For Sincere Inquisitors ONLY: MAD Explained

[amosman]

I'm not a MAD, but I think they teach (as do some non-MAD's) that you do not have to "repent" about sins in order to be saved.

Its faith and faith alone for salvation.

A non-believer does not believe in Jesus, therefore that non-believer has to change his thinking (repent), and believe in Jesus for salvation.

Sins (past, present, and future) have nothing to do with it.

Repentance may be a change in mind but if that change doesn't turn you from sin, what good is it?

 

[tetelestai]

Repentance may be a change in mind but if that change doesn't turn you from sin, what good is it?

It gives you eternal security, faith rest, a purpose in life, and many other wonderful things.

Sin was taken care of 2000 years ago at the cross.

Even after salvation one is still a sinner.

 

[amosman]

It gives you eternal security, faith rest, a purpose in life, and many other wonderful things.

Sin was taken care of 2000 years ago at the cross.

Even after salvation one is still a sinner.

Did Jesus come to save us from our sins?

 

[amosman]

Rom 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
Rom 6:13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

 

[Butterfly]

I'm I mistaken when I say the Mad camp does not teach the need for repentance? Because it sure seemed that is what they were doing.

And the above is the reason why so many people here don't seek for truth or understanding. I am not saying that you, Amonsman, are one of those people. But the problem is that many misunderstandings, false statements, outright lies, slander and the such, circulate about the mid-Acts position. Then people go around repeating things that are untrue or they leave out important facts.

First things first. Calling it a "mad camp" is equivalent to calling you a "wanna-be Jew" or a "Jew cult". It's offensive and derogatory. The acronym "MAD" was made-up by those who looked to mock it, but it later became "common speak". It's like back in the 1950's when politicians, mayors, police officers, would call a black person a "negro" or a "colored person". It became "common speak", but it was meant to be derogatory.

Secondly, if you truly want to know what the mid-acts position teaches. You need to read a book explaining it. This forum is about 99% ineffective in changing peoples minds. Not until one goes and reads, studies, listens to things outside of this forum, do minds and hearts change.

If one is truly interested in studying and understanding the mid-acts position, they would take the time and effort to do so outside of this forum.

 

[chickenman]

Hi there Randy:

Great post, nice explanation. I am understanding better what we agree on and disagree on ....however, I know that we agree on the basics of the Body Dispensation.

So, I'd like to ask a question (or two) on the post.....and believe me, I am sincere!

No question there, Pam. I always enjoy reading your posts and interacting with you. You can post away in here!

Are you saying that the dispute and the reason that Paul went to the apostles in Jerusalem was to explain that in the Body, the elect are saved by grace alone( and that they do not get circumcised nor follow the LAw as part of their salvation)?

Paul went to Jerusalem to communicate (not seek approval, as some say) his gospel to the leaders because some of the circumcision believers were trying to get Paul's audience to be circumcised and keep the law, claiming that it was required for salvation. Gal. 2:9 says that they perceived the grace that had been given to him. So while the text doesn't explicitly say that he was informing them of the DETAILS of his gospel, they obviously got the fact, after talking with Paul and after Peter's testimony, that God had indeed turned to the uncircumcised Gentiles out of due time. Prophecy always foretold that God would go to uncircumcised Gentiles. But it would not occur until after the establishment of the kingdom. That's why it was so hard for the Jerusalem apostles/elders/circumcision believers to see. But they got it after speaking with Paul and hearing Peter's testimony.

That was too long-winded for your question. Short answer. It seems he's communicating that the Gentiles don't need to keep the law to be saved.

I ask because I've seen it that the reason Paul went to talk with them all was to explain the Body dispensation....in that there is no Jew, nor Greek not male, female etc. That we are all One in Christ- His Body and He is our Head. Of course, us not being under the Mosaic LAw is part of it. But the huge "pill to swallow" for the jew was that Gentiles were equal.

It would only be speculation to say that Paul shared all those details with them. He might very well have, but I can only see that he communicated to them the grace of God that was being given to the Gentiles. And that they were being offered salvation before the prophesied time. That they were no longer subordinate to the chosen nation.

Also, do you think that Cornelius was a Body saint, or a righteous Gentile...or what?

I think he was a God-fearing uncircmucised Gentile who became a member of the Body.

Thanks, Pam! Be good!

Randy

 

[tetelestai]

The acronym "MAD" was made-up by those who looked to mock it, but it later became "common speak".

MAD - Mid Acts Dispensationalism
DAM - Dispensationalists Against Mad's

Not to be confused with:

MADD - Mothers Against Drunk Drivers
DAMM - Drunks Against Mad Mothers


Since this is a serious thread, who is most offended by MAD? And why?

Traditional A2D’s
Covenantals
A-millennials
Pentecostals / Charismatic’s

 

[chickenman]

I'm not offended by "MAD". Butterfly is right in that it was meant to be derogatory. But that's fine. Whatever's convenient.

 

[amosman]

I'm not offended by "MAD". Butterfly is right in that it was meant to be derogatory. But that's fine. Whatever's convenient.

Butterfly changed the topic and did not answer my question. Can you just tell me if I am wrong in my understanding about what MAD teachs about repentance?

 

[chickenman]

Butterfly changed the topic and did not answer my question. Can you just tell me if I am wrong in my understanding about what MAD teachs about repentance?

I think there's a thread all about that topic. It would probably be best to go seek clarification on that over there.

 

[Butterfly]

Butterfly changed the topic and did not answer my question. Can you just tell me if I am wrong in my understanding about what MAD teachs about repentance?

No topic changing was done. Your motives were put to test. There are hundreds of threads about this issue of "repentance". This thread is for sincere people looking to understand the mid-acts position.

We are merely directing you to do a SEARCH and find your answer. It has been discussed before and there are current threads in progress discussing it:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59201&page=49

Directing comments in this thread by calling us part of a "mad camp" is not a way of showing any "sincere" interest in understanding the mid-acts position. If I came to you and said, "hey, you Jew, are part of that Jew Cult thing?"

Get my drift??

 

[Butterfly]

I think there's a thread all about that topic. It would probably be best to go seek clarification on that over there.

That is correct, there are a couple, one active thread is here:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59201&page=49

 

[tetelestai]

No topic changing was done. Your motives were put to test. There are hundreds of threads about this issue of "repentance". This thread is for sincere people looking to understand the mid-acts position.

We are merely directing you to do a SEARCH and find your answer. It has been discussed before and there are current threads in progress discussing it:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59201&page=49

Directing comments in this thread by calling us part of a "mad camp" is not a way of showing any "sincere" interest in understanding the mid-acts position. If I came to you and said, "hey, you Jew, are part of that Jew Cult thing?"

Get my drift??

What is so offensive about "mad camp"?

And, I don' t think "Jew Cult" is quite the same as "mad camp."

 

[Butterfly]

What is so offensive about "mad camp"?

And, I don' t think "Jew Cult" is quite the same as "mad camp."

The acronym "MAD" is made to be offensive. It might not bother you, but that doesn't mean it is not offensive. Let me guess, you are not a mid-acts dispensationalist. :idea:

 

[Lighthouse]

Question to any MAD believer:

"but now commandeth all men every where to repent" What did these people have to repent for?

Act 17:22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
Act 17:23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
Act 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
Act 17:25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
Act 17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
Act 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Act 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Act 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Unbelief. Why do you ask?

 

[tetelestai]

In a different thread I asked Nang to explain the fig tree, the olive tree, and the vine and how it fit into Covenantal theology.

Nang gave a very interesting answer.

Can a MAD please explain how the fig tree, the olive tree, and the vine fit into MAD?

 

[Butterfly]

Can a MAD please explain how the fig tree, the olive tree, and the vine fit into MAD?

Maybe if you ask in a polite manner... :grave:

"MAD" :sigh:

 

[tetelestai]

Maybe if you ask in a polite manner... :grave:

"MAD" :sigh:

Did you happen to notice the name of this thread?

"For Sincere Inquisitors ONLY: MAD Explained"

You should take your beef about MAD to chickenman the mid-Acts dispensationalist.

 

[Lighthouse]

Can a MAD please explain how the fig tree, the olive tree, and the vine fit into MAD?

What particular issue are you looking for an answer to?

 

[tetelestai]

What particular issue are you looking for an answer to?

What and who does the fig tree represent.

What and who does the olive tree represent

What and who does the vine represent.

Then, how does the fig tree (if you believe it symbolizes Israel) come into play with Israel's past, present, and future.