The BASICS of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism

[Danoh]

The following provides an excellent overview of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism. If you can get through it, bias on hold til then (Acts 17:11) you will at least have a picture of why we approach our study of Scripture from the perspective that we do...

The Basics of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism

Anyway, to your edification...

 

[Danoh]

There are three basic ways of looking at things - approaching them unaware of the lens we have allowed the eyes of our understanding to look at things from, approaching them unaware of our desired lens, or approaching them aware throughout out, not only of those first two operating principles, but also, aware throughout of what operating principles we are looking at might actually be operating in accordance with.

Only then can we begin to not only soundly "prove" [examine] all things" but even begin to then "holdfast that which is good."

The Mid-Acts Perspective is the result of that process. At least is was/is for me. I did not buy into it because it made sense to how I looked at things. Rather, I first examined how I looked at things.

Many harp on the following phrase, but the above process of refinement first, is not only the actual "Berean Perspective" but HOW the Acts 9/Mid-Acts Perspective of Dispensationalism - a Perspective readily apparant as having to be heavily defended by Paul in Romans thru Philemon, was eventually recovered.

In this, the answer to the question - Where is it in history? is to be found in where any truth often is in history - buried under the traditions of men.... Fact is, where it is in history is where its been all along - in Romans thru Philemon...

All we did, was get our own two cents out of the picture, and the result - the recovery of Mid-Acts took care of itself!

 

[Dispy]

The following provides an excellent overview of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism. If you can get through it, bias on hold til then (Acts 17:11) you will at least have a picture of why we approach our study of Scripture from the perspective that we do...

The Basics of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism

Anyway, to your edification...

Fantastic link. It represents our view very accurately. For veryone that responds to this dispensational tread should read it. It will answer about everyone of their questions.

THANKS for sharing that.

 

[Danoh]

Hey, Dispy hope all is well with you and yours!

Here is some food for thought - in some quarters - it becomes necessary to establish that Paul's Apostolic authority, though not the same as to its distinct commission as that of the Twelve, had nevertheless been comfirmed by them and this can and has to be proven by other than Paul's own writings and or 2 Peter alone.

Ironic, when you think on it - that Paul's Distinct Apostleship can be proven by passages outside of his own writings that, at the same time, still do not make him out a part of the Twelve's Prophetic/Prophesied Program...

 

[Cappadocious]

In this, the answer to the question - Where is it in history? is to be found in where any truth often is in history - buried under the traditions of men....

That claim is terribly unpersuasive.

 

[Danoh]

That claim is terribly unpersuasive.

Can't say as I blame you your assertion, as my claim alone won't certainly prove my case. There is also the bias we each bring to our concluding on such short assertions - yours, just now, included.

I've had people ask me "Where is this Mid-Acts teaching in Church History?" Admittedly, when I first encountered it, I also asked that question.

It dawned on me that that was the wrong question - the question of one so spoonfed the notions of others (me) that I had not had the "spiritual" sense my first encounter actually called for. That so spoonfed was I as to what, rather than how to think my encounter through, that I hadn't a clue how to deal with Mid-Acts other than to compare it with history.

Where in history was the doctrine of justification by faith when the Reformers set abouy recovering it? In the only witness of its history that "Church history" had denied - in Romans 5:1 - the Spirit's history of HIS things...

And yet, we continue to ask that silly question " Where is this, that, the other in Church History?"

Admittedly, breaking from that prison requires a different paradigm. For, from within said prison's walls, you are right.

I don't expect those who disagree with that to examine where they look at things from. Its not for them. Its for those willing to examine their own bias before allowing its dominance.

 

[Cappadocious]

It dawned on me that that was the wrong question

No, it's a perfectly-reasonable question, and it deserves a good answer. An answer better than "there is no record of it outside of my interpretation of the bible, because the true belief was suppressed until I came up with it again."

 

[St. Paul]

The following provides an excellent overview of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism. If you can get through it, bias on hold til then (Acts 17:11) you will at least have a picture of why we approach our study of Scripture from the perspective that we do...

The Basics of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism

Anyway, to your edification...

Thanks for posting that. I really enjoy reading your posts.

 

[Danoh]

No, it's a perfectly-reasonable question, and it deserves a good answer. An answer better than "there is no record of it outside of my interpretation of the bible, because the true belief was suppressed until I came up with it again."

I'm sure you believe you are making your case, but you are not, anymore than I am, which only proves my attempted point - that because we often adopt and or approach a bias from within a greater, overall bias we fail to consider, let alone, examine first, we each end up at our own notions of "reasonable."

In this, we'd be better off in the Lord attempting to explore this blindspot together, than we will ever be biting and devouring one another in service only, of our own view.

I may be off on this

 

[7xlightray]

I have a question.
　
If all prophesy has been halted and put on hold...
And...
Salvation of the Gentiles, we will not find in the O.T...
And...
If the Gentiles are only to look to Paul for their teaching that only relates to them...
Then...
What last trumpet is Paul talking about, and where does he talk about the first trumpet, or even explains the trumpets?

 

[Danoh]

The Mid-Acts Perspective distinguishes between those Gentiles PROPHESIED to come to salvation in the Lord through Israel's rise to its glory FIRST - it is this salvation that is on hold until AFTER the fulness of the PRESENT salvation of the Gentiles, not through Israel's rise "but rather, through their FALL."

This present salvation was NOT foretold, it was "a Mystery."

In this, any discussion of trumpets would have to at the very least, honestly attempt to take this view into consideration, not outright discount it "because it doesn't fit Church History" which history, only until recently, has even taken Romans 11:25-27 into account, and that, only to reason it into its false premise. A premise false in that it grew, and grew, and grew into its notions in the absence of Romans 11:25-27, to begin with.

Sort of like Martin Luther's erroneous notion that a spiritually dead institution could be "reformed" when what it needed was a complete doing away with, that it might then start from scratch. For, to this day, there is still no salvation in that inistitutions most basic of its hellish doctrines...

 

[7xlightray]

I take it you don't know?

 

[Danoh]

I take it you don't know?

You're right - YOU - take it, to mean I don't know. And you don't because you believe YOU are the issue. Fact is, neither of us is - the Son ALONE is.

I refuse to go into any topic with your kind anymore. Its as if you have blinders on that you continually fail to see that interaction with your kind is pointless until you at least consider things from from Mid-Acts. Not that you adopt it but that you at least actually studied it out. You're all alike. Until you leave your "take" out of the picture, there is no point. The last word is yours. Either examine Mid-Acts honestly, or go bother someone else about your "take."

 

[7xlightray]

What?!?!? lol, sensitive.
It was not a statement, it was a question, did you notice the question mark?

In both your reply's you answered more like a politician, without actually answering the question, ...skirting, attacking the question and questioner. A simple yes or no would have sufficed. I take it "a lack of" in your mind means error, ...maybe, but I would say it does lean itself to doubt.

 

[Danoh]

Not being sensitive at all; just tired of answering questions when I know that, unless viewed from a similar perspective, we're not going to get anywhere with one another. I really can't clear that up any more than that. Go back through several pages of threads, and see for yourself if such difference between perspectives is not only the reality, but the result I no longer feel inclined to engage. Plenty of others on here willing to with you. But, perhaps your better off investing your time with those who see the various issues from a perspective similar to yours.

Case in point (though, how Mid-Acts Dispensationalism arrives at its Dispensational Perspective on many issues, including the subject of the link below, differs) - note the differing approaches, the same basic passage(s), but different end result, due to said differing approaches"

http://www.bible-researcher.com/gal6-16.html

http://preceptaustin.org/the_israel_of_god.htm

Differing premise, differing end viewpoint, no matter how extensively those two viewpoints examine an issue...

The best to you in that...

 

[7xlightray]

Danoh: "But, perhaps your better off investing your time with those who see the various issues from a perspective similar to yours."

I don't think that would be wise, God teaches us to hear both sides.
Proverbs 18:12,13 "Before destruction the heart of man is haughty, and before honor is humility. He that answers a matter BEFORE he HEARS it, it is folly and shame unto him."
　

Danoh: "Not being sensitive at all; just tired of answering questions when I know that, unless viewed from a similar perspective, we're not going to get anywhere with one another. I really can't clear that up any more than that. Go back through several pages of threads, and see for yourself if such difference between perspectives is not only the reality, but the result I no longer feel inclined to engage. Plenty of others on here willing to with you."

There was no need for you to respond to my post, the question was not put to you alone, but to anyone that could answer, so there was no pressure on you to answer.
　

Danoh: "Case in point (though, how Mid-Acts Dispensationalism arrives at its Dispensational Perspective on many issues, including the subject of the link below, differs) - note the differing approaches, the same basic passage(s), but different end result, due to said differing approaches""

Thanks for the links, but all I was asking about was the trumpets.

 

[Danoh]

Danoh: "But, perhaps your better off investing your time with those who see the various issues from a perspective similar to yours."

I don't think that would be wise, God teaches us to hear both sides.
Proverbs 18:12,13 "Before destruction the heart of man is haughty, and before honor is humility. He that answers a matter BEFORE he HEARS it, it is folly and shame unto him."
　

Danoh: "Not being sensitive at all; just tired of answering questions when I know that, unless viewed from a similar perspective, we're not going to get anywhere with one another. I really can't clear that up any more than that. Go back through several pages of threads, and see for yourself if such difference between perspectives is not only the reality, but the result I no longer feel inclined to engage. Plenty of others on here willing to with you."

There was no need for you to respond to my post, the question was not put to you alone, but to anyone that could answer, so there was no pressure on you to answer.
　

Danoh: "Case in point (though, how Mid-Acts Dispensationalism arrives at its Dispensational Perspective on many issues, including the subject of the link below, differs) - note the differing approaches, the same basic passage(s), but different end result, due to said differing approaches""

Thanks for the links, but all I was asking about was the trumpets.

You're still missing my point, and by that, continuing to reflect its validity - that exploring the various issues is pointless so long as the particular paradigm through which we look at them remains.

Right now, I am re-reading a Pre-Wrath Rapture book. I am also looking into some other theologies, or faiths. Each has their paradigm, as I have mine. I try to learn from each, whether or not I agree. Perhaps you will also misread into this next statement, but I don't find many people that open.

Thus, it matters not the topic, we cannot come to consensus so long as we remain unable to see that we agree or disagree due to the paradigm, bias, perspective, or what have you that we each OFTEN UNAWARES that we do, are operating from.

Just now, the thread on here about not being under the law is making the very point I am talking about - that be the topic trumpets, or what have you, until we at least attempt to understand the other guys paradigm - the very root of why he sees, or does not, said trumpet might as well be some other instrument, and that, perhaps, in some other family of instruments like string, skin, or what have you.

As a result of that, I have decided that to each his own. Ot course, this two then becomes just one more issue various paradigms, including that which just has to differ, turn into one more issue up for debate, often, to no truly "faithful" intent other the satisfaction of one's own flesh.

At this point, I'm done with you on this. You continue to make my point while blind to it. And that is fine by me, as neither of us is the other's servant. I know I tried to bring this point out, and that is all the right I have: to attempt to point this paradigm out, and then just leave it at that. At this point, I feel there is nothing else I might say to help you at least consider my point.

The trump Paul speaks of is understood from the Mid-Acts Perspective "the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now... through preaching... committed to... Paul... is made manifest" Romans 16, Titus 1.

Read through that Basics of Mid-Acts link, and you'll know what that paradigm is and how it views this "last trump" "trump of God" issue - but, moreso, you'll understand why.

If you then want to explore the matter, post your view, and we can go from there. If, however, yours is more of the likes of The Boxer and his made up mind, then, do yourself a favor, find others where your view alone is all that is correct.

 

[7xlightray]

I don't see anything relating to the trumpets, or even excusing Paul from not teaching about the trumpets in Basics of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism. Maybe I'm missing something.

Everything I would say to you, and say concerning this subject would be found in Rom 15.

Also...

Abraham what was he? Was he a Jew when he was saved? He did not have the Law, that was not to come till latter, and he was not circumcised yet, that would not come till ch. 17, also he was the first to be circumcised, he did not come out of a Jewish family, there was no Jew and there was no Israel yet, therefore making him a Gentile saved by faith, before there was a Israel. Hide in God, in plain sight.

Gal. 3 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed."

Beforehand, before what? Beforehand which the Greek word means "I preach the gospel beforehand", before there was a Israel, or a Jew. Did Peter really have no way of finding this out from the O.T.? Do the scriptures only teach that Gentiles where only to be blessed through Israel or a Jew? Nope, not at all, not through Israel, but through Abraham, before there ever was circumcision. It was there in the scriptures, Jesus said to His disciples that He had much more to say to them, but that they were not ready to receive it yet.

There is also Gal. 4, Gen. 16, why would God put Israel under bondage again?

But like you said, maybe I'm just not getting it.

 

[7xlightray]

Are we only built on the foundation of Paul? What apostles do you think we are built on?

Eph 2:19 So then you are no longer foreigners and noncitizens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of God’s household, 20 because you have been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone.



Mystery does not mean something not written before. Here is a Great Mystery, yet he pulls it out from O.T. scriptures.

Eph 5:31 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.



Revelation means something that was veiled and becomes unveiled.

Eph 3:3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: 6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel,

 

[riverrat]

Are we only built on the foundation of Paul? What apostles do you think we are built on?

Eph 2:19 So then you are no longer foreigners and noncitizens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of God’s household, 20 because you have been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone.



Mystery does not mean something not written before. Here is a Great Mystery, yet he pulls it out from O.T. scriptures.

Eph 5:31 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.



Revelation means something that was veiled and becomes unveiled.

Eph 3:3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: 6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel,

IMO you obviously do not understand dispensationalism. No dispensationalist, to my knowledge, says that we are built on the foundation of Paul. The foundation that we are built on is Jesus Christ as per 1 Cor 3:11. Eph 2:19 does not say the foundation is the apostles and prophets. It says the foundation is Christ Jesus as he is the cornerstone.
The mystery is a secret. It was either not written before or if it was written before the true meaning of it was not revealed until Christ revealed it to Paul.
The mystery was revealed to the apostles and prophets by the Holy Spirit through Paul at the council of Jerusalem.