SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Altogether holey, indeed.
ECT What is Preterism
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
Altogether holey, indeed.
THAT...it is :thumb:
Why?
Because he actually concludes that MAD originated by reading MAD into the Scriptures.
Talk about not thinking his conclusions through.
But he does the same with Peter in Acts 10, so, one more hole in this huge worm hole of his going in, is not going to make any difference :chuckle:
Right Divider
Body part
The fact that he can't see that the Book of Revelation is completely saturated with prophetic Israelite doctrine is proof enough that he is clueless.
Rev 21 and Isaiah 60-66 are nearly identical. John was one of the twelve..... it's not hard to follow.
Interplanner
Well-known member
The reason it stands is because 2P2P does not. 2P2P is a complete mistake.. The inability to accept that is why the coward closed 'what gospel was Paul saved under?' (trying to validate 2 gospels, instead of the arrival of the one).
Interplanner
Well-known member
No it is not hard to follow - after all, it is the subject of THEIR hope
I do see the Rev loaded with prophetic material about Israel (who doesn't?). But it is about what happened in that generation. That was the critical decisive generation.
You owe MADs an apology :chuckle:
Last edited:
Interplanner
Well-known member
The way the NT uses Is 40-66 is fulfilled in Christ and his mission. Including details like 'it is too small a thing to restore the fortunes of Israel; I will make you a light to the nations.'
The other ridiculous thing that came out about MAD at the end of closing 'which gospel was Paul saved under?' and recently here, was that idea that the kingdom had not come. The more clear the kingdom is, the less people would think that there was a separate gospel about it, or a 2nd for circs and a 3rd for uncircs. All of that is nonsense. All those beliefs require fiddling around with grammar or what the Man said was going on .
If I use the expression 'the subversion of Christianity' in English, you may not know whether that means 'how Christianity undoes its culture' or 'how people are twisting Christianity'. You would have to have full context.
'the gospel of the kingdom' 'the gospel of the circ' and 'the gospel of the uncirc' are the same way, WITH THE ENORMOUS ADVANTAGE OF CASE DECLENSION IN GREEK.
The other ridiculous thing that came out about MAD at the end of closing 'which gospel was Paul saved under?' and recently here, was that idea that the kingdom had not come. The more clear the kingdom is, the less people would think that there was a separate gospel about it, or a 2nd for circs and a 3rd for uncircs. All of that is nonsense. All those beliefs require fiddling around with grammar or what the Man said was going on .
If I use the expression 'the subversion of Christianity' in English, you may not know whether that means 'how Christianity undoes its culture' or 'how people are twisting Christianity'. You would have to have full context.
'the gospel of the kingdom' 'the gospel of the circ' and 'the gospel of the uncirc' are the same way, WITH THE ENORMOUS ADVANTAGE OF CASE DECLENSION IN GREEK.
Interplanner
Well-known member
re body of Christ:
some people use that expression about the church--the redeemed Christian community. If it helps people focus on what is true in Christ, great. The important thing is that we are not talking about the ethne Israel. The NT says it is not concerned with the ethne Israel retroactively, such as in Rom 9. It says it was never talking about the ethne.
re Abraham
I don't know what the disagreement is about Abraham. we are saying the same thing. I don't typically use the expression 'in the body' when talking about OT people, but it seems you do.
I was referring to the much-quoted 'Abraham believed and it was credited to him for righteousness.' Some people gawk at this as being added back in later, because there seems to be nothing in the passage about the question of needing righteousness. But Paul says it as key, doesn't he?
re what changes in justification
Justification is God crediting the righteousness of Christ to a person who believes 1, that it is needed, and 2, that only Christ's righteousness is sufficient because it is divine and human at once. A person's account has therefore been refreshed. They may or may not have a delightful time on earth because of this, as in Rom 8's ending. But nothing can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ (justification).
re a dramatic change in history
It's funny you would ask that because the main complaint against belief that the kingdom of God has come is that not enough of history was changed. So no, it happened in history and broke the cycle, but the cycle is still spinning like a heavy turntable that will one day grind to a halt. In the long view of history, there are many things that have been improved by Christianity, for which credit is regularly mocked in the mainstream media--education--entertainment in their darkness. But the way is narrow and now we have things like Islam busting out all over.
Interplanner
Well-known member
The review of my post as terrible has no effect on me. You must speak about one specific proposition at a time.
Lol, effect on you is my job.
Thus, your use of the word "fricken" in your posts to me at times :chuckle:
Seeing as your views are firmly set in the cement that is your error...
Spitball, tag, dodge ball - that's all this is, brother; take a chill pill :rotfl:
Interplanner
Well-known member
That doesn't help when people just hide inside their generalizations and don't do specific homework like the 'office of the president' assignment.
Wick Stick
Well-known member
Thanks for taking the time to answer. Do I get any follow up questions?
I know I'm going to feel stupid for this one, but... what does BOC stand for? I think I understand what you mean by it, just not sure of the acronym.
Jarrod
How do you organize dispensations, if not this way? Maybe you have a list of your dispensations you could share?
I've never heard someone separate them into separate covenants before. The way I've heard is that it's one big progressive covenant that keeps getting added onto. (not a question, just a comment)
I know I'm going to feel stupid for this one, but... what does BOC stand for? I think I understand what you mean by it, just not sure of the acronym.
So, MAD doesn't practice baptism? It seems you would perhaps even be against the practice, since it pertains to the Law, in your thought? (Sorry to put words in your mouth; please correct if wrong)
That's surprising considering how dogmatic the people here seem to be.
I can think of at least one place the Gentiles acceptance is prophecied, but I'm not really trying to debate. Is that why DUE TO is bold-caps?
By any chance are you familiar with Jewish teachings re: the standards of righteousness for Goyim, and the Noahide covenant? (The Acts 15 Jerusalem council is basically a NT redux you might be more familiar with.) If so, do you feel the Noahide precepts for all mankind reconcile well with MAD teachings of faith without works?
Jarrod
Our (Members of the Body of Christ) righteousness comes from the "righteousness" of Christ Himself. We have NO righteousness of ourselves. Once we hear the Gospel of our salvation and place ALL our faith in Christ as our Savior, we are sealed, indwelt, and baptized (not by water) into the Body of Christ. Then, and only then are we considered a "Child of God." We CANNOT lose that position. We are guaranteed eternal life. Most posters on TOL seem to believe that they can lose their salvation (Eternal life) by something they do or don't do, that's not the truth. Either one is, ignorant of Scripture or weren't saved, to begin with in order to not realize their eternal life is guaranteed. Christ died for the sins of ALL of humanity. However, only those who place ALL their faith in Christ as their Savior will reap the benefits. Those who reject God's free gift will stand before God and be judged according to their "works." Revelation 20:12 "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works."
Today, we are living in what Paul calls, "The Dispensation of Grace." Both Jew and Gentile alike are under the "Grace Gospel." Sometime after the Apostles left this earth (died) "The Kingdom Gospel" ceased and "The Grace Gospel" became the ONLY way to inherit eternal life, receive the righteousness of Christ, become a member of the "Body of Christ" and a "Child of God." The Grace Gospel now covers both Jew and Gentile alike.
If one desires faith, they can receive it through the Scriptures. Romans 10:17 "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
If one desires faith, they can receive it through the Scriptures. Romans 10:17 "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
I don't keep a list.
The focus of MAD is the dispensation that started with Paul and his gospel of salvation without works, apart from Israel due to their fall.
There will be another dispensation when Israel is gathered and their kingdom restored --- salvation with works and with their exaltation as them as a light to all nations.
Well, it really couldn't be the same covenant if at one time you have to be circumcised and the other your don't.
Especially since circumcision is said to the sign of the covenant.
I mean, circumcision can't be the sign of the covenant made that didn't require circumcision.
Not stupid.
I forget sometimes that others may not know the acronym.
BOC - Body of Christ (a new entity not associated with Israel)
It's not that I'm against it.
It's that it is not necessary for the BOC as it was for Israel.
But you can if you want.
You can refrain eating pork if you want to.
But it's not necessary for the BOC as it was for Israel.
Paul makes the argument that we have the liberty to do anything (not under a law).
But he goes on to explain that just because we have the liberty does not mean that anything we do is beneficial.
Paul explained that when he went to a person's home for supper, and they were of the conviction that they had to eat kosher, Paul would be mannerly and oblige even thought he knew he had the liberty to eat anything.
He even went as far to say that the ones that still held on the old ways were the weaker brethren
(Romans 14)
Some can be.
Probably find that in any camp.
They were accepted through Israel, or at the very least were ally to Israel.
But only Israel was God's covenant people, and Israel would not accept you as one of their own unless you were circumcised.
I know what you are talking about.
But MADs, for the most part, don't believe we are under any law at all (in which our works count).
It's grace through faith only, without works.
Wick Stick
Well-known member
Tambora,
Thank you again for answering. I feel like I know more about MAD now. It seems that your group is still in a formative stage. Y'all have a lot of theological questions to consider in the future, and perhaps some amount of codification to do.
Well, unless you are against the idea of codifying dogma in a creed or statement of beliefs, I guess. There are a number of groups out there that have anarchic tendencies that way. I'm sympathetic to that thinking, actually. It's hard to balance accountability against liberty, and religious authorities in particular have a terrible history of abusing authority.
Do not deny God.
Do not blaspheme.
Do not murder.
Do not engage in illicit sexual relations.
Do not steal.
Do not eat/drink blood.
I do not see how anyone could think they were establishing righteousness by refraining from these things. There seems to be some confusion between negative and positive commands in theological circles.
Once upon a time, I was a political science student, and a disciple of libertarian political thought. Even the libertarians (who are nearly anarchists) define liberty as the absence of positive laws (requiring action), and uphold negative laws (banning certain actions) where they interfere with others life, liberty, or property.
Jarrod
*not counting the one modern Judaism has added, which is nowhere in the Biblical account
Thank you again for answering. I feel like I know more about MAD now. It seems that your group is still in a formative stage. Y'all have a lot of theological questions to consider in the future, and perhaps some amount of codification to do.
Well, unless you are against the idea of codifying dogma in a creed or statement of beliefs, I guess. There are a number of groups out there that have anarchic tendencies that way. I'm sympathetic to that thinking, actually. It's hard to balance accountability against liberty, and religious authorities in particular have a terrible history of abusing authority.
I'll add here that the Noahide rules for righteousness for Gentiles do not contain any positive commandments* (ie do this). Only negative commands (ie don't do this). They are:
Do not deny God.
Do not blaspheme.
Do not murder.
Do not engage in illicit sexual relations.
Do not steal.
Do not eat/drink blood.
I do not see how anyone could think they were establishing righteousness by refraining from these things. There seems to be some confusion between negative and positive commands in theological circles.
Once upon a time, I was a political science student, and a disciple of libertarian political thought. Even the libertarians (who are nearly anarchists) define liberty as the absence of positive laws (requiring action), and uphold negative laws (banning certain actions) where they interfere with others life, liberty, or property.
Jarrod
*not counting the one modern Judaism has added, which is nowhere in the Biblical account
Last edited:
MAD is not a religious sect, nor is it a doctrine (per se).
It's really just a term to let folks know that we are the ones that see the BOC and Israel as separate entities that God deals with differently.
It separates us from the ones that are of replacement theology --- that the BOC replaced Israel.
Or those that think that Gentiles are grafted into Israel and become the "new" Israel of God - which is just another form of replacement theology (the "new" Israel replaces the old Israel).
In other words, we don't think God is finished with the nation of Israel and it's promises, whereas non-MADs think God is through with Israel and all their promises are fulfilled for the BOC.
It's not a modern teaching.
It's what Paul taught.
Only some of the terms (like MAD) are modern, and only to distinguish from other views.
Like we use the terms: trinity, pre-trib, OSAS, etc. to distinguish from other views.
(OSAS - Once Saved Always Saved.)
None of these are exclusive to MAD.
About the only thing exclusive to MAD is that the BOC is not Israel, and that Israel will once again be gathered together and united (the split kingdom united again), and their kingdom restored in their promised land where Christ will rule on the throne of David.
God's program for Israel (taught by the 12 apostles) is not the same program for the BOC (taught by Paul).
It's really just a term to let folks know that we are the ones that see the BOC and Israel as separate entities that God deals with differently.
It separates us from the ones that are of replacement theology --- that the BOC replaced Israel.
Or those that think that Gentiles are grafted into Israel and become the "new" Israel of God - which is just another form of replacement theology (the "new" Israel replaces the old Israel).
In other words, we don't think God is finished with the nation of Israel and it's promises, whereas non-MADs think God is through with Israel and all their promises are fulfilled for the BOC.
It's not a modern teaching.
It's what Paul taught.
Only some of the terms (like MAD) are modern, and only to distinguish from other views.
Like we use the terms: trinity, pre-trib, OSAS, etc. to distinguish from other views.
(OSAS - Once Saved Always Saved.)
None of these are exclusive to MAD.
About the only thing exclusive to MAD is that the BOC is not Israel, and that Israel will once again be gathered together and united (the split kingdom united again), and their kingdom restored in their promised land where Christ will rule on the throne of David.
God's program for Israel (taught by the 12 apostles) is not the same program for the BOC (taught by Paul).
Interplanner
Well-known member
MAD is regurgitated D'ism. It is 2P2P from the first paragraph. There is no proof of this in the OT. It is not what Paul taught. You can't get that line to survive Rom 9-11, Eph 2-3, Gal 3-4.
I know all the detail of Rom 11 and it does not go there on several levels. There is nothing saying that 'saved' is a restored Israel as you/they have concieved it because he has been using the term several times in the previous chapters WITH NO JUDAIC OR THEOCRATIC CONTENT TO IT. And he already qualified Israel a couple times.
2P2P thinks it can spin everything in its direction and ignore how the NT uses the OT. Not.
The proof texts of 'sent only to the house of Israel' and 'the gospel to the circ' are completely amateur, and there is no separate program going between the 11 vs Paul. Not from God. There is maybe from Judaism and you should get more familiar with what it expect and what was "light" compared to its darkenss, Jn 12:34+.
2P2P was not taught by the apostles. Acts 13's sermon was. The resurrection, not the BOC, was the fulfillment of the promises to Israel. Get your basic facts straight.