Replies

Rightly dividing seems important at that point doesn't it.

Indeed it does. As sometimes the opposite happens as in wrongly dividing.

H.A. Ironside, who is a tradtional dispensationalist along the lines of Ryrie and Walvoord took issue with ultra-dispensationalism. For those pinged who do not know about dispensationalism, what is being promoted here of two separate gospels in the early church is not the traditional dispensationalism.

It is what is called by Ryrie and Ironside "ultra-dispensationalism." Traditional dispensationalism never divided the gospel nor believers into two classes of Jews (works based salvation) and Gentile (saved by Grace). Ironside wrote a bit on this subject:

Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth

The ultra-dispensationalism point of view was mainly put forth by E. W. Bullinger (1837–1913):

Early Ultra-dispensationalism, such as that promoted by Sir Robert Anderson and E.W. Bullinger in his early years, emphasized a dispensational boundary line at Acts 28:28, but did not apply this boundary line to the Epistles of Paul, viewing them as a whole whether or not they were written before or after Acts 28:28. When the young Charles Welch pointed out the inherent contradiction in this to E.W. Bullinger, Bullinger changed his views, and incorporated the dividing line into his teachings on the Epistles of Paul that were written from that point forward and which became universally known as Ultradispensationalism. Since the majority of his work was written before this point, however, many of his writings view Paul's Epistles as an unbroken whole. Later adherents of Ultra-dispensationalism writers, such as Stuart Allen, Oscar Baker, and Otis Sellers, all followed the example of Charles Welch and E.W. Bullinger's later work in applying the division to Paul's books as well as the book of Acts in the true spirit of Ultra-dispensationalism.

There are large irreconcilable differences between the Mid-Acts position and the Acts 28 position just as there are between them and the Acts 2 position. They differentiate among themselves by terminology reflecting when the normative portion of Paul's ministry to the church began. The most obvious result of this differentiation is an absence of the practice of water baptism which is considered as a ritual for Israel under the last dispensation and not for the body of Christ in this present dispensation. Less obvious is what part of the New Testament is understood as being directly written to the church. Mid-Acts types take all of Paul's epistles to be directly written to the church (thus accepting the practice of the Lord's Supper as for this dispensation of Grace) while the Acts 28 position takes only Paul's prison epistles (those written while in prison) to be directly applicable to the church today (denying the Lord's Supper for today).

Bullinger held that Paul's authoritative teaching began after the conclusion of the book of Acts, a viewpoint now characterized as "Acts 28" dispensationalism (chapter 28 being the concluding chapter of the book), a position he solidified in cooperation with Charles H. Welch.[23] Other writers holding this position include Sir Robert Anderson, Oscar M. Baker, and Otis Q. Sellers. Acts 28 Dispensationalists distinguish themselves with their belief that today’s Church is exclusively revealed in Paul’s later writings, in the so-called "Prison Epistles." [24] Acts 28 Dispensationalists tend to reject all ordinances including the Lord’s Supper.[25]

The Mid-Acts position was developed independently later by J.C. O'Hair followed later by Cornelius R. Stam and Charles F. Baker, among others, and reflects their position that Paul's normative ministry began in either the ninth (Stam) or thirteenth chapter (O'Hair, Baker). Some very few independent spirits have staked the beginning of the church in a few other chapters but such differences are technical preferences rather than disagreements. The hallmark is that the church is served uniquely with Paul's ministry and upon that there is complete and total agreement. Acts is seen as a transitional period between dispensations and the Mid Acts position does not insert an extra dispensation there contra Ryrie as does the Acts 28 position. The Mid-Acts position accepts the Lord's Supper but rejects water baptism.[26] There is only one baptism made without hands where the believer is baptized into Christ by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13) which is held in contradistinction to Christ baptizing believing Israel in Acts 2 with the Holy Spirit. This pouring out baptism of the Holy Spirit is in fulfillment of the Old Testament promise of the new covenant to Israel. Thus it has nothing to do with the newly revealed Mystery to and through the apostle Paul who is not sent out until years later with the new ministry to the Gentiles to establish a new church which is composed of both believing Israelites and believing Gentiles, and not just Israelites (which includes proselytes to Judaism) as in Acts 2. This new church is not obligated to any Jewish rituals (like water baptism) according to the determination of the Jerusalem council recorded in Acts 15.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperdispensationalism

Thus my continued questioning to some here asking 'when' this shift from kingdom gospel to gospel of grace happened. Which I will note has not been addressed.