For Sincere Inquisitors ONLY: MAD Explained

Adoration

New member
cister...

It seems you've been asked nicely several times to refrain from this discussion.

I'd like to respectfully echo that request. It's not that we don't want debate or that we don't enjoy wrestling with the finer points of theology...but that's simply not what this thread is about.

There are those (like myself) who would be interested in simply learning more about the position, rather than attempting to poke holes in it. In order to effectively do that, we need an environment where it isn't likely that the subject matter of the thread will get derailed in favor of chasing this or that fringe issue or potential need for reconciliation or rebuttal.

There are plenty of places to debate the merits of MAD. Please go post there so the rest of us can use this thread to learn more about the views espoused by the position.

In fact, perhaps it'd be worthwhile to start a similar thread regarding your views from a Catholic standpoint. :thumb:

I do hope you'll be respectful of Randy's wishes to include only those who are genuinely interested in learning more and not those who are closed to the subject.

Thanks,

AA :e4e:


I am interested.

I don't find it convincing, but I want to know why some people do.

In my opinion, it is clear that the message of Jesus and his instructions to the apostles are universal.

I wondered how they reconciled his words with their beliefs.

Do you believe that Jesus only meant Jews when he said all nations?
 

Zeke

Well-known member
All nations were not present at Pentecost.

You claim that they didn't understand it to mean all people, yet Peter preached to and converted non Jews.

How do you know what they understood?

How do you explain St. Thomas going to India to preach the gospel?


I don't want to highjack this tread so start one on this subject and we can debate it there.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
It seems to me, though, that Paul indicates that Abraham, in particular and among others, was accounted righteous on the basis of his faith, just as we are. Now clearly his faith took different form than ours must since he was looking forward to Messiah while we get to look both ways. The question, though, has to do with the requirement for salvation during what I recognize as the dispensation of the Promise, or the time of the Abrahamic covenant.

I think of it this way:

All men, through all of history, have been saved by exactly the same means - faith in God. Go has always had a means by which we could express that faith. Initially we could express faith by simply following one commandment, "Do not eat". Then people rejected God. Since then He has worked to re-establish relationship. Through sacrifice, law and ritual He has provided means by which men can express their faith. But this never changed the fact that men can only be saved by faith.

But those means were never meant to be the real thing. Now we can express faith "in spirit and truth" because God has updated the means by which we can express our faith.

The confusion arises because of the delay between the fact of Jesus' sacrifice and the revelation of the means of salvation.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Is MAD necessarily an Open Theist only understanding? It seems to me that it nearly must be and the question probably has you holding your sides and desperately refraining from spitting all over your keyboard/monitor. Keep in mind my theological training is only surpassed by my humility...

Glad you finally decided to do this. :e4e:

Also keep in mind that I have a tiger ally if this turns ugly.
 

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Is MAD necessarily an Open Theist only understanding? It seems to me that it nearly must be and the question probably has you holding your sides and desperately refraining from spitting all over your keyboard/monitor. Keep in mind my theological training is only surpassed by my humility...

Glad you finally decided to do this. :e4e:

Also keep in mind that I have a tiger ally if this turns ugly.

I would think not, as to my understanding, I would assume Mid-Acts is independent of Open Theism, or the Settled view. I consider Delmar and Knight Brothers in Christ; however I made it known that I am coming from the other end of the spectrum. Now, I fully realize that faith in Christ leads to Grace and from Grace, we come into the Body of Christ and this is what counts most. Now I feel good with God and I would only make my point if others want to know, not to instruct, as that is easy accomplished by what I said. For me, it is a matter of expressing our views. I see a continual revelation and find in Acts and the Epistles of Paul the means were I came to understand what was necessary for me.
 

Vaquero45

New member
Hall of Fame
Is MAD necessarily an Open Theist only understanding? It seems to me that it nearly must be and the question probably has you holding your sides and desperately refraining from spitting all over your keyboard/monitor. Keep in mind my theological training is only surpassed by my humility...

Glad you finally decided to do this. :e4e:

Also keep in mind that I have a tiger ally if this turns ugly.

I do know at least a few settled view guys who are Mid acts dispies.

Whether it's "necessarily" OV or not, I think is a tricky question. I don't think it is, but I know some people do think that way. I'm an OV guy btw.



Cool thread Chickenman. :up:
 

This Charming Manc

Well-known member
A fair request, but I did try to keep my enquirey polite and cultured rather than confronational and arguementative.

The difficulty is that ive never seen the particulat point I picked up on articlated anywhere else, so its hard to respond anywhere else.

Want to create another thread to look at that particlar issue?


Cistercian and TCM,

Based on volumes of staunch opposition posts from you two on other threads, I KNOW you're not here as sincere inquisitors. This is not a debate thread; it is a question and answer thread for sincere, interested people who want to learn more about our position. So I'll ask again, as I did in the OP, that you refrain from posting here and keep your questions and debating to another of the several threads that deal with the subject.

Please respect my wishes and don't interfere here.

Randy
 

Edmond_Dantes

New member
Thanks for starting this thread I've been curious about this view since I saw it here.

So right now, I mean at this very time, are there two gospels? One for gentiles and one for Jews?
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
It seems to me, though, that Paul indicates that Abraham, in particular and among others, was accounted righteous on the basis of his faith, just as we are. Now clearly his faith took different form than ours must since he was looking forward to Messiah while we get to look both ways. The question, though, has to do with the requirement for salvation during what I recognize as the dispensation of the Promise, or the time of the Abrahamic covenant.

It seems that you guys see the gospel of the Kingdom as a kind of development on the Abrahamic covenant, being the promise of earthly reward in exchange (at least in part) for obedience. Yet Paul seems to make a point of the fact that it was Abraham's faith that saved him, and not his works.


So according to MAD, prior to and following this, sort of "parenthetical" dispensation of the gospel of uncircumcision, were works once a necessary ingredient for the salvation of men and will they be again?

Thanks Randy!

:wave2: Howdy, bro!
If Randy doesn't mind, I'll take a stab at this.

Here's the initial promise to Abraham:

Genesis 12
1: Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
2: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Immediately, we can see that there are two groups involved. A "great nation" and "the families (or nations) of the earth".

Fast forward a little.

Genesis 15
4: And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.
5: And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
6: And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

So, Abraham, a heathen, yet uncircumcised, was counted as righteous by faith alone. No action was required in believing God's promise.

Moving ahead, God changes his name from Abram to Abraham and...

Genesis 17
10: This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
11: And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
12: And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

14: And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

The covenant of circumcision is given to Abraham, and an action IS required to remain in this covenant.

So, within the umbrella of the Abrahamic covenant, Gen 12:1-3, God is now beginning to set apart the "great nation" within that covenant.

From Gen 17 forward, it's all about the circumcision. It's all about getting that "great nation" through whom the nations of the earth would be blessed.

Well, the Messiah comes to the circumcision. The majority reject him, he's crucified, buried, risen, and ascended. Israel continues to reject the ministry of the Holy Spirit in early Acts, Israel is fallen.

But, God raises up another apostle with a message that was hidden in the scriptures concerning Gentiles, the uncircumcision.

Gal 3
5: He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
6: Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
7: Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8: And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9: So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

So, instead of blessing the nations of the world through the rise of that "great nation", they are blessed through the fall of that "great nation"...and, he can do it by their faith alone.

During Acts, you have two groups. Both are the children of Abraham, and both fall under the umbrella of the Abrahamic covenant. One group, a nation, are children of Abraham (in circumcision). The other group, a Body, are children of Abraham (in uncircumcision). The covenant of circumcision requires action, works. No action is required of the uncircumcision.

You can follow these two groups through the book of Acts. You can see the circumcision being diminished, you can see the uncircumcision growing.

The two groups are clearly seen here,

Gal 2
7: But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8: (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles: )
9: And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

In Galatians, Paul contrasts the two covenants which spawn these two groups. He contrasts the Abrahamic covenant with the Mosaic (the circumcision). The promise is unto both, the Jerusalem above which is free, is the mother of them all.

Hope this helps...
 

chickenman

a-atheist
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
A few brief comments from me; I only have a couple of minutes, so no time for anything substantive.
:wave2: Hey Randy...glad you decided to do this thread! I've been bouncing little tidbits off of you and STP for a while now but it'll be good to focus on this for a while...

The first question that springs to mind...
I see STP addressed your question, AA. I thought his post was great. I'll come back later to add a couple of thoughts (that are much less valuable than STP's, by the way. :) )


A fair request, but I did try to keep my enquirey polite and cultured rather than confronational and arguementative.

The difficulty is that ive never seen the particulat point I picked up on articlated anywhere else, so its hard to respond anywhere else.

Want to create another thread to look at that particlar issue?
TCM,
You did make your post in a polite way; thank you. However, I know for a fact, from reading your posts on other threads, that you are not sincerely interested in learning and stand strong against Dispensationalism. So I and others will honestly be happy to address your questions...just not here. This thread is not for you.


Thanks for starting this thread I've been curious about this view since I saw it here.

So right now, I mean at this very time, are there two gospels? One for gentiles and one for Jews?
Hi, Edmond.
Thanks for asking. Today, there is only one gospel. All who believe that one gospel are baptized into the one Body of Christ by the one Spirit. Today, there is no distinction between Jew or Gentile.


That's true, Kat. Whether we believe that God foreknew & planned the change in Acts 9 or not, it doesn't change the fact that a change was made. :up:
Amen. Thanks for making that note, STP.


do you agree that Paul's epistles were written before all of the gospels?
chrys,
I'm willing to address your questions, but not here. Like TCM and cistercian, you are overtly against this position that I hold. So you are not welcome here. Ask on another thread, or start another thread, and I or others will be happy to address them.
 

bybee

New member
You score again!!!

You score again!!!

:wave2: Howdy, bro!
If Randy doesn't mind, I'll take a stab at this.

Here's the initial promise to Abraham:

Genesis 12
1: Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
2: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Immediately, we can see that there are two groups involved. A "great nation" and "the families (or nations) of the earth".

Fast forward a little.

Genesis 15
4: And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.
5: And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
6: And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

So, Abraham, a heathen, yet uncircumcised, was counted as righteous by faith alone. No action was required in believing God's promise.

Moving ahead, God changes his name from Abram to Abraham and...

Genesis 17
10: This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
11: And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
12: And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

14: And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

The covenant of circumcision is given to Abraham, and an action IS required to remain in this covenant.

So, within the umbrella of the Abrahamic covenant, Gen 12:1-3, God is now beginning to set apart the "great nation" within that covenant.

From Gen 17 forward, it's all about the circumcision. It's all about getting that "great nation" through whom the nations of the earth would be blessed.

Well, the Messiah comes to the circumcision. The majority reject him, he's crucified, buried, risen, and ascended. Israel continues to reject the ministry of the Holy Spirit in early Acts, Israel is fallen.

But, God raises up another apostle with a message that was hidden in the scriptures concerning Gentiles, the uncircumcision.

Gal 3
5: He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
6: Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
7: Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8: And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9: So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

So, instead of blessing the nations of the world through the rise of that "great nation", they are blessed through the fall of that "great nation"...and, he can do it by their faith alone.

During Acts, you have two groups. Both are the children of Abraham, and both fall under the umbrella of the Abrahamic covenant. One group, a nation, are children of Abraham (in circumcision). The other group, a Body, are children of Abraham (in uncircumcision). The covenant of circumcision requires action, works. No action is required of the uncircumcision.

You can follow these two groups through the book of Acts. You can see the circumcision being diminished, you can see the uncircumcision growing.

The two groups are clearly seen here,

Gal 2
7: But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8: (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles: )
9: And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

In Galatians, Paul contrasts the two covenants which spawn these two groups. He contrasts the Abrahamic covenant with the Mosaic (the circumcision). The promise is unto both, the Jerusalem above which is free, is the mother of them all.

Hope this helps...

Dear StoP, I'm so glad that you brought up the Abrahamic Covenant and referenced it's ramifications so cogently. I fell asleep last night thinking about the Abrahamic Covenant and it's meaning to "The Faithful" even today. It is necessary, as Randy stated, to get to the fundamental truthes of our story. Thanks for the "many eye-openers" which you have provided for me! peace, bybee
 

chickenman

a-atheist
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Hi, AMR.

I don't have the time right now to read through everything in that link you posted. So I can't say if I agree with the details or not. But after skimming it, I'd say that I generally agree with it and that it at least generally represents the MidActs position. It might thoroughly represent the position, but I just can't say for sure without digging into it.

If you have any specific questions about something that the author wrote, I'll be happy to give you my thoughts on them.

Thanks,
Randy
 

Edmond_Dantes

New member
Thanks for the reply CM, Next..

Is the content found in the New Testament prior to MAD applicable to Christians from MAD onward? None, all of it, some of it? If some of it how do you discern?
 

chickenman

a-atheist
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Dear StoP, I'm so glad that you brought up the Abrahamic Covenant and referenced it's ramifications so cogently. I fell asleep last night thinking about the Abrahamic Covenant and it's meaning to "The Faithful" even today. It is necessary, as Randy stated, to get to the fundamental truthes of our story. Thanks for the "many eye-openers" which you have provided for me! peace, bybee

STP really raised a great point, didn't he bybee? It's neat that you already recognized the need to understand that. We have to have an understanding of the Abrahamic covenants (land and circumcision) in order to understand everything that happens after that. Those who disregard the two covenants are missing the crucial start to the story.
 

chickenman

a-atheist
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Thanks for the reply CM, Next..

Is the content found in the New Testament prior to MAD applicable to Christians from MAD onward? None, all of it, some of it? If some of it how do you discern?

We must discern all of the Bible the same way. If it's a letter, then we must understand who the audience is and the commission under which the author wrote. For some books, the author is somewhat irrelevant. For instance, I Chronicles is simply a chronicling of history, as it relates to what would become the nation of Israel, from the first man through the time of the kings and captivity. So the authorship isn't relevant. And the timing of the writing isn't relevant. The point of the book remains the same. We discern what it's about and who/what it pertains to and we accept that.

The four gospel accounts are similar. They chronicle the life of Jesus and His ministry on earth. So we're to read them and understand from the content what's going on, who the players are, and in what context the players are operating. And we can see that the storyline fits within the context of the Old Covenant for Israel. So in light of that, we apply them in the same way we might apply something from Leviticus or Malachi. We strive to understand it as written and as intended. ONLY after doing that, can we make application where appropriate. When we do that, then we can see the specific intent of things like the so-called "Be Attitudes" or the Sermon on the Mount and understand that the message is specifically for Israel. But is meekness something that is valued by God under any dispensation? Of course! So I'm happy to take that away from Matthew 5, but I'm not going to force the sermon to be directed to the Body when it is, in fact, directed at God's nation who was being commanded to repent in preparation for their coming kingdom.

There are some things from which I CAN'T make straightforward application, though. I can't apply Acts 2:38 to me in any way. Today, we are not required to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. So I'm going to recognize it's for the kingdom program, not garble it up to make it something it's not, and leave it at that.

Long answer to your question. Did I adequately address your question?
 

Tico

New member
So according to MAD, prior to and following this, sort of "parenthetical" dispensation of the gospel of uncircumcision, were works once a necessary ingredient for the salvation of men and will they be again?

If I could, let me take a stab at this. Jesus describes the tribulation in Matthew 24 and in it describes the gospel of the kindgdom:

Mat 24:13But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

Again, describing the Kingdom in Mat. 25, Jesus says the following:

Mat. 25:26“But his lord answered and said to him, ‘You wicked and lazy servant, you knew that I reap where I have not sown, and gather where I have not scattered seed. 27So you ought to have deposited my money with the bankers, and at my coming I would have received back my own with interest. 28So take the talent from him, and give it to him who has ten talents.
29‘For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away. 30And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

This is consistent with what James wrote to those of the circumcision who were saved before the dispensation of the grace of God:

James 2:14What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
 

Edmond_Dantes

New member
CM,

I think I'm with ya so far.

Now if you would'nt mind going a little further, can you show me at what point it is explicitly or implicitly stated that we need no longer repent?
 
Top