Greetings to all who visit here and listen to this audio. This was an open study discussion examining what Mid Acts Dispensationalism is and what they believe concerning Peter and Paul and Jesus' gospel message for someone to be saved. In this discussion we examined: Did Paul preach a different gospel than what Jesus and Peter preached? Do Mid Acts Dispensationalists follow Paul in the way they say they do according to the Scriptures? Is the Mid Acts movement a Cult? Was the circumcision (Jews) and the uncircumcision (Gentiles) saved by faith or faith plus works? These were some of the main discussions in this live online study chat. This audio was a long one being just over 3 hours, so you might want to have some refreshments and snacks for energy to keep up with it. (smile) This was a great discussion where we had a huge room and lots of people sharing on the microphone and in text, even some Mid Acts people! Hope you enjoy this and let us know your thoughts on it, whether positive or negative.
Anti False Doctrine Superhero
Kelly Powers
12 comments:
Grabbing a snickers and listening to the 3hour audio...
LOL, why not get some Dr Pepper and some Pepperoni Pizza, it satisfies more!!!
KP
First I have to visit the local pizzeria to make sure that the sausage and pepperoni have not been sacrificed to idols and that the meat is from the brisket. You can never tell in these times...
:)
Mid Acts Dispensationalism Examined 9/27/07
I am still digesting the audio. In my previous Mid-Acts investigation, I recently was preparing a response to a Bereans website:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/3717/
I have not finished the reply for that particular site but thought I would share a few points I was working on. Although the reply is not completely finished, nor exhaustively researched I will post what I have. I will first answer Kelly’s questions according to what I have found thus far.
Kelly’s important topics for discussion would be:
*Do they have another gospel?
*Do they have another Jesus?
*Do Mid-Acts Dispy’s follow Paul in the way they say do according to scripture?
*Did Paul preach a different gospel than what Jesus and Peter preached?
*Salvation is the message universal amongst the teachings in the NT?
*Is the Mid Acts movement a cult?
Was the circumcision (Jews) and the un-circumcision (Gentiles) saved by faith or faith plus works?
Do they have another gospel?
Not necessarily because for the most part they do hold to the sine qua non:
Essential Objectivity:
1. Faith Alone
2. Christ’s Deity
3. Existence of God
4. Death, Burial, Resurrection of Christ
5. The Atonement
Non-Essential Objectivity:
1. Date of Christ’s coming
2. Views of Predestination
3. Young Earth / Old Earth YEC/OEC
4. Canon of Scripture (RCC vs. Protestant)
5. Continuation of tongues
Essentials for salvation [binds us together]:
1.The existence of God Heb. chapter 11
2.Belief in the atonement—that Christ came and died for your sins therefore placating the wrath of God. [not a heretical—ransom to Satan theory] Ransom to God—penal substitutionary theory of atonement—implied we are a sinner and atonement is needed.
3. 1 Corinthians 15:1—Christ was buried and raised on the third day [resurrection—the belief that he is alive today]. See 1 Corinthians 15:16
4.Sola Fidei—salvation by faith alone—not by works—but by grace.
5. Christ’s Deity. God’s only son. Rom 10:9, 13 (Joel 2:32 Paul is quoting from here—using YWHY as the trinity). Jesus is more than a man—more than a prophet. Jesus is not a created God. Jesus is equal to God the Father. Jesus is not less than the father. (non-subordinate) Col 1:15… is a stumbling block. Firstborn does not mean first in order—but means first in priority (pre-eminent). Christ is God.
If I am incorrect in this assumption, please correct me. (These are what I have listed on my index page for defendingchrist.org; note the incantation of a quasi-reformed view) I am not sure if some of them hold to faith alone, and most could be viewed as hard-cessationist.
Do they have another Jesus?
I would say, I hope not. Do they value the red letter text in the synoptic Gospels? I guess it depends on what branch of Mid-Acts they hold. If I am incorrect, please let me know. I have heard some make claims in Paltalk (not that Paltalk espouses theology proper) that if one holds to the red letter text they could be danger of entering the pit.
Do Mid-Acts Dispy’s follow Paul in the way they say do according to scripture?
From what I have heard on the counter-attack, they do not necessarily follow Paul in all accordance to scripture. This is open for discussion if anyone wants to begin with specifics.
Did Paul preach a different gospel than what Jesus and Peter preached?
The consensus so far is yes the Mid-Acts say so.
Salvation, is the message universal amongst the teachings in the NT?
Apparently, not because some Mid-Acts will say that Paul’s teachings are for the Church, despite Jesus telling Peter upon him he will build the rock, giving him the keys, and binding to heaven and earth. Is the salvation message different in Pauline text versus the synoptic? The Mid-Acts claim there is. The superfluity of scriptures disagrees with the Mid-Acts view; I think they were discussed in the Paltalk room.
Is the Mid Acts movement a cult?
I say not necessarily, unless of course they use the terminology/argument as the Church today is nothing more than tradition of blind-followers. To that I say, not all followers of Christ hold certain traditions to the same equivalency of scripture. Tradition is important and many creedal statements are tradition, just as scripture can be defined as tradition.
Could the Mid-Acts movement display the same idiosyncratic ideologies of a cult, to that I would say quite possibly. If they are telling us to leave the Church, then I concur they would be cultic in that entailment. To share a specific example, McBible or is that McLean, has a series of teachings on how to preach Mid-Acts dispensation to other denominations. Much like the JW camp, McBible used the sleight of hand technique about how the traditional Church teaches the animals entered the ark two by two. McBible stated they did not, but entered in by sevens.
Let’s compare:
Gen 6:19 You must bring into the ark two of every kind of living creature from all flesh, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 6:20 Of the birds after their kinds, and of the cattle after their kinds, and of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you so you can keep them alive.
Gen 7:2 You must take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, the male and its mate, two of every kind of unclean animal, the male and its mate, 7:3 and also seven of every kind of bird in the sky, male and female, to preserve their offspring on the face of the earth. 7:4 For in seven days I will cause it to rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the ground every living thing that I have made.” [Emphasis mine; NET Translation]
I have heard a number of JW use this same rhetoric to construct their prolegomena (intro) towards the incorrect traditional teachings of the Church. The seven animals discussed in Gen chapter 7 are seven pairs. For generative reasoning, the pairs are male and female (making one pair as reinforced in verse 7:2-3). This sort of rhetoric from McBible only shows him hoisting his own petard much like humpty-dumpty who had a great tumble. If this is how Mid-Acts epistemology/apologetics is finagled, then I would have to emphasize that context is everything. Now if McBible would have used the Eve tempted Adam with an apple story, then I would say, yes that was tradition (the scripture says fruit). Is an apple considered a fruit? Did McLean/Bible lose his shirt while he was darning his socks? Stay tuned, for further updates…
Was the circumcision (Jews) and the un-circumcision (Gentiles) saved by faith or faith plus works?
I would say by faith alone… What James speaks about is the works of love that follow the believer’s faith, not the works of the law. I am not exactly sure on how a Mid-Acts would answer this question.
Luke 12:50 Baptism (NET Bible notes):
The figure of the baptism is variously interpreted, as some see a reference (1) to martyrdom or (2) to inundation with God’s judgment. The OT background, however, suggests the latter sense: Jesus is about to be uniquely inundated with God’s judgment as he is rejected, persecuted, and killed (Ps 18:4, 16; 42:7; 69:1-2; Isa 8:7-8; 30:27-28; Jonah 2:3-6). Circumcision was the outward sign of the covenant. Baptism is not so much an outward sign of a covenant but the outward significance of accepting the New Covenant.
Now for a few Bible Notes on Baptism…
NET Bible notes Exodus 30:17-21:
The symbolic meaning of washing has been taught throughout the ages. This was a practical matter of cleaning hands and feet, but it was also symbolic of purification before Yahweh. It was an outward sign of inner spiritual cleansing, or forgiveness. Jesus washed the disciple’s feet (Jn 13) to show this same teaching; he asked the disciples if they knew what he had done (so it was more than washing feet). In this passage, the theological points for the outline would be these: I. God provides the means of cleansing; II. Cleansing is a prerequisite for participating in the worship and III. (Believers) priests must regularly appropriate God’s provision of cleansing.
In acts Chapter 2 we see the people speaking in tongues: 2:11 both Jews and proselytes (Gentiles), Cretans and Arabs – we hear them speaking in our own languages about the great deeds God has done!” Not all these people were Jews that were speaking in tongues and it is doubtful that all in that verse have been circumcised.
NET BIBLE NOTES: MARK 1:4 In the wilderness John the baptizer began preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 1:5 People from the whole Judean countryside and all of Jerusalem were going out to him, and he was baptizing them in the Jordan River as they confessed their sins. My reply… Something to note here is the fact that John, the Baptist, is baptizing in the Jordan River (to a multitude, in public) nonetheless. In the Greek: Grk “And the whole Judean countryside.” Mark uses the Greek conjunction καί (kai) at numerous places in his Gospel to begin sentences and paragraphs. This practice is due to Semitic influence and reflects in many cases the use of the Hebrew ו (vav) which is used in OT narrative, much as it is here, to carry the narrative along. Because in contemporary English style it is not acceptable to begin every sentence with “and,” καί was often left untranslated or rendered as “now,” “so,” “then,” or “but” depending on the context. When left untranslated it has not been noted. When given an alternative translation, this is usually indicated by a note. DOES "SPIRIT BAPTISM" REPLACE JOHN’S BAPTISM?
It should be noted that those who were converted at Pentecost, having experienced the Baptism with the Holy Ghost there (Acts 1:5, 2:2-4) did not feel that they were excused from being water baptized. On the contrary, 3000 converts sought and received water baptism that same day (Acts 2:41).
In Acts 10:47 we see, concerning the Gentiles who received the Holy Ghost when Peter preached to the household of Cornelius, that Peter still believed that they needed water baptism.
Tektonics.org replies:
1 Cor. 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
“Is Paul setting himself against Jesus' commission here? Hardly. Objectors on this point badly need education in forms of idiomatic expression in currency in Judaism and Greco-Roman rhetoric. This is an example by Paul of a "negation idiom"
See: www.tektonics.org/tsr/jerry722.html
which expresses the idea, in light of the Corinthians' undue emphasis on baptism (warned against throughout the letter), that Paul considers the practice of baptism to be secondary to preaching the gospel (which agrees with the order of Jesus' command). It is a dash of cold water, to be sure, but not a total negation of baptism, for otherwise, why would Paul have admitted to baptizing Crispus and a few others? Indeed, his manner or writing -- the way he adds as a comment that he also remembers baptizing the household of Stephanus, but can't recall who else, is another rhetorical tactic throwing cold water on the Corinthians' "baptism frenzy"! Those who suggest that Paul is "correcting himself" on his "mistake" of saying he only baptized two people are simply ignorant of the subtle art of Greco-Roman rhetoric. The "recollection" is intentional!”
That is all for now…
Dennis
Hey Dennis. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts here. I will give a few brief thoughts.
Dennis said:
Essential Objectivity:
1. Faith Alone
2. Christ’s Deity
3. Existence of God
4. Death, Burial, Resurrection of Christ
5. The Atonement
I would not fully agree that they have the same views on these listed above. They use these words and terminology but I truly believe when examined carefully these are mere words to them. (not all Mid Acts but in a general sense) I would say they fully agree with the Deity of Jesus, the existence of God, and the death, burial, and resurrection. However when examining what they believe concerning "Faith Alone" and "The Atonement" I believe they are missing the mark. They have in many ways a said faith rather than a living faith since they reject following Jesus and evidence of a transformed life. They teach that is a works type of gospel which causes me concern of which I have responded to them over the years. They give different types of salvation in which Paul preached in comparison to Jesus and the apostles. They say Jesus and the apostles preached a works type kingdom earthly salvation message, where Paul preached a heavenly salvation by mere belief (faith, no repentence). When these two are examined it is clear to me that the Mid Acts are very close to gospel heresy of another Jesus and gospel in which they are playing churcheousity (Kelly word, though I am sure not original) and have a said faith. This is my observations over the years, and even through emails from those prior to be in this movement coming out have shared with me.
Just some thoughts.
KP
Thanks Kelly for that insight.
There is only one Jesus.
So basically it is true that they stay away from any red-letter text?
I think I will stay away from them as far as possible. :)
Hey Dennis:
There is only one Jesus.
Fully agree. The problem with various groups is they claim they are of the faith but in reality when examined have another Jesus in which is not Biblically supported. Examples are Mormons, JW's, UPCI, though each of those I would say in no reservation that they are not saved if they hold tightly to their organization. However say with those of the Mid Acts, Calvies, Armins, KJ Only's, and others, they have the danger of being excessive and dangerous with their extreme beliefs on how a person is saved. Armins can be very extreme on one losing their salvation over and over, where that really goes into a works gospel, fully see red flags there. When examining the Calvins they can be extreme on the point of man having no response, no choice, and they attack saying we don't have a potential Savior but a perfect Savior. When they go to the point (there are those within this group who say this) of saying Arminians are not saved since they believe in free will, choice, and that God's love for people to be saved is universal not determinism, they have set themselves up openly to be exposed. Back to the Mid Acts, they have some very off the wall doctrines which causes many red flags when it comes to the gospel message.
So basically it is true that they stay away from any red-letter text?
They stay away from the red letter text in reference for the body of Christ. They say that is "only" for the Jews, Israel, not for the body of Christ, the church. They go to big extremes taking things out of context saying, well if you believe in the red letters for your salvation are you selling all you have, do you cut off your hand when you sin, etc. When I heard some years ago by McBabble (McBible/ McLean) that if a person believes in following Jesus and that the red letters are for the body of Christ they have a one way ticket to hell, I said WOW!!! I started examining that very carefully, sites, chat rooms asking questions, etc, and many (at least in paltalk) believe this to be true. That is a massive red flag. They will read from the red letters, teach from it, (wrongly I might add) but in reference to Israel and the kingdom gospel of works, but not for the body of Christ to have it applied to them.
I think I will stay away from them as far as possible. :)
I only go to their rooms for a few reasons. To learn more about their off the wall beliefs so I can be informed, and if possible get in dialogues that will lead people to examine this more closely and come out of it. I just got an email from a guy who used to be a Mid Acts guy, and he has known me for a while now through Paltalk and online site. He said he came out a while back (not sure his Paltalk nic) through examining this that our site had to say and through seeing how the Mid Acts people treated me repeatedly in the rooms and listening to our audios discussions on their rudeness, that woke him up to something is not right. He has left, he is very thankful, and is going to a SBC I believe now. Here is a quote from his email to me.
QUOTE from an email: I think what got to me the most was their attitude. Many months back you said hi to me in a certain room that wasn't a mid-acts room. I personally witnessed every MAD personally attack you and that bothered me. I think the final straw was when you were debating some guy and he felt that he had to address your name in an angry tone every 5 seconds. "Answer the question Powers...Quit avoiding the question Powers...You seemed to ignored that one Powers" and so on...
The one verse that most mid acts struggle to answer is 1st Corinthians 15:11. I have asked pastor after pastor and always get a lame reply. That verse is CLEAR that Paul and the others preached the same gospel. Emphasize that verse along with every verse that Paul makes reference to the kingdom of God. My favorite is asking these MAD's about Simon the Sorcerer since most MAD's these days believe that the people in the OT lost their salvation through sin and unbelief but that with Paul we are eternally secure. Ask them what happened to Simon? They will tell you that he lost his salvation. I like to get them to admit that his case sounds pretty hopeless by what Peter said to him concerning his heart. They will say yes. Then ask them what if he walked over to Paul and believed his messaged??? They will tell you that he would now be eternally secure so where now he can make whatever comments he likes but it will no longer have the same affect as it did when he believed Peter's message. Can you say, "What a load of garbage"?
QUOTE from another email: I went to your site months back to hear the debate you had with someone in pal-talk and this wasn't long after I was talking to you in some other pal-talk group where every MAD decided to insult you even though you didn't say a word to them or against MAD. I was at your site to polish up my arguments to be able to better defend my beliefs. It was hearing those MAD's and the way they talked was what opened my eyes. Usually those that get so irate are the ones that are unsure of what they believe. Back at Bob Jones University, we talked about parents that scream and seem to be constantly angry. My teacher said that a lot of times it is the fear of losing control that makes them act like that. I honestly believe that MAD's have been so used to not having been confronted that the fact that people are now standing up to them is causing them problems. They made such boastful statements that there hasn't even been a 100 page book that refutes them. It is they that fear losing control is my honest opinion and people like you are causing them great fear.
Anyways, hearing those who have debated you and their attitude reminded me of Terence McLean. You didn't show up the next day as you were having a Bible study when they claimed they were going to give you an opportunity to speak (this was from you first initial contact with Terence McLean). They addressed your name over and over again just as these guys did in your separate debate on MAD. I literally while listening to that online debate sat back and reviewed everything I had experienced with MAD and their churches. I decided that maybe I was unconsciously making myself see things in Scripture that really wasn't there. It is kind of like looking in your refrigerator for a bottle of Mayo and not being able to find it. It is because you thought the bottle was a certain color or shape that you literally were looking right at it but simply didn't know it because your eye was looking and expecting something else. That happens with Scripture where if you give the same verse to two people and depending on their background (church) they will see it from a different perspective but both fail to see the real message. I decided to see if I was really blind to what I was reading and I concluded that I was taking many verses and forcing them into my mid-acts belief. Kind of like those dingy one's out there that teach limited atonement from John 3:16?????????????
So Mr Powers, let the MAD's keep screaming and yelling because if your message doesn't wake up anyone then maybe their pride and arrogance in how they talk will to other people as it did me.
I have had others in the past email things a bit similar. I am thankful for the hits that come against us when we see and hear from those who have come out us such and such group. Praise the Lord!
Thank you Kelly for the audio about the Mid-Acts Disp. I have recently joined paltalk (and have been saved only 2 yrs) and one of the first rooms i got into was Grace 101 Bible Study room. At first i thought WOW this is amazing teachings i've never heard this stuff before and was swept right along with it. But as time went on i started to see some strange doctrines pop up and started to see the true colours of the people who firmly hold to this teachings, especially when people like yourself started coming into the room with good questions they would jump all over them and get bent all out of shape for no good reason and calling them all sorts of names. I was shocked and saddened by it all which led me to research this group and found your site and many others showing the errors of this teachings. Just wanted to say thankyou for the good work and wish to hear more of this disscussed on paltalk because new christains like myself need to hear the truth about what their really teaching..
God Bless!
Truth Seeker
This chat was serious!!! It was real real good! Mr Apostle was on there whoooo hoo!!! I like how unified gave His mini Statement of Faith!!!
Ultra-dispensationalism is not when they believe the church began but with the many other errors that come from their approach to Scripture. For example at the heart of most forms of ultra-dispensationalism is the belief that Paul preached a different gospel than what the other Apostles taught. Paul’s prison epistles only apply directly to the “body of Christ” or Gentile church, the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are relegated to the old dispensation and are not to be practiced by the church today. In reality what ultra-dispensationalists do is wrongly divide the Word of God and end up chewing the Bible up and splitting it into little pieces.
God Bless
Thanks for the reply Kelly. Glad to hear your comments Truth Seeker...
I really enjoyed listening to this FNA session.
I am still looking over this study. I am at an intermission point, so I thought I would share some humor...
A grace believer met another grace believer in the middle of the Golden Gate Bridge. They both were enjoying the view - just watching the sunset. One looked at the other one and said, "What an awesome God."
Guy number one turned to him and said, "You a Christian?" The second guy said, "Yes, I am a Christian." Guy number one said, "So am I," and they shook hands.
Guy number one said, "Are you a liberal or a fundamental Christian?" Guy number two said, "I am a fundamental Christian." Guy number one said, "So am I" and they smiled and nodded to each other.
Guy number one said, "Are you a covenant or dispensational, fundamental Christian?" The second guy said, "I am a dispensational, fundamental Christian." The first guy said, "So am I," and they slapped one another on the back.
Guy number one said, "Are you an early Acts, mid-Acts or late Acts, dispensational, fundamental Christian?" Guy number two said "I am a mid-Acts, dispensational, fundamental Christian." Guy number one said, "So am I," and they agreed to exchange Christmas cards each year.
Guy number one said, "Are you an Acts 9 or 13, mid-Acts, dispensational, fundamental Christian"? Guy number two said, "I am an Acts 9, mid-Acts, dispensational, fundamental Christian." Guy number one said, "So am I," and they hugged one another right there on the bridge.
Guy number one said, "Are you a pre-trib, or post trib, Acts 9, mid-Acts, dispensational, fundamental Christian"? Guy number two said, "I am a pre-trib, Acts 9, mid-Acts, dispensational, fundamental Christian." Guy number one said, "So am I," and they decided to exchange kids for the summer.
Guy number one said, "Are you a 12 in or 12 out, pre-trib, Acts 9, mid-Acts, dispensational, fundamental Christian?" Guy number two said, "I am a 12 in, pre-trib, Acts 9, mid-Acts, dispensational, fundamental Christian." Guy number one said, "You heretic", and then pushed him off the bridge.
...Author Unknown
Hello Truth Seeker:
Praise the Lord for your comments of not being deceived into the MAD group. It is always a joy for us to hear how our ministry has been able to impact people in a positive way, especially from a destructive group. Thanks for the words and encouragement. What is your Paltalk name, I would love to add you and invite you when we do our studies.
Post a Comment