Theology Club: The Beginning of the Present Dispensation Was at Acts 13

[DAN P]

So? That does not even come close to proving that the present dispensation did not begin at Acts 13.

What do you think that Paul's dispensational responsibility was?

Hi and Paul was SEPARATED /AHRIZO to the Gospel of God in Rom 1:1 as APHRIZO /SEPARATED is in the Greek Perfect Tense , Passive Voice and in the Indicative Mood of the written FACT of Rom 1:1 !!

The Greek Perfect Tense means that when Paul was separated , his salvation his ministry began , so much for Acts 13 !!

Then spent approximately 3 years of teaching by Christ himself Gal 1:15-20 !!

We see that in Gal 1:23 that Paul was preaching the Grace message and I believe that Galatians was the FIRST book written by Paul !!

We see from Gal 1:23 that Paul WAS ALREADY preaching the Grace of God , which is irrefutable !!

#1 , Paul was the FIRST / PROTO saved by Grace !! ACTS 9:6 !!

#2 , Paul was the was the PATTERN for salvation , 1 Tim 1:15 and 16 !!

#3 , Paul was the FIRST /PROTO receive the Power of the Holy Spirit in 1 Cor 12:3 at salvation !!

#4 , Paul was the FIRST / PROTO in the Body of Christ 1 Cor 12:13 !!



And none of these things appear in Acts 13 , so follow Paul 1 Cor 11:1 !!

dan p

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Hi and Paul was SEPARATED /AHRIZO to the Gospel of God in Rom 1:1 as APHRIZO /SEPARATED is in the Greek Perfect Tense , Passive Voice and in the Indicative Mood of the written FACT of Rom 1:1 !!

The Greek Perfect Tense means that when Paul was separated , his salvation his ministry began , so much for Acts 13 !!

The word "separated" is in the "passive" voice and this is what we read about that:

"The passive voice represents the subject as being the recipient of the action. E.g., in the sentence, "The boy was hit by the ball," the boy receives the action." (The Blue Letter Bible).​

Paul was the recipient of the action of being separated but that does not mean that his ministry began then. In fact, the separation is spoken of here and it is obvious that he did not begin his ministry when he was separated from his mother's womb:

"But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen" (Gal.1:15-16).​

 

[DAN P]

The word "separated" is in the "passive" voice and this is what we read about that:

"The passive voice represents the subject as being the recipient of the action. E.g., in the sentence, "The boy was hit by the ball," the boy receives the action." (The Blue Letter Bible).​

Paul was the recipient of the action of being separated but that does not mean that his ministry began then. In fact, the separation is spoken of here and it is obvious that he did not begin his ministry when he was separated from his mother's womb:

"But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen" (Gal.1:15-16).​

The Greek word APHRIZO is a transliterated word and can also be translated " Separated , Limited and Boundrys and the Perfect Tense said this , Having been APRORIZO " also Passive Voice and Participle , which is the word " HAVING " ending in " ing ."

This means that Paul could never be preaching the Kingdom message EVER !!

Can to you say how Paul was saved in Acts 9:6 ??

The message of Grace HAD to begin with a person , Paul and that was NOT Acts 13 as Paul was already saved and taught the message by Christ Himself BEFORE Acts 13 !!

dan p

 

[Danoh]

The word "separated" is in the "passive" voice and this is what we read about that:

"The passive voice represents the subject as being the recipient of the action. E.g., in the sentence, "The boy was hit by the ball," the boy receives the action." (The Blue Letter Bible).​

Paul was the recipient of the action of being separated but that does not mean that his ministry began then. In fact, the separation is spoken of here and it is obvious that he did not begin his ministry when he was separated from his mother's womb:

"But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen" (Gal.1:15-16).​

"Mother's womb" at times refers to Israel; at other times to Jerusalem.

To quote our precious sis, Tambora "this is fun."

This checking the know it all.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

This means that Paul could never be preaching the Kingdom message EVER !!

So what message did Paul preach when he went to the synagogues of the Jews?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

"Mother's womb" at times refers to Israel; at other times to Jerusalem.

To quote our precious sis, Tambora "this is fun."

Then give me one example where it is used that way.

 

[Danoh]

Then give me one example where it is used that way.

Put your books down - get in the Word; know it all.

Either that, or wait until you try my patience and I post them, to your shame, once more.

Not that you have any that would allow you to see when you are off-off-off :bang:

 

[Clete]

It matters because if you are going to say that the present dispensation began at Acts 9 you should be able to show why you think that.

Or do you not want to follow Paul when he said that he "kept back nothing that was profitable unto you" and "I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God" (Acts 20:20, 27).

So can I take this meaningless response to mean that you know the answer but aren't going to tell it to us?

Or is it that you can't answer the question because you don't know what difference it makes?

In case you misunderstood the question, I'll rephrase once again...

What are the doctrinal differences between Acts 9 Dispensationalism and Act 13 Dispensationalism?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

So can I take this meaningless response to mean that you know the answer but aren't going to tell it to us?

It is your question here which is meaningless:

I'm wonder what difference it makes.

If a person claims that he knows when the present dispensation began then he should be able to explain why he believes that.

Otherwise, he will lose all credibility in regard to the subject and look foolish.

 

[Clete]

It is your question here which is meaningless:



If a person claims that he knows when the present dispensation began then he should be able to explain why he believes that.

Otherwise, he will lose all credibility in regard to the subject and look foolish.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I AM ASKING!!!!!

I agree that one should be ready to give an answer to defend what they believe, okay? I never suggested otherwise. I am asking you an honest question that I do not know the answer too....

What's the difference between Acts 9 Dispensationalism and Acts 13 Dispensationalism from a doctrinal perspective? What, besides the timing of the dispensation change, does an Acts 9 person believe that an Act 13 person doesn't and vise versa?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Incidentally, the definitive defense and biblical establishment of Acts 9 Dispensationalism is HERE.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Incidentally, the definitive defense and biblical establishment of Acts 9 Dispensationalism is HERE.

I did not see any discussion of what the dispensational responsibility is in the present dispensation and until that dispensational responsibility is exercised it is impossible to know when the present dispensation began.

So I cannot see that Bob Enyart gave any evidence at all that the present dispensation began at Acts 9.

On the other hand, in my OP I did reveal what all those things are and concluded that the present dispensation began at Acts 13.

What's the difference between Acts 9 Dispensationalism and Acts 13 Dispensationalism from a doctrinal perspective? What, besides the timing of the dispensation change, does an Acts 9 person believe that an Act 13 person doesn't and vise versa?

If you place the beginning of the present dispensation at Acts 9 then one must conclude that Paul was exercising his new stewardship responsibility here:

"And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God...proving that this is the very Christ" (Acts 9:20,22).​

 

[Danoh]

Incidentally, the definitive defense and biblical establishment of Acts 9 Dispensationalism is HERE.

Should be an interesting read.

And, I'm sure I will find holes in it, lol.

Just bustin your chops.

 

[Clete]

I did not see any discussion of what the dispensational responsibility is in the present dispensation and until that dispensational responsibility is exercised it is impossible to know when the present dispensation began.

So I cannot see that Bob Enyart gave any evidence at all that the present dispensation began at Acts 9.

On the other hand, in my OP I did reveal what all those things are and concluded that the present dispensation began at Acts 13.

That was only chapter one, silly!

Why won't you answer my question? I really want to know!

 

[Clete]

If you place the beginning of the present dispensation at Acts 9 then one must conclude that Paul was exercising his new stewardship responsibility here:

"And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God...proving that this is the very Christ" (Acts 9:20,22).​

So what?

Is that it? That's the whole difference? If I went to an Act 13 church instead of an Acts 9 the only thing different in their teachings would be that Paul didn't preach the gospel of grace in Jewish synagogues?

 

[Clete]

Should be an interesting read.

And, I'm sure I will find holes in it, lol.

Just bustin your chops.

Now that would make for a really great thread!

 

[Danoh]

So what?

Is that it? That's the whole difference? If I went to an Act 13 church instead of an Acts 9 the only thing different in their teachings would be that Paul didn't preach the gospel of grace in Jewish synagogues?

Lol

 

[Jerry Shugart]

So what?

Is that it?

Isn't that enough?

Do you want others to think that this is the dispensational responsibility of which Paul speaks of at 1 Corinthians 9:17?:

"And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God...proving that this is the very Christ" (Acts 9:20,22).​

Why not get it right and avoid all the confusion?

 

[Danoh]

Never mind that even to this very day, that is the very issue one would have to address; where dealing with a Jew is concerned.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

The issue is much ado about nothing.

Paul was saved in Acts 9. He is our pattern. He and Barnabas were separated unto the ministry they were called in Acts 13.

9 or 13, ultimately it does not matter.