Dispensationalist Only Acts 9 or Acts 28

ac28

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2013
608
140
✟46,442.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Every aspect of the Ac28 Position I have studied out has proven having been based on conclusions arrived at via surface level, first impression interpretations of the various passages.
Danoh,

So what? That's because you can only view scripture through Acts 9 eyes, period. Everybody with much knowledge of scripture does the same thing and lives in their own little box, including myself. Everyone thinks their system is right. This is the reason why, as far as converting people goes, forums such as this are totally worthless. They always are nothing but a venue for debate. The only value of this forum, as far as it concerns me, is that it has makes me study the Word before making a post.

I read the article, "Did the Body of Christ begin at ACTS 28?", by Heath, an Ac9er, that you gave me the link for and found it to be very unknowledgeable and/or deceitful.
http://www.tcmusa.org/publications/heath/HeathLiterature/ACTS28.pdf

Here are some examples:

On page 13, Heath says that the word "heavenly" is the same as it appears in Ephesians and as it appears in John, Hebrews, 1 Cor, etc. The truth is that all the occurrences in the Ephesians refer to a "place" and all those in the others, except for Hebrews 12:2, represent "character." I expounded on this in the following thread. Either Heath was ignorant of these facts or he was applying deceit to make his doctrine sound more plausible.
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/why-i-am-an-acts-28-28-dispensationalist.7940910/

On page 23, concerning the Doxology of Romans 16:25-26, Heath quotes Bullinger, who he obviously thought to be an Ac28:28 dispensationalist. Heath's comments from Bullinger, concerning Bullinger's confusion about this passage, come from Bullinger's Companion Bible notes. Actually, Bullinger wasn't an Acts 28 dispensationalist when he wrote the Companion Bible. He only became Ac28 very late in life. The last book he wrote, "Foundations of Dispensational Truth," was the only book he wrote concerning Acts 28 dispensationalism. In all his other books, he was more Ac9 or 13 than Ac28.

Heath also says that, "Romans 16:25-26, as it stands (in the KJV - my comment), is a total and final blow to the Acts 28 view. Hence every effort has to be made, and has been made, by them to twist, distort, destroy or otherwise render ineffectual this glorious passage of Holy Writ." This is total hogwash and it is the pot calling the kettle black. Charles H. Welch, probably the greatest Bible scholar in history and the first man to correctly separate the epistles of Paul into 2 groups, said that, in order for the structure of Romans to be complete, Romans 16:25-26 has to stand as written except, in the Greek, it should read "a" mystery and not "the" mystery.

The reason Heath made the above statement was he thought it proved that the mystery in Romans was the same as the The Mystery in Paul's post-Acts epistles. WRONG! The mystery in Romans 16:25-26 is probably the mystery of Christ (vs 25) which was kept secret "since" the world began (vs 25) but was kept hidden in the writings of the prophets (vs 26) until "now."

THE MYSTERY in Paul's post-Acts epistles was hid from ALL the ages and generations (meaning "before" the foundation of the world) - Colossians 1:26. It was, therefore, not hidden in the writings of the OT prophets. No one knew anything about it until it was given to Paul as one of his many "revelations" from the Lord. It, as most everything else in Paul's post-Acts epistles was associated with a time "before" the foundation of the world - Titus 1:2, 2 Timothy 1:9, Ephesians 1:3-4.

These are huge differences (Philippians 1:10). How could anyone be so blind they can't see them?

I could shoot down Heath's entire article but that doesn't interest me.

I should excuse Heath for his many blunders - he just doesn't understand Act28 dispensationalism. After all, Acts28 dispensationalism is the highest knowledge level one can reach when studying the scriptures. I've always had this theory that a knowledge group can only understand a group higher (in knowledge level) than them if they convert to the higher group. Catholics can't understand Baptists, Ac2 can't understand Ac9, and nobody can understand Ac28. This is proven to me once again in reading Heath's article.

For 30 years, I have read every thing I could find that denounces Acts 28:28 dispensationalism. In EVERY case, I have found that NONE of the authors even come close to understanding what Ac28 dispensationalism is all about. It is very common to see mid-Acts people warn their own people against the evils (the word "evil" is actually used) of Ac28. On the other hand, you never see Ac28 warnings against Ac9. There is always a fear of the unknown, I guess. No one understands Ac28 but Ac28 understands everyone else, at least when they make an effort to learn it. That should say something.
 
Last edited:

Danoh

Newbie
Oct 11, 2011
3,064
310
✟40,528.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Ac28, forgive the seeming arrogance on my part in the following long wind...

As with the very basis of the Acts 28 Position; yours is projection and conjecture.

You decide on Rom. 16:25-26 based on a "probably"?

And in my own studies I do NOT approach things from an Acts 9 Perspective.

That is YOUR projection - the projection that because YOU approach things from Ac28 it therefore automatically stands to reason that others approach things from within their view and their view is such and such.

All that is the very hole that Ac28 is based on.

Whenever I study a thing out, I FIRST OF ALL ALWAYS start FROM SCRATCH.

I do NOT go in from "well, Acts 9 this, and Acts 9 that..."

I ALWAYS INTENTIONALLY leave all that at the door.

Always...

If I find it holds on my way out, ONLY THEN do I allow it to remain.

And ONLY UNTIL MY NEXT STUDY ALL OVER AGAIN.

THIS IS the very BASIS of how I CONTINUE TO grow.

Even MOST MADs do NOT follow this approach of mine.

It IS fine that we disagree. But our disagreement is not only in approach, but also in perception of approach.

Where you have come up short is where I actually shine.

I am ever asking myself 'how does this or that work; what are its' recurrent patterns; what underlying principles might they reveal; and how and where am I myself looking at this; that; the other; from?'

You name the subject or area of life; and I have asked those kinds of questions countless times.

As a result; many have found my
being able to teach them about things they are into that I am not.

Because I look at how things work.

My childhood is one long series of things taken apart in my ever insatiable curiousity about their internal ordering - what holds what together, how, where, etc....

That is why I hold to A9D. That is why I know, not hope think, nor wonder, that those who look for their answers in the parroted misfires of others are only revealing their own same shortcoming.

I have to disagree with you, brother...with good cause.

Yours in Him - ALWAYS.
 
Upvote 0

Danoh

Newbie
Oct 11, 2011
3,064
310
✟40,528.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Ac28, one thing I have noticed about SOME Bible students is that what they tend to believe is about them in Scripture, they at times will tend to be grounded in, in depth.

Yours being the post Acts Epistles, what is your sense about what the following three passages are talking about?

Not for debate, as in the above, but for the mutual exploration of.

One...when is this...

Ephesians 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

Two...when is this...

Ephesians 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Three...where is this, and how will it end up...

Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Thanks, in Him.
 
Upvote 0

ac28

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2013
608
140
✟46,442.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Danoh,

Ephesians 1:20-21
20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:


Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

If you compare these 2 passages, there appears to be a conflict. The 1st passage says that there are none of God's created beings in heavenly places. In the 2nd passage, it indicates that there ARE created beings in heavenly places (same Greek as high places). As they stand, only one can be correct.

As of 12:03 PM on 5/12/2016, I feel that, in vs 21 of the 1st passage, far above pertains to rank (in the Greek, it can be either rank or place according to Strong).

If God is not the author of confusion, there can be no 2 statements in the Bible that disagree with each other, assuming that they are in the same dispensation. When we find passages that do disagree, it is usually due to:
(1) They are in different dispensations and, therefore, they must be rightly divided.
(2) The reader has failed to understand one or both of the passages.
(3) There is an error(s) made by the translators of the particular Bible version being used.

As you know, the original manuscripts contained no punctuation. If I remember right, it was just a string of words run together, all in capital letters. So, all the punctuation was added by men. I use the AV 99% of the time but I surely don't believe that it is without error. I could probably write a small book on all the errors I know to be in it. Most of these errors are punctuation errors - commas missing; commas in the wrong place; parenthesis missing, etc.

The most famous punctuation error in the AV (and most other Bibles) is in Luke 23:43.
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.
This error had created more mischief than any other error I can think of. Because of it, the bulk of Christendom falsely believes that, immediately after death, they will be with Christ in heaven. The verse should read:
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee today, thou shalt be with me in paradise.
Otherwise, Jesus would have to hold about 50,000 different resurrections each day. It is contradictory to all the scripture involving death and resurrection. It is a one verse "proof" and one verse proofs are usually wrong. I feel confident that no resurrections have taken place, yet. Everyone that has died is still in the grave (hades), in a state analogous to sleep, with zero awareness.

Anyway, in Eph 6:12, I feel there is a punctuation error. There is no parenthesis and, according to Welch, there should be one, according to the Greek rules of grammer. The verse should read
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood (but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness) in high places.

In other words, we don't wrestle against flesh and blood in heavenly places. We do wrestle against principalities, powers, rulers of the darkness, and spiritual wickedness of this world.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Danoh

Newbie
Oct 11, 2011
3,064
310
✟40,528.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Personally, I see nothing wrong with the KJV translation of either passage.

Principalities and powers in high places is lower than far above all that.

Fact of the matter is that even in the OT, the Adversary is depicted as still having access to those realms heavenly realms.

Dispensationalism is not so much about Dispensations, as about Distinctions in Identities Between Things That Differ.

It is these in betweens that appears to have thrown you.

Just a matter of noting those finer distinctions between Things That Differ.

In fact, I have often found that to be the failure whenever reasoning external to the passages is resorted to, or needing to correct the passages, or just as bad - attempting to look at them first from one angle, and then another, and yet another, until a thing is harmonized to one's satisfaction.

That is how James 2 is made to supposedly harmonize into some sort of a Romans part two.

This question you raise boils down to the question - 'what was Paul talking about when he brought this or that up?'

Anyway, my two cents on that.
 
Upvote 0

ac28

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2013
608
140
✟46,442.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Danoh,

You said, "Dispensationalism is not so much about Dispensations, as about Distinctions in Identities Between Things That Differ."

I've been thinking about this for the last couple of days. When A9ers and A28ers debate, the Ac28er tries to show the things that differ between Paul's Acts books and his post-Acts books. Of course, the book of Acts comes into play also. At the same time, the A9er tries to show that these 2 are the same (just the opposite), but progressive or transitional or whatever word you people use. An A9er only "tries the things that differ" with A2D people and those below them in dispensational knowledge. I know I didn't express that very well but I'm sure you get what I mean
 
Upvote 0

Danoh

Newbie
Oct 11, 2011
3,064
310
✟40,528.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Lol, I know what you mean.

There is just so much in Paul's Acts writings that does not differ from his Post Acts writings.

Believe me, I don't consider your view in order to attempt to punch holes in it.

Heck, I OFTEN poke holes in the Mid-Acts view I more or less look at things from - just to see what still holds and or what finer distinctions I might end up seeing just by refusing to look at them from within my adopted view.

Quit reading my words from within the same category that is most "students" - instead; try on for size the Things That Differ as to this also :)
 
Upvote 0

ac28

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2013
608
140
✟46,442.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
The entire crux of A28D depends on whether or not the final abode in Paul's post Acts epistles is different than the final abode in his Acts epistles. If different, A28D is 100% valid. If the same - Oh well.

A28D is based on seeing the 3 Spheres of Blessing for saved humans -
(1) The Earth (2 dimensional - length and breadth - genesis 13-17),
(2) The New Jerusalem in the created heavens (3 dimensional - length, breadth, and height - Revelation 21:16), and
(3) The uncreated heaven of heavens = the holy of holies (4 dimensional - length, breadth, height, and depth - Ephesians 3:18).

The 1st 2 are the hopes of the calling for the Acts period. The 3rd is the basic hope of the calling for the present age.

There is also a "prize" or "reward" attached to these callings that is above, in rank, of the basic callings. For the Acts calling, Hebrews is the main book of the reward with some info in 1 Cor. For post-Acts, the book of the prize is Philippians.

I believe that the New Jerusalem is the reward during the Acts period, whereas the earth is the basic calling, even for grafted Gentiles. This is covered in Hebrews, Galatians, and, for the overcomers, in Revelation. The post-Acts "prize" is not as easy to pin down but the indication is that the prize winners will reign along with Christ Jesus.

As another "things that differ", I see the Gentiles saved in Acts as special ones who already feared God. In Post-Acts, anyone is welcome. The purpose of saving Gentiles in Acts was to provoke Israel to jealousy, in hopes that Israel wold accept Christ as a nation.

Other questions like, "When did the BOC start?" or "When did Israel become Lo ammi?", are important, but secondary to the question posed in the 1st paragraph.

The purpose of the above is to show my basic position on how things are. At this stage, I purposely omitted scripture proofs.
______________________________________

I have a total of 37 full pages (I just counted them) of nothing but lists of "Things that Differ" (mid-Acts vs A28D, mainly) from 5 or 6 different A28D authors and, "Things that are the same" concerning saved Jews and Gentiles during Acts. I'm sure there are overlaps. In any case, what I mentioned in the 1st paragraph must first be solved. If it isn't, all other discussions would be moot.

I really don't know how you feel about the final abode in Paul's post-Acts books. If you can see that it's different than that of Paul's Acts books, my first question would be, "Why are you going backwards to the relatively beggarly elements of Acts?"

I just had a thought. Do you see the post-Acts books as the prize of the Act's books? If not, how exactly do you view Paul's post-Acts books and the calling written within them?

Today, I asked my son who once was an Acts 13 preacher, what mid-Acts people thought about the "Far above all Heavens" calling in Paul's last 7 epistles. He said they can't see it and, in any case, they don't like talking about it. Is that true?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Job8

Senior Member
Dec 1, 2014
4,634
1,801
✟21,583.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
After all, Acts28 dispensationalism is the highest knowledge level one can reach when studying the scriptures.
I really don't understand what the fuss is all about regarding Act 9, Acts, 13 and Acts 28. All we see here is that Paul began his ministry preaching Christ, and ended his ministry doing exactly the same thing.

And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God... Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied. (Acts 9:20,31).

Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sentthemaway. So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus. (Acts 13:1-4)

And when we came to Rome, the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard: but Paul was suffered to dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him. And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans... And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening. (Acts 28:16,17,23).

Throughout his life Paul was bringing various mysteries to the attention of Christians, and these were revelations given to him directly by Christ. So what's all the fuss about?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MWood
Upvote 0

ac28

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2013
608
140
✟46,442.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Job8,

What do you see as your calling? Do you see it as the New Jerusalem in the created heavens, as spelled out in Gal, Heb, and Rev, or do you see it as the UNcreated Far Above All Heavens, as FOUND ONLY in Paul's 7 post-Acts books? They are totally different and separate callings and there is zero mixing of the two callings in either of Paul's 2 groups of books.

Can you see that the callings are different?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MWood

Newbie
Jan 7, 2013
3,881
7,990
✟122,541.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Job8,

What do you see as your calling? Do you see it as the New Jerusalem in the created heavens, as spelled out in Gal, Heb, and Rev, or do you see it as the UNcreated Far Above All Heavens, as FOUND ONLY in Paul's 7 post-Acts books? They are totally different and separate callings and there is zero mixing of the two callings in either of Paul's 2 groups of books.

Can you see that the callings are different?
ac28

I for one would like for you to start a thread, (dispy only) and explain the differences of these callings. I would like it to be a thread that is without debate or comment. Where you do your complete explanation without interference. The debate and comments can be in a sub thread of this thread. Can this be done?
 
Upvote 0

Job8

Senior Member
Dec 1, 2014
4,634
1,801
✟21,583.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Job8,

What do you see as your calling? Do you see it as the New Jerusalem in the created heavens, as spelled out in Gal, Heb, and Rev, or do you see it as the UNcreated Far Above All Heavens, as FOUND ONLY in Paul's 7 post-Acts books? They are totally different and separate callings and there is zero mixing of the two callings in either of Paul's 2 groups of books.

Can you see that the callings are different?

The way I see it is:

1. The Church (Jew and Gentile in one Body) is ONE entity.
2. The eternal home of the Church is the New Jerusalem.
3. The eternal dwelling place of God and of the Lamb is the New Jerusalem.
4. The New Jerusalem is indeed in the heavenlies, and even when it descends, it will still be above in the heavenlies.

But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. (Heb 12:22-24).
 
Upvote 0

ac28

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2013
608
140
✟46,442.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
The way I see it is:

1. The Church (Jew and Gentile in one Body) is ONE entity.
2. The eternal home of the Church is the New Jerusalem.
3. The eternal dwelling place of God and of the Lamb is the New Jerusalem.
4. The New Jerusalem is indeed in the heavenlies, and even when it descends, it will still be above in the heavenlies.

But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. (Heb 12:22-24).
If you were living during Acts, you would be mostly correct in all 4 points. The only difference is that I have recently come to believe that the NJ is the prize or reward of that calling, whereas the normal hope of that calling is the earth.

Today, you are called to a calling that is far above the one in Acts. It is located where Christ is hid in God. It is the abode of God. It is invisible to all of God's creatures at this time. In one place in the OT, it is called God's Secret Place. I believe it is 4 dimensional. It is mentioned in the OT but Paul's post-Acts epistles are the only place in the Bible that says humans will reside there.
 
Upvote 0

Job8

Senior Member
Dec 1, 2014
4,634
1,801
✟21,583.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It is located where Christ is hid in God. It is the abode of God. It is invisible to all of God's creatures at this time. In one place in the OT, it is called God's Secret Place.
This too is ultimately in the New Jerusalem. Please note: And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. (Rev 21:22,23).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Razare

God gave me a throne
Nov 20, 2014
1,050
394
✟10,847.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Uhh... It's neither Acts 9 or Acts 28. The body of Christ began in John 20:22.

Prior to that moment, the apostles were operating under fulfillment of the old covenant, where the Messiah had come, but had not set up the Earthly kingdom as they were expecting. Rather he offered a new covenant, which is to join with his body.

If the atonement of Christ pays for sins, then the body of Christ could not begin until the atonement. Thus, the body of Christ began when the first partakers of that atonement received their salvation and became born again.

This happens in John 20:22. That's when Peter and the other apostles and people present, received salvation and were able to enter the kingdom of heaven. They had ate communion, and that is important, but the ultimate manifestation of what they had received was to be born of the spirit.

Neither was it Pentecost that the church began as a lot of Pentecostals preach. I am a Pentecostal. Pentecost equipped the church to do it's job, but the body existed before that when they were married in union with Christ.

We are the body of Christ because, "the two flesh become one", Mark 10:8.

Therefore, when the engagement for marriage was substantiated by God, with the promised Holy Spirit, the engagement was finalized and we were Christ's bride.

You people who argue over controversies, where both sides of the controversy have nothing to do with scripture are nuts. I been there myself a few times, so I can empathize.

But avoid foolish controversies ... - Titus 3:9

Most doctrinal arguments people wager are just foolish controversies, sadly.
 
Upvote 0