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)
As you can see the chopping up of the Bible is underway. This tries to make something out of the previous distinction. Now it is personified in Peter and Paul and this helps preserve some 2P2P because Peter is trying to get Israel to accept a kingdom while Paul is unaware of that.
No, and no. A careful look at Act 2-3 and Acts 13 as samples of the earliest work of each shows a high level of unity. The promises are to all nations and the promise is forgiveness or justification in Christ. They are both interested in mission to the nations. Peter knows his listeners will go back 'to every nation under heaven' and he wants them to hear the core Gospel doctrines. Paul is already underway in that mission and it is slow-to-believe Jews who wear him down. He teaches (in follow up to his Acts 13 sermon), that believers become the light of Messiah by preaching Him, thus joining in Christ in the fulfillment of that passage from Isaiah.
I don't think the prophecy vs mystery message is much of a distinction at all. Not when Paul says the mystery can be found in the prophets if you look at them in Christ! But it is not a difference worth mentioning when contrasting Acts 2-3 and Acts 13.
Now, later, for Peter, is another matter. He goes through his capitulation that alienates Gentiles and is rebuked by God and Paul for it.
The events book of Acts (like Peter's actions) should not be used for grounding doctrines because they are human events. However, there are some passages of teaching which are ground for solid doctrine.
– 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)
As you can see the chopping up of the Bible is underway. This tries to make something out of the previous distinction. Now it is personified in Peter and Paul and this helps preserve some 2P2P because Peter is trying to get Israel to accept a kingdom while Paul is unaware of that.
No, and no. A careful look at Act 2-3 and Acts 13 as samples of the earliest work of each shows a high level of unity. The promises are to all nations and the promise is forgiveness or justification in Christ. They are both interested in mission to the nations. Peter knows his listeners will go back 'to every nation under heaven' and he wants them to hear the core Gospel doctrines. Paul is already underway in that mission and it is slow-to-believe Jews who wear him down. He teaches (in follow up to his Acts 13 sermon), that believers become the light of Messiah by preaching Him, thus joining in Christ in the fulfillment of that passage from Isaiah.
I don't think the prophecy vs mystery message is much of a distinction at all. Not when Paul says the mystery can be found in the prophets if you look at them in Christ! But it is not a difference worth mentioning when contrasting Acts 2-3 and Acts 13.
Now, later, for Peter, is another matter. He goes through his capitulation that alienates Gentiles and is rebuked by God and Paul for it.
The events book of Acts (like Peter's actions) should not be used for grounding doctrines because they are human events. However, there are some passages of teaching which are ground for solid doctrine.
