You're actually the type of person this thread is for, my friend. It matters not to me that you disagree with the overall MidActs position. You're interested in hearing why we believe what we believe, and you're not hostile in your disagreement. So you can hang around as long as you like. :up:Well, I am genuinely interested. To be fair, I am not one who would agree with MAD, and as you probably know, I can be very dogmatic :angel:
This seems to be common misconception. We're often looked at as attempting to reconcile seemingly differing passages, and supposedly the way we've found to do that is to separate Heb-Rev from Paul's letters. But that's not our approach at all. We don't start with an apparent contradiction and then try to figure out how to reconcile it. We start with the author and his commission, if we are able to know that information (which we can without a doubt about Peter, James, and John). Then we look at the content. A good test is: if the scriptures excluded Acts through Philemon, what would a person then think about Heb-Rev? I don't see how it's possible for anyone to deduce salvation by grace through faith from them. Looking at them this way, there's a harmony with the gospel accounts, prophecy, and the overall promises to Israel.That being said, I don't see why we have to separate the pauline epistles from Hebrews through Revelation. I understand that much of the gospels (matthew particularly) and revelation deal a great deal with the coming kingdom of heaven on earth and I understand the dispensational nature of those.
So we start with that, then we evaluate the differences. And for the most part, where we see differences, we simply recognize and accept that it's because of the different audiences and promises pertaining to those audiences.
I understand James seems to contradict Romans, but I don't really have any problem reconciling the two. Peter speaks of being born (1 Pe 1:23) again, and I don't have any issue with believing him. I will admit that the one book in the bible I have not spent much time studying is Acts. I am open to correction and appreciate you taking the time to explain what you see as my error in interpretation. :thumb:
Are you asking me (or one of us) to give my take on Peter's "born again"? Fire away with a specific question, and we'll have fun working through it.
Thanks for your interest, choleric. Good to see you around.
Randy