Debunking Strawman Arguments Against Mid-Acts Pauline Dispensationalism
A strawman is an intentional misrepresentation of an opponent’s position, often used in debates with unsophisticated audiences to make it appear that the opponent’s arguments are more easily defeated than they are. The practice of putting up a strawman, knocking it down easily, and then saying, “see, I won,” is dishonest and deceptive.
Those who attempt to refute Mid-Acts Pauline Dispensationalism (MAPD) either do not understand the doctrine taught or they are purposefully misrepresenting it. The arguments presented to refute MAPD, though they are few, demonstrate a person’s lack of understanding as to what it is that MAPD teaches. In the end, the arguments presented against MAPD are nothing more than strawman arguments that if studied out, should only demonstrate to a person that the proper approach to Bible study is Mid-Acts Pauline Dispensationalism. No one will ever have the entirety of the Bible figured out, but the fact of the matter is that the MAPD approach to studying the Word of God brings the most clarity and answers the most questions that the student of the Bible can ask of the text.
Before destruction the heart of man is haughty, and before honour is humility. He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.
Proverbs 18:12-13
Learning the truth of God’s Word requires humility. The Christian must always be willing to let the Bible correct them and change their mind. The average Christian bases what they believe on what they have always heard (tradition) instead of personal Bible study. We must let the Bible say what it does and we must not approach the Bible with an agenda or a desire to protect traditions.
The arguments against MAPD are weak and often miss the point of the doctrine in question. The arguments against MAPD are “tired,” repetitive, and easily answered. Thus this section of the WWURD website has been created to answer 20 of the most common strawman arguments against the doctrine.