ECT The core of the argument between Christians and MAD.

[Tambora]

Paul lived holy because Jesus Christ was holy.

In spirit, not in flesh.
He plainly said that his flesh still did things his spirit was against.

None of them taught that redemption produced license to abandon God's moral and holy standards.

MADists do not claim that.
What we claim is that as long as you are in a flesh body, your flesh body will sin. But that your flesh body is considered dead. And the life you have in Christ is not the life of your flesh body.

 

[andyc]

Andy, what are you doing?!!!!

How many MADist have you seen here that talk against abortion, adultery, homosexuality, child molesters, etc.?

Non Christians will speak up against abortion and child molestation.
But adultery and homosexuality?
Looking at people lustfully is adultery. Let's not sugar coat it.
It is the goodness of God that leads people to repentance. God is not condemning people, so we shouldn't.

It's not that we just lay down and live and let live.
Where we draw the line is when one claims that their behavior in the flesh is what keeps one from being saved.


Also not true.
I have questioned things that some MADist say, and they have discussed it with me and sometimes we don't come to the exact same conclusion in the details. And sometimes they make things clearer to me.

So what is your point?
It's ok to tell people to go to hell, and call them idiot, moron, devil etc?

 

[andyc]

But the MADists here DO tackle questions.
Been doing it all along.

So, what the hell are you talking about?
:idunno:

Yes some do. I'm not talking about those.

 

[Tambora]

I don't belittle them.

You just got through calling others "flakes".

The words you use may not be exactly the same others use, but the sentiment is the same. It is all belittling, no matter how subtle or coy you try to put it into words.

 

[patrick jane]

sometimes previous behavior FROM someone, leads to, what seems like overly harsh words TO them in the future. generally, i think folks do the same as what's being done to them. i'm not saying it's ok, and i do it too. nobody here WANTS folks to go to hell, personally, i've never seen a post specifically telling someone to "go to hell", just that they may be headed there ? i see it as playful. i believe we all love each other and would help each other "offline". well, except for . . . .

 

[Tambora]

Non Christians will speak up against abortion and child molestation.

As they should.

But adultery and homosexuality?
Looking at people lustfully is adultery. Let's not sugar coat it.

Right. Let's not sugarcoat it.

It is the goodness of God that leads people to repentance. God is not condemning people, so we shouldn't.

God does condemn people.
So did the prophets and apostles.

So what is your point?
It's ok to tell people to go to hell, and call them idiot, moron, devil etc?

Just as OK as calling others flakes.

 

[andyc]

You just got through calling others "flakes".

The words you use may not be exactly the same others use, but the sentiment is the same. It is all belittling, no matter how subtle or coy you try to put it into words.

A flake is someone who's carnal. Someone who doesn't want to discuss differences but would rather insult. Either this kind of behavior is fine or it isn't. We know it isn't, so why do they do it?

They're misunderstood?
They're right?
They're babes in Christ still learning to talk with decency?
They're carnal?

 

[patrick jane]

As they should.

Right. Let's not sugarcoat it.


God does condemn people.
So did the prophets and apostles.


Just as OK as calling others flakes.

frosted. no, that would be sugar coating it

 

[andyc]

As they should.

Right. Let's not sugarcoat it.


God does condemn people.
So did the prophets and apostles.


Just as OK as calling others flakes.

God isn't condemning sinners. Sinners condemn themselves if they reject Christ. God will judge people on the light rejected.
Paul (the worst of sinners) was shown mercy because he acted in ignorance. This is the difference. Ignorance verses defiance.

It is the defiance that God judges, not us. God judges those outside the church. And we show the love of God to all.

 

[Nang]

In spirit, not in flesh.
He plainly said that his flesh still did things his spirit was against.

Agreed.

MADists do not claim that.

You need to have a conversation with Nick, heir, John W, STP, who are particularly vocal about being without sin in their lives. Heir has even claimed when she falters, it is not she sinning, but the sin in her that is sinning. That is gnostic: "Flesh bad, spirit good. I am spirit, not flesh."

I do not think that is what you are saying, but it is their excuse and denial of what they really are, ontologically. No Christian, not even Paul, lived sinlessly after conversion. To choose to walk by the Spirit and not the flesh is not "works" but obedient and holy living which is HOW we reckon to be dead to sin. We deny sin, refusing to entertain sin, but when we stumble, we still repent and confess the sins of our flesh.

What we claim is that as long as you are in a flesh body, your flesh body will sin. But that your flesh body is considered dead. And the life you have in Christ is not the life of your flesh body.

You state this correctly, but many of your MADist associates contradict you.

 

[musterion]

You just got through calling others "flakes".

The words you use may not be exactly the same others use, but the sentiment is the same. It is all belittling, no matter how subtle or coy you try to put it into words.

He's a typical blind-to-self charismatic hypocrite. In his mind, it's different when he does it.

 

[andyc]

He's a typical blind-to-self charismatic hypocrite. In his mind, it's different when he does it.

Yes I disregard you as a flake based on your insults. You're one of the ones I've no time for, so run along.

 

[musterion]

Yes I disregard you as a flake based on your insults. You're one of the ones I've no time for, so run along.

Why do you keep replying to my posts, then, even ones I make to others?

 

[whitestone]

I don't belittle them. I ignore them. If people want to call me a wolf, demon, idiot, moron, instead of tackle the questions raised, I'm not going to take those people seriously. Would you?



You'll need to start a thread on this, and then we can get into it.

I don't belittle them. I ignore them. If people want to call me a wolf, demon, idiot, moron, instead of tackle the questions raised, I'm not going to take those people seriously. Would you?



You'll need to start a thread on this, and then we can get into it.

well,I would not let it get under my skin,if I did/do it would only hinder the discussion(neither would be able to get their point across),so i try to avoid it.

The part I'm bringing up about Peter is that he (ALSO) was shown the same (in or around the same time). That is if we lay out a time line graph(or something) we should see it actually belongs in this thread,,,

Pontius palate served as perfect from ad26-36 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate .

Herod Agrippa died in ad44 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_Agrippa

Now so as we know from scripture Christ was crucified when/while Pontius Palate was Perfect,most agree on about ad33-34. and we know that Herod mentioned in (Acts 12;23) died in ad44.

So then from the crucifiction(end of the Gospels) and up to (Acts 1;6) where they ask Jesus "will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel" (notice they do not know). Then Jesus answers in Acts 1;7-8. So then Jesus was taken up(acts 1;9),,then they obeyed and tarried as he told them and the events of acts 2 took place(but in what year)?

So Peter said what he said in acts 2 and as time went on(we can follow Acts/2nd letter to Theophilus for this timeline) they preached and taught exactly what they were given up to chapters 9,10,11,and onward.

So if Peter states his own self "then I remembered"(Acts 11;16),and we see the example in scripture (Acts 10;10-17) of Peter "now while doubted in himself what this..." it is clear that from the cross(ad33-34) until the events of Acts chapter 10,11 "THERE IS ABOUT A TEN YEAR PERIOD OF TIME".

So if Peter did not yet fall into this trance(Acts 10;10) for "10 years after the cross" then,,,,,"THERE IS A 10 YEAR PERIOD BETWEEN THE CROSS/ACTS 2 AND WHAT THEY WERE SHOWN/TAUGHT IN ACTS 10"(in emphasis not shouting,lol).

So,

timeline:

Ad33-34(cross)
Acts 2(shortly after)
events of Acts 10-11 around ad44
derth(drought) in the days of Claudius Caesar around the same ad44(Acts 11;27-30)

Then it is apparent that what was shown to Peter in about ad44(ten years after Acts 2) and what was shown to Saul/Paul was in or around ad44 and up until this time Peter,Paul ect. had not been shown this yet.

Now as we know Paul stated that he received this by Revelation(Galatians 1;12),,,but did Peter receive this from a man or was taught it or did he also receive it by Revelation(Acts 10;10-16)?

 

[Nang]

well,I would not let it get under my skin,if I did/do it would only hinder the discussion(neither would be able to get their point across),so i try to avoid it.

The part I'm bringing up about Peter is that he (ALSO) was shown the same (in or around the same time). That is if we lay out a time line graph(or something) we should see it actually belongs in this thread,,,

Pontius palate served as perfect from ad26-36 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate .

Herod Agrippa died in ad44 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_Agrippa

Now so as we know from scripture Christ was crucified when/while Pontius Palate was Perfect,most agree on about ad33-34. and we know that Herod mentioned in (Acts 12;23) died in ad44.

So then from the crucifiction(end of the Gospels) and up to (Acts 1;6) where they ask Jesus "will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel" (notice they do not know). Then Jesus answers in Acts 1;7-8. So then Jesus was taken up(acts 1;9),,then they obeyed and tarried as he told them and the events of acts 2 took place(but in what year)?

So Peter said what he said in acts 2 and as time went on(we can follow Acts/2nd letter to Theophilus for this timeline) they preached and taught exactly what they were given up to chapters 9,10,11,and onward.

So if Peter states his own self "then I remembered"(Acts 11;16),and we see the example in scripture (Acts 10;10-17) of Peter "now while doubted in himself what this..." it is clear that from the cross(ad33-34) until the events of Acts chapter 10,11 "THERE IS ABOUT A TEN YEAR PERIOD OF TIME".

So if Peter did not yet fall into this trance(Acts 10;10) for "10 years after the cross" then,,,,,"THERE IS A 10 YEAR PERIOD BETWEEN THE CROSS/ACTS 2 AND WHAT THEY WERE SHOWN/TAUGHT IN ACTS 10"(in emphasis not shouting,lol).

So,

timeline:

Ad33-34(cross)
Acts 2(shortly after)
events of Acts 10-11 around ad44
derth(drought) in the days of Claudius Caesar around the same ad44(Acts 11;27-30)

Then it is apparent that what was shown to Peter in about ad44(ten years after Acts 2) and what was shown to Saul/Paul was in or around ad44 and up until this time Peter,Paul ect. had not been shown this yet.

Now as we know Paul stated that he received this by Revelation(Galatians 1;12),,,but did Peter receive this from a man or was taught it or did he also receive it by Revelation(Acts 10;10-16)?

All we know is what Peter preached; not what he didn't know, when.

And without a doubt Peter preached Jesus Christ as Savior from sin.

As did all the Apostles proclaim the same Gospel of Christ, to their differing audiences and in their own words, which did not have to exactly duplicate Paul's Gospel message in I Corinthians 15:1-4, to be the same teaching, all inspired by God.

That is how the entire Bible was composed. "Prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." I Peter 1:21

This entire business of no grace shown man until Paul was saved, is just pure nonsense.

 

[Tambora]

In spirit, not in flesh.
He plainly said that his flesh still did things his spirit was against.

Agreed.

MADists do not claim that.

You need to have a conversation with Nick, heir, John W, STP, who are particularly vocal about being without sin in their lives. Heir has even claimed when she falters, it is not she sinning, but the sin in her that is sinning. That is gnostic: "Flesh bad, spirit good. I am spirit, not flesh."

I do not think that is what you are saying, but it is their excuse and denial of what they really are, ontologically. No Christian, not even Paul, lived sinlessly after conversion. To choose to walk by the Spirit and not the flesh is not "works" but obedient and holy living which is HOW we reckon to be dead to sin. We deny sin, refusing to entertain sin, but when we stumble, we still repent and confess the sins of our flesh.

What we claim is that as long as you are in a flesh body, your flesh body will sin. But that your flesh body is considered dead. And the life you have in Christ is not the life of your flesh body.

You state this correctly, but many of your MADist associates contradict you.

I have talked with them.
I do not think they disagree. I think you think they disagree because of semantics.

But here's their chance to disagree with it if they do.

 

[andyc]

well,I would not let it get under my skin,if I did/do it would only hinder the discussion(neither would be able to get their point across),so i try to avoid it.

Yes it's nothing really. As I said, no problem with me.

The part I'm bringing up about Peter is that he (ALSO) was shown the same (in or around the same time). That is if we lay out a time line graph(or something) we should see it actually belongs in this thread,,,

Pontius palate served as perfect from ad26-36 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate .

Herod Agrippa died in ad44 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_Agrippa

Now so as we know from scripture Christ was crucified when/while Pontius Palate was Perfect,most agree on about ad33-34. and we know that Herod mentioned in (Acts 12;23) died in ad44.

So then from the crucifiction(end of the Gospels) and up to (Acts 1;6) where they ask Jesus "will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel" (notice they do not know). Then Jesus answers in Acts 1;7-8. So then Jesus was taken up(acts 1;9),,then they obeyed and tarried as he told them and the events of acts 2 took place(but in what year)?

So Peter said what he said in acts 2 and as time went on(we can follow Acts/2nd letter to Theophilus for this timeline) they preached and taught exactly what they were given up to chapters 9,10,11,and onward.

So if Peter states his own self "then I remembered"(Acts 11;16),and we see the example in scripture (Acts 10;10-17) of Peter "now while doubted in himself what this..." it is clear that from the cross(ad33-34) until the events of Acts chapter 10,11 "THERE IS ABOUT A TEN YEAR PERIOD OF TIME".

So if Peter did not yet fall into this trance(Acts 10;10) for "10 years after the cross" then,,,,,"THERE IS A 10 YEAR PERIOD BETWEEN THE CROSS/ACTS 2 AND WHAT THEY WERE SHOWN/TAUGHT IN ACTS 10"(in emphasis not shouting,lol).

So,

timeline:

Ad33-34(cross)
Acts 2(shortly after)
events of Acts 10-11 around ad44
derth(drought) in the days of Claudius Caesar around the same ad44(Acts 11;27-30)

Then it is apparent that what was shown to Peter in about ad44(ten years after Acts 2) and what was shown to Saul/Paul was in or around ad44 and up until this time Peter,Paul ect. had not been shown this yet.

Now as we know Paul stated that he received this by Revelation(Galatians 1;12),,,but did Peter receive this from a man or was taught it or did he also receive it by Revelation(Acts 10;10-16)?

I'm trying to understand why the timeline is important to you?
And I'm not sure what the case is you're trying to present or what you're specifically saying/asking.

Also, your scripture quotes are with a semi colon. It would be better to use a colon, and then the verses can be viewed.

 

[Nick M]

Ad33-34(cross)
Acts 2(shortly after)
events of Acts 10-11 around ad44
derth(drought) in the days of Claudius Caesar around the same ad44(Acts 11;27-30)

Not only that, but there is several years between Acts 9 and 10.

 

[whitestone]

All we know is what Peter preached; not what he didn't know, when.

And without a doubt Peter preached Jesus Christ as Savior from sin.

As did all the Apostles proclaim the same Gospel of Christ, to their differing audiences and in their own words, which did not have to exactly duplicate Paul's Gospel message in I Corinthians 15:1-4, to be the same teaching, all inspired by God.

That is how the entire Bible was composed. "Prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." I Peter 1:21

This entire business of no grace shown man until Paul was saved, is just pure nonsense.

Grace is a precious subject to ponder. In the concordance I found it used throughout the old testament,but in the new testament Mathew nor Mark used the word Grace. In Luke 2;40 Grace was upon Jesus,in John 1;14,16 and 17 grace is again applied to description's of Jesus and grace. Then in Acts 4;33 "grace was upon them all",,but then in Acts 11,13,14,15 the usage of the word Grace explodes with the amount of times it is used.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Hi,

Justification by faith in the shed blood of Christ is common to all views.

The difference is that Christians have received the Holy Spirit to dwell in them as at the first of the 3000 on the day of Pentecost, not necessarily in that order as the account of Cornelius shows.

Whereas MAD claims to have received the Holy Spirit by an act of believing the doctrine of the cross without obeying Acts 2:38, which is the way believers are to receive the Holy Spirit as Paul did and taught.

MADists argue that they have received the Holy Spirit and to prove it they call pentecostalists of Acts ch 2 such things as "unsaved, liars, children of the devil " etc. which of course is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, thus proving themselves to be not Christians at all, that is those who do that.

Mat 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
Mat 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
Mat 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
Mat 12:35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
Mat 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
Mat 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

LA

Well, why would MADists have to declare their opponents in doctrine to be unsaved.

If that is acceptable behavour then just give the green light.

LA

As I said before, it is disappointing to me when Mid Acts believers declare those, who don't fully understand things as we do, not to be saved. That being said, your question here is plainly hypocritical, given the title of this thread.