View Single Post
Old 06-05-2009, 11:16 AM
George's Avatar
George George is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
Posts: 891
Default Re: ""Rightly Dividing" The Book of Acts"

Aloha brother Tony,

These comments are NOT meant to reprove or rebuke you. They are more in the nature of a declaration of concern.

I think that some of your comments on this Thread would more appropriate in the Thread on Water Baptism (i. e. some of your Posts – this Thread):

I am trying to make the point in this Thread about how God dealt exclusively with the nation of
Israel in the first few Chapters of Acts and I think that another "discussion" on and about water baptism will only serve to distract from the subject at hand.

I have stated my position on water baptism (see the additional Links below) in AV1611 Bible forums > "Is water baptism for today” > Post #136:

George’s quote:
"The word “baptize” cannot be found in the Old Testament, and so any “connection” between New Testament water baptism and the Old Testament will have to be done through “Similitude’s” & “Type’s”, since the word “baptize” or “baptism” is completely absent from the Old Testament record; and since we are told to “rightly divide the word of truth” – any teaching derived from the Old Testament in regards to the subject of water baptism will be completely dependent upon “Similitude’s” & “Type’s”, since the words “baptize” or “baptism” are not in the Old Testament. And although I believe that there are legitimate “Similitude’s” & “Type’s” to be found in both Testaments, I am, again, extremely reluctant to rely solely on them for doctrine, since without the specific words, there is a too broad an area for personal “interpretation”."
The following Links contain some of my comments concerning water baptism:

We are commanded to rightly divide the “word” of truth – If the English “words” (baptize & baptism) cannot be found in the Old Testament, any teaching about “baptism” in the Old Testament will be totally dependent upon the interpretation of English “words” (other than “baptize” or “baptism”) that supposedly “mean” the SAME as “baptize”. But I have, on many occasions, already expressed concerns over people seeking the “meaning” of the words of Scripture, rather than seeking what God says.

Brother Tony said:
Within the But Now Age I rightly divide Paul into

Early Paul - "To the Jew first..." Acts 9- Acts 28

Mid Paul - But Now, "...neither Jew nor Gentile..." Acts Chapter 29

Late PaulAges To Come, wise masterbuilder who was the custodian who administered the transition from Gospel Of The Kingdom Of Heaven(Restored Israel) which is the gospel committed to Peter, James, John, and the rest of the Twelve, into the Grace Age of today and on into the Tribulation, as Paul authored Hebrews, the first book of Tribulation doctrine, and was the most qualified to write it as a human oracle.”
To which I responded - George’s quote:
“I do not agree with brother Tony on this teaching, because I am NOT told to “rightly divide Paul” – I am told to “rightly divide the word of truth.” And so - Early Paul; Mid Paul; and Late Paul is a “construct” that may or may not be true. I could just as easily say that Early Paul = the time between Paul’s conversion and his taking up residence in Antioch; and that Mid Paul = the time that Paul spent in Antioch before his “call”; and Late Paul = the time after Paul’s “call” up to his death.”
We are supposed to be “rightly dividing the word of truth”. I do not see a command for us to be “rightly dividing Paul” - into “Early Paul; Mid Paul; and Late Paul”. This kind of “teaching” is fraught with the danger of falling into “private interpretation”. The same goes for the dividing up of the Books of the Bible to the point where the only Books that apply to the Christian are Paul’s Epistles.

We are not told to:

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Epistles of Paul.


Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Books of truth.

We are told to: “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” [2 Timothy 2:15]

The Bible says:
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The Bible also says:
Isaiah 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

There must be a balance to “Dispensationalism”. Although much of the Old Testament is NOT written TO the Christian, there is a whole lot in the Old Testament that is – “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”; although the Four Gospels are mainly about the Jews’ Messiah & King, there is much in the Gospels that is: “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”; and although the Books of Hebrews; James; I & II Peter; I, II, & III John; Jude; and Revelation may very well be “Tribulation Books”, they still can be: “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” – as long as we rightly divide the word of truth.

As Christians, our responsibility in “studying” the Scriptures is to rightly divide “the word of truth” – wherever it is found; and to be on guard against ALL: theological formulations; ALLsystems of biblical interpretation; and ALLbiblical constructs”.

Maintaining balance (i.e. moderation) is not always easy, but if we don’t continue to pursue “the simplicity that is in Christ”, we can end up with doctrines that are so complicated, complex, and confusing, that the only people who can understand them are a small handful of intellectual “scholars” (or “book worms”) with IQ’s of 150 or higher.

The issue of water baptism will NOT be “settled” in this Forum. If you wish to pursue it further I believe the proper place would be under the Thread dealing with the subject. The main reason I started this Thread was because I could see that I was straying “off point” in the Thread on water baptism, so I thought it would be better to have a Thread dealing with the “transitory nature” of the first few Chapters of the Book of Acts, rather than add anymore confusion to the Thread on water baptism.

I believe that if a Christian can reach an understanding of what took place AFTER the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, but BEFORE God turned to the Gentiles; that this “understanding” will open up the Scriptures to an individual Christian so that they will be much more able to rightly divide the word of truth. Water baptism is only a part of the whole series of events that take place between Acts Chapter 1 and Acts Chapter 10. And if we divert our attention back to water baptism, the purpose of this Thread will be thwarted.

If you will recall way at the beginning of the Thread on water baptism, I wanted no part of it. I’ve already gone through it before, and I knew (ahead of time) that there would be NO PROFIT to be had in discussing (debating) the issue. I still feel the same way now. By now everybody knows (for the most part) what you believe about it, and you know (for the most part) what most of us believe. At this point, I see no point in pursuing it any further, unless it comes up in this Thread, and if it does I would try to keep it within the “context” of the Thread.

Grace and peace brother,