For Sincere Inquisitors ONLY: MAD Explained

[john w]

first yellow:

Yes, I reject MAD., and, will never accept it, not because I am unteachable as you so like to claim, but because it would go against my conscience of what I know the Lord HIMself has taught me already; funny you make the same claim the baptist church said to me, about being unteachable, just because I reject some of their beliefs too.

second yellow:

I have never said MAD is heresy; what I have said and will continue to say is that as MY OPINION, it is not good exegesis, and I have continually said that those whom hold to MAD know and understand the gospel, so that is all that matters! I am sick of your false accusations. The first time I said anything about MAD, I asked a question...."IS this the next heresy", and, I did not even know what was entailed in it, so you should learn to read comprehensively...and, stop assuming you are without error in any way.

third yellow:

There is ONE gospel that saves, period. If you want to believe that Israel can be grafted in, by, or in and through the law; that is your exegesis, not mine. I will also continue to speak my opinion on it, for I am just as free as you on this board to speak what is on my heart/mind. I have told you over and over that YES; Jesus is going to LITERALLY reign on the earth, I just happen to believe it will be on the new EARTH from the NEW Jerusalem, that we all enter by faith NOW: as written, and that Israel will be grafted into IT: not some other form of a man made imagined kingdom.

"understand the gospel...There is ONE gospel that saves, period"

Identify it, and its components.

 

[Bright Raven]

Does Paul ring a bell. He wrote two thirds of the New Covenant. It would seem that we would want to pay a little bit of attention to that. :

 

[chickenman]

Hi, BR! :wave:
How are you?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Hi, BR! :wave:
How are you?

Yes, we've been missing the Ravenator!

 

[chickenman]

Yes, we've been missing the Ravenator!

Definitely. It's good to see him around.

 

[Bright Raven]

Doing fine thanks.

 

[Bright Raven]

Chickenman, If there is only one gospel why does Paul make the Gospel possessive, calling it his, in Romans 2:16.

 

[chickenman]

Chickenman, If there is only one gospel why does Paul make the Gospel possessive, calling it his, in Romans 2:16.

Is that a rhetorical question? Because I see multiple "good news" (gospel) messages in the bible.

 

[Bright Raven]

Nope, question answered. I see too many people claiming just one gospel. I was just wondering what your take was and it's the same as mine.

 

[chickenman]

Yeah, good deal.
There's certainly only one gospel that saves in this dispensation of grace. That's for sure. But there was the good news, to those that were part of the commonwealth of Israel, that the long-awaited seed of David had finally come. There was the good news of why He died for them. There was good news preached to Abraham. There was good news that the kingdom was at hand. And so on...

I'm with you, BR.

Adios!

Randy

 

[Ktoyou]

Only one I care about is Grace through Faith in Christ.

 

[chickenman]

I hear you, Kat.

How are you?

 

[godrulz]

Chickenman, If there is only one gospel why does Paul make the Gospel possessive, calling it his, in Romans 2:16.

There is one true NT gospel post-cross. Any believer can call it my gospel since it is the power of God for all who believe. Two gospel theories would undermine the finished work of Christ, the only basis for the one gospel. It is my gospel, our gospel, his gospel. It is an odd interpretation to read two gospel theories into this non-proof text. Paul's gospel contrasts with false gospels. It is not a matter of Peter's gospel vs Paul's gospel since they are the same. His gospel contrasts with Judaism, not circ vs uncirc MAD theories. Contrast Judaism and Christianity, but there is not a caste system in the early church post-cross since there is only one basis for one gospel, the person and work of Christ. Eschatological issues with corporate Israel vs Church should not be confused with soteriological ones where Jew/Gentile become one in Christ, even before Paul's conversion. Paul has a mission of taking the one gospel to Gentiles, but he is not the basis for another gospel supplanting another true gospel held by other leaders in the early church (demarcation of ministry, not two true messages Gal. 2; Gal. 1 contrasts true vs false gospels, not circ vs uncirc true).

 

[john w]

There is one true NT gospel post-cross. Any believer can call it my gospel since it is the power of God for all who believe. Two gospel theories would undermine the finished work of Christ, the only basis for the one gospel. It is my gospel, our gospel, his gospel. It is an odd interpretation to read two gospel theories into this non-proof text. Paul's gospel contrasts with false gospels. It is not a matter of Peter's gospel vs Paul's gospel since they are the same. His gospel contrasts with Judaism, not circ vs uncirc MAD theories. Contrast Judaism and Christianity, but there is not a caste system in the early church post-cross since there is only one basis for one gospel, the person and work of Christ. Eschatological issues with corporate Israel vs Church should not be confused with soteriological ones where Jew/Gentile become one in Christ, even before Paul's conversion. Paul has a mission of taking the one gospel to Gentiles, but he is not the basis for another gospel supplanting another true gospel held by other leaders in the early church (demarcation of ministry, not two true messages Gal. 2; Gal. 1 contrasts true vs false gospels, not circ vs uncirc true).

Spam from his commentaries.

 

[godrulz]

Spam from his commentaries.

Sense from my head. I don't know of any commentaries in my possession that state these things nor deal with fringe MAD. These are principles I see in Scripture. Call me stupid, but don't falsely accuse me of commentary spam (that would be descriptive of your posts though).

 

[Sherman]

I just found this thread, Chickenman, and am quite impressed with OP. Nice thumbnail of bible history. I am still new to the term 'MAD', I never heard of it until I came to TOL. I have always been a front to back bible reader. Scissor and paste studies never made much sense to me, nor do many of the 'isms' out there.

How you summed it up is pretty much how I have come to understand it. God divorced Israel because she was an adulterous wife. The Old Testament is full of marriage and wife metaphors. In Revelation Israel will recognize her Messiah. He will take her back again at the marriage supper of the Lamb. Where does this place Christians? Christians are the Body.

That is how I understand it. Correct me if I am wrong. I am interested in the MAD perspective.

 

[Refractive]

I thought since the thread is now two years and over 1000 posts along, it would be a nice refresher to just repeat the op here - hope OP (haha!) doesn't mind:

ON THE BIBLE
I'll kick it off by stating that MidActs Dispensationalism is an approach to reading and studying the Bible. Those of us who hold to this approach believe that we must read and study the Bible FORWARD, rather than BACKWARD. By this, I mean that we must understand what comes before Exodus before we can understand Exodus. We must understand "Old Testament" prophecy before we can understand Matthew. We must understand those things before we can understand what's going on in Acts. We believe that it is highly dangerous (to a doctrinal position that one formulates) for a person to read BACKWARD, meaning that he/she interprets an epistle, for instance, and then forces the things written previously to mean the same thing. We also believe it is dangerous to evaluate a book, chapter, or verse in and of itself. A verse HAS TO BE read and studied within the context of a book/epistle. That book/epistle HAS TO BE read and studied within the context of the commission of the human author (in the case of the epistles). And a book HAS TO BE read and studied through a biblical theology that first considers prophecy and God's stated plans.

If one labors over a verse or chapter but does not understand God's covenants, prophecy, and dispensed commissions, then the doctrine based on those verses will at best be accidentally correct and at worst downright heretical.

We also believe that we must take God's Word literally, unless the text demands that we don't. For example, when John sees a vision of a woman on a scarlet beast in Rev. 17, we can understand that in the future when his vision plays out, it won't actually involve a literal woman riding a literal scarlet beast, for the text defines what those two things represent. We gladly accept figurative language when the text demands it.

And we believe that God's Word is what is inspired, so we must rely in it, rather than relying on scholar's varying opinions on history, culture, or even the underlying Greek/Hebrew text. Scholarly opinions will always differ from one another, but God's Word will always remain steadfast. So we rest on it as our ONLY authority.



THE BASICS


Where it all starts:

• God called out a chosen nation to be His special people above all the nations of the earth.
• The nation continually rebelled against God, to the point that they even rejected His Son Jesus Christ Who physically came to earth to get them to repent and turn to God.
• For one year after Jesus' earthly ministry, God gave them repeated chances to accept the good news of His Son and the coming kingdom and to bear fruit.
• Because the masses still rejected Him, God put a halt to the prophesied timeline of delivering the kingdom to them. He relegated the chosen nation to the status of the disobedient Gentile nations, thus putting ALL people in the same boat (as opposed to Israel being the preeminent nation).
• Upon doing so, God called out Paul to be the "apostle to the Gentiles", delivering the "gospel of the uncircumcision" - a message that was different in many ways from that which was previously delivered by those apostles that Jesus chose during His earthly ministry.
• Jesus Christ from heaven dispensed to Paul a gospel message that was specifically pertinent to the Body of Christ, whereas He had previously from earth dispensed a gospel message to the Twelve that was specifically pertinent to the chosen nation of Israel who awaited their coming tribulation and promised kingdom.
• These two messages were different. The book of Acts shows the transition away from one to the other and displays the resulting confusion…a confusion which, by the way, still exists today and for pretty much the same reason as back then.

So, you aren't actually "Christians," then? See, I'm not sure why you think Jesus was only talking to Jews, since He went out of His way to personally bring His message to the Samaritans. I'm not sure why you think "everyone" only means "some people." Or why you think all the people following Him around were only Jews or all those prostitutes He ate with were. I mean, He gave His message and healing to anyone who asked in faith, so it wasn't all that exclusive..

I'm equally confused as to why, as Peter was called to be Apostle to the Gentiles, but then you think all of a sudden Paul is the only one? Heck, I don't even know where the "one year" came from.

But the thing that really confuses me - well - two things really. I don't know why you think what Paul said is not congruent with the Gospels and I don't know why you think Jesus changed His mind about what constitutes salvation after the Resurrection.

 

[chickenman]

I thought since the thread is now two years and over 1000 posts along, it would be a nice refresher to just repeat the op here - hope OP (haha!) doesn't mind:

Yes; thanks. Unfortunately, the wishes I stated in the OP have been completely disrespected by several people who refuse to show self control. So I think the thread has been trashed. I doubt I'll hang around it too long other than to read. But I'll be happy to address your comments in this post, Refractive.

So, you aren't actually "Christians," then?

No clue what you're talking about. I believe that Jesus Christ died for my sins and rose again. How's that?

See, I'm not sure why you think Jesus was only talking to Jews, since He went out of His way to personally bring His message to the Samaritans. I'm not sure why you think "everyone" only means "some people." Or why you think all the people following Him around were only Jews or all those prostitutes He ate with were. I mean, He gave His message and healing to anyone who asked in faith, so it wasn't all that exclusive..

But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matt. 15:24​

Jesus interacted with others, too. But His earthly ministry was specifically for His own people (Israel). His words can't be taken any other way.

I'm equally confused as to why, as Peter was called to be Apostle to the Gentiles, but then you think all of a sudden Paul is the only one?

Peter being sent to Cornelius didn't make him "Apostle to the Gentiles." Can you imagine how the Jerusalem council would have gone (Acts 15) had God not, in His infinite wisdom, sent Peter to Cornelius those several years earlier? Because God had sent Peter to Cornelius, and Peter could see that God would pour out His Spirit on Gentiles as well, then Peter was able to stand up and testify in Paul's defense in Acts 15. Had God not sent him there in Acts 10, Acts 15 wouldn't have turned out good for Paul. God is infinitely wise, though.

Show me anywhere else where Peter went to Gentiles. His ministry was for his brethren of the circumcision.

For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles... Gal. 2:8​

Whereas is it said specifically about Paul that he is the apostle to the Gentiles.

For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office... Rom. 11:13​

Heck, I don't even know where the "one year" came from.

You should show some patience, then, and work through the thread before you start ridiculing. The OP was just to lay out an outline. The rest of the thread was to biblically address questions about the OP and related thoughts.

Here's the one year:

He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down. Luke 13:6-9​

I won't patronize you by pointing out the obvious representations in this parable.

But the thing that really confuses me - well - two things really. I don't know why you think what Paul said is not congruent with the Gospels...

You should read past the OP and you'll see that this question is addressed. Like the conclusion or not - that's up to you - it's there all in this thread. I'd ask that you show some patience and assume that there might actually be some useful information past the OP.

and I don't know why you think Jesus changed His mind about what constitutes salvation after the Resurrection.

You'll have to clarify what you mean. This is a weird statement.


Thanks,
Randy

 

[Sherman]

Yes; thanks. Unfortunately, the wishes I stated in the OP have been completely disrespected by several people who refuse to show self control. So I think the thread has been trashed. I doubt I'll hang around it too long other than to read. But I'll be happy to address your comments in this post, Refractive....

:first: I nominated this post. You answered every single one of his questions with scripture. You even made sense out of the scriptures that bug many Christians.

If I do have questions I will be coming back to this thread as a sincere inquisitor. You have just displayed in your post an in depth understanding of the Bible that puts me to shame.

It is also a same people have not respected your wishes and have trashed this thread. What I have seen so far of 'MAD' is a literal understanding of the Bible. Maybe they should be called Bible literalists and inerrantists.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Hi Chickenman,

I was looking around this morning and saw this thread and I have a question.

What is the difference between a Dispensation and a Covenant?

In my mind, God makes a Covenant with men. A Dispensation is something that may occur within a Covenant that clarifies somethings about the Covenant but does not alter the Covenant. In other words, the Covenant is the over-all binding agreement and a dispensation is just a clause within the Covenant.