ECT WHY THE PHRASE " MID-ACTS " ???

Nick M

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Danoh said:
That's about it, Nick. Simply and perfectly put.

Would that it settle this.

But "that" is not what "this" is about for some - neurosis never is.
Click to expand...

To be clear, others in the Bible had righteousness imputed to them. But they are not in the body. They can't be, as Paul said he was first.

Even the criminal on the cross, who I will point out was not his enemy, was declared righteous and went to paradise.
 
musterion

musterion

Well-known member
DAN P said:
Hi to all and I use to call myself Mid-Acts , long ago !!

And some Grace assemblies use this Phrase , why ?

Many Acts 9 people have Capitulated , there by allowing all those that are Acts 2 so-called dispensationalist , Acts 11 and Acts 13 and Acts 28 people a place to worship .

Our assembly at one time had Acts 2 , 9 , 13 , and 28 at our assembly and all Mid-Acts , is an Umbrella , for all the above .
Click to expand...

Hypothetical: if those involved have dispensational disagreements BUT all are in clear, solid agreement on the Gospel, should that count for anything as far as fellowship is concerned? Or is that overridden by their disp. disagreements?

Honest question, not a setup.
 
D

Danoh

New member
musterion said:
Hypothetical: if those involved have dispensational disagreements BUT all are in clear, solid agreement on the Gospel, should that count for anything as far as fellowship is concerned? Or is that overridden by their disp. disagreements?

Honest question, not a setup.
Click to expand...

2 Corinthians 2:

2. But I beseech you, that I may not be bold when I am present with that confidence, wherewith I think to be bold against some, which think of us as if we walked according to the flesh.
3. For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
4. [or the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;]
5. Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Obviously, it is one thing to stand one's ground against what one understands is off.

And then there is the following issue.

I've known several Madists over the years on a personal level who were rabid in their "that's not for us!"

I've also known other "religionists" like that. We all have, MAD or otherwise.

Those who appear to live to turn every conversation into a means of their lording it over others - a conversation, say, for example, about politics, or when the new mega mall was going up, or who won what sports match, you name it.

These individuals will somehow weasel it into "brother, what is your take on such and such passage in Scripture, " and or "Of, course we know that such and such passage in Scripture says..."

Next thing you know, their favorite fight is on; brother against brother - their "That's not for us" actually their "Let's get it on!"

Having known some of these types first hand. Having observed them just in general, what I've observed is that the truth of a matter is not really what they are after.

Digging deeper, you find they were like that before they "discovered the truth."

In fact, their kind are found within all kinds of groups - "you're a moron; Mike Tyson would beat Batman. Man are you slow; everyone knows the Mob was behind this, that, the other. What, man, get a grip, you idiot; King James would slaughter Michael Jordan!"

And on and on it goes...

Such individuals are attracted to "the truth" only for what mileage they might get out of it as to their desperate need to pick a fight with others, out of some inner struggle with what is actually their own straight jacket.

As Paul told the Corinthians "Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels" 2 Cor. 6:12.

He related their issue was from within; that they were looking at, and deciding on behavior as to same through the lens of what was really emotional baggage of the fleshly mind that they had not allowed themselves to believe that Christ long ago solved for by His obedience to the Cross - its settled - the inner issue is moot; don't allow yourself to buy into how you used to look at things.
 
musterion

musterion

Well-known member
Thank you for that but I don't see an answer to my question re: fellowship. Perhaps I'm overlooking it. Please clarify?
 
patrick jane

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
rainee said:
This is me being somewhat a downer again.
First, making the points MAD's have made has been really good for the sake of stimulating thought and seeking to grow spiritually, imho. But if the points, as good as they are, further divide the body of believers rather than causing common growth - then what good is that?
Click to expand...

in case you haven't noticed the BOC has been divided for 2000 years.
if it's a system, nobody told me - it really is RIGHTLY dividing the word of truth -

2 Timothy 2:15 KJV -
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
We should empathize instead. Weep with those who weep; rejoice with those who rejoice. Don't make our system a test of going further. If we do agree that Christ alone justifies us from sin, we have plenty for going further. But if we do find a doctrine that is way out, we have to deal with it.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
patrick jane said:
in case you haven't noticed the BOC has been divided for 2000 years.
if it's a system, nobody told me - it really is RIGHTLY dividing the word of truth -

2 Timothy 2:15 KJV -
Click to expand...


Rightly dividing never had to do with theology systems. Read the paragraph for yourself, it's about the different skill sets of a leader.
 
D

Danoh

New member
musterion said:
Hypothetical: if those involved have dispensational disagreements BUT all are in clear, solid agreement on the Gospel, should that count for anything as far as fellowship is concerned? Or is that overridden by their disp. disagreements?

Honest question, not a setup.
Click to expand...

Lol, that was bit wordy :rotfl:

Galatians 6:

10. As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.

As with anything in life, what will allow for the making for that good where strife might other wise rule, is an understanding of what makes for either of those.

The ever keeping in one's mind the understanding of 2 Corinthians 10's "though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
4. [For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;]
5. Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Doctrine beyond "well, Christ died for their sins, too" has to be there, as well.

And that is when at least that much - the Cross alone - is even there.

But even when the Cross alone is not an issue, nevertheless some of the other doctrinal issues have to be there as well, due to their impact on "instruction in righteousness," 2 Tim. 3:16-17.
 
D

Danoh

New member
Interplanner said:
It is hard to have fellowship with system people. They need to keep their system intact foremost.
Click to expand...

Spoken like one truly bound by his own system.

Only when one's system is such, or they make it such, does it bind them to same in a negatively binding way.

The "need to" avoid cracks on a sidewalk, no matter their size, is "not normal."

While "the need to" avoid very huge cracks is... normal.

I view your 70AD based theology as that gaping hole in some aspects.

You view Mid-Acts as a gaping hole, period.

I know your history based view.

Because I look at most things in life from a systems approach - how their pieces work together to form their whole.

You, on the other hand, can't be bothered with Mid-Acts other than to post some sound bite against it.

Who is actually the system bound person.

Fact is, you are off-base, as usual.

You confuse systems with that inward "system" that, though each person uniquely brings to the table, at the same time, built into the inner system of some, is a need to bind all it latches onto to its own bondage.

Try dropping your "one size fits all" lens.

Systems are neither good, nor bad - its the systemic underpinnings within each individual that either turns other systems into the good or bad, or what other label some care to be bound by.
 
Last edited:
patrick jane

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
Interplanner said:
We should empathize instead. Weep with those who weep; rejoice with those who rejoice. Don't make our system a test of going further. If we do agree that Christ alone justifies us from sin, we have plenty for going further. But if we do find a doctrine that is way out, we have to deal with it.
Click to expand...

you really have no clue. we empathize. we do do that.

who is we, and what doctrine is "way out" ? I know who WE are, who is your WE ? who's on first -

you just pop in and start TRYING to correct people and you're wrong to start. you don't make sense IMO. I on the other hand, am always perfectly clear . . . right guys ? what do WE think ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top