Mid-Acts Dispensationalism in Church History

[Amazing Rando]

This is a repost of a point I made to RightIdea in our Tennis Court thread:

forget the Scriptural argumentation we've been exchanging for a little while. We can return to it later. I'd like to focus a bit more on the historical streams of Christian thought, if you're willing. My Christian History course is challenging the way I look at the Bible a bit.

What I'm saying is that we can't look at the Bible in a vacuum like we have been, as if there was a straight, continuous path from Jesus and the apostles to us today. We do not read the Bible in the same way that its original audiences did. Our thought processes have been shaped by millenia of development in the sacred history of the church. I think it would be best if we identify what historical lens that each of us is viewing the Bible. For example, part of your lens is that of dispensationalism. My lens differs from yours, and that's why we view the same text in drastically different ways.

So what do you say? Care to set aside the Scriptural merit or non-merit of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism for a little while so that we can explore the historical thought of the church on some of the key proposals of your school of thought?

I'd like in this thread to discuss the trends in church history that have led to Mid-Acts Dispensationalism and some of their claims. Particularly, when did the idea of "two gospels" originate?

Is this even a fruitful exercise? I believe it is, because of the sheer fact that none of us is independant of Christian tradition. We all base our biblical interpretive work on the lens of those who have come before us, and none of us read the Bible in the exact same way that the original audiences of Paul's letters or the gospels did. This thread is to discuss the historical ramifications and trends of thought on the nature of baptism, the gospel, etc. with particular emphasis on the strains of thought which have eventually brought us Mid-Acts Dispensationalism in its modern incarnation.

[Amazing Rando]

Here's what I've been able to come up with so far-

From this site (http://www.gmaf.org/gracehistory.html):

GraceHistory



John C. O'Hair of Chicago, Illinois Charles F. Baker of Milwaukee, Wisconsin Cornelius R. Stam of Wayne, New Jersey Harry Bultema of Muskegon, Michigan Eugene Rueweler of St. Louis, Missouri Herman Reich of Evansville, Indiana Otis Wasson of Riverdale, Illinois These and other pastors came together during the following years to begin a foreign missions board, an evening Bible institute, a fellowship group, youth camp, newsletter, and magazine. Here are some important dates in the spread of the Gospel of the Grace of God in America:

1939 --- Worldwide Grace Testimony (foreign mission board) began

1939 --- Evening Bible Institute began at the Fundamental Bible Church in Milwaukee

1939 --- The Berean Bible Society began in Preakness, New Jersey (now Wayne, New Jersey)

1940 --- The Berean Bible Searchlight began

1944 --- Grace Gospel Fellowship organized in Evansville, Indiana

1945 --- Milwaukee Bible Institute became full-time day school

1946 --- Grace Youth Camp began at McCormich State Park near Spencer, Indiana

1946 --- Grace Gospel News began

1950 --- Truth Magazine began

1951 --- Bethesda Mission founded at Bethesda Free Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota

1953 --- The Berean Bible Society moved to Chicago, Illinois

1953 --- Milwaukee Bible Institute became a four-year college named Milwaukee Bible College Late

1950s --- Things-To-Come Mission in Indianapolis, Indiana began

1960 --- Milwaukee Bible College moved to Grand Rapids, Michigan and was named Grace Bible College

1967 --- Pastor Win Johnson partnered with Pastor Cornelius Stam to start the Berean Bible Fellowship

1971 --- Grace Publications incorporated

1984 --- Grace Mission and Bethesda Mission merged to form Grace Ministries International

1990 --- GraceLife Ministries began

1991 --- Four Grace organizations housed under one roof in Grand Rapids, Michigan: Grace Gospel Fellowship, Grace Ministries International, Grace Publications and Grace Youth Camp

1995 --- GraceLife Ministries began sharing the Grace Message through the Internet

1996 --- Berean Bible Institute began training Christians for ministry

1998 --- Grace Martial Arts Fellowship began to support Christian martial artists in their ministries to reach the lost with the Gospel of Christ

In the mid-late 1930's J.C. O'Hair, Cornelius R. Stam and other pastors organized the early strains of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism under the banner of the "Grace Movement" and began several institutions and organizations around this movement. The Berean Bible Society (http://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/) is currently the oldest and most prominant network of Mid-Acts Dispensationalist believers in the nation. Click their link to see what they believe.

[Amazing Rando]

Hmm- On second thought, I'm gonna move this to Church History forum. It's more appropriate there.

[truthman]

How does the subscription or non-subscription to a theology, doctrine or a belief have anything to do with its veracity?

Based on the point that I believe you're making, America has an invalid governmental system since we are the first nation in history to have a constitutional republic functioning as a democracy.

truthman

[themuzicman]

Mid-acts dispensationalism is a complete departure from orthodox views on the nature of the church and Israel. Furthermore, it degrades large portions of the cannon as virtually irrelevant to the church, and leave us with more Paulianity than Christianity.

Granted that protestantism is a departure from accepting all church doctrine as inerrant as a result of church errors and abuses, but even in doing so, it remained committed to the traditional teachings of the church as valuable to the development of doctrine, when subject to scripture.

Even Open View Theism, which is a relatively new perspective is only that: a new perspective on an old church debate, namely the nature of God and the problem of evil. It doesn't really challenge a staple of the Christian church such as the cannon of scripture.

Michael

[truthman]

Does Leviticus 11:23 apply to you or not?

If it does, then please let me know.

If it doesn't, then I will reverse your accusation of challenging "a staple of the Christian church such as the cannon of scripture"

truthman

[themuzicman]

In understanding the nature of the law and in understanding the covenant that would produce the Christ, yes, it is beneficial for us. It is our history, our heritage. Paul proved that Jesus was the Christ in using the Old Testament.

Michael

[truthman]

In understanding the nature of the law and in understanding the covenant that would produce the Christ, yes, it is beneficial for us. It is our history, our heritage. Paul proved that Jesus was the Christ in using the Old Testament.

MichaelThen join the team Michael! Your terminologyit is beneficial for us is a close fit for how I would put all the parts of the Bible that are not directed to me. I say that the whole Word of God is beneficial for us, but is not all directed to us.

Thanks for proving my point and I hope you enjoy your journey of "right division".

truthman

[themuzicman]

I would disagree with you. You've taken me out of context.

The Old Testament is directed at us. It is our history, it is the basis upon which we understand sin, law, covenant, prophecy, end times, the nature of God, among other things. We have wisdom literature, poetry and song.

There is a HOST of doctrine and history and wisdom and art that are directed to us and that we derive from the Old Testament, and these things are directed at us. Without the Old Testament, Christ has no context in which to appear, salvation saves us from nothing, and the remainder of the New Testament simply could not be understood.

It is very much directed at us, even in the very foundation that it points directly to Christ.

If I treated the OT like Mid-acts dispys treated the letters by Peter, James, and John, the NT simply wouldn't make any sense.

I am most certainly not on your team!

Michael

[reasonabledoubt]

The ways that Christians prove that Jesus was the Messiah is by pointing to OT (Hebrew) scripture prophecies and showing how Jesus fulfilled those prophecies. The two religions are completely intertwined. So even though the OT Judaism religious practices don't apply to Gentiles, the OT Jewish prophecies do.

[Amazing Rando]

How does the subscription or non-subscription to a theology, doctrine or a belief have anything to do with its veracity?

Based on the point that I believe you're making, America has an invalid governmental system since we are the first nation in history to have a constitutional republic functioning as a democracy.

truthman

Truthman- what I'm trying to say is that we do not interpret Scripture in a vacuum. Every one of us is subject to the foundation laid by two millenia of Christians, and it is critical to consider their beliefs in formulating ours. As I said, we're not debating the Bible- we're debating one particular interpretation of the Bible. An interpretation is not absolute truth, and what I'm trying to find is evidence of this particular interpretation in the history of the Church. If I do not find it, that would seem to suggest that said interpretation is not based on sound exegesis. If no Christians prior to the 1920's or 30's believed that Paul and Peter taught different gospels, then it is more likely than not that this idea is an invention of a clever mind rather than the truth revealed by the Holy Spirit.

Of extra significance would be the writings of those men who were only one or two generations removed from the apostles themselves- after all, such men would be in prime position to know via oral tradition just what the apostles taught.

[Rusty T]

Anyone on the Mid-Acts "team" know of an exhaustive history of your movement? That may be a good starting point.

rusty

[truthman]

Nope, Rando's history gives a pretty good history of the grace movement.

Other than that, the Apostle Paul is the church father who holds the most weight on the issue as it was revealed to him by the risen Christ during his visit to the third heaven.

[themuzicman]

"It"? What "it"?

[Amazing Rando]

Nope, Rando's history gives a pretty good history of the grace movement.

Other than that, the Apostle Paul is the church father who holds the most weight on the issue as it was revealed to him by the risen Christ during his visit to the third heaven.

Hey T-man, are you aware of any places in the writings of Stam, O'Hair, or anyone else from the beginning of the Grace movement where they speak of from whom they learned their doctrine? I'm curious if some of their teachers may have had in influence on their theology or otherwise where their particular interpretation was birthed. I've been reading some Stam and O'Hair, but have yet to come across anything autobiographical.

[Amazing Rando]

For a bit of fun- here (http://www.terravista.pt/IlhadoMel/1657/Emb001.htm) is what appears to be a Mid-Acts Dispensationalist website in Spanish! :hrm:

[truthman]

"It"? What "it"?The mystery.

[truthman]

For a bit of fun- here (http://www.terravista.pt/IlhadoMel/1657/Emb001.htm) is what appears to be a Mid-Acts Dispensationalist website in Spanish! :hrm:Portuguese.

[Amazing Rando]

Portuguese.

:shocked: Well I'll be, you're right! I was wondering why I couldn't read most of it!

[truthman]

:shocked: Well I'll be, you're right!This part of Rando's statement was written to me, thereby proving that mid-Acts Dispensationalism is a correct and sound hermeneutical approach.I was wondering why I couldn't read most of it!And this part of Rando's statement was written for my benefit. :grin:

[Amazing Rando]

:rock:

[Amazing Rando]

One problem Mid-Acts Dispies would have is if we found instances of early Gentile Christians quoting the Jewish epistles.

This is precisely what we find. :shocked:

Behold, Polycarp's epistle to the Phillippians (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/polycarp-lake.html), from the early AD 2nd Century:

CHAPTER 7

Warning against heresy

1 "For everyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is an anti-Christ"; and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the Cross is of the devil: and whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord for his own lusts, and says that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, -- this man is the first-born of Satan. 2 Wherefore, leaving the foolishness of the crowd, and their false teaching, let us turn back to the word which was delivered to us in the beginning, "watching unto prayer" and persevering in fasting, beseeching the all-seeing God in our supplications "to lead us not into temptation," even as the Lord said, "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."

Notice verse 1- "For everyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is an anti-Christ" is a quotation from John's epistles. There is good reason for this. John the Apostle was Polycarp's teacher, according to most early traditions. Polycarp himself was a Gentile by all accounts that I'm aware of. :deal:

Now this presents two big problems for Mid-Acts folks. First, under the X9 paradigm- John the Apostle apparently did not understand that he was only an apostle to the Jews, and should not have taken on Polycarp as a disciple.

Secondly, Polycarp, as a Gentile, should have known better than to quote John's epistles authoritatively, since he was a Jew and was apparently only writing for the Jews.

Now, why is it that Polycarp, a Gentile, seemingly had no regard for the fact that John was an ethnic Jew? Could it be because the "two gospels" had been conflated that early on into one and that the truth of the Bible had been lost only to be rediscovered in the 20th Century by a few American preachers? (:smug:) Perhaps John simply decided not to teach Polycarp that his gospel was different than Paul's. :hrm: Or perhaps it is because there was no such distinction for the earliest apostles? Perhaps for the apostles, "For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile–the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him" (Romans 10:12). :teeth:

Inquiring minds want to know! :wink:

[truthman]

ATTN: HUGE MISUNDERSTANDING!!!

Rando saidSecondly, Polycarp, as a Gentile, should have known better than to quote John's epistles authoritatively, since he was a Jew and was apparently only writing for the Jews.Not one Dispensationalist that I've ever met at this site or other sites or in person or in any text of any form has ever questioned the 'authoritativeness' of John or any of the other Jewish Apostles or writers. In fact, for proving the divinity of Christ, I turn virtually no where else but to the Gospel of John.

If I'm a 7 year old, and my friend's father speaks of an issue relating strictly to my friend, I don't then question the 'authority' of my friend's father, I just don't take his authority over me in that matter.

truthman

[themuzicman]

But you wouldn't put it into a book of things your Father told you about life.

Michael

[Amazing Rando]

ATTN: HUGE MISUNDERSTANDING!!!

Rando saidNot one Dispensationalist that I've ever met at this site or other sites or in person or in any text of any form has ever questioned the 'authoritativeness' of John or any of the other Jewish Apostles or writers. In fact, for proving the divinity of Christ, I turn virtually no where else but to the Gospel of John.

If I'm a 7 year old, and my friend's father speaks of an issue relating strictly to my friend, I don't then question the 'authority' of my friend's father, I just don't take his authority over me in that matter.

truthman

Thanks for the correction T-man! :smile: I shouldn't have said "authoritative." But my point still stands- Polycarp and the other earliest witnesses made no distinction between the Jewish apostles and Paul. They quote Peter, James, and John as well as Jesus quite freely in the same manner as they do with Paul.

[Amazing Rando]

In my previous post, I quoted a section from Polycarp's epistle to the Phillippians when Polycarp quotes from the apostle John (who happened to be his teacher). I'd like to look further at Polycarp's epistle and demonstrate how he, who walked and talked with the disciples of Jesus, had no concept of the idea of "two gospels" (one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles) as has been postulated in the 20th century by various Mid-Acts dispensationalists.

We start with chapter 1 of Polycarp's epistle:

1 I rejoice greatly with you in our Lord Jesus Christ that you have followed the pattern of true love, and have helped on their way, as opportunity was given you, those who were bound in chains, which become the saints, and are the diadems of those who have been truly chosen by God and our Lord. 2 I rejoice also that your firmly rooted faith, which was famous in past years, still flourishes and bears fruit unto our Lord Jesus Christ, who endured for our sins, even to the suffering of death, "whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of Hades,

In these first two verses, we see Polycarp demonstrates a proper understanding of "faith"- i.e. that true faith will bear fruit. This is what James was getting at in his epistle, he was not saying that works play any part in salvation.

3 in whom, though you did not see him, you believed in unspeakable and glorified joy," -- into which joy many desire to come, knowing that "by grace ye are saved, not by works" but by the will of God through Jesus Christ.

In this verse, Polycarp demonstrates his knowledge of the doctrine of grace, even quoting from Paul's epistle. Hey Ax9ers, this seems awfully strange for the disciple of one of the Jewish apostles to be preaching the gospel of grace, don't you think so? :smug:

This is just a brief intro to perhaps get the ball rolling.

Notice to RightIdea- I'm not calling Polycarp an "infallible authority"- I'm using him as an example for what the earliest Christians believed. Please try to understand that before you go accusing me of "appealing to fallible men" or whatever your usual spiel is.

[truthman]

So, you guys think it's weird for the Acts 9 dispensational message to have 'disappeared' for 1900 years and then suddenly appear from a pulpit in America? And that this is an invalidation of our doctrine......

Well, it's not strange to me at all. And I wouldn't be surprised if it disappears again, maybe even very soon. Why, you ask?

Because of this verseI Timothy 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.So, Paul, the great 13th Apostle experienced it in his own lifetime. Not sure if you know this but "all they which are in Asia" includes the Ephesians, so your Polycarp examples are extremely late. The Acts 9 message disappeared from certain regions even during Paul's lifetime and ministry. So, it's not hard to see why it could easily disappear for 1900 years.

truthman

[dizzle]

You really think that verse refers to the Acts 9 message? It refers to complete apostasy. What IS strange about its complete and utter absence in ANY early writing is its implications for the perspecuity of Scripture.

[truthman]

Yes, Dee Dee, since I'm an Acts 9 dispensationalist, I'm going to take that verse as a description of a mass departure from Paul's gospel.

truthman

[dizzle]

That begs the question in a huge way. That is not proof at all or support at all for their being another one, just of there being apostasy,and we all agree on that. Unless you considering rejecting this idea to be damnable heresy. Whicn you don't.

[Amazing Rando]

So, you guys think it's weird for the Acts 9 dispensational message to have 'disappeared' for 1900 years and then suddenly appear from a pulpit in America? And that this is an invalidation of our doctrine......

Not in and of itself, but rather a big strike against it. :smile:

Well, it's not strange to me at all. And I wouldn't be surprised if it disappears again, maybe even very soon. Why, you ask?

Because of this verse

I Timothy 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

T-man- you got your reference wrong. I think you meant II Tim. But that's an interesting verse- I'd never seen it used to explain the disappearing of Paul's doctrine before. I'll need to look into that one a bit. Thanks for giving me something to make me scramble! :wink:

So, Paul, the great 13th Apostle experienced it in his own lifetime. Not sure if you know this but "all they which are in Asia" includes the Ephesians, so your Polycarp examples are extremely late. The Acts 9 message disappeared from certain regions even during Paul's lifetime and ministry. So, it's not hard to see why it could easily disappear for 1900 years.

truthman

Here's a little hint for ya- the epistle I quoted was from Polycarp to the Phillippians, not the Ephesians. Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna, which was indeed in Asia Minor (at least I think so!) So this is why your verse has made me scramble a bit. I'll work on an answer for you shortly. :teeth:

Go take a look at my latest post in my Tennis Court thread with RI to see where I develop this line of reasoning a little bit more.

[themuzicman]

Umm... Paul is talking about the church turning away from him personally, not doctrinally.

Notice the context:

15 You are aware of the fact that all who are in Asia turned away from me, among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes. 16 The Lord grant mercy to the house of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains; 17 but when he was in Rome, he eagerly searched for me and found me-- 18 the Lord grant to him to find mercy from the Lord on that day--and you know very well what services he rendered at Ephesus.

It wouldn't be unusual (either then or now) for people to reject a church leader who was enprisoned.

Michael

[Amazing Rando]

Thanks for the catch Muz, that was what I was going to say.

[dizzle]

I repeat myself:

What IS strange about its complete and utter absence in ANY early writing is its implications for the perspecuity of Scripture.

and I would add a provincial kinda arrogance on our part to think that we figured out something entirely and utterly absent in church history.

[Amazing Rando]

My sentiments exactly. Plus, what would it say about the capriciousness of the God we serve if he had so totally withheld his Holy Spirit from helping us discern Biblical truth for 1900 years? That's not the God I know that would leave us hanging like that.

[truthman]

Plus, what would it say about the capriciousness of the God we serve if he had so totally withheld his Holy Spirit from helping us discern Biblical truth for 1900 years?Going with that logic, why does God wait for Bible translations to be put in the language of people who have never had it? Certainly they've missed out on Bible truth altogether?

your response falls to pieces Rando

truthman

[Act9_12Out]

Rando,

You ask RI and Truthman to consider the teachings of Polycarp...

RI- I'd like you to look with me for a moment at a non-canonical but nonetheless extremely early document from the early church that may shed some light on this issue.

Have you ever heard of Polycarp? He was a personal disciple of the Apostle John. This is a tradition well attested by several sources, most notably by Irenaeus, who in his epistles testifies to hearing Polycarp speak while he (Irenaeus) was still a youth. Polycarp was a Gentile.

Rando, how's about we take a look and see what Polycarp believed about baptism? :deal: Here are just a few of many sources I found. The first is a snippit of a letter to "a friend" written by Gary Hoge (http://www.catholicoutlook.com/glenn1.php). Bold & Blue emphasis are mine.

Does all this mean that no one was teaching a merely symbolic baptism in the early days of the Church? Well, not quite. There was one group that did deny regenerational baptism. They were called the Gnostics. You've probably heard of them; Gnosticism was one of the most dangerous heresies the early Church had to contend with. John wrote his first epistle in order to refute them, but Gnosticism survived for several decades after John died, and so his disciples carried on the fight to defeat it. One of John's disciples was a young man named Polycarp, and he was so well known for his dedication to Christ and to the true faith, that John appointed him Bishop of Smyrna. Polycarp was eventually martyred at the age of 86. Eusebius, the fourth-century historian who wrote the very first history of the Christian Church, had this to say about Polycarp:
Polycarp was not only instructed by apostles and conversant with many who had seen the Lord, but was appointed by apostles to serve in Asia as Bishop of Smyrna. . . . [He] was very old indeed when he laid down his life by a glorious and most splendid martyrdom. At all times he taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, which the Church transmits, which alone are true. (Eusebius, History of the Church, 4, 14 [A.D. 312]).
In other words, Polycarp was a pillar of orthodoxy, faithfully handing on the teachings he learned first-hand from John and the others "who had seen the Lord." One of Polycarp's own disciples was a young man named Irenaeus, who eventually became Bishop of Lyons, in what is now France. [Eusebius was actually quoting from Irenaeus in the previous quotation]. This is how Irenaeus recalled his days with John's disciple Polycarp:
I have a clearer recollection of events at that time than of recent happenings--what we learn in childhood develops along with the mind and becomes a part of it--so that I can describe the place where blessed Polycarp sat and talked, his goings out and comings in, the character of his life, his personal appearance, his addresses to crowded congregations. I remember how he spoke of his conversations with John and with the others who had seen the Lord; how he repeated their words from memory; and how the things that he had heard them say about the Lord, His miracles and His teaching, things that he had heard direct from the eyewitnesses of the Word of Life, were proclaimed by Polycarp in complete harmony with Scripture. To these things I listened eagerly at that time, by the mercy of God shown to me, not committing them to writing but learning them by heart. By God's grace, I constantly and conscientiously ruminate on them. (Quoted in Eusebius, History of the Church, 5, 20, 5-7 [A.D. 312]).
Like the other early Christians, Irenaeus firmly believed in regenerational baptism. He wrote,
"And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan" [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: "Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven" [John 3:5]. (Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).
Irenaeus interpreted John 3:5 as a reference to baptism, and he obviously believed that we are born again through baptism. He got his interpretation of John from Polycarp, who got it from John himself. That's an extremely short chain!
Like John and Polycarp before him, Irenaeus went after the Gnostics with a vengeance. He wrote a whole book against them, called Against Heresies. It is a classic example of early Christian apologetics, and it teaches us much about both the Gnostics, and the early Christian faith. Listen carefully to one of Irenaeus's chief complaints against the Gnostics:
Thus there are as many schemes of "redemption" as there are teachers of these mystical opinions. And when we come to refute them, we shall show in its fitting place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith. (Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 1, 21, 1 [A.D. 189]).
I found that stunning, and absolutely compelling, especially in light of the other ancient Christian testimony I'd seen. It was obvious that regenerational baptism was a foundational doctrine of the true apostolic faith. Only Gnostic heretics denied it, and that denial was called an invention of Satan and a renunciation of the whole Christian faith!

Next is a quote (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a26.htm) which shows Polycarp baptized as an infant by John himself!

Now, St. Hippolytus was the disciple of St. Irenaeus of Lyon; and, in AD 180, St. Irenaeus writes:
"For He came to save all through Himself --all, I say, who through Him are born again to God [i.e., Baptized] -- infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men." (Irenaeus, Against the Heresies 2:22:4 -- c. AD 180)
St. Irenaeus was the disciple of St. Polycarp, who was the disciple of the Apostle John himself (as well as an associate of the Apostle Philip). And, in AD 155, St. Polycarp said this at his execution:
"Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury. How can I blaspheme my King and Savior?" (Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp 9 c. AD 156)
Now, it is well documented that "The Martyrdom of Polycarp" was written the year after the saint's execution; and so the quote above is extremely reliable. It is also well documented that Polycarp was 86 years old at the time of his death. Therefore, if the saint claims to have served Jesus for 86 years, it therefore follows that he was Baptized as an infant. And, in another place, we are told that Polycarp was Baptized by none other than the Apostle John! Therefore, at least in the case of St. John, we can show conclusively that the Apostles Baptized infants.

And finally, one more (http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/journals/kastens.htm) for good measure...

Polycarp (69-155), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant. This enabled him to say at his martyrdom. "Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 9: 3). Justin Martyr (100 - 166) of the next generation states about the year 150, "Many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples since childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years" (Apology 1: 15). Further, in his Dialog with Trypho the Jew, Justin Martyr states that Baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament.

Just curious Rando... Do you agree with what Polycarp was teaching? Feel free to join the "Church Fathers" discussion here (http://theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=710005&postcount=1).

Truthman,

Good to see you brother. :cheers: Keep up the good fight out in Eckley!

--Jeremy

[Amazing Rando]

* edited by a moderator *

Just curious Rando... Do you agree with what Polycarp was teaching? Feel free to join the "Church Fathers" discussion here (http://theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=710005&postcount=1).

Truthman,

Good to see you brother. :cheers: Keep up the good fight out in Eckley!

--Jeremy

Acts9- I'll be over in a few days when I have some more time on my hands. But I'm not going to go into go into as much depth as I am with RI in the Tennis Court.

[Amazing Rando]

I was perusing my Christian History textbook the other day and I did find historical precedent for at least one of the core beliefs of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism. It turns out that the Mid-Acts belief that the so-called "Jewish epistles" (i.e. the letters of James, John, Peter, Jude, and Revelation) were not written for us Gentiles was present in the writings of one influential church figure from long before this belief was revived in its present form by Stam and O'Hair.

Here's a hint- he reached dramatically different conclusions than the Mid-Actsers have, even though he believed that the Jewish epistles were not written for Gentiles in church.

Can anybody guess who? I'll leave you hanging for a while in breathless suspense.

[truthman]

Martin Luther?

[Amazing Rando]

Farther back than that, T-man! Although you're correct- Luther did refer to the epistle of James as a "letter of straw" because he believed it was in conflict with Paul's doctrine of justification by faith alone.

[Amazing Rando]

One question for ya Truthman- do you know of any of Stam's online writings in which he speaks biographically? I'd like to know a bit more about him and what type of background he came from.

[truthman]

not at the moment, but, at the bottom of this page are two Real audio files of J.C. O'Hair giving his testimony.

http://bereanbiblesociety.org/bibletime/

and btw, Luther was so close at times to discovering the truth

truthman

[Amazing Rando]

Ooh, thanks a whole bunch T-man- I'll be sure to give it a listen.

[Rusty T]

and btw, Luther was so close at times to discovering the truth
And why was the truth hidden?

Okay, Rando, who is the church figure you were referring to?

rusty

[truthman]

And why was the truth hidden?Because the Catholic Church had hidden it.

[Rusty T]

Because the Catholic Church had hidden it.
Uh, huh. And they did it on the grassy knoll, using a magic bullet of theological hucksterism, under the authority of the anti-christ, and with the full knowledge of George W. Bush.

In other words, truthman: (a) what proof do you have to back up this claim? (b) what early group(s) or individual theologians support the mid-Acts view? (c) and if you claim that such views were suppressed - how is it that we have a clear understanding of such heresies as Arianism, Montanism, Donatism, but not this mid-Acts view - which is a 19th century heresy?

Rusty

[Amazing Rando]

And why was the truth hidden?

Okay, Rando, who is the church figure you were referring to?

rusty

Marcion. :wink:

[Maxentius]

and btw, Luther was so close at times to discovering the truth

truthman

Could you provide a quote please? I would find this interesting.

[Amazing Rando]

It's true- in the AD 2nd century, Marcion felt that the "Jewish epistles" were not written for Gentiles, just like what the Mid-Actsers say. Granted, he threw them out of his Bible (along with the gospels and the Old Testament) while the Mid-Actsers have no inclination to do so, but at their heart, their methodology is strikingly similar. While Marcion postulated two different gods to explain the differences, the dispensationalists at least only postulate two different dispensations of the same God.

[Maxentius]

Marcion. :wink:

Except Marcion was a heretic (http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Marcion.htm). :hehe: (Link provided for information only)

[Amazing Rando]

Yes, he was certainly a heretic, against whom the canon was officially collected and the Apostles Creed initially written. And I certainly wouldn't go as far as tizzi did in his previous post to call Mid-Acts folks heretics. I'm just pointing out what they had in common as far as starting points.

[Rusty T]

I'm not in the habit of throwing the "h" word around lightly. But the more I learn about mid-Acts dispensationalism, the more I realize how dangerous the teaching is to orthodoxy. Not only do they teach "two gospels", but they also claim to have biblical backing for such teachings. Yet when you press them, all they have is conjecture, conspiracy theories, and desperate grasping.

I eagerly await them in the "Did Paul Baptize" thread - which seems to have been abandoned for greener pastures.

rusty

[Amazing Rando]

I'm not in the habit of throwing the "h" word around lightly. But the more I learn about mid-Acts dispensationalism, the more I realize how dangerous the teaching is to orthodoxy. Not only do they teach "two gospels", but they also claim to have biblical backing for such teachings. Yet when you press them, all they have is conjecture, conspiracy theories, and desperate grasping.

I eagerly await them in the "Did Paul Baptize" thread - which seems to have been abandoned for greener pastures.

rusty

I know mate... and I agree that their teachings are erroneous and dangerous. But I have trouble calling them heretics when they can still subscribe to the Apostles' Creed, for example, or the Trinity, Resurrection of Christ, etc.

But I do think that the comparison with the methodologies of Marcion is warrented, wouldn't you say?

I guess my biggest worry about them is in the fact that they reject so much of what Christ had to say as well as what John, Peter and James had to say in their letters.

[Rusty T]

Oh, I think the comparison with Marcion is brilliant and dead-on. They come to different conclusions, but their starting point is similar: there must be an explanation for the differences in the God of the Old Testament with the God of the New Testament. Marcion solved the problem by creating a new God. The mid-Acts dispensationalists solve the problem by creating a new gospel. And I truly believe it is a different gospel than that preached by Christ, His apostles (including Paul). And we all know what Paul said concerning those who would preach another gospel.

rusty

[Amazing Rando]

Oh, I think the comparison with Marcion is brilliant and dead-on.

:bravo:

They come to different conclusions, but their starting point is similar: there must be an explanation for the differences in the God of the Old Testament with the God of the New Testament. Marcion solved the problem by creating a new God. The mid-Acts dispensationalists solve the problem by creating a new gospel. And I truly believe it is a different gospel than that preached by Christ, His apostles (including Paul).

:yes: And we all know what Paul said concerning those who would preach another gospel.


12As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

:stunned:

You know the funny thing? Jayrok the atheist is putting forth the very same argument about Paul being opposed to Peter and James in this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38269&page=1&pp=16) right now. :nsm:

[truthman]

a mid-Acts atheist? :grin: wow, wonders will never cease. I will let you know that in several conversations with Muslims in the past, they also noticed (independent of me) that Paul and James have major differences.

btw, Rando, your signature is bogus. If you're trying to prove one gospel, not two, then you would have Peter saying "we are saved the same way that they are", not "we are saved, just as they are." Peter is simply implying that both can get saved, not how they get saved. Both groups, saved by grace, but obtaining that same grace through different means.

truthman

[Amazing Rando]

a mid-Acts atheist? :grin: wow, wonders will never cease. I will let you know that in several conversations with Muslims in the past, they also noticed (independent of me) that Paul and James have major differences.

btw, Rando, your signature is bogus. If you're trying to prove one gospel, not two, then you would have Peter saying "we are saved the same way that they are", not "we are saved, just as they are." Peter is simply implying that both can get saved, not how they get saved. Both groups, saved by grace, but obtaining that same grace through different means.

truthman

:ahem: Truthman- Look at what he says in the passage.

I'm going to copy and paste part of my Tennis Court post to RightIdea here to show you how I understand the Council of Jerusalem and what exactly Peter was saying.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
In another example from the book of Acts, let's look at the Council of Jerusalem in chapter 15.

The context:

1Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." 2This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.

"Some men" came down and taught the brothers that you must be circumcized (and by insinuation, obey the Law of Moses) to be saved. And Paul disagrees with them sharply. At this point, there is no reference to these men being representatives of the Twelve. In fact, we'll come to see that just the opposite is true.

The council convenes:

5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."
6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them:

We see that some Jewish Christians who had formerly been Pharisees taught that the Gentiles must obey the law and be circumcized. These are the "Judaizers." However, when the apostles meet to discuss the matter, Peter stands up and rebukes them. He tells them that "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." [/verse]

This shows first of all, that Peter was not among those who felt that the Gentiles must be circumcized and obey the law. This flushes your theory about the Judaizers from Galatians 1 being the Twelve or representatives of teh Twelve right down the toilet, I'm afraid. :potty:

Second: Peter tells the brothers: "He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith." God has made no distinction between us (the Jewish believers) and them (the Gentile believers). This matches up perfectly with Paul's assertion that,

"28There is neither Jew nor Greek (i.e. Gentile), there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

13For we were all baptized by[1] one Spirit into one body--whether Jews or Greeks (i.e. Gentile), slave or free--and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

and

11Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

In other words, according to Acts 11:9, Peter concurs implicitly with Paul that Christ makes "no distinction" (his words) between Jew and Gentile.

Continuing in Peter's speech: 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?

This says two things. First, Peter is directly rebuking the Judaizers for trying to make the Gentiles follow the Law. This shows he was not part of their party.

Secondly, Peter makes note that neither they (meaning the apostles) nor their faithers (meaning their ancestors) have been able to bear the yoke (that is, the law of Moses -See Galatians 5:1 for an instance where Paul calls the law a "yoke" that is, a burden). He is acutely aware that nobody has ever perfectly kept the law. Remember this point. This will undoubtedly come up again in our discussion down the road.

Continuing on with Peter's speech:

11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

Uh oh! Did Peter just say what I thought he said? Yep! We are saved by the grace of our Lord Jesus- just as they are. Peter clearly says that Salvation is by the grace of Jesus Christ alone, without reference to works. Sorry to burst your bubble RI, but Peter understood the gospel of grace as well as Paul did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Verse 11 in the real clincher of the entire passage. Peter says "We [meaning the Jewish Christians] believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved..."

Peter here clearly demonstrates his knowledge of the gospel of grace, and identifies himself and the other Jewish Christians as being part of said gospel.

Now I know you might be hung up on the wording of the version I used to quote Acts 15:11. I used the NIV and I know you prefer the KJV or NKJV. So let's have a look at how they translate it-


11But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they."

Saved in the same manner as they! Peter felt that the Gentiles were saved in the same manner as the Jews. And how is this? "Through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ." Grace alone, no reference whatsoever to works.

[AcousticJS]

Bravo Rando!! I was gonna post myself, but you did it much better than I would have done.

I will just add, though, that even though Peter sees the acceptance of the Gentiles proved by their reception of the Spirit, looking back at Acts 10 reveals that Peter viewed water baptism as still required in Cornelius' case. Indeed, it is their reception of the Spirit that removed any objection Peter may have had to them being baptised in water. In tandem with your last post, it raises some questions about the X9 assertion that Spirit baptism is all that matters!

[Amazing Rando]

:bravo: :thumb:

[Act9_12Out]

Rando,

It must be noted that you have not responded to the fact that Polycarp and the Church Fathers believed in water regeneration. This is huge.

Secondly, you have a misunderstanding of the Jerusalem Council compared with Paul's account in Galatians. Feel free to check out a discussion I had with Solly on this issue here. (http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2132&page=1&pp=16&highlight=Acts+15) I think I provide a thorough understanding of Acts 15 / Galatians 2 from the mid-Acts perspective...

--Jeremy

[Amazing Rando]

Rando,

It must be noted that you have not responded to the fact that Polycarp and the Church Fathers believed in water regeneration. This is huge.

It must also be noted that you've not been by to visit your thread to join the discussion there. Why don't you read what we've written to you and take up the issue there?

Secondly, you have a misunderstanding of the Jerusalem Council compared with Paul's account in Galatians. Feel free to check out a discussion I had with Solly on this issue here. (http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2132&page=1&pp=16&highlight=Acts+15) I think I provide a thorough understanding of Acts 15 / Galatians 2 from the mid-Acts perspective...

--Jeremy

Okay, but could you summarize rather than just saying "Here, read this whole thread and guess what I think is important?" You said a lot there. Please summarize it for me so we can discuss it. As it is, I don't have the foggiest idea what to respond to.

[Amazing Rando]

So, you guys think it's weird for the Acts 9 dispensational message to have 'disappeared' for 1900 years and then suddenly appear from a pulpit in America? And that this is an invalidation of our doctrine......

Well, it's not strange to me at all. And I wouldn't be surprised if it disappears again, maybe even very soon. Why, you ask?

Because of this verse

I Timothy 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

So, Paul, the great 13th Apostle experienced it in his own lifetime. Not sure if you know this but "all they which are in Asia" includes the Ephesians, so your Polycarp examples are extremely late. The Acts 9 message disappeared from certain regions even during Paul's lifetime and ministry. So, it's not hard to see why it could easily disappear for 1900 years.

truthman

Mid-Acts folks- Let me see if I've got your reasoning straight-

You look at church history and you agree with me that your doctrine has not manifested itself at all in post New Testament times until the 20th century, correct?

And you believe that 2 Timothy 1:15 shows a general apostasy from Paul's true doctrine that was not reconciled or corrected until the 20th Century, true?

I just want to make sure I've got your beliefs down straight before I proceed. Please correct me or fill in any gaps in what I've posted above so that I can fairly represent your views on this matter. Thanks!

[Amazing Rando]

Shall I assume that I understand your position correctly?

[Amazing Rando]

:nsm:

I just realized that I never posted my treatment of truthman's argument for the supposed "apostasy" away from Pauline truth based on 2 Tim 1:15. So, here it is, copied from my Tennis Court thread with RightIdea:
-------------------------------------------

You know that everyone in the province of Asia has deserted me, including Phygelus and Hermogenes.

Two observations- first of all, "everyone" is most likely a hyperbole, a deliberate exageration to express widespread desertion. This is especially true because Timothy was most likely in Ephesus at the time of his receipt of Paul's letter. And guess where Ephesus is? Yep, it's the capital of the province of Asia. Secondly, Paul never says anything in that context of 2 Timothy about "falling away from the truth" or anything like that. He says that he has been "deserted." No mention of doctrine error or apostasy at all. Muz demonstrated in the thread (a post to which you haven't yet responded BTW) that this was not an apostasy of any sort, but rather a personal desertion.

It was Paul's imprisonment that caused his followers to desert him personally, not his doctrine to cause them to apostasize. This is corroborated later in the epistle (chapter 4 to be precise) where Paul goes into further detail about this "desertion" that he has only briefly mentioned here:

9Do your best to come to me quickly, 10for Demas, because he loved this world, has deserted me and has gone to Thessalonica. Crescens has gone to Galatia, and Titus to Dalmatia. 11Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry. 12I sent Tychicus to Ephesus. 13When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments.
14Alexander the metalworker did me a great deal of harm. The Lord will repay him for what he has done. 15You too should be on your guard against him, because he strongly opposed our message.
16At my first defense, no one came to my support, but everyone deserted me. May it not be held against them. 17But the Lord stood at my side and gave me strength, so that through me the message might be fully proclaimed and all the Gentiles might hear it. And I was delivered from the lion's mouth. 18The Lord will rescue me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom. To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

This refers back to 2 Tim 1:15- Paul is being "abandoned" here only in the sense that his close followers (except for Luke) are deserting him personally because he's in prison. There is no mention of abandoning his doctrine, only that they're leaving his side. There is not a hint of apostasy in this passage, nor does 2 Tim 1:15 refer to one.