Part 2-Disagreements with the Traditional Mid Acts Position

 

     In the last post I stated my major disagreement with many of the Traditional Mid Acts Position.  The majority of those I have read of the Mid Acts Position believe that at some point, usually Acts 9 or for some Acts 13, God stops the offer of the kingdom and starts the “grace” program.  Most will not consider that God allows both programs to run concurrently through the entire book of Acts.  I am not aware of a Biblical reason that these two programs could not overlap from Acts 9-28.  God has definitely allowed two programs to operate concurrently in the past.  Consider the fact that the Jews were under the Law in the Old Testament while the Gentiles remained under the dispensation of conscience (Rom 2:12-15).  When meticulously studying Acts, it seems that the evidence points to the conclusion that God allowed the kingdom program and grace program to overlap until the end of Acts. 

     Many of the Traditional Mid Acts Position criticize Dr. E W Bullinger for going to the Acts 28 Position, and they thus point out all the errors of the Acts 28 Position.  I agree with the Mid Acts Position in that Bullinger went a little “too far.”  However, I do not accept the “answer” given by the Traditional Mid Acts people that Bullinger should have remained “Traditional Mid Acts.”  From going through all Bullinger’s articles in the Things to Come Theological Journal (Published 1894-1915), it is obvious to me that Bullinger never was a modern “Traditional Mid Acts” dispensationalist.  You may view on my blog that at one time Bullinger took sort of an Acts 13 position and later on he took an Acts 19 position before going all the way to the Acts 28 position.

     My disagreement with the Traditional Mid Acts Position when it comes to E W Bullinger is that I would have asked Dr. Bullinger to consider the possibility that God did not immediately stop the kingdom program at Mid Acts (take whichever Mid Acts chapter you like i.e. Acts 9, 13, or 19).  I would have tried to persuade Bullinger that the kingdom program and grace program “overlapped” or ran “concurrently” from "Mid Acts" until the end of the book of Acts.  From my study the “overlap” position solves more of the “problems” in Acts than either the Traditional Mid Acts Position or the Acts 28 position.

     I know most Mid Acts people will disagree with me, but in my opinion the Acts 28 position Bullinger took is the most consistent position to take if the “overlap” is not included in one’s Mid Acts theology.  The Mid Acts position without accepting the overlap still has many of the same “problems” of the Acts 2 position such as:  the observance of Pentecost by Paul (Acts 20:16), Paul speaking in Tongues (1 Cor 14:18), and all the other “gifts” listed in 1 Corinthians.  It appears to me that moving from Acts 2 to Acts 9 or 13, without the “overlap” principle, only gets rid of the problem of “baptism for remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).