Dan,
 Like I've said, I'm rather new to Pauline diispensational thought but find it quite intriguing.
So no I have not heard of Les Feldick.
And yes I do like what I have read of these Pauline teachers including Brock.
What is your take on Miles Stanford? Pauline yet Acts 2. It was through his teachings that eventually I got  hooked on the mid-Acts view, HA.

It's in the perfect passive which means God had done the action. Don't you think that often a completed action from God's side  has it's outworking (within time) . For example our sanctification is a completed action by God and yet in time it has it's out workings amongst ourselves. Paul was separated unto the Gospel at a particular point and yet it is in the 'continual results' that we see a transition into this present dispensation.
 Greek is fine with the skeletal work but sooner or later flesh and bones need to be added which comes from context and Scripture interpreting Scripture. It just seems to be an awkward jump to conclude from Rom 1:1 that (Scripture says) this present dispensation 'exactly' began at so in so or such and such.
 I believe Stam's statement on pg.176 is a fair one, and why torture his position any further?...
""We believe that Paul's conversion and call to apostleship marks the beginning of the new dispensation and of the Body of Christ."

Dan,
 I think Stam gives a fine defense of his Acts 9 position in his  Acts Dispensationally Considered Vol.2 pgs 173-180 under the heading, "When  did the present dispensation begin". Look it up.

[1 Corinthians 2:1-5 KJV 1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. 3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. 4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: 5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.]

If you go to the first of the thread, there might be 3 or more discussions in this thread. I, personally, don't even care to keep up with all of the new tags and labels. Man has made a confusing mess out of the plain and simple "Gospel of The Grace of God". There's even disagreement in what the phrase means in quotes in the previous sentence. I'm sure that the devil has something to do with all of the confusion. I'll give thanks that the most powerful Gospel message is still plain and simple, just like it was almost 2,000 years ago.

1 Corinthians 2:1-5 KJV  1  And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.  2  For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.  3  And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.  4  And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:  5  That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

Still, we are to contend for the faith (body of truth) once delivered to the saints and not go 'Emergent', tags or no tags.

The Grace Movement is also called Free Grace .
They  start with this view  that you can receive Christ as your Savior and  not as Lord ,they then interpret the whole New Testament in that light.
I'm going to list some of the type of teaching they teach,and I believe with just a little study the false teaching can be rebuked.
1] Repentance is never included as part of the Gospel message.
2]One may receive Christ as Savior, yet reject Him as Lord.That is ,one may receive Christ by faith alone(intellectual assent is the definition some of them affirm to ),yet do so with on going rebellion--accepting the gift while shaking a fist at the giver.God does not necessarily change the heart when he saves someone.
3]True Christians will not necessarily evidence their faith by works(fruit) .In fact a true Christian may never show any evidence of a new birth.
4] True Christians will not necessarily persevere  in the faith.In fact a true Christian may receive Jesus as Savior ,later become intellectually unconvinced of the Gospel ,denounce Christ and become an atheist ;however ,because of that decision made at one time,he is still considered saved.
5]Christians will be divided into to groups at the judgement seat, the overcoming Christians will be allowed to reign with Christ in the millennial kingdom,they are the heirs.the unfaithful,carnal believers however will get into the kingdom but will not reign with Christ .they will be barred from the banquet.


As can be seen this is a teaching that is false and has the potential to lead some to hell .

Hope this is usefull

  Looking at Dan P's response (the mid-Acts view) and the definition above, I think we have two totally different discussions.

Tom,

Thank you for the welcome. I'll try to behave during my stay here.

In our stead He bled,
~richard

Hello all,

Saved and started off about 36 yrs ago in a non denom. with some 'sensational' dispensational teaching, then charismatic, then Reformed Baptist, then Reformed,then Lutheran, then in a 'holding position' while back in a non denom. Past two months have beenlooking into Pauline Dispensational teaching and weighing out differences between Acts2 and mid Acts positions. I  am currently siding with the mid-Acts view.
 At 62 this is strange, but quite an eye opener ...but if we keep seeking, He keeps leading.

[was counted]

Hi Dan,
It may only mean that Cornelius' uncircumcision was counted for circumcision and not necessarily that he was physically circumcised. Just as our faith in the Gospel is counted for righteousness...not that we act all that righteously.