Interplanner
Well-known member
Basic teachings of Mid Acts Dispensational right division
– Jesus, in his earthly ministry, ministered to the circumcision. (Rom 15:8, see here)
– [bold]The mystery of Christ was first revealed to Paul[/bold] (Col 1:25-26, 1 Tim 1:16, and here)
– Prophecy and mystery are different (Acts 3:19-21 vs Rom 16:25)
– Peter and Paul taught different messages (Peter prophecy, and Paul mystery: See here)
– Prophecy has been interrupted. (See here)
– The gospel of the kingdom is not the gospel of the grace of God (See here and here)
– Israel’s Church and the Church, the body of Christ, are different. (See here)
Item 2 is that the mystery of Christ was first given to Paul.
It was.
But defining the term mystery is not as complimentary to MAD as it thinks. In Eph 3, the mystery is that 'through the Gospel, the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, etc.'
It is this simple line that is not what MAD was thinking. They are thinking interjection, not merging. They are thinking that the 2nd P and P of 2P2P had to be introduced here because Israel did something wrong that has postponed the 1st. (I hope to deal sometime with the mistake of thinking the first plan is Israel, because if Genesis 1-11 is before ch 12, then Plan A or THE Plan was already there.
Heirs. No matter what we can find that the ethne Israel was supposed to inherit, we have to confine ourselves to the things in the passage that Paul says was inherited--the forgiveness of sins, the life in Christ through that, justification, eternal life, fellowship with all believers, etc. He had plenty of opportunity to talk about the theocracy, the land, etc., and never does.
But I haven't yet unpacked the phrase 'through the Gospel.' In the grammar, the weight of the whole sentence falls on this. In other words, it is not saying the mystery is that the Gentiles would be heirs with Israel; it is not saying the next phrase is the mystery either, etc (that the Gentiles would be members together of one body). All those things are in the prophets. The mystery's distinct item is that these are conferred through the Gospel.
I think I should stop there and say that the inheriting, the membership and the promise-sharing BY THEMSELVES through the whole message of Paul are in conflict with D'ism, and there is no recovering from it. Whether they are true in the Gospel or not, the fact they were explained to be what was to be enjoyed is totally different from D'ism. And they were said to be true in the Gospel.
We then also get to the fact that they are presently enjoyed! This is the vibrant Christian community; it is not a theology system with pockets of time mapped out and being told to people in no way related to the time when it would matter!
There is a tendency in D'ism to think that the Gospel writers had completely different ideas about these things. But need we bother with such theories when we have the complete teaching of Paul to organize it all? If you go down that road and try to construct different beliefs out of the other apostles, you might as well remove Paul from the NT. "The letters must interpret the gospel accounts"--as with several other interpretive rules (for ex., didactic over symbolic).
– Jesus, in his earthly ministry, ministered to the circumcision. (Rom 15:8, see here)
– [bold]The mystery of Christ was first revealed to Paul[/bold] (Col 1:25-26, 1 Tim 1:16, and here)
– Prophecy and mystery are different (Acts 3:19-21 vs Rom 16:25)
– Peter and Paul taught different messages (Peter prophecy, and Paul mystery: See here)
– Prophecy has been interrupted. (See here)
– The gospel of the kingdom is not the gospel of the grace of God (See here and here)
– Israel’s Church and the Church, the body of Christ, are different. (See here)
Item 2 is that the mystery of Christ was first given to Paul.
It was.
But defining the term mystery is not as complimentary to MAD as it thinks. In Eph 3, the mystery is that 'through the Gospel, the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, etc.'
It is this simple line that is not what MAD was thinking. They are thinking interjection, not merging. They are thinking that the 2nd P and P of 2P2P had to be introduced here because Israel did something wrong that has postponed the 1st. (I hope to deal sometime with the mistake of thinking the first plan is Israel, because if Genesis 1-11 is before ch 12, then Plan A or THE Plan was already there.
Heirs. No matter what we can find that the ethne Israel was supposed to inherit, we have to confine ourselves to the things in the passage that Paul says was inherited--the forgiveness of sins, the life in Christ through that, justification, eternal life, fellowship with all believers, etc. He had plenty of opportunity to talk about the theocracy, the land, etc., and never does.
But I haven't yet unpacked the phrase 'through the Gospel.' In the grammar, the weight of the whole sentence falls on this. In other words, it is not saying the mystery is that the Gentiles would be heirs with Israel; it is not saying the next phrase is the mystery either, etc (that the Gentiles would be members together of one body). All those things are in the prophets. The mystery's distinct item is that these are conferred through the Gospel.
I think I should stop there and say that the inheriting, the membership and the promise-sharing BY THEMSELVES through the whole message of Paul are in conflict with D'ism, and there is no recovering from it. Whether they are true in the Gospel or not, the fact they were explained to be what was to be enjoyed is totally different from D'ism. And they were said to be true in the Gospel.
We then also get to the fact that they are presently enjoyed! This is the vibrant Christian community; it is not a theology system with pockets of time mapped out and being told to people in no way related to the time when it would matter!
There is a tendency in D'ism to think that the Gospel writers had completely different ideas about these things. But need we bother with such theories when we have the complete teaching of Paul to organize it all? If you go down that road and try to construct different beliefs out of the other apostles, you might as well remove Paul from the NT. "The letters must interpret the gospel accounts"--as with several other interpretive rules (for ex., didactic over symbolic).
