority before death was to offer Himself as King to Israel and offer Her the kingdom. In fact, when talking to the Gentile woman in Matthew 15:24, He told herBut He answered and said, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/misc/quotes/quot-bot-left.gif)


One year later, at Stephen's stoning, she, Israel, the fig tree, still produced no fruit, so God began the cutting off period.

No fruit? Peter and the apostles preaching their hearts out and winning converts in droves was "no fruit?" I'd beg to differ with you there, mate. :bonk: As a whole! Peter, James, John, Stephen and many other disciples preached a lot. We also have evidence of the 3,000 being saved and many others too. This is still a minority, less than 1 percent of Israel was saved during that one year. That's what I call, 'no fruit'. (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/misc/quotes/quot-bot-left.gif)


You'll notice that at the stoning of Stephen, Jesus was standing at the right hand of the Father, not sitting. He was standing in judgment. Also, at this time, the tribulation, which had already begun, was put on hold.

You're reading into the fact that Jesus was standing a bit too much. In his trial (as recorded in Mark), Jesus tells the priests and Pharisees: "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." (Mark 14:62)

Now does that sound like judgment to you? :innocent: It does to me. And he's sitting in judgment. :ahem: Whether Stephen saw Jesus standing, sitting, hovering, dancing, or cartwheeling doesn't really matter in this case.Actually, when the book of Revelation starts, He's standing again. So, from the beginning of the cutting off until He starts working with Israel again, He is standing in judgment. As to the verse you mentioned, I must needs study more. (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/misc/quotes/quot-bot-left.gif)


Yes, He had been weary for a very long time. But, He is long suffering. This length of God's longsuffering doesn't apply to this discussion too much, so we'll leavy it aside for now and revive it if we need to.

Okay, we can ignore that for now... But it seems to me that you're suggesting God just got fed up with his chosen people, so he had to sned Jesus to bail us out- sort of like a "Plan B." You're not Open View, are you?Yes, I am. And no, God didn't just get fed up with His people, it took Him many years of waiting to finally says "enough is enough". (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/misc/quotes/quot-bot-left.gif)


Yes, quite. And I'm thoroughly enjoying it already.

BTW, you don't buy the dispensation stuff? Let me ask you this. Do you believe that God changes the rules, ever? Do you believe that capital punishment was commanded against by God before the flood and was commanded by God after the flood? Or how about Jesus instructions to the disciples in Luke 10 and Luke 22? In Luke 10, He tells them to take no money on their evangelistic journey, but in Luke 22, He tells them to take money. That's because the tribulation is about to start soon after His coming death. [url="http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/misc/quotes/quot-bot-left.gif"]

That's not changing the rules, Truthman. That's teaching them a lesson, like a good teacher does. In Luke 10, he was teaching them to rely on God.

I don't think God changes the rules. The rules don't change, only the means changes. I see a remarkable continuity between Old Testament and New Testament that the critics who read to shallowly miss out on. I'll elaborate if you'd like.Before we delve into that very important subject, may I ask when you believe the Old Testament ends and the New Testament begins? I personally believe that the New Testament doesn't begin until Matthew 28 when Jesus has bread and wine with His Apostles.

Unfortunately, I must end there as I have to go to work. The rest must come later.

truthman

[dizzle]

Truthman I only meant to the extent that the person refuting your points may hold to preterism makes it strange to a priori exclude preterism. I know of no other way to respond. Open Theism is a bit different in that it is not an eschatology view. Since this is an eschatology discussion, it just seemed odd to exlude an eschatological view.

[Rubia Warren]

Hey Rando- can you give me a link to the discussion you had previously with RightIdea? I am not sure where to look for it.

[Amazing Rando]

Hey Rando- can you give me a link to the discussion you had previously with RightIdea? I am not sure where to look for it.

Yes!

Click here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20360) for a discussion of whether Hebrews 11 teaches justification by works+faith. I said no, RightIdea said yes. Themuzicman also participated a great deal in that thread, as did Jaltus (both of whom I would enjoy hearing from in this thread as well!).

And here, we explored the all important question- "Is RightIdea a Protestant?" (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21737) That was a favorite of mine. :rofl:

Happy reading!

[Amazing Rando]

Hey truthman,

You want I should wait for you to finish the rest? :grin:

How about you, audience? What do you think? We wouldn't want to be ganging up on our buddy T-man, would we?

[Amazing Rando]

Before we delve into that very important subject, may I ask when you believe the Old Testament ends and the New Testament begins? I personally believe that the New Testament doesn't begin until Matthew 28 when Jesus has bread and wine with His Apostles.

Unfortunately, I must end there as I have to go to work. The rest must come later.

truthman

Sorry, I missed this part- I'll respond to the rest in one giant super mega post after you finish.

The Old Testament texts (history-wise anyhow) end with Ezra-Nehemiah and the return from exile. But things changed when Jesus died. At that moment, the Temple curtain was ripped from top to bottom, and the gulf between man and God was bridged.

And there's not a hint of bread and wine in Matthew 28. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Oh, and truthman- could you avoid the weird formatting? All of those crazy links in the quote in your last post made it kinda hard to follow.

[Rubia Warren]

:popcorn: Yeah, I think you should wait for him to finish the rest. It lessens confusion when it goes at a slower pace like that, more points can be addressed.

[Amazing Rando]

Waiting... :zzz:

[truthman]

I'm home.

Sorry, I meant Matthew 26:28 for the beginning of the New Testament/Covenant.

Part 2 of my response coming this evening. I decided to give you part 1 while I had time so that you could see some of where I was coming from.

truthman

[truthman]

Mr. Loved by the Ladies,

I am so bummed out. I have answers for all of your challenges and questions, but, I simply have run out of time in the day. The kids are not going to bed well tonight and my wife is very sick.

Ugh, I so wanted to continue this today.

Tomorrow's looking promising.

[Amazing Rando]

Mr. Loved by the Ladies,

I am so bummed out. I have answers for all of your challenges and questions, but, I simply have run out of time in the day. The kids are not going to bed well tonight and my wife is very sick.

Ugh, I so wanted to continue this today.

Tomorrow's looking promising.

My fiancee's coming home tomorrow evening, so I don't have the foggiest idea when I'll reply to your reply. Let's have it! :grin:

[Ted]

One lurker rises to the surface. (After all, I asked the question that started the other thread...)

The apostle of sola fide says something interesting about Abraham.
Romans 4:18-22 18 In hope against hope he believed, in order that he might become a father of many nations, according to that which had been spoken, "So shall your descendants be." 19 And without becoming weak in faith he contemplated his own body, now as good as dead since he was about a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah's womb; 20 yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief, but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, 21 and being fully assured that what He had promised, He was able also to perform. 22 Therefore also it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

Let’s put this in modern English. Abraham was so old that he was impotent. Yet, because he had faith in God, he went in to have sex with Sarah. That’s an act of faith! But the key here is that by faith, Abraham did something. That is the message of Hebrews 11. Each person there, by faith, did something. They all had living faith.

If you were to pose the idea of faith without works to a Jew of Paul’s day, he’d think you were nuts. The two are part and parcel of the same thing. Basically, if you have faith, you act on it. If you don’t act on it, you don’t have faith. They are two sides of the same coin. So much for two different gospels.

***

Second, let us consider the idea of the Jews as the “chosen people.” Did God choose them simply to be teacher’s pet? Or did he have a purpose for them? I propose that the latter is the case.

Abram was chosen, and God said he would show him a land (Gen 12:1). As a result of him becoming a great nation in this land, Abram would bless “all the families of the earth” (Gen 12:3). In other words, Abram was to become a stay-at-home missionary. Gen 15:18-21 defines the land. It is, in rough terms, from Baghdad to Cairo. It is “the midst of the earth” (Gen 48:16, Isa 19:24). If you look at the map, you will see that it is a strategic location. Every land trade route of the ancient world went through it. Thus, if Abraham’s descendants had played it straight, the world would have come knocking at their door. The visitors would have seen what the Israelites had and asked how to get it. Converts would be blessed. Thieves would have been miraculously turned away. But Israel repeatedly refused to do their duty.

The history of ancient Israel is a story of continual rebellion. God repeatedly punished, then rescued them. Eventually, in Dan 9:24, he set up a final period of probation. They failed, and in Acts 7, Stephen, as God’s prosecuting attorney, brought the covenant lawsuit. Stick a fork in them, they’re done.

Jesus condemns them, God condemned them in the trial, and the kingdom (power) was given to the church, a remnant of physical Israel, who would do God’s missionary task. There is no hint in the Bible that the task would ever be returned to the Jews. They had been given the birthright blessings (Exod 4:22) of the prophetic ministry and miracles. These moved to the remnant of physical Israel who became the foundation of the continuation of Israel (Rom 9:6, 11:26, Gal 3:29, etc). Thus, Israel continues in the faithful people of God (which is the root definition of the term, anyway).

In sum, true Israel has existed from the earliest days. It has been the missionary remnant within physical Israel. And it is God’s missionaries today. There is no future in Bible prophecy for anyone based on genetics.

Ted

[Amazing Rando]

Thanks for chiming in, Ted! Good analysis too! :teeth: Can you tell me- what do you think of Truthman's idea of the two different gospels?

[Amazing Rando]

Oh man of truth? You still out there? If you don't have enough time to continue, I'll understand.

[Ted]

Rando,

The idea of two gospels is meshugennah. Let’s look at some explicit bits.

First, as I noted before, Paul points out that Abraham, by faith, did something. Thus, Abraham’s faith included works. To say that he had faith in God, but didn’t leave Ur, or go in to Sarah when impotent, etc., is an oxymoron. And that is all that James was saying in James 2. In paraphrase, “If you have true (living) faith, you will act on it.”

James’ supposed gospel of works, that is “before” Acts 9, is the same as Paul’s supposed gospel of faith, that is “after” Acts 9. Let’s get real. Jesus said that if we love him, we will keep his commandments (John 14:15). Since loving Jesus is the core of the gospel (John 17:3, 14:6), then we will do something.

Let’s go further, Peter, “before” Acts 9, says that we have to “obey” the gospel (1 Pet 4:17). Paul, “after” Acts 9, says that we have to “obey” the gospel (2 Thes 1:8). There’s no difference.

And remember that Paul, after he went to Arabia to study under Jesus, returned to Jerusalem, where he presented his gospel for critique (Gal 2). We should note that the original apostles could find nothing wrong with Paul’s gospel. In other words, it was exactly the same gospel they had been teaching. But some argue that Paul speaks against works in Gal 2:16 where he says, “by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” And this brings us to a crux interpretum.

“The works of the Law” is a rabbinic term. There are 613 mitzvoh in Torah. The concept of “works of the Law” is that each sinful thing one does weighs down the bad side of God’s balances. If one does something “beyond” what the 613 mitzvot require, then one has done a good “work of the Law.” If enough of these are done, the balances tip to the good side.

This is a radical misunderstanding of the Law, but was commonly taught. And Paul is teaching that you cannot buy salvation by good deeds. But he is not saying that works are not important. Rather, he is speaking of the misuse of works. Paul’s concept of works may be summed up as follows:

“I do not work in order to be saved. I work because I am saved.”

In other words, true works will necessarily happen when one lives by faith. If one does not truly live by faith, works will not happen. And one who tries to say that he has faith when he does not live by it is lying.

In sum, there is only one gospel. And there has only ever been one. Read Hebrews 11. Every lauded patriarch who is praised for faith did the works that spring from it. And Paul’s summary of the principle that the righteous shall live by faith (Rom 1:17) is a quotation from Habakkuk 2:4. Let’s get real.

One God.
One Message.
One way to salvation.
One Savior.

The End.


Ted

[Amazing Rando]

Rando,

The idea of two gospels is meshugennah. Let’s look at some explicit bits.

:huh: If "meshugennah" means what I think it means, I agree with you entirely! :teeth:

First, as I noted before, Paul points out that Abraham, by faith, did something. Thus, Abraham’s faith included works. To say that he had faith in God, but didn’t leave Ur, or go in to Sarah when impotent, etc., is an oxymoron. And that is all that James was saying in James 2. In paraphrase, “If you have true (living) faith, you will act on it.”

James’ supposed gospel of works, that is “before” Acts 9, is the same as Paul’s supposed gospel of faith, that is “after” Acts 9. Let’s get real. Jesus said that if we love him, we will keep his commandments (John 14:15). Since loving Jesus is the core of the gospel (John 17:3, 14:6), then we will do something.

Yes! That's exactly how I interpret it. What kind of a Christian background do you have Ted? I grew up United Methodist.

Let’s go further, Peter, “before” Acts 9, says that we have to “obey” the gospel (1 Pet 4:17). Paul, “after” Acts 9, says that we have to “obey” the gospel (2 Thes 1:8). There’s no difference.

And remember that Paul, after he went to Arabia to study under Jesus, returned to Jerusalem, where he presented his gospel for critique (Gal 2). We should note that the original apostles could find nothing wrong with Paul’s gospel. In other words, it was exactly the same gospel they had been teaching. But some argue that Paul speaks against works in Gal 2:16 where he says, “by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” And this brings us to a crux interpretum.

Good exegesis, my friend! I take verse 16 to mean exactly that- nobody is justified by the Law (not even the Jews). I think Paul makes that pretty clear here and elsewhere, much to the detriment of the Mid-Acts Dispensationalists' case! :rock:

But tell me- what do you mean when you say he went to "study under Jesus" in Arabia?

“The works of the Law” is a rabbinic term. There are 613 mitzvoh in Torah. The concept of “works of the Law” is that each sinful thing one does weighs down the bad side of God’s balances. If one does something “beyond” what the 613 mitzvot require, then one has done a good “work of the Law.” If enough of these are done, the balances tip to the good side.

This is a radical misunderstanding of the Law, but was commonly taught. And Paul is teaching that you cannot buy salvation by good deeds. But he is not saying that works are not important. Rather, he is speaking of the misuse of works. Paul’s concept of works may be summed up as follows:

“I do not work in order to be saved. I work because I am saved.”

In other words, true works will necessarily happen when one lives by faith. If one does not truly live by faith, works will not happen. And one who tries to say that he has faith when he does not live by it is lying.

In sum, there is only one gospel. And there has only ever been one. Read Hebrews 11. Every lauded patriarch who is praised for faith did the works that spring from it. And Paul’s summary of the principle that the righteous shall live by faith (Rom 1:17) is a quotation from Habakkuk 2:4. Let’s get real.

One God.
One Message.
One way to salvation.
One Savior.

The End.


Ted

Wow man, I would have Dean's Listed this post had I not just done one 3 minutes ago! Have some reps!

I believe that even before Christ, people were justified by faith, which then produced good works. But the faith always comes first. Jesus tells us that the entire Law is summed up in those two Great Commandments- love God, and love your neighbor.

Truthman asked me if I felt that God ever changed the rules. No, I don't think God changes the rules- the same rules apply whether we we live in 2004 BC or AD 2004. The only rule is- abide in Him. That's what the ancients were told to do, and that's what Jesus and Paul us to do.

[Ted]

Rando,

Meshugennah (sp?) is a Yiddish word that means “crazy.”

I grew up fourth-generation Seventh-day Adventist. I left the church entirely because the words had no meaning for me. In a second marriage I attended the Nazarene church to be a good husband, and the Lord finally got my attention there, lighting a fire that won’t go out. I found my way back to the SDA church based on Bible study. I remain there because, even with its exegetical faults, it remains the closest to scripture that I know.

I said that Paul studied under Jesus in Arabia because that is a reasonable inference, popularly suggested. We know he went there after Damascus, and that he studied there. We have no data on who he may have studied with, and we know that he claims his gospel came from Christ. Thus, “He studied with Jesus.” But don’t make it a point of dogma. It’s only an inference.

Truthman asked me if I felt that God ever changed the rules. No, I don't think God changes the rules- the same rules apply whether we we live in 2004 BC or AD 2004. The only rule is- abide in Him. That's what the ancients were told to do, and that's what Jesus and Paul us to do.

To this I would add a proof-text.

Micah 6:8 8 He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God?

So what’s new? Nothing!

Ted

[Amazing Rando]

Rando,

Meshugennah (sp?) is a Yiddish word that means “crazy.”

Hehe. From the context, I figured it meant something like that!

I grew up fourth-generation Seventh-day Adventist. I left the church entirely because the words had no meaning for me. In a second marriage I attended the Nazarene church to be a good husband, and the Lord finally got my attention there, lighting a fire that won’t go out. I found my way back to the SDA church based on Bible study. I remain there because, even with its exegetical faults, it remains the closest to scripture that I know.

Praise God, Ted! Neat!

Other than the Saturday worship thing, what are some facets of SDA belief that you feel are lacking in other Christian churches?

I said that Paul studied under Jesus in Arabia because that is a reasonable inference, popularly suggested. We know he went there after Damascus, and that he studied there. We have no data on who he may have studied with, and we know that he claims his gospel came from Christ. Thus, “He studied with Jesus.” But don’t make it a point of dogma. It’s only an inference.

Ah, that explains it. Seems reasonable to me! In Galatians, he says he was in Arabia for three years, yet he also says he learned what he knew from nobody. I wonder what kind of revelation he had...

To this I would add a proof-text.

So what’s new? Nothing!

Ted

I like the way you think, Ted!

[Ted]

Rando,

You don’t know how much you have made my day. Thank you.

Seventh-day Adventism (off subject, but since you brought it up...)
Completely orthodox in fundamental theology:
#Trinity
#Incarnation
#The Fall
#Salvation by Grace through Faith
#Substitutionary Atonement
#Divinity of Christ, etc.

Distinctives:
#Sabbatarian - Firmly biblical
#Soul Sleep - Firmly biblical
#Great Controversy (God at War with Satan) as the metanarrative of redemptive history - firmly biblical. This includes a somewhat historicist understanding (similar to some of Preterism) of prophecy, in that it speaks of the progressive unfolding of the war, leading eventually to the Second Coming (Rapture) of the saints to be in Heaven for the millennium, where they act as the court to vindicate God from Satan’s slanderous accusations. After that they return to the earth made new, where they live for eternity in the new Eden.
#Annihilation of the wicked. - firmly biblical.
#A person is a soul, he does not have a soul - firmly biblical.

#Ellen G. White as prophet in Old Testament mold - unsupportable (many documented errors)
#Clean and unclean meats (Lev 11) in force as dietary laws - unsupportable (Mark 7:19, Acts 10, 1 Cor 10:25, etc.)
#Investigative Judgment (Day of Atonement in heaven beginning in 1844) - unsupportable, in fact, completely contrary to scripture, discussion too long for here.
#No wearing of jewelry - unsupportable, based on terrible eisegesis

Now that you have a summary of the good and bad in the SDA church, let me say that if I found an evangelical sabbatarian church, I would seriously consider moving to it. I am aware of the Seventh-day Baptists, but they are too few and far between. The nearest is an hour from me.

The reason I require sabbatarian is that the Sabbath is a belief that requires action. Soul sleep merely explains much of how God operates, and has implications for eschatology (as does a unified view of man). I might even be able to tolerate a Dispensational denomination, since that doesn’t necessarily speak of actions that I need to do.

Core Christian beliefs all lead to action or are central to faith in Christ. The Sabbath is the only non-core belief I am aware of that places any specific requirement on the behavior of Christians. Other non-core beliefs tell us more about God and lead to the fellowship of faith, but do not directly bear on salvation. Thus, I am quite comfortable that there are many truly Christian denominations. Those who ignore the Sabbath generally do so out of ignorance.

My ideal church would have the first five distinctives added to the core of evangelical belief. Does that help?

Ted

[Amazing Rando]

Rando,

You don’t know how much you have made my day. Thank you.

Seventh-day Adventism (off subject, but since you brought it up...)
Completely orthodox in fundamental theology:
#Trinity
#Incarnation
#The Fall
#Salvation by Grace through Faith
#Substitutionary Atonement
#Divinity of Christ, etc.

Ah, that's what I thought! :smile:

Distinctives:
#Sabbatarian - Firmly biblical

This is an interesting one- I'd enjoy discussing this one with you if you don't mind derailing the thread further than it already is. I've always found it odd to worship on the Saturday rather than the Sunday. To my knowledge, most Christians worship on Sunday in order to commemorate Christ's Resurrection (and to set us apart from the Jews a bit more, I'd say). Can you explain why Adventists worship on Saturday?

#Soul Sleep - Firmly biblical

That was a very Jewish belief, I know that. But I don't know enough to argue for or against soul sleep.

#Great Controversy (God at War with Satan) as the metanarrative of redemptive history - firmly biblical. This includes a somewhat historicist understanding (similar to some of Preterism) of prophecy, in that it speaks of the progressive unfolding of the war, leading eventually to the Second Coming (Rapture) of the saints to be in Heaven for the millennium, where they act as the court to vindicate God from Satan’s slanderous accusations. After that they return to the earth made new, where they live for eternity in the new Eden.

Sounds reasonable... Though I've honestly never run across your eschatology before- people are raptured to heaven then they come back to earth again? And why does God need anyone to vindicate him from Satan? Am I understanding you right?

#Annihilation of the wicked. - firmly biblical.

Not so sure about this one.

#A person is a soul, he does not have a soul - firmly biblical.

Agree wholeheartedly here!

Core Christian beliefs all lead to action or are central to faith in Christ. The Sabbath is the only non-core belief I am aware of that places any specific requirement on the behavior of Christians. Other non-core beliefs tell us more about God and lead to the fellowship of faith, but do not directly bear on salvation. Thus, I am quite comfortable that there are many truly Christian denominations. Those who ignore the Sabbath generally do so out of ignorance.

My ideal church would have the first five distinctives added to the core of evangelical belief. Does that help?

Ted

Sure does! I'm very curious though why you feel that Sabbath worship is so critical?

[Ted]

Amazing! Yes, you are.

I’m pleasantly surprised at how much we share.

I thought I made the Sabbath reason fairly clear. Basically, unlike many subordinate doctrines, the Sabbath, while a gift of God to man, obligates man to separate himself from daily employment (“work,” lit Hebrew) in order to rest, refresh, and commune with his Maker. Thus a sabbatarian church is nearly essential. While it is possible to attend church on Sunday, and occasionally I make such a visit, it logistically impairs the other part of the command “six days shalt thou work.” And on a purely practical basis, it tends to make the weekend unavailable for “honey-do’s” and golf.

As for the extended discussion of the Sabbath, it seems that it is better suited for Christianity 201, so I will start a thread there.

Ted

[Amazing Rando]

Amazing! Yes, you are.

I’m pleasantly surprised at how much we share.

I thought I made the Sabbath reason fairly clear. Basically, unlike many subordinate doctrines, the Sabbath, while a gift of God to man, obligates man to separate himself from daily employment (“work,” lit Hebrew) in order to rest, refresh, and commune with his Maker. Thus a sabbatarian church is nearly essential. While it is possible to attend church on Sunday, and occasionally I make such a visit, it logistically impairs the other part of the command “six days shalt thou work.” And on a purely practical basis, it tends to make the weekend unavailable for “honey-do’s” and golf.

As for the extended discussion of the Sabbath, it seems that it is better suited for Christianity 201, so I will start a thread there.

Ted

Ah yes- your other thread explains your case much better. I'll join you over there, and we can leave this thread for in case truthman or another Mid-Acts person ever shows up again.

[Daywalker]

Ah yes- your other thread explains your case much better. I'll join you over there, and we can leave this thread for in case truthman or another Mid-Acts person ever shows up again.
Is it just me, or does it seem apparent (sp) also to anyone else that in order for a MIDACTS type of dispensationalist to defend his teaching he must "first prove" that this is the only age where man is saved and KEPT saved by grace alone- And that all escatological viewpoints MUST stem from that. And that if they can't prove dispensational salvation-then little else really matters???
:eek:
:b_cowboy: :whistle: :hehe: :popcorn:

[Amazing Rando]

Is it just me, or does it seem apparent (sp) also to anyone else that in order for a MIDACTS type of dispensationalist to defend his teaching he must "first prove" that this is the only age where man is saved and KEPT saved by grace alone- And that all escatological viewpoints MUST stem from that. And that if they can't prove dispensational salvation-then little else really matters???
:eek:
:b_cowboy: :whistle: :hehe: :popcorn:

:grin: For sure! In my opinion, the biggest strikes against the Mid-Acts view are the NT passages that point out that the ancients were indeed justified by their faith, and that the works they produced were a result of their faith, not companions to their faith.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

:grin: For sure! In my opinion, the biggest strikes against the Mid-Acts view are the NT passages that point out that the ancients were indeed justified by their faith, and that the works they produced were a result of their faith, not companions to their faith.
Well, I am not an acomplished scholar of Dispensations (even when I was one), but would that apply to nealy all forms of dispensationalism?

[Daywalker]

What is strange is that only in this more modern era has "dispensational salvation" become so popularized. The dispy's of the olden days did not teach it. The Father Of MidActs dispensationalism, Sir Robert Anderson, never taught it (I am told).

As an Acts 28 dispensationalist, I have gone into rooms on paltalk and tried to reason with them on how dispensational salvation is not only incorrect, but unessesary for their own theology. The response? Mark me out to be COVENANTAL theologin. If they can do that, they can put another label on someone so then they don't have to deal with scripture. What is so funny, is that if the truth were known, an Acts 28 dispensationalist makes a MidActs dispy look more like a covenantal because "we" don't believe that today we are made partakers of Israel's spiritual things, THEY DO! (Rom. 15:25-27).

Truth is stranger than fiction,
Mike
psssssst...Rando, want to have some fun? Ask an Acts 9 dispensationalist WHICH VERSE in Acts 9 that the dispensation of the grace of God began! They like to say "with Paul"-but ask which verse and WHY. Most of them do not go that far. They see the problems with doing that and all the confusion that they would be stuck with and quickly back OUT.

In order to be a part of the body of Christ of I.Cor. 12:12-13 a man must be baptized with the Holy Ghost and there also must be "MANY members" for their to be "one body"...so says I.Cor. 12. Problem? Paul did not receive the Holy Ghost till Annanias laid hands on him in Acts 9:17.
also...

The Acts 2 position makes more sense than MidActs on that point because IF Paul were the FIRST MEMBER in the Body of Christ then we have a real problem...IT IS NOT A BODY. It must have "many" members to be a body.
Grace,
Mike

[Amazing Rando]

Well, I am not an acomplished scholar of Dispensations (even when I was one), but would that apply to nealy all forms of dispensationalism?

I'm not sure- but one thing these "Mid-Acts" dispensationalists (RightIdea, truthman, Acts9_12out for example ) in particular believe is that Jesus taught a different gospel than Paul did. Jesus' gospel was "salvation by faith and works" while Paul's was sola fide (or so they would have us believe).

As a result, they believe that Abraham and Moses, for example, were justfied through what they did, not just Who they put their faith in.

[Daywalker]

Well, I am not an acomplished scholar of Dispensations (even when I was one), but would that apply to nealy all forms of dispensationalism?
Dispensational salvation is mostly to be found in the MidActs camp. Not the Acts 28ers or Acts 2 dispys.

Acts 2 folk have a heavy concentration of Pentacostalism OR some form of Arminianism-so they make it faith plus works in every age, even now.
Ofcouse, if a Calvy is Acts 2 then such is not the case.

Acts 28ers do have "some" that hold to dispensational salvation-but it is NOT the majority, and even then it is because they left one of the other camps and now have to get that stuff purged from their system.
Grace,
Mike

[dizzle]

The Bible just isn't this complicated.

[Ted]

Amen!

[Daywalker]

The Bible just isn't this complicated.
you again?

[dizzle]

Yep I am a persistent annoying little bugger aren't I

[Amazing Rando]

She's rather hard not to notice around here. :wink: