The person who is the the father of systemized Mid Acts Dispensationalism is Sir Robert Anderson (1841-1918).
James M. Gray (1852-1935), who served for thirty years as President of Moody Bible Institute and was one of the seven editors of the original Scofield Reference Bible, said the following about Anderson:

“Sir Robert Anderson is in some respects the most remarkable of current writers on religious subjects, whether we consider his personal history or the range and character of his work…To sit at the feet of a man with such knowledge, mental power, courage and native wit, who is at the same time Spirit taught, is for the true Christian one of the greatest privileges.”

Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892) said that Anderson’s book Human Destiny is “the most valuable contribution on the subject I have seen.”

Warren Wiersbe wrote the following about Anderson:

“If you have never met Sir Robert Anderson, then you are about to embark on a thrilling voyage of discovery. If he is already one of your friends, then finding a new Anderson title, or meeting an old one, will bring joy to your heart and enlightenment to your mind.”

Anderson taught that in all dispensations men are saved by grace through faith apart from works. He taught that the General Epistles (Hebrews through Jude) were written to members of the Body of Christ. Those in the Neo-MAD camp have departed from these truths.

Anderson did teach that the present “dispensation of grace” did not start until after Paul was converted and hence that is how his followers aquired the name “Mid Acts Dispensationalists.”

1. He had a recent 16 post rant on various articles, including this one, which he copied and pasted info word for word from other sites, and he did not even give credit for the info being from other sites or where they were from. I looked them up online and found each post that he had word for word.

2. Unfortunately he has not been truly willing to have real discussions, thus as Scripture teaches us we have to mark those whom cause divisions and we have to know when to say when. (Romans 16:17, Titus 3:10-11, some Scriptures on this)

3. My purpose for allowing people to comment on articles we have is to have honest genuine discussions, but this has been seen not to be the case with Chris and some others as well.

You are welcome to give me some feedback if you wish. I just wanted you or anyone else to know that he cannot reply to any future posts.

2 Peter 3:14-18 NASB “14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, 15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness, 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.”

I believe we can study the scriptures for ourselves. In 2 Tim 2:15, tells us to study . We rely on the Holy Spirit to teach us what it says, John 14:26. In Heb. 8:10 to 12, it says that He will put His laws in our minds and He will write them on our heart. In verse 11, it says, For all shall know Me.

Yes Donna, I agree, but if your interpretation of scripture is not consistent with the teachings of the catholic church ” the pillar & bullwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15), then quite simply it is wrong & not guided by the Holy Spirit at all!

If God’s written word was so clear & easy to interpret & no resource outside of the bible is required to help interpret it, then there wouldn’t be so many doctrinal divisions among protestants.

The scriptures themselves teach that the word of God is not as easy to interpret as you suggest. For example :

in Acts 8:29-39 Phillip encounters the Ethiopian eunuch reading isaiah the prophet, & asks “do you understand what you are reading?” The eunuch responds “how can i, unless someone guides me”

Heb 5:12 ” For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principals of God’s word”

Donna, you said:

“The “real” church is to come, it is not here yet…”

your interpretation here is a complete contradiction to :

“the church is the pillar & bullwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15),

Eph. 3:21 – this divine word tells us that Jesus Christ’s Church will exist in all generations. Only the Catholic Church can prove by succession such existence. Our Protestant brothers and sisters become uncomfortable with this passage because it requires them to look for a Church that has existed for over 2,000 years. This means that all the other Christian denominations (some of which have been around even less than one year!) cannot be the church that Christ built upon the rock of Peter.

I’m sorry Donna but because i believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God & that there is no contradiction in what God has reveled to us, I’m going to have to say that you where guided by the wrong spirit on this one!

Donna you said:

We can read or listen to others, but the scripture, and the Holy Spirit who teaches us,is what we should go by. Everything else is opinions.

I have shown that this idea of “scripture alone” is not biblical! i think you have it the wrong way around. It should be : The infallible teachings of the catholic church guided by the Holy Spirit is what we should go by & everything else is opinion.

Donna, every difference between catholics & protestants ultimately stems from their beliefs about the source of God – given authority in this world.

Protestants claim that the Bible is the sole infallible authority (sola scriptura). For you church is a friendly gathering of believers, all of whom have their own authority to interpret the bible for themselves, ( although in many protestant denominations some have more “authority” than others).

Catholics believe that to be a Christian is to be part of the original apostolic tradition conveyed to the world by those appointed by Christ himself. The catholic church authority to declare christian truth comes directly from God-made flesh. Catholics look to the church for God’s word as revealed not only in scripture but also in the apostolic tradition. Thus, sacred scripture & apostolic tradition constitute the full deposit of faith. On matters of christian faith, while it is important to demonstrate that a teaching is biblical, for catholics, the real question is whether or not it is consistent with the teachings of the catholic church ” the pillar & bullwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).

As can be seen in our discussions here, comparing & debating catholic & protestant doctrines is futile when neither party respects the others claim to authority.

So the big question is: who has that God – given authority!

I have already stated the biblical evidence supporting the fact that the Catholic Church is the church of the bible that Christ himself established upon Peter the Rock & that the catholic church has God-given authority. I would refer you to my posts on January 24,25,27,28, 29 & February 23.

Now, lets take a look at Sola scriptura!

Is it true that God has revealed nothing outside of scripture that is necessary for salvation?

NO! This is not true! For example, all christians would agree that knowing which books belong in the canon of scripture(the bible) is necessary for our salvation. Without this knowledge, non inspired writings might be confused with divine revelation which would be detrimental to our salvation.

One problem with sola scriptura is that nowhere does the bible say which books are to be included in the bible or which are divinley inspired. This fact forces us to look outside the bible to understand how its canon was determined. This is a glaring contradiction to the theory of sola scriptura. The canon of scripture so necessary for our salvation was defined by the Catholic church, at regional councils in Rome in A.D .382, Hippo in 393, & Carthage in 397. Therefore, christians who accept the canon of scripture are accepting an infallible decision made by the Catholic church.

Does the bible instruct us to follow the bible alone?

NO! Nowhere in scripture does Christ or any apostle command the faithful to observe only what is found in the scriptures. In Matthew 28:20 Jesus says “observe all that i have commanded you.” And yet we also know that not all that Jesus taught was recorded in scripture ( see Jn20:30), if it where John writes ….”the world itself could not contain the books that would be written”(Jn21:25)

On the other hand, the bible is full of references emphasising the importance of following sacred apostolic tradition, here are a couple:

Acts 2:42 ” and they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching & fellowship, to the breaking of bread & the prayers”

1 Cor 11:2 ” I commend you because you remember me in everything & maintain the traditions even as i have delivered them to you”

One of the most compelling examples of the early church’s use of apostolic tradition to teach the faith came at the council of Jerusalem as recorded in Acts 15. The church had to decide whether or not christians had to be circumcised. If the church took a sola scriptura approach she would have undoubtedly imposed a circumcision requirement on new christians. After all according to scripture,circumcision was the sign of God’s everlasting covenant with Abraham (Gen 17:11, Rom 4:11).

As we know, the church did not impose a circumcision requirement. Based on a teaching of Christ
that He entrusted to the apostles ( not the scriptures) Peter declares that Jews & gentiles are not saved by circumcision but by the Grace of our Lord Jesus (Acts 15:10-11).

Donna, you said:

Take care, hope you browse other articles we have.

Chris, I have to apologize, I just have not gotten to replying yet, please hold on a little longer, I will try to get a reply Thurs or Fri. I am busy these next few nights. I prefer discussions based upon quality, not quantity.