Beloved57 are you sure you’re chosen?

[Clete]

OK. But I would like to know that @Clete approves of this reference as an authoritative expression of MAD, I don't want to take anything for granted with him, tyvm.

No, I don't take ANYTHING as authoritative, especially in the catholic sense of the word, aside from God Himself, His written word and sound reason.

Is it good information? Yes, I suspect that it is.
Is it authoritative? Not a chance.

You should understand that it is something of a minor miracle that you aren't already on my ignore list based on the insulting stupidity that you've presented so far in regards to Mid-Acts Dispensationalism. I do NOT believe you when you claim the things you say aren't intentional lies. I think that the only thing you're interested in by mentioning it is to disparage, discredit and insult. You aren't the least bit interested in understanding any of it or even having a substantive discussion about it. I tell you again, it is best if you just admit COMPLETE and utter ignorance and keep you unsolicited opinions to yourself. You will either do so, or I'll simply stop reading anything you say about anything at all.

Clete

 

[JudgeRightly]

OK. But I would like to know that @Clete approves of this reference as an authoritative expression of MAD, I don't want to take anything for granted with him, tyvm.

If you want a full breakdown of what Clete, myself, and others on here hold to as "Mid-Acts Dispensationalism," read "The Plot" by Bob Enyart. https://store.kgov.com/the-plot/

There's no way it will all fit in one post here on TOL.

Or, you know, just read the Bible.

 

[Idolater]

No, I don't take ANYTHING as authoritative, especially in the catholic sense of the word, aside from God Himself, His written word and sound reason.

Is it good information? Yes, I suspect that it is.
Is it authoritative? Not a chance.

You should understand that it is something of a minor miracle that you aren't already on my ignore list based on the insulting stupidity that you've presented so far in regards to Mid-Acts Dispensationalism. I do NOT believe you when you claim the things you say aren't intentional lies. I think that the only thing you're interested in by mentioning it is to disparage, discredit and insult. You aren't the least bit interested in understanding any of it or even having a substantive discussion about it. I tell you again, it is best if you just admit COMPLETE and utter ignorance and keep you unsolicited opinions to yourself. You will either do so, or I'll simply stop reading anything you say about anything at all.

Clete

I'm asking for something reasonable. I don't 'debate' amorphous blobs of goo, 'wax noses' that can be formed into whatever is expedient in the moment. I want to see objective proof of what MAD is and what MAD believes. It's the opposite of unreasonable. And isn't it just what you would request yourself, if you wanted to debate Catholicism? Viz., What is Catholicism? Because otherwise Catholics could just 'move the goalposts' or 'shift' or 'pivot' the debate. That's a waste of everyone's time, unless someone just likes to hear themselves talk.

 

[Idolater]

... just read the Bible.

All the time, like you.

 

[Right Divider]

All the time,

I highly doubt it.

like you.

Definitely not like JR.

 

[Clete]

If you want a full breakdown of what Clete, myself, and others on here hold to as "Mid-Acts Dispensationalism," read "The Plot" by Bob Enyart. https://store.kgov.com/the-plot/

There's no way it will all fit in one post here on TOL.

Or, you know, just read the Bible.

Now that I can get behind!

"The Plot" is the very epitome of sound reason applied to God's word!

 

[Clete]

I'm asking for something reasonable. I don't 'debate' amorphous blobs of goo, 'wax noses' that can be formed into whatever is expedient in the moment. I want to see objective proof of what MAD is and what MAD believes. It's the opposite of unreasonable. And isn't it just what you would request yourself, if you wanted to debate Catholicism? Viz., What is Catholicism? Because otherwise Catholics could just 'move the goalposts' or 'shift' or 'pivot' the debate. That's a waste of everyone's time, unless someone just likes to hear themselves talk.

What you are asking for cannot be answered in a post. It is at least a book length kind of question to answer. Read The Plot and you'll have a pretty firm handle on what we believe and why we believe it. Until then, understand that, at best, you are talking out your rear end about things you know next to nothing about. A half ounce of humility would go quite a distance.

An alternative that would be even more of a direct answer to your question would be...

What We Believe and Why We Believe It​

If money is an issue, try listening to some of Bob's radio shows. They're free. Here's a link to a terrific series on prayer. The most rational teaching about prayer you'll ever hear in your life...

Prayer Pt 1 ​

 

[glorydaz]

I agree totally, I'm just not convinced that an understanding of this incredibly important truth is required to get one saved in the first place. It seems it is more an issue of how to live the Christian life once your saved rather than actually getting saved. I'm still open to the idea that I'm wrong on this, by the way.

I see it as crucial. The whole idea of Paul's gospel is getting us to see that salvation is a gift from God.
When someone offers us a gift, are we to offer to pay for it, or at least offer to contribute to that gift?
God forbid.....what an insult that would be. It's bad enough that people spurn that gift completely, but to offer to pay?

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

You understand that anyone who reads the book of James can easily fall into this type of error. Are you sure you believe that anyone who does is not saved? It seems to me that this sort of person is just the sort that Paul was talking about I Corinthians 3...

I Corinthians 3:9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building. 10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. 11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. 14 If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.​

It would depend totally on whether they had already accepted the gift of God, or not.

That scripture would certainly apply if someone was already saved, and then some false teacher had come in "unawares".

Galatians 2:4
And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

I still think a truly saved person is highly unlikely to turn back into bondage.
We know we've received a free gift from God, and I can't imagine thinking we can add to Christ's work on the cross.

What's more likely -- they will go before the Lord, and try to do the Lord's work without being sent out. Those works of the flesh (righteous works) done in our own strength are what gets burned up....as I see it anyway.

Well, not really, no. For Peter, my list of doctrines would have been incomplete, right? Before Paul's gospel, any gospel that left out good works and obedience to the law would not have been incomplete. James' followers were "zealous for the law" and that's good! They needed to be but with Paul, salvation got easier, not harder. Now all that is required is faith. Your flesh will crave the law and desire to make a list of rules and if we are weak then we will fall into that error. The problem is that we are all weak! BUT, because of grace are not required to fully concur the flesh. Which is a good thing because we are not capable of it.

Romans 7:15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.​

21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.​

23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!​

​

So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.​

Romans 7 aside for the moment...

We are in agreement that putting one's faith in works is a really terribly bad idea but it is faith that saves us, not the avoidance of indulging our flesh.

Amen....nor is it serving God in our own power.

Clete

P.S. This has reminded me of one of the best articles I've ever read in my life so I thought I'd share it. It was written by Pastor Bob Hill.

You Cannot Live the Christian Life (Read post 1)

I think I read this before, and, yes, it's good.
The sooner people can quit thinking they have to do something for God, the sooner they can rest in Him.

You notice how the unsaved are always wanting us to prove we're "righteous"?
Of course, satan would love to see us boast. Better we not even know how the Lord uses us.

 

[glorydaz]

Now that I can get behind!

"The Plot" is the very epitome of sound reason applied to God's word!

And I still thank you very much for my copy.

 

[Clete]

I'm not ignoring the rest of your post, this bit just seems to get to the nib of it though, so...

Amen....nor is it serving God in our own power.

Serving God in our own power IS indulging our flesh!

As for the rest of what you've said, you do a terrific job of establishing the fact that our salvation is a gift and that no works are required for salvation. What you have not established is that it is necessary for someone to understand and acknowledge that piece of Pauline truth in order to get saved. It is clearly critical to having a fruitful Christian walk but that's a different question. In fact, it seems to me that the Christian that grasps this isn't the babe in Christ that a new believer surely is.

Further, I see no example of anyone, including Paul, telling someone they'll be saved only if they accept grace as a free gift.

In fact, I don't see any meaning in what Paul says in I Corinthians 3 if what you are saying is correct. How can a person who isn't saved in the first place because he's relying on his flesh be the same person who is SAVED as though through fire? It doesn't fit.

I think I read this before, and, yes, it's good.
The sooner people can quit thinking they have to do something for God, the sooner they can rest in Him.

Oh man! You are just a fountain of things that remind me of some really great stuff I've read many years ago that I need to reread.

Have you ever heard of a book called "Principles of Spiritual Growth" by Miles J. Stanford?

If you've not read it, you really should! Stanford was staunchly Acts 2 dispensational but, in spite of that, his writings are just brilliant.

Principles of Spiritual Growth" by Miles J. Stanford

And I still thank you very much for my copy.

Oh wow! I had forgotten!

I hope that it's been as valuable to your life as it has been to mine.

Clete

 

[glorydaz]

I'm not ignoring the rest of your post, this bit just seems to get to the nib of it though, so...

Serving God in our own power IS indulging our flesh!

Yes, and that was my point. It's those "works of righteousness" by the saved person that gets burned up when we stand before the Bema seat. Whatever is not built on the foundation of Christ is mere hay and stubble. It won't be a sins of the flesh, because all our sins have already been forgiven. So, it sounds like we're in agreement on this one.

As for the rest of what you've said, you do a terrific job of establishing the fact that our salvation is a gift and that no works are required for salvation. What you have not established is that it is necessary for someone to understand and acknowledge that piece of Pauline truth in order to get saved. It is clearly critical to having a fruitful Christian walk but that's a different question. In fact, it seems to me that the Christian that grasps this isn't the babe in Christ that a new believer surely is.

If the babes don't grasp it then they haven't understood the gospel of grace.
I use this. Letting someone know that everyone sins is one of the first steps to sharing the gospel.
If they know right off that they aren't to boast about the offer of salvation, they are more apt to accept it.

Romans 3:23-27
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

And, of course, Eph. 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Coupled with, Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Salvation and eternal life as a GIFT from God. Tell me who can resist that?

Further, I see no example of anyone, including Paul, telling someone they'll be saved only if they accept grace as a free gift.

In fact, I don't see any meaning in what Paul says in I Corinthians 3 if what you are saying is correct. How can a person who isn't saved in the first place because he's relying on his flesh be the same person who is SAVED as though through fire? It doesn't fit.

The unsaved won't be there.

Oh man! You are just a fountain of things that remind me of some really great stuff I've read many years ago that I need to reread.

Have you ever heard of a book called "Principles of Spiritual Growth" by Miles J. Stanford?

If you've not read it, you really should! Stanford was staunchly Acts 2 dispensational but, in spite of that, his writings are just brilliant.

Principles of Spiritual Growth" by Miles J. Stanford


Oh wow! I had forgotten!

I hope that it's been as valuable to your life as it has been to mine.

Clete

I've never read that book by Stanford, but I'll certainly look into it.

Yes, I still get the Plot out when I want to check on something.

 

[Idolater]

What you are asking for cannot be answered in a post. It is at least a book length kind of question to answer. Read The Plot and you'll have a pretty firm handle on what we believe and why we believe it. Until then, understand that, at best, you are talking out your rear end about things you know next to nothing about. A half ounce of humility would go quite a distance.

An alternative that would be even more of a direct answer to your question would be...

What We Believe and Why We Believe It​

If money is an issue, try listening to some of Bob's radio shows. They're free. Here's a link to a terrific series on prayer. The most rational teaching about prayer you'll ever hear in your life...

Prayer Pt 1​

I just want to make sure that I don't make a bad compromise here. A half a loaf of bread is better than no bread, but a half of a baby is ... hopefully connected with the other half. I don't want to cut MAD in half if it's a baby. If it's a loaf of bread, then I don't have to be as careful. So if I at least know how to see the critical parts of MAD then I can keep the baby together, which is what we all want.

 

[Clete]

Yes, and that was my point. It's those "works of righteousness" by the saved person that gets burned up when we stand before the Bema seat. Whatever is not built on the foundation of Christ is mere hay and stubble. It won't be a sins of the flesh, because all our sins have already been forgiven. So, it sounds like we're in agreement on this one.


If the babes don't grasp it then they haven't understood the gospel of grace.

So if they're babes they're saved, right?

If so, then where do we disagree?

Yes, I still get the Plot out when I want to check on something.

That's just so awesome. I've given that book away a few times. It only ever gets read about half the time so you've made my day!

 

[Clete]

I just want to make sure that I don't make a bad compromise here. A half a loaf of bread is better than no bread, but a half of a baby is ... hopefully connected with the other half. I don't want to cut MAD in half if it's a baby. If it's a loaf of bread, then I don't have to be as careful. So if I at least know how to see the critical parts of MAD then I can keep the baby together, which is what we all want.

We are now at a point where I don't even know what your question is. The basic difference between Mid-Acts Dispensationalism and regular dispensationalism is that we see that the previous dispensation was still in effect at Acts 2 (when most other dispensationalists claim the dispensation of grace began) and wasn't ended until God cut off Israel and turned instead to the Gentiles which didn't happen until later in the book of Acts, thus the term Mid-Acts Dispensationalism.

It sounds like a minor distinction but it happens to touch nearly every aspect of the Christian faith, especially those areas that have been debated by every flavor of Christian since the first century. What's more is that we DO NOT believe that the dispensational change occurred in mid Acts in order to defend certain beliefs we desire to hold. It's quite the reverse. It is the biblical history that we allow to tell us how to "rightly divide the word of truth", as Paul put it. As a result, we don't have to explain away whole passages of scripture like every other sect of Christianity must do, including Catholics. Instead we read the bible, take it to mean what it seems to mean and it all fits perfectly with the history of the church as presented in the book of Acts, which, I believe, is the single most important book in the New Testament, if not the entire bible. Without it, Paul's writings would be rejected as heresy.

Clete

 

[glorydaz]

So if they're babes they're saved, right?

If so, then where do we disagree?

Well, I think my point was if they didn't know salvation was a free gift, then they hadn't heard Paul's gospel at all.

Therefore they'd be carnal....not even a babe.

That's just so awesome. I've given that book away a few times. It only ever gets read about half the time so you've made my day!

I've had a couple of people who might want to borrow it. I leave it laying around for that purpose.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Well, I think my point was if they didn't know salvation was a free gift, then they hadn't heard Paul's gospel at all.

Therefore they'd be carnal....not even a babe.

I've had a couple of people who might want to borrow it. I leave it laying around for that purpose.

I think God is gracious enough, and the gospel powerful enough, that even through hearing a perverted form of the gospel, they can be saved.

For example, someone watching "Jesus Christ Superstar" (which I don't recommend anyone watch because of how blasphemous it is) can still get saved if he recognizes that Christ died for him.

 

[Idolater]

I think God is gracious enough, and the gospel powerful enough, that even through hearing a perverted form of the gospel, they can be saved.

For example, someone watching "Jesus Christ Superstar" (which I don't recommend anyone watch because of how blasphemous it is) can still get saved if he recognizes that Christ died for him.

This is basically not only my view, but also Catholicism's view, and it is about grace.

 

[JudgeRightly]

This is basically not only my view, but also Catholicism's view, and it is about grace.

Do you say that because Catholicism is so perverted that it's only by the Grace of God can anyone be saved by it?

 

[Idolater]

Do you say that because Catholicism is so perverted that it's only by the Grace of God can anyone be saved by it?

No. I say it because it's true.

 

[glorydaz]

I think God is gracious enough, and the gospel powerful enough, that even through hearing a perverted form of the gospel, they can be saved.

For example, someone watching "Jesus Christ Superstar" (which I don't recommend anyone watch because of how blasphemous it is) can still get saved if he recognizes that Christ died for him.

Uh....no. That's a wide wide road.