ECT If MAD is false, what is true?

Status
Not open for further replies.

turbosixx

New member
How is it speculation? Paul baptized people and said that he was not sent to baptize. One can only induce from those facts that baptism was not part of the message he was sent to preach and that he was not forbidden from baptizing as it was not forbidden in his message.

That's what I mean by it's speculation or maybe a better word deduction. That's taking Paul's words out of context then when his actions go against those words a conclusion is drawn to reconcile. The rcc does the same thing with Matt. 16:18 making Peter the head of the church. They ignore context and verses that are in conflict with that deduction. I think it's better to consider Paul's words within the context of what he's talking about then we can understand why he said it. When we do that it's then in agreement with his practice of baptizing.

To take the stand that there is one baptism and Paul was not sent to baptize is in conflict with him practicing baptism. Whenever Paul practiced something that isn't part of the gospel, we are given an explanation as to why he did it. We never see that with him baptizing. In Acts 19 he even baptizes them after they had already been baptized. So that doesn't agree with "he wasn't sent to baptize" when he does it even though they had already been baptized. It also doesn't agree with "he did it to compromise" why would he need to compromise when they had already been baptized.

Too much conflict to support the deduction.




You do realize that 1 John 1:9 is the only verse that says to confess your sins, don't you? Why do you base a theological position that confession for forgiveness must be done over and over again on that single verse?

Good point. I don't have a problem basing something on a single verse when that verse is taken in context and isn't in conflict with other verses. Therefore no deduction is necessary.
 

musterion

Well-known member
How many non-Mid-Acts Christians have you even met that preach legalism without emphasizing the teachings of Jesus and the Twelve while minimizing (or ignoring) Paul's teaching?

The ones I've met? They all apply legalism out of the four Gospels without realizing it's on Law ground. Instead they call it grace and, apparently, believe that's what grace really looks like. I suppose that's what leads to terms like "greasy grace" aimed at those (us) who believe in the pure grace taught by Paul, unalloyed and unadulterated with Law.

And how many non-Mid-Acts Christians have you ever met that preach grace alone apart from works that didn't do the reverse?

None. Submission to water baptism, "Lordship" obedience (and all that entails) or some form of perpetual confessionism per 1 Jn 1:9 are the big clubs they beat themselves with. If they're honest, they'll all say their justification ultimately depends on at least one of those.

Virtually all Christians divide the bible along the same line we do. We just do it on purpose and therefore more consistently.

If, for example, you attend a Church of Christ, you believe that you can lose your salvation and all your proof texts for that doctrine will be somewhere other than in the Pauline epistles while all your problem texts will be Pauline and you are very likely not even notice that fact.

As I once didn't. That's where I started out. Paul simply made no sense to me because he didn't "fit" with the rest. So I tended to skim over him to get to the "do" parts of John, James, etc.

If, on the other hand, you attend a Baptist church, the exact opposite will be the case. You believe that you cannot lose your salvation and all your proof texts will be Pauline while your problem texts will be in the whole rest of the bible and you're just as likely not to have noticed that Paul's writings are where the dividing line lands.

And later I was there, too, as an IFB.

And because the distinctions they are making are not intentional and not even noticed, there is no consistency. The Church of Christ believer and the Baptist can both agree that we are identified in Christ, for example, and both would share the same set of proof/problem texts but the proof/problem texts are still divided along the line where Paul's letters are on one side and the rest of the bible is on the other.

Yep. Result: Paul's doctrine is either twisted to fit the Messianic mold, or he's ignored and, in some cases, denied as a false apostle. NOW we see why Paul strove that all men would see... Eph 3:8-9. Because most won't.
 

SimpleMan77

New member
This is for the frauds and the socially autistic who keep posting redundant thread after thread against MAD.

Put up or shut up.

Don't just attack MAD. Name a positive alternative. Don't be vague. Be specific. Identify by name (because they all have names or can be otherwise classified under known systems) the approach to Bible understanding that YOU believe should be adopted as true, and why.

If you don't name a specific one as an alternative to MAD, then you got nothing. You're just a fraud and a troll or a fool, whoever you are.

Name: Biblical Christianity (do you really have to have a man-made label? If so try "Apostolic Christianity", interpreted as followers of what "began with the Lord [Christianity], and was confirmed unto us by those that heard Him [Apostolic, meaning the 12 plus Paul]).

Summary: God, who (mostly) dealt exclusively with Israel before coming as a man, came and allowed Israel to reject Him as a nation, so that all would equally need Grace in God's eyes.
As they were rejecting Him, He was dying as a sacrifice for all nations. When He said "it is finished", the vail separating the presence of a Holy God from common man was supernaturally torn from top to bottom by an earthquake, signifying that God's honoring of a physical temple and the Old Covenant had ceased, and a new covenant was ushered in. This new, "last will and testament" of Jesus enabled all who embraced the gospel to be saved.
Three days after dying Jesus rose victorious over death. He spent the next 40 days with his chosen Apostles, instructing them about what to do after his ascension, and instructing them to take the Gospel message to all nations. The message they were to take was the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. It was teaching obedience and the proper response to the Gospel: dying to our former lusts (repentance), identifying with His burial (water baptism), and the infilling of the Holy Ghost as a separate experience from believing (resurrection power). From that conversion experience, it was about "walking in the Spirit", and not fulfilling the lusts of the flesh.
This message was preached by Peter, Philip, Paul, and the other Christians.
Acts was also a huge transition period. Jesus had told them that there were things He couldn't share with his disciples when He was here, but told them that the Spirit would reveal things to them.
That is exactly what happened in Acts 10, when God opened the door of salvation through Peter's ministry. The Spirit revealed to Peter that the Gentiles could be "fellow heirs" of salvation, and that He had "purified their hearts by faith". Paul directly referred to Peter's revelation as a mystery, when he said in Ephesians 3:5-6:
Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets BY THE SPIRIT; That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel
There was some pushback from some converted Pharisees, who wanted the Gentiles to follow the law of Moses, but Peter, Paul, James, and the other Apostles shot that down. Many Jewish Christians continued to keep aspects of the law (feast days, dietary laws, etc), and the Apostles taught that was fine, only for the believers to not demand that of others, and to not trust in that for their salvation.
The book of Acts, start to finish, was written to show how we are to be the church. God, who does not include stories in scripture without distinct purpose, includes 4 very detailed stories in the book: the conversion stories of the Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles and believers with only partial knowledge of truth. The testimonies span from the first of the book to the latter part, and involve the ministries of Peter, Philip and Paul. In each case, the message and experience was the same: the proper response, if we are to believe and accept the Gospel, is repentance, baptism in Jesus' name, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost with visible, external evidence, followed by walking with God.
The command to saints is the same now as then: love God with all of our hearts, and love our fellow man as we love ourselves. When everything we do is driven by a love for God and others, we don't walk in the flesh, but in the Spirit. We reject carnal desires, and seek the things that are above. We keep our flesh in subjection, and work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, realizing we can become castaways if we don't.
We are waiting for the return of Jesus, when we'll be caught up to meet Him. There are still prophecies to be fulfilled. God is currently operating under the new covenant (read as "his last will and testament, whereby his death 'willed' to us eternal life"). There will be a time when he deals again with Israel as a nation, but they will only be saved if they accept the same work of Calvary that reconciled the current church back to God.
Sorry for the long-winded answer, but I think I brushed across the highlights.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
1) The new Covenant isn't for the body of Christ. 1 Corinthians 11 refutes this directly.


This is a ridiculous statement, and there is nothing direct about it. The topic is privileged people at christian potlucks who take too much too eat or are always first. "One gets hungry; another gets drunk." Paul was showing how generous Christ was about sharing with all. What he said about the new covenant there applies as much to the apostles as to the Corinthians as to us.

The mark of amateur and Dispensational theology is to unget the passage it is dealing with. Every which way but the plain meaning. Always some artificial distinction generated by some system somewhere else.
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
This is a ridiculous statement, and there is nothing direct about it. The topic is privileged people at christian potlucks who take too much too eat or are always first. "One gets hungry; another gets drunk." Paul was showing how generous Christ was about sharing with all. What he said about the new covenant there applies as much to the apostles as to the Corinthians as to us.

The mark of amateur and Dispensational theology is to unget the passage it is dealing with. Every which way but the plain meaning. Always some artificial distinction generated by some system somewhere else.

Will you teach us, then?
Please?
 

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
Catholicism is true, and "Catholics on the way to full communion" is true.
"Catholics on the way to full communion" is interpreted in the light of everything that the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches on the matter, of who is, and who is not, a member of the Church.
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
In understanding the truth I see no contradictions at all and I don’t even have to say “well those books are not talking to me” or "that's not what it's really saying"

Mad is false and creates contradictions.

Fine. Sell all you have. Obey Deuteronomy, Leviticus.

As I suspected.

We will file you under the "FRAUD" system of biblical interpretation methodology.
 

turbosixx

New member
Yep :thumb:

F-R-A-U-D...

Forever

Ranting

About

Understanding

Dispensationalism

I understand dispensationalism just fine. Scripture even spells it out for us.

Heb. 1:1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
 

turbosixx

New member
JohnW's is a reference to a boat ride to Alcatraz Island.

Thus, his "take a seat" to special passengers like yourself - enjoy your deal of the day turbo - it's a one way ride :chuckle:

Fantasy just as I expected. Seems to be the world madist live in. :chuckle:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top