Post "Plot" Questions?
- Thread starter truthteller86
- Start date
- Status
This is an issue that has been hotly debated between Acts 9 Dispensationalists. Many say that it is in Acts 7 at the stoning of Steven that Israel was cut off. They say that Christ "standing at the right hand of the Father.." is indicative of pending judgment. And while this is probably by far the most popular position, I'm not completely convinced that this is correct because it would seem that if that were the case, then the world would be left without a covenent from the time Steven was stoned in Acts 7 to the time of Paul's conversion in Acts 9. It seems to me that the cutting off of Israel would have to have been practically simultanious with the beginning of the Dispensation of Grace. I place that event at Acts 9:1-2...dale said:
Acts 9: 1 Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
This detail is included immidiately before Saul's Damscus road confrontation with the glorified Savior and it seems plausible to me to take this event as the straw that broke the camels back because here we have Saul being officially commissioned to arrest followers of the risen Messiah and bring them back to Jerusalem almost certainly to be killed. This is the first mention of Christ's direct intervention and Paul was definately the first saved by grace alone through faith alone totally apart from the works of the law (I Timothy 1:16).
One thing we can know for certain. Israel was cut off no earlier than Acts 7:60 nor later than Acts 9:18. Steven's address in Acts 7 would not have made any sence in the Dispensation of Grace and the conversion of Paul in Acts 9 would be completely out of place during the Dispensation of Circumcision.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited by a moderator:
You're welcome. I happen to be going through a study on Acts 5-8 right now and so this stuff is fresh in my mind. It would seem that I need to modify my last comment about Israel having been cut off no earlier the the close of Chapter 7 because in chapter 8 we have Philip preaching to the Ethiopian Eununch who was thereby saved. So the covanent message preached by Philip had to still be in effect right up until the close of Chapter 8. I'd say that narrows the timing down quite a bit, wouldn't you?dale said:
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited by a moderator:
.... I'd say that norrows the timing down quite a bit, wouldn't you?
I am way too new to this train of thought to be making those kinds of assessments.
Another couple questions if you don't mind? :sinapisN:
1. Is the Old Covenant the same as the Covenant of Circumcision?
2. Did the close of the Old Covenant happen when Israel was cut off?
3. Did the New Covenant start immediately after the Old, or could there have been some overlapping?
Thanks in advance...
The three questions are very much related and the answer not as straight forward as one might expect.dale said:
The answer to question one is yes. The Old Covenant is identical to the Covenant of Circumcision. Questions two and three miss a detail that makes for confusion. Israel had a new covenant which was initiated as of the death and resurrection of Christ. That is to say that at that point the gospel changed. It had been simply "Repent and follow the law for the Kingdom is near.", which was the message preached by John the Baptist's and Jesus. But after the resurrection and especially after the Spirit was given at Pentecost, the message was not only repent and follow the law but also to call on the Lord Jesus for salvation (See Philips message in Acts 8).
Now it was this New Covenant, which was based on the acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah, that Israel rejected, causing them to be cut off as a nation. And it was this New Covenant (which was simply a modification of the old, by the way) that was put on old as of Acts 9 when God began an entirely new work (i.e. another "New Covenant" if you will) with the conversion of Saul by grace alone through faith alone. Faith in what? Faith in the death and resurrection of Christ; the very same foundation upon which Israel's New Covenant has been established upon. Indeed, as you well know, the death and resurrection of Christ is the central point upon which the entire plan of salvation hinges for any people, any where, at any time.
And yes, there was some overlap. The callings of God are irrevocable and so once you entered into covenant relationship with God, you remained under that covenant until your death. So, Peter, James and John and their converts were saved under the law and so they remained under the law until their physical deaths. So there were two groups of believers coexisting together in the first and second centuries, which understandably caused some significant confusion. This was the purpose of the Jerusalem counsel where the twelve struck a deal with Paul agreeing that they would go to the circumcision and Paul to the uncircumcision.
Galatians 2:7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Peter, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited:
Freak
New member
I think the guy believes this is true.Redfin said:
I think he was merely making an observation, that's all. For example: We know from the truth of God's Word that peace is available to those who call upon Jesus. We also know from observation that believers exhibit inner peace. By stating such I'm not placing my experience (observation) above the truth. No, but rather, I am merely making an observation. That's all.
Word + experience...they are not mutually exclusive...the Bible is an historical narrative of man's experiences with God. It is not just a systematic theology text book. It is both/and, not either/or.
All Word, no Spirit= dry up
All Spirit, no Word= blow up
Word + Spirit= grow up
(trite, but some truth)
All Word, no Spirit= dry up
All Spirit, no Word= blow up
Word + Spirit= grow up
(trite, but some truth)
Then you equate experience as a test for truth along with the Bible. It seems that according to you that any Biblical truth that does not have a corresponding experience(where applicable) is falsified and vise versa. Is this what you believe?godrulz said:
Resting in Him,
Clete
I think I need to get his 1Cor series as well. I'm just about finished with The Plot and I noticed he barely touches the tongues issue.truthteller86 said:Thanks Brandon. I called KGOV today to make a pledge (I encourage others to do the same, as they are a little behind on their annual radiothon) and Bob happened to answer the phone. Since it's rare that I get to speak with him direct (and I know how busy he is), I decided to mention this thread I started. He said he addressed this issue in detail in his series on 1 Corinthians. Out of his sheer generosity and concern for me, he offered to send me this series right away. I already subscribe to the monthly Bible studes, so this is going to be a bonus for me
It does say there will be a chapter on it in the future, but then again it says The Script is due out around 2004. Anyone know if that's still being worked on?
Where it says "audiotape" does that mean one of those antique cassette tape things I last used in the early 90's? :shocked:
Clete said:
No sir. I criticize Mormons for having a subjective apologetic. They think if they pray about the Book of Mormon and get fuzzy feelings that it must be true. I counter that the objective, written revelation from God (properly translated and interpreted) is the standard for truth.
Experiences are very subjective. Sincerity does not create truth.
Other religions can experience peace, purpose, love, etc. It is a counterfeit to the real thing.
Practice or experience can flow out of the Word. If the Word says that we will experience power to be a witness when we are filled with the Spirit, then dynamic Christianity says that it is not just an abstract theory on paper. There can be a corresponding experience in reality (cf. joy in Philippians; love in John, etc.), but it must be consistent with objective revelation. Knowing God is not just an academic, intellectual pursuit. We can sense His presence, intimacy, love, joy, peace, power, etc. Just because these could be fleshly at times or a demonic counterfeit (Satanists feel supernatural power) does not mean that are relationship with God does not have an experiential component with a solid doctrinal/truth foundation.
Yes it is still being worked on (as far as I know). And Bob did finally move into the modern era by making The Plot Seminar series available on mp3 cd's. :thumb:Lucky said:I think I need to get his 1Cor series as well. I'm just about finished with The Plot and I noticed he barely touches the tongues issue.
Redfin
New member
Freak said:
Yes, but in the context of an argument about tongues for instance, that chain of thought would be begging the question. Obviously, we don't all know from God's Word that miraculous gifts are still available today.
Godrulz makes his claim without backing it up, merely referring to a pentecostal/charismatic hermeneutic. He then turns immediately to the experience of millions of pentecostals, which from my perspective, contradicts his "experience vs. the Word "principle.
In his shoes, (and especially in light of his "experience" statement) I would've skipped the experience element altogether, and explicated the hermeneutic.
Redfin said:
Elsewhere, I have made the case against cessation of gifts from Scripture. The 1 Cor. 13 proof text is not about the closing of the canon. Those who negate gifts for today do not have a strong exegetical basis. There is nothing in the NT to indicate that the gifts are not a normative part of Church life. They are a pattern for the church in all ages until proven otherwise (I Cor. 12-14 is about the use and misuse of gifts in church, not about their supposed cessation). The burden of proof, in light of Scripture and experience (the icing on the cake), is on those who deny that the supernatural God has reverted to natural means (even though Satan still moves in the supernatural). We are in a spiritual warfare. He has not left us without the power of the Spirit and His tools.
Freak
New member
I'll make this easy.Redfin said:
In Paul's letter to the church in Corinth, he writes, "Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines."
This was given to the church. Believers are members of the church (His body) and thus we receive gifts as determined by the persons of the Holy Trinity. Are you a member of the church? If you are, then you will receive a spiritual gift, some are given the gift of healing, and some other miraculous powers. Therefore miracles still occur as some have this gift.
- Status