Have I gone MAD???

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Am I Mid Acts?
What we believe is irrelevant.
What others say we believe is irrelevant.

What is important is that we honestly represent the word of God and face up to reality when it proves us wrong.

Here's a good guide for anyone entering a debate that seems to divide people along lines of the names their groups have: Ignore terms such as "open," "Calvinist" and "MAD," and focus on what the Bible says.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Am I Mid Acts?

I've been told a couple of times now, that my stance on books being written to Jews distinguishing carefully 'not to me' makes me MAD. I've been told that appreciating anything a Mid Acts Dispensationalist has to say makes me a MAD sympathizer and likely MAD as well, and I've been told that my view on Grace and no works plants me well within MAD walls. I've been told that If I recognize and agree that Paul's 'Mystery' really was secret before Paul, that I'm with out a doubt of Mid Acts persuasion.
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.

Basically, if you believe that the Body of Christ began with the conversion of Saul to Paul in Acts 9 then you're Mid-Acts. If you think that it started in Acts 2 or Acts 28 then you might still be a dispensationalists but not a Mid-Acts Dispensationalists.

In a sense, I've always been Grace plus nothing. I'm told that Grace Theology IS Mid Acts theology.
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.

Two weeks ago, one TOL member, while arguing over Sabbath keeping called me Mid Acts, whether I wanted to admit it or not....
An accidental Mid-Acts guy. That would be pretty neat, really!

What is the mark of Mid Acts theology? How best would I know if I am Mid Acts?
See comments above.

I've always enjoyed MidActs discussion (as did AMR btw. I've long since come to realize that Mid Acts is nowise heresy or hetrodox as far as 10 years ago. It would surprise me if I fall within the acceptance of Mid Acts fellowship but I'm not opposed to the idea, just wondering what I really do have in common. Thanks for your ear. -Lon
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.

Clete
 
Last edited:

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Many years ago I bought the Bullinger Companion bible with the full appendixes.
It's a huge book!

He's not a Mid Acts dispensationalist, he's an Acts 28 dispensationalist.

I have respect for anyone that goes through the entire bible with a fine-toothed comb like he did.
And he did it without a computer.
Has anybody ever yet fed generative A.I. with the whole Bible and ask the A.I. what the Bible's about?
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
What we believe is irrelevant.
What others say we believe is irrelevant.

What is important is that we honestly represent the word of God and face up to reality when it proves us wrong.

Here's a good guide for anyone entering a debate that seems to divide people along lines of the names their groups have: Ignore terms such as "open," "Calvinist" and "MAD," and focus on what the Bible says.
I agree with all that.
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
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.

Basically, if you believe that the Body of Christ began with the conversion of Saul to Paul in Acts 9 then you're Mid-Acts. If you think that it started in Acts 2 or Acts 28 then you might still be a dispensationalists but not a Mid-Acts Dispensationalists.
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.

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.
Catholicism has zero problem with that.

An accidental Mid-Acts guy. That would be pretty neat, really!


See comments above.
This is a helpful post Clete, it sets out pretty clearly the Mid-Acts position in a dispassionate way (in broad strokes) imo.

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.

Clete
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?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Has anybody ever yet fed generative A.I. with the whole Bible and ask the A.I. what the Bible's about?

I want to. But I'd want to do it the right way, which would require a few resources that I don't have at the moment.
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
I want to. But I'd want to do it the right way, which would require a few resources that I don't have at the moment.
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?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
What we believe is irrelevant.
What others say we believe is irrelevant.
If that were true, both of those sentences would be irrelevant.

What is important is that we honestly represent the word of God and face up to reality when it proves us wrong.
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."?

Here's a good guide for anyone entering a debate that seems to divide people along lines of the names their groups have: Ignore terms such as "open," "Calvinist" and "MAD," and focus on what the Bible says.
Why?

Do the terms "Open theism", "Calvinism" and "Mid-Acts Dispensationalism" not have useful meanings?

On what grounds do you decide which words are worth using and which aren't? Why should I have to specify each of the distinctive Calvinist doctrines every time when I can simply use the term "Calvinism" to convey the same thing? If I use the term Calvinist and someone objects then further discussion and calarification is warranted but if they do not object, then on what basis would it even be advisable for anyone to remove the term "Calvinist" from their vocabulary?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
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.
This is an argument for why you aren't a Christian, not why you aren't a dispensationalist.

Catholicism has zero problem with that.
Yeah, many Catholics have simply embraced communism. Yikes!

This is a helpful post Clete, it sets out pretty clearly the Mid-Acts position in a dispassionate way (in broad strokes) imo.
(y)

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?
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.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
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?
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.

One thing's for sure, the current hype is way overdone. They want us all to believe that AI is right on the cusp of taking over the world but I see no evidence of that at all. It could just as easily stick right at its current level of development and capabilities for the next fifty years or more.

Then again, it might take over the world by 2030 - but I very much doubt it.
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
This is an argument for why you aren't a Christian, not why you aren't a dispensationalist.
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

Yeah, many Catholics have simply embraced communism. Yikes!


(y)


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.
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).

Receiving Communion (in a state of grace) only is obligatory to do once a year, during the Easter season, but you have to go to Mass.
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
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.

One thing's for sure, the current hype is way overdone. They want us all to believe that AI is right on the cusp of taking over the world but I see no evidence of that at all. It could just as easily stick right at its current level of development and capabilities for the next fifty years or more.

Then again, it might take over the world by 2030 - but I very much doubt it.
Zero uniformity among philosophers rn.


I want to know if you feed each firm's A.I. chat-bot generative large language model machine, the whole content-base for philosophers (every philosopher's writings), and tune them appropriately (just not unreasonably), what do they all say? idk how many of these machines there are, I know Google has one, Microsoft has another, there are a few more I've heard advertise themselves on the radio, idk how many more, but there are a lot of them. So I want to line em all up, feed em all the philosophical literature we've got, and then just see what they all say. See if you get any uniformity, because rn, we're getting c. no uniformity from philosophers and it's embarrassing.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
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."?

No.

What we believe is irrelevant.

Why?

Do the terms "Open theism", "Calvinism" and "Mid-Acts Dispensationalism" not have useful meanings?

They have meanings. They're not useful when trying to figure out what the Bible is saying.

On what grounds do you decide which words are worth using and which aren't?

Trial and error.

Context.

Whims.

Why should I have to specify each of the distinctive Calvinist doctrines every time when I can simply use the term "Calvinism" to convey the same thing? If I use the term Calvinist and someone objects then further discussion and calarification is warranted but if they do not object, then on what basis would it even be advisable for anyone to remove the term "Calvinist" from their vocabulary?

You can.

It was a suggestion I gave, not a command.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
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
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!

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).

Receiving Communion (in a state of grace) only is obligatory to do once a year, during the Easter season, but you have to go to Mass.
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.

Not that doing so is something only Catholics do, by the way. Virtually the whole of Christianity has done the same to one degree or another. The Fruit of the Tree is very appetizing indeed to our fallen sinful flesh.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
No.

What we believe is irrelevant.
You missed the point. It was a rhetorical question.

The point was that "honestly representing God's word" cannot be separated from what we believe.

Baptists and Catholics disagree on a great many biblical issues. Do you think that one (or both) of them are being dishonest or isn't it true that most of the people in both groups actually do believe that they are "honestly representing God's word"?

In other words, your sentiment is pleasant enough to the ear but it is actually a contradiction.
They have meanings. They're not useful when trying to figure out what the Bible is saying.
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.

Trial and error.

Context.

Whims.
LOL!

Thank you for conceding the point!
You can.

It was a suggestion I gave, not a command.
In actual fact, it was neither of those things. It was a policy that you were putting forward as wisdom.

Honesty is a good policy, to be sure, but hobbling one's ability to communicate by arbitrarily removing words from your vocabulary would lead to more confusion and miscommunication, not less.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You missed the point. It was a rhetorical question.

The point was that "honestly representing God's word" cannot be separated from what we believe.

Baptists and Catholics disagree on a great many biblical issues. Do you think that one (or both) of them are being dishonest or isn't it true that most of the people in both groups actually do believe that they are "honestly representing God's word"?

In other words, your sentiment is pleasant enough to the ear but it is actually a contradiction.

I get the point and agree. I just like my way of trying to get it across.

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.

I prefer to just state the doctrinal information. Saying "Calvinist" or "dispensationalist" tends to classify people rather than communicate a set of beliefs.

LOL!

Thank you for conceding the point!

My pleasure. :D

In actual fact, it was neither of those things. It was a policy that you were putting forward as wisdom.

OK. I think it's best to discuss doctrinal ideas and eschew classificational terms such as "Catholic."

Honesty is a good policy, to be sure, but hobbling one's ability to communicate by arbitrarily removing words from your vocabulary would lead to more confusion and miscommunication, not less.

Yeah, but I'm not saying don't use the words. Just use them carefully, which most likely means don't use 'em much.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The reason I'm on this track is because the word "dispensationalist" gets used as a pejorative more often than not. There are a lot of crazy ideas that get attached to the word — antisemitism being the most relevant one at the moment — such that the well gets poisoned almost every time.

I've no problem introducing myself as one, but if a guy says that word necessarily carries beliefs about scripture that I don't agree with, then I'm going to insist that he uses a word other than "dispensational" to describe them.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I prefer to just state the doctrinal information. Saying "Calvinist" or "dispensationalist" tends to classify people rather than communicate a set of beliefs.
I submit that this is a policy that you cannot follow.

OK. I think it's best to discuss doctrinal ideas and eschew classificational terms such as "Catholic."
Why?

Yeah, but I'm not saying don't use the words. Just use them carefully, which most likely means don't use 'em much.
By what logic?

Who is being harmed by an honest use of such terms?
How is it more honest to avoid the use of accurate labels?
 
Top