For Sincere Inquisitors ONLY: MAD Explained

[SaulToPaul 2]

Let me ask you this question? Was it possible for this man in Luke to keep the commandments perfectly? I think not. Only Jesus. I believe when Jesus told the man that he had to keep the commandments He knew the man was a Lawyer and was tempting Him. So Jesus gave the man a true answer but not a complete answer. Jesus knew the man had not kept the commandments but let the man deceive himself because of the spirit that Jesus perceived in him.

Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

This verse has to do with believing in Him. I do believe that is the same for us today, right.

Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

It is in vain to seek for justification by the works of the law. All must plead guilty. Guilty before God, is a dreadful word; but no man can be justified by a law which condemns him for breaking it. The corruption in our nature, will for ever stop any justification by our own works. It has always been this way, even from the beginning.

Act 10:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
What is righteousness but to do what is right, Including having faith in what Messiah did for us.

Amosman, it's a mistake to take Romans 3 doctrine (not under law) and read it back into Luke and John (under law). It just won't work. Jesus Christ baptized those Israelites WITH the Spirit at Pentecost which gave them the power to become sons of God...the power to keep the law and endure to the end. They were not new creatures, yet.

We, in the Body of Christ, are ALREADY sons by adoption into Christ. We are new creatures.

 

[amosman]

Amosman, it's a mistake to take Romans 3 doctrine (not under law) and read it back into Luke and John (under law). It just won't work. Jesus Christ baptized those Israelites WITH the Spirit at Pentecost which gave them the power to become sons of God...the power to keep the law and endure to the end. They were not new creatures, yet.

We, in the Body of Christ, are ALREADY sons by adoption into Christ. We are new creatures.

Nobody has ever been saved by keeping the law. Even the OT people. If it were possible then Jesus would not have needed to die on the cross.

Paul tells us:

Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Rom 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,


And James says the same:

Jas 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Nobody has ever been saved by keeping the law. Even the OT people. If it were possible then Jesus would not have needed to die on the cross.

The kept the commandments and endured (through the Trumpets) to the end, which is the Day of Atonement (the blotting out of sins). You know the feasts.

 

[godrulz]

Amosman, it's a mistake to take Romans 3 doctrine (not under law) and read it back into Luke and John (under law). It just won't work. Jesus Christ baptized those Israelites WITH the Spirit at Pentecost which gave them the power to become sons of God...the power to keep the law and endure to the end. They were not new creatures, yet.

We, in the Body of Christ, are ALREADY sons by adoption into Christ. We are new creatures.

John emphasizes a relational sonship, while Paul emphasizes a more legal aspect. Jn. 1:12; Jn. 3:16, etc. is consistent with Rom. 10:9-10, etc. John and Paul taught the necessity of spiritual regeneration (which you confuse with resurrection/glorification).

The Pentecostal experience in Acts 2 is an experience subsequent to conversion for power to be a witness, etc. (Acts 1:8; Acts 2:4). It is not to be confused with receiving the Spirit at conversion upon faith in Christ. It is also not exclusive to Jews (see later Acts precedents).

All those who trust Christ after the cross are children of God, regenerated (Jn. 3:3-5). Jew and Gentile are one in Christ and have a future hope of bodily resurrection/glorification (Rom. 8:28-30).

 

[john w]

John emphasizes a relational sonship, while Paul emphasizes a more legal aspect. Jn. 1:12; Jn. 3:16, etc. is consistent with Rom. 10:9-10, etc. John and Paul taught the necessity of spiritual regeneration (which you confuse with resurrection/glorification).

The Pentecostal experience in Acts 2 is an experience subsequent to conversion for power to be a witness, etc. (Acts 1:8; Acts 2:4). It is not to be confused with receiving the Spirit at conversion upon faith in Christ. It is also not exclusive to Jews (see later Acts precedents).

All those who trust Christ after the cross are children of God, regenerated (Jn. 3:3-5). Jew and Gentile are one in Christ and have a future hope of bodily resurrection/glorification (Rom. 8:28-30).

_
Where you one of "the children of God", were you "regenerated" when you typed that post, or did you write it when you were in a state of unbelief? If you were in a state of unbelief, why should we listen to you, Mr. "difficult believism/greasy law"?

"At any given moment, one is either a believer or an unbeliever. This does not preclude the possibility of moving from faith to unbelief...cf. one can be married, then divorced. This does not mean they were never married (your logic?!)."-autopilot godrulz

 

[Sheila B]

Jesus Christ baptized those Israelites WITH the Spirit at Pentecost which gave them the power to become sons of God...the power to keep the law and endure to the end. They were not new creatures, yet.

This is the crux of my dilemma. Those who first received the tongues of fire, and especially the Eleven who received the very Breath of Life from the Author of Life Himself, barely 10 days before... are not new creatures?

And we are to assume those who come years later, are?

So, there must be a very dramatic turning point. There must be an exceptionally clear demarcation for such a diving line to be so. One person is baptized under Law (in the Name) and the next is saved by Faith, all by the same apostles and all by the same church and then they are side by side worshiping as though everything is great?

Those who were baptized into The Name never thad the chance to recant once the Faith came? To renounce their baptism in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? After all, who would not? Any thinking person would then recant that former Baptism in the Name and believe by Faith. So, where are the verses describing this?

 

[Sheila B]

How could one ever recant that Name?

 

[amosman]

The kept the commandments and endured (through the Trumpets) to the end, which is the Day of Atonement (the blotting out of sins). You know the feasts.

These things point to Messiah. The Feasts of YHVH were and are signs and pictures of the plan of YHVH.

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
Heb 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

These things point to Messiah. The Feasts of YHVH were and are signs and pictures of the plan of YHVH.

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
Heb 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

When were Trumpets, Day of Atonement, and Tabernacles fulfilled?

 

[amosman]

When were Trumpets, Day of Atonement, and Tabernacles fulfilled?

They haven't yet been fulfilled. They will be at the second coming of Messiah.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

They haven't yet been fulfilled. They will be at the second coming of Messiah.

So, how do you reconcile the fact that the Day of Atonement is still future, yet Paul tells you that all of your sins have been blotted out?

 

[amosman]

So, how do you reconcile the fact that the Day of Atonement is still future, yet Paul tells you that all of your sins have been blotted out?

By faith. Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

By faith. Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Not sure I follow you, Amosman.

You have already received the Atonement (Romans 5), but the Day of Atonement is still future. Who's sins will be blotted out on the Day of Atonement? (Acts 3:19-22 KJV)

 

[amosman]

Not sure I follow you, Amosman.

You have already received the Atonement (Romans 5), but the Day of Atonement is still future. Who's sins will be blotted out on the Day of Atonement? (Acts 3:19-22 KJV)

Yes by faith we have received that atonement, even though the day of atonement has not come yet.

 

[john w]

The Day of Atonement is shadows/types fulfilled in Christ. I do not see the future element (but I could be wrong). There is a difference between individual salvation provided by the Lamb of God and the future restoration of corporate Israel when they will collectively have their sin of rejecting their Messiah dealt with.

Confusing individual gospel issues (past, present) with corporate, covenantal, eschatological (future) issues seems to be another MAD mistake.

_
"Confusing individual gospel issues (past, present) with corporate, covenantal, eschatological (future) issues seems to be another MAD mistake."- autopilot 567,987 th time

" I do not see..."-autopilot

We know you don't see-2 Cor.4:4, 1 Cor. 2:14.
Lost men are spiritually blind, like yourself.



Members of the body of Christ know "your mistake." Get saved/justified first. Until then, stay in the religious section of this site. That is you-religious, and a moron. And stuff your canned cliches, and get into the book, which you reject.

"I quote the bible when necessary...(forget exact verse)...Google may also help....If you study biblical theology (looking at books, authors, etc.) instead of systematic theology or ultradispensationalism, you would see that... As it is, commentators disagree on… I believe sound evangelical scholarship totally refutes what you are saying … He is not worth reading in light of the sound scholarship that exists .."-autopliot

"At any given moment, one is either a believer or an unbeliever. This does not preclude the possibility of moving from faith to unbelief...cf. one can be married, then divorced. This does not mean they were never married (your logic?!)."-autopilot godrulz

godrulz- the lost, flaky, shaky charismatic moron.

 

[godrulz]

Drat, I posted in this forbidden thread again. Sorry, I need a new brain. I will delete my post (even though I am a sincere, unconvinced inquisitor.....I will believe truth even if it is not popular or traditional).

 

[Lighthouse]

So, no one is going to directly correct me?

Oh well. I stand corrected anyway.

 

[john w]

Drat, I posted in this forbidden thread again. Sorry, I need a new brain. I will delete my post (even though I am a sincere, unconvinced inquisitor.....I will believe truth even if it is not popular or traditional).

_
No, you believe your commentaries, commentaries on commentaries, commentaries on commentaries on commentaries,...... as you have isolated yourself from the scriptures, and reject them, and are as blind(2 Cor. 4:4, 1 Cor. 2:14) as some deluded Buddhist monk on the streets of Tibet:


"I quote the bible when necessary...(forget exact verse)...Google may also help....If you study biblical theology (looking at books, authors, etc.) instead of systematic theology or ultradispensationalism, you would see that... As it is, commentators disagree on… I believe sound evangelical scholarship totally refutes what you are saying … He is not worth reading in light of the sound scholarship that exists .."-autopliot

 

[tetelestai]

This is the crux of my dilemma. Those who first received the tongues of fire, and especially the Eleven who received the very Breath of Life from the Author of Life Himself, barely 10 days before... are not new creatures?

And we are to assume those who come years later, are?

So, there must be a very dramatic turning point. There must be an exceptionally clear demarcation for such a diving line to be so. One person is baptized under Law (in the Name) and the next is saved by Faith, all by the same apostles and all by the same church and then they are side by side worshiping as though everything is great?

Those who were baptized into The Name never thad the chance to recant once the Faith came? To renounce their baptism in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? After all, who would not? Any thinking person would then recant that former Baptism in the Name and believe by Faith. So, where are the verses describing this?

Hi Sheila:

I think I understand what you are asking, and I see where you get the word "dilemma".

Hypothetically, if Kingdom believers and Body believers existed at the same time (MAD doctrine), and one of the Kingdom believers did not “endure”, or simply renounced his or her religion, why couldn’t that Kingdom believer just become a Body believer?

IOW, if Kingdom believers had to endure with Faith + Works, and the Kingdom believer failed to uphold the required works, why couldn’t the Kingdom believer just “switch” to a Body believer after he fell away from being a Kingdom believer?

If I was a Kingdom believer in the first century, and new that I had to have Faith + Works for eternal life, and was sitting in the same church as a Body believer who only had to have faith for eternal life, I would want to switch. Who wouldn’t want to switch?

I acknowledge that there is a difference between Kingdom doctrine, and Body doctrine. However, I have a hard time believing that both doctrines existed at the same time, and a really hard time believing Kingdom believers sat in the same church with Body believers.

Jerry Shugart (a MAD) believes that all the Kingdom believers were secretly converted to Body believers. The Preterists believe that Christ returned and raptured all the Kingdom believers before the Body doctrine was implemented, and most dispys believe that Kingdom doctrine morphed into Body doctrine during this “transition” period.

Two doctrines - yes. What happened -??????

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Hypothetically, if Kingdom believers and Body believers existed at the same time (MAD doctrine), and one of the Kingdom believers did not “endure”, or simply renounced his or her religion, why couldn’t that Kingdom believer just become a Body believer?

I believe Kingdom believers could "switch", but I doubt that it was common.

That's one of the reasons for the Body believers keeping certain ordinances during Acts, to not cause the Kingdom saints to stumble,
and to not offend the unbelieving Jews of which there was still a remnant according to the election of grace.

Paul was walking a fine line, like with the Corinthians. He wanted atleast some of them to be saved into the Body , but at the same time, he did not want them to stumble and abandon their current faith altogether and perish.

The Romans are another example. They had a faith, they believed Jesus was the Christ, they had a standing in the Olive Tree. But, Paul knew that the casting away of Israel was soon, he wanted to gather some of them into the Body.

Acts was definitely a transition period, no such situation exists today. Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and
1 and 2 Thessalonians were written during that transitional period. All of Romans-Philemon is to the Body of Christ,
but some things in those Acts epistles are different than the post Acts ones: Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Titus,
1 and 2 Timothy, Philemon.