A17 : by Tony Garland
One of the most
difficult aspects of interpreting the Scriptures is determining those
aspects which are continuous (have not changed over time) from
those which are discontinuous (changed with time). For
example, the way of salvation has always been by
faith alonea (Gen. 15:6; Hab. 2:4). 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).
It becomes
equally important to notice the discontinuities where changes
occur and to preserve continuity where change does not
occur. Many doctrinal errors are made by , on the one hand, failing
to notice distinctions where they occur or, on the other hand,
making distinctions where they do not. In my view, covenant
theology, which sees all God's dealings with man through the
framework of one (or two) covenants fails to properly notice the
distinctions (and discontinuities) in God's covenant program with
different individuals at different times. Thus, covenant theology
errs by imposing continuity where the Scriptures indicate
discontinuity. On the other hand, mid-Acts dispensationalism
makes the opposite error--imposing
changes upon the Scriptures where they are in fact continuous.
If we were to
summarize the three views regarding God's relationship to the saved,
we would have something like:
In the case of
mid-Acts dispensationalism, there are a variety of views, partly because
mid-Acts dispensationalists cannot agree among themselves as to when
Paul's ministry to the Gentiles is thought to have transitioned from
the teaching of the early church. Did this occur in Acts 9 (at Paul's
conversion)? Or in Acts 13 (at Paul's initial mission to the
Gentiles, Acts 13:2)? Or perhaps it was in Acts 28 when the gospel
was rejected by Israel and Paul announced he would turn to the
Gentiles (Acts 28:25-28)? (Some also see the transition as being in
Acts 8 or 11.)
The problem of
establishing just exactly where this supposed “gear-shift”
in the plan of God takes place highlights the fact that Scripture
itself lacks any clear indication of such a shift. This is where
normative dispensationalism has a clear advantage: Scripture places
great emphasis upon the coming of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost
(Acts 2). This very important event in the plan of God is
underscored by the signs and manifestations which accompanied it
and by their initiation entirely at God's initiative. In other
words, we don't have to try to read between the lines (about whether
Peter or Paul presented salvation certain ways) to determine whether
or when a discontinuity occurs--God Himself has made it abundantly
clear in the events of Acts 2.
Now, to comment
on some of your observations and questions:
. . . when I investigate the scriptures they cite I am
amazed, for the first time, just how different scripture presents the
view of salvation by the apostles contrasted to Paul. . . . For
example, Peter tells the crowd that they must “Repent, and be
baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the
remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”
(Acts 2:38). Mid-acts teachers point out that Peter is still
preaching repentance and baptism and, after his vision in Acts 10,
Peter understands that “in every nation he that feareth
him, and worketh righteousness, is
accepted with him” (Acts 10:35).
What
mid-Acts dispensationalists take as an indication of different views of
salvation I believe is better understood as the artifacts of
progressive revelation and the relationship between faith
and works.
Regarding
progressive revelation: In both testaments, God has revealed
His truth over time, in layers, like peeling an onion. There is no
doubt that Peter, especially in the early portion of Acts, did not
have as complete a revelation of the doctrine of the body of Christ
as would eventually be given to Paul. But does this provide solid
evidence of two different groups with two different relationships in
regard to salvation? I think not. For example, we need only go back
to the time of Abraham (far, far in advance of Peter in Acts 2) to
see the truth of salvation by faith alone apart from
works (Gen. 15:6). Interestingly, it is Paul himself who identifies
Abraham's faith as the very means by which the Roman church attained
salvation (Rom. 4:3-9). Was Peter teaching a different avenue to
salvation than the OT records for Abraham or that which Paul would
preach subsequently? No--the basis in every case--is faith in what
God had revealed. Was Abraham's understanding of the basis of
salvation exactly like that of Peter? Was Peter's understanding--at
the time of Acts 2--fully that of Paul's when he penned his later
epistles? Almost certainly not. This is a reflection of progressive
revelation not a basis for inserting a dispensational boundary.
Regarding the
relationship between faith and works, it is quite easy to pop
into almost any context (whether OT or NT, Pauline or otherwise) and
come out with a statement which appears, on the face of it, to
indicate reliance upon works as a contributor to salvation. Yet, we
must judge Scripture with Scripture. When the full teaching of
Scripture is brought into view, it is clear that neither Abraham, nor
Peter, nor Paul believed works were a requirement for salvation--but
merely an indication of true and active faith. Moreover, we
can find statements by Paul, late in Acts, which essentially sound
much like Peter in early Acts:
Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the
heavenly vision, but declared first to those in Damascus and in
Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and [then] to the
Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works
befitting repentance. For these reasons the Jews seized me in the
temple and tried to kill [me].
Here 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. There is no doubt that Paul eventually
has a greater grasp of aspects of the Jew/Gentile unity which is the
body of Christ (e.g., Gal. 2:11-21), but this does not mean that
Peter and Paul had different understandings regarding the basis of
salvation.
It is also clear
that works, in any form, has never been a contributor to salvation.
This is a point which Paul emphasizes at length (Acts 13:39; Rom.
3:20; 4:2-5; Gal. 2:16, 21; 3:11, 21; Heb 7:19; Heb 10:1-2).
Another aspect I
wanted to respond to:
Thus, as a member of the little flock, Peter's
understanding of salvation is much different from Paul's. Once Paul
receives the mystery revelation from Jesus the whole program of
salvation changes. After the revelation of the mystery both
Jew and Gentile, when saved by trusting in the death of Jesus for the
forgiveness of sins, are part of the body of Christ. Before the
mystery was revealed to Paul, both Jew and Gentile who repented would
be part of the kingdom program belonging to the little flock.
The key phrase
which I disagree with is after the revelation of the mystery.
Here is the essential question: is it the timing of the revelation
of the mystery (to Paul) that serves as the line of discontinuity
which demarcates the body of Christ, or is it the timing of the
means by which the mystery becomes operational?
Mid-Acts dispensationalism says the former. Traditional dispensationalism
says the latter.
The key to
cutting through the confusion is found in the teaching of Paul
himself. Here is the line of reasoning which, I believe, completely
refutes mid-Acts dispensationalism:
What is
the mystery which is the subject of Paul's special revelation? The
mystery concerns the identity of the body of Christ: “that the
Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body”
(Eph. 3:6). Participation in the body of Christ requires the
indwelling of the Holy Spirit: “To them God willed to make
known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the
Gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.”
(Col. 1:27).
What did
Paul teach regarding the means by which one enters the body of
Christ? “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into
one body--whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free--and
have all been made to drink into one Spirit” (1Co 12:13). “For
as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on
Christ” (Gal 3:27). “[There is] one body and one
Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one
Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who [is]
above all, and through all, and in you all” (Eph 4:4-6).
When did
this baptizing work of the Spirit first begin? It began for (1)
Jews on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2); (2) somewhat later for
Samaritans (Acts 8) and; (3) later still for Gentiles (Acts 10).
These three occasions correspond to the statement of Jesus
concerning the “promise of the Father”--Spirit-baptism--which
was coupled with the going forth of the gospel to (1) Jerusalem, (2)
Judea and Samaria and; (3) the end of the earth (Acts. 1:4-8).
The inescapable
conclusion is that the “mystery” concerns the unity of
Gentiles and Jews on completely equal footing in the “body of
Christ.” Paul was given this revelation, but the timing of the
creation of the body of Christ is not tied to the timing of Paul's
teaching. Rather, it is tied to the coming of the Holy Spirit to
baptize believers forming, for the first time in history, the body of
Christ (John 7:37-39; Acts 1:5; 2:2-4; 8:17; 10:44; 11:15-18).
Thus, the
beginning of the body of Christ (which operates in Christ's absence,
John 14:16-18; 16:7) occurs at Acts 2 with the arrival of the Holy
Spirit to begin His new ministry. It does not begin when Paul is
given revelation, nor when he happens to pen it in an epistle. It
is not the understanding of Paul nor the understanding of the
recipients of Paul's teaching which defines the body of Christ, but
Spirit-baptism. To attempt to divide those baptized by the Spirit
into a pre-Pauline group and a post-Pauline
group is making a distinction which Scripture provides no evidence
for. It is elevating supposed subtle differences in the revelation of
Peter and Paul (and arguments about differences in salvific
statements, largely based on silence) over the clear boundary given
by Scripture itself:
He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of
his heart will flow rivers of living water. But this He spoke
concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for
the Holy Spirit was not yet [given], because Jesus was not yet
glorified. (John 7:38-39)
Notice also that
it was Peter who, in a special way, was given the keys to the
kingdom (Mtt. 16:19). Interestingly, it is also Peter who is
present at the initial baptizing work for all three people groups:
Jews (Acts 2); Samaritans (Acts 8), and Gentiles (Acts 10). Take
special note that the “apostle to the Gentiles” is Paul,
yet it is Peter who presents the gospel to the Gentiles and argues
for their inclusion in the same plan of salvation. Listen carefully
to Peter's remarks at the Jerusalem council (referring back to the
Spirit-baptism of the Gentiles in Acts 10):
And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and
said to them: "Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago
God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the
word of the gospel and believe. So God, who knows the heart,
acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as [He did] to
us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their
hearts by faith. Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke
on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were
able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus
Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they." (Acts
15:7-11)
This is a most
amazing statement by Peter! Notice some of its elements:
Peter
recognizes it is by his mouth (not Paul's) that the Gentiles
first heard the gospel. Thus, the mixed Jew/Gentile body of Christ
was initiated through the ministry of Peter, not Paul. (I
believe this was purposeful and designed, in part, to avoid the
error of ultradispensationalism which attempts to base the body of
Christ upon Paul. It is standard fair for aberrant teachings to
attempt to separate Paul and his theology from other NT teachers,
whether Peter or Jesus.)
Peter
acknowledges the sign of the Gentile's inclusion in salvation to be
the reception of the Spirit (Spirit-baptism).
This
Spirit-baptism was “by faith” (not works).
The Jews
were unable to keep the law, so neither should the Gentiles.
Salvation is by “grace.”
The manner
of Jewish salvation is identical to that of the Gentiles. Note that
the events that Peter is talking about (Acts 10) involved neither
Paul nor any of his special revelation.
To summarize, it
is clear that any differences in the content of salvation passages in
Acts and the epistles are due to progressive revelation and
differences in emphasis. Peter understands salvation is apart from
works--even though certain passages seem to imply otherwise.
Similarly, Paul also makes statements at places which appear much
like those of Peter. These recognize that faith produces works, but
does not depend upon them.
Furthermore, the
body of Christ is a new creation in the historical plan of God. It is
defined by spiritual union with Christ by the baptizing work of
the Spirit--something which never occurred before the Day of
Pentecost. But once the Spirit arrived the body began.
Moreover, the earliest Gentile members of
the body of Christ became so in the presence and teaching of Peter,
not Paul. Although more Gentiles would enter the body through Paul's
ministry and he was given greater revelation concerning the “one
new man,” that which he reveals is not something different from
what God began on the Day of Pentecost when He sent the Spirit.
In my view, the
key error of mid-Acts dispensationalism is the failure to recognize the
importance of Spirit-baptism in the formation of the body of Christ.
This is one reason why I highly recommend an in-depth study of the
book of Acts in the context of the gospels--especially in light of
John the baptist's promise of a coming One Who would baptize with the
Spirit (Mtt. 3:11-12), John's explanation of Jesus' words about
living water (John 7:37-39), and Jesus' teaching concerning the
promise of the Spirit in the upper-room discourse ( John 13-17).
Additional
resources I would recommend:
I can't
overemphasize the importance of a study of the coming of the Spirit
on the Day of Pentecost. It is key to understanding what
is actually going on in the historical context and avoiding errors
which are reflected by the teachings of covenantalism,
Pentecostalism, and mid-Acts dispensationalism.
A solid grasp of the unique ministry of the Spirit in this age is
also key to understanding the Israel/Church distinction, the Rapture,
and aspects of the Tribulation.
Links Mentioned Above
a - See http://www.spiritandtruth.org/id/articles.htm#4.
b - See http://www.bestbookdeal.com/booksearch?country=US&search=TTL&string=Dispensationalism.
c - See http://www.bestbookdeal.com/booksearch?country=US&search=TTL&string=The Dictionary of Premillennial Theology.
d - See http://www.bestbookdeal.com/booksearch?country=US&search=TTL&string=A Bible Handbook to the Acts of the Apostles.
|
