ECT For MADs: if Scofield was right...

[musterion]

...when he said (paraphrasing) that the identity, position, walk and destiny of the Body of Christ is found ONLY in Paul's epistles...and if we take 2 Cor 5:16 and related verses to mean what they seem to mean...then apart from "transdispensational truths" found throughout the Bible, the question is, how much doctrine, if any, should consistent dispensationalists draw directly from non-Pauline parts of the Bible with regard to their identity and walk?

For example, McLean (whose blog I monitor) says this today:

The apostle Paul uses the word “ashamed” fifteen times and he specifically asks that people not be ashamed of him: II Timothy 1:8 Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner…

You cannot read Darby, Larkin, Scofield, O’Hair, Stam, Kelly or many others without noticing their reticence to be purely Pauline when it makes them look as of they have turned their back on the Lord in the red letters. The most ludicrous manifestation of an unwillingness to be purely Pauline comes from the IQ challenged 28ers who create two bodies of Christ so as to insulate themselves from the problems in the book of Acts, which reach back to the gospels.

We are purely Pauline because it was the Lord Jesus Christ Himself who made Paul His chosen vessel:

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me…

Acts 22:14 And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee,…

Galatians 1:15-16 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

Ephesians 3:1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,

1 Corinthians 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
​

If we are hesitant about being purely Pauline we should recognize that we are being disobedient to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

If we expect to be pleasing to our Lord, we must operate with purely Pauline doctrine:

1 Corinthians 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me (Paul), as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon (the Pauline foundation)​

​

This is a pretty hard-core MAD position but one which I've leaned toward for some time because it's doctrinally consistent with what pretty much all of us say we believe. I'm quoting McLean on it because it's the first time I can recall seeing it phrased so bluntly. What do y'all (MADs) say?

 

[Nang]

Acts 22:14 And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee,…

Galatians 1:15-16 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

Ephesians 3:1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,

1 Corinthians 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

Musterion concludes these Scriptures teach "Paulinianism."

As a Reformer, I conclude they teach divine and Unconditional Election.

The former is the result of restrictive Darby dispensationalism; the latter the result of study of inclusive Covenant Theology.

 

[dodge]

...when he said (paraphrasing) that the identity, position, walk and destiny of the Body of Christ is found ONLY in Paul's epistles...and if we take 2 Cor 5:16 and related verses to mean what they seem to mean...then apart from "transdispensational truths" found throughout the Bible, the question is, how much doctrine, if any, should consistent dispensationalists draw directly from non-Pauline parts of the Bible with regard to their identity and walk?

For example, McLean (whose blog I monitor) says this today:

​

This is a pretty hard-core MAD position but one which I've leaned toward for some time because it's doctrinally consistent with what pretty much all of us say we believe. I'm quoting McLean on it because it's the first time I can recall seeing it phrased so bluntly. What do y'all (MADs) say?

Roman Catholics make arguments to follow Peter now those in MAD make arguments to follow Paul both of whom said to follow Jesus. Why not do as scripture teaches and follow the giver of life named Jesus ?

 

[musterion]

I have these two on ignore. Anyone else?

 

[Nang]

I have these two on ignore. Anyone else?

Which only reveals you have the closed-mind of a cultist.

 

[steko]

I have these two on ignore. Anyone else?

I frequently refer to this verse:

Rom 15:18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed,

...which sums up, for me at least, that Paul, as he said elsewhere, is Christ's Apostle to the Gentiles/nations.

All the Bible is for us and there are principles throughout which one may apply to their lives, but Christ from heaven chose Paul to be His unique Apostle to the Gentiles and his writings are written not only for, but to us. I understand the whole Bible through the teachings of Paul.

 

[intojoy]

...when he said (paraphrasing) that the identity, position, walk and destiny of the Body of Christ is found ONLY in Paul's epistles...and if we take 2 Cor 5:16 and related verses to mean what they seem to mean...then apart from "transdispensational truths" found throughout the Bible, the question is, how much doctrine, if any, should consistent dispensationalists draw directly from non-Pauline parts of the Bible with regard to their identity and walk?

For example, McLean (whose blog I monitor) says this today:

​

This is a pretty hard-core MAD position but one which I've leaned toward for some time because it's doctrinally consistent with what pretty much all of us say we believe. I'm quoting McLean on it because it's the first time I can recall seeing it phrased so bluntly. What do y'all (MADs) say?

Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[musterion]

I frequently refer to this verse:

Rom 15:18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed,

...which sums up, for me at least, that Paul, as he said elsewhere, is Christ's Apostle to the Gentiles/nations.

All the Bible is for us and there are principles throughout which one may apply to their lives, but Christ from heaven chose Paul to be His unique Apostle to the Gentiles and his writings are written not only for, but to us. I understand the whole Bible through the teachings of Paul.

Exactly.

 

[Danoh]

....

That is one huge book "about."

Nevertheless, much by Fruchtanbaum is VERY worthwhile reading.

I'd add to that this huge book "about" Mid-Acts Dispensationalism (goes into the various views on Sovereignty, Millenniallism, Calvinism, Armenianism, Israel and the Israel of God, the Body, Soteriology, Angelology, etc.).

https://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Dispensational-Theology-2015.jpg

 

[musterion]

I always recommend Brock's THE GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM IS NOT THE GOSPEL OF THE GRACE OF GOD. Approachable, brief, right to the point.

 

[Danoh]

...when he said (paraphrasing) that the identity, position, walk and destiny of the Body of Christ is found ONLY in Paul's epistles...and if we take 2 Cor 5:16 and related verses to mean what they seem to mean...then apart from "transdispensational truths" found throughout the Bible, the question is, how much doctrine, if any, should consistent dispensationalists draw directly from non-Pauline parts of the Bible with regard to their identity and walk?

For example, McLean (whose blog I monitor) says this today:

​

This is a pretty hard-core MAD position but one which I've leaned toward for some time because it's doctrinally consistent with what pretty much all of us say we believe. I'm quoting McLean on it because it's the first time I can recall seeing it phrased so bluntly. What do y'all (MADs) say?

A rant...

McClean is ever blunt.

But because he has no "grace" in his gospel of "grace."

Fact is, the individuals he cited were simply walking in their understanding of things back then.

O'Hair, for example, had held that the book known as the gospel of John was for the Body - out of his understanding back then, that John had gotten his understanding of the grace he writes of in John, from Paul.

But he - more than just about any other in MAD - had ever publically proved himself being willing to part with a thing when proven wrong.

Just as he had ever proven publicly that he was not about what others might want to hear from him.

Many of his people had those same traits.

I myself hold to Genesis thru Revelation in light of Romans thru Philemon.

I know though, I have yet to hold a candle to the likes of an O'Hair.

McClean is just a religious, grace legalist, hypocrite.

His accusation of those mighty warriors in the Lord back then is just his same old slander in his tooting of his own horn.

None of those men were ever publicly known to back down from asserting Dispensational distinctives - as they had understood them...back then.

Each was well known as "a trouble maker."

Because they each firmly stood their ground as to those Dispensational distinctives as they had each understood them back then and that Churchianity is ever knowingly slandering such over, in its' endless opposition; in its' ignorance of the Things That Differ (Stam) - the Unsearchable Riches of Christ (O'Hair) within Mid-Acts' - A Dispensational Theology (Baker).

 

[musterion]

The issue, per the OP, is where to draw the MAD line of biblical consistency.

 

[john w]

Roman Catholics make arguments to follow Peter now those in MAD make arguments to follow Paul both of whom said to follow Jesus. Why not do as scripture teaches and follow the giver of life named Jesus ?

You, to the children of Israel: "You Israelites make arguments to follow Moses. Why not do as scripture teaches and follow the LORD God!!! Stop it!!!!".


Sophistry, Deception. False dichotomy.


Paul never taught members of the boc, that "following Christ" meant following Him in His earthly ministry, while He taught the law. You lie:

2 Corinthians 5:16 KJV Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

 

[musterion]

A rant...

McClean is ever blunt.

But because he has no "grace" in his gospel of "grace."

Fact is, the individuals he cited were simply walking in their understanding of things back then.

O'Hair, for example, had held that the book known as the gospel of John was for the Body - out of his understanding back then, that John had gotten his understanding of the grace he writes of in John, from Paul.

But he - more than just about any other in MAD - had ever publically proved himself being willing to part with a thing when proven wrong.

Just as he had ever proven publicly that he was not about what others might want to hear from him.

Many of his people had those same traits.

I myself hold to Genesis thru Revelation in light of Romans thru Philemon.

I know though, I have yet to hold a candle to the likes of an O'Hair.

McClean is just a religious, grace legalist, hypocrite.

His accusation of those mighty warriors in the Lord back then is just his same old slander in his tooting of his own horn.

None of those men were ever publicly known to back down from asserting Dispensational distinctives - as they had understood them...back then.

Each was well known as "a trouble maker."

Because they each firmly stood their ground as to those Dispensational distinctives as they had each understood them back then and that Churchianity is ever knowingly slandering such over, in its' endless opposition; in its' ignorance of the Things That Differ (Stam) - the Unsearchable Riches of Christ (O'Hair) within Mid-Acts' - A Dispensational Theology (Baker).

And (suprise) I think I can agree with pretty much all of that.

 

[musterion]

You, to the children of Israel: "You Israelites make arguments to follow Moses. Why not do as scripture teaches and follow the LORD God!!! Stop it!!!!".


Sophistry, Deception. False dichotomy.


Paul never taught members of the boc, that "following Christ" meant following Him in His earthly ministry, while He taught the lawr. You lie:

2 Corinthians 5:16 KJV Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

Stuff like what you're responding to is why I wish Knight would set up a MAD Only subforum. I'm sure we would come out onto the board every now and then. Maybe

 

[john w]

There are "transdispensational" doctrines/principles; most dispensational proponents acknowledge, and teach that(or should).

 

[Danoh]

And (suprise) I think I can agree with pretty much all of that.

Bro, you have long ceased to surprise me much - likewise, I'm sure...you will think

But yeah - Genesis thru Revelation; in light of Romans thru Philemon.

 

[Lon]

...when he said (paraphrasing) that the identity, position, walk and destiny of the Body of Christ is found ONLY in Paul's epistles...and if we take 2 Cor 5:16 and related verses to mean what they seem to mean...then apart from "transdispensational truths" found throughout the Bible, the question is, how much doctrine, if any, should consistent dispensationalists draw directly from non-Pauline parts of the Bible with regard to their identity and walk?

For example, McLean (whose blog I monitor) says this today:

​

This is a pretty hard-core MAD position but one which I've leaned toward for some time because it's doctrinally consistent with what pretty much all of us say we believe. I'm quoting McLean on it because it's the first time I can recall seeing it phrased so bluntly. What do y'all (MADs) say?

For me, As I've looked at MAD, I believe you see following Paul 'as' following Christ: 1 Corinthians 11:1

I would agree with the prior dispensationalists, there may be some dichotomy and as an outsider, such is more pronounced, but I have not seen MAD as not following Christ, just not caught up in Judaizing. That is, I think I understand where you are coming from and I don't think it is as hard-core, nor do I believe it doesn't follow Christ. Paul quotes the Lord Jesus Christ and reiterates many of His words. ANY bible reader/believer has to see that. I don't think MAD is consistent from my perspective BUT I say you cannot go much wrong following Paul who 1) Himself followed Christ and 2) quoted, reiterated, AND spoke directly what Christ revealed to him. IOW, stick to your guns as far as Paul is concerned but I'd simply suggest running anything re:judaizing when reading the other epistles and red letters, through Paul's directives to be consistent with what you believe? Odd advice from a nonMad, but I'm saying I too follow Paul as he follows Christ (at least that is the desire/attempt). In Him -Lon

 

[intojoy]

Schofield's dispensationalism was the closest to dealing with Israel but he did nothing to deal with Israel present. It's blank..


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[musterion]

Schofield's dispensationalism was the closest to dealing with Israel but he did nothing to deal with Israel present. It's blank..


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

And why do you think that might be, genius?

At least get the name right.