ECT 3 Questions for my MAD and YEC friends

[patman]

Hi folks,

Here are three questions I have for fellow MAD and Open Theist YEC believers. I too belong to these beliefs, but I have a few things from the Bible that I wonder about. I would appreciate anyone who is studied in these areas to give me their insights on the following "questions" I have. I put my main questions in bold:

YEC and Vegetarians:
Where does the belief that no one ever ate meat, not even the animals?

Of course I know Adam brought on death, but even to the animals? I am not familiar with a verse that says animals never died pre fall.

Those who believe this say that God officially authorized the eating of animals by humans when before he did not... but since when did humans ever wait for God, or follow his rules? The people before the flood were supposed to be the worst in history... would they really honor a vegetarian diet? Furthermore there is enough bacteria designed for the purpose of eating dead animals... for me it begs the question, why would God create that unless animals would be dying?

I tend to think that the death Adam brought to us was only spiritual and only applied to beings with a spirit, i.e. humans... still, I submit the question above to you in hopes you can explain these "problems" to me.

MAD:
#1 One of the ways MAD unifies the NT is by dividing Pauls writings from the rest. Paul wrote to the gentiles and the others wrote to the Jews. This belief explains why John and the others discussed faith+works=salvation camp and Paul was faith only = salvation camp.

But I came across this passage from Peter recently:

NET 2 Peter 3:15-16
15) And regard the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as also our dear brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom given to him, 16) speaking of these things in all his letters. Some things in these letters are hard to understand, things the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they also do to the rest of the scriptures.

It seems Paul was writing to the Jews too. Does that raise questions for anyone else? This passage almost breaks down that line of division between the two paths of salvation when Paul was writing to the Jews. The message of the two camps is so stark between the authors that they are evidence enough for MAD, but It leaves me wondering why Paul was doing ( I am struggling to express my concern here, so I'll leave it this and see if anyone else sees where I am going here and has an answer...)

#2 (I've asked before, but I still struggle to understand) Why is the law going to come back after the rapture?

Paul speaks so well on the benefits of Grace, how we are dead to the law and freed from it the same way a widow is free from the laws concerning adultery. I do not understand why God would put future Jews back under it.

I understand that the tribulation is for the Jews, and at one time being a jew meant having the law, but there were children of Abraham and Jacob before the law. Why couldn't the tribulation involve descendants of Abraham who are saved by grace minus works? I do not see a reason from scripture to fully believe that this component of MAD is a must. Anyone care to show me what I am missing here?

 

[Stripe]

Hi folks

Always good to hear from you. :wave:

YEC and Vegetarians:
Where does the belief that no one ever ate meat, not even the animals?

I think this idea usually pertains to pre-fall, not pre-flood. And it also depends on what one would refer to as "meat."

There is no explicit statement that no "nephesh" animals died pre-fall, but it is difficult to comprehend a world where, for example, bugs could not be killed. I think the gist of the idea from a YEC perspective is that the world was created "very good," and a place that saw rabbits being chased and eaten by wolves would not fit that description.

But it is always good to squash cockroaches.

As for bacteria "designed" to assist with the decomposition of animals being evidence for the counter idea that animals did die before the fall, that presupposes the notion that the bacteria could not have had a different role before things changed dramatically (post-fall and post-flood).

I tend to think that the death Adam brought to us was only spiritual and only applied to beings with a spirit, i.e. humans... still, I submit the question above to you in hopes you can explain these "problems" to me.

The problem with that is: Adam died physically.

Why is the law going to come back after the rapture?

The law has not gone anywhere. It is still in force.

Paul speaks so well on the benefits of Grace, how we are dead to the law and freed from it the same way a widow is free from the laws concerning adultery. I do not understand why God would put future Jews back under it.

There is nothing wrong with having rules.

 

[themuzicman]

If there was no animal killing before the fall, then how did the big cats survive? Their entire being, from muscles and skeleton to digestive tract, is designed around hunting, killing and eating meat from other animals. They cannot survive eating plants.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

MAD:
#1 One of the ways MAD unifies the NT is by dividing Pauls writings from the rest.

You confuse MAD with Neo-MAD. It is those within the Neo-MAD crowd who divides Paul's writings from the rest. One of the giants of the original MAD is J.C. O'Hair and he said this:

"Peter and James and ten other apostles are going to sit on twelve thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:27 and 28). But I do not agree with Christians who say that the twelve apostles were not members of the Body of Christ...I make no such foolish statement...that these Epistles of Peter and James are not for this age...I use 1 Peter 3:18 in preaching the gospel of grace as frequently as I use any other verse" [emphasis mine] (O'Hair, The Accuser of the Brethren and the Brethren Concerning Bullingerism).​

 

[Stripe]

If there was no animal killing before the fall, then how did the big cats survive? Their entire being, from muscles and skeleton to digestive tract, is designed around hunting, killing and eating meat from other animals. They cannot survive eating plants.

Their entire being, from muscles and skeleton to digestive tract, adapted to hunting, killing and eating meat from other animals.

 

[Interplanner]

Hi folks,

Here are three questions I have for fellow MAD and Open Theist YEC believers. I too belong to these beliefs, but I have a few things from the Bible that I wonder about. I would appreciate anyone who is studied in these areas to give me their insights on the following "questions" I have. I put my main questions in bold:

YEC and Vegetarians:
Where does the belief that no one ever ate meat, not even the animals?

Of course I know Adam brought on death, but even to the animals? I am not familiar with a verse that says animals never died pre fall.

Those who believe this say that God officially authorized the eating of animals by humans when before he did not... but since when did humans ever wait for God, or follow his rules? The people before the flood were supposed to be the worst in history... would they really honor a vegetarian diet? Furthermore there is enough bacteria designed for the purpose of eating dead animals... for me it begs the question, why would God create that unless animals would be dying?

I tend to think that the death Adam brought to us was only spiritual and only applied to beings with a spirit, i.e. humans... still, I submit the question above to you in hopes you can explain these "problems" to me.

MAD:
#1 One of the ways MAD unifies the NT is by dividing Pauls writings from the rest. Paul wrote to the gentiles and the others wrote to the Jews. This belief explains why John and the others discussed faith+works=salvation camp and Paul was faith only = salvation camp.

But I came across this passage from Peter recently:



It seems Paul was writing to the Jews too. Does that raise questions for anyone else? This passage almost breaks down that line of division between the two paths of salvation when Paul was writing to the Jews. The message of the two camps is so stark between the authors that they are evidence enough for MAD, but It leaves me wondering why Paul was doing ( I am struggling to express my concern here, so I'll leave it this and see if anyone else sees where I am going here and has an answer...)

#2 (I've asked before, but I still struggle to understand) Why is the law going to come back after the rapture?

Paul speaks so well on the benefits of Grace, how we are dead to the law and freed from it the same way a widow is free from the laws concerning adultery. I do not understand why God would put future Jews back under it.

I understand that the tribulation is for the Jews, and at one time being a jew meant having the law, but there were children of Abraham and Jacob before the law. Why couldn't the tribulation involve descendants of Abraham who are saved by grace minus works? I do not see a reason from scripture to fully believe that this component of MAD is a must. Anyone care to show me what I am missing here?

MAD seems to base this on poor rendering of Gal 2 about gospels to circ and uncirc, when the text is about 1 gospel to both.

There are no NT passages that indicate a resumed practice of Judaism on earth or anywhere else. There are almost no details about the 1000 years anyway; there are more about the NHNE, and no Judaic details there, not when God is the temple and Christ is the light, etc.

 

[themuzicman]

Their entire being, from muscles and skeleton to digestive tract, adapted to hunting, killing and eating meat from other animals.

Really? What were they before they "adapted", then?

 

[Interplanner]

The above sounds like a question about the amount of time before Gen 1:2.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

There are no NT passages that indicate a resumed practice of Judaism on earth or anywhere else. There are almost no details about the 1000 years anyway; there are more about the NHNE, and no Judaic details there, not when God is the temple and Christ is the light, etc.

Today there are no special people of God except those in the body of Christ, and in the body there is neither Jews nor Greeks.

But in the future it is evidient that Judaism will resume:

"And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel. Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand..." (Rev.7:4-5).​

 

[Stripe]

Really?

It seems to be the idea that best fits the evidence.

What were they before they "adapted", then?

The originally created cat kind. :idunno:

 

[patman]

Always good to hear from you. :wave:

Thank you Stripe!! It's nice to hear from you too, you always make me think and entertain!

I think this idea usually pertains to pre-fall, not pre-flood. And it also depends on what one would refer to as "meat."
......

...that presupposes the notion that the bacteria could not have had a different role before things changed dramatically (post-fall and post-flood)...

It's not just bacteria though, many animals have the meat eating anatomy.

Right after the fall, Abel was herding flocks and using them to make sacrifices in Genesis 4:4. What kind of sacrifice is it when you kill an animal you weren't going to eat anyway? One might say they were used for clothes, but he was bringing "fat" offerings. The fattest of his offerings is only an impressive sacrifice if he planned on eating those. Moreover, God was pleased with this whole thing.

This happening so near the fall indicates to me that creatures, including humans, were always meant, even designed, to eat meat of lower animals. There was no time to adapt to it, Abel was the second human to be born.

I used to have the impression that God wanted the world to be vegetarians, and the meat eating abilities of us and animals could have been a backup plan for the fall. But supposing the fall never happened, we'd be overrun with rabbits, rats, dogs, cats, and the idea of being overrun with cats terrifies me :shocked:

It just seems that the original gift of plants as food in Genesis 1:30 isn't a full picture or a permanent goal. I think even if the fall never happened, eventually meat eating would have happened.

The problem with that is: Adam died physically.

So did everyone else, even though they didn't participate in breaking the one law God gave to one person as in Romans 5:14. We can sin and that sin can kill us, but sin is for people. Other things can kill us that are not sin, but the greater concern is the soul... is it dead too? The death that concerns us humans is the spiritual death.

The law has not gone anywhere. It is still in force.

Right, but not for Christians. There is nothing wrong with good rules, but the dietary laws and circumcision aren't those kind of rules, they are practices.

Let me ask it like this:

My understanding of MAD in regards to the law is that the presence is that it has a place and a future, and that place is the tribulation and beyond. The conclusions comes from of the other apostles works-centered teachings leads and the assumption that it must have an audience. Am I missing another critical point or is this the basis?

 

[patman]

You confuse MAD with Neo-MAD. It is those within the Neo-MAD crowd who divides Paul's writings from the rest. One of the giants of the original MAD is J.C. O'Hair and he said this:

"Peter and James and ten other apostles are going to sit on twelve thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:27 and 28). But I do not agree with Christians who say that the twelve apostles were not members of the Body of Christ...I make no such foolish statement...that these Epistles of Peter and James are not for this age...I use 1 Peter 3:18 in preaching the gospel of grace as frequently as I use any other verse" [emphasis mine] (O'Hair, The Accuser of the Brethren and the Brethren Concerning Bullingerism).​

Thank you Jerry.

I think its fair to say there is no perfect MAD belief, and no one will truly fall under every point made by another. Please look over my ignorance of the technical classifications. I personally believe Peter was a part of the Body too, I don't know anyone who says otherwise.

I personally see the logic behind dividing the apostles from Paul. What guidance do you have for me: What is the place for the teachings of the 12 (does it have a future audience of jews under the law, is it somehow compatible with Paul, other)?

 

[patman]

MAD seems to base this on poor rendering of Gal 2 about gospels to circ and uncirc, when the text is about 1 gospel to both.

There are no NT passages that indicate a resumed practice of Judaism on earth or anywhere else. There are almost no details about the 1000 years anyway; there are more about the NHNE, and no Judaic details there, not when God is the temple and Christ is the light, etc.

While I agree with the first paragraph, I also lean towards the second paragraph I'm always reconsidering where I stand as I learn more.

I think the idea of the "2 gospels" (which both had the same good news about eternity) is very plausible. I find it very difficult to unify many of the writings without recognizing the audiences without MAD (at least as I understand it). Do you have advice on how to unify the seemingly different messages?

 

[Tambora]

I tend to think that the death Adam brought to us was only spiritual and only applied to beings with a spirit, i.e. humans

Understandable, since Adam was told he would die the day he sinned, yet he lived on physically for many years.

Also, we have no indication that we are to spread the good news in order to "save" any animal from death to life.

Also, we have:

Romans 5 KJV
(12) Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
(13) (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
(14) Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.​

Long story short, scripture does not limit the word (dead/death) to a physical biological concept.
For example, the prodigal son was called both 'dead' and 'alive' while he was physically alive.
In other words, it wasn't his biological death that was the problem.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

MAD seems to base this on poor rendering of Gal 2 about gospels to circ and uncirc, when the text is about 1 gospel to both.

If that is the case, do you think it is odd that Paul shook hands on the agreement in Acts 15 and then immediately broke it in Acts 17, 18, 19?

 

[Interplanner]

If that is the case, do you think it is odd that Paul shook hands on the agreement in Acts 15 and then immediately broke it in Acts 17, 18, 19?

No. They settled the Gospel issue v11. The next question was 'how much torah must Gentiles keep to honor Christ?' A: not very much.

The people Paul struggled with were the ones who added on too much. (Gal, Col and 2 Cor). They even called it a gospel. that shows they were twice confused.

 

[Tambora]

Today there are no special people of God except those in the body of Christ,

Well .....

Romans 11 KJV
(28) As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

No. They settled the Gospel issue v11. The next question was 'how much torah must Gentiles keep to honor Christ?' A: not very much.

The people Paul struggled with were the ones who added on too much. (Gal, Col and 2 Cor). They even called it a gospel. that shows they were twice confused.

If Paul agreed to go to the uncircumcision, while Peter went to the circumcision, why did he immediately go into synagogues in Acts 17 and 18?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I personally see the logic behind dividing the apostles from Paul. What guidance do you have for me: What is the place for the teachings of the 12 (does it have a future audience of jews under the law, is it somehow compatible with Paul, other)?

Let us look at to whom the doctrine found in 1 Corinthians is written:

"Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's" (1 Cor.1:2).​

So the following words were addressed to all those in every place which call on the name of the Lord Jesus:

"For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit" (1 Cor.12:13).​

So Paul is telling every single believer in the whole world without exception that they have been baptized into the Body of Christ. That means that all of the Twelve as well as all the authors of the NT epistles were membersof the Body and also were those who received every single epistle.

Those in the Neo-MAD crowd defy that truth and insist that only some of the Israelites living at the time when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians were in the Body of Christ.

 

[patman]

If that is the case, do you think it is odd that Paul shook hands on the agreement in Acts 15 and then immediately broke it in Acts 17, 18, 19?

Not to mention the 2 Peter verse I quoted that found Paul and Peter writing to the same audience. What is your take on this?