For Sincere Inquisitors ONLY: MAD Explained

[revpete]

Paul says he is the first of the kind, the pattern. The prototype. Pentecost is about Israel, and they could lose their salvation. See Acts 5, it is not the Body of Christ.



1 Timothy 1



15 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first. 16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.

Ok, but on the day of Pentecost it states that there were people there from all over the place. Ya know, Parthians, Medes etc... Whose to say that some of them were not of the three thousand that were saved? Doesn't verse Acts.2:39 teach us that all could be saved? Also v47 uses the word "Church" when telling us that The Lord was adding daily to their number.




Blessings: Pete <><

 

[Nick M]

Ok, but on the day of Pentecost it states that there were people there from all over the place.

All devout Jews. This is getting off the subject, but take a good look at why Peter says the Christ was raised up.

Whose to say that some of them were not of the three thousand that were saved?

So your contention is that Paul is false? Do you have a comment on Paul saying he is the pattern, he is the prototype? What way is he first?

29 “Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne

And

who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.

What I deserve is to die, to be separated from God. But instead, he tasted death in my place as a sacrifice, as the sin offering. And the Father accepted his perfect Son in my place. This is not what Peter is preaching. There is overlap, our gospels are on the same foundation, the Lord Jesus Christ. And we will all live forever. Peter will be raised first, the dead in Christ. That assumes an immediate departure, of which we have no idea when the fullness of the gentiles would happen. Or what that really even means.

 

[Nick M]

Is the answer to my question in this Passage?

Do you intend to hang out at the mount of Olives? Your passage is about the departure of the church. The departure of the Body of Christ happens because we are saved from the wrath to come. Jacob's trouble is not our trouble. So, no, it isn't really about us.

I am not worthy to stand along side Simon bar Jonah (Peter) as he holds the keys to the Kingdom on earth anyway.

 

[Gurucam]

GO AWAY
Let me start by asking that troublemakers and opposers who are already convinced of themselves please refrain from posting in this thread. I would appreciate it if people like godrulz, andyc, cistercian, and others with similar agendas stay away. I'll respectfully ask that the moderator(s) delete any posts by these people, as well as others that inappropriately challenge others and/or that simply want to oppose for the sake of opposing. godrulz et al, if you post I'll ignore it but report it, asking it to be deleted. Of course, I can't make forum rules, so I'm only expressing my desire.


COME ON IN
Several people have expressed a sincere desire to learn more about MidActs Dispensationalism. Whether or not those people ultimately conclude the same is irrelevant. They are sincere inquisitors.

This thread is for those people to ask questions. And they're absolutely welcome to offer challenges, as well. Sincere, open, non-compative people like Town Heretic, bodhigirsmiles, and bybee...this thread is for you to help you understand the MidActs position.



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.

How's that for starters?

I'd love to address any questions and expand on any points. Others who hold the same or similar positions (STP, voltaire, JohnW, Knight, Delmar, Nick, judging u, etc.) are absolutely welcome to chime in whenever you want. I'm perfectly happy shutting up and letting people smarter than me answer questions, if that's what it takes to help others truly understand the MidActs position. If I don't know something, I'll say I don't know. But I'd love to help those who are sincerely interested to understand more about our position.

Thanks,
Randy

However it is confirmed that all scriptures come from inspiration of God.

You speak of reading and studying the written scriptures. Are you using this approach to seek and obtain Truth?

If you are seeking Truth then your path is not correct. Reading and studying the written scriptures will not bring you Truth (the one that saves and deliver a human).

Jesus confirmed literally, that All Truth comes (intuitively) only from the Spirit of Truth. And this Spirit was made available only after He was crucified and descended to earth's depth and then had His Spirit regenerated and then rose to heaven.

(Note: I added 'intuitively' because this is how one gets Truth through inspiration. This is quite different from the path of reading and studying the written scriptures which is an intellectual path. Intuiting is done through our right side brain hemisphere. Intellectualizing, i.e. reading and studying is done through our left side brain hemisphere. Our right side brain discerns the spirit realm. Our left side brain discern only the physical realm).

It is literally confirmed in the KJV N.T. that only after Jesus was crucified and descended to earth's depth and then had His Spirit regenerated and then rose to heaven was the Spirit of Truth made available and only then was All Truth available. For all Truth is available only from and through this Spirit of Truth. The Spirit of Truth is not the Holy Spirit, for the Holy Spirit was already present and had had already descended on the disciples when Jesus made this prophesy of the coming of the Spirit of Truth. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God where as the Spirit of Truth is the (surviving/regenerated) Spirit of Jesus.

Additionally we are literally instructed to search our hearts to know what the Spirit of Truth has in mind for each of us to know, pray for, say and do.

These revelations do not stand on their own. There are other verses which totally and literally support these revelations.

Your stated approach to discern the written scriptures are well noted. However the approach to being Christian requires one achieving communion with Truth. And your approach does not seem to be focused on seeking and obtaining Truth. Reading and studying the written scriptures can simply bring one onto faith. Reading and studying the written scriptures does not deliver Truth. The Truth which saves and deliver one will not be obtained and is not, in the written scriptures. The Truth which saves and deliver one must be obtained individually, privately and intuitively by each person directly and precisely from the Spirit of Truth through each of their own heart or spirit. The Spirit of Truth is Jesus' Spirit. This is quite literally, Jesus in Hid Spirit (body). To obtain Truth one must have a live, real time direct communion or connection with Jesus in His Spirit, in the same way as Paul did. . . . This fact is confirmed clearly and literally by verses in the KJV N.T.

The written scriptures are the letters and when they are used as a source for Truth they killeth. Only the Spirit (of Truth) give life. And this is possible only though a direct intuitive connection with the Spirit of Truth, through one's own heart or spirit.

 

[Inchrist1]

Do you intend to hang out at the mount of Olives? Your passage is about the departure of the church. The departure of the Body of Christ happens because we are saved from the wrath to come. Jacob's trouble is not our trouble. So, no, it isn't really about us.



I am not worthy to stand along side Simon bar Jonah (Peter) as he holds the keys to the Kingdom on earth anyway.

Thanks for being patient with me Nick. I know this may be a dumb question but I am honestly curious.

Where will the Body be? Won't we be with Christ in our Heavenly body's?

Thanks




Posted from the TOL App!

 

[Nick M]

Where will the Body be? Won't we be with Christ in our Heavenly body's?

Paul says we receive incorruptible bodies. We are joint heirs, and we will also be resurrected (John 3). I can not see the need to speculate each passing moment of eternity.

 

[Inchrist1]

Paul says we receive incorruptible bodies. We are joint heirs, and we will also be resurrected (John 3). I can not see the need to speculate each passing moment of eternity.

You have a good point there. Thanks for the replies.


Posted from the TOL App!

 

[Nick M]

I threw in John 3, because that seems to be about resurrection, and not just salvation. You have to be saved first, but he says in verse 8, well, you know what it says. We can not do that, so I don't claim John 3 as many do. Saying they are born again. No they are not.

 

[revpete]

All devout Jews. This is getting off the subject, but take a good look at why Peter says the Christ was raised up.







So your contention is that Paul is false? Do you have a comment on Paul saying he is the pattern, he is the prototype? What way is he first?


.

No, I don't for a minute think Paul was false. What I don't see is your statement that he was the first person saved under grace. That is what you're saying isn't it?


Blessings: Pete <><

 

[Nick M]

No, I don't for a minute think Paul was false. What I don't see is your statement that he was the first person saved under grace.

Then what is he a pattern for?

1 Timothy 1

15 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first. 16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Then what is he a pattern for?

1 Timothy 1

15 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first. 16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe

:up:

Seems to me that Paul was the first to receive ALL LONGSUFFERING from the Lord. We just need to study and figure out how and why that is the case.

I can see that Paul blasphemed the Holy Ghost, and yet was saved.
If that is not all longsuffering, nothing is.

 

[Nick M]

Saul of Tarsus didn't murder 601, but there is at least one in Acts and yes, he spoke against the Holy Spirit at the same time.

 

[Gurucam]

Thanks for being patient with me Nick. I know this may be a dumb question but I am honestly curious.

Where will the Body be? Won't we be with Christ in our Heavenly body's?

Thanks




Posted from the TOL App!

This might help:

When Christians die on earth they rise to be like angels in heaven.

Angels do not have physical bodies. Therefore when Christians die their physical body goes dust to dust. It dissolves (biodegrade) and is absorbed into mother earth. One's physical body is left behind and the person rises to heaven in his or her spirit body or inward man. [size=+1]Check Mark: 12 verse: 25 KJV N.T.
[/size]

The first body is sewn a natural body. It is raised a spiritual body. The first man (or first body) is from earth - physical. The second man (or second body) is spiritual from heaven. [size=+1](re. 1 Corinthians: 15 verses: 44 to 47)[/size]

No flesh and blood body ever enter heaven, not even Jesus' flesh and blood body entered heaven . . . let no one mislead you. Jesus differed in no way from any other Christian except that He is the head of the body of Christ. Like all other Christians, when Jesus died, he rose to be like an angel in heaven and then sat himself on the right side of God only in His spirit body without a physical body.

Then we are told that "now (as of 2000 odd years ago) the Lord is that Spirit. 'That Spirit' is not the Holy Spirit but the Spirit of Truth which is Jesus in His Spirit.

After Jesus' death He sank into the depths of earth. Then His Spirit was regenerated and he rose form the depths of earth in that Spirit. He did not have a physical body after the regeneration. He had only a spirit body and he rose out of the depths of earth only in that body. However at that point, He simply materialized a physical body which had all the marking of his previous experience. He did this to show his (spiritually) dead followers that he did not actually died but remained alive and rose to heaven.

If these people truly had the 'eyes to see' and the 'ears to hear' they would discern Jesus in His Spirit and witness him being alive and rising to heaven, in His Spirit. Then Jesus would have no reason of recreate a physical body. This was not the case. Therefore Jesus had to recreate a physical body for their benefit. And indeed, Jesus kept this physical body until he rose to the clouds beyond their physical sight. Then Jesus dissolved that physical body and rose to heaven in only His Spirit, to be like an angel in heaven.

 

[Nick M]

GO AWAY
Let me start by asking that troublemakers and opposers who are already convinced of themselves please refrain from posting in this thread. I would appreciate it if people like godrulz, andyc, cistercian, and others with similar agendas stay away. I'll respectfully ask that the moderator(s) delete any posts by these people, as well as others that inappropriately challenge others and/or that simply want to oppose for the sake of opposing. godrulz et al, if you post I'll ignore it but report it, asking it to be deleted. Of course, I can't make forum rules, so I'm only expressing my desire.


COME ON IN
Several people have expressed a sincere desire to learn more about MidActs Dispensationalism. Whether or not those people ultimately conclude the same is irrelevant. They are sincere inquisitors.

This thread is for those people to ask questions. And they're absolutely welcome to offer challenges, as well. Sincere, open, non-compative people like Town Heretic, bodhigirsmiles, and bybee...this thread is for you to help you understand the MidActs position.



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.

How's that for starters?

I'd love to address any questions and expand on any points. Others who hold the same or similar positions (STP, voltaire, JohnW, Knight, Delmar, Nick, judging u, etc.) are absolutely welcome to chime in whenever you want. I'm perfectly happy shutting up and letting people smarter than me answer questions, if that's what it takes to help others truly understand the MidActs position. If I don't know something, I'll say I don't know. But I'd love to help those who are sincerely interested to understand more about our position.

Thanks,
Randy

Just in case Shasta keeps pretending he doesn't know what the Bible says.

 

[Nick M]

I can see that Paul blasphemed the Holy Ghost, and yet was saved.
If that is not all longsuffering, nothing is.

He is the pattern for William, if he would just accept the free gift.

 

[godrulz]

He is the pattern for William, if he would just accept the free gift.

I accepted the free gift of eternal life by grace through faith apart from works in 1978 and have not been the same since (Jn. 1:12; Jn. 3:16; Eph. 2:8-10; Rom. 4-5; I Jn. 5:11-13).

Rejecting MAD, KJVO, Calvinism, etc. is not rejecting grace.

 

[Nick M]

Just in case Shasta keeps pretending he doesn't know what the Bible says.

Bump for Shasta.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I accepted the free gift of eternal life by grace through faith apart from works in 1978

Saving faith is not divorced from loving obedience to the revealed moral law of God.

Apart from works, but not divorced?

 

[Lighthouse]

I accepted the free gift of eternal life by grace through faith apart from works in 1978 and have not been the same since (Jn. 1:12; Jn. 3:16; Eph. 2:8-10; Rom. 4-5; I Jn. 5:11-13).

Rejecting MAD, KJVO, Calvinism, etc. is not rejecting grace.

The issue is that you deny the power of grace. Now, do as chickenman kindly asked in the OP and stay out of this thread.

 

[godrulz]

The issue is that you deny the power of grace. Now, do as chickenman kindly asked in the OP and stay out of this thread.

How do I deny the power of grace?! I believe the verses at face value. Your accusation is baseless.:noid: