Anybody not knowing these truths is living in ignorance of the Bible.
Is M.A.D. a dangerous heresy? It demands much scripture to be ignored
- Thread starter SimpleMan77
- Start date
Hello dingbat, its not up to me to contend with a false assertion, you keep attributing to me, things i havent said.
musterion
Well-known member
Or a charismatic Catholic, which makes one 100% immune to reasoning from Scripture.
So your response is that no, the water doesnt wash away the sin, except in *some* cases?
1 Corinthians 14:33 for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
Either the water is what applies the washing of sin, or it isnt, if it is, then how can i enter heaven (when no sin can enter in and i would still be full of it?
Also if needing re baptism, (acts 2:38) over what Jesus said, how is the name suppose to be said to "do it right" do we say it in english, greek or hebrew? Wouldnt not getting that right, result in needing to do it again?
SimpleMan77
New member
Not my response at all. You must have me confused with someone else. Paul instructed all of the converts in Acts 19 to be re-baptized. It was required of ALL of them. If any of them would have told Paul "I refuse", or "I don't think you know what is right" God would have taken that as a rejection of him.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Well yes, your response is that if the baptism "isn't done right" they would need to be re-baptized.
Are you oneness pentecostal, or just church of God? Did you used to post here with a lion as your avatar?
Care to answer my other questions in my post that you quoted?
new question, if i could make it without the water baptism and God would consider my heart, why would He reject those refusing re baptism under your formula??
SimpleMan77
New member
Sorry, believe what you want.
The Book of Acts only tells a detailed account of 4 groups getting the Holy Ghost
1: Jews on Day of Pentecost
2: Samaritans
3: Gentiles
4: Believers in incomplete truth
All (read ALL) of them had VISIBLE evidence that they had received the the gift. ALL! In 3 of the 4, it specifically says that speaking with tongues accompanied the experience. In the 4th it doesn't state what the visible evidence is, but Simon saw that the Holy Ghost was given when Peter & John laid hands on them.
The Book of Acts could have told thousands of conversion accounts. Luke (Paul's assistant) chose 4 very purposefully. All of us fall into one of the categories.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
SimpleMan77
New member
Never posted here before about 10 days ago.
God is one, according to scripture.
I'll answer any question, so yes. Give me a few.
If you refuse obedience I wouldn't be in your shoes after death for all the money in the world. That's not just obedience in baptism- if you want to reject obedience to truthfulness, love, faithfulness to spouse, etc, etc, your chance to take I guess.
Not me. I'll trust grace to teach me "that denying UNGODLINESS and WORLDLY LUSTS, I should live soberly, RIGHTEOUSLY and godly in this present world". In case anyone is wondering, Paul said that.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
SimpleMan77
New member
Water doesn't wash physically anything away. The blood of Jesus does. Obedience allows us to take advantage of it. If the Jews who heard Peter speak Acts 2:38 refused to obey and get baptized, their disobedience would have prevented them from getting their sins remitted.
I believe Paul and others baptized using Jesus's Greek name and His Hebrew name, depending on the convert. We can't know for sure, but we do know the accounts were recorded using his Greek name. If you're English, use his English name.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
True or false, you believe the "blood" is applied by the water baptism.
SimpleMan77
New member
The Bible doesn't say when the blood is applied. That terminology comes from the Passover, and while it did symbolically represent the work of Calvary, we don't see the blood on the doorposts referred to specifically in the New Testament.
What we do see is that we Gentiles are "made nigh" by the blood. The saints of Revelations had washed their own garments and made them white in the blood.
The blood was sprinkled on things all the way to the promised land. It starts by bringing us near before we even respond. It works to break chains as we leave sin. It is applied to our lives all along the way, including at baptism.
One thing is for certain, if we walk away from Him, and choose sin and disobedience, the blood will not save us against our will.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Reformed theology is not alien to historical belief, so to you it would seem 'Catholic'.
'Catholic' simply means 'universal', and is common with 'Covenant(al)' theology. You see, real churches don't chop the Bible to pieces and adhere to a single apostle- a universal spirit is realized and espouses us to a universal covenant.
MADism is anything but that. In fact I've seen a lot of you change it up, I suppose because now that someone has shown it to you, it seems ridiculous.
That's the malleability of bad theology
SimpleMan77
New member
Is M.A.D. a dangerous heresy? It demands much scripture to be ignored
If you were working for me where I was foreman on a road-cleaning crew, and I said "only clean 7th street, because that is all we're supposed to".
Then, next week, I said "clean 8th street", you can't say "wait, you aren't being consistent".
Jesus came to the Jews first, but his bigger plan was to reach the Gentiles at the right time.
An honest MADist will say "I don't agree, but that COULD be what He meant". No scripture disproves this interpretation.
Jesus didn't even go to Jerusalem until it was the perfect time. He didn't instruct his followers to evangelize the Gentiles until it was the perfect time. It's all timing.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
If you were working for me where I was foreman on a road-cleaning crew, and I said "only clean 7th street, because that is all we're supposed to".
Then, next week, I said "clean 8th street", you can't say "wait, you aren't being consistent".
Jesus came to the Jews first, but his bigger plan was to reach the Gentiles at the right time.
An honest MADist will say "I don't agree, but that COULD be what He meant". No scripture disproves this interpretation.
Jesus didn't even go to Jerusalem until it was the perfect time. He didn't instruct his followers to evangelize the Gentiles until it was the perfect time. It's all timing.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Last edited:
No, the instruction is to be baptized in Jesus' name, i.e. by his authority. The blood is applied by the laying on of hands through whom the Holy Spirit is working.
John explained that the Spirit, the water, and the blood were in agreement.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
MADism is anything but that. In fact I've seen a lot of you change it up, I suppose because now that someone has shown it to you, it seems ridiculous.
That's the malleability of bad theology
Mid-Acts dispensationalism asserts that the present dispensation of grace began during the Mid-Acts period of time.
What do you think determined the beginning of the present dispensation of grace?
Thanks!
Right Divider
Body part
The Book of Acts is about the fall of Israel. Keep reading it to the end. Then continue on into the Pauline epistles.
Right Divider
Body part
Either way, he does seem to be just that.
musterion
Well-known member
Yup.
Interplanner
Well-known member
I don't see why that would be the subject of Acts. It takes place, but it is not the subject. The subject is Paul's bio so that the attorney representing him to Caesar has all the material he needs to show that Paul was not part of the Zealots or Judaizers who sought unrest against Rome. In ch 26, Paul completely removes himself from any further/future messianic expectation by repeating that the resurrection of Christ completely fulfills those expectations and created the mission he worked in the rest of his life. Rome policed rumors of messianic expectations tightly.
Since the topic of the fall of Israel is there, and terminates in the DofJ, why is there so much antagonism to knowing what happened in the DofJ?
musterion
Well-known member
RD may disagree but in my opinion, Israel as a nation effectively ceased to exist in the purposes of God when the final refusal was made. Some say it actually happened earlier and is described in Romans 9-11, but we agree it did not happen later than Acts 28 because that final refusal is recorded in Acts 28.
That's why I insist 70 was not any fulfillment of prophecy: (a) Israel had already been "written off" by God, making pointless the destruction YOU insist was the work of Christ, and (b) God had ALSO inaugurated the dispensation of GRACE for Jew and Gentile alike, making your view of 70 as the work of Christ not only pointless but BLASPHEMOUS.