ECT Melchizedek and M.A.D.

[Word based mystic]

thank you tambora

I will look at it in more depth.

 

[Tambora]

Mid Acts Dispensationalist.

Only the teaching of PAUL matter to a Gentile. The rest holds no bearing their salvation. And in some mysterious way, not found in the bible without eliminating some verses of Paul's as well as those books NOT of Paul's teaching, you end up with a different Gospel being taught.

Nope.

MAD is the recognition that there is a difference between faith without law and faith with law.
Peter and James taught faith with law.
Paul taught faith without law.

In other words, Paul's gospel was distinctly different than the gospel of Peter and James.
And Paul USES OT to prove his point.
MAD doctrine is very aware of OT prophesy, while recognizing that not all OT prophesy applies to everyone.

 

[Tambora]

has nothing to do with what I said.

Mad theology is 50 years old. It's an interpretation of SOME of Paul's teachings, not all, and didn't exist before. So somehow you guys were specifically selected by GOD to be endowed with special information that the 1900 years before us failed to have and went to hell.

It's a little far fetched.

Nope.

We are not endowed with special information.
The information we use is scripture itself, available to anyone.

The mystery Paul proclaimed is not 50 years old.

 

[Word based mystic]

dispensationalists? as in after mid acts all other scripture has been dispensed and done away with?

 

[oatmeal]

So what they, the MAD community ignores is OT prophecy saying that Jesus would be establishing a church after the order of Melchizedek. What do we know of Mel? He existed before a Jew ever walked the earth. he existed before any Jewish law was ever written. In His church He mediated to God for mankind, maybe individually, maybe as a whole it's not clear. He was what Jesus is now. And Jesus is now, in the same way, after the order, as Melchizedek was.

So if you have a church that runs as God ran the church before He wrote the law, why does obedience enter into it for anyone?

Since Mel was before JEW or GENTILE existed when Paul said there is no Jew or Gentile, it now makes more sense, right?

Do you have a scripture reference that states as much?

OT prophecy saying that Jesus would be establishing a church after the order of Melchizedek.

 

[Tambora]

dispensationalists? as in after mid acts all other scripture has been dispensed and done away with?

No.

Dispensation, as in not all commands and covenants of God were for all people at all times.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

dispensationalists? as in after mid acts all other scripture has been dispensed and done away with?

:chuckle: I liked that!

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Does the M.A.D. theologian accept Hebrews????

One of my favorites, I believe every word of it.

 

[Heterodoxical]

Separations did already exist at the time of Mel.

Really? There was no Jew or Gentile. This makes a pretty unified worship of the God most High. We are talking a few hundred years post Noah. How many factions do you find there? I'm interested in finding out how you think here...

BTW, "race" is rather a poor word to use. The separations were by language and families.
Remember the tower of Babel?

I concede the point. I was lazy.

Oh stop. You are getting arguments.

You are much better than most.

But, I'm not getting refutations to my claims, just contradictions.

Perhaps you would like to share who all Mel did have.
All nations?

Well, we don't really know as it's not in the book. He had all who worshiped God most high. he WAS THE Church for God Most High. I don't think it was all nations, as some nations had their own God's (I believe) at this time. No? You probably got that off the top of your head.

"Worshiped" (spelled correctly) is another poor word to use.
His teaching is the teaching of Christ.

I can spell Pedantic!
Yes I'm using thumbs on a phone sometimes, and I'm lazy. My bad. I cede the spelling point to the lady with the cool name.

his teaching IS the teaching of Peter, James, and John too. It's just presented for a Greek/Western thinking mind, not the Semetic/Eastern thinking mind. Literally different thought patterns. They teach the same thing. There is nothing you can show me in context where Paul contradicts Christ. And the Apostle John practically just rewrites Paul's Soteriological position and uses 40 years later words and phrases to reiterate what Paul taught.

I have a really tough time how we justify, PAUL not Jesus, etc....
Or Paul not Jews... whatever is most appropriate. Depending on who I speak with, we get a different view of what M.A.D. is.

But if you already see that living by faith with the law, and living by faith without the law is a clear distinction, then you are on your way to being MAD.

Cough cough. No one, Jew nor Gentile lives under the law. The Gentiles were NEVER under the law.

The purpose of the law, (explained above, to identify the messiah) was fulfilled. The Church then returns to like MELCHIZEDEK, before God made promises to Abraham, and Isaac, etc... Before a jew or jewish law existed....

So the law or not the law is a moot point.

I mean it all respectfully here. My humor may not always come across in text. But I enjoy our chat so far. I'd like you to explain more of the MAD view to me. I really don't understand it, and you are the most coherent and willing person I've ever found on the topic.

And no, I'm not kissing your butt, you really are. I'm not much of a butt kisser so if I say it I mean it. I'd much rather joke about you or myself than compliment either of us. Tis my nature.

 

[Heterodoxical]

Do you have a scripture reference that states as much?

Of course, where do you think I got the idea?

Just go to www.blueletterbible.com and search Melchizedek. You might as well study the whole of his mentioning. And there is a place that doesn't use the name where Jesus puts himself in that role. I'll have to find that one for you if you wish.

The prophetic one is Psalm 110.

Hebrews addresses what the prophecy mentioned in the psalm meant to the hebrew people regarding their messiah.

So even if a M.A.D. takes their soteriology from Paul alone, the prophecy and the messiah came from the Jews, so that should be one of the segments you accept as an authority, as the topic is 100% required to be accepted to even have a messiah.

 

[Word based mystic]

ahh ok. peter and james were in this focus with jewish/hebrew context only as follows.

Judaism is not just a set of beliefs about G-d, man and the universe. Judaism is a comprehensive way of life, filled with rules and practices that affect every aspect of life: what you do when you wake up in the morning, what you can and cannot eat, what you can and cannot wear, how to groom yourself, how to conduct business, who you can marry, how to observe the holidays and Shabbat, and perhaps most important, how to treat G-d, other people, and animals. This set of rules and practices is known as halakhah"

whereas paul and the "gentile" all included church also including jewish believers do not observe (halakhah).

but paul does imply that the ten commandments will be followed as a Royal Law of Love. doing the ten commandments out of relationship and love not out of necessity to either maintain or initiate salvation.

The proof that one is born again is the increasing continuance fruit in observing the law/ten commandments

doing the law doesn't save. But one of the proofs that one is saved is the growing observation of 10 commandments.

is this a basic summary of some main points of MAD?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I'd like you to explain more of the MAD view to me. I really don't understand it, and you are the most coherent and willing person I've ever found on the topic.

STP's simple explanation of MAD:

1. Land - God promised land to some people in the Bible. Their faith in what God told them was evidenced by what they did.

2. City - God promised a City to some people in the Bible. This church formed in early Acts. Their faith in what the LORD Jesus told them was evidenced by what they did.

3. The Heavenlies - God promised the heavens to some people in the Bible. This church is called the Body of Christ and began forming in Acts. God never told them to do anything but believe on the LORD Jesus Christ. Their faith is in the faith of Christ.


ONE kingdom of God, ONE house of God, made up of three churches each with it's own eternal purpose as God saw fit to give it.

In the end, the entire universe will be filled with God's children: the heavens, the holy city, and the earth.

:e4e:

 

[Levolor]

Forgive my ignorance. I am new here.

All this talk of MAD.??

Maybe I have a different context for MAD or not quite sure what the major theme or doctrine MAD is.

please inform me in very short summary
What MAD is or represents
and for its opponents what is the problem of MAD

Short summary please.

MAD stands for Mid Acts Dispensation.

Showing the transformation of the gospel given to Paul by Christ - faith without works vs. faith with works.
The difference between grace and debt.

This is the furthest along in this conversation that I've come so if someone else has already mentioned the following, please forgive.

What I've also been able to ascertain about MADists is that there are several books of the bible that are not to them: Hebrews, 1st & 2nd Peter, James, and that the instructions of Jesus are also not to them.

There might be another book or two that is not to them?

 

[john w]

STP's simple explanation of MAD:

1. Land - God promised land to some people in the Bible. Their faith in what God told them was evidenced by what they did.

2. City - God promised a City to some people in the Bible. This church formed in early Acts. Their faith in what the LORD Jesus told them was evidenced by what they did.

3. The Heavenlies - God promised the heavens to some people in the Bible. This church is called the Body of Christ and began forming in Acts. God never told them to do anything but believe on the LORD Jesus Christ. Their faith is in the faith of Christ.


ONE kingdom of God, ONE house of God, made up of three churches each with it's own eternal purpose as God saw fit to give it.

In the end, the entire universe will be filled with God's children: the heavens, the holy city, and the earth.

:e4e:

The above is why you are the "default" mayor of TOL, expounding/reasoning succinctly, tersely, and convincingly.

 

[way 2 go]

ahh ok. peter and james were in this focus with jewish/hebrew context only as follows.

Judaism is not just a set of beliefs about G-d, man and the universe. Judaism is a comprehensive way of life, filled with rules and practices that affect every aspect of life: what you do when you wake up in the morning, what you can and cannot eat, what you can and cannot wear, how to groom yourself, how to conduct business, who you can marry, how to observe the holidays and Shabbat, and perhaps most important, how to treat G-d, other people, and animals. This set of rules and practices is known as halakhah"

whereas paul and the "gentile" all included church also including jewish believers do not observe (halakhah).

but paul does imply that the ten commandments will be followed as a Royal Law of Love. doing the ten commandments out of relationship and love not out of necessity to either maintain or initiate salvation.

The proof that one is born again is the increasing continuance fruit in observing the law/ten commandments

doing the law doesn't save. But one of the proofs that one is saved is the growing observation of 10 commandments.

is this a basic summary of some main points of MAD?

here is a summary

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58704

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

The above is why you are the "default" mayor of TOL, expounding/reasoning succinctly, tersely, and convincingly.

Next up, The Gubner of TOL.
Bless his heart.

 

[Tambora]

But, I'm not getting refutations to my claims, just contradictions.

Actually, you are getting refutations.

There are no contradictions in scripture.
Everything said to whom it was said was true at the time, but not everything said was to everyone for all times.
Not even the commands of Jesus when He walked us in the flesh were true for everyone at all times.

Case in point:

Matthew 16:20 KJV
(20) Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
​

What Jesus commanded to them at that time was not for everyone for all times.
That's called rightly dividing.

Well, we don't really know as it's not in the book. He had all who worshiped God most high. he WAS THE Church for God Most High. I don't think it was all nations, as some nations had their own God's (I believe) at this time. No? You probably got that off the top of your head.

Mel was king of Salem.
No need to extend his reign beyond what is written.

his teaching IS the teaching of Peter, James, and John too.

Yep.
But all His teaching was not for everyone, nor was all His teaching for all times.

The message He revealed to Paul was kept a mystery before.

It's just presented for a Greek/Western thinking mind, not the Semetic/Eastern thinking mind.
Literally different thought patterns.

Nope.
Paul taught them all the same thought no matter what their "thinking mind" was.
And it was not the same thoughts as the 12 apostles taught, although some of the thoughts might overlap.
The study of MAD is rightly dividing those thoughts, and recognizing that something had changed.

They teach the same thing.

Nope.
Paul was never told not to tell anyone that Jesus was the Christ.
So, something definitely changed since Jesus commanded the following:

Matthew 16:20 KJV
(20) Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
​

It was commanded for specific people for a specific time.
It was not a command for everyone at all times.
In other words, things changed. There was no contradiction, it was a change.

There is nothing you can show me in context where Paul contradicts Christ.

Because Paul does not CONTRADICT Christ.
It was not a contradiction, it was a change.
Paul taught a new revelation of Christ that was kept a mystery before.

And the Apostle John practically just rewrites Paul's Soteriological position and uses 40 years later words and phrases to reiterate what Paul taught.

Except for those pesky differences in what they taught.

Cough cough. No one, Jew nor Gentile lives under the law.

Sure they do.

Paul and Peter even had a confrontation about it several years after Paul began teaching his revelation from Christ.
Why?
Because Peter was not teaching the same thing as Paul.

The Gentiles were NEVER under the law.

At a time, no one was.
But then came a change, and Israel was under the law.
Not a contradiction, but a change.

The purpose of the law, (explained above, to identify the messiah) was fulfilled. The Church then returns to like MELCHIZEDEK, before God made promises to Abraham, and Isaac, etc... Before a jew or jewish law existed....

Well, I'll be darn, things changed without contradicting anything that went on before.
Imagine that.

But just to clear up one point - Abe already had the promise before he met Mel.
And as Paul points out, the law coming generations after Abe did not void the promises to Abe.

Galatians 3:17 KJV
(17) And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.​

So the law or not the law is a moot point.

Actually, the law is needed to make the point.
Paul goes into great length to express the difference in faith plus law/works, and faith without law/works.

 

[john w]

Next up, The Gubner of TOL.
Bless his heart.

That'll teach you to give more stickers to the TOL wolves/wolf-ette's.

 

[Tambora]

This is the furthest along in this conversation that I've come so if someone else has already mentioned the following, please forgive.

What I've also been able to ascertain about MADists is that there are several books of the bible that are not to them: Hebrews, 1st & 2nd Peter, James, and that the instructions of Jesus are also not to them.

There might be another book or two that is not to them?

James makes it clear who he is writing to. So we should also.
(Hint: it ain't Gentiles.)

James 1:1 KJV
(1) James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

 

[Tambora]

The proof that one is born again is the increasing continuance fruit in observing the law/ten commandments

Well, no.
Or this just may be semantics in the wording you chose.
But you cannot increase observing the law.
You have either kept the whole law perfectly, or you are a failure of the whole.
There is no in-between.

James 2:10 KJV
(10) For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.