For Sincere Inquisitors ONLY: MAD Explained

[Jerry Shugart]

We agree to disagree. Your view is more moderate than MAD here and Bullinger, but I still don't buy it.

I don't care if you buy it or not but cease from misrepresenting MAD.

Again, from the beginning the dispensationalism of Bullinger was rejected by the Mid Acts dispensationalists

 

[godrulz]

I don't care if you buy it or not but cease from misrepresenting MAD.

Again, from the beginning the dispensationalism of Bullinger was rejected by the Mid Acts dispensationalists

There are a variety of MAD views. You beg the question by assuming your Sir Anderson is the right and official one, contrary to most MAD on TOL. As well, you do have common ideas and arguments with Bullinger, even if more differences.

I just realized that this was the sincere seeker only thread. I think I still qualify, since I am a sincere seeker of truth and will follow the evidence. Since it can be demonstrated that TOL MAD (at least) is wrong (and that they also pick bones/fights with you), I will not change to a wrong view.

 

[Tambora]

You missed the answer, I guess. MAD=Mid-Acts dispensationalism, a hyper-disp view with roots in E.W. Bullinger, Stam, etc. scripture.

Fixed it.

 

[godrulz]

Fixed it.

Hardly....like Calvinists, you import a paradigm on Scripture, not exegete it in context.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

There is more evidence that those who received the Hebrew epistles were expecting to be raptured. For instance they were told that when the Lord Jesus appears that they shall be "like Him":

"Beloved, now are we the children of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is" (1 Jn.3:2).​

There is nothing in the prophetic Scriptures that even hints that living saints will be like the Lord Jesus when He returns. The following verse is speaking of those in the Body of Christ putting on glorious bodies just like the Lord Jesus' glorius body:

"The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed...And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away" (1 Pet.5:1,4).​

Those words of Peter are speaking about the same exact event which Paul refers to here:

"When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory" (Col.3:4).

Those in the Body of Christ will "appear with Him in glory" because they will put on a new, glorious body just like the Lord's glorious body:

"For our citizenship is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our lowly body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself" (Phil.3:20-21).​

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I just realized that this was the sincere seeker only thread. I think I still qualify, since I am a sincere seeker of truth and will follow the evidence.

That is a joke because you IGNORE the evidence as to who actually was the first to preach the gospel of grace.

Also, you turn reason on its heard when you insist that the "good news" that Christ died for our sins is the same "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

You are delusional and you prove it when you insist that these two different "good news" are the same "good news."

You are clueless!

 

[themuzicman]

Of course, the MAD achilles heel is found in 1 Cor 11:

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

This ordinance was given originally by Christ to the disciples before His death, and is intended for us all to embrace our place in the New Covenant, established in Christ's blood, which is why we drink from the cup.

Paul received this from the Lord and it is an ordinance for all churches, including the Gentiles, such as the one in Corinth to follow.

Why is this a problem?

MAD believes that we are not part of the New Covenant, that the New Covenant is for Israel.

So, the dilemma comes down to this:

Do MAD churches partake of the Lord's supper as delivered by Paul to the Churches, and thus embrace the New Covenant, or do the disobey what Paul gave to be observed?

 

[themuzicman]

Duplicate

(Or, so nice, it was posted twice!)

 

[Nick M]

There is more evidence that those who received the Hebrew epistles were expecting to be raptured. For instance they were told that when the Lord Jesus appears that they shall be "like Him":

"Beloved, now are we the children of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is" (1 Jn.3:2).​

Ezekiel 37 John 3 are not the rapture.

 

[Nick M]

You are delusional and you prove it when you insist that these two different "good news" are the same "good news."

You are clueless!

He isn't delusional or clueless, he is doing it on purpose. There is condemnation in Israel for those that do not keep the law. So rulz wants it for everybody.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

So, the dilemma comes down to this:

Do MAD churches partake of the Lord's supper as delivered by Paul to the Churches, and thus embrace the New Covenant, or do the disobey what Paul gave to be observed?

Paul's instruction in regard the Lord's supper was the subject of a special revelation given to him by the Lord:

"For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you...For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes" (1 Cor.11:23; NIV).​

In the upper room the blood of a New Diatheke was set in the context of the kingdom, and that is clearly in reference to Israel's New Diatheke:

"...for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom" (Mt.26:28-29).​

Paul specifically ties communion to the Lord's return at the rapture and not to the kingdom--"you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." This is clear evidence that Paul's words in regard to the Lord's supper are not in regard to Israel's New Diatheke but instead is in regard to the New Diatheke which is in operation today. Further proof that Paul received a special revelation from the Lord in regard to this sacrament is found in his words here:

"When we bless the cup at the Lord's Table, aren't we sharing in the benefits of the blood of Christ? And when we break the loaf of bread, aren't we sharing in the benefits of the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf" (1 Cor.10:16-17; NIV).​

David K. Lowery writes that "the one loaf of bread, of which all partake, pictured their unity as members of the one body of Christ" (Walvoord & Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary; New Testament [Colorado Springs: ChariotVictor Publishing, 1983], p.527).

The truths concerning the Body of Christ were not known until Paul was converted.

By the way, instead of using the phrase "New Covenant" I use "New Diatheke" instead. That is because a diatheke is not the same thing as a "covenant."

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Ezekiel 37 John 3 are not the rapture.

I never said that Ezekiel 37 refers to the rapture. However, the following verse refers to the rapture:

"Beloved, now are we the children of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is" (1 Jn.3:2).​

I have already shown that James taught that the Lord's coming which they were waiting for was "imminent." The only coming which is described as being imminent is the rapture when the Lord Jesus will appear.

Therefore, the appearance of 1 John 3:2 cannot possible be any other than when He will appear at the rapture.

 

[godrulz]

That is a joke because you IGNORE the evidence as to who actually was the first to preach the gospel of grace.

Also, you turn reason on its heard when you insist that the "good news" that Christ died for our sins is the same "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

You are delusional and you prove it when you insist that these two different "good news" are the same "good news."

You are clueless!

What is clueless is to divorce the person (Son of God) and work (death, resurrection) of Christ?! Hyper-disp chops everything up arbitrarily?!

The gospel (one, not two) is about the person and work of Christ. To say Jewish Christians were told about person (He is Messiah, Lord, God to Jew and Gentile), while Gentile Christians (circ vs uncirc more specifically) were told about His work is nonsense. Acts 2 and I Cor. 15 are consistent, complementary, not contradictory (same with Peter/John/James/Paul).

 

[godrulz]

He isn't delusional or clueless, he is doing it on purpose. There is condemnation in Israel for those that do not keep the law. So rulz wants it for everybody.

Huh? Grace, not law....straw man, as usual. We are on third base and you have not even reached first base.

 

[DAN P]

Of course, the MAD achilles heel is found in 1 Cor 11:


So, the dilemma comes down to this:

Do MAD churches partake of the Lord's supper as delivered by Paul to the Churches, and thus embrace the New Covenant, or do the disobey what Paul gave to be observed?

Hi , and it is not a Dilemma !!

That is because in 1 Cor 11:25 the Greek word DIATHEKE can be translated by the following words :

#1 , Will
#2 , Testament
#3 , Compact
#4 , Covenant
#5 , Arrangement

The correct word to use in 1 Cor 11:25 is New Arrangement and NOT New Testament !!

But Eph 2:12 reveals that the Gentiles NEVER had a COVENANT/DIATHEKE with God !!

The final nail in your MYTH is what the New Covenant really means and those Acts 2 and Covenant theolgy can never see , is WHAT is contained in the New Covenant , so read Ezek 36:24-38 and see what is in the New Covenant !!

The New Covenant is way different that Eph 2:5 and 8 !!

dan p

 

[Nick M]

Corinth had saved and unsaved, Jew and gentile. Paul speaking of things does not mean anything. Unless one thinks the Body of Christ can be cut off and tossed in the fire, as told by Paul in Romans.

More strawmen...

 

[Nick M]

I never said that Ezekiel 37 refers to the rapture. However, the following verse refers to the rapture:

"Beloved, now are we the children of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is" (1 Jn.3:2).​

That is reserrection. Ezekiel 37 and John 3. The Lord Jesus Christ was resurrected with a glorified body. So will Israel as told by Ezekiel.

 

[Nick M]

Huh? Grace, not law....straw man, as usual. We are on third base and you have not even reached first base.

I accept your surrender.

I affirm biblical assurance based on being in and remaining in Christ. I affirm the stern warnings about apostasy,

I must reject OSAS as a false, manmade view contrary to His revealed Word and character.

I affirm the security of the believer (one who believes and continues to believe vs cease to believe and revert to unbelief). The security verses are true, but so are the stern warnings about the possibility of falling away.

The reality (confirmed by stern warnings in Scripture) is that some who once walked with God no longer do so. If Israel in the OT could go after false gods and get cut off, why do you think a born again Christian who renounces it and converts to Islam is still saved?! (or worse, becomes an atheist, like some have)?!

I told you he is not an open theist. He does not care about nor study God's character. He wants an open future so people can sin their way out of salvation.

He wants to equate the Body of Christ with Israel, and have Hebrews written by Paul becuase he searches the scriptures for condemnation. He is a demon possessed and not in Christ.

He has been shown over and over and over. It isn't like he doesn't know any better.

 

[godrulz]

John 3 is about regeneration, not resurrection.

As a fellow dispensationalist, I fully distinguish Israel and Church, unlike covenantalists. Nick misrepresents my views and lacks integrity and credibility.

 

[Lighthouse]

You missed the answer, I guess. MAD=Mid-Acts dispensationalism, a hyper-disp view with roots in E.W. Bullinger, Stam, etc. A contingent on TOL embraces it, but most favor a more moderate disp view (Acts 2) or covenantalism.

It wrongly teaches two true post-cross gospels, limits non-Pauline NT books to Jewish Christians, etc.

The plural has a different meaning than the singular. There is also a range of meaning with many words depending on context.

MAD is wrong to deny the Great Commission for most NT believers.

We agree to disagree. Your view is more moderate than MAD here and Bullinger, but I still don't buy it.

There are a variety of MAD views. You beg the question by assuming your Sir Anderson is the right and official one, contrary to most MAD on TOL. As well, you do have common ideas and arguments with Bullinger, even if more differences.

I just realized that this was the sincere seeker only thread. I think I still qualify, since I am a sincere seeker of truth and will follow the evidence. Since it can be demonstrated that TOL MAD (at least) is wrong (and that they also pick bones/fights with you), I will not change to a wrong view.

Hardly....like Calvinists, you import a paradigm on Scripture, not exegete it in context.

Of course, the MAD achilles heel is found in 1 Cor 11:



This ordinance was given originally by Christ to the disciples before His death, and is intended for us all to embrace our place in the New Covenant, established in Christ's blood, which is why we drink from the cup.

Paul received this from the Lord and it is an ordinance for all churches, including the Gentiles, such as the one in Corinth to follow.

Why is this a problem?

MAD believes that we are not part of the New Covenant, that the New Covenant is for Israel.

So, the dilemma comes down to this:

Do MAD churches partake of the Lord's supper as delivered by Paul to the Churches, and thus embrace the New Covenant, or do the disobey what Paul gave to be observed?

What is clueless is to divorce the person (Son of God) and work (death, resurrection) of Christ?! Hyper-disp chops everything up arbitrarily?!

The gospel (one, not two) is about the person and work of Christ. To say Jewish Christians were told about person (He is Messiah, Lord, God to Jew and Gentile), while Gentile Christians (circ vs uncirc more specifically) were told about His work is nonsense. Acts 2 and I Cor. 15 are consistent, complementary, not contradictory (same with Peter/John/James/Paul).

Huh? Grace, not law....straw man, as usual. We are on third base and you have not even reached first base.

John 3 is about regeneration, not resurrection.

As a fellow dispensationalist, I fully distinguish Israel and Church, unlike covenantalists. Nick misrepresents my views and lacks integrity and credibility.

Here's an idea!:idea:

Why don't the both of you, godrulz and themuzicman, read the title of the thread? Your dissension is not allowed here [in this specific thread].