"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!