BALD FACED LIE:
“The Grace Movement (Hyper–dispensationalism, Mid-Acts Dispensationalism,ultra–dispensationalism, or more rarely, “Bullingerism” to which ‘ultra–dispensationalism‘ properly applies) is a Protestant doctrine that basically views the teachings of the Apostle Paul both as unique from earlier apostles and as foundational …”
I don’t follow Bullinger, nor Stam – so which box would they assign me to, and what would they label me as?
If you’re a Dispensationalist and you follow Bullinger, it would rightly make you an Acts 28er, i.e., an Ultra-Dispensationalist, not a Mid-Acts Dispensationalist. Most people who try to refute Mid-Acts Dispensationalism cannot rightly discern between Acts 9, Acts 13, or Acts 28 believers. If you want to refute something – do it properly. Be informed.
I am an Acts 9 Mid-Acts Dispensationalist believer, I believe the Church, the body of Christ, the One New Man began with the Apostle Paul on the road to Damascus with Paul being the very first member of the Body of Christ, the One NEW Man.
Here’s a typical mainline, institutionalised, denominational point of view, believing there’s only one gospel:
- Faith in what/who?
- Under what circumstances?
He completely forgets about, or is totally ignorant of James 2:24.
Pertaining to Genesis 15:6 – Abram had to be saved by faith alone because he was a heathen Gentile, besides, there was no Levitical Law at that time, neither was the Mosaic Law in place, besides, Abram couldn’t be saved by faith alone in Christ’s finished work on Calvary’s Cross and His resurrection from the dead on the third day for obvious reasons.
So was the gospel given to Abram the same as our Gospel today? The basis is the same : By faith alone, but the object of that faith is different.
Although mainline, denominational, institutionalised Christianity so-called profess to be totally anti-dispensational, they are actually dispensationalists to a certain degree, only they don’t know it:
“On the other hand, God’s declaration concerning that which is considered unclean has changed with time (Lev. 11:1-17; 20:25; Deu. 14:1-29 vs. Acts 10:10-17; 15:28-29). Another example of a discontinuity would be the prohibition on eating meat (Gen. 1:29 vs. Gen. 9:3; Deu. 12:15).”
They say, “we have Paul (Acts 26:19-21) stating much the same thing as Peter (Acts 10:35) regarding the elements of salvation. This stands against the mid-Acts dispensational belief that Peter and Paul have a different understanding of salvation.”
The Apostle Paul :
19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:
20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
21 For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me.
- Like ALL denominationalists, this person has a skewed definition of “repentance”, i.e., he doesn’t know what it means. Repentance means changing one’s mind, not one’s lifestyle. God repented that He had made Man in the book of Genesis, does that mean God got back onto the straight and narrow because He had sinned? God is sinless. So what does repentance REALLY mean?
- Repentance means to have a change of mind. God regreted He had created Man, and in Man’s case it means to change one’s mind and turn from unbelief to belief (
- “Do works meet for repentance” : In other words, do works that reflect one’s change of mind of having gone from unbelief to belief.
- 2 Timothy 2:15, Ephesians 1:13 & Galatians 2:7-9, anyone?
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
- Titus 3:5, anyone?
- “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;”