Dear Grace Bible College (and other Hyper-Dispensationalist) Part 1

10 Jan

Hey Grace,

On your website you say “The one divine and spiritual baptism by which believers are made members of the Body of Christ at conversion as the only baptism necessary in God’s spiritual program in this dispensation of the Grace of God.” Which means you do not believe in baptism for believers in water (which by the way is not exactly orthodox but whatever). We all know this is one of your deepest held beliefs (though you do an excellent job hiding it from your prospective students)…and I am not trying to be mean here because there is no doubt that when compared to the other “Christian” school in town you do a much better job loving and helping the church. But alas I have to ask this question: If as implied above there is only one baptism, and that not of water, and the water baptism was a Jewish phenomenon, what in the world was Peter thinking when he baptized the gentile converts in Acts 10. And what of the fact that the reason he baptizes them with water is based on the evidence of their baptism in the Spirit? (10:47) Was he confused…was he just not ready for the beginning of the church after Acts 12 (as you believe, not me)…And what of the fact that Luke records their baptism as based upon their prior reception of the Spirit? You would think Luke under inspiration would at least point out Peters folly, as even if the Church had not historically begun in the era spoken of in chapter 10, it certainly had by the time Luke wrote, and if your theology is correct then Luke a companion of Paul would certainly have been familiar with the need only for one “Spirit” baptism, no? I know you will want to argue dispensations at this point? But I would have to ask what made these gentiles different? Why in the dawning of the church age (your words again) are they not recipients of the same gifts as the other gentiles, why are they reckoned under a different dispensation? And if they are under a different dispensation, are they reckoned as Jews?

Let the hermeneutical gymnastics begin.
D

About these ads

94 Responses to “Dear Grace Bible College (and other Hyper-Dispensationalist) Part 1”

  1. mhogue January 11, 2008 at 10:00 am #

    lol…amen and amen.

  2. mhogue January 11, 2008 at 2:41 pm #

    one word for you: Budget.

  3. beckystewart January 11, 2008 at 6:51 pm #

    When I asked my Dispensational Theology professors why Paul still baptized after mid-Acts, they fully admitted that this was where their beliefs start to break down. The passage you mention in Acts 11 is just another reason why mid-Acts dispensationalism just doesn’t make sense. On a side note, there is a variety of views within mid-Acts dispensationalism regarding which chapter was the mark of the beginning of the church. The majority fall somewhere between Acts 9 and Acts 15. Then, of course, there are those that the mid-Acts peeps refer to as “hyper,” the Acts 28 peeps.

  4. mhogue January 15, 2008 at 9:38 am #

    That’s pretty awesome for a Mac. How’d you come across that deal?

  5. DUKE January 28, 2008 at 6:44 pm #

    Right on bro, I hate the whole keeping secret your whacked out doctrine thing.

  6. Eric April 29, 2008 at 5:27 am #

    Why do you say that Peter water baptised anyone in Acts 11?

  7. poopemerges April 29, 2008 at 8:37 am #

    oops my bad…11 is the continuation…the baptism is in 10…good catch.

  8. DL May 6, 2008 at 6:28 pm #

    Please drop by my site and contact me there…I may have answers for a few of your questions re: water baptism.

  9. poopemerges May 6, 2008 at 10:06 pm #

    Thanks DL, but 2000 years of Christian orthodoxy and the Bible give me all the answers I need. I will put you on my list of slow day reading though…

    D

    • Curtis May 11, 2011 at 2:24 pm #

      Awesome! Throw down the gauntlet, and then schluff off responses. It seems your questions are not real questions looking for answers, just rhetoric.

      Keep studying.

  10. DL May 6, 2008 at 10:56 pm #

    Let’s see if I got this straight: you ask some fair questions of GBC (who I do not support, btw), so I come along and post a link to my article addressing most of them, with a link inside that answering others. Then you smugly trumpet how you’ll just *yawn* ignore it. Do I get the picture?

    If so, can anyone who reads this page safely assume you really didn’t want your open letter responded to after all? At least not by someone (say, myself) who can actually address every point you made? Safe assumption there?

  11. DL May 6, 2008 at 11:02 pm #

    I mean, I took “let the hermeneutical gymnastics begin” to be an invitation to the dance for all comers. So here I am, white tie and tails, flowers in one hand and box of candy under the arm. And here I find you’re a shy lil’ wallflower. Okay. Your blog. Whatever.

    From now on, tho, if you don’t really want the answers, don’t ask the questions.

  12. DL May 6, 2008 at 11:09 pm #

    Waitaminute…I’m trying to talk seriously to someone who named their blog after feces. Forget I said anything. Ta.

  13. poopemerges May 7, 2008 at 8:14 am #

    Now you’re getting it.

    Here is the key DL. The questions are what we in the game call rhetorical. I am pretty clear on the scripture.

    It is kind of sad how water baptism is dividing you and I though…it’s just another case of a good doctrine holing some brothers down.

    RE: Grace Bible College. I do not agree with them, but I do support them because as wrong as they are about this they do an amazing job of getting their students excited about the local church and about following Jesus in general.

  14. DL May 10, 2008 at 11:20 am #

    “It is kind of sad how water baptism is dividing you and I though…”

    If that’s true, who among us is doing the dividing? I never have and never will been ungracious toward anyone because they held to whatever form of w.b. The opposite – I can assure you – is not the case. More than once I’ve found myself a shunned heretic for simply being a Berean and asking honest questions.

    As for you and I, you realize that either one of us is correct on water rituals and the other is wrong, or we’re BOTH wrong and some third option is correct.

    But we can’t both be right because God does not contradict Himself – water baptism either has a place in the Body of Christ today or it does not.

    If it doesn’t, there’s nothing to discuss. Letting someone soak you while speaking incantations over you has all the practical relevance to us today as the Hebrew’s dung paddle. To insist upon it as a condition of fellowship and/or church membership would be, at the VERY least, absurd.

    And if it does have a place, then the burden is on all the baptizers (yourself included) to settle the centuries of division by finally hashing out among yourselves which of the many “styles” or “modes” of water baptism is the only correct one (as these, too, are contradictory). What should the person wear? What incantation is to be spoken over them? How many dips? One? Three? Sprinkle or dunk? etc etc etc

    All of that is not on my plate, it’s on yours. What of substance are you doing to actually DEAL with it and FIX it? I mean, instead of sending your self-satisfied but useless rhetoric to GBC? Didn’t you say something about how it’s too bad w.b. divides you and I? How, then, do you justify trying to rile up whoever reads the email at GBC?

    “It’s just another case of a good doctrine holing some brothers down.”

    You’re welcome to try to prove that, of course. But if you’ve read my piece on water baptism, you may already realize you won’t be able to. And since you brought up church history (something I would never, EVER advise, even if it’s on your site in a particular case), I have a follow-up piece to my article which is not presently on the website. It shows the monstrosity w.b. (among other things) morphed into even within 100 years of Paul’s death, using quotes of the so-called early church “fathers.”

    Oh, nevermind…I forgot your whole poop blog thing.

  15. poopemerges May 10, 2008 at 3:45 pm #

    DL: You seem to struggle with the concept of sarcasm…The only real thing separating you and I is that fact that I don’t find you funny.

    Frankly I also don’t find you bright or convincing. People are not calling you a heretic for being a Berean..they are calling you a heretic simply for being a heretic…

    Now I am not going to waste much time with the above but I will be up front and tell you that I think that dispensationalism is Christ minimizing bull crap that divides the Bible to the point of dividing and warping God. You may continue to hold to a position that is about a hundred or so years old, (and a reaction to neo-orthodoxy) but I for one will not.

    It takes hermeneutical gymnastics to make dispensationalism work. Not only that but the place given to Israel to the exclusion of Christ is nothing short of sin. You think your position makes sense because you can exclude any text you chose on the basis of your system. To which I say “whatever.”

    That said, your position on Baptism only works to the extent that Dispensationalism does.

    Beyond that by your argument we should exclude worship from our services as some argue over its correct form. Also we should exclude preaching…as some believe in Topical and some believe in Exegetical…oh and we will have to exclude the Bible as some are dispensational and some are covenant and some are new-covenant. We should also exclude God because some are Arminian and some are Calvinist and they have differing concepts of sovereignty and this is dividing the church…Oh and this one will really hurt: We should exclude Paul because some believe that he has tension with James and some believe that there is no tension…but this causes division.

    Let’s face it there has not been unity on the mode of baptism in the last 2000 years: just like most other things in the church. Here is the thing all orthodox churches have agreed on for 2000 years though: Baptism in water is a sign and a seal of the new covenant…(and I do hope you are not one of the fruit loops who does not believe that the New Covenant is for non-Jews).

    Feel free to fill my blog with all the tripe you like..but try and make it funny,

    D

  16. michael cull August 26, 2008 at 4:13 pm #

    acts is primarally a transition book going from kingdom program “earthly” to the heavenly program “grace”. the 12 apostles were still following there commission as ordered,Paul is NOT the 13th apostle,there are only 12 thrones!he was given the mystery hidden,even from the 12.Concerning water baptizm and the gosple today….He makes it pretty clear when said:Christ sent me NOT TO BAPTIZE,B U T to preach the gosple: so obviously water baptizm is not part of the gosple today. this issue is much deeper,if you have any questions please contact me… thank you and God Bless!

  17. poopemerges August 26, 2008 at 4:32 pm #

    Mike: I think most of that is just a terrible argument from silence and conjecture…as Paul does say that he baptized some and as God did not send him to pastor either but to plant churches…now I would guess that you would not argue that the Pastorate has ceased…But never mind let’s take your Kingdom argument and ask this, what does Act 28 mean when it says:

    ” 30 For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. 31 He proclaimed the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ—with all boldness and without hindrance!”

    And let’s keep in mind that Acts does not predate the epistles in terms of narrative but runs congruently. And on that note you did not deal with the fact that Luke a gentile would have been aware of the theology you are claiming as he is a companion of Paul nowhere takes your view…one wold ask why an inspired writer, who walked with Paul, was a gentile and a recipient of your “Mystery” would continue to keep it a mystery after it’s revelation?

    So Mike you might want to be a tad more careful with the term “obviously..” and “clear” you might also want to rethink the suggestion that Paul is not an apostle as he claims to be…several times…In fact he does so at the beginning of the very book you are using to prooftext your position 1 Corinthians.

    D

  18. michael cull August 26, 2008 at 4:56 pm #

    Apostle: it simply means “sent from” and Christ sent paul to the gentiles,which validates his apostleship. besides the books of romans thru philimon ARE Christ’s resurrected ministry,he is just speaking through paul.Are you a grace beleiver?do you rightly divide the WORD?I have some great stuff to share,and love doing it!:)

  19. poopemerges August 26, 2008 at 6:56 pm #

    Michael that is a convenient reply. Why not take the Bible at it’s word?

    As far as rightly dividing the word, by your definition of course not…but by the Bibles definition “Accurately handling the word” I certainly do.
    http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?search=3718&version=nas

    I am in fact a grace believer, i.e. I believe that the message of scripture from Genesis 1:1-Revelation 22:21 is the story of God’s grace in Jesus Christ.

  20. poopemerges August 26, 2008 at 6:57 pm #

    PS: Michael I don’t want your “materials” but feel free to actually answer the questions I ask…

  21. ddonnie August 26, 2008 at 10:59 pm #

    Mike, Dude, don’t be a mof, read 1 corinthians 4, but this time, without your hermaneutical spiral

  22. ddonnie August 26, 2008 at 11:07 pm #

    To help you out, from now on the word “ignorant” no longer means one who doesn’t have a clue, rather it means one who has been fed a line of bull.

    Why do i do this you ask? Because apparently its “make words what you want them to be day.”

  23. michael cull August 27, 2008 at 5:12 am #

    not nessessarally, y have 2 rightly divide t word oftruth 2 timothy 2:15, luv u guy’s what oyher questions do u have?

  24. michael cull August 27, 2008 at 5:14 am #

    just call me tomarrow or e mail @:www.wendis70@yaho.com:

  25. poopemerges August 27, 2008 at 11:24 am #

    Seriously Mike are you drinking?

  26. ddonnie August 27, 2008 at 12:15 pm #

    hmmm, mine says handling. How bout yours D?

    Truth be told, dividing doesn’t even fit the context

  27. mikevandrie August 27, 2008 at 7:12 pm #

    “Seriously Mike are you drinking?”

    This Mike isn’t, however I hope the other one is.

    Donnie mine says handling. But we probably have the wrong non inspired version.

  28. poopemerges August 27, 2008 at 7:16 pm #

    The greek means handling as well… as one could see from the link I posted above.

    D

  29. Phil Long August 28, 2008 at 7:46 am #

    Poop said….

    >Thanks DL, but 2000 years of Christian
    > orthodoxy and the Bible give me all the
    > answers I need.

    I cannot believe this thread still is active. I’ve posted a couple of times but they never got approved. Ah well.

    Pardon the quote, but this is from pretty far back on the thread. I agree with the point that hte Bible teaches me all I need to know, but unless you are a traditional Roman Catholic, you are not really going to want to defend “2000years of church tradition.” If antiquity and tradition are set on the same level as scripture, then we have a problem. (And I have read this blog since the beginning, you do not believe that 2000 years of traditions are a source to your doctrine!

    Baptism is a practice of the church, and as such it is subject to a great deal of variation across history and culture. I learned just yesterday of a group in Africa that practices sand-baptism because of water taboo. No church today practices baptism in a way that is even close to want was practiced int he first century, by Jesus, Paul and the disciples. All we have is our denominational traditions, and as such they are only that, traditions.

  30. poopemerges August 28, 2008 at 9:20 am #

    Phil..Thy go straight through..so I don’t approve posts…Did you put links in them? cause sometimes WordPress zaps them. I can’t believe it is active either.

    On Orthodoxy: I will grant you that to an extent but I do believe that we have an enduring form of orthodoxy, that precludes us from some of the errors that emergents are making. I will also grant the variece in baptismal practice, however I do think non-baptism borders on the fringes of orthodoxy…Which is a point that is not original with me but stolen from Wayne Grudem.

  31. michael cull August 28, 2008 at 12:05 pm #

    the kindom program COMES the body of CHRIST goes you guy dont know weather your coming or going

  32. ddonnie August 28, 2008 at 12:15 pm #

    Mike, I’m not trying to be mean or rude, but can you please speak in full sentences, it makes it hard to determine what you are saying at times.

  33. poopemerges August 28, 2008 at 1:09 pm #

    Don, well said I am so confused.

  34. michael cull August 29, 2008 at 2:19 am #

    im sorry i was’t trying 2 b rude either,

  35. ddonnie August 29, 2008 at 11:13 pm #

    dude, seriously?? What the heck?

  36. Lbear September 7, 2008 at 4:39 am #

    First of all, the person who stated that the Mid-Acts theology breaks down because of Paul baptizing after Mid-Acts and later, has not clue what they are talking about. Not only did Paul water baptize after Mid-Acts but he circumcized, followed the law, took Jewish vows, went to the synagogue, didn’t eat pork, etc, etc.

    As time went on and the Apostle Paul was given the revelation of the MYSTERY. Those above things began to pass away. That includes water baptism. Paul later says that water baptism is not important and that Christ did not send him to water baptize. The 12 apostles could not say that. Paul is NOT the 13th apostle, he is the Apostle of the Gentiles, he is our apostle for those in the dispensation of Grace.

    Acts 2 is full of problems and contradictions. I would rather be an atheist than return to an Acts 2 theology. If it was not for understanding right division, I would have thrown my Bible in the trash.

    Any HONEST Acts 2 person will admit that the Bible has contradictions. The atheists and agnostics are correct, the Bible does have errors and contradictions IF you are Acts 2. Mid-Acts, rightly dividing is the only answer to these “contradictions”.

  37. Lbear September 7, 2008 at 4:44 am #

    Try this site/article for more on right division:

    http://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/articles/1166125062.html

    OR

    http://www.bereanbiblesociety.org

  38. Seth McBee September 7, 2008 at 10:52 am #

    I would rather be an atheist than return to an Acts 2 theology

    Wow…you would rather depend on your theology that is unclear, than believe in God?

    That is a very telling comment of how ignorant you are of what it means to follow Christ. I would never put my theology, which we see in a mirror dimly, above that of first importance, namely that Christ died and rose again for my sins. (1 Cor 15)

    Brutal comment…and if I were you…I would delete it and stop saying such foolish statements.

  39. mikevandrie September 7, 2008 at 4:24 pm #

    “Paul later says that water baptism is not important and that Christ did not send him to water baptize.”

    Do we have to go over this again. Look at the above conversation, your friend Michael Cull tried to do that and if you are referring to the same text we will all laugh at you and say are you so enamored with your theology that you can’t even read a passage without letting your theology totally screw it up.

    “The 12 apostles could not say that. Paul is NOT the 13th apostle, he is the Apostle of the Gentiles, he is our apostle for those in the dispensation of Grace.”

    Do you read this in the Bible or again are you just making some crap up… when I read that Paul is an apostle, I believe it to be that he is an apostle. Not some sorta kinda apostle.

    So is most of the Bible is sorta kinda for you.

  40. Ddonnie September 7, 2008 at 10:00 pm #

    Dude, I can see how you would get confused. See, Jesus was the mystery, not pork. Sorry my friend, but it’s okay, easy mistake to make.

  41. Lbear September 8, 2008 at 3:10 am #

    Did you even read anything from the site I referenced?

    http://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/articles/1166125062.html

    OR

    http://www.bereanbiblesociety.org

  42. Lbear September 8, 2008 at 3:19 am #

    “Wow…you would rather depend on your theology that is unclear, than believe in God?”

    Believing in God requires believing in His Word. The Bible/God’s Word is clear when one rightly divides. It is not MY theology but the theology that comes from reading Gods.

    Please visit those sites and get back to me with real questions instead of personal attacks. I was once an Acts 2 believer but all the contradictions that comes from Acts 2 theology was too overwhelming. Tongues, no tongues, healings, no healings, eternal security, temporal security, etc,etc, All these debates that Acts 2 people have is because they FAIL to rightly divide.

    Please visit that site and then get back to me….

  43. Ddonnie September 8, 2008 at 8:02 am #

    Dude, nobody is going to do it. If you want your opinion to be heard, you’ll have to say it yourself. Don’t be lazy.

  44. Lb ear September 8, 2008 at 10:51 am #

    “Dude, nobody is going to do it. If you want your opinion to be heard, you’ll have to say it yourself. Don’t be lazy.”

    If they can’t click a link and read an article or two, then whose fault is it? The only “lazy” person would be the one who can’t click a mouse button and read an article.

    Trying to explain a theological position on a forum like this is next to impossible. It would require pages and pages of information to just get started.

    It has nothing to do with being “lazy” but using readily accessible information at a click away. Instead of trying to develop a point with the limited resources of blog site like this.

    If someone is SERIOUS about understanding right division, then they will take the time to read through the articles. If all they want to do is talk nonsense and dismiss it, then they will not take the effort in reading it.

  45. Ddonnie September 8, 2008 at 11:58 am #

    I think you are confused, you keep speaking about rightly dividing, whereas our goal is to correctly HANDLE the word of truth. Again, easy to understand your confusion.

  46. Seth McBee September 8, 2008 at 1:18 pm #

    Hey LB…

    Have you ever read all the books that the Mormons hold dear? Have you read and studied the Koran or the Hadith?

    Have you read all the articles put forth by the Jehovah Witnesses?

    Or have you seen bad exegesis from them and made some of your own conlclusions?

    I have seen some terrible exegesis from YOUR theological camp…and find it wanting…

    So, I don’t need to read a bunch of articles from you to know that it is faulty at best, heretical at worst.

  47. ddonnie September 8, 2008 at 5:39 pm #

    Well said Seth

  48. Joel Shaffer September 8, 2008 at 8:07 pm #

    Lb ear,

    Actually I did take the time to read alot of it and for the most part it was a waste of my time. The only thing valuable about it was to discover the things that distinguish my position (a leaky progressive dispensationalist) from the hyper dispensationalist.

    I find it interesting that rightly “dividing” the Bible is at the center of your hermeneutical system. From my view point, your hermeneutic depends way too much on an aspect of modernity-that being the Baconian Science method. Just in case you don’t know what I mean, read Mark Noll’s “the Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.” I find it ironic that in your desire to stay faithful to Scripture through a rigid adherence to its hermeneutic has led you to the edge of theological liberalism. Just as Modernity’s rationalism and darwinistic science influenced many North American mainline churches to embrace liberalism by denying certain doctrines of the faith, has Modernity’s Baconian scientific method led certain dispensationalists to render large portions of the Bible meaningless due to their unswervingly rigid embrace of an interpretative method? What is the difference between a person who denies the validity of certain scriptures like Thomas Jefferson who cut and pasted the parts of the Bible that he disagreed with and a dispensationalist that fails to acknowledge the present application of large portions of scripture such as Baptism, Sermon on the Mount, and etc…. I’ll let you figure out that question.

    As much as I appreciate the fact that your group is desperately trying to keep away from modernistic tendencies as the Berean website mentions, your fringe group has unknowingly capitulated the word of God to modernism in its interpretation.

  49. poopemerges September 8, 2008 at 9:29 pm #

    Joel that is an astute observation…as dispensationalism itself starts as a reactionary movement against neo-orthodoxy’s perceived liberalism. It is ironic that in an attempt to keep true to the Bible that often the interpretations are so fanciful that the opposite is true.

  50. LBear September 10, 2008 at 4:19 pm #

    Your motives are not pure. This site is only here to mock Gods Word.

    You can’t argue someone into believing God and His Word.

    It’s a waste of time trying to convince a person with a unpure motive and an unclean heart.

    “Joel that is an astute observation….”

    You must be so full yourself and your so-called intellect. Patting yourself on your back and acting so wise.

    In the end, your pride will be your downfall. God will judge you at your time of death.

  51. ddonnie September 10, 2008 at 6:05 pm #

    wow, it went from a solid intellectual discussion to direct insults in the blink of an eye. Bravo my friend. God Bless.

  52. poopemerges September 10, 2008 at 6:30 pm #

    L: That is it. I have tried to be nice. But frankly I have no choice but to conclude that you are mentally disabled. You come here, you post stupid links and you never answer a question. I know great people associated with the Grace movement. You are not one of them.

    You are the one that mocks God’s word. If you cared about it at all you would answer simple questions given to you from scripture. But you don’t. And I suspect you can’t. You have two choices: Get smarter….or never post again. Because your comments suck and they make so sense.

    As far as God judging me when I die: God already judged me. Before the beginning of time…and he discovered that I totally and completely stink…he discovered that there was not a good thing about me. And then because I so totally blow he killed Jesus in my place. So now there is no condemnation. Every sucky thing I have done Jesus died for, 2000 years ago at the Cross so that awful people like me could know him. If you don’t understand that then your comment may be the saddest thing I have ever read.

  53. Lbear September 10, 2008 at 9:24 pm #

    How sincere can you be?

    You named your blog after feces!

    You constantly use vulgarity, sarcasm, crude remarks, personal attacks, obscenities, hate, anger in your posts.

    You are a subtle as a Mack Truck . You should be ashamed of yourself!

  54. Lbear September 10, 2008 at 9:27 pm #

    “And then because I so totally blow he killed Jesus in my place”

    God killed Jesus?

  55. poopemerges September 10, 2008 at 9:42 pm #

    Strangely enough I am not… Is subtly a Christian value?

    vulgarity: no
    Sarcasm: yes
    crude remarks: no
    Personal attacks: Only if you include the fact that I sincerly believe you might be mentally disabled.
    hate: never
    anger: Not really…I am pretty happy really…

    I think it is important to note here that the only one attacking consistently has been you…and all because we refuse to agree with a position that we view as unbliblical… we have begged you to respond from scripture to simple questions but you refuse…and get angry. And then you declared judgement on me (which seems a little over the top if you ask me…it reminded me of an episode of “little house on the prairie” I saw once where this freaky lady is calling down judgement form the sky on Mary…but anyhoo)…So you seem to have a hypocrisy issue. Friend the only difference between you and me is that I am funny.

    Also you don’t know me at all. I did not pick the fight you continue…so you might want to be careful what you assume about me and how since I am…

    Yes God killed Jesus… in my place. God saved me from him, through him… by pouring our his wrath of Jesus. This was his plan from before the beginning…

    D

  56. Lbear September 11, 2008 at 12:46 am #

    “and all because we refuse to agree with a position that we view as unbliblical”

    Look, a blog is not the place to discuss this. A forum that is designed for such debates is a better place.

    The only thing “unbibical” is your stance and faulty theology. Acts 2 crumbles under the slightest pressure. I challenge you to go:

    http://www.theologyonline.com/forums

    It is the largest Mid-Acts forums in the world. It has over 36 million hits. Once there, you can debate your position and the following will happen to you:

    1 – You will be shown that Acts 2 theology is wrong & actually heretical in many areas.
    2 – You will be schooled and you will be humbled by the experience.
    3 – You will see that your arguments and defensive for your Acts 2 position is so weak that you will wonder how in the world did you ever believe in it?

    Take the challenge.

  57. ddonnie September 11, 2008 at 1:23 am #

    I honestly have no idea what to say. Are you serious or is this some sort of a joke? Like seriously? I almost crapped my pants just now. You seriously have got to be kidding! Mike, is that you pretending to be a dispensationalist so that you can drop a bomb like that on us? Holy cow.

  58. ddonnie September 11, 2008 at 1:28 am #

    Lbear, stop for a minute, take your head out of your rear, and read before you ever post here ever again. Ever. How in the world you came to the conclusion that ANY one of us is an acts 2 dispensationalist, simply proves that you did not read this thread but just came here looking for a fight. By rightly handling the word of truth, one simply deducts that a dispensation is a man made idea and is not supported by the text.

    I’m honestly offended

  59. ddonnie September 11, 2008 at 1:31 am #

    And one more thing, Since you are the rogue scholar on here looking for a fight, YOU defend it. Every time I’ve gotten into a dispensationalist vs reformed theology debate, even with two of my professors, they have talked themselves in circles. It doesn’t hold up friend.

    Sola Deo Gloria

  60. Seth McBee September 11, 2008 at 1:43 am #

    lbear…

    uhum…

    are you not now being the prideful and arrogant one…?

    You just said:

    1 – You will be shown that Acts 2 theology is wrong & actually heretical in many areas.
    2 – You will be schooled and you will be humbled by the experience.
    3 – You will see that your arguments and defensive for your Acts 2 position is so weak that you will wonder how in the world did you ever believe in it?

    Interesting what happens when the tables are turned…

    Here is your quote earlier:

    You must be so full yourself and your so-called intellect. Patting yourself on your back and acting so wise.

    In the end, your pride will be your downfall. God will judge you at your time of death.

    Isn’t your most recent comment pretty prideful and arrogant?

    So…if you use double standards in just normal conversations…seems like logic would say that you probably use double standards in your terrible interpretations of Scripture as well.

    Thanks for allowing us to see that before we waste too much time talking to you…

    and sorry that you can’t handle the word “poop”

    that’s just funny.

  61. Lbear September 11, 2008 at 4:28 am #

    “Isn’t your most recent comment pretty prideful and arrogant?”

    I was playing the game. Just like Mr.Poop was.

    Of course the comment was arrogant. It was done as a funny, just like Mr. Blog is doing. I am playing the same game he is.

    Either way.

    Take the challenge. Go to the forum! Test to see how strong your position is.

  62. Lbear September 11, 2008 at 4:30 am #

    DDonie –

    Go to the forum! Take the challenge!

    In the end, I believe you will see that your position is not as strong as you think it is. It has many contradictions.

    http://www.theologyonline.com/forums

  63. mikevandrie September 11, 2008 at 8:04 am #

    Lbear, I went to that forum and the people who were trying to defend the same point as you were misusing the same verses that you and the guy before you were using.

    You yourself can not defend your position here and they can’t defend it there. We are not going to believe a lie that has caused some horrible Christianity. So why don’t you go get on your horse and get out of this town before we have to go round up a posse. You are more and more of a joke around here all of the time.

  64. ddonnie September 11, 2008 at 8:30 am #

    Lbear, show me someone that has been fighting for any form of dispensationalism, other than you and the other dispensational cronies.

  65. ddonnie September 11, 2008 at 8:32 am #

    And once again, i dont like listening to people talk in circles around themselves.

  66. Joel Shaffer September 11, 2008 at 11:22 am #

    Lbear,

    I find it amusing that you refer to a forum as your replacement for a blog site to defend your position. Unfortunately forums are places where people can pool their ignorance on a theological construct like dispensationalism. If you really want to prove that your position actually has weight, don’t point me to a fringe web site like the Berean Bible Society or a fringe forum such as theologyonline. Point me to a reputable theological journal within evangelicalism that would actually consider publish a work from one of your people. If they are so great at debating this position, why aren’t they in constant conversation with scholars from Westminster Seminary debating Covenant Theology? Why aren’t they in constant conversation with scholars from Dallas Theological Seminary debating Progressive Dispensationalism? Why aren’t they in constant conversation with scholars from Trinity Seminary who span the belief spectrum of Covenant, New Covenant, and Progressive Dispensationalism?

    Also, are there even any Biblical scholars within your movement? Wouldn’t you think that Grace Bible College (the flagship educational school of Mid-Acts dispensationalism) have a Bible prof that actually has a doctorate in Theology (from their web page, none of their faculty or administration has more than a Masters degree) in order to be taken seriously in the theological circles beyond themselves?

    Are there any people from the Mid-Acts dispenational worldview that are part of the Evangelical Theological Society? If so, who are they? Again, what papers have they presented in front of real theological scholars in defending their position on this subject?

    if you want your mid-acts position to be taken seriously, then your forum debaters better learn how to conversate in the halls of theological academia rather than in front of a personal computer.

  67. poopemerges September 11, 2008 at 11:33 am #

    Joel: Wow!~ That is excellent. One minor point however…I did not at all intend this to rip on Grace or it’s profs. (I was orignally asking a serious question)… I disagree wholehearted with Dispensationalism (I am NCT btw not Acts 2) But Grace as an institution does a far better job at appreciating the church and producing students who are useful for the kingdom than that other school that you and I both went to.

    That said! Wow. I would call it astute but the word offends our boy “Lbear” so I will just say wow.

  68. beckystewart September 11, 2008 at 11:47 am #

    Joel:
    While I certainly am not a dispensationalist in any form, I would like to point out that at least one of the professors at Grace is involved in ETS and is working on his doctorate. While I’m not sure if he has presented a paper specifically about Mid-Acts Dispensationalism, I know he is actively involved and respected in the theological community.

  69. poopemerges September 11, 2008 at 11:51 am #

    And he would be respected here…and I am sure would add much to the conversation…But I still think Joel’s point is solid…

    D

  70. Joel Shaffer September 11, 2008 at 12:09 pm #

    D and Becky,

    Sorry if my comments seemed to put down Grace. That was not at all my intention. I am glad to hear that one prof is involved in ETS because again if Mid-Acts group are to gain a hearing, they need desperately need scholars who can debate these issues with Biblical integrity.

    As for that other school vs. grace, you make an excellent point. All I can do is pray that one of these days our alma mater will actually value the church over “Capstone”.

  71. Phil Long September 11, 2008 at 3:34 pm #

    >that are part of the Evangelical Theological
    > Society?

    Yep, quite a few, although my paper was on the topic of Historical Jesus and Mat’s paper was on Karl Barth and the Emerging church. Mat’s finishing up at Notre Dame (I think you might have heard of that school), I am finishing at Andrews University in NT. I have yet to publish an article in a scholarly journal, but I have book done a dozen or so book reviews for several journals. The previous chair of the department had a PhD and had a couple of published papers, including one in JETS, a former prof in our department had an article in JBL.

    I’m not sure that I have ever met you at an ETS meeting, perhaps at the Spring meetings at Asbury. We can have a cup of coffee and discuss U2.

  72. poopemerges September 11, 2008 at 3:53 pm #

    I am starting to wish I had never written this post!~ Guys this post is old…thought the question is genuine…Here is the thing with the exception of LB I know everyone posting here in some sense and they all love Jesus, they all serve Jesus and they can all agree to disagree. So guys lets keep focused and put our energies where they belong: Ripping on LBear.

    D

  73. ddonnie September 11, 2008 at 6:21 pm #

    Honestly, I was hoping to hear P. Long’s post (though I feel bad if i have affended him in any way). But I know that P.Long is a civilized person who can have a civilized debate, as opposed to some people who have posted on this thread.

  74. Lbear September 12, 2008 at 1:28 am #

    Just as I thought.

    I guess I can understand that you are scared. You have a blog with 50 hits and you are free to pat each other on the back and talk-up how smart you are.

    Venturing into theologyonline.com forum, which has 36+ million hits, can be intimidating.

    You are king of you 50 hit blog and free to go unchallenged about your beliefs. But a forum that has moderators to oversee the debates and that has 36+ million hits, is something you are scared of. I can understand that.

    All the PHD’s and theological cemetery’s that you boasted about are empty tombs that God finds vile. Remember, God chose 12 “Joe average” men to be his disciples. The intellectual crowd hated Christ.

    These cemetery’s you boast about and care so much for. They are the same cemetery graduates that they feature on A&E. They have numerous titles behind their names. You know, it makes them holier and smarter. Anyways, theses “intellectual scholars” sit there and deny the miracles of Christ, deny the power of God, speak blasphemy, all the while they boast their degrees that they attained at the theological cemetery.

    Oh well, have fun in your 50 hit blog. Try and avoid forums that have moderated debates where 36+ million people visited. Carry on in your little world….

  75. Lbear September 12, 2008 at 2:00 am #

    Joel Shaffer –

    God calls you a “FOOL”, as do I!

    “Professing to be wise, they became fools”

    You believe wisdom comes from university degrees. God’s believes differently.

    “Evangelical Theological Society”

    You gotta be kidding!!! The president of the ETS just converted to Catholicism. It’s apostate!

    Oh wait! He has a doctorate. He must be right! Catholicism is the true church. It has to be! Since a person with such a high degree must be right.

    You are pathetic and wicked! God finds your “wisdom” to be vile and worthless.

    http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2007/05/evangelical_the.html

    “Also, are there even any Biblical scholars within your movement? ”

    Is that who you seek? Scholars that blaspheme God and hold to heresies! The same idiots that deny Christ. The same Phd’s that are shown constantly on TV that blaspheme God and His Word.

    If you lived in the times of Jesus, you would be the one yelling “CRUCIFY HIM!”.

    It’s true that I live in my moms basement and am not allowed to touch sharp objects…but if there is one thing I know it is how to call names without any substance. Like one time I called a person who disagreed with me a big weenie! It was so funny. Anyway. Um. Oh yeah so like I was saying I have never really read the Bible or anything but according to the theology forum at my dating site for really hairy guys you are a big mean dummy Joel Shaffer and I sputter vile invective in your direction. I would totally dust of my sandals…but that is not for this dispensation.

  76. poopemerges September 12, 2008 at 8:01 am #

    Ummm Lbear: are you saying that you would not be crying crucify? That’s amazing….you are soooo holy I bet you hardly even need Jesus…

    Seriously man, I let you say what ever you want and you come up with that?

    You complain because I am judgmental and you say Joel is a fool? I am going to be honest: You are am embarrassment to your position because you refuse to defend it…instead you call names, if your position is solid than offer a defense not a website. Friend the problem is that you are what we in the game call “not bright.” For the sake of the good people in your movement shut up!

  77. mikevandrie September 12, 2008 at 8:10 am #

    “God calls you a “FOOL”, as do I!

    “Professing to be wise, they became fools””

    Kinda sounds like the hateful person called LBear.

    Anyways LBear you came to this blog, which I guess has over 50 hits, but that is not the point. You came here, tried to argue your point, you sucked at that. Then you would not answer the questions that people had and kept telling people to go to different websites, which I did. Guess what those websites and that forum have the same crap you do. No one there can defend their point with the BIBLE. You see that is the point. If you get your theology from something other than the Bible and come around here, yes we will tear you apart.

    So just admit it you lost, we all think you are a lunatic that does not love Jesus and wants to defame His name by using personal insults and calling people fools because you were schooled. So go back to your forum with the other “smart” people like you where you can as Joel said “pool your ignorance”. So go back there whimpering and licking your wounds.

  78. mikevandrie September 12, 2008 at 8:13 am #

    “If you lived in the times of Jesus, you would be the one yelling “CRUCIFY HIM!”.”

    I probably would have been, guess why, because without Jesus changing me that is who I would be. I am glad that you are so holy and really don’t need Jesus and I hope that I am rightly dividing the Word there.

  79. Joel Shaffer September 12, 2008 at 11:20 am #

    Lbear, Lbear, Lbear,

    Um, your Romans 1:22 quote might be a little out of context, unless you really believe that I am currently under God’s wrath because I have rejected God’s grace due to being an idol worshipper of statues of little men and animals, and a sexual pervert (So much for rightly dividing the word of truth) I got news for you. Like it or not, I am your Christian brother so you have to somehow “bear” with me, even if you think I am wrong. Likewise, I am trying to “bear” with you and show patience with your views, even helping by gently instructing.

    You are assuming alot that I did not say. I never said that I believe wisdom comes from a university degree. My point was that the environment of a forum or blogsite allows people to say anything they want without having to back it up with truth. You can twist any scripture to its liking to prove your point without any accountability. Whereas when people put together papers to be read at places such as the ETS meetings or even write books or commentaries they have to be able show that they did their homework through a thorough approach to unpacking the scriptures. Also they have to anticipate different view points when they defend it and they have to footnote and explain all the primary and secondary sources as well.

    You dismissing ETS because its former leader became a Catholic doesn’t tell the whole story. Dr. Beckwith is no longer its President nor is he a member of ETS. He and ETS both realize that their theology is not compatible.

    On a side note, I am so glad the the Grace profs understand the importance of scholarship and haven’t written off ETS or pursuing earned doctorates. They realize that Grace Bible college needs profs who can articulate and defend the scriptures, including the mid-acts dispensationalism view that the college espouses. What I am seeing is that they are not only loving God with their heart, soul, and strength, but also with their mind. They are not taking the short-cuts that forums unintentionally encourage such as the sound-bite quips that I observed on theologyonline. Rather they are doing all of the long-term grunt work that goes into studying God’s word in order to be able to teach their students with integrity.

  80. Joel Shaffer September 12, 2008 at 11:52 am #

    Lbear,

    Wow, your view of seminaries is even more conservative than my fundamentalist Baptist friends from the GARBC!!!! It takes alot of quirkiness to be able to accomplish that!!!!

    I’d like some proof of the A&E scholars from these seminaries who are denying miracles and Blaspheming God…..

    Just for fun, I’d like to dedicate a little song to you, especially when you twist scriptures to reign judgment on me…..

    (to be sung to the tune of “Count your Blessings”)

    When in Bible doctrine you are tempest tossed
    When you are discouraged thinking all is lost
    You can twist the scriptures, twist them any way
    And it will suffice you til’ the judgment day.

    Twist the scriptures, Twist them one by one
    Twist the scriptures, See what can be done
    Twist the scriptures, Twist them one by one
    You can be a heretic its lots of fun!!!

  81. poopemerges September 12, 2008 at 12:17 pm #

    Joel that rocks! I hope the other 49 people who read this blog like it too.

    D

  82. poopemerges September 12, 2008 at 12:20 pm #

    Side note I stopped over to the Theology online forum….what a cesspool that is… They are currently debating if you can deny the deity of Christ and still be a Christian… Sounds like a great place to get your theology…

    D

  83. Lbear September 12, 2008 at 7:48 pm #

    The only “cesspool” is my lack of intellect and Me.

    People debate many issues and topics. You have 36 million hits. You get atheists and all types of different backgrounds.

    Just because someone asks a question or debates an issue like the deity of Christ, doesn’t mean that the theology someone espouses is true. For instance, like my theology. My beliefs are wrong but I keep promoting false theology.

    Now I can go back to my sad life and play there. It is much safer. Nobody will bother me. I am free to swim in my own ignorance.

  84. poopemerges September 12, 2008 at 7:54 pm #

    Lbear do you own that site? You sure pimp it a lot.

    Here is my promise Big L: Make an actual argument from the Bible not from another site… and have it be convincing and I will adopt your views. On the spot.

    By the way I appreciate your mom posting commenting earlier.

  85. Phil Long September 13, 2008 at 8:56 am #

    >I am so glad the the Grace profs understand the
    > importance of scholarship and haven’t written
    > off ETS or pursuing earned doctorates.

    Joel, I think you might be confused about what motivates people to participate in these sorts of societies. I have attended both regional and national meetings of ETS, and am a member of EPS and SBL (mostly for the journals), but I am not under the illusion that anyone there would be “converted” to my particular theological position on ecclesiology any more than I expect to be converted to Anglicanism because I read NT Wright, or that I might become a Quaker from reading Shane Claiborne. One attends these sorts of meetings to cross-fertilize – learn from other traditions and ideas that challenge and stretch your own thinking.

    I like the idea of “constant dialogue” with Dallas or Trinity, but we all have more interesting things to do than re-hash over the same ground. I cite Darrell Bock as an example. He has done is dispensational thinking and probably written all he cares to writer on the topic. Better that he spends his time writing commentaries on Luke and Acts, engaging culture and media, etc. I am more or less like that myself, I am a dispensationalist and I suppose this is foundational to what I do, but I have a great deal more interest in doing gospels research and reading second temple period literature at this point.

    My guess is that a blog is more or less the same thing as an ETS session, except that we are more or less anonymous and can say really prejudiced and ignorant things without fear of anyone being able to defend our lazy thinking. In an ETS session, one is free to be ignorant, but probably will be shamed into oblivion.

    Phil

  86. Joel Shaffer September 13, 2008 at 5:17 pm #

    Phil,

    In the last post to LBear I was not implying that going to ETS is about debating issues such as mid-acts dispensationalism. I was merely siting Grace as an example that they believe ETS hasn’t gone to hell and is worthwhile to participate in. Yes, I also mentioned being able to articulate your position. My point was more about the hours and hours of studying that you have done to understanding your dispensational view point over the years, rather than relying on sound-bite quips. I have attended a few regional ETS meetings in my past (while a student at GRTS) so I have a feel for what goes on and I realize it is not done in order to convince others.

  87. michael cull April 15, 2009 at 2:33 pm #

    sorry you guys cant see. ;2 make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery which from the beginning of the world has been hid in God. eph. 3.9.. nobody in scripture has JUSTIFICATION until the 2nd advent,which is @ the end of the 7 years of trib. pauls gosple declares we have received by faith alone in the finished work @ calvery 2000 years ago….please be carefull on the doctrins of JUSTIFICATION and SALVATION they r not the same….you r not saved unto eternal life my friends…..you r “saved” from debt and penelty to sin! you are JUSTIFIED unto eternal life.and the only and i mean only way to be justified is through faith! in the fact that YOU were nailed to calvery’s tree God looked upon you and judged you completely guilty for adams sin,sent you to hell for it,and condemed you ti eternal damnation,2000 years ago,but Jesus Christ went in your sted,HIm who knew no sin became sin for us. so that the justice of God might be satisfied.buired you with him,and through the ressurection declared you justified.your judical standing before God as guilty in adam,was made innocent IN Christ… as it is appointed once for man to die then comes judgment. i have already been judged and God can never judge me again.. that is where the doctrin of sanctification comes in to play. SANCTIFICATION=set apart unto holiness,and that takes a life time to attend..God blesssssssss you and keep you . in his name, michael cull

  88. michael cull April 15, 2009 at 3:19 pm #

    and my fellow brothers,by the way im not acts2 i am a mid acts grace beliver.

  89. Austin April 22, 2009 at 3:49 pm #

    I love ignorance!

  90. michael cull March 26, 2010 at 7:15 pm #

    lets talk doctrine????

  91. Ted August 16, 2010 at 1:19 pm #

    I am familiar with the Mid Act position. I am a mid acts believer but not in agreement with most mid acts dispensationalist. What I am working on is a link of truth found in scriptures which by God grace will unify the positions with the truth of God’s Word. I am also familiar with the Acts two position and covenant theologians. I am working on a book to bring the truth of God’s Word together relating to these positions. Pray for me that God gives the understanding needed as I write. Please check out my site and the book (click under the word dispensation on http://www.pestor.com ) I am working on and any interaction would be considered and taken before our Lord for understanding and clarifying. And, I will thank you for your interaction and help. Even though my writing needs to be improved to help others understand my thought, I want you to know I am working on it. This does not negate the responsibility in which I believe God has laid on me so I continue to move ahead. Read last chapter and you will see a little of the reason this responsibility has been given me. Ted PS. Some of the comment on this pooemerges site I wonder if the Authors really know the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal savior – ???

  92. eleazar March 11, 2012 at 3:11 pm #

    I assume the water ceremony that you are speaking of is based on fulfillment of Matthew 28:19&20. How about if some Acts 2ers taught that water baptism is not for this Dispensation of Grace? For example,

    “We do not believe in Baptismal Regeneration. Let me remind you that it was over the question of the sacraments that Calvin and Luther differed during the Reformation Period. To Calvin, and those who have followed him, the important thing is the individual’s coming directly to Christ for salvation. In regard to baptism, we who are Presbyterians, are interested primarily not in the water baptism but in the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which takes place when the individual accepts Christ as his personal Saviour” (Baptism by Francis Schaeffer)

    “That [water baptism] is not, properly speaking, a Church ordinance, but a Kingdom ordinance, I also admit and teach, because, unlike the Lord’s supper, baptism had a place before the Church began, and will have one after it has been taken to heaven; but whether tribulation saints will enter into its import as Christians can is very questionable.”

    “It is after having passed through all the agony of the cross that the risen Lord gives the commissions as narrated in the closing chapters of the Synoptic Gospels. Luke does not mention the baptism at all. He is occupied with the gospel. Baptism is not a part of that, as 1 Cor.15:1-4 bears abundant testimony, as also 1 Cor.1:17. The gospel is concerning God’s Son (Rom.1:1-4), and not concerning ordinances, however blessed, or works, however proper to the man already justified by faith and a subject of grace (Titus 2:11-14).

    ”Regarding the commission of Matt. 28 Pastor Ironside indicates the following, “The thought of baptizing nations, as such, we see no warrant for here unless preceded by national repentance. All nations are to be taught the gospel. If indeed the nations as a whole become disciples, then to baptize them is in place, but that, though it shall actually be, is in a future day (Zech.14:16). At present at least, it is, in my judgment, to individuals that the commission applies.” I agree with the Pastor (Baptism – What Saith The Scriptures by Harry Ironsides)

    “This is the Kingdom commission. In Luke 24 we have the proper Christian commission. A time is coming when this great commission here will be carried out by a remnant of Jewish disciples, who are represented by the eleven. It is the same remnant as in Matthew 24.”(Matthew 28 from The Annotated Bible by A.C. Gaebelein)

    “It is not water-baptism by which a believer becomes a member of the body of Christ; the Holy Spirit alone can do this and does it with every believer (1 Corinthians 12:13).”

    “Then the Apostle states his commission. He was not sent by His Lord to baptize. His great mission was to preach the Gospel. “Baptism would surely follow a true reception of his testimony, but that, with all other resulting effects, is kept distinct from the positive and vital work of God by His own Word. We may notice a real difference between the Apostolate of Paul and that of the eleven, as defined at the close of Matthew. The latter were sent expressly to baptize. Paul was not.”–Pridham on Corinthians.” From the above it seems that water baptism is in opposition to the Gospel. (1 Corinthians – The Annotated Bible)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: