What we believe is irrelevant.
The "Mid-Acts" moniker applies mainly because of how one answers one single question. That question is, "When did the modern church age begin?" If you believe that the Body of Christ and Israel are two different bodies of believers with differing practices, rituals and requirements then it is WHEN you believe that the switch from one to the other happened that makes you Mid-Acts or something else.
It isn't the only one but it certainly the most logically consistent one. Mid-Acts folks can even deal easily with the communism that the Twelve and their followers practiced in Acts 4 and 5, which is something no Acts 2 dispensationalist wants to touch with a ten foot pole.
An accidental Mid-Acts guy. That would be pretty neat, really!
See comments above.
Mid-Acts churches are very few and very far between so if you found one, you'd do well to attend even if you didn't agree with every single thing they teach. At the very least, you'll have found a group of people who are very loyal to the word of God and who are interested only in doctrinal claims that can be clearly established.
Has anybody ever yet fed generative A.I. with the whole Bible and ask the A.I. what the Bible's about?
I agree with all that.
I guess Catholics believe it started with Our Lady the Virgin Mary. idk what year that would be, but it would be no later than John chapter two. I guess Catholicism would be John 2 Dispensationalism. I guess I need to change my motto.
Catholicism has zero problem with that.
This is a helpful post Clete, it sets out pretty clearly the Mid-Acts position in a dispassionate way (in broad strokes) imo.
And a Mid-Acts Church would not celebrate Communion, no? Because if it did celebrate Communion, then that would mean that they think 1st Corinthians was not written to them, but it clearly is Pauline and Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles and so every word he wrote, he wrote particularly to Gentiles, and so 1st Corinthians most definitely is written to all Mid-Acts Dispensationalists, no?
It would be fascinating to see what A.I. thinks about systematic theology. It wouldn't obligate anybody, it would just be interesting, like how before every Super Bowl they have "Madden" (an American football simulator video game) play the upcoming NFL championship game, to see who wins according to the video game simulator. It's not going to affect the actual game, but it's perhaps something to chew on. I mean if Madden predicts a blowout, does that give you pause?
If that were true, both of those sentences would be irrelevant.
Do you mean, "What is important is that we honestly believe that we are representing the word of God and face up to reality when it proves us wrong."?
Why?
This is an argument for why you aren't a Christian, not why you aren't a dispensationalist.
Yeah, many Catholics have simply embraced communism. Yikes!
There is actually some significant disagreement amongst dispensationalists about both Communion and water baptism. As for me, I consider both of them to be neither required nor prohibited. Put another way, I place no one under the law concerning either practice.
I have yet to have A.I. do anything that's all that super impressive other than to be able to properly (mostly) interpret and respond to human language. I mean, it's an amazingly useful tool but its nowhere near becoming sentient or even intuitive, so far as I've seen.
Luke 1:45 ... before John 2 ---- you were right. Luke 1:45 Dispensationalism. Luke 1: 45 "blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord," that's the first Christian, because Our Lady ... "believed" ... in Jesus ... John 3:16
We use the word "obligatory" when something's a duty for us to do, like go to Mass every c. Sunday, plus non-Sunday holy days of obligation. That's one of the important obligations is the Mass obligation, along with fleeing grave matter like adultery and killing and criminal perjury. The important thing is the state of grace, you're basically as a Catholic obligated to secure your own state of grace, through Mass attendance, fleeing grave matter (like prostitution), and confession (if needed).Yeah, many Catholics have simply embraced communism. Yikes!
There is actually some significant disagreement amongst dispensationalists about both Communion and water baptism. As for me, I consider both of them to be neither required nor prohibited. Put another way, I place no one under the law concerning either practice.
Zero uniformity among philosophers rn.
That's you, reading your doctrine into the text. She believed what the angels told her. Being a Christian requires one place their faith in Christ for the remission of their sin, which you don't even believe she needed!
Yes, if you understood the dispensation of Grace that was given to Paul by the risen Lord Himself, you'd understand that what you're talking about here is law. Catholics have simply erected a "Christian" set of laws that they are obligated to obey and think that somehow that places them in a state of grace.
You missed the point. It was a rhetorical question.
Saying it doesn't make it so. In fact, both cannot be true. If the words have meaning then they are useful in communicating the doctrinal information they're intended to communicate.
LOL!
In actual fact, it was neither of those things. It was a policy that you were putting forward as wisdom.
I submit that this is a policy that you cannot follow.
Why?
By what logic?
I agree. When speaking at a very general level, there is no way to avoid broad strokes.