"Why I am No Longer a (fill in the blank)"

      I just watched a video from a "Grace Bible Conference" in which the preacher did a sermon on "Why I am no longer a (fill in the blank)."  If I remember correctly he had been a Pentecostal and later an Independent Baptist before becoming a Mid Acts Grace believer.  In the message he basically gave 4 or 5 reasons why he was no longer a Pentecostal or Baptist.  I have no problem with him being no longer a Pentecostal or Baptist, but I do see inconsistencies in some of his arguments that need to be addressed by the Mid Acts people.

     His main argument for leaving these denominations was that they mainly follow the earthly ministry of Christ and early Acts (especially Acts 2) rather than Paul in "Romans through Philemon."   He rightly argues the Pentecostals get "hung up" on tongues (which was a sign for the Jews) and the Baptists follow the "Jewish" water baptism of John the Baptist and Peter.  He made a big point of water baptism being done to manifest Christ to Israel (John 1:31).  I agree water baptism was to manifest Christ to Israel.  In summary this guy says he became Mid Acts (not sure if he is Acts 9 or 13) to move away from starting the "church" in Acts 2 and practicing the tongues, water baptism, and other Jewish "stuff."  

     The problem with this preacher's arguments is that he does not move far enough away from Acts 2.  He has God being finished with Israel in Acts 7 like most of the Mid Acts Dispensationalists, thus creating much confusion in understanding the remainder of Acts as well as Paul's pre Acts 28 Epistles.  The Acts 9/13 Mid Acts position does not solve the "problem" of tongues, water baptism, ordinances, etc.  Tongues were still being practiced as late as Paul's writing of 1 Corinthians.  Paul even says the tongues speaking was for the purpose of speaking to Israel (1 Cor 14:21-22).  If God was finished with Israel in Acts 7, then there would have been no purpose of God giving the gift of tongues to the Corinthian church.  If this "grace" preacher wants to separate from Pentecostalism, then he must move beyond his Acts 9 or 13 position to be consistent.  He needs to go to at least Acts 20 to get away from tongues.  This "grace" preacher also must move beyond the Acts 9 or 13 position to get away from the "Baptists" as well.  The apostle Paul was practicing water baptism as late as Acts 18 at Corinth as well.  If water baptism was to manifest Christ to Israel, then logic would say that God must not have written Israel off in Acts 7, otherwise why would Paul still be practicing a "Jewish" water baptism?  Again, if this "grace" preacher is really no longer a Baptist, then in order to be consistent with his argument, he must move at least to Acts 20 to get away from water baptism.  

     In summary traditional Mid Acts Dispensationalism  solves very few of the problems of the Acts 2 Dispensationalists.  If one wants to consistently argue for stopping the practice of tongues, water baptism, and other ordinances then moving the starting point from Acts 2 to Acts 9 or 13 solves none of these issues.  Water baptism goes to at least Acts 18 and tongues speaking goes to at least Acts 19!

Grace Believers and "Practical Application"

      It has been my experience that many "Grace" preachers and teachers have a tendency to discount the value of practical application of the Scripture.  I think much of this comes from the fact that most teaching and preaching today is only practical with no doctrinal teaching.  In order to correct this error of no doctrine at all, the "Grace" preacher/teacher has often over corrected in taking the position that only doctrinal teaching/preaching is needed.  

     I am going to try and leave out my opinion on this issue, but try to answer this strictly from the Bible rightly divided.  As right dividers how does our Apostle Paul answer the issue of practical application versus doctrine?  First of all the most import issue according to Paul is doctrine.  Consider 2 Tim 3:

[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
[17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Note in verse 16 above the first thing said about the Scripture is that it is for doctrine.  Therefore, doctrine is more important than practical application.  Note, however, that the Scripture is also given for practical issues such as "instruction in righteousness."  For the man of God to be perfect (complete), then he must have both doctrine and practical application (see verse 17 above).  You can not be complete with only doctrine.  Also, you can not be complete with only practical application.

     So what example did Paul leave "Grace" preachers/teachers to follow?  If we examine the Pauline Epistles most of them begin discussing doctrinal issues, and then towards the end practical application is made.  For one example, consider the book of Romans.  Mainly Romans 1-11 deals with doctrinal matters. At Romans 12 and going through chapter 16 Paul mainly focuses on practical matters.  Doing simple math the book of Romans is 68.75 percent doctrinal and 31.25 percent practical.  This same ratio might not hold true on all Paul's writings but the pattern of preaching/teaching both doctrine and practice will hold true.

Was Paul Acts 2, Mid Acts, Acts 28 or None of the Above?

      Among Dispensationalists and Right Dividers the battle lines have been drawn between the Acts 2, Mid Acts, and Acts 28 Dispensational positions.  Since most Right Dividers agree that Paul is our apostle, I would like to ask, "Does Paul ever take a hard line dispensational position?"  From my study in Acts and Paul's epistles I never see Paul demanding someone draw a line at Acts 2, Acts 9 or 13, Acts 20, or Acts 28.  The book of Acts is progressive revelation all the way through to Acts 28.  Since Paul did not write all his epistles during Acts, the progression of revelation continued even after Acts 28.  In light of this I do not think God expects Right Dividers to draw a hard line anywhere in the book of Acts.  As most of you know from previous blog posts I take the position Paul knew about the "Gospel of the Grace of God" at least by Acts 20.  However, I see nowhere in the book of Acts Paul explaining the "Mystery of the One Body of Christ" composed of Jew and Gentile without distinction.  I do not see a thorough explanation until after Acts 28 in Ephesians and Colossians.   Although I concede that the "Mystery" of Romans 16:25 probably refers to the Jew and Gentile in the One Body of Christ, it is not explained until after Acts 28, in our King James Bible until Ephesians and Colossians.  I do not agree with Bullinger and other Acts 28ers that Romans 16:25 was added later.  In light of all this I would say Paul was "None of the Above" when it comes to the Acts 2, Mid Acts, and Acts 28 positions.  I think the reason for this is because, based on my study of Acts, Israel is given an opportunity to accept the Kingdom Offer at least until the end of Acts.  Based on Paul's earlier epistles it seems that Paul was expecting Israel to "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; (Acts 3:19 KJV) during his lifetime. 

     In hindsight, now that we know Israel rejected the Kingdom Offer all the way through the book of Acts, we can now look back in the book of Acts and see how God was transitioning some things in His foreknowledge (concerning Israel's rejection of the Kingdom) preparing and forming the Mystery of the One Body of Christ concurrently with Israel's Kingdom Offer.  I think some in seeing these transitions/preparations at different places in Acts erroneously draw a hard dispensational line and dare their fellow believer to cross at their own risk of being removed from the "fellowship."

      I would conclude with "...be at peace among yourselves."(1 Thes 5:13).

Mid Acts Right Division's Inconsistent Position on Paul's Practice of Water Baptism

      Most Mid Acts Dispensationalists say water baptism has no place in the age of grace.  When did the dispensation of grace begin?  Mid Acts Dispensationalists (MAD for short) answer this question with either Acts 9 or Acts 13.  The MAD position is Paul got saved, preached only grace according to the revelation of the mystery, and never entertained the idea that Israel could still believe and receive the kingdom after Acts 9 or 13.  So the question is, how could Paul continue to practice a water baptism for the remission of sins under a grace gospel according to the revelation of the mystery?  The correct answer is he could not.  

     Mid Acts Dispensationalists, in order to get consistent, must either admit Paul  practiced a symbolic water baptism under the dispensation of grace or they can change their position on when the dispensation of grace starts.  The MAD would have to move the start of "grace" from Acts 9 or 13 to some chapter in Acts after Paul's last recorded water baptism.  The earliest start time would be Acts 19 or 20.  

     I can think of two other options for the MAD.  Number one, reject the MAD position altogether and become an Acts 28 Dispensationalist like E W Bullinger did.  This allows all water baptisms in Acts to be Kingdom related and not Dispensation of Grace related.  The only other choice I see is teach that during the entire book of Acts God allowed an overlap of the Kingdom Program in which Israel could still repent and receive the Kingdom while many believed Paul's grace gospel and became part of the "fellowship of the mystery."