For Sincere Inquisitors ONLY: MAD Explained

[chickenman]

*
But my dear, the OP on the pentecostal thread is very simple to understand. it was it says a thread for those who believe in the continuance of the gifts and operations of the Holy Spirit. The OPer makes it quite plain that he did not want the thread to morph into a discussion about MAD. As for spewing I think a very casual comparison of my posts to the posts of certain MADist make quite plain where the spite comes from.
No, no I am afraid I feel like the little fledgeling who has been ousted from my comfy nest by a wretched cuckoo. Luckily I have found a new nest, and am quite happy to share with you from scripture to show you where I think you are departed from the truth, who knows? mayhaps some one will see the folly of their way and come back to a more sensible understanding of scripture.
Indeed I am hopeful for STP now sees that we are to follow Paul in-as-much only as Paul follows Christ. This is a breakthrough.

My dear condescending Totten,

Regardless of what you think about others, only one person started this thread and made that request. That would be me. And I have IN NO WAY AT NO TIME done what you're saying. In the Pentecostal thread, I have two posts. Neither has anything to do with MAD. The first is a silly joke from Andrew Dice Clay that has nothing to do with anything. The second is a silly follow-up. If that was disruptive, then I'll quickly apologize to my friend Andy Curry.

Take your problems with others and please...leave.

Randy

 

[Lighthouse]

(Judges 9: 14-15)

14 Then said all the trees unto the bramble, Come thou, and reign over us.

15And the bramble said unto the trees, If in truth ye anoint me king over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow: and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon.

This seems that it is not necessarily Israel, but rather the trees are Israel in this scenario.

(Luke 6:44) For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.

Remember: A crown of thorns was placed on the head of Christ. The bramble bush has thorns.

This does not seem to be about any specific person or group. But it does seem to be referencing individuals and not groups at all.

 

[Random]

My dear condescending Totten,

Regardless of what you think about others, only one person started this thread and made that request. That would be me. And I have IN NO WAY AT NO TIME done what you're saying. In the Pentecostal thread, I have two posts. Neither has anything to do with MAD. The first is a silly joke from Andrew Dice Clay that has nothing to do with anything. The second is a silly follow-up. If that was disruptive, then I'll quickly apologize to my friend Andy Curry.

Take your problems with others and please...leave.

Randy

Maybe it's best to put her on ignore. She obviously has no desire to have a productive conversation with you or anyone who holds to a MAD position.

 

[cattyfan]

Okay, kids...I'm receiving complaints and PMs about what's going on. Let me see if I've got this straight.

This thread is supposed to be reserved for one point of view only. There's another thread that's also supposed to be for a different point of view only.

A bunch of people who all claim to be Christians of one kind or another decided to CRASH EACH OTHER'S THREADS, and then each side has the unmitigated gall to COMPLAIN ABOUT IT????

Knock it off, start showing each other some respect and acting with some modicum of decorum, or you'll all be getting infractions. How can we expect any one else to come to Christ if we can't even mange to treat each other in a Christ-like manner?

If your point of view doesn't match the bent of the original intent of this thread GET OFF OF IT NOW. There are plenty of other places to make your points.

 

[Butterfly]

This thread is supposed to be reserved for one point of view only. There's another thread that's also supposed to be for a different point of view only.

If your point of view doesn't match the bent of the original intent of this thread GET OFF OF IT NOW. There are plenty of other places to make your points.

I believe this thread is supposed to be for those who are sincere in examining mid-acts theology.

I can say for sure that people like Godrulz, Totton Linnet and a few others, do not belong on this thread. They have made it clear that they believe mid-acts theology is a heresy. I believe Totton Linnet is the main agitator here.

Now back to the scheduled programming! :zoomin: :chuckle:

 

[cattyfan]

I believe this thread is supposed to be for those who are sincere in examining mid-acts theology.

I can say for sure that people like Godrulz, Totton Linnet and a few others, do not belong on this thread. They have made it clear that they believe mid-acts theology is a heresy. I believe Totton Linnet is the main agitator here.

Now back to the scheduled programming! :zoomin: :chuckle:

Yes...by all mean...point blame at other people.

There are people on THIS thread who crashed someone else's, as well...and therefore plenty of blame to go around.

The point of my post was to put an end to it...a point you seem to have missed. Shame on you for trying to make things worse.

Now drop it.

 

[Totton Linnet]

Okay, kids...I'm receiving complaints and PMs about what's going on. Let me see if I've got this straight.

This thread is supposed to be reserved for one point of view only. There's another thread that's also supposed to be for a different point of view only.

A bunch of people who all claim to be Christians of one kind or another decided to CRASH EACH OTHER'S THREADS, and then each side has the unmitigated gall to COMPLAIN ABOUT IT????

Knock it off, start showing each other some respect and acting with some modicum of decorum, or you'll all be getting infractions. How can we expect any one else to come to Christ if we can't even mange to treat each other in a Christ-like manner?

If your point of view doesn't match the bent of the original intent of this thread GET OFF OF IT NOW. There are plenty of other places to make your points.

*
I accept and apologise for my part in the affair.

 

[chickenman]

Thanks, catty.

 

[bybee]

I agree!

I agree!

:up::up:

Yes...by all mean...point blame at other people.

There are people on THIS thread who crashed someone else's, as well...and therefore plenty of blame to go around.

The point of my post was to put an end to it...a point you seem to have missed. Shame on you for trying to make things worse.

Now drop it.

I second the motion! Be nice! bybee

 

[Stripe]

cm, you are giving us Americans a bad name.

Godrulz lives in Canada, and Totten in England. You kicked them both out.

Beware cm, Jerry Shuggart lives in Mexico. :chuckle:

I live in Taiwan. And I hail from New Zealand. I've never even set foot on American soil.

 

[Pam Baldwin]

Repent (metanoeo) means a change of mind.

If someone that Paul was talking to didn’t believe Jesus was the Son of God, and then did believe after hearing Paul, then that person “repented”

Repent does not mean to change one’s conduct before or after salvation, or to feel guilty or sorry.

So everyone who believes in Jesus as his or her Savior repents.

:thumb: I agree.

 

[tetelestai]

I live in Taiwan. And I hail from New Zealand. I've never even set foot on American soil.

Let me guess:

You were a MAD in New Zealand, and then all the MAD's were kicked out. You sought refuge in Taiwan, and now freely practice MAD.

??????

Sorry, this is a serious thread.

Are you a MAD, or an inquisitor?

 

[Stripe]

Let me guess: You were a MAD in New Zealand, and then all the MAD's were kicked out. You sought refuge in Taiwan, and now freely practice MAD. ?????? Sorry, this is a serious thread. Are you a MAD, or an inquisitor?

:chuckle: I'm pretty MAD. They were my mother's initials!

 

[Pam Baldwin]

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

Thanks Randy- that's much appreciated ....and I can say the same for your posts.

It seems he's communicating that the Gentiles don't need to keep the law to be saved.

Thanks for the "long-winded" explanation, it helped!
Also, the summary statement here (above). Since that is, in fact, exactly what Acts 15:1 says, how can I disagree??

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

Concerning Cornelius, (or anyone else for that matter), a person is saved into a particualr Hope. They aren't switched to another. Now, they may not realize all in their Hope at the time of their salvation, but they don't jump to another.

Pam :upright:

 

[Pam Baldwin]

I have a friend who is a total proponent of MidActs Dispensationalism. Yet he still believes tongues are for us today. That's a doctrinal detail. MidActs Dispensationalism is merely an approach to scripture. So one can believe any number of details on tongues or baptism, etc. and still be a MidActs'er.

All MidActs Dispensationalism says is: the dispensation of grace for the Body of Christ began with Paul. Many details SHOULD fall in line once that understanding is established. But everyone has different levels of understanding.

Hi Randy!

I bolded the parts that I am commenting on.

Generally speaking, I do agree with what you've written. Everyone is at different places in their understanding of the Hope and Scriptures. ( This goes along with what I wrote in my previous post)

But Mid-Acts Dispensationalism is not an "merely an approach to scripture". It is what one must understand when approaching Scripture using a normal hermeneutic- understanding Scripture the way it was written: the audience, the grammar and all. In a sense, yes, after one understands how to go about understanding the Word, MAD comes through....and then using that, can understand things in light of that. I think that we really do agree, it's just the way you posted it.

Concerning the issues of tongues, baptism etc., once someone understands MAD, I would think that part of that is the Body Hope and law. If one understands that what Paul preached was a gospel void of any Mosaic law AND outward "signs" that they cannot hold to tongues , baptism, miracles, etc. IOW, if they still hold to those things- then they really aren't MAD yet!

Pam :upright:

 

[voltaire]

Im with tetelestai on his idea of repentance.

 

[chickenman]

Thanks Randy- that's much appreciated ....and I can say the same for your posts.

Mucho Gravy-o!

Concerning Cornelius, (or anyone else for that matter), a person is saved into a particualr Hope. They aren't switched to another. Now, they may not realize all in their Hope at the time of their salvation, but they don't jump to another.

Are you saying that Cornelius could not have become a Body member? If so, what about a Jew in Corinth (for instance) who hadn't heard of risen Messiah but was still a zealous Jew. Then he hears the gospel of God from Paul and believes. He began in Israel's hope (though not yet having heard the kingdom gospel), then believed Paul's gospel. Are you saying he couldn't become a Body believer?

Thanks, Pamela B!

[/B]

Hi Randy!

I bolded the parts that I am commenting on.

Generally speaking, I do agree with what you've written. Everyone is at different places in their understanding of the Hope and Scriptures. ( This goes along with what I wrote in my previous post)

But Mid-Acts Dispensationalism is not an "merely an approach to scripture". It is what one must understand when approaching Scripture using a normal hermeneutic- understanding Scripture the way it was written: the audience, the grammar and all. In a sense, yes, after one understands how to go about understanding the Word, MAD comes through....and then using that, can understand things in light of that. I think that we really do agree, it's just the way you posted it.

Concerning the issues of tongues, baptism etc., once someone understands MAD, I would think that part of that is the Body Hope and law. If one understands that what Paul preached was a gospel void of any Mosaic law AND outward "signs" that they cannot hold to tongues , baptism, miracles, etc. IOW, if they still hold to those things- then they really aren't MAD yet!

Pam :upright:

I understand what you're saying, Pam. Thanks for sharing it. I completely agree that having a MidActs foundation should lead to certain conclusions. But since there's not an official MidActs manual, then it's hard for me to say that one can't be a MidActs'er if he/she doesn't arrive at certain conclusions. I would think one should arrive at a certain understanding on things like baptism and tongues. But there are still differences among those of us who believe the Body began with Paul. Yet we're still MidActs'ers. Jerry Shuggart is a good example. He believes things that are very different than most MidActs'ers around here at least. But he's still adamant that the Body began with Paul in MidActs.

Thanks for jumping in, PB (no J)!

Randy

 

[Pam Baldwin]

Are you saying that Cornelius could not have become a Body member? If so, what about a Jew in Corinth (for instance) who hadn't heard of risen Messiah but was still a zealous Jew. Then he hears the gospel of God from Paul and believes. He began in Israel's hope (though not yet having heard the kingdom gospel), then believed Paul's gospel. Are you saying he couldn't become a Body believer?

Hi Randy, the MAD Explainerer!

That is exactly what I am saying. Only the fellow in Corinth was never a believer....just a born-Jew....a zealous Jew (as was Saul)....until his regeneration.

Everyone saved after Paul was saved into the Body. As we just discussed in the last two posts between us: just because at their time of salvation one does not have a full understanding of their Hope doesn't mean that they are not a Body saint.

A Sincere Inquisitor

 

[chickenman]

Thanks, Pam-O!

 

[Bright Raven]

Chickenman,
I'm catching up a bit more now and have run into a question. During my reading there was a short exchange of ideas between Tetelestai and Pam Baldwin concerning the applicability of Jesus teachings and MAD, in which it was stated that 0% of Jesus teaching is to MADists. The question arose for me in this respect. If my understanding is somehow flawed, please correct me.

It was stated that Communion is not applicable to MAD theology. Why then does Paul address the following issue. If it is not applicable to MAD Theology why is it so important that Paul would admonish them in his letter

1 Corinthians 11:17-29 (KJV)

17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.
18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper.
21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do ing remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.


Am I correct in understand that that we are not to partake of the "Lord's Supper"/communion. This seems to contradict what Paul is saying in this passage in that he admonishes the Corinthians for partaking of it in an unworthy fashion.