This used to be one of my favorite threads to read.
I will not debate you in this thread, Jerry. Sorry. I'm happy to respond to your position in another thread, though.I would rather you do it on this thread so others can see the stark contrast between what was originally taught in Mid Acts dispensationalism and what is being taught in the Neo- Mid Acts camp.
Then those with a sincere desire to find out the teaching of MAD can make up their own mind as to who is right and who is wrong.
In His grace,
Jerry
Yes, I agree with the original teachers of Mid Acts dispensationalism and not this new strain, which I call Neo-MAD. The original teachers, men like Sir Robert Anderson and J.C. O'Hair, taught that all men in every dispensation were saved by grace through faith apart from works. They also taught that the doctrine in Hebrews through Jude applied to the Body of Christ.
In His grace,
Jerry
Since STP brought this up then I will respond. Here are verses 25-29:I would just ask Jerry, when he quotes John 5:24, to go ahead and quote verses 25-29 too.
Yes, I agree with the original teachers of Mid Acts dispensationalism and not this new strain, which I call Neo-MAD. The original teachers, men like Sir Robert Anderson and J.C. O'Hair, taught that all men in every dispensation were saved by grace through faith apart from works. They also taught that the doctrine in Hebrews through Jude applied to the Body of Christ.
In His grace,
Jerry
So then how does your understanding differ from (for lack of a better term) orthodox? Why call it "mid-acts?" What are the defining points of this theology?
Choleric, as I said earlier my understanding agrees with what might be called orthodox Mid Acts dispensationalism. What Randy teaches (and I call Neo-MAD) is not the same teaching that the original Mid Acts dispensationalists taught.So then how does your understanding differ from (for lack of a better term) orthodox?
The orthodox or original poistion is that the present dispensation began at Acts 13 when Paul began to fulfill His stewardship to preach the "gospel of grace." Here are three quotes from the pen of Paul where he speaks of a "dispensation" that has been committed or given to him:Why call it "mid-acts?"
The defining point is that if we are going to know our dispensational responsibility then we certainly should know when the present dispensation began. It is a serious mistake to take responsibilities and principles from the previous dispensation and apply those things to this dispensation.What are the defining points of this theology?
I forgot to respond to this, Choleric. I'll get back with you shortly when I have a few minutes. Just didn't want you to think I'm ignoring this.Thx.
See, I've learned something new already.
Ok
ok. I am typing on my iPhone right now so I can't get too detailed, but look forward to digging deeper on this.
Well, yes. I heard a mid-acts guy try to explain away peters mentioning of being born again by saying he was talking of the nation of Israel.
I guess it is just one of the mid-acts statements that has stuck with me. I am under the impression that you don't believe the Jews were sealed and they were in fact not born again. Am I correct there? What is your take on peters statement?
Randy,I will not debate you in this thread, Jerry. Sorry. I'm happy to respond to your position in another thread, though.
Choleric, you might be interested in the teaching on this subject by one of the leaders of the Neo-MAD crowd. Paul Sadler, the President of the Berean Bible Society (the largest organization that promotes the Neo-Mad view) first says that the Jews who lived prior to this dispensation had to do works in order to be saved:Well, yes. I heard a mid-acts guy try to explain away peters mentioning of being born again by saying he was talking of the nation of Israel.
Randy,
I now have the other thread set up. It is entitled "Neo-MAD and John 5:24."
I am looking forward to your response.
In His grace,
Jerry
Hey bro.
I've told others before that the only thing DEMANDED by the MidActs position is to believe that the dispensation of the grace of God could not have been instituted before Paul came on the scene (in "mid-acts"). So that's why we're called MidActs Dispensationalists. I believe that many things should fall in line when one believes that, but it's obvious that there are disagreements within our camp. Some MidActs'er believe in tongues today (not many, but some do). We can differ on when that dispensation began (Acts 9, 11, 13). Etc. So Jerry, like many of us, is "mid-acts" for that reason.
I BELIEVE Jerry sees it that way. Correct me if I'm wrong, Jerry. I don't mean to step on toes.
Randy
Choleric, as I said earlier my understanding agrees with what might be called orthodox Mid Acts dispensationalism. What Randy teaches (and I call Neo-MAD) is not the same teaching that the original Mid Acts dispensationalists taught.
The orthodox or original poistion is that the present dispensation began at Acts 13 when Paul began to fulfill His stewardship to preach the "gospel of grace." Here are three quotes from the pen of Paul where he speaks of a "dispensation" that has been committed or given to him:
"If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me toward you" (Eph. 3:2).
"Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God" (Col.1:25).
"...a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me" (1 Cor.9:17).
The "dispensation" which was committed to Paul is in regard to "God's grace", a "ministry", and a "gospel." Here Paul sums up his dispensational responsibiblity:
"But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20: 24).
The Neo-MAD people define the beginning of the present dispensation by saying that Paul was the first member in the Body of Christ so therefore the present dispensation began at Acts 9 when Paul was converted. However, their evidence is tenuous at best and there is nothing that even hints that the beginning of the Body of Christ is the same thing as the beginning of the dfispensation of grace.
The defining point is that if we are going to know our dispensational responsibility then we certainly should know when the present dispensation began. It is a serious mistake to take responsibilities and principles from the previous dispensation and apply those things to this dispensation.
For instance, if we mistakenly begin the present dispensation on the day of Pentecost then we will mistakenly make the following principles apply for today:
"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover" (Mk.16:17-19).
If we mistakenly begin the present dispensation on the day of Pentecost and preach the gospel that was preached then we will be preaching a gospel that is centered on the identity of Jesus--that He is the Christ, the Son of God. Instead, we should be preaching a gospel that is centered on the "purpose" of His death--that He died for our sins.
These things are very important to understand if we are to be faithful servants of the Lord.
In His grace,
Jerry
What does "born again" mean? Because the phrase has so permeated Christendom, then it has a connotation that has become the definition and a synonym to the word "saved" or something like that. But what is the biblical definition of "born again"? Is there a single biblical definition?Well, yes. I heard a mid-acts guy try to explain away peters mentioning of being born again by saying he was talking of the nation of Israel.
I guess it is just one of the mid-acts statements that has stuck with me. I am under the impression that you don't believe the Jews were sealed and they were in fact not born again. Am I correct there? What is your take on peters statement?
Choleric, as I said earlier my understanding agrees with what might be called orthodox Mid Acts dispensationalism. What Randy teaches (and I call Neo-MAD) is not the same teaching that the original Mid Acts dispensationalists taught....These things are very important to understand if we are to be faithful servants of the Lord.
In His grace,
Jerry