Christian Forums

Ok, I was wondering if ya'll ever heard of this 'new' teaching. I find it so blasphemous......
What say you, if you know what it is?


Here is a sample:


http://bing.search.sympatico.ca/?q=what%20is%20mid%20acts%20dispensationalism%3F&mkt=en-ca&setLang=en-CA

QuoteGod also revealed a future dispensation to the Jewish prophets which was a promise that there would be a special Savior called the Messiah that would come to Earth in two stages.  First, he would come as a servant and the second time he would return as conquering King who would set up his throne in Jerusalem.  This is the promise of the Dispensation of the Kingdom.

While on Earth the Lord Jesus Christ observed every part of the Jewish law, and He never tried to do away with it.  Even after his death on the cross, his followers continued to tell new believers to obey the law that was given to Moses.


After Jesus had ascended to heaven, his followers were preaching to the Jews that Jesus was their Messiah and they needed to believe in him.  Most of the Jews did not believe in Jesus but according to God's plan the Jews needed to accept Jesus as Messiah before the gospel could go to the gentiles.  Because God wanted the gentiles to be saved he interrupted his plan with Israel and started a new dispensation when Saul of Tarsus was saved.  Saul's name was changed to Paul and he became the apostle to the Gentiles.  Because everyone can be saved during this dispensation by God's grace through faith in the death of Jesus to pay the penalty for our sin it is called the Dispensation of Grace.

During the Dispensation of Grace, there is no difference between Jews and gentiles in the way God deals with people.  We are no longer required to obey the ritual laws of Moses.  Our righteousness is based entirely on the work of Christ and not on our good works.  This unique program was never mentioned in the Old Testament and is referred to by Paul as the "mystery" which means it was a secret not previously revealed.

They teach that one day the law will return, and Israel will be doing the law, and being justified through it, and, that it is a means to their salvation.

I say hogwash.... LOUDLY.

No man will ever be justified by the law of moses, and it was never God's plan to have anyone doing the law, under faith.

It is also referred to has hyper dispensationalism. This new teaching is making the gospel of none effect, if you ask me. It teaches that Peter taught a different gospel than Paul, and that it was God's will for it to be so.



Have you heard of this new thing?

I am not a dispensationalist. However some of the points in your quote is very interesting and true.

Quote... there would be a special Savior called the Messiah that would come to Earth in two stages.

In the Talmuds it is recorded that during the first century the belief in the coming Messiah would have 2 different Messiahs - Messiah son of Joseph (the suffering servant) and Messiah son of David (the conquering King). Some versions had it being the same person at 2 different times (Joseph first, David afterward)

QuoteWhile on Earth the Lord Jesus Christ observed every part of the Jewish law, and He never tried to do away with it.  Even after his death on the cross, his followers continued to tell new believers to obey the law that was given to Moses.

IF Our Lord did NOT follow every point of the Law, (including the prohibition of teaching against the Law) as a Jewish male he would have invalidated Himself as our sacrifice and we would ALL be in big trouble.  Indeed He himself testified that he did not come to do away with the Law but to fulfill it (obey it completely), thus contrasting that with terminating the Law.

OF course His followers argued over whether to keep the Law. That is what Acts 15 is all about.  The decision was that gentile followers do NOT have to keep the Law but Jewish believers DO.  (see also Acts 21 for clarity on that point).

QuoteAfter Jesus had ascended to heaven, his followers were preaching to the Jews that Jesus was their Messiah and they needed to believe in him.

True then and still true today.

Quoteaccording to God's plan the Jews needed to accept Jesus as Messiah before the gospel could go to the gentiles.

That was the understanding. Or perhaps better described as misunderstanding.  It was Paul who actually got the story right. 

QuoteBecause God wanted the gentiles to be saved he interrupted his plan with Israel and started a new dispensation when Saul of Tarsus was saved.

That makes it sound like the Jews in general rejecting the Gospel took God by surprise.  Not so.  It was foretold in the Prophets.  So was the inclusion of the Gentiles. Paul saw the purpose and wrote in Rom 11 that it was to make the Jews jealous.

QuoteSaul's name was changed to Paul

That is entirely wrong.  He had both names Sh'aul and Paulus from birth.  He was born a Roman citizen which required a Latin name and as a Jew he had to have a Hebrew name as well.

QuoteDuring the Dispensation of Grace, there is no difference between Jews and gentiles in the way God deals with people.

As I said I am not dispy, so that has little meaning for me.  But God does still have a special calling on some people and has a unique purpose and requirements in keeping with that.  Romans 11 also tells us that God's gifts and callings are irrevocable.  If the Jews were called to keep the Mosaic requirements, that is forever.

It kind of sounds to me like someone got ahold of some Messianic Theology but did not understand it and tried to put something together with bits and pieces here and there.

If they would have looked a bit deeper they would have seen that keeping the Law was NEVER EVER a means to salvation.

"By the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."

That includes me and you, Adam, Noah, Moses, David, Jeremiah, or anyone else.

Hi Dave,

Thank you for your response.

QuoteI am not a dispensationalist. However some of the points in your quote is very interesting and true.

I am not a dispensationalist, either, but I do not find much truth in the quotes.

QuoteQuote from link:

... there would be a special Savior called the Messiah that would come to Earth in two stages.


Dave:
In the Talmuds it is recorded that during the first century the belief in the coming Messiah would have 2 different Messiahs - Messiah son of Joseph (the suffering servant) and Messiah son of David (the conquering King). Some versions had it being the same person at 2 different times (Joseph first, David afterward)

Yes, but what is the truth?

As I see it, Jesus came once to put away sin/suffering servant, and through His resurrection, became the conquering King. He accomplished both, by coming once. This is the good news of the death, buriel and resurection.

QuoteQuote from link:

While on Earth the Lord Jesus Christ observed every part of the Jewish law, and He never tried to do away with it.  Even after his death on the cross, his followers continued to tell new believers to obey the law that was given to Moses.


Dave:

IF Our Lord did NOT follow every point of the Law, (including the prohibition of teaching against the Law) as a Jewish male he would have invalidated Himself as our sacrifice and we would ALL be in big trouble.  Indeed He himself testified that he did not come to do away with the Law but to fulfill it (obey it completely), thus contrasting that with terminating the Law.

OF course His followers argued over whether to keep the Law. That is what Acts 15 is all about.  The decision was that gentile followers do NOT have to keep the Law but Jewish believers DO.  (see also Acts 21 for clarity on that point).

Jesus never kept the letter of the law of moses; that law was only made for sinners. He was never subject to it, that is why He worked on the sabbath/ not legal under moses, and why He explained how David did likewise under 'faith', what was not legal under moses:

Mat 12:3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; 


Mat 12:4   How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? 

Mat 12:5   Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?   

Mat 12:6   But I say unto you, That in this place is [one] greater than the temple. 


Mat 12:7   But if ye had known what [this] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. 

It was the Pharasee's who were teaching the law, and they sought to kill Jesus because he spoke against it, showing how it is the SPIRIT of the law that He came to show., and that is how He lived while in the flesh.

QuoteQuote from the link:

After Jesus had ascended to heaven, his followers were preaching to the Jews that Jesus was their Messiah and they needed to believe in him.

Dave:
True then and still true today.

Yes, there is the little truth, I spoke of.

QuoteQuote from link:

according to God's plan the Jews needed to accept Jesus as Messiah before the gospel could go to the gentiles.

Dave:
That was the understanding. Or perhaps better described as misunderstanding.  It was Paul who actually got the story right. 

Yes, salvation went to the jew first, but, they are teaching that it is two gospels, one for the jew, and, one for the gentile/ one from the 12 deciples, and one from Paul. In other words, this 'sect' is teaching that there are two ways to be saved by two different gospels.

QuoteQuote from link:

Because God wanted the gentiles to be saved he interrupted his plan with Israel and started a new dispensation when Saul of Tarsus was saved.

Dave:
That makes it sound like the Jews in general rejecting the Gospel took God by surprise.  Not so.  It was foretold in the Prophets.  So was the inclusion of the Gentiles. Paul saw the purpose and wrote in Rom 11 that it was to make the Jews jealous.

Yes, it is very misleading, indeed, that is what Mid Acts Dispensationalism is doing, making a different gospel coming from Paul, because that which went before was to the jews alone, and they were put on hold, so to speak, until the Gentiles are saved, and then God will reinvene with the jews and their new covenant with them having the law of moses to justify them, will be fulfilled. 


They teach that the new covenant was for jews alone, and that the Gentiles were never to be a part of it, for in their teaching, the form of 'law', they have written on the hearts of those saved in the 'new' covenant is the law of moses, that can only condemn, in fact.

It is all a bunch of malarky, and I find it hard to believe people are eating it up...like it is something to be enjoyed.....

QuoteQuote from the link:

Saul's name was changed to Paul

Dave:
That is entirely wrong.  He had both names Sh'aul and Paulus from birth.  He was born a Roman citizen which required a Latin name and as a Jew he had to have a Hebrew name as well.

I really never even questioned that part. I didnt know about it, I mean.
Thanks for that.

QuoteQuote from link:

During the Dispensation of Grace, there is no difference between Jews and gentiles in the way God deals with people.

Dave:
As I said I am not dispy, so that has little meaning for me.  But God does still have a special calling on some people and has a unique purpose and requirements in keeping with that.  Romans 11 also tells us that God's gifts and callings are irrevocable.  If the Jews were called to keep the Mosaic requirements, that is forever.

The purpose of the law of moses was to be a schoolmaster to lead sinners to Christ. The mosaic law was never a required tool, for anyone who was a believer. Jesus is the end of the law for anyone who believes, but, this is why this teaching is so frustrating to me, it is teaching that it is the law written on the hearts of believers in the new covenant, and, that is a lie. The only law that is for believers, whether jew or greek, is the law of the Spirit; faith working love...as both Peter, and the 12, and Jesus, and Paul all taught.

Quote from: DaveW on Fri Aug 31, 2012 - 11:40:13
It kind of sounds to me like someone got ahold of some Messianic Theology but did not understand it and tried to put something together with bits and pieces here and there.

If they would have looked a bit deeper they would have seen that keeping the Law was NEVER EVER a means to salvation.

"By the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."

That includes me and you, Adam, Noah, Moses, David, Jeremiah, or anyone else.

EXACTLY....

but, your other post seemed to think jews needed to keep it?

Did I misunderstand you?

Quote from: NewDay on Fri Aug 31, 2012 - 12:10:22
Yes, it is very misleading, indeed, that is what Mid Acts Dispensationalism is doing, making a different gospel coming from Paul, because that which went before was to the jews alone, and they were put on hold, so to speak, until the Gentiles are saved, and then God will reinvene with the jews and their new covenant with them having the law of moses to justify them, will be fulfilled. 

The difference between the "gospel to the circumcised" and the "gospel to the uncircumcised" (Gal 2.7) has been either ignored or entirely misunderstood for at least the last 1800 years. The key to that is understanding the decision in Acts 15  and the further explanation of Acts 21.

QuoteThey teach that the new covenant was for jews alone, and that the Gentiles were never to be a part of it, for in their teaching, the form of 'law', they have written on the hearts of those saved in the 'new' covenant is the law of moses, that can only condemn, in fact.

If the new covenant is for Jews only, how are the gentiles saved?  What covenant provides their salvation?  God has NEVER worked with mankind apart from a covenant.

It seems that both them and you suffer from a very narrow viewpoint on the Mosaic commands (which other than the 10 commandments actually constitute a separate body of work from the covenant).  Paul could claim that according to the Law he was blameless. The condemning and impossible load written about was not the Law itself but the legalistic (Greek had no separate word for that) extensions added on by certain pharasees.

QuoteJesus is the end of the law for anyone who believes,

A quirk of English.  Not "end" as in termination but "end" as in goal. One translation renders that phrase as "... the Goal of Torah ..."

Quotebut, your other post seemed to think jews needed to keep it?

Did I misunderstand you?

Not the Mosaic covenant itself but many of the statutes of the OT can be kept in a New Covenant environment. That is NOT REQUIRED to be done by Gentile followers (but they are free to join in if they want) but it IS REQUIRED for Jewish believers.  NOT for salvation but for fulfillment of their unique calling in the Lord. (see Rom 3)

Quote from: DaveW on Mon Sep 10, 2012 - 08:35:57

Quote from: NewDay on Fri Aug 31, 2012 - 12:10:22
Yes, it is very misleading, indeed, that is what Mid Acts Dispensationalism is doing, making a different gospel coming from Paul, because that which went before was to the jews alone, and they were put on hold, so to speak, until the Gentiles are saved, and then God will reinvene with the jews and their new covenant with them having the law of moses to justify them, will be fulfilled. 

The difference between the "gospel to the circumcised" and the "gospel to the uncircumcised" (Gal 2.7) has been either ignored or entirely misunderstood for at least the last 1800 years. The key to that is understanding the decision in Acts 15  and the further explanation of Acts 21.

QuoteThey teach that the new covenant was for jews alone, and that the Gentiles were never to be a part of it, for in their teaching, the form of 'law', they have written on the hearts of those saved in the 'new' covenant is the law of moses, that can only condemn, in fact.

If the new covenant is for Jews only, how are the gentiles saved?  What covenant provides their salvation?  God has NEVER worked with mankind apart from a covenant.

It seems that both them and you suffer from a very narrow viewpoint on the Mosaic commands (which other than the 10 commandments actually constitute a separate body of work from the covenant).  Paul could claim that according to the Law he was blameless. The condemning and impossible load written about was not the Law itself but the legalistic (Greek had no separate word for that) extensions added on by certain pharasees.

QuoteJesus is the end of the law for anyone who believes,

A quirk of English.  Not "end" as in termination but "end" as in goal. One translation renders that phrase as "... the Goal of Torah ..."

Quotebut, your other post seemed to think jews needed to keep it?

Did I misunderstand you?

Not the Mosaic covenant itself but many of the statutes of the OT can be kept in a New Covenant environment. That is NOT REQUIRED to be done by Gentile followers (but they are free to join in if they want) but it IS REQUIRED for Jewish believers.  NOT for salvation but for fulfillment of their unique calling in the Lord. (see Rom 3)

The law of moses had one purpose and was not made for Christians, who have imputed righteoussness.

It was made to condemn sinners.

It is a schoolmaster to lead sinners to Christ, and if you are in Christ, there is no law of moses to think about, much less to keep.

DaveW:

QuoteThe difference between the "gospel to the circumcised" and the "gospel to the uncircumcised" (Gal 2.7) has been either ignored or entirely misunderstood for at least the last 1800 years. The key to that is understanding the decision in Acts 15  and the further explanation of Acts 21.

There is no difference in the gospel itself. The difference was to whom it was going to be preached to; lost jews, or lost gentiles.

"circumcised' was a term used in the bible to define jews.
"uncircumcised" was a term to define gentiles.

They both were given the same gospel.

Re-read Acts 21 without the protestant pre-conceptions.

Thousands of Jews came to faith.
They were all zealous for the Law (do NOT see that as a bad thing)
They were told Paul taught Jews in the Greek world to stop following the Law
James gave him a task to prove the charges untrue, including that he himself still obeyed the Law
Paul complied - thus agreeing with all that James said: even in the New Covenant Jews have to keep the Law

If Paul ever had a chance to say otherwise, this was it. 
Paul never wimped out on anything.

Quote from: DaveW on Tue Sep 11, 2012 - 13:26:26
Re-read Acts 21 without the protestant pre-conceptions.

Thousands of Jews came to faith.
They were all zealous for the Law (do NOT see that as a bad thing)
They were told Paul taught Jews in the Greek world to stop following the Law
James gave him a task to prove the charges untrue, including that he himself still obeyed the Law
Paul complied - thus agreeing with all that James said: even in the New Covenant Jews have to keep the Law

If Paul ever had a chance to say otherwise, this was it. 
Paul never wimped out on anything.

When a jew comes to faith; they are no longer under the law. Being zealous for the law only lead Israel to be cut off, for UNBELIEF.

They were misusing the purpose of it. James never once claimed to be keeping the law of moses, it is the law of LIBERTY, he spoke of. That is the law of faith...! If you think the law of moses is anything but a curse, you are a false teacher.

Here is how their zealousness is described:

Rom 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. 

Rom 10:2   For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. 


So, you see, their zeal was nothing to God. It was based on false knowledge, and of course God did correct those who had this unknowledgeable zeal..over time...IF and when they repented of their unbelief...

Rom 10:3   For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 


Rom 10:4   For Christ [is] the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. 

If a man has zeal for the law of moses, and is not submitting himself to the law of God/faith, where righteousness can be freely given, he is making the gospel of none effect, for verily righteoussness cannot come through or by the law of moses, EVER.

I think you better rethink a few things, brother.

Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.   


The very reason I started this thread, is because as the OP states, there are very many false belief systems, and this Mid Acts Dispensationalism is among it, and they uphold the same lie that you seem to be upholding, which is that jews could keep the law and be saved/justified in and through it.

It is a bunch of malarky.

Quote from: NewDay on Tue Sep 11, 2012 - 14:49:15

They were misusing the purpose of it. James never once claimed to be keeping the law of moses, it is the law of LIBERTY, he spoke of. That is the law of faith...! If you think the law of moses is anything but a curse, you are a false teacher.

The James who led the New Covenant believing congregation in Jerusalem ALSO at the same time was considered by the Pharasees as one of the best Torah scholars of his day. He is mentioned very favorably in Jewish writings and probably is the one who instituted the use of a stack of 3 matzahs in the Passover seder where the middle one is broken, wrapped in a white napkin and then brought back at the end. That has been done in orthodox Judaism for almost 2000 years.

And you say this James did NOT keep the Law?  You do not know your history. In fact, catholics call him "James the Just" and in their records he advocated even gentiles keep to the Law of Moses, DESPITE what the decision was in Acts 15.  (I am not saying their history is correct but that idea had to come from somewhere)

So you have to face this fact:  Either you do not have the whole story on Jews and the Law - OR - Paul wimped out and LIED in Acts 21.

I do not think Paul EVER "wimped out," and why would Paul lie about something so important?

Quote from: DaveW on Wed Sep 12, 2012 - 05:21:42

Quote from: NewDay on Tue Sep 11, 2012 - 14:49:15

They were misusing the purpose of it. James never once claimed to be keeping the law of moses, it is the law of LIBERTY, he spoke of. That is the law of faith...! If you think the law of moses is anything but a curse, you are a false teacher.

The James who led the New Covenant believing congregation in Jerusalem ALSO at the same time was considered by the Pharasees as one of the best Torah scholars of his day. He is mentioned very favorably in Jewish writings and probably is the one who instituted the use of a stack of 3 matzahs in the Passover seder where the middle one is broken, wrapped in a white napkin and then brought back at the end. That has been done in orthodox Judaism for almost 2000 years.

And you say this James did NOT keep the Law?  You do not know your history. In fact, catholics call him "James the Just" and in their records he advocated even gentiles keep to the Law of Moses, DESPITE what the decision was in Acts 15.  (I am not saying their history is correct but that idea had to come from somewhere)

Truth is not written in history books.

It is in the bible, and the law of liberty is NOT the law of moses!

Good grief.

Quote from: DaveW on Wed Sep 12, 2012 - 05:27:13
So you have to face this fact:  Either you do not have the whole story on Jews and the Law - OR - Paul wimped out and LIED in Acts 21.

I do not think Paul EVER "wimped out," and why would Paul lie about something so important?

Paul never wimped out, and either did James. They both taught the same gospel....salvation by grace, through faith.

What are you missing?

ND - have you even read that text in Acts 21?

And you are saying that history is a lie?

Quote from: DaveW on Wed Sep 12, 2012 - 13:28:43
ND - have you even read that text in Acts 21?

And you are saying that history is a lie?

Of course I have read Acts 21. The history I was referring to was prooftexts of men, not the bible.

There is nothing in Acts 21 that makes a claim that the law of moses is binding on jews.

You are reading into it, what is not there.

I have a thread on the subject in the End-Times forum.

The bottom line to Mid-Acts are three beliefs:

1.  The Apostle Paul was the first member of the Body of Christ.
2.  Israel receives earthly blessings, as promised in the OT, and the Church receives heavenly blessings.
3.  The Church Age is not mentioned in the OT so it is a parenthetical time and it is the mystery Paul referred to. 

I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone.  It shows that I made a post here and yet the post does not show up.  I'll try again.

Three main points of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism are these:

1.  The Apostle Paul was the first member of the Body of Christ.
2.  Israel will receive earthly blessings and the Church will receive heavenly blessings.  Thus Israel will remain on the earth while the church is in Heaven.
3.  This Church Age is parenthetical and was never mentioned in the OT so it is the mystery of God that Paul referred to.

Quoted for visibility

Quote from: notreligus on Mon Jan 07, 2013 - 13:27:03
I have a thread on the subject in the End-Times forum.

The bottom line to Mid-Acts are three beliefs:

1.  The Apostle Paul was the first member of the Body of Christ.
2.  Israel receives earthly blessings, as promised in the OT, and the Church receives heavenly blessings.
3.  The Church Age is not mentioned in the OT so it is a parenthetical time and it is the mystery Paul referred to. 

NR - the 2nd post on each page is not visible. A glitch in the forums.

Quote from: DaveW on Mon Jan 07, 2013 - 13:44:20
Quoted for visibility

Quote from: notreligus on Mon Jan 07, 2013 - 13:27:03
I have a thread on the subject in the End-Times forum.

The bottom line to Mid-Acts are three beliefs:

1.  The Apostle Paul was the first member of the Body of Christ.
2.  Israel receives earthly blessings, as promised in the OT, and the Church receives heavenly blessings.
3.  The Church Age is not mentioned in the OT so it is a parenthetical time and it is the mystery Paul referred to. 

NR - the 2nd post on each page is not visible. A glitch in the forums.

That explains a lot.  I posted something over in the End-Times forum and I kept looking and it was not there.  I suppose I need to post it again.  I just write what comes to mind.  I'll have to think about what I put in that post and do it make it again. 

Quote from: notreligus on Mon Jan 07, 2013 - 14:00:02
That explains a lot.  I posted something over in the End-Times forum and I kept looking and it was not there.  I suppose I need to post it again.  I just write what comes to mind.  I'll have to think about what I put in that post and do it make it again.

It will show up in the list if you hit the reply button.  You can then quote it into another post and you are good to go.

DaveW, you and I have disagreed elsewhere on Jewish believers still being required to keep the Law, so I won't belabor it, but I tend to read Acts 21 as I do Acts 15, as transitional events in the church, with the leaders trying to maintain peace and credibility among both Jews and Gentiles as both adjusted to life in Messiah, which transcends both the genetic division and the Law.   I do not read James' letter in Acts 15 to bind a micro-Torah on all Gentiles for all time.  This was a reasonable concession to the sensibilities of the Jewish believers.  It was intended to support and encourage the church, not the Law.   Note that when Paul teaches about eating meat sacrificed to idols, he does not make it a Jew/Gentile issue, but a brother/brother issue. 

Likewise, I think Paul's ritual observance in Acts 21 was more about credibility in leadership than about binding the Law.  James' relating his request to his letter to the Gentiles underscores my point.  If this were strictly about Paul as a Jew observing the Law, what has that to do with what the Gentiles were asked to do?  No, the only connection is the making of personal concessions to church harmony.  Note that the ritual was not particular to Paul, but was specifically a participation with other Jewish believers.  At this point in church history, there are no recognized translocal Gentile leaders.  This was the dynamic at the time, and one that was more emotionally problematic for Jews than Gentiles.  The idea that Paul might have gone off the reservation would have been tantamount to recognizing a Gentile apostle-- a prospect the church seems not to have been quite ready for at that point. 

Paul is certainly unapologetic in his view about circumcision in Galatians, and he does not divide that issue Jew/Gentile, either.  But he is willing to participate in ritual purification under the Law for the sake of the Jewish believers' faith.  Paul tells us that there is "neither Jew nor Greek" and tells us that he became "all things to all men" for their benefit.  I think his behavior in Acts 21 more reasonably fits this part of his character and expressed belief than it proves an eternal bifurcation of the church into two ever-separate camps.

This is my take on these events.  Your mileage may vary.

Apostle, who do you take any part of the Word of God as "transitional?"  There is no scriptural support for that idea.  You are coming from a view point opposite mine and interpret the scriptures as being 'transitional' to support that idea. You are thinking and approaching the story from a gentile viewpoint rather than a Jewish one.  All the participants in both Acts 15 and Acts 21 are Jewish. Peter. Paul. James. The Jerusalem  congregants. The Judaizers of Acts 15.1. All Jews. You need to look at the text from Jewish eyes.

Why did Paul circ' Timothy (of Jewish mother) and refused to circ' Titus (a Roman)  when Paul had just written to the Galatians that anyone who receives circumcision is OBLIGATED TO THE WHOLE LAW?  (Galatians 5:3) 

Taking your tact requires you to make work-arounds on way too many scriptures.

Quote from: DaveW on Wed Jan 09, 2013 - 08:14:42
Apostle, who do you take any part of the Word of God as "transitional?"  There is no scriptural support for that idea.  You are coming from a view point opposite mine and interpret the scriptures as being 'transitional' to support that idea. You are thinking and approaching the story from a gentile viewpoint rather than a Jewish one.  All the participants in both Acts 15 and Acts 21 are Jewish. Peter. Paul. James. The Jerusalem  congregants. The Judaizers of Acts 15.1. All Jews. You need to look at the text from Jewish eyes.

Why did Paul circ' Timothy (of Jewish mother) and refused to circ' Titus (a Roman)  when Paul had just written to the Galatians that anyone who receives circumcision is OBLIGATED TO THE WHOLE LAW?  (Galatians 5:3) 

Taking your tact requires you to make work-arounds on way too many scriptures.

I find lots of transitional and temporary things in Acts, Dave.  Communal view of money and centralized handling of it.  Daily temple worship.  External rule of the church from the elders of Jerusalem.  Centralized urban food ministry run by elected officials.  The time gap between Acts 2 and Acts 10.  I do not see that these anecdotes are given to us as eternal practices.  They are valid and understandable in the context of a developing church, one which is moving from being a minority sect of Judaism towards its intended destiny as a universal expression of God's children. 

Dave, being a Roman does not preclude one from being a Jew, so Titus may well have been a Jew.  We don't know and should not assume. Keep apples with apples.  And your question basically calls out the point I was making: Paul was not handling either Timothy or Titus as a matter of law-keeping.  In fact, we are directly told that Timothy was circumcized "because of the Jews who were in those places..."  Paul's motivation is NOT identified as a matter of obedience, either to God or to the Law, but to assuage Jewish doubts about Timothy's heritage.  (That IS taking the Jewish perspective.  If Paul had not been taking Timothy among Jewish believers, there is nothing to suggest he would have circumcized him.)   Your point about circumcision is overstated in its literality, as I think you are misapplying Paul's words in Galatians.  If Paul's statement were to be read that literally, then I, as a circumcized Gentile, would also be obligated to keep the whole Law.  I agree that you and I are approaching the record in Acts from different directions.  I read Acts as a series of historical anecdotes, not as a doctrinal treatise.   Your approach is almost identical to that of other RM patternists who make rules from specific acts and decisions found in Acts.  Your source material and method are near identical, but as your religious perspective is different from theirs, your conclusions are different.  Another similarity is that the church has not historically followed the model you conclude, so you propose to restore that lost proper practice from its pristine and primitive source as you understand it from Acts.   

Your conclusions here create an ever-bifurcated church.  This is a concept of such magnitude that I, for one, would expect to find it taught clearly and not have to be dug out inferentially, and even then not to be apparent to anyone but a Jew.  (And it requires a number of "work-arounds" in and of itself.)  Where Peter teaches about the incoming of the Gentiles, there is no mention of two standards of obedience. Where Paul teaches directly on the spiritual relationship between Israel and the Gentiles, this theme of two systems of obedience is absent.  When Peter stops eating with the Gentiles at Antioch after James' friends arrive, Peter is not suddenly rediscovering his obligation to the Law, but is merely acting in fear of Jewish criticism.  Paul identifies this as rank hypocrisy, rather than excusing it under the color of kosher.   Not once do I find Jewish believers commended for their commitment to the Law, even where Gentiles are instructed to follow that Law in a limited way. 

I think yours and my perspectives might perhaps be separated along this line:  You presume that the first century Jewish perspective of following Jesus was initially correct, because of their historic connection, and from this you conclude that it should be restored, both in faith and practice, as the Jews understood it on Day One.  OTOH, I would suggest that the early Jewish believers didn't understand Jesus all that well in the first place, that this is borne out in Jesus' interactions with his closest disciples, and that a development of that understanding is what we are witnessing in Acts and in the epistles.  From this, I conclude that this ongoing development of the believers' understanding of life in Christ suggests that such spiritual development is ongoing, and should be sought out from God and embraced.  I understand that my view is a minority one, even from a Protestant/Gentile/American perspective.  I know for certain that it frightens the living daylights out of my conservative RM brothers, who have much more in common with your perspective and would fear mine as a HOV lane to heresy.

Thanks for listening.

I view the Book of Acts as being first and foremost a book of history which provides an account of the growth of the early church.  Along with growth comes change.  The early church was steeped in Judaism.  The obvious reason for that is because most of them were Israelites/Jews.  Acts Chapter 11 reveals how the gospel had been taken to Jews only.  I used to hear Mid-Acts folk refer to this verse below as proof that Paul was the first to take the gospel to the Greeks.  The reason that the gospel was taken to Jews only at that point was because the gospel was taken to the synagogues outside of Jerusalem and there were many.  It was awhile before they accepted Paul's message with an emphasis on grace without requirements of the Law placed on new Greek converts.  This was indeed transitional.  We don't need circumcision today and we are baptized into the Body, or sealed, by the Holy Spirit.  This is not a work done with water or with hands but by the Holy Spirit. 

Acts 11:19  Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.