Question for Madists.

[Brother Ducky]

Perhaps I am interpreting things incorrectly, but it seems to me that at least some Madists have issues, if not outright contempt for a couple of things---sacraments and sanctification.

And perhaps it is not just Madists, or all Madists, but at least some.

Could I have your Biblical and/or philosophical reasonings for the beliefs and practices or unbeliefs and unpractices, if you will?

 

[Danoh]

When I first embraced Mid-Acts many, many years ago, I quickly found that some within our ranks simply have no tolerance for any view that does not agree with their own.

I found far more who were not like that, though, and still do.

Curious, I decided back then, to sort of conduct one on one mini interviews with both types.

What I found to a man and woman across the board, was that the intolerant ones had all been that way before they came to a Mid-Acts Position on the Scripture - people who take strong exception with being disagreed with, and who are often both very direct, and yet, very thin skinned.

In contrast, those not like that had either not been like that prior to their acceptance of the Mid-Acts Perspective, or had been, but their willingness to by faith allow grace to reign had long since overcome that in them.

And you find both types of grace/grace-less people not only depicted in Scripture, and not only within Mid-Acts and or within any other form of Bible Study approach, but in every area of life, in general.

Both types are described in Acts 17, for example.

In short, whether one holds to Mid-Acts or not, has nothing to do with this issue of intolerance to any view but one's own.

Rather; what the individual within any group...chooses to make their focus...which is ever...a "by faith" issue.

As for the balance of your quiry, could you spell out a bit more specifically what it is you are referring to?

Again, though, as with every other movement out there within Christianity, Mid-Acts has ended up split up into different groups who not only hold to a different understanding on such things, but because some groups take issue with not being agreed with on their take on such things by other MADs.

Not all are like that - some from whatever side within Mid-Acts, will be just fine with differences in understanding between themselves and other MADs.

Again, it depends on what each individual actually allows to reign - said individual's "just me and my doctrine" or said individual's "nevertheless, Romans 5:8 applied - to both of us."

 

[glorydaz]

Perhaps I am interpreting things incorrectly, but it seems to me that at least some Madists have issues, if not outright contempt for a couple of things---sacraments and sanctification.

And perhaps it is not just Madists, or all Madists, but at least some.

Could I have your Biblical and/or philosophical reasonings for the beliefs and practices or unbeliefs and unpractices, if you will?

Your question seems pretty straight forward. So far, you've been given one man's silly opinion about the factions in MAD. Would you mind defining what you mean by "sacraments"....is that water baptism and such? And "sanctification"? That seems very vague. Rites? Rituals? Or are you speaking of the baptism by the Spirit into the body of Christ, and sanctification by the Spirit?

I'm just asking for clarification before those who really understand come on to answer.

 

[Danoh]

Your question seems pretty straight forward. So far, you've been given one man's silly opinion about the factions in MAD. Would you mind defining what you mean by "sacraments"....is that water baptism and such? And "sanctification"? That seems very vague. Rites? Rituals? Or are you speaking of the baptism by the Spirit into the body of Christ, and sanctification by the Spirit?

I'm just asking for clarification before those who really understand come on to answer.

Nonsense - mine is the finding of a fact most within Mid-Acts are more than well aware of.

Your ignorance and or denial of it, is not going to change said fact.

And you have just responded to my post - should I now resort to your ignorance towards me on that other thread - your assertion I was stalking you just because I posted my thoughts on your post?

It is obvious that you are of the very kind I posted hereinabove I'd found within Mid-Acts many years ago - the ever direct, ever one-sided, ever thin-skinned types within Mid-Acts.

You don't have to be that way - you choose to be.

Result?

This thread will go the way of STP's apology thread to Interplanner, over on ECT.

It is unfortunate; but that his how that is.

For that is how self-delusion works within your kind.

Fact of the matter - my above post had the intolerance issue it addressed as an in general - it was not referring to anyone in particular.

But you are of that intolerant number, so you could not help but show up sooner or later to be just that, once more.

My above had the history of the movement in general in mind, as I have personally dealt with many of these people on both sides of this intolerance issue, over the years.

Again, the only solution towards you, sister - that of Romans 5:8.

Whether or not you agree with any of the above; whether or not you allow its challenge; and whether or not you hold to one "sacrament" or what have you, or another.

 

[glorydaz]

Nonsense - mine is the finding of a fact most within Mid-Acts are more than well aware of.

Your ignorance and or denial of it, is not going to change said fact.

And you have just responded to my post - should I now resort to your ignorance towards me on that other thread - your assertion I was stalking you just because I posted my thoughts on your post?

It is obvious that you are of the very kind I posted hereinabove I'd found within Mid-Acts many years ago - the ever direct, ever one-sided, ever thin-skinned types within Mid-Acts.

You don't have to be that way - you choose to be.

Result?

This thread will go the way of STP's apology thread to Interplanner, over on ECT.

It is unfortunate; but that his how that is.

For that is how self-delusion works within your kind.

Fact of the matter - my above post had the intolerance issue it addressed as an in general - it was not referring to anyone in particular.

But you are of that intolerant number, so you could not help but show up sooner or later to be just that, once more.

My above had the history of the movement in general in mind, as I have personally dealt with many of these people on both sides of this intolerance issue, over the years.

Again, the only solution towards you, sister - that of Romans 5:8.

Whether or not you agree with any of the above; whether or not you allow its challenge; and whether or not you hold to one "sacrament" or what have you, or another.

Oops, I guess I touched a raw nerve. :chew:


Perhaps if you spent less time with your negative comments, you'd find time to actually respond to a particular statement. You're simply too wordy when you decide to get on your high horse. Look what you just went through to tell me how ignorant I am. :nono:

 

[Danoh]

Oops, I guess I touched a raw nerve. :chew:


Perhaps if you spent less time with your negative comments, you'd find time to actually respond to a particular statement. You're simply too wordy when you decide to get on your high horse. Look what you just went through to tell me how ignorant I am. :nono:

Nope - your nonsense merely provided me with one more opportunity to view said nonsense through the lens of Romans 5:8...

Provided me with an opportunity to glory in Romans 5:8 on both our behalf, once more, even while pointing out your nonsense to you.

Sort of like when you confront a loved one on some issue, at the same time that you remain aware throughout that you love them.

That is "faith which worketh by love."

There is no vain imagination that can pierce said grace.

Such is the power of...Romans 5:8.

Now that...is "a sacrament" ever worth being willing to engage in

 

[patrick jane]

Don't forget folks, dano is the authority on MAD. He decides who is and isn't and he alone sees the mistakes that they make. He only wants us to grow in understanding and faith, but he just can't seem to pound into our thick skulls.

Nevertheless, Romans 5:8 KJV -

:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: Can't forget the chuckles

 

[glorydaz]

Nope - your nonsense merely provided me with one more opportunity to view said nonsense through the lens of Romans 5:8...

Provided me with an opportunity to glory in Romans 5:8 on both our behalf, once more, even while pointing out your nonsense to you.

Sort of like when you confront a loved one on some issue, at the same time that you remain aware throughout that you love them.

That is "faith which worketh by love."

There is no vain imagination that can pierce said grace.

Such is the power of...Romans 5:8.

Now that...is "a sacrament" ever worth being willing to engage in

:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:

 

[musterion]

Perhaps I am interpreting things incorrectly, but it seems to me that at least some Madists have issues, if not outright contempt for a couple of things---sacraments and sanctification.

And perhaps it is not just Madists, or all Madists, but at least some.

Could I have your Biblical and/or philosophical reasonings for the beliefs and practices or unbeliefs and unpractices, if you will?

First we would have to agree on what is and is not a sacrament. Second we would have to agree on what sanctification means and how it is accomplished. But feel free to post names and examples of what you're talking about. I have a feeling you're going to talk about water baptism and that's it.

 

[Brother Ducky]

First we would have to agree on what is and is not a sacrament. Second we would have to agree on what sanctification means and how it is accomplished. But feel free to post names and examples of what you're talking about. I have a feeling you're going to talk about water baptism and that's it.

OK. For sacraments I would go with the traditional Protestant water baptism and the Lord's Supper/Communion. I do not think that mode or recipients are part of this discussion, unless you feel that it should be a part of it.

Sanctificaton/holiness. As a starting point, let's say attempting, with the Spirit's help, to avoid sin; which for the sake of this thread let's define as any action, thought, or action [or lack thereof] which would cause the damnation of a totally innocent person.

Depending on the way the discussion goes, definitions might have to be clarified. I am thinking of the most general meanings within a Christian context.

 

[beameup]

Perhaps I am interpreting things incorrectly, but it seems to me that at least some Madists have issues, if not outright contempt for a couple of things---sacraments and sanctification.

Go read Romans through Philemon and find out what Paul has to say on the subject.
Pauline Epistles form the "foundation" of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism.

 

[Brother Ducky]

Go read Romans through Philemon and find out what Paul has to say on the subject.
Pauline Epistles form the "foundation" of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism.

Too much work for the moment. Also, I am interested in how uniform or diverse those who claim the title of MAD are on the subject.

 

[Tambora]

Perhaps I am interpreting things incorrectly, but it seems to me that at least some Madists have issues, if not outright contempt for a couple of things---sacraments and sanctification.

And perhaps it is not just Madists, or all Madists, but at least some.

Could I have your Biblical and/or philosophical reasonings for the beliefs and practices or unbeliefs and unpractices, if you will?

Hi Brother Ducky
:wave2:

I'm a MADist and I have no contempt for sacraments.

 

[Tambora]

Too much work for the moment. Also, I am interested in how uniform or diverse those who claim the title of MAD are on the subject.

Water baptism may be a sacrament you are speaking of.

In the ministry of the 12 disciples, they were sent to baptize. Matthew 28:19
In in the ministry of Paul, he was not sent to baptize. 1 Cor 1:17

 

[Danoh]

OK. For sacraments I would go with the traditional Protestant water baptism and the Lord's Supper/Communion. I do not think that mode or recipients are part of this discussion, unless you feel that it should be a part of it.

Sanctificaton/holiness. As a starting point, let's say attempting, with the Spirit's help, to avoid sin; which for the sake of this thread let's define as any action, thought, or action [or lack thereof] which would cause the damnation of a totally innocent person.

Depending on the way the discussion goes, definitions might have to be clarified. I am thinking of the most general meanings within a Christian context.

The understanding of these issues ever boils down to being one of difference in study approach...

There are basically three major Mid-Acts groups - all three do NOT hold to water baptism.

All three DO hold to the Lord's Supper.

And then there are some very small fringe groups - some of which do hold to both water baptism and the Lord's Supper.

And then there is one very small fringe group most of their representatives on here are a part of - they do not hold to either of those two practices.

Although you will find some individuals here and there within the three major groups who do not hold to either also.

Interestingly, many of those who do not hold to the Lord's Supper tend to be very intolerant of anyone disagreeing with their views, are very direct, and yet, very thin-skinned.

The very issues the Apostle Paul is writing against in his words on the Lord's Supper, in 1 Corinthians 11, and elsewhere in Romans thru Philemon, where the same issue is also obvious.

I first encountered such within a Mid-Acts assembly I was visiting many years ago.

I was sitting out in the lobby waiting for a break in the service because I was late and did not wish to disrupt the service...

Next thing I knew, a good dozen or so people were walking out of the service in quite an agitated state.

When I asked a few what was going on, they each went on about how that they took issue with the practice of the Lord's Supper the rest of that assembly was about to partake of.

As I was new to the movement at that time, I found myself a bit taken aback that said group had been so offended with the practice.

It's lesson has remained with me to this very day.

The lesson that if what such have is so much better than the communion between Believers the Lord's supper is meant to focus members of the Body in the unity of, then why the need for the crudeness, let alone; the obvious thin skin on the part of those who take issue with its practice?

Clearly, there is more than one issue at work in such.

At the same time, if anyone were perfect, there would not have been the need for Romans 5:8.

Which is always a good place to look at all issues from, regardless of what side of what fence one holds to, and regardless of who may or may not choose to look at all things in light of Romans 5:8.

For Romans 5:8 is...the bottom line.

 

[beameup]

Too much work for the moment. Also, I am interested in how uniform or diverse those who claim the title of MAD are on the subject.

"Mid-Acts" is a reference to the conversion of Paul in Acts 9.
His revelations, and his ministry was to the Body of Christ, not the Jewish "Sect of the Nazarenes".
Anyone claiming to be "MAD" that is not following Pauline doctrine is a phony MAD.

 

[musterion]

I have contempt for so-called sacraments when people insist they are part of salvation in addition to faith in Christ.

 

[beameup]

Don't forget folks, dano is the authority on MAD. He decides who is and isn't and he alone sees the mistakes that they make. He only wants us to grow in understanding and faith, but he just can't seem to pound into our thick skulls.

Within 2 days of joining TOL, I put "dano" on IGNORE.
I haven't seen the need to put anyone else on IGNORE.
:chuckle:

 

[musterion]

Duck still hasn't told us which MADs he's talking about.

 

[Right Divider]

OK. For sacraments I would go with the traditional Protestant water baptism and the Lord's Supper/Communion. I do not think that mode or recipients are part of this discussion, unless you feel that it should be a part of it.

Sanctificaton/holiness. As a starting point, let's say attempting, with the Spirit's help, to avoid sin; which for the sake of this thread let's define as any action, thought, or action [or lack thereof] which would cause the damnation of a totally innocent person.

Depending on the way the discussion goes, definitions might have to be clarified. I am thinking of the most general meanings within a Christian context.

There are no "totally innocent persons", apart from the LORD Jesus Christ.

With fundamental problems in your thinking like that, I can see that this thread will be another train wreck.