For Sincere Inquisitors ONLY: MAD Explained

[Nick M]

I was thinking it is centered on James. And when he sent spies to see why they were not keeping the laws given, and Paul was not telling the gentiles to keep it. Going against Exodus 12, which states gentiles are not a part of passover unless they become circumcised.

Passover being a foreshadow to salvation.

 

[Sherman]

There seems to be friction between Paul and some of the Jewish believers due to the ministry which Jesus commissioned him to do. I think that is why Paul spelled out some of his letters that way he did.

 

[chickenman]

No doubt, there's some serious friction.

I find it REALLY interesting that James is the reason that Paul got into the trouble in Jerusalem in Acts 21. James is the one that asked Paul to take the men to the temple and pay for their purification costs and to go through the ceremony himself. All hell broke loose after that, right there in James' town, and James is never anywhere to be found after that. Not good for the case of those that say Paul and James were on the same page.

 

[Nick M]

No doubt, there's some serious friction.

I find it REALLY interesting that James is the reason that Paul got into the trouble in Jerusalem in Acts 21. James is the one that asked Paul to take the men to the temple and pay for their purification costs and to go through the ceremony himself. All hell broke loose after that, right there in James' town, and James is never anywhere to be found after that. Not good for the case of those that say Paul and James were on the same page.

The Ebionites say Paul is the villain in this case. lain:

 

[Tambora]

bump

 

[Jerry Shugart]

No doubt, there's some serious friction.

I find it REALLY interesting that James is the reason that Paul got into the trouble in Jerusalem in Acts 21. James is the one that asked Paul to take the men to the temple and pay for their purification costs and to go through the ceremony himself.

There was no friction between James and Paul. It was Paul himself who had made a vow back at Acts 18:18, and this was a vow under the Law--the Nazirite vow.

And the purification rites under the Law which Paul and four others took part was in regard to that same Nazirite vow.

All hell broke loose after that, right there in James' town, and James is never anywhere to be found after that. Not good for the case of those that say Paul and James were on the same page.

Those who attacked Paul were unbelievers and the basis for their attack was nothing but false charges--that Paul took Gentiles into the Temple area (v.28).

So none of what happened can be blamed on James. Not only that, but there are many who believe that it was this James who later wrote the epistle of James.

 

[Tambora]

*bump*

 

[Doormat]

Brother Chickenman, I have responded to your OP here:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3194442&postcount=56

 

[chickenman]

Brother Chickenman, I have responded to your OP here:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3194442&postcount=56

Why not respond here, though? I'm happy to dialogue with you in here, Doormat.

Thanks,
Randy

 

[Doormat]

Thank you, brother. Please also read http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3194099&postcount=45 on the other thread I reference below.

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.

See post #45 on this thread to brother NickM. The nation of Israel did not reject the Messiah. Rather, men who thought they were Abraham's seed and part of Israel rejected Christ, but both Christ and Paul taught that they were not Israel. Christ states they only think they are Jews but are actually the synagogue of the adversary.

[*]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.

Who is them? The Apostles were Israel, as were all the Jews that converted. The rest were not Israel according to both Jesus and the Apostle Paul.

[*]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).

This claim is challenged in post #45 on the other thread.

Paul states plainly:

Romans 11:2 God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? "Lord, THEY HAVE KILLED YOUR PROPHETS, THEY HAVE TORN DOWN YOUR ALTARS, AND I ALONE AM LEFT, AND THEY ARE SEEKING MY LIFE." But what is the divine response to him? "I HAVE KEPT for Myself SEVEN THOUSAND MEN WHO HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO BAAL."

[*]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.

1 Corinthians 15:11. In Paul's own words, he and the other Apostles preached the same message he had just described in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. "Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed." When he says "...so we preach and so you believed," he can only mean the message of 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 in context.

[*]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.

Again, see post #45. Scripture shows that Christ is Israel.

Is Christ your king, brother?

[*]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.

On Bright Raven's Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth thread I show that the messages of Peter and Paul were the same. Peter taught the death, burial and resurrection. Paul taught repentance and claims he baptized people (he names names, too) and Acts has him baptizing Ephesians.

Lighthouse claims that those who followed Jesus, as opposed to Paul, had to keep the law for salvation (justified by works). No other MAD adherent has corrected him. Is that what you believe, too? And do you believe that in spite of Paul's claim that no flesh will be justified by the works of the law?

How's that for starters?

When my challenges are addressed and my questions are answered, I'll let you know, brother. I apologize for not reading through the entire thread; it's quite long and I'm short on time, but still interested in understanding your perspective of mid-Acts theology.

Also, if you don't mind answering:

Do you believe the narrow way is the righteousness of God without the law?

Do you believe the righteousness of God without the law is the gospel Paul preached?

 

[chickenman]

Hi, Doormat.

In reading through your post, I see you've:
1) referred me to another thread;
2) made some this-is-the-way-it-is statements; and
3) asked some questions.

I don't really want to cross-reference another thread. If you want to bring any of those questions over here, then I'm happy to try to address whatever they are. Concerning the statements you've made about what you believe: Okay. We're all free to believe what we want. So I'll stick to your questions. I don't have a lot of time to rebut (if a rebuttal is indeed warranted) statements in long posts or to cross-reference other threads. So I'll stick to only your questions in here. I hope you understand.

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.[/quote
Who is them? The Apostles were Israel, as were all the Jews that converted. The rest were not Israel according to both Jesus and the Apostle Paul.

Israel as a nation. God dealt with and made promises that were for Israel as a whole.

Is Christ your king, brother?

This appears either rhetorical, or that you're asking me if I'm saved. If the latter: I've trusted that Jesus Christ died for my sins, was buried, and rose again. The Holy Spirit then baptized me into Christ's body, where I'm sealed for the day of redemption.

Lighthouse claims that those who followed Jesus, as opposed to Paul, ...

I don't understand this part, so please clarify. In this dispensation of grace, we are told to follow Paul as he followed Jesus. So there's no follow Paul versus following Jesus. It's just that we cannot follow Jesus according to His earthly teaching. We follow Him according to that which He later dispensed to us through Paul.

... had to keep the law for salvation (justified by works). No other MAD adherent has corrected him. Is that what you believe, too? And do you believe that in spite of Paul's claim that no flesh will be justified by the works of the law?

The law never did and never will justify. It has always boiled down to faith. For Israel under the law, the one who had faith in God would keep the law. That's how he demonstrated his faith. So James could rightly say that man is not just justified by faith alone without works. For that type of faith would be dead. It wasn't real faith to claim to trust God, but then not do what He said to do.

We in the dispensation of grace, however, are explicitly told:

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Rom. 4:5​

It can be this way for us, because:

What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Rom. 6:15​

When my challenges are addressed...

Don't wait on me.

and my questions are answered, I'll let you know, brother.

Don't worry about me.

I apologize for not reading through the entire thread; it's quite long and I'm short on time, but still interested in understanding your perspective of mid-Acts theology.

It's okay. I know it's long.

Also, if you don't mind answering:

Do you believe the narrow way is the righteousness of God without the law?

Can you clarify? The only "narrow way" I see in scripture is:

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Matt. 7:14​

And in that passage and context, Jesus isn't talking anything about "the righteousness of God without the law."

So can you clarify what you're asking me?

Do you believe the righteousness of God without the law is the gospel Paul preached?

Part of it, for sure. To the Jews in the synagogues in Gentile lands, he preached the good news that God had delivered on His promise to send them their Messiah, the seed of David, who was crucified and rose again, proving that He is the Son of God. Expounding upon that, he taught that they could be justified apart from the law of Moses. For those who believed that, he would go on to preach to them the good news of why their Messiah had died for them and what were the implications of believing that and being placed into Him.

All that said: Without a doubt, he preached the righteousness of God without the law.


Before we go on, have you ever completely put your trust in Jesus Christ's finished work on the trust, also believing that He rose from the grave for your justification? Do you believe He has taken care of all your sins forevermore?

Thanks,
Randy

 

[Nick M]

I don't understand this part, so please clarify. In this dispensation of grace, we are told to follow Paul as he followed Jesus.

Thanks,
Randy

Well, he could have read other things on this forum. You know I like to twist that knife with things like Matthew 19, to enter into life, keep the commandments contrasted with Romans 7 and the commandments which was to bring life I found to bring death. Although I didn't do it there. That is usually with William and Jan and their nonsense about Peter and Paul "one gospel" .

 

[steko]

Hi, Doormat.



Before we go on, have you ever completely put your trust in Jesus Christ's finished work on the trust, also believing that He rose from the grave for your justification? Do you believe He has taken care of all your sins forevermore?

Thanks,
Randy

I wrote Randy earlier about this! I just got back on. He wrote me back and said for me to clarify that he meant 'on the cross' instead of 'on the trust'.

 

[Doormat]

If you want to bring any of those questions over here, then I'm happy to try to address whatever they are.

Thanks.

This appears either rhetorical, or that you're asking me if I'm saved.

No. God knows if you are saved, and every Christian thinks he's saved. I just asked you if Jesus is your king. If you are not part of his kingdom, I would think you would answer no, but I'm not sure, so I asked. He is my king. I am in the king of kings, the king of Israel. I'm one with him, one with the king of Israel, literally part of His body.

It's okay. I know it's long.

I've read 25 pages so far, brother.

Can you clarify? The only "narrow way" I see in scripture is:

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Matt. 7:14​

And in that passage and context, Jesus isn't talking anything about "the righteousness of God without the law."

What is the narrow way that few find?

And, are those who believe Paul's gospel taking the narrow way that Jesus spoke of?

All that said: Without a doubt, he preached the righteousness of God without the law.

Do you believe that Jesus preached the righteousness of God without the law?

Before we go on, have you ever completely put your trust in Jesus Christ's finished work on the trust, also believing that He rose from the grave for your justification? Do you believe He has taken care of all your sins forevermore?

Yes. I do indeed.

 

[Doormat]

Well, he could have read other things on this forum.

I read where you agreed with me on another thread that the narrow way is the righteousness of God without the law. You're mid-Acts. Why do you believe that, brother? How does it fit with the two gospels?

 

[Doormat]

Another reason I believe that Corny was saved into the Body rather than into the body of kingdom believers is I Cor. 15:11, where Paul says:

Therefore, whether it was I or they (Peter, James, the Twelve), so we preach and so you believed.
​

Is that still your position?

 

[Doormat]

I wrote Randy earlier about this! I just got back on. He wrote me back and said for me to clarify that he meant 'on the cross' instead of 'on the trust'.

Thank you, brother Steko. I assumed as much, but appreciate you taking the time. :e4e:

 

[chickenman]

No. God knows if you are saved, and every Christian thinks he's saved. I just asked you if Jesus is your king. If you are not part of his kingdom, I would think you would answer no, but I'm not sure, so I asked. He is my king. I am in the king of kings, the king of Israel. I'm one with him, one with the king of Israel, literally part of His body.

He is the King of kings, and Lord of lords (I Tim. 6:16), the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God (I Tim. 1:17), and I am in the kingdom of the Father's dear Son (Col. 1:13). In that regard, there is no doubt He is my King.

I'm curious how this pertains to you gaining clarification on the MidActs position, though.

What is the narrow way that few find?

In Matthew 7, Jesus does not tell that the "narrow way" = xyz. He makes a point about the way to eternal life being narrow because of why it is hard to take. The "wide" gate is easy for many to enter, because it is "wide". The masses can go through that gate. The "narrow" gate is not too accessible by many, because of what is required (in the context of Jesus' teaching there) to obtain eternal life. So...what is He speaking of in context?

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Matt. 7:12​

The whole context is about doing. They had to have their actions in line with their judgments of others (don't judge hypocritically; verses 1-6). They had to treat others the way in which they would expect to be treated, according to the law and the prophets (verse. 12). So the way was narrow because doing those things was something that not many were willing to do. Yet, in the time of God's dealing with corporate Israel, faithful living by keeping the law was a requirement.

That's the "narrow way" to which Jesus referred.

And, are those who believe Paul's gospel taking the narrow way that Jesus spoke of?

We are not taking the "narrow way" specifically in the way which Jesus spoke, per my comments above. But we are certainly taking the narrow way in the sense that it is not a way that most are willing to take. Most will reject the Lord and go their own way. Most will not trust in His sacrifice and accept His righteousness on their behalf. The way of the Lord is most certainly narrow, regardless of the dispensation in which one lives and operates.

Do you believe that Jesus preached the righteousness of God without the law?

Not during His earthly ministry, for He ministered to Israel under the old covenant wherein they were required to keep the law. Failure to do so would mean being cut off from the nation and the promises, and it was in the promise of the new covenant that they would be made righteous.

Jesus later dispensed a message of righteousness completely separate art from the law. But during His dealing with corporate Israel, He most certainly commanded adherence to the law and that endurance of the faithful man would result in salvation.

Yes. I do indeed.

Good. Then I'm glad to reciprocate the title "brother".

Thanks, Doormat.

Randy

 

[chickenman]

Is that still your position?

I appreciate that you realize that people can change their positions as they study and learn. Many will hold a person accountable to what they said years ago, not allowing for any change at all. So I thank you for the question.

While my understanding of what's going on with Cornelius in Acts 10, as well as what is being said in I Cor. 15, has changed a little over time, I still believe that Cornelius was saved into the Body of Christ. This is a point over which many of us MidActs'ers differ, though. So don't apply my position to the whole group.

I'll also say that I appreciate you asking questions to me as an individual. Many insist on taking what one MidActs'er says and forcing that into some invisible, official MidActs handbook of belief. But the reality is that we are all individuals, holding many things in common, but studying to show ourselves (not someone else) approved. So we do draw different conclusions in some areas. Which means that my view cannot be applied to all other MidActs, just as no other individual's view can be forced onto me. It seems that you recognize this. I hope you don't lose sight of it the longer you are on here (TOL).

Thanks, brother!

Randy

 

[Doormat]

While my understanding of what's going on with Cornelius in Acts 10, as well as what is being said in I Cor. 15, has changed a little over time, I still believe that Cornelius was saved into the Body of Christ.

How do you understand 1 Corinthians 15:11 now?

From my perspective, in context it seems Paul is stating that they (the other Apostles) were preaching the same gospel (1 Cor 15:1-4 as context). Otherwise, why would Paul say they his audience believed the gospel whether they or he preached it? How different are our perspectives regarding that scripture?

Thank you for your time, brother.