Mid Acts Dispensationalist vs. Reformed view of the Gospel as preached by Paul

[StJohnCalvin]

Proposed: In the writings of the Apostle Paul, the proclamation of the Gospel in its fullness does in no way differ in any point from any other declaration of the Gospel in any of the other 53 books of Scripture.

I am formally asking a Mid Acts Dispensationalist, who will agree 100% with the rules of formal debate, and to the proposed point of dispute, to accept my invitation to debate on this forum on this topic. If one accepts the invitation to debate, I would propose this format, in order that the topic can be treated in a manner worthy of our calling:

Opening Statements: 6,000 word limit.
Affirming
Opposing

Direct Cross: 2,500 word limit.
Opposing
Affirming

Eight Questions: Answers not to exceed 500 words per question, for a total word limit of 4,000 words, excluding citing the questions.

Opposing
Affirming

Rebuttal of Direct Cross: Not to exceed 3,000 words
Affirming
Opposing

Closing Arguments: Not to exceed 5,500 words.
Opposing
Affirming

Dates will be agreed upon by both parties in advance. If the proposed issue of debate needs to be altered, it will be done so with both parties in agreement (narrowing it down to 3-5 passages for example). Evidence that is not presented in opening statements will not be allowed to be presented as evidence in a later stage in the debate (this is to lessen both sides from straying from the issue at hand). As always, no logical fallacies will be permitted: see this forum's policy concerning this, and let both parties agree to use these definitions for this debate:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index)


I am looking forward to a formal, public moderated debate on this topic. I want both sides of this topic to be addressed in a formal and respectable manner in order that anyone who will be viewing and reading this debate can have the opportunity to weigh the evidence carefully, and allow them to decide. It is not about winning, it is about the exchange between two opposing parties to prompt critical thinking on both sides.

Again, I am looking forward for a Mid-Acts Dispensationalist to accept this invite to debate this topic.

In Christ for the sake of the truth of the Gospel in His Church

C.F.

[Tychicum]

Proposed: In the writings of the Apostle Paul, the proclamation of the Gospel in its fullness does in no way differ in any point from any other declaration of the Gospel in any of the other 53 books of Scripture.

I am formally asking a Mid Acts Dispensationalist, who will agree 100% with the rules of formal debate, and to the proposed point of dispute, to accept my invitation to debate on this forum on this topic. If one accepts the invitation to debate, I would propose this format, in order that the topic can be treated in a manner worthy of our calling:

Opening Statements: 6,000 word limit.
Affirming
Opposing

Direct Cross: 2,500 word limit.
Opposing
Affirming

Eight Questions: Answers not to exceed 500 words per question, for a total word limit of 4,000 words, excluding citing the questions.

Opposing
Affirming

Rebuttal of Direct Cross: Not to exceed 3,000 words
Affirming
Opposing

Closing Arguments: Not to exceed 5,500 words.
Opposing
Affirming

Dates will be agreed upon by both parties in advance. If the proposed issue of debate needs to be altered, it will be done so with both parties in agreement (narrowing it down to 3-5 passages for example). Evidence that is not presented in opening statements will not be allowed to be presented as evidence in a later stage in the debate (this is to lessen both sides from straying from the issue at hand). As always, no logical fallacies will be permitted: see this forum's policy concerning this, and let both parties agree to use these definitions for this debate:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index)


I am looking forward to a formal, public moderated debate on this topic. I want both sides of this topic to be addressed in a formal and respectable manner in order that anyone who will be viewing and reading this debate can have the opportunity to weigh the evidence carefully, and allow them to decide. It is not about winning, it is about the exchange between two opposing parties to prompt critical thinking on both sides.

Again, I am looking forward for a Mid-Acts Dispensationalist to accept this invite to debate this topic.

In Christ for the sake of the truth of the Gospel in His Church

C.F.
While I appreciate the personal invitation ... really ... but I am not mid-acts Dispensational.

They and I differ on many many points.

Many.

Besides ... I believe "debate" is vain. I come to learn not debate for points.

Teach me ... don't debate me.

FWIW ... "Covenant theology" to me seems rather "lame" ...

Too much "spiritualization" of the Scripture to force it to fit.

God must fudge on promises made to Israel and others ...

I believe God knew what He was talking about. And knew what He wanted to say when He said it.

I took classes from a "Historicist" once and believe me ... it was all I could do to be polite and just leave.

I went and read the Book ... and then I believed it. I'm a lost cause as a result.

Best find someone who hasn't actually read it.

.

[Tychicum]

Proposed: In the writings of the Apostle Paul, the proclamation of the Gospel in its fullness does in no way differ in any point from any other declaration of the Gospel in any of the other 53 books of Scripture. I would be interested in what your definition of the "Gospel" is ...

I mean ... if you can extract the full meaning of the propitious precious blood of Jesus ... and why is was necessary for God to die for my sin ...and that from Ecclesiastes no less ... you are very good ...

.

[mark kennedy]

I believe in a Mid-trib. rapture and I'm convinced that I could defend that position Biblically. However, I am not really sure what Dispensationalism has to do with it or why such a debate would have to be lengthy.

If you are interested I am more then willing to comply with any and all forum rules. I do have one problem though, my schedule might take me away from the boards for extended periods of time (weeks not months). At any rate, just PM me if you want to discuss this further.

Grace and peace,
Mark

[StJohnCalvin]

I believe in a Mid-trib. rapture and I'm convinced that I could defend that position Biblically. However, I am not really sure what Dispensationalism has to do with it or why such a debate would have to be lengthy.

My request for a debate is not for the purpose of examining the rapture, but the Mid Acts (that the Church, which is the Body of Christ, began at the conversion of Saul of Tarsus) view of the Gospel itself as opposed to the Reformed view of the Gospel.

As for the mid-tribulational rapture of the church, that is a another discussion entirely. I am Amillennial in my view concerning eschatology. However, as I said, this present debate request is about how the Mid Acts & Reformed understand the Gospel itself.

If you would like to discuss the rapture debate, let us do so on another thread, perhaps in Eschatology in the Christian only Section. If it seems there is a reason for us to formally debate, in an altered form of the format of that above, we can address the format at that time. In the meantime, I will look forward to dialoguing with you.

God Bless

Love in Christ

[mark kennedy]

My request for a debate is not for the purpose of examining the rapture, but the Mid Acts (that the Church, which is the Body of Christ, began at the conversion of Saul of Tarsus) view of the Gospel itself as opposed to the Reformed view of the Gospel.

As for the mid-tribulational rapture of the church, that is a another discussion entirely. I am Amillennial in my view concerning eschatology. However, as I said, this present debate request is about how the Mid Acts & Reformed understand the Gospel itself.

If you would like to discuss the rapture debate, let us do so on another thread, perhaps in Eschatology in the Christian only Section. If it seems there is a reason for us to formally debate, in an altered form of the format of that above, we can address the format at that time. In the meantime, I will look forward to dialoguing with you.

God Bless

Love in Christ
[/quote]

Sounds good! I didn't think a subject like the rapture would require such an elaborate debate. My time is not my own so I don't know when we could discuss the rapture but I'll be in touch when I can find some time. It's a fascinating topic you have proposed but I am completely out of the loop as to what the issues are focused on.

I'll start a post and drop you a PM when I find the time for the Escatology discussion. In the mean time I hope you get the debate you are looking for and pray for the mutual edification of you, your opponent and the interested readers.

Grace and peace,
Mark