i think it's misinterpretation. i agree with Paul's writings and don't seem to have the problems others do. i'm not real clear on the dispute here:cigar:
ECT Attention! Everyone who doesn't like MAD!
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
Paul isn't doing 4 and 6:grave:
vfirestormv
Member
Really? Like we needed another thread to beat a dead horse? I have posted my objections to the MAD view in many of the forums. I think it's biggest error is that it separates the Church. Why would God start a Church in about 33AD and end it with the death of the apostles? Why would He have two Churches different from each other going at one time? Especially when Paul says that the two, Jew and Gentile are one.
I still get conflicting reports about whether MAD believes that through all dispensations that it still ended up at the cross for salvation. But if any hold that anyone in any dispensation is saved any other way than through the cross at Calvary then that is in fact the biggest error.
But I have only had one MAD rep say that all must come by way of the cross. So what the others hold to I do not know. Maybe MAD should make that apparent for all to know. Of course all I have heard from most is that we have answered your question before, but No, you haven't, save one. And even that answer was vague.
So I would ask plainly in a yes or no answer, does MAD hold that through all dispensations that all men are saved through the finished work at the cross?
Note: If it must be one question then make it the latter I highlighted in bold.
musterion
Well-known member
Your question can be taken two ways. I will attempt to answer both possible meanings.
If you mean "Were all who were made right with God before the Cross made right with Him by looking forward to the Cross?" as many today believe they were? That is, were they saved by a knowledge that the Christ would die for their sins, much less the sins of all the world? The answer from Scripture appears to be "No, they weren't." That God would ultimately redeem was not a secret. The question was HOW it would be done. So as I posted to you last night, Paul said the fact that Christ died for the sins of the whole world without distinction (what he purposely called "his Gospel") was an aspect of Messiah kept secret in God until it was revealed to and through Paul. Not only did no one before Paul know that the Cross would accomplish all that WE know it did; they also did not know that the Cross would circumvent God's long-prophesied use of a nation of priests (redeemed Israel) to reach the world. Prior to Paul's being told, NOBODY had a clue of all that happened and how it happened...they'd probably have punched in the mouth or stoned to death anyone who dared suggest it. That, I believe, is why Peter said Paul's revelation contained things "hard to be understood." It makes perfect sense for Peter to say that in light of the revelation of the mystery and God's complete deactivation of Israel and her Kingdom gospel. You and others can deny or ignore it all you want. You can attempt to make Peter out to have known something that God's Word says he DID NOT and COULD NOT have known. Have fun with that. MAD simply takes the Scriptures as they're found and, in so doing, honor and glorify God and His Word. If you want to fault us for that, feel free. We'll see you at the Bema.
If, on the other hand, your question is, "Was the Cross ultimately God's basis for forgiveness and redemption going as far back as Adam and Eve?" the answer to that question appears to be "yes, it was." They just didn't know it, despite our NOW being able to see it foreshadowed throughout the O.T. Hence the caution you received against backfilling later revelation into periods before it was ever given: that is a form of the wresting of God's Word that Peter warned against.
I hope that helps clarify what you want clarified.
If any other MAD finds my answer inadequate (and I'm afraid it is) feel free to correct me on any point.
vfirestormv
Member
Great. Thanks for the answer. That appears to me the same view as mine. That although they didn't know it at the time, they were given a different message (veiled through types and rituals), It was ultimately the finished work at the cross that saved them, us and them to come.
I feel much better about the MAD view now. Although we do still disagree on when the church started and that the two are different. (the BoC and the Church)
But really the seemingly different gospels are not at all different gospels then as I see it. Now it depends on what you say is the gospel. You seem to be saying the message to them, which they had to follow was the gospel, or good news. I see that the gospel is not the message itself but the good news that Christ came or would come, lived a sinless life, died on the cross for the sin of the world and was raised by God to live forevermore. Which admittedly they did not know at the time, but God knew. Which that gospel, good news, is what I say has never changed. It was always the cross, is today the cross and will forever be the cross. So really I see us saying the same thing just in different ways. except that of the separation of the church.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
It actually IS law (anarthrous nomos). That's part of the problem.
It's just Neo-Judaism with a different Talmud, but yous guyers are blind to it. Same veil.
Hope presuming to be faith.
It's just one of my many, albeit often annoying, super powers, Mar of Del.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
If Abraham is revealed as being the "father" of faith (Romans 4:11-16), then we believers walk in his same steps, and possess the same gift of faith as he.
If our faith is based upon the propositions of Truth, as revealed to us by the Holy Spirit, of the purpose of the Christ promised, I then contend Abraham was given the same saving spiritual knowledge. The opposite also being true . . We have been gifted with the same knowledge of God and His means of redemption, as Abraham.
MADists teach faith before the Incarnation was blind or only suggestive at best. Or they are teaching works.
For example, MAD teaches that O.T. believers were saved through blessing Israel . . Rahab being heir's latest example. That kind of faith is blind to the promises of the Father of the Christ and it is a form of works.
MAD contends grace, as Christians know grace, was not known until Paul came along.
I strongly disagree that the gospel that saves souls, has ever changed, because the God of that Everlasting Gospel, reveals the Person of God Himself, immutable.
After all, it is reconciliation with Him, that is the good news. How can that message be accepted blindly, or by works that are achieved under the Law, in conjunction with blessing Israelites.
Frankly, the latter point, is still being politically advocated, to this day . . in error and through the preaching of a gospel that is purely social and humanistic.
If our faith is based upon the propositions of Truth, as revealed to us by the Holy Spirit, of the purpose of the Christ promised, I then contend Abraham was given the same saving spiritual knowledge. The opposite also being true . . We have been gifted with the same knowledge of God and His means of redemption, as Abraham.
MADists teach faith before the Incarnation was blind or only suggestive at best. Or they are teaching works.
For example, MAD teaches that O.T. believers were saved through blessing Israel . . Rahab being heir's latest example. That kind of faith is blind to the promises of the Father of the Christ and it is a form of works.
MAD contends grace, as Christians know grace, was not known until Paul came along.
I strongly disagree that the gospel that saves souls, has ever changed, because the God of that Everlasting Gospel, reveals the Person of God Himself, immutable.
After all, it is reconciliation with Him, that is the good news. How can that message be accepted blindly, or by works that are achieved under the Law, in conjunction with blessing Israelites.
Frankly, the latter point, is still being politically advocated, to this day . . in error and through the preaching of a gospel that is purely social and humanistic.
Last edited:
Far out, T. Leary, Jr. ....Thanks for the continued psycho babble, and mysticism....Did you think up that teen talk "sumptink" zinger, while smokin' that new bong, that you received for Christmas, from your junkie friends? Peace out...groovy...Change the bong water. Can you dig it, cat? Cool.
Watchin' some of "The Best of Laverne and Shirley," on your beta max VCR, are you, Timothy?
Nang
TOL Subscriber
I agree. MAD still advocates a large portion of humanity can only hope and will only be saved by works. By blessing national Israel.
oatmeal
Well-known member
Since the words of Jesus Christ were not recorded or written by Jesus Christ himself, it is not Jesus Christ's words that you trust, but that Matthew and Mark and Luke and John's words that you trust.
Do you put Matthew and Mark and Luke and John on par with Jesus' words?
Well articulated, terion of mus. Men/women have always been saved by faith; however, if you survey the book, it testifies that the content of faith, that the LORD God demanded, changed, as He progressively revealed His "Big Picture," so to speak. For eg., Noah knew more than Abraham, who knew more than ...................who knew more than than Adam and Eve .
The content of faith, that was requiredm, in Matthew-John, at least prior to the death, burial, resurrection(study the "good news" of 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV)?:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101739&page=35
Post #519
Nang
TOL Subscriber
The cross was God's means of fulfilling the promise of saving a people through the Seed of the woman, who would rectify and overcome the ramifications of Adam's fall into bondage to sin.
The cross can become a superstitious idol.
We place our faith in the Man crucified on a cross, but not on the means or event; nor God's timing to provide this blessed salvation.
Knowledge of the promised Mediator and Savior, is the basis of grace and faith . . not specific knowledge of Romans practicing crucifixions!
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
No, just trying to keep it light and cordial. Something you don't really understand.
Back to your 'shrooms, Dead Head.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Noah preceded and fathered Abraham.
You are just guessing about these holy matters and show you need to do some serious and more careful study.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Yep. And their OWN works are not of faith (just hope), so they're sin. They just can't and don't know it because of the veil.
Elpis is not pistis, so even if they had agape (which would abound in epignosis and they wouldn't be MADs) it doesn't work elpis, it works pistis.
Oops.
musterion
Well-known member
Yep. They'll tacitly agree to that much, usually, because they aren't bringing animal sacrifices. But when you show them from their own Bible that no one before Paul preached the death, burial and resurrection of Christ for the sin of all without distinction, without works (there's a reason Paul noted that) and without law, their knives come out. They WILL NOT tolerate it...as a Baptist once told me, "You're trying to take away my [water] baptism!"