The Wonderful Dispensation of Grace

[lightninboy]

gracebeacon.net is still in business, and Jerry has two published articles on it which recently were listed on his TOL signature.

I posted links about Sir Robert Anderson in post #137.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1284415&highlight=Robert#post1284415

In post #117 I posted links to C.R. Stam’s Berean Bible Society, which features the J.C. O’Hair Online Library.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1281810&highlight=view#post1281810

I especially found the debate between J.C. O’Hair and John R. Rice and M.R. De Haan interesting, as I respect those two great Acts 2 Dispensationalism teachers.

Clete says Jerry is whistling Dixie and I agree with Clete.
Why start MAD churches that teach O.T. salvation by grace when there are already Acts 2 Dispensationalism churches that teach O.T. salvation by grace?
Jerry says the Dispensation of Grace started in Acts 9.
Salvation has always been by grace.
The Church Age started in Acts 2.

 

[godrulz]

Hey Godrulz,

I know you have your share of scriptural evidence for your view of an anti-MAD perspective.

I remember debating you a little in other threads about this issue and others that relate to it. I believe the main reason you reject mid acts dispensation is because of your Pentecostal background.

Mid Acts believers have a few attributes that are contrary to that denomination. The main one that sticks out to me is the faith healing / miracles aspect that mid act'ers reject and pentecostals cling to.

When I think of dispensational, Mid-Acts issues, Pentecostal issues are not even on my radar. I reject Mid-Acts because I think it is unbiblical in its assumptions and that Acts 2 dispensationalism is closer to the truth. I could probably adopt much of Mid-Acts and retain Pentecostalism, so it really is not a factor in why I do not accept it. Ironside and others have given reasons why MAD is not biblical. I think the evidence and proof texts simply do not support its assumptions and conclusions, point by point. It is a minor implication that it does not support Pentecostalism (nor do many other dispensational views). They are unrelated issues, by and large. Charismata is not an essential Christian truth, so I do not bring it into consideration when determining what the historical narratives say in relation to God's dealing with His people over time.

I simply see that there is an Old and a New Covenant, not two NT gospels. Acts 15 deals with error during the transition period and brings clarity. It does not affirm a circumcision and uncircumcision gospel. It may deal with a false gospel of Judaizers, but this is not the same thing as your concept of a circumcision gospel.

Galatians 2 is not a proof text for two NT gospels. It simply affirms that the one gospel was taken to two target audiences by two ministries.

Pitting Jesus, Paul, James, John, Peter, etc. against each other after the death and resurrection of Christ is shoddy NT scholarship. Pauline thought is consistent with Johannine thought (based on taking college level courses on their biblical theologies): both are based on the teachings of the Master, Jesus Christ (who, yes, lived under law, but was introducing a New Covenant in His blood).

I trust my position is based on exegesis, not experiential Pentecostalism (which is biblical and consistent with sound exegesis!).

 

[godrulz]

I am not an expert on the variety of Mid-Acts dispensationalism views. In 25 years (with exposure to as many true and false Christian or non-Christian ideas as possible), I never ran across this minority view until TOL.

I see Christ and the Holy Spirit as pivotal, not the conversion and ministry of Paul (as core and important as that is!). I think Mid-Acts underestimates what happened on the cross, resurrection, and Pentecost. This period of grace and power set things in motion whether Paul would ever be converted or not. The transitional period from Old to New Covenant in the early church was not perfect, but the Spirit led even to its culmination in Paul, apostle to the Gentiles.

Paul wanted to preach to Jews, but he was the last person that they would listen to. His vocation was providentially led to expand the one gospel to the Gentiles. This should not be seen as the inauguration of the gospel of grace which predated his conversion.

Paul points to Jesus! MAD points to Paul?! Jesus, John, Peter, etc. understood a Christocentric gospel of faith without works. Jesus Himself was full of grace and did not teach works (Jn. 1:12, 3:16, 36; 14:6, I Jn. 5:11-13). Paul also affirmed justification by faith alone, not works, even in the Old Covenant (Rom. 4; 5). Though faith was demonstrated differently in different dispensations, it does not mean that the grounds of salvation changed.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry says the Dispensation of Grace started in Acts 9.

Where did I ever say that?

You ignore what I said in regard why I do not believe that the Acts 2 dispensationalists are correct in regard to the very meaning of the words "dispensation of grace" and then you put words in my mouth that I never said!

No wonder that you can't find someone to debate you.

Salvation has always been by grace.
The Church Age started in Acts 2.

I never said that salvation has not always been by grace.

And the "church age" is not the same thing as the "dispensation of grace".One refers to a "body" while the other refers to a stewardship.

How do you expect to know anything about the present dispensation if you confuse a body of believers with a stewardship?

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[patman]

Pitting Jesus, Paul, James, John, Peter, etc. against each other after the death and resurrection of Christ is shoddy NT scholarship. Pauline thought is consistent with Johannine thought (based on taking college level courses on their biblical theologies): both are based on the teachings of the Master, Jesus Christ (who, yes, lived under law, but was introducing a New Covenant in His blood).

I trust my position is based on exegesis, not experiential Pentecostalism (which is biblical and consistent with sound exegesis!).

Fair enough. I am glad to hear you do embrace many aspects of it.

Calling it "pitting 'them' against each other" does make it sound bad... It was never my view that M.A.D. properly identifies the audience to which these people taught. The Bible, I thought, was clear that the 12 went to the Jews and Paul went to the Gentiles with the message of grace.

The gospel is the same in both, yes, but... you know. I will spare you the re-reading of all that.

But we are not being shoddy, it is an attempt to explain apparent contradictions in the NT that is better than anything else offers.

 

[Bob Hill]

Jerry,

You seem to be just one of a few who want to discuss the Word of God. I appreciate you very much.

This translation is OK, but I prefer an even more accurate one.
"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us" (i Peter lii. 21).

Here is mine. which antitype now also saves us, baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

You wrote:
The meaning of this text is made clear by a more literal rendering of the words. The following is based on Dean Alford’s Commentary: "Which (water, not baptism) the antitype (of the water of the Flood) now saves you also (as it saved Noah) even baptism."
I respect you and Alford, but we all write the wrong things at times. I think Alford had to make this say what he wanted it to say because he did not believe in baptismal regeneration.

His following explanation is even worse, in my opinion. Again, I have blundered on portions of scripture a countless number of times in my Christian life. So did Alford, here.
The Apostle’s teaching is that, as the water which engulfed the world bore up the Ark, Noah was saved from death by death, so also is the sinner who believes in Christ. For when united to Christ he becomes one with Him in death. It is the same truth as that of the sprinkled blood of the Passover in Egypt. This verse, therefore, is not a veiled reference to the pagan doctrine of baptism according to the Eleusinian mysteries, but plain teaching, which every Hebrew Christian would understand, that Noah’s Flood typified the death penalty upon sin, and Christian baptism symbolises union with Christ in His death on Calvary. (Anderson,Misunderstood Texts of the Bible,Chapter 9).


Bob,could I ask you a question now that I have answered yours?

Since Peter said that he was saved by grace just as are the Gentiles then how can you say that he could not be saved without doing works?

In His grace,--Jerry

Jerry, where does it say that “Peter said that he was saved by grace”? I just finished reading both of Peter’s epistles and I didn’t find that phrase.

Love in Christ,
Bob

 

[Bob Hill]

This is a great site. I like to discuss God's Word not be nasty to one another.

Bob

 

[Bob Hill]

I also enjoy discussing God's word with you guys. Thank you.

Now what do you think?

When God, the Son, came and talked to Abraham in Genesis 18:1, He appeared to Abraham as a man. The two angels went down to Sodom (18:16-19:1). What did Jehovah the Son do? The LORD [Jehovah] went His way as soon as He had finished speaking with Abraham” (18:33). “Then the LORD rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD out of the heavens” (19:24). Here, we have two manifestations of Jehovah at the same time. The first, Jehovah the Son, refers to the one who was seen by Abraham. He rained down brimstone and fire from Jehovah, the Father, out of heaven. The first Jehovah was actually seen by men! Jehovah the Son was seen.

But do we have the right to say this? Let’s look at this more carefully. In Philippians 2:6-8, it gives us information about the Son. “Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation,”

The word is ekenwse, literally, He emptied Himself. He emptied Himself of His non-moral attributes of deity such as omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence. We also see that He left the form of God and took upon Himself the form and attributes of a servant, and came in the likeness of man. But He still retained His moral attributes such as love, compassion, mercy, and repentance.

Continuing in verse 7, “taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.”

Notice, He was in the form of God. He was God. The form belonged to God. He then left that form and took another form. Yet, He was still God according to John 20:28, “And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” (ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou) It’s interesting that both Lord and God have the article here. Also, why didn’t Christ correct Thomas if he was wrong in calling Him God?

Considering the word “form” as found here, and in Genesis 1:26, He made man in the likeness of that form which belonged to God. He made “man in Our [plural] image, according to Our [plural] likeness.” This was the likeness or image that God (the Son) first created according to Colossians 1:15, “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” This image was also called, “the beginning of the creation of God” (Rev 3:14). He, God (as the Son), then indwelled this image that belonged to Him and created everything else (Col 1:16). Then, He made man in the likeness of this image.

When God was in this image, apparently man could see Him without fear of being destroyed. When it says that no one has ever seen God, we see from Scripture (John 6:46) that it means the Father can’t be seen. The Son shows and explains the Father (John 14:9; 1:18). All they could see of the invisible God (the Father) was shown in Jesus Christ the Son.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[godrulz]

Fair enough. I am glad to hear you do embrace many aspects of it.

Calling it "pitting 'them' against each other" does make it sound bad... It was never my view that M.A.D. properly identifies the audience to which these people taught. The Bible, I thought, was clear that the 12 went to the Jews and Paul went to the Gentiles with the message of grace.

The gospel is the same in both, yes, but... you know. I will spare you the re-reading of all that.

But we are not being shoddy, it is an attempt to explain apparent contradictions in the NT that is better than anything else offers.

I agree with some of the doctrinal resolutions of Enyart's 'The Plot', but feel other ones can be resolved with sound exegesis without a Mid-Acts filter.

Taking the gospel to the Americans vs to the Africans does not make it two diametrically opposed gospels.

 

[lightninboy]

Where did I ever say that?

I do not think that the "dispensation of grace" started at Acts 2.

I never said that salvation has not always been by grace.

elected4ever,

Of course you are correct.

And the "church age" is not the same thing as the "dispensation of grace".One refers to a "body" while the other refers to a stewardship.

The Church Age is an accepted term by Acts 2 Dispensationalists.

 

[lightninboy]

Hey, patman, want to debate?

Lighthouse hasn't replied.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The Church Age is an accepted term by Acts 2 Dispensationalists.

So what!

The Acts2 Dispensationalists do not even know the meaning of the "dispensation of grace".Why should they be the experts when it comes to defining a stewardship as a body of believers?

And why do you not address what I said about the mistake of Charles Ryrie?

If you want to debate the issue then now is your time.Do you want to defend Ryrie's idea?Now is the perfect time.Tell me why I am wrong in regard to the meaning I put on the words of Paul when he speaks of the "dispensation" which he was given.Show me Scriptual evidence to back up Ryrie's ideas.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry,

You seem to be just one of a few who want to discuss the Word of God. I appreciate you very much.

Thank you,Bob.

Jerry, where does it say that “Peter said that he was saved by grace”? I just finished reading both of Peter’s epistles and I didn’t find that phrase.

His words are recorded in the Acts:

"We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are" (Acts15:11;NIV).

Peter must have been a part of the "remnant" out of Israel,and here is what Paul says about that remnant:

"Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace" (Ro.11:5-6).

If Peter was saved by "grace" and a member of the remnant according to the election of "grace" then how can you say that he must do "works" in order to be saved?

This translation is OK, but I prefer an even more accurate one.
"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us" (i Peter lii. 21).

Here is mine. which antitype now also saves us, baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

The "type" is "water baptism" (the putting away of the filth of the flesh) while the "antitype" is the baptism by the Spirit where were are identified with both the life and death of the Lord Jesus in the Body of Christ:

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body...the Body of Christ" (1Cor.12:13,17).

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[lightninboy]

I like Ryrie.
Why wouldn't he be right?
Even if you are right, is it worth raising hell and turning Acts 2 Dispensationalism churches into Acts 9 Dispensationalism churches?

Please refute Jerry, godrulz.

 

[patman]

I agree with some of the doctrinal resolutions of Enyart's 'The Plot', but feel other ones can be resolved with sound exegesis without a Mid-Acts filter.

Taking the gospel to the Americans vs to the Africans does not make it two diametrically opposed gospels.

True. That statement was an incomplete thought. But it is the starting point, because when God 'cut off' the branches of Israel to graft on the Gentiles, it was good to give the new covenant then.

That with Paul talking about the mystery, Peter constantly insisting on practice of the law(Which Jesus taught), and many other things, the two audiences had two different messages. The Jews had the Forgiveness with the fulfilled law, the Gentiles Grace.

 

[godrulz]

I like Ryrie.
Why wouldn't he be right?
Even if you are right, is it worth raising hell and turning Acts 2 Dispensationalism churches into Acts 9 Dispensationalism churches?

Please refute Jerry, godrulz.

Jerry is hard to pin down. We agree on some discussion, but disagree on others. I do not understand his views, but they do not seem to be extreme Mid-Acts (Bullingerism).

I concur that the Holy Spirit birthed the Church (Age) in Acts 2 at Pentecost. This was the beginning of Jew and Gentile becoming one in Christ. It did not await the conversion of Paul who was called to take the message of Pentecost/Christ to the Gentiles primarily, instead of the Jews. Like I said, Paul pointed to Jesus; Mid-Acts points to Paul. The death, resurrection of Christ, and the giving of the Spirit to the Church at Pentecost are more pivotal than one man getting converted and being entrusted with the same gospel of grace that his fellow apostles were.

 

[patman]

Hey, patman, want to debate?

Lighthouse hasn't replied.

If you have a question for me, just ask away.

 

[lightninboy]

Yay, patman!

Does your MAD agree with Jerry Shugart or Bob Hill?

 

[godrulz]

Yay, patman!

Does your MAD agree with Jerry Shugart or Bob Hill?

There are a variety of Mid-Acts views. There is even division in their camp, not to mention the larger division and confusion it causes the Body of Christ.

It is not a self-evident truth from a straightforward reading of Scripture.

Ironside's refutation of Bullingerism works for me.

 

[Bob Hill]

Jerry wrote:

If Peter was saved by "grace" and a member of the remnant according to the election of "grace" then how can you say that he must do "works" in order to be saved?

Because Peter said it!

Acts 15:1-17 And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question. 3 So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, describing the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the brethren. 4 And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them. 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” 6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. 7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 “So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 “and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 “Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 “But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.” 12 Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles. 13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me: 14 “Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. 15 “And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written: 16 ‘After this I will return And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins, And I will set it up; 17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD, Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name, Says the LORD who does all these things.’

It says in Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

In Christ,
Bob Hill