Acts Dispensationally Considered

[TheScottsMen]

A call to all dispensationalist!

I propose we do a complete scripture by scripture, chapter by chapter study of the book of Acts. Of course doing so, would require a few rules.

1. After we have discussed a scripture (exp: Acts 1:1) exhaustively from our many different dispensational views, we must collectively agree to move on to the next scripture verse.

2. After agreement has been made, one may not go back and resurrect any former scripture in its entirety, but only use it as a reference for the current scripture verse. In this case, you can only reference what you said earlier about that scripture and are not allowed to debate the earlier scripture verse again.

3. If you find an outside reference helpful to the discussion, you are only allowed to post a reference link to the document, otherwise you must personally type out the summary or the key points of the reference.

4. If you cannot consider Acts Dispenastionaly and discuss it in that manner, for this specific thread, do not post. Your post would only disrupt the topic at hand and seek to derail it.

This is what I got so far. Lets work together to iron out these rules, add to them, reform them, whatever, before we decide to move ahead on this.

TSM

 

[Iosias]

I propose we do a complete scripture by scripture, chapter by chapter study of the book of Acts.

I will second this

1. After we have discussed a scripture (exp: Acts 1:1) exhaustively from our many different dispensational views, we must collectively agree to move on to the next scripture verse.

Agreed!

2. After agreement has been made, one may not go back and resurrect any former scripture in its entirety, but only use it as a reference for the current scripture verse. In this case, you can only reference what you said earlier about that scripture and are not allowed to debate the earlier scripture verse again.

Agreed!

3. If you find an outside reference helpful to the discussion, you are only allowed to post a reference link to the document, otherwise you must personally type out the summary or the key points of the reference.

As long as the outside reference is over approximately 1000 words.

 

[TheScottsMen]

As long as the outside reference is over approximately 1000 words.

#4 also might help the discussion. I think I edited my post to add it when you posted.

 

[Iosias]

4. If you cannot consider Acts Dispenastionaly and discuss it in that manner, for this specific thread, do not post. Your post would only disrupt the topic at hand and seek to derail it.

Agreed!

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

I think this is a very good idea. I think it would be helpful to know which dispensational point of view everyone is coming from. I'd like to see how the different Pauline dispensationalists interpret parts of Acts. I am a progressive dispensationalist, so I'll have a lot to say about Acts 2 and Acts 10.

Lamorak Des Galis


Lamorak Des Galis

 

[TheScottsMen]

I think this is a very good idea. I think it would be helpful to know which dispensational point of view everyone is coming from. I'd like to see how the different Pauline dispensationalists interpret parts of Acts. I am a progressive dispensationalist, so I'll have a lot to say about Acts 2 and Acts 10.

Lamorak Des Galis


Lamorak Des Galis

As I am also interested in seeing how progressives interpret parts of Acts. By the time we start, we should have just about every dispensational view accounted for

 

[In Christ Forever]

sorry. Will start over. God bless.

 

[TheScottsMen]

-

 

[In Christ Forever]

Hold up brother! haha. We are going to starts in Acts 1:1 and work through every scripture, verse by verse, chapter by chapter. We have not yet decided on a set of rules to govern this project so things go smoothly.

LOL. Sorry. I tend to get "carried away" with scripture sometimes. I deleted that post, so you can delete it from my quote if you like. I apologize.

mark 1:10 And immediately, coming up from the water, He saw the heavens parting and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove. 11 Then a voice came from heaven, "You are My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

Acts 2:1 When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and [one] sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.....

 

[@@Paul@@]

Count me in... sounds good...

 

[TheScottsMen]

LOL. Sorry. I tend to get "carried away" with scripture sometimes. I deleted that post, so you can delete it from my quote if you like. I apologize.

mark 1:10 And immediately, coming up from the water, He saw the heavens parting and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove. 11 Then a voice came from heaven, "You are My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

Acts 2:1 When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and [one] sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.....

Haha, No worries

As for the initial OP

1. After we have discussed a scripture (exp: Acts 1:1) exhaustively from our many different dispensational views, we must collectively agree to move on to the next scripture verse.

2. After agreement has been made, one may not go back and resurrect any former scripture in its entirety, but only use it as a reference for the current scripture verse. In this case, you can only reference what you said earlier about that scripture and you are not allowed to debate the earlier scripture verse again.

3. If you find an outside reference helpful to the discussion, you are only allowed to post a reference link to the document, otherwise you must personally type out the summary or the key points of the reference. All posted references must be 1000 characters or less.

4. If you cannot consider Acts Dispenastionaly and discuss it in that manner, for this specific thread, do not post. Your post would only disrupt the topic at hand and seek to derail it.

We have agreement? Does anyone have anything to add? Anything that should be changed?

If not... Here we go!

 

[@@Paul@@]

4. If you cannot consider Acts Dispenastionaly and discuss it in that manner, for this specific thread, do not post. Your post would only disrupt the topic at hand and seek to derail it.[/font]

We have agreement? Does anyone have anything to add? Anything that should be changed?

If not... Here we go!

Explain the guidelines for considering Acts "dispensationally"...

 

[TheScottsMen]

--Please read OP--
http://www.christianforums.com/t933883
--Please read OP--

Acts Dispensationally Considered
II Tim 2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

Acts 17:11 "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

-
First discussion verse
Acts 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, (KJV)

Second discussion verse
Acts 1:2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: (KJV)

Third discussion verse
Acts 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: (KJV)

 

[In Christ Forever]

We don't know who Theophilus is but with the capital O God uses it in the OT/NT a lot for emphasis or of a greater petition or exclamation.
He could be applying this to the saints that he is writing this accout to and not to any "particular" person as those who follow Christ would be God's "friend". [I do look up the meaning of "names" in the bible often] I also use sites that explain the greek usage of words, tenses, plural, etc, just for deeper study..

(Young) Acts 1:1 The former account, indeed, I made concerning all things, O Theophilus["friend of God"], that Jesus began both to do and to teach,

Lucas contracted from Latin Lucanus.... Luke "light giving"


Note present infinitives, linear action, still going on, and the use of \te--kai\ binds together the life and teachings of Jesus, as if to say that Jesus is still carrying on from heaven the work and teaching of the disciples which he started while on earth before his ascension.


1 tim 6:20 O Timothy["honoring God/dear to God"], guard that which is committed unto [thee], turning away from the profane babblings and oppositions of the knowledge which is falsely so called;

Luke 1:1 Seeing that many did take in hand to set in order a narration of the matters that have been fully assured among us, 2 as they did deliver to us, who from the beginning became eye-witnesses, and officers of the Word, -- 3 it seemed good also to me, having followed from the first after all things exactly, to write to thee in order, most noble Theophilus, 4 that thou mayest know the certainty of the things wherein thou wast instructed.

 

[TheScottsMen]

First discussion verse
Acts 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, (KJV)

Acts is a sequel to the Gospel of Luke in the sense this is the 2'nd letter that Luke has written to Theophilus. The first being found in the Gospel that bares his name.

Luke 1:1-4 ""Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed." RSV

Theophilus was most likely a Roman, for the fact that Luke refers to him as, "most excellent", which was a title used for Romans.

"most excellent" Festus (Acts 26:25)

"most excellent" Felix (Acts 24:2).

Second discussion verse
Acts 1:2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: (KJV)

Christ is taken up to Heaven. This next part is very important, "...he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen"

I couldn't even attempt to count how many commentaries make the Apostles out to be ignorant on what their commission and purpose was. Here we read that Christ, through the Holy Ghost, gave those who he had chosen commandments! Christ had even opened their understanding that they might understand the Scriptures; and in John 20:22, that he breathed on them, and said, receive ye the Holy Ghost. These men new what Christ expected from them and what the commission at that time was.

Third discussion verse
Acts 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: (KJV)

40 Days of Jesus College. As the scripture states, "..of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God". So we have Jesus speaking and teaching the apostles doctrine, discipline, and what was to be expected of them. We MUST NOT foget this when we come to the next set of scriptures.

 

[Terral]

Hi ScottsMen:

You wrote >> 1. After we have discussed a scripture (exp: Acts 1:1) exhaustively from our many different dispensational views, we must collectively agree to move on to the next scripture verse.

I fail to see the reasoning behind discussing the dispensational views of each individual verse of Acts 1:1 to the conversion of the Apostle Paul. Everything in those verses pertain to the ‘gospel concerning the kingdom of God.’ Acts 8:12. That is the same ‘gospel of the kingdom’ of Matt. 24:14 that Peter, John and James would carry throughout their ministry. Since the dispensational shift does not occur, until Acts 9, what is the benefit of exhausting yourselves in endless discussion over Scriptural verses that all apply to the Kingdom Dispensation?



God bless,



Terral

 

[TheScottsMen]

Hello Terral!!!

Hi ScottsMen:

I fail to see the reasoning behind discussing the dispensational views of each individual verse of Acts 1:1 to the conversion of the Apostle Paul.

Discussed below.

Since the dispensational shift does not occur, until Acts 9, what is the benefit of exhausting yourselves in endless discussion over Scriptural verses that all apply to the Kingdom Dispensation?

How many types of dispensationalist are in this world? Clearly not one We have Matthew 1:1, Acts 2, 9, 13, 28, progressives and others. Not all believe that Church started in Acts 9.

This is just one view out of many, I say again, MANY By going scripture by scipture, every form of dispensationalist has the chance to put his/her input into each verse in the book Acts. By doing so, we see where people are coming from, and where they are going , that is, in the case of theology. For instance, When we get to Chapter 2 of Acts, do you realize how many different interpretions we are going to have of each and every verse in this chapter by all the different forms of dispensationalism?

We have to remember, not everyone thinks the same way, nor does everyone interpet the same. If more people got together, like we are doing now, imagine how much better off Dispensationalism would be? Imagine if Stam would could have sat down with Ironside, or Bullinger with Dakes, or Pentecost with Baker, etc.. etc...

 

[Terral]

Hi Irishmen:

Terral Original >> I fail to see the reasoning behind discussing the dispensational views of each individual verse of Acts 1:1 to the conversion of the Apostle Paul. Everything in those verses pertain to the ‘gospel concerning the kingdom of God.’ Acts 8:12. That is the same ‘gospel of the kingdom’ of Matt. 24:14 that Peter, John and James would carry throughout their ministry. Since the dispensational shift does not occur, until Acts 9, what is the benefit of exhausting yourselves in endless discussion over Scriptural verses that all apply to the Kingdom Dispensation?

Irishmen >> How many types of dispensationalist are in this world? Clearly not one. We have Matthew 1:1, Acts 2, 9, 13, 28, progressives and others. Not all believe that Church started in Acts 9.

There are many different kinds of people; we agree, but one truth. You cannot place the beginning of the dispensation ahead of the steward of that dispensation. The concept you are forwarding is preposterous. When do you place the beginning of the Mosaic Legal Dispensation to Israel? With Abraham? Holy Mollies. It came with Moses down from the mountain of God. The ‘dispensation of God’s grace was given to Paul for us.

“For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles--if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of God's grace which was given to me for you; that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief.” Eph. 3:1-3.

What do you suppose Paul/Saul was doing at the time of Matthew 1? Do you think he had a clue about the revelation of the mystery, or this dispensation of God’s grace? Do you think anyone in Matthew 1 had heard about the dispensation of God’s grace given to Paul for us? Are we having difficulty understanding even the most simple concepts of what the term ‘dispensation’ means? Truly you cannot be serious. Anyone who believes that our Grace Church began in Matthew or Acts 2 is playing with Scripture in bewilderment; absolutely clueless. And you want to engage such people in a line by line dispensational study beginning in Acts 1? Are you going to answer any of my points? Or continue to ignore the facts? Somebody please prove to me using Scripture that this dispensation of God’s grace can start before Paul.

Irishmen >> This is just one view out of many, I say again, MANY.

All that means is that MANY people calling themselves Dispensationalists are clueless. The most basic of concepts towards understanding ‘dispensations’ is that each household/administration has one steward. The dispensation begins when God starts using that steward to deal with His possessions through a particular mode of dealing. For example: Abraham had a stewardship given to him by the Lord God through the covenant of circumcision. If not for that dispensation and covenant, then we could not be grafted in and named according to Isaac. Rom. 9:6-9. Because of the Lord God’s promise to Abraham (Gen. 15:6), then Paul could write to us about God’s imputed righteousness. Rom. 4:4-6.

The Law could not come before Moses in the same way. The only exception to this rule occurs when God Himself is made flesh and appoints a steward over His property. That is what Christ did with Peter in Matthew 16:16-18. The Kingdom dispensation actually began under John the Baptist (Elijah). Christ cannot be a steward during any dispensation here on earth. By definition, a steward is a slave over the possessions of the Master. Christ may be a ton of things, but He is not a slave. And that is why ‘David’ must rule from his throne here on earth, and under a covenant. The Lord God who is speaking is our Lord Jesus Christ:

"They will live on the land that I gave to Jacob My servant, in which your fathers lived; and they will live on it, they, and their sons and their sons' sons, forever; and David My servant will be their prince forever. I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will place them and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in their midst forever.” Eze. 37:25+26.

Irishmen >> By going scripture by scipture, every form of dispensationalist has the chance to put his/her input into each verse in the book Acts. By doing so, we see where people are coming from, and where they are going, that is, in the case of theology.

I suppose if you are lost, and have no clue where you are going, then everyone’s opinion is a valuable asset. However, if you know the way, then hearing everyone’s opinion on how to get there seems most redundant. Do you see Christ’s commands to the Twelve to preach the Gospel and baptize? Mark 16:15+16? Well, that is the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ of Matthew 24:14. Philip is still preaching the ‘good news concerning the Kingdom of God’ in Acts 8:12. All you are seeing is a KingdomChurch that is trying to grow amid the persecution from the steward of this current ‘dispensation of God’s grace’ (Paul). Only after the conversion of Paul can God begin saving and dealing with the members of the body of Christ through Paul’s stewardship. So, you all enjoy going on about the Kingdom, and I will join in about Acts 9 or so.

Irishmen >> For instance, When we get to Chapter 2 of Acts, do you realize how many different interpretions we are going to have of each and every verse in this chapter by all the different forms of dispensationalism?

Again, there are a hundred ways of interpreting Scripture, and only one truth. When I come behind and refute those arguments using God’s Word, then everyone will be fast to agree to disagree. But, who will refute one of my statements using Scripture? The Lord God used grace in dealing with Adam, because he did not die the day he ate of the fruit. However, Paul became our father in Christ through the gospel (1Cor. 4:15), as the first person to be saved in this dispensation of God’s grace. That simple truth is Dispensations 101, and perhaps the most basic concept pertaining Paul’s stewardship. Any person who cannot grasp at least that much of the truth has no reason to be calling himself a Dispensationalist.

Irishmen >> We have to remember, not everyone thinks the same way, nor does everyone interpet the same.

There is still one truth.

“I have not hidden Your righteousness within my heart; I have spoken of Your faithfulness and Your salvation; I have not concealed Your lovingkindness and Your truth from the great congregation.” Psalm 40:10.

“But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.” 2Thes. 2:13.

“Paul, a bond-servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God and the knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness.” Titus 1:1.

What does Paul say about the approved becoming evident among you?

“For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.” 1Cor. 11:19.

Therefore, what you are proposing is that ten kinds of dispensationalists agree to disagree over where the ‘dispensation of God’s grace’ began in Acts. That is not what Paul means above. He means that when one side of the discussion uses God’s word, and those supported statements remain standing time after time after time, then that person is approved before God. When the arguments of the weaker side of the discussion continue to fail over and over again, then he is to continue searching the Scriptures and seek interpretations that better align themselves with God’s Word. This agreeing to disagree theme of Dispensationalists here is a sign that positions are being adopted and retained that simply do not stand the test of true Biblical debate (1Cor. 1:20).

If one of you comes along and defeats my arguments using God’s Word, then I repent and have a change of perception in that very moment. After all, you have shown darkness the way I view God’s Word, and have led me into the light. By taking the stand that we will just agree to disagree, then I remain standing in the stench of my ignorance and in the hall of darkness far away from His Truth. No sir. I write long posts and make many points and quote many verses in hope that one of you will find a flaw and show me something; anything, so that I can be led nearer to Him and His Light. There is no replacement for the deep seated desire to know the truth of God’s Word. It is not about who is right, but about what is right; and the very least among us can impart light upon some aspect of His Truth to allow others to see Him more clearly.

Irishmen >> If more people got together, like we are doing now, imagine how much better off Dispensationalism would be? Imagine if Stam would could have sat down with Ironside, or Bullinger with Dakes, or Pentecost with Baker, etc.. etc...

Those and a hundred others cannot replace the Holy Spirit inside a man. 1Cor. 6:19. If those men also place this dispensation of God’s grace in Matthew 1 or Acts 2, then what good is the remainder of their testimony? Since you admit that their followers cannot even agree when this dispensation began, then obviously someone was short changed somewhere. AV put some of Scofield’s work up in this forum. Please do the same for one of your authors above, and let’s see if their arguments make better sense. If possible, please quote them where they support their statements using Scripture. Otherwise it is just another man’s opinion.

In Christ,

Terral

 

[TheScottsMen]

Terral: This thread is not to debate if we should have this study or not, its already been decided. If you wish to take part, then you can, but if you wish to, you will have to have to respect each persons own opinion. You will have the chance to put forth your view when each scripture comes up. If you believe this is something not for, than so be it.

God bless!

TSM

 

[TheScottsMen]

Part 1 - End?

If nobody has anything else to add to:

Acts 1:1
Acts 1:2
Acts 1:3

We will begin the next set of verses!