Micah 4

[LamorakDesGalis]

But, there are 28 teachings involving the Church and its ministry that need to be reviewed and revised in their system. The Pauline Dispensationalism is the only one who can do this.

When believers study the Word of God, they need to realize that the Pauline approach to the Scriptures is the most satisfying way to study God's Word and also to please our Father God. Paul received many revelations from the risen Christ (2 Cor. 12:1,7), and when we follow Paul in his theology we are following the theology of our risen Lord, Christ Jesus (1 Cor. 11:1).

In other words, Robert Brock is already asserting Mid-Acts dispensationalism as correct - without offering any proof.

Here is the essence of what he says: Acts 2 dispensationalists are wrong, and they must be compared with "the truth" - that is, the Mid-Acts dispensationalism view. Its basically the same game as kids would say: Heads I win, Tails you lose. that is the premise. Then the coin is flipped. And what happens is inescapable - no matter what "outcome." What happens is that one realizes they are being duped and they reject the premise.

In this case its this: Acts 2 disps are wrong, Mid Acts disps are right. That is the premise. Then Brock compares the "wrong" with the "right." That's the coin flip - in this case there are 28 of them. What happens is inescapable - once you accept the premise, that the Mid-Acts view is assumed to be the right view, then anything after that - coin flips, 28 points, whatever - is going to change that. So once one accepts that unproven premise, the game is inescapable and - why even bother going through the 28 points?

The points themselves reveal glaring inconsistencies. In the first point Brock says that the phrase "one gospel" is not used in the Bible. Then a few paragraphs later he uses the terms "Kingdom Gospel" and "Grace Gospel." Are these terms used in the Bible? No, they are not. So a discerning reader can see that Brock is inconsistent in his argumentation from the get-go.

So, far from being any type of "refutation" of Acts 2 dispensationalism, Brock's article merely attempts to lead one down an already predefined path.


LDG

 

[lightninboy]

So in the OT, saved Jews and saved Gentiles were not ONE BODY together. Only the NT speaks of saved Jews and saved Gentiles being ONE BODY through ONE SPIRIT.
LDG

LDG,

I am not denying that ON EARTH the saved Jews were one body and the saved Gentiles were another body.

However, it seems to me that both bodies were part of the mystical body of Christ. They were saved and regenerate, they were in Christ, and they were born of the Spirit.

 

[Dispy]

But, there are 28 teachings involving the Church and its ministry that need to be reviewed and revised in their system. The Pauline Dispensationalism is the only one who can do this.

When believers study the Word of God, they need to realize that the Pauline approach to the Scriptures is the most satisfying way to study God's Word and also to please our Father God. Paul received many revelations from the risen Christ (2 Cor. 12:1,7), and when we follow Paul in his theology we are following the theology of our risen Lord, Christ Jesus (1 Cor. 11:1).

In other words, Robert Brock is already asserting Mid-Acts dispensationalism as correct - without offering any proof.

Here is the essence of what he says: Acts 2 dispensationalists are wrong, and they must be compared with "the truth" - that is, the Mid-Acts dispensationalism view. Its basically the same game as kids would say: Heads I win, Tails you lose. that is the premise. Then the coin is flipped. And what happens is inescapable - no matter what "outcome." What happens is that one realizes they are being duped and they reject the premise.

In this case its this: Acts 2 disps are wrong, Mid Acts disps are right. That is the premise. Then Brock compares the "wrong" with the "right." That's the coin flip - in this case there are 28 of them. What happens is inescapable - once you accept the premise, that the Mid-Acts view is assumed to be the right view, then anything after that - coin flips, 28 points, whatever - is going to change that. So once one accepts that unproven premise, the game is inescapable and - why even bother going through the 28 points?

The points themselves reveal glaring inconsistencies. In the first point Brock says that the phrase "one gospel" is not used in the Bible. Then a few paragraphs later he uses the terms "Kingdom Gospel" and "Grace Gospel." Are these terms used in the Bible? No, they are not. So a discerning reader can see that Brock is inconsistent in his argumentation from the get-go.

So, far from being any type of "refutation" of Acts 2 dispensationalism, Brock's article merely attempts to lead one down an already predefined path.

LDG

It is apparent to me that you did not go to the link -
http://www.starlightresearch.com/ActsProblems.html - where Mr. Brock does offer his proof on every subjects listed.

The "path" Mr Brock's articles came from the scriptures.

God bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[Dispy]

So in the OT, saved Jews and saved Gentiles were not ONE BODY together. Only the NT speaks of saved Jews and saved Gentiles being ONE BODY through ONE SPIRIT.

LDG,
I am not denying that ON EARTH the saved Jews were one body and the saved Gentiles were another body.

However, it seems to me that both bodies were part of the mystical body of Christ. They were saved and regenerate, they were in Christ, and they were born of the Spirit.

In the OT if one that was a Gentile was placed in a set aside condition (Genesis 11), at the Tower of Babel. If one that was a Gentile and wanted to serve the true and living God of Israel, that one had to become a Jew (proselyte) and place themselves under the Laws of Moses. That proselyte was then consider the same as on that was a born Jew, with all rights and priviledges.

In the OT and the Gospels, there was a "middle wall of partition" between the Jew and Gentile. The Gentiles were considered heathen/unclean/dogs/out side the gate.

It wasn't until after the stoning of Stephen, in Acts 7, that conversion of Saul/Paul, in Acts 9, that God showed Peter, in Acts 10, that he was no longer to consider one of another nation "common or unclean" (cf. vs 28).

That vision to Peter, in Acts 10, showed Peter that the Jew was now in the same "set aside boat" that the Gentiles were placed back at the Tower of Babel. Paul speaks of this temporary setting aside (blindness) in Romans 11:7-12.

Paul tell us in Romans 11:32 that "God hath concluded them all (Jews and Gentiles) in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all."

From these two believing set aside peoples God made the "the one man" (a new creation), known as "The Body of Christ." (Read Ephesians 2:11-18.)

Verse 13 states: "BUT NOW" (never before) in Christ Jesus ye (believing Gentiles) who sometimes were far off are made neigh by the blood of Christ."

How was this done? Through "... the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began," (Romans 16:25).

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

It is apparent to me that you did not go to the link -
http://www.starlightresearch.com/ActsProblems.html - where Mr. Brock does offer his proof on every subjects listed.

No, I didn't. Why should I when I detect Brock is playing games in the original article?

I am an Acts 2 dispensationalist. If Brock is seriously interested in trying to communicate with Acts 2 dispensationalists, then he has failed miserably. I'm not going to buy an argument that says the term "one gospel" is not Biblical, when he turns right around and uses non-Biblical terms of his own. He doesn't give any proof for using them and he doesn't even define them. An average Acts 2 dispensationalist is going to say - what???

He lost me there. Its clear those are "in-house" terms. Brock isn't communicating with Acts 2 dispensationalists, he is addressing Mid-Acts dispensationalists who already agree with him. And since its "in-house" all the way from the get-go - why should I continue reading the article - much less anything else at his website?


LDG

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

In the OT if one that was a Gentile was placedin a set aside condition (Genesis 11), at the Tower of Babel. If one that was a Gentile and wanted to serve the true and living God of Israel, that one had to become a Jew (proselyte) and place themselves under the Laws of Moses. That proselyte was then consider the same as on that was a born Jew, with all rights and priviledges.

In the OT there were clearly saved, righteous Gentiles who were not a part of Israel. Melchizedek in Abraham's day was Gentile and yet served God. Many of David's mighty men were godly Gentiles and not Jews. Naaman is another example...


LDG

 

[lightninboy]

LDG,

Is Melchizedek a valid example to prove your point?

Was his day BEFORE circumcision was required to be a Jew?

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

LDG,

Is Melchizedek a valid example to prove your point?

Was his day BEFORE circumcision was required to be a Jew?

In this case yes, for those who claim that Gentiles began in Genesis 11 after the Tower of Babel, Melchizedek serves as an example. If one says that the Jewish-Gentile distinction began with Abraham's circumcision - then no, Melchizedek is not an example. The bottom line is though, that OT saints never had to be Jews to have fellowship with God and be considered righteous by Him.


LDG

 

[Dispy]

Dispy
It is apparent to me that you did not go to the link -
http://www.starlightresearch.com/ActsProblems.html - where Mr. Brock does offer his proof on every subjects listed.

No, I didn't. Why should I when I detect Brock is playing games in the original article?

I am an Acts 2 dispensationalist. If Brock is seriously interested in trying to communicate with Acts 2 dispensationalists, then he has failed miserably. I'm not going to buy an argument that says the term "one gospel" is not Biblical, when he turns right around and uses non-Biblical terms of his own. He doesn't give any proof for using them and he doesn't even define them. An average Acts 2 dispensationalist is going to say - what???

He lost me there. Its clear those are "in-house" terms. Brock isn't communicating with Acts 2 dispensationalists, he is addressing Mid-Acts dispensationalists who already agree with him. And since its "in-house" all the way from the get-go - why should I continue reading the article - much less anything else at his website?

LDG

How can you claim he is in error without even reading what he says? Afraid you will learn the truth?

Go back and read each article, and then refute it. I will defend it as if I had written it. Fair enough?

 

[Dispy]

In the OT if one that was a Gentile was placedin a set aside condition (Genesis 11), at the Tower of Babel. If one that was a Gentile and wanted to serve the true and living God of Israel, that one had to become a Jew (proselyte) and place themselves under the Laws of Moses. That proselyte was then consider the same as on that was a born Jew, with all rights and priviledges.

In the OT there were clearly saved, righteous Gentiles who were not a part of Israel. Melchizedek in Abraham's day was Gentile and yet served God. Many of David's mighty men were godly Gentiles and not Jews. Naaman is another example...

LDG

We first learn of Melchizedek in Genesis 14:17-18. That was prior to Abram's name change, and the requirement for him to become a "Jew in the flesh" through circulmcision. That was prior to the formation of the nation of Israel. Yes, there were God fearing Gentiles prior to Abram.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

How can you claim he is in error without even reading what he says? Afraid you will learn the truth?

Now back up here - who is the one claiming a position is in error?

Me, or is it Mr. Brock?

Its Mr. Brock who says the Acts 2 position is wrong. What I have said is Mr. Brock's tactics for saying Acts 2 is wrong is skewed.

IF I were to use Mr. Brock's tactics, then I would say to you Dispy, why don't we assume Acts 2 is the right position and Mid-Acts is wrong?

You would reject that premise of course. Just as I reject Mr. Brock's premise.

Go back and read each article, and then refute it. I will defend it as if I had written it. Fair enough?

Well tackle what I've already mentioned. Brock said, "The Bible does not teach the 'one gospel' theory. only theologians teach it. The Bible does not use the phrase 'one gospel.' only theologians use it."

Then Brock goes on to state, " Those who believe this way really preach an homogenized gospel that is made up of some truth from the Kingdom Gospel and some truth from the Grace Gospel of the Apostle Paul. This mixing of two gospels also leaves out some vital truth related to each gospel. This is not good Bible teaching."

First, if we have to toss out the phrase "one gospel" because Scripture does not use it, then we must also toss out the phrases "Kingdom gospel" and "Grace gospel." Neither of these phrases are used in the Bible either.

Second, Brock's says that only theologians use the term "one gospel." But then he cites the 1909 Scofield notes and takes it at face value for its references to "gospels."

In both of these points, Brock appeals to Scripture to speak against the Acts 2 position. But he doesn't go to Scripture to support the Mid-Acts view. Instead he undermines his own arguments by doing the very things he criticizes others for.



LDG

 

[Dispy]

How can you claim he is in error without even reading what he says? Afraid you will learn the truth?

Now back up here - who is the one claiming a position is in error?

Me, or is it Mr. Brock?

Its Mr. Brock who says the Acts 2 position is wrong. What I have said is Mr. Brock's tactics for saying Acts 2 is wrong is skewed.

IF I were to use Mr. Brock's tactics, then I would say to you Dispy, why don't we assume Acts 2 is the right position and Mid-Acts is wrong?

You would reject that premise of course. Just as I reject Mr. Brock's premise.

If you will go back and read exactly what Mr. Brock wrote, you will find that he is stating the Acts 2 positions and what problems he has with them.

You, no doubt, have problems with the mid-Acts positions. Well, why don't you state what Mr. Brock says are the mid-Acts positions, then state the problems you have with them from your Acts 2 position? I would love to hear what you have to say.

I was educated in a major denomination church sponsored school, and was taught, and believed, most of the Acts 2 positions. However, from being shown the mid-Acts positions, then comparing them with what I believed with my Acts 2 position was with what the Bible actually says, I changed my views.

Go back and read each article, and then refute it. I will defend it as if I had written it. Fair enough?

The Bible does not use the phrase 'one gospel.'[/U] only theologians use it."

Then Brock goes on to state, " Those who believe this way really preach an homogenized gospel that is made up of some truth from the Kingdom Gospel and some truth from the Grace Gospel of the Apostle Paul. This mixing of two gospels also leaves out some vital truth related to each gospel. This is not good Bible teaching."

First, if we have to toss out the phrase "one gospel" because Scripture does not use it, then we must also toss out the phrases "Kingdom gospel" and "Grace gospel." Neither of these phrases are used in the Bible either.

Second, Brock's says that only theologians use the term "one gospel." But then he cites the 1909 Scofield notes and takes it at face value for its references to "gospels."

In both of these points, Brock appeals to Scripture to speak against the Acts 2 position. But he doesn't go to Scripture to support the Mid-Acts view. Instead he undermines his own arguments by doing the very things he criticizes others for.

LDG

Highly recommend you read what Mr. Brock says about each problem, and then refute it in the manner in which you believe is proper. Also, state your position from scripture. Let us take it from there.

 

[lightninboy]

I was educated in a major denomination church sponsored school, and was taught, and believed, most of the Acts 2 positions. However, from being shown the mid-Acts positions, then comparing them with what I believed with my Acts 2 position was with what the Bible actually says, I changed my views.

Wow, Dispy, please tell me what school that was.

Were you once an Acts 2 Dispensationalist, or were you just Reformed?

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

You, no doubt, have problems with the mid-Acts positions. Well, why don't you state what Mr. Brock says are the mid-Acts positions, then state the problems you have with them from your Acts 2 position? I would love to hear what you have to say.

The problems I have with Mid-Acts are along the lines of agreement/disagreement with fellow Christians. I am not on a crusade against the Mid-Acts views. What I'm protesting concerning Mr. Brock concerns his methods and tactics. What he does is similar to what anti-dispensationalists Gerstner and Mathison did in their books: assume their view is the right view, then compare something else against it.

I have thought that a compare and contrast of the Mid-Acts views with the Acts 2 view(s) would be beneficial to many. But then this forum in the recent distant past was dominated by some who weren't into even-keeled conversations. And to so now in this thread would mean its buried under 4 pages in a thread entitled Micah 4.

Perhaps a good format to take would be to start a new thread with an emphasis on question/answer. People are often confused between the different views, and clarifying issues would help.

One of those issues concerns the very thing I am criticizing Mr. Brock for. Brock says "one gospel" is not in the Bible, but the vast majority of Christians don't thing "one gospel." We think "THE gospel." Then Brock uses the terms "Kingdom Gospel" or "Grace Gospel" but doesn't define them anywhere. So how would an average Acts 2 dispensationalist know what he's talking about? They won't, since he just uses those terms up front without defining them. And this is just one example - Mid-Acts writers (and posters) as a whole assume things that they know - but do not explain - they are confusing to others.

I was educated in a major denomination church sponsored school, and was taught, and believed, most of the Acts 2 positions. However, from being shown the mid-Acts positions, then comparing them with what I believed with my Acts 2 position was with what the Bible actually says, I changed my views.

And I respect your views as well as your experiences, and would like to hear more about them.


LDG

 

[lightninboy]

In the OT there were clearly saved, righteous Gentiles who were not a part of Israel. Melchizedek in Abraham's day was Gentile and yet served God. Many of David's mighty men were godly Gentiles and not Jews. Naaman is another example...

Nebuchadnezzar is a valid example, isn't he?

 

[Dispy]

Wow, Dispy, please tell me what school that was.

Were you once an Acts 2 Dispensationalist, or were you just Reformed?

I was educated in the Christian Reformed sponsored school. I was taught, and believed, most of the things that Acts 2 dispensationalists believe, i.e. that the Church for today began at Pentecost, that the church must go through the Tribulation, that there was not pre-Trib rapture, etc, the Church was "the bride of Christ," etc.

 

[Dispy]

One of those issues concerns the very thing I am criticizing Mr. Brock for. Brock says "one gospel" is not in the Bible, but the vast majority of Christians don't thing "one gospel." We think "THE gospel." Then Brock uses the terms "Kingdom Gospel" or "Grace Gospel" but doesn't define them anywhere. So how would an average Acts 2 dispensationalist know what he's talking about? They won't, since he just uses those terms up front without defining them. And this is just one example - Mid-Acts writers (and posters) as a whole assume things that they know - but do not explain - they are confusing to others.

LDG

The word "gospel" simply means "good news." there are many different "gospels" (good news') mentioned in the Bible. "The gospel" would indicate just "one gospel." So what is the "one gospel" to be preached today?

Do you distinguish between "the gospel of God"/"gospel of the kingdom"/gospel of the Grace of God/The gospel of circumcision/gospel of uncircumcision?

Each of the gospels above are simply "the good news of God/kingdom/Grace of God/circumcision/uncircumcision. There are other also.

So, what is "THE gospel?"

 

[lightninboy]

I was educated in the Christian Reformed sponsored school. I was taught, and believed, most of the things that Acts 2 dispensationalists believe, i.e. that the Church for today began at Pentecost, that the church must go through the Tribulation, that there was not pre-Trib rapture, etc, the Church was "the bride of Christ," etc.

Dispy, didn't the Christian Reformed church subscribe to Covenant Theology and Postmillennialism?

 

[Dispy]

Dispy, didn't the Christian Reformed church subscribe to Covenant Theology and Postmillennialism?

Yes. We were taught that the church was spiritual Israel.

 

[lightninboy]

Yes. We were taught that the church was spiritual Israel.

How could the Christian Reformed Church teach that the Church will go through the Great Tribulation when it is Postmillennial?