GO AWAY
Let me start by asking that troublemakers and opposers who are already convinced of themselves please refrain from posting in this thread. I would appreciate it if people like godrulz, andyc, cistercian, and others with similar agendas stay away. I'll respectfully ask that the moderator(s) delete any posts by these people, as well as others that inappropriately challenge others and/or that simply want to oppose for the sake of opposing. godrulz et al, if you post I'll ignore it but report it, asking it to be deleted. Of course, I can't make forum rules, so I'm only expressing my desire.
COME ON IN
Several people have expressed a sincere desire to learn more about MidActs Dispensationalism. Whether or not those people ultimately conclude the same is irrelevant. They are sincere inquisitors.
This thread is for those people to ask questions. And they're absolutely welcome to offer challenges, as well. Sincere, open, non-compative people like Town Heretic, bodhigirsmiles, and bybee...this thread is for you to help you understand the MidActs position.
ON THE BIBLE
I'll kick it off by stating that MidActs Dispensationalism is an approach to reading and studying the Bible. Those of us who hold to this approach believe that we must read and study the Bible FORWARD, rather than BACKWARD. By this, I mean that we must understand what comes before Exodus before we can understand Exodus. We must understand "Old Testament" prophecy before we can understand Matthew. We must understand those things before we can understand what's going on in Acts. We believe that it is highly dangerous (to a doctrinal position that one formulates) for a person to read BACKWARD, meaning that he/she interprets an epistle, for instance, and then forces the things written previously to mean the same thing. We also believe it is dangerous to evaluate a book, chapter, or verse in and of itself. A verse HAS TO BE read and studied within the context of a book/epistle. That book/epistle HAS TO BE read and studied within the context of the commission of the human author (in the case of the epistles). And a book HAS TO BE read and studied through a biblical theology that first considers prophecy and God's stated plans.
If one labors over a verse or chapter but does not understand God's covenants, prophecy, and dispensed commissions, then the doctrine based on those verses will at best be accidentally correct and at worst downright heretical.
We also believe that we must take God's Word literally, unless the text demands that we don't. For example, when John sees a vision of a woman on a scarlet beast in Rev. 17, we can understand that in the future when his vision plays out, it won't actually involve a literal woman riding a literal scarlet beast, for the text defines what those two things represent. We gladly accept figurative language when the text demands it.
And we believe that God's Word is what is inspired, so we must rely in it, rather than relying on scholar's varying opinions on history, culture, or even the underlying Greek/Hebrew text. Scholarly opinions will always differ from one another, but God's Word will always remain steadfast. So we rest on it as our ONLY authority.
THE BASICS
Where it all starts:
I'd love to address any questions and expand on any points. Others who hold the same or similar positions (STP, voltaire, JohnW, Knight, Delmar, Nick, judging u, etc.) are absolutely welcome to chime in whenever you want. I'm perfectly happy shutting up and letting people smarter than me answer questions, if that's what it takes to help others truly understand the MidActs position. If I don't know something, I'll say I don't know. But I'd love to help those who are sincerely interested to understand more about our position.
Thanks,
Randy
Let me start by asking that troublemakers and opposers who are already convinced of themselves please refrain from posting in this thread. I would appreciate it if people like godrulz, andyc, cistercian, and others with similar agendas stay away. I'll respectfully ask that the moderator(s) delete any posts by these people, as well as others that inappropriately challenge others and/or that simply want to oppose for the sake of opposing. godrulz et al, if you post I'll ignore it but report it, asking it to be deleted. Of course, I can't make forum rules, so I'm only expressing my desire.
COME ON IN
Several people have expressed a sincere desire to learn more about MidActs Dispensationalism. Whether or not those people ultimately conclude the same is irrelevant. They are sincere inquisitors.
This thread is for those people to ask questions. And they're absolutely welcome to offer challenges, as well. Sincere, open, non-compative people like Town Heretic, bodhigirsmiles, and bybee...this thread is for you to help you understand the MidActs position.
ON THE BIBLE
I'll kick it off by stating that MidActs Dispensationalism is an approach to reading and studying the Bible. Those of us who hold to this approach believe that we must read and study the Bible FORWARD, rather than BACKWARD. By this, I mean that we must understand what comes before Exodus before we can understand Exodus. We must understand "Old Testament" prophecy before we can understand Matthew. We must understand those things before we can understand what's going on in Acts. We believe that it is highly dangerous (to a doctrinal position that one formulates) for a person to read BACKWARD, meaning that he/she interprets an epistle, for instance, and then forces the things written previously to mean the same thing. We also believe it is dangerous to evaluate a book, chapter, or verse in and of itself. A verse HAS TO BE read and studied within the context of a book/epistle. That book/epistle HAS TO BE read and studied within the context of the commission of the human author (in the case of the epistles). And a book HAS TO BE read and studied through a biblical theology that first considers prophecy and God's stated plans.
If one labors over a verse or chapter but does not understand God's covenants, prophecy, and dispensed commissions, then the doctrine based on those verses will at best be accidentally correct and at worst downright heretical.
We also believe that we must take God's Word literally, unless the text demands that we don't. For example, when John sees a vision of a woman on a scarlet beast in Rev. 17, we can understand that in the future when his vision plays out, it won't actually involve a literal woman riding a literal scarlet beast, for the text defines what those two things represent. We gladly accept figurative language when the text demands it.
And we believe that God's Word is what is inspired, so we must rely in it, rather than relying on scholar's varying opinions on history, culture, or even the underlying Greek/Hebrew text. Scholarly opinions will always differ from one another, but God's Word will always remain steadfast. So we rest on it as our ONLY authority.
THE BASICS
Where it all starts:
- God called out a chosen nation to be His special people above all the nations of the earth.
- The nation continually rebelled against God, to the point that they even rejected His Son Jesus Christ Who physically came to earth to get them to repent and turn to God.
- For one year after Jesus' earthly ministry, God gave them repeated chances to accept the good news of His Son and the coming kingdom and to bear fruit.
- Because the masses still rejected Him, God put a halt to the prophesied timeline of delivering the kingdom to them. He relegated the chosen nation to the status of the disobedient Gentile nations, thus putting ALL people in the same boat (as opposed to Israel being the preeminent nation).
- Upon doing so, God called out Paul to be the "apostle to the Gentiles", delivering the "gospel of the uncircumcision" - a message that was different in many ways from that which was previously delivered by those apostles that Jesus chose during His earthly ministry.
- Jesus Christ from heaven dispensed to Paul a gospel message that was specifically pertinent to the Body of Christ, whereas He had previously from earth dispensed a gospel message to the Twelve that was specifically pertinent to the chosen nation of Israel who awaited their coming tribulation and promised kingdom.
- These two messages were different. The book of Acts shows the transition away from one to the other and displays the resulting confusion…a confusion which, by the way, still exists today and for pretty much the same reason as back then.
I'd love to address any questions and expand on any points. Others who hold the same or similar positions (STP, voltaire, JohnW, Knight, Delmar, Nick, judging u, etc.) are absolutely welcome to chime in whenever you want. I'm perfectly happy shutting up and letting people smarter than me answer questions, if that's what it takes to help others truly understand the MidActs position. If I don't know something, I'll say I don't know. But I'd love to help those who are sincerely interested to understand more about our position.
Thanks,
Randy
