Which one are you?

[@@Paul@@]

I think all mid-acts believe that the Jewish nation was not completely set aside until Acts 28, but starting in either Acts 9, 13, etc.. the Church was formed, and like what you said above, there were two witnesses until rejection happen.

Then i think i'd call myself MID... the "body" began MID acts, but was not named OR commissioned until Israel was set aside...

As in i do NOT believe the body began after Acts 28.

 

[TheScottsMen]

I'm in complete agreement. Now where mid-way do you propose?!?! 9? 13?

 

[@@Paul@@]

I'm in complete agreement. Now where mid-way do you propose?!?! 9? 13?

If i had to place a chapter on it...

Act 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.​

...and so began Paul's Gentile ministry.

I believe Paul's purpose in Acts was to provoke Israel to jealously... By saving gentiles apart from the nation. i.e. His purpose was still "kingdom" driven as there was still hope of a kingdom, as least up till chapter 26...

 

[JM]

I am not confused about how I am using Reformed/Covenant Theology and Calvinism. Calvinism is much more than the TULIP. If we are to be consistent with our theology, one cannot at the same time hold to Calvinism and Dispensationalism. I know you beg to differ with me, but historically, they are not compatible. Dispensationalism and Calvinism start out at fundamentally different presuppositions, and the logical implications and the logical conclusions reached by both systems are different as night and day.

Its good we both had our say, God bless you agenes.

 

[Iosias]

If i had to place a chapter on it...

Act 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.​

...and so began Paul's Gentile ministry.

I will still argue that the church began in Acts 2 simply because God decides when the church begins not when Paul states "lo, we turn to the Gentiles." The argument is a simple one:

My argument is based upon the (unique) baptizing work of the Holy Ghost. The LORD Jesus Christ had spoken of this work of the Holy Ghost just before His ascension in Acts 1:5 as being yet future and unlike anything they had previously experienced saying “For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence”. Although Acts 2 does not expressly record that the baptism of the Holy Ghost occurred on the Day of Pentecost, it is said in Acts 11:15, 16 that it did happen on that day in fulfillment of the promise of the LORD as recorded in Acts 1:5. It is later within the Pauline epistles that we find fully revealed the doctrinal significance of this baptism that unites believers with Christ in to His Body (1 Corinthians 12:13 “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.”). So in other words, on the Day of Pentecost men were first placed into the Body of Christ and since the church is the Body of Christ (Colossians 1:18 “And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.”), the church could not have begun until Pentecost and therein from the evidence presented we can safely conclude that the church began on the Day of Pentecost.

Taken from: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=9386927#post9386927

 

[@@Paul@@]

I will still argue that the church began in Acts 2 simply because God decides when the church begins not when Paul states "lo, we turn to the Gentiles." The argument is a simple one:

My argument is based upon the (unique) baptizing work of the Holy Ghost. The LORD Jesus Christ had spoken of this work of the Holy Ghost just before His ascension in Acts 1:5 as being yet future and unlike anything they had previously experienced saying “For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence”. Although Acts 2 does not expressly record that the baptism of the Holy Ghost occurred on the Day of Pentecost, it is said in Acts 11:15, 16 that it did happen on that day in fulfillment of the promise of the LORD as recorded in Acts 1:5. It is later within the Pauline epistles that we find fully revealed the doctrinal significance of this baptism that unites believers with Christ in to His Body (1 Corinthians 12:13 “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.”). So in other words, on the Day of Pentecost men were first placed into the Body of Christ and since the church is the Body of Christ (Colossians 1:18 “And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.”), the church could not have begun until Pentecost and therein from the evidence presented we can safely conclude that the church began on the Day of Pentecost.

Taken from: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=9386927#post9386927

AV, Don't get your Baptisms crossed!!

There is a baptism WITH the Holy Spirit,, A Baptism of POWER... Sign Gifts followed. (Cornelious was baptised WITH (tongues followed), which is why i supposed i hold to an Acts 13 position...)

There is a Baptism BY the Holy Spirit... Placed in Christ Jesus!!

No one was being placed into the "church" until the baptism BY the Holy Spirit started taking place... whenever that may be...........

Wanna know why there is no tongues today??? Because there is NO baptism WITH the Holy Spirit....... There is only ONE baptism...

 

[Iosias]

AV, Don't get your Baptisms crossed!!

There is a baptism WITH the Holy Spirit,, A Baptism of POWER... Sign Gifts followed. (Cornelious was baptised WITH (tongues followed), which is why i supposed i hold to an Acts 13 position...)

There is a Baptism BY the Holy Spirit... Placed in Christ Jesus!!

No one was being placed into the "church" until the baptism BY the Holy Spirit started taking place... whenever that may be...........

Wanna know why there is no tongues today??? Because there is NO baptism WITH the Holy Spirit....... There is only ONE baptism...

But they are the same thing

 

[@@Paul@@]

But they are the same thing

I don't believe so, One could be seen (was poured OUT) & Tongues followed...

Act 10:45-46 KJV
(45) And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
(46) For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,​

Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days , saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh:​

...They are two different baptisms.

 

[@@Paul@@]

Act 13:48-49 KJV
(48) And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
(49) And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region.​

Question: These gentiles believed... Where is the record of tongues and the baptism WITH the Holy Spirit??

 

[In Christ Forever]

I don't believe so, One could be seen (was poured OUT) & Tongues followed...

Act 10:45-46 KJV

(45) And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
(46) For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
​

Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days , saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh:
​

...They are two different baptisms.

Hi Paul,
So if Penetcost was the "last days", what age would be considered that period of last days? This must mean Ezekiel was fulfilled, right? Or is there another Pentecost coming Makes me wonder what "land" God is talking about. Don't you think that God meant bringing His people together through the Holy Spirit, which those who believe unto the faith that is of Jesus receive? I felt the Holy Spirit come to me when God came to me last year so I know He is indeed real. God bless.

ezekiel 37:12 "Therefore prophesy and say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, O My people, I will open your graves and cause you to come up from your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. 13 "Then you shall know that I [am] the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O My people, and brought you up from your graves. 14 "I will put My Spirit in you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. Then you shall know that I, the LORD, have spoken [it] and performed [it,"] says the LORD.' "

galat 4:24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar -- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children -- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.

 

[@@Paul@@]

Hi Paul,
So if Penetcost was the "last days", what age would be considered that period of last days? This must mean Ezekiel was fulfilled, right? Or is there another Pentecost coming Makes me wonder what "land" God is talking about. Don't you think that God meant bringing His people together through the Holy Spirit, which those who believe unto the faith that is of Jesus receive? I felt the Holy Spirit come to me when God came to me last year so I know He is indeed real. God bless.

If you'd like to study this (the last days) with me,,, start a new thread... I don't wanna rerail this one...

 

[TheScottsMen]

Paul,
Good idea in the PM. Each dispey from 2, 9, 13, and 28 could give the reason why they believe the Church started at that time in a new thread.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

The last (progressive) sounds akin to covenantalism. Is that a correct assumption?

Hi daveleau,
No, it is not a correct assumption. I have been a progressive dispensationalist (PD) since 1991. Covenant Theology "systematize" Scripture through 2+ theological covenants (covenant of grace, covenant of works). Dispensationalists systematize Scripture through the Biblical Covenants - Mosaic Covenant, Davidic Covenant, New Covenant, etc. The dispensationalist therefore emphasizes more discontinuity than CT, especially through these Biblical covenants (upon which the dispensations are founded). These basic approaches are very different from one another and they become very apparent in specific topics, such as those relating Israel, the Church and the Biblical covenants.

A Progressive Dispensationalist - as the article above explains a little bit - does not believe in a "parenthesis" or "intercalation" for this present dispensation. Instead, this present dispensation is related to the past dispensations (and future) through the Covenants - specifically the Abrahamic, Davidic and New Covenants. This is where the term progressive comes from - this dispensation is a progression from past dispensations, and a key link to the future dispensations.

The article isn't very clear on the PD distinction between Israel and the Church. We progressives believe the Church is made up of believing Jews (remnant of Israel) and believing Gentiles. Israel is made up of believing Jews and unbelieving Jews. Its that simple. This isn't a "PD only" view - many dispensationalists also believe the same.

When you look at what PDs hold - pretrib, premil, a future millennial reign of Christ on earth centering on Jerusalem - you find a dispensationalist, not a Covenant Theologian. The approach PDs take is a decidedly dispensational approach, an approach rooted in dispensational ideas which have come many years before.


Lamorak Des Galis

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

Progressive Dispensationalism is the closest one can be to Covenant theology and still call themselves Dispensationalists. I have long asserted that Progressive Dispensationalists have no historical basis to define their system as "Dispensational."

The only issue I have with this doctrinal list, is that one cannot consistently hold to Calvinism and Dispensationalism at the same time. Maybe you are saying that you hold to the five points of the TULIP, but Calvinism and Dispensationalism are not consistently held together in tandem.

Hi agenes,
You and I have much to disagree about! I'm am a Progressive Dispensationalist and a Calvinist. I'd like to take on your claims, but I'm going to respect the title of the thread here and not get off base.


Lamorak Des Galis