Have I gone MAD???

[Stripe]

Who is being harmed by an honest use of such terms?
How is it more honest to avoid the use of accurate labels?

Nobody.

I use them all the time.

 

[Clete]

Nobody.

I use them all the time.

Then what's the point?

 

[Stripe]

I think I've explained myself pretty clearly.

And it's not all that important anyway.

 

[Stripe]

Or perhaps I've just gone mad.

 

[Right Divider]

Yes, he is incorrect. Anyone who actually believes the Scriptures know that the Jews who lived under the law were saved by faith alone, as witnessed by the following words of the Savior Himself:

​

"Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life" (Jn.6:47).​

Will you give me your interpretation of the meaning of His words there?

Old post, but I need to respond.

This is exactly the problem with ONE verse theology. Christ ALSO said this when asked about how to obtain eternal life:

Matt 19:16-17 (AKJV/PCE)​

(19:16) ¶ And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? (19:17) And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. ​

​

Luke 10:25-28 (AKJV/PCE)​

(10:25) ¶ And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? (10:26) He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? (10:27) And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. (10:28) And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. ​

 

[Lon]

Old post, but I need to respond.

This is exactly the problem with ONE verse theology. Christ ALSO said this when asked about how to obtain eternal life:

Matt 19:16-17 (AKJV/PCE)​

(19:16) ¶ And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? (19:17) And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. ​

I'm not sure this is a MAD distinction persay, but a grasp of the whole of scripture (I may be missing the MAD point and context so help is appreciated on such). Paul said when we've erred on one point of the law, we've missed the whole: "Keep (all) the commandments," then, was Jesus' way of telling the rich young man he hadn't made it. Jesus had told Nicodemus that he had to be born-again, in contrast, because 'that which works flesh is flesh.' The problem with any of us is sin, Jew or Gentile and the Law was an indication, a tape measure where all have failed. Point (mine is to reiterate salvation both for Jew and Greek)? If Paul is correct in Galatians 2, then no Jew was saved before Christ because the Law never could do that (thus a need to reiterate that Jews had to have faith in God to save them). "No one is righteous, no not one" Paul said in Romans. Galatians 2:16 says absolutely no man is or was saved by working the Law. Then Galatians 2:21 "If anyone 'could' be saved by the Law, then Christ died for no reason.' I'm in need then of a bit more information to catch the full gist of your and Jerry's conversation at this venture and ty.

​

Luke 10:25-28 (AKJV/PCE)​

(10:25) ¶ And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? (10:26) He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? (10:27) And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. (10:28) And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. ​

Following 'What is written in the Law?' The answer, certainly not 'never transgress the law and keep it' (not that you or anybody was saying this, but we need to be very clear theologically. Galatians 3:11 is a requote of Habakkuk 2:4 "the righteous shall live by faith." and Paul quotes Psalms in Romans stating that David 'had a righteousness apart from the Law.' In Romans 4, Paul goes as far to say none of them had a righteousness by keeping the law. It would be hard to read that Jesus was telling the rich young man that he could have eternal life without Himself, but rather we see "keep (all) the commandments" was his failure. In John 8:56 Jesus told the Pharisees that Abraham 'saw' Him and rejoiced. Surely most Jews today are confused and think trying to keep the law is salvation, it is rather, as Paul describes the Law, an indicator that we have sinned and are in need of salvation (a very important message for all without Christ today, Jew or gentile).

I'm pretty sure everyone is on page here, but perhaps some of it is theologically specific 'in' MAD? (let alone between any other theology).
I've very convinced that most cults are cults, specifically because of some form of Judaizing, and many confusions in mainline churches today are also due to a huge confusion of Judaizing applications. Worse: It very much can confuse one about salvation today and that is the one thing that must be very very clear. Paul saw a salvation 'apart' from the Law. One of His mysteries from Jesus is that for a gentile, it doesn't take a knowledge of the Law to desire salvation in Jesus. Example: Some have seen movies about Jesus, what He did, and His salvation and have desired Him compared to a life of sin (meaninglessness, despair, hurt and hurting). These gentiles wouldn't know off the bat "don't steal" from the ten commandments, but as Paul said, from their own conscience, know the wrong. One person prayed to Jesus to save him after viewing (I believe it was) The Chosen. Perhaps 'Law' is still seen in such programs, but certainly it is salvation by grace through faith, that causes a man (or woman) to come to Jesus rather than convert to Judaism after watching such. So, Romans 3 discusses that sin 'teaches us we are sinners' yet that righteousness comes apart from the Law. Again, thank you both for all the work in thread. -Lon

 

[Right Divider]

I'm not sure this is a MAD distinction persay, but a grasp of the whole of scripture (I may be missing the MAD point and context so help is appreciated on such). Paul said when we've erred on one point of the law, we've missed the whole: "Keep (all) the commandments," then, was Jesus' way of telling the rich young man he hadn't made it.

That is definitely the modern take on that passage, in that it disagrees with Paul. Perhaps there is another answer.

But it cannot explain this:

Rom 11:5-6 (AKJV/PCE)​

(11:5) Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. (11:6) And if by grace, then [is it] no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if [it be] of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.​

Jesus had told Nicodemus that he had to be born-again, in contrast, because 'that which works flesh is flesh.'

"Born again" is specifically talking about Israeli's and the nation of Israel. I've made this point many times regarding the PLURAL and SINGULAR use in that passage.

John 3:7 (AKJV/PCE)​

(3:7) Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.​

THEE is SINGULAR, but YE is PLURAL.

Jesus was talking TO Nicodemus SINGULARLY, but Jesus was not talking ABOUT Nicodemus SINGULARLY.

The problem with any of us is sin, Jew or Gentile and the Law was an indication, a tape measure where all have failed. Point (mine is to reiterate salvation both for Jew and Greek)? If Paul is correct in Galatians 2, then no Jew was saved before Christ because the Law never could do that (thus a need to reiterate that Jews had to have faith in God to save them). "No one is righteous, no not one" Paul said in Romans. Galatians 2:16 says absolutely no man is or was saved by working the Law. Then Galatians 2:21 "If anyone 'could' be saved by the Law, then Christ died for no reason.' I'm in need then of a bit more information to catch the full gist of your and Jerry's conversation at this venture and ty.

Following 'What is written in the Law?' The answer, certainly not 'never transgress the law and keep it' (not that you or anybody was saying this, but we need to be very clear theologically. Galatians 3:11 is a requote of Habakkuk 2:4 "the righteous shall live by faith." and Paul quotes Psalms in Romans stating that David 'had a righteousness apart from the Law.' In Romans 4, Paul goes as far to say none of them had a righteousness by keeping the law. It would be hard to read that Jesus was telling the rich young man that he could have eternal life without Himself, but rather we see "keep (all) the commandments" was his failure. In John 8:56 Jesus told the Pharisees that Abraham 'saw' Him and rejoiced. Surely most Jews today are confused and think trying to keep the law is salvation, it is rather, as Paul describes the Law, an indicator that we have sinned and are in need of salvation (a very important message for all without Christ today, Jew or gentile).

I'm pretty sure everyone is on page here, but perhaps some of it is theologically specific 'in' MAD? (let alone between any other theology).
I've very convinced that most cults are cults, specifically because of some form of Judaizing, and many confusions in mainline churches today are also due to a huge confusion of Judaizing applications. Worse: It very much can confuse one about salvation today and that is the one thing that must be very very clear. Paul saw a salvation 'apart' from the Law. One of His mysteries from Jesus is that for a gentile, it doesn't take a knowledge of the Law to desire salvation in Jesus. Example: Some have seen movies about Jesus, what He did, and His salvation and have desired Him compared to a life of sin (meaninglessness, despair, hurt and hurting). These gentiles wouldn't know off the bat "don't steal" from the ten commandments, but as Paul said, from their own conscience, know the wrong. One person prayed to Jesus to save him after viewing (I believe it was) The Chosen. Perhaps 'Law' is still seen in such programs, but certainly it is salvation by grace through faith, that causes a man (or woman) to come to Jesus rather than convert to Judaism after watching such. So, Romans 3 discusses that sin 'teaches us we are sinners' yet that righteousness comes apart from the Law. Again, thank you both for all the work in thread. -Lon

Ultimately, only God's grace can save anyone. But it was not until the dispensation of the grace of God that grace alone was revealed.

 

[Lon]

That is definitely the modern take on that passage, in that it disagrees with Paul. Perhaps there is another answer.

But it cannot explain this:

Rom 11:5-6 (AKJV/PCE)​

(11:5) Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. (11:6) And if by grace, then [is it] no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if [it be] of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.​

Paul says the Law never did give life. Hebrews 11 says 'faith' in God's ability to save was always the way men came to eternal life.
Then read verse 5 again: always even then, chosen by grace. I think you say you agree last paragraph below?

"Born again" is specifically talking about Israeli's and the nation of Israel. I've made this point many times regarding the PLURAL and SINGULAR use in that passage.

John 3:7 (AKJV/PCE)​

(3:7) Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.​

John 3:8 The wind blows wherever it will, and you hear the sound it makes, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” So the need ever is/was a spiritual (re-)generation and he need crosses all barriers and dispensations. Jesus was telling Nicodemus he had to be made a Spiritual being much like we who come to Christ "He who is in Christ is a new creation" and "the spirit understands the things the spirit" as well as "flesh cannot understand the things of the spirit." Jesus was telling Nicodemus a more general truth that is all encompassing. I can concede the 'born-again' ideology to Israel, but none of us are saved without being remade, by the Lord Jesus Christ, into spiritual beings, it is a must that crosses all barriers then and now (Not sure how all Mid Acts fit on this one, room for disagreement?)

THEE is SINGULAR, but YE is PLURAL.

Jesus was talking TO Nicodemus SINGULARLY, but Jesus was not talking ABOUT Nicodemus SINGULARLY.

Yep.

Ultimately, only God's grace can save anyone.

Yep, that is the point. Thank you.

But it was not until the dispensation of the grace of God that grace alone was revealed.

Not confusing grace with faith here, the Law was/is intricately tied to Israel and salvation hence I agree "now is a salvation apart from the Law" but we are talking about what is different, and what is the same. Faith was/is the same. Matthew 13:17 and John 8:56-9 expound that these 'longed to see' salvation through Christ. Galatians 2:16 says absolutely no man is or was saved by working the Law. Then Galatians 2:21 "If anyone 'could' be saved by the Law, then Christ died for no reason.' So it is as important to see what is 'the same' as what is different when we are reading and understanding Paul. It looks like we are agreeing so I'd appreciate a bit of background for your and Jerry's argument at this venture. I'm not quite following and especially as it sits in MAD context (please and thank you again when you can). -Lon

 

[Lon]

I think I've explained myself pretty clearly.

I think so

And it's not all that important anyway.

Well, for me it was understood: It is better sometimes to communicate the long-way rather than with short-hand, especially when someone else isn't getting it. On top of that, even here in thread, there are different MAD as well, thus the label is 'appreciable' but not always helpful thus I took your point and have tried to be careful with labels BUT this IS a MAD thread (just sayin )

 

[Right Divider]

Paul says the Law never did give life. Hebrews 11 says 'faith' in God's ability to save was always the way men came to eternal life.
Then read verse 5 again: always even then, chosen by grace. I think you say you agree last paragraph below?

If you read Hebrews 11 carefully, you will see that they all had faith, but not the same faith. I believe that agrees with Paul here:

Rom 1:17 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:17) For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.​

John 3:8 The wind blows wherever it will, and you hear the sound it makes, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” So the need ever is/was a spiritual (re-)generation and he need crosses all barriers and dispensations. Jesus was telling Nicodemus he had to be made a Spiritual being much like we who come to Christ "He who is in Christ is a new creation" and "the spirit understands the things the spirit" as well as "flesh cannot understand the things of the spirit." Jesus was telling Nicodemus a more general truth that is all encompassing. I can concede the 'born-again' ideology to Israel, but none of us are saved without being remade, by the Lord Jesus Christ, into spiritual beings, it is a must that crosses all barriers then and now (Not sure how all Mid Acts fit on this one, room for disagreement?)

I can definitely see the similarities, but I think that people have conflated the two. It's a classic case of reading something into the text that was not there in the past.

Not confusing grace with faith here, the Law was/is intricately tied to Israel and salvation hence I agree "now is a salvation apart from the Law" but we are talking about what is different, and what is the same. Faith was/is the same. Matthew 13:17 and John 8:56-9 expound that these 'longed to see' salvation through Christ. Galatians 2:16 says absolutely no man is or was saved by working the Law. Then Galatians 2:21 "If anyone 'could' be saved by the Law, then Christ died for no reason.' So it is as important to see what is 'the same' as what is different when we are reading and understanding Paul. It looks like we are agreeing so I'd appreciate a bit of background for your and Jerry's argument at this venture. I'm not quite following and especially as it sits in MAD context (please and thank you again when you can). -Lon

Somehow, Jerry seems to think that there is no difference between faith then and now.

MAD makes clear the NEW and DIFFERENT ministry of the apostle Paul. Jerry claims to be MAD (he calls himself Acts 13 MAD, whereas we are Acts 9 MAD... believing that Paul was the first member of the body of Christ).

Again, I will say that God's grace under-girds all faiths, but that God was not giving His grace freely then as He is now. That is clear from reading Paul's epistles. Remove Paul's epistles and you cannot find salvation by grace alone through faith alone.

 

[Lon]

God's grace under-girds all faiths, but that God was not giving His grace freely then as He is now. That is clear from reading Paul's epistles. Remove Paul's epistles and you cannot find salvation by grace along through faith alone.

True although and for instance, Enoch was righteous prior to Moses. Paul says "having a law unto themselves (conscience such that it was)." 2nd Chapter Dispensationalists see this as the age of "Conscience" (2nd of 7) How many Dispensations are recognized in Mid Acts?

Innocence (Adam and Eve)
Conscience
Government (Noah)
Promise (all nations through Abraham)
Law (Moses)
Grace (the Lord Jesus Christ)
Millennial Kingdom Reign of the Lord Jesus Christ

Further, any distinctions on these from the Mid Acts perspective if there is agreement (such as Millennial Reign etc.)? Thank you.

Quick note: with you, I believe salvation by grace permeated all time periods with the early 'longing to see' fulfillment in the promise. I believe trusting in God to keep His promise starting Genesis 3:15 is how all were saved, culminating in Paul's dissertations (Romans Ephesians Galatians especially) on Grace through Faith, alone (seeing Ephesians 2:8,9 as referring to both Grace and Faith together). A bit perhaps of a different conversation but appreciate your Mid Acts understanding here as well. -Lon

 

[Right Divider]

True although and for instance, Enoch was righteous prior to Moses.

What's the point?

Paul says "having a law unto themselves (conscience such that it was)." 2nd Chapter Dispensationalists see this as the age of "Conscience" (2nd of 7) How many Dispensations are recognized in Mid Acts?

Generally the same.

Innocence (Adam and Eve)
Conscience
Government (Noah)
Promise (all nations through Abraham)
Law (Moses)
Grace (the Lord Jesus Christ)
Millennial Kingdom Reign of the Lord Jesus Christ

Not sure why you put "Grace (the Lord Jesus Christ)" since Christ's earthly ministry was certainly under the law.

Gal 4:4 (AKJV/PCE)​

(4:4) But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,​

Further, any distinctions on these from the Mid Acts perspective if there is agreement (such as Millennial Reign etc.)? Thank you.

If you would like to learn more about the MAD perspective, I would recommend two resources:

• The book by Bob Enyart named "The Plot" https://store.kgov.com/the-plot/
• The web site for Grace Ambassadors https://graceambassadors.com/

 

[Lon]

Generally the same.

Not sure why you put "Grace (the Lord Jesus Christ)" since Christ's earthly ministry was certainly under the law.

So would you place it as "Paul?" Or more specifically "Death Burial Resurrection?"

Gal 4:4 (AKJV/PCE)​

(4:4) But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,​

If you would like to learn more about the MAD perspective, I would recommend two resources:

• The book by Bob Enyart named "The Plot" https://store.kgov.com/the-plot/
• The web site for Grace Ambassadors https://graceambassadors.com/

Thank you for the links. Was there a thread at one time here on the Plot? Seems like I participated in it at one time?
Interesting on the second reading that Darby was considered Mid Acts. Thanks for the second link, already enjoying it.

 

[Right Divider]

So would you place it as "Paul?" Or more specifically "Death Burial Resurrection?"

Yes, probably "Christ through Paul with a new message" would be most appropriate.

Consider this:

2Cor 5:14-17 (AKJV/PCE)​

(5:14) For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: (5:15) And [that] he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. (5:16) Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we [him] no more. (5:17) Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he][ is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.​

​

Personally, I consider this passage extremely import to understanding the ministry of Christ through Paul.

Thank you for the links.

You're welcome.

Was there a thread at one time here on the Plot?

I think that there was, but not sure.

 

[Clete]

Quick note: with you, I believe salvation by grace permeated all time periods with the early 'longing to see' fulfillment in the promise. I believe trusting in God to keep His promise starting Genesis 3:15 is how all were saved, culminating in Paul's dissertations (Romans Ephesians Galatians especially) on Grace through Faith, alone (seeing Ephesians 2:8,9 as referring to both Grace and Faith together). A bit perhaps of a different conversation but appreciate your Mid Acts understanding here as well. -Lon

How do you square that with Jesus, when someone asked Him how to be saved, He told him to follow the law and when he asked Jesus to clarify which law, Jesus started listing the ten commandments?

Also, how do you square that with James chapter 2 where it explicitly states that faith alone is dead?

 

[Idolater]

That's you, reading your doctrine into the text. She believed what the angels told her. Being a Christian requires one place their faith in Christ for the remission of their sin, which you don't even believe she needed!

Being a Christian requires one believe in Jesus John 3:16

Yes, if you understood the dispensation of Grace that was given to Paul by the risen Lord Himself, you'd understand that what you're talking about here is law. Catholics have simply erected a "Christian" set of laws that they are obligated to obey and think that somehow that places them in a state of grace.

So, are you telling me, that adultery, killing, criminal perjury, and prostitution, are not to be fled from by Mid Acts Dispensationalists? (Because those are the verbatim examples I gave of things Catholicism believes are very important to flee from. You now claiming that Mid Acts Dispensationalists are not similarly obligated to Catholics, to flee from adultery, killing, criminal perjury, and prostitution, is prompting my question.)

Not that doing so is something only Catholics do, by the way. Virtually the whole of Christianity has done the same to one degree or another. The Fruit of the Tree is very appetizing indeed to our fallen sinful flesh.

Suppose a Mid Acts Dispensationalist observes weekly worship services (aka liturgy) regularly, devoutly, on all Sundays; and in part, they are motivated by a sense it's their duty, in some way, and not that it will send them to Hell, but that in a sense, if you literally never go to church on Sundays, how are you even a Christian. In a sense.

Is that Mid Acts Dispensationalist fallen from grace, believing another Gospel or "[erecting] a "Christian" set of laws that they are obligated to obey"? (The reason I'm asking is because I'm trying to understand.)

 

[Lon]

How do you square that with Jesus, when someone asked Him how to be saved, He told him to follow the law and when he asked Jesus to clarify which law, Jesus started listing the ten commandments?

Also, how do you square that with James chapter 2 where it explicitly states that faith alone is dead?

Matthew 19:17 “Why do you ask me concerning what is good?” answered Jesus. “There is only One who is good. Keep the commandments if you want to enter life.”

Yet Paul says no one received eternal life by keeping the law, it is the whole argument of Galatians and much of Romans. His comment goes beyond 'gentiles.' It isn't that keeping the law 'wouldn't' give eternal life, Jesus is the only One Who did. Jesus often made a statement according to the desire of a man. In Matthew 19 Jesus addressed a specific concern before his reply to 'keep the commandments' including telling him there is only One who is good. I believe you agree that Jesus was in no way telling the young man Jesus was 'not' good. Rather it directs the man to realize something about the Being he is talking to. The man's reply was "I HAVE kept all the commands (thinking himself 'good'." Jesus immediately brought up the fact that the man not only didn't keep the command to treat others as himself, but that he was also unwilling yet to do so.

Briefly then, do you agree with me about Paul's stance in Galatians 2:16 for instance (none kept the Law)? Or do you believe I'm misunderstanding him? Further, please explain for me how Mid Acts reconciles this as two opposing ideas (elucidation, I'm learning and thank you). I 'think' if I were MAD, I'd yet see the Law as integral to Israel's understanding and coming to God for Salvation, but as Right Divider has said on this page, salvation always was by grace, but rather the difference (If I am reading him correctly) is 'how' grace was expressed.

With James, He did ask: James 2:14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but does not have works? Can this kind of faith save him?

James is asking about a specific 'kind' of faith here: "can 'this kind' of faith save him/her?" So he is comparing kinds of faith and what faith means in the context of chapter 2. Quick question: What is Mid Acts position on the fruit of the Spirit? Do you in particular hold that being a new creation new-naturally produces spiritual fruit? I'm not insinuating that works must happen for one 'to be' saved. I believe with you and all Mid Acts that Grace alone saves Ephesians 2:8,9 ala "Grace alone saves, but the salvation that comes by Grace is never alone." The answer to your question is James is talking about a specific 'kind' of faith, one that believes God exists (like demons) but is not resting on the saving work of Christ, a message especially important to a Jew who acknowledges God's existence ala James 2, but doesn't really understand faith. That said, I realize Mid Acts is more stark in position on this and likely doesn't read James' argument the same or quite the same way I do. I am always looking for what is different but also trying to see 'if' something is 'the same' thus I'm not seeing a conflict because James is talking about a 'belief' vs. saving faith, and that one possessed by Christ will have a faith that reveals itself. I would take a correction just fine for the difference and argument regarding the Mid Acts position but I'm also trying to reconcile Paul's statements here which I think is also a Mid Acts endeavor and appreciation. Thanks for the clarifying questions, Clete.

 

[Clete]

Being a Christian requires one believe in Jesus John 3:16


So, are you telling me, that adultery, killing, criminal perjury, and prostitution, are not to be fled from by Mid Acts Dispensationalists? (Because those are the verbatim examples I gave of things Catholicism believes are very important to flee from. You now claiming that Mid Acts Dispensationalists are not similarly obligated to Catholics, to flee from adultery, killing, criminal perjury, and prostitution, is prompting my question.)


Suppose a Mid Acts Dispensationalist observes weekly worship services (aka liturgy) regularly, devoutly, on all Sundays; and in part, they are motivated by a sense it's their duty, in some way, and not that it will send them to Hell, but that in a sense, if you literally never go to church on Sundays, how are you even a Christian. In a sense.

Is that Mid Acts Dispensationalist fallen from grace, believing another Gospel or "[erecting] a "Christian" set of laws that they are obligated to obey"? (The reason I'm asking is because I'm trying to understand.)

You are simply too ignorant of the subject matter to have a constructive conversation with. Nothing you said here was even in response to anything I said or believe. It's as if you speak some foreign language and I'm not interested in taking you by the hand to teach you the 1st grade level basics of how to understand the human language and talk to people with common sense.

 

[Idolater]

... this IS a MAD thread (just sayin )

So O.P., what's the deal? Have you "gone MAD," or what? Do you know the answer yet?

 

[Clete]

Matthew 19:17 “Why do you ask me concerning what is good?” answered Jesus. “There is only One who is good. Keep the commandments if you want to enter life.”

Yet Paul says no one received eternal life by keeping the law, it is the whole argument of Galatians and much of Romans. His comment goes beyond 'gentiles.' It isn't that keeping the law 'wouldn't' give eternal life, Jesus is the only One Who did. Jesus often made a statement according to the desire of a man. In Matthew 19 Jesus addressed a specific concern before his reply to 'keep the commandments' including telling him there is only One who is good. I believe you agree that Jesus was in no way telling the young man Jesus was 'not' good. Rather it directs the man to realize something about the Being he is talking to. The man's reply was "I HAVE kept all the commands (thinking himself 'good'." Jesus immediately brought up the fact that the man not only didn't keep the command to treat others as himself, but that he was also unwilling yet to do so.

Briefly then, do you agree with me about Paul's stance in Galatians 2:16 for instance (none kept the Law)? Or do you believe I'm misunderstanding him? Further, please explain for me how Mid Acts reconciles this as two opposing ideas (elucidation, I'm learning and thank you). I 'think' if I were MAD, I'd yet see the Law as integral to Israel's understanding and coming to God for Salvation, but as Right Divider has said on this page, salvation always was by grace, but rather the difference (If I am reading him correctly) is 'how' grace was expressed.

With James, He did ask: James 2:14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but does not have works? Can this kind of faith save him?

James is asking about a specific 'kind' of faith here: "can 'this kind' of faith save him/her?" So he is comparing kinds of faith and what faith means in the context of chapter 2. Quick question: What is Mid Acts position on the fruit of the Spirit? Do you in particular hold that being a new creation new-naturally produces spiritual fruit? I'm not insinuating that works must happen for one 'to be' saved. I believe with you and all Mid Acts that Grace alone saves Ephesians 2:8,9 ala "Grace alone saves, but the salvation that comes by Grace is never alone." The answer to your question is James is talking about a specific 'kind' of faith, one that believes God exists (like demons) but is not resting on the saving work of Christ, a message especially important to a Jew who acknowledges God's existence ala James 2, but doesn't really understand faith. That said, I realize Mid Acts is more stark in position on this and likely doesn't read James' argument the same or quite the same way I do. I am always looking for what is different but also trying to see 'if' something is 'the same' thus I'm not seeing a conflict because James is talking about a 'belief' vs. saving faith, and that one possessed by Christ will have a faith that reveals itself. I would take a correction just fine for the difference and argument regarding the Mid Acts position but I'm also trying to reconcile Paul's statements here which I think is also a Mid Acts endeavor and appreciation. Thanks for the clarifying questions, Clete.

I'm very short on time and so don't take this short response as me blowing off what you've said. Indeed, you've said here basically what I expected you to say and it is very much in keeping with what most Christians would say.

What I don't understand is why you, as does practically every other Christian, think that this sort of wordy explanation is superior to simply reading the passages and taking them to mean what they seem to mean? James is talking about what it takes to get saved and he very very very clearly states that faith alone doesn't cut it; that works are required. Why is it so hard for people to simply except that to be what James is saying?

Well, the answer to that question is the writings of Paul. Indeed, one of the most important divisions within Christianity has Paul as the dividing line where one group emphasizes Paul's writings and takes them to mean what they say while conforming the teachings of Jesus, Peter, James and John to Paul's teachings, just as you have done above, while the other group does the reverse and takes Jesus, Peter, James and John to mean what they seem to say and conforming Paul's writing to fit. The later is very much harder to do and so many times when a group takes that tack, they end up pretty much just ignoring Paul altogether. Messianic Jews are a good example of this.

The point here being that Mid-Acts Dispensationalists do neither! The Mid-Acts Dispensationalists can read both Romans 4:5 and James 2:26 and see no conflict at all. There is no need to conjure up different kinds of faith or any other such thing to dilute the point that James was so obviously making. James was telling his audience (who were all "zealous for the law" - Acts 21:20) that works are required for salvation and Paul was telling his audience that no work is required at all. The point being that they were talking to two different audiences. Simple! Context context context!