Skip to main content
Christianity

Return to Question

added 15 characters in body; edited tags
Source Link
Mr. Bultitude
Mr. Bultitude
  • 15.4k
  • 7
  • 81
  • 133

In mid-Acts dispensationalism (a form of hyperdispensationalismhyperdispensationalism), it is taught that only Paul's writings (from Romans to Philemon) are applicable to the church today and that the other parts of the Bible are informational only.

What is the logical and biblical argument against this position? I'm interested in an argument that emphasizes Paul's writings themselves.

In mid-Acts dispensationalism (a form of hyperdispensationalism), it is taught that only Paul's writings (from Romans to Philemon) are applicable to the church today and that the other parts of the Bible are informational only.

What is the logical and biblical argument against this position? I'm interested in an argument that emphasizes Paul's writings themselves.

In mid-Acts dispensationalism (a form of hyperdispensationalism), it is taught that only Paul's writings (from Romans to Philemon) are applicable to the church today and that the other parts of the Bible are informational only.

What is the logical and biblical argument against this position? I'm interested in an argument that emphasizes Paul's writings themselves.

Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackChristian/status/592575777348177920
Question Protected by CommunityBot
added 6 characters in body; edited tags
Source Link
Mr. Bultitude
Mr. Bultitude
  • 15.4k
  • 7
  • 81
  • 133

In mid-Acts dispensationalism (a form of hyperdispensationalism (aka mid-acts dispensationalism), it is taught that only Paul's writings (from Romans to Philemon) are applicable to the church today and that the other parts of the Bible are informational only.

What is the logical and biblical argument against this position? I'm interested in an argument that emphasizes Paul's writings themselves.

In hyperdispensationalism (aka mid-acts dispensationalism), it is taught that only Paul's writings (from Romans to Philemon) are applicable to the church today and that the other parts of the Bible are informational only.

What is the logical and biblical argument against this position? I'm interested in an argument that emphasizes Paul's writings themselves.

In mid-Acts dispensationalism (a form of hyperdispensationalism), it is taught that only Paul's writings (from Romans to Philemon) are applicable to the church today and that the other parts of the Bible are informational only.

What is the logical and biblical argument against this position? I'm interested in an argument that emphasizes Paul's writings themselves.

added 55 characters in body
Source Link
Affable Geek
Affable Geek
  • 64.2k
  • 30
  • 194
  • 354

In hyperdispensationalismhyperdispensationalism (aka mid-acts dispensationalism), it is taught that only Paul's writings (from Romans to Philemon) are applicable to the church today and that the other parts of the Bible are informational only.

What is the logical and biblical argument against this position? I'm interested in an argument that emphasizes Paul's writings themselves.

In hyperdispensationalism (aka mid-acts dispensationalism), it is taught that only Paul's writings (from Romans to Philemon) are applicable to the church today and that the other parts of the Bible are informational only.

What is the logical and biblical argument against this position? I'm interested in an argument that emphasizes Paul's writings themselves.

In hyperdispensationalism (aka mid-acts dispensationalism), it is taught that only Paul's writings (from Romans to Philemon) are applicable to the church today and that the other parts of the Bible are informational only.

What is the logical and biblical argument against this position? I'm interested in an argument that emphasizes Paul's writings themselves.

Source Link
Narnian
Narnian
  • 64.2k
  • 72
  • 251
  • 496