Lon
Well-known member
Thank you. Some disagreement, but only given here incidentally. For the most part, I'm simply clarifying what I know of MAD at this point, giving the incidentals for any further conversation or meaning. I've an appreciation for MAD, while disagreeing. In Him -Lon
Observation: I see the inference but there is a lot on the table. Luke was writing both Luke and Acts to Theophilus who was not a Jew thus 'emphasis' is upon gentiles, a fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. (You likely know where the differences are between systematic theologies, but if any of this helps move the topic forward...).
The posit, thus the ensuing question must be: Same gospel, two different audiences? It must be asked. The posit (linked at the beginning of this section) continues to address 'differences' but note with me that every single difference is rather about audience, rather than message. That alone, cannot make a different gospel, just a different people of application. It isn't a disagreement point, here, just a note of why these discussions confuse someone without MAD reading or acceptance: Some of the data/teaching confuses the issue.
I did find a chart.
It is where we disagree: The Cross is necessary for all men. No unregenerate Jew can see the Kingdom. Galatians 3:28
I beg my nonMAD friends to listen on this point. Its important and potentially life and death. -Lon
Thank you gentlemen.
Thank you, that was a bit of work from both of you. I appreciate it.
Observation: I see the inference but there is a lot on the table. Luke was writing both Luke and Acts to Theophilus who was not a Jew thus 'emphasis' is upon gentiles, a fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. (You likely know where the differences are between systematic theologies, but if any of this helps move the topic forward...).
That was the question, how they are the same, as well as different. Your answer below, that gospel doesn't always mean 'salvation' is helpful. For the most part, the church at large sees one gospel: Salvation through Jesus Christ. While other good news may exist (for the rest of the churches), the Cross overshadows them. You also know this, but its important to explain just what is meant by 'different' gospels. Most would see 'different audiences.' For me, the future of Israel is caught up in the cross. The rest is icing upon that cake and thus packaged with the saving work of the Lord Jesus Christ. I realize too MAD disagrees on this point, but it isn't too huge of a disagreement given that neither of us are Jews. We'd simply agree upon the one gospel to the gentiles, and the other is academic, thus not a lot at stake in the disagreement on this particular. If there is something crucial, however, for MAD theology, I'd appreciate the mention here. At this point in time, I've a 'live and let live' approach over the difference. It does affect our theology, but our walk with God? I'm not really seeing that. Paul absolutely reiterates the important things from the O.T. and gospels that directly apply to gentiles so I'm good there. When we read Paul, we are reading the Lord Jesus Christ. This man believes it is crucial, as it influences many drawn conclusions, and he may be correct in the sense that many churches are caught up in works-based doctrines. As far as Ephesians 2:8-10, such is always the cart before the horse. The believer is a new creation, new made for new works that he/she cannot help but express the newness of a genuinely new life. Thus "Obey" is always a cart before the horse venture and guarantees no new wineskin. Necessarily then, I'm often arguing with MAD, against works-based salvation or keeping it. "If any one is in Christ, he/she is a new creation. The old HAS passed, the new HAS come." 2 Corinthians 5:17
“But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;” – Galatians 2:7
The posit, thus the ensuing question must be: Same gospel, two different audiences? It must be asked. The posit (linked at the beginning of this section) continues to address 'differences' but note with me that every single difference is rather about audience, rather than message. That alone, cannot make a different gospel, just a different people of application. It isn't a disagreement point, here, just a note of why these discussions confuse someone without MAD reading or acceptance: Some of the data/teaching confuses the issue.
I did find a chart.
Spoiler
It is where we disagree: The Cross is necessary for all men. No unregenerate Jew can see the Kingdom. Galatians 3:28
When I'd read the casting of lots for Matthias, it was the Apostles' choice. When the Lord Jesus Christ chose Paul, it was His choice. I've thought that the first definition of "Apostles" was 'chosen by Jesus' thus while Matthias was a legitimate choice and included with the 11, Paul was God's choice. Both then legitimate, but I didn't see it as a program change, but the exercise of the whole plan. It does, obviously, show the difference between theology systems and it does drive our respective systematics.
Here I think it'd be wise for all nonMAD to pay attention and learn something. As I said, for us there is but ONE good news, but it'd behoove us at least to see where it changed, if not different altogether. In this, the implications, even given as example from some workers, are far reaching and even fatal. Matthew 7:23
I beg my nonMAD friends to listen on this point. Its important and potentially life and death. -Lon
It is an interesting and provoking verse because it seems to be offered as a 'why' gentiles weren't to be burdened with more than staying away from impurities.
For solidarity, I believe we both agree upon Salvation in Jesus Christ alone as the only Gospel of life for all mankind. Acts 4:12 However this gospel is the same is crucial to understanding not just MAD, but the Salvation of our Lord Jesus Christ for all men. John 3:16
Thank you gentlemen.
