Danoh,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.
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: