The four critiques provided above offer their reader an assortment of confusion, pejorative labels, deception, and an instinctive desire to protect one’s legacy. Often, Christians who are ignorant of Pauline principles of Right Division succumb to a fear of the unknown and depend upon tradition as opposed to the words on the page. When the Scriptures declare something clearly, tradition and opinion must be abandoned.
Tragically, human nature is such that when a person discovers that he or she has been wrong about something, that person will not admit their error if either reputation or income depends upon that wrong position. Legacy, reputation, and the possibility for impacts to one’s income are powerful deterrents against one admitting that he or she has been wrong. It is a rare case when one finds an individual who has forsaken much in pursuit of the truth.
Many who call Mid Acts Pauline Dispensationalism either “hyper” or “ultra” do so in order to disparage the concept while using those pejorative prefixes. No one who calls himself or herself a Christian would want to be guilty of wrongly dividing the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15) or of rejecting all the counsel of God (Acts 20:27), but one will find themselves guilty of both of those indiscretions if they fail to recognize and respect the revelation of the mystery which the Lord Jesus Christ delivered to the apostle Paul, beginning in the ninth chapter of the book of Acts. It is much easier to label a teaching as “hyper” or “ultra” and to dismiss the teaching than it is to address it based upon the Scriptures.
Do realize, however, that Dr. Ryrie’s “ultradispensationalist” label used above includes the Acts 28 position which should be separated from the Mid Acts Pauline Dispensational position which this Primer holds as true and accurate. The primary problem with Dr. Ryrie’s critique is that he has joined together all Dispensationalists that go beyond Acts 2 as the birth of the Church, the body of Christ, into one pejorative label of “ultradispensationalist.” While we should join Dr. Ryrie in his critique of the Acts 28 position held by Bullinger, Welch and modern variations of separating Paul’s epistles, one must also see clearly an ounce of deception that is, no doubt inadvertantly, provided to steer the reader away from the Mid Acts teaching.
This example from Ryrie highlights the fact that the defining of terms is both helpful and necessary.
Very well written. I always call thèses type who insist that the Church began in Acts 2 as hypodispensationalists. How is it even possible for any student much less serious one study the gospel of Peter and that of Paul and not see à différence.