ECT What is your view of MAD and MADists? (Strictly for people who are not mad)

[Interplanner]

Dispensationalism deals with the teachings of the Apostle Paul and the New Testament. It also pertains to the Old Testament, as well. TeT, AndyC, and a number of others are trying their best to "demonize" Mid-Acts Dispensationalism." That's what "MAD" stands for. Their attack is basically on the Apostle Paul and his ministry.

My attack is on MAD for its incompetence, and because it does not know how the NT uses the OT.

 

[Interplanner]

Some posters who have NEVER read the Bible in its entirety are vulnerable to be indoctrinated by people such as AndyC and TeT among others on TOL.

I consider MAD to be a cult and a fraud that indoctrinates people against the plain meaning of Acts 13's sermon which is the official sample apostolic sermon summarizing what huge themes of the Bible were meant to be about. Point by point, MAD is darkness on these things.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I consider MAD to be a cult and a fraud that indoctrinates people against the plain meaning of Acts 13's sermon which is the official sample apostolic sermon summarizing what huge themes of the Bible were meant to be about. Point by point, MAD is darkness on these things.

Of course, you're speaking out of a combination of "naivety and Ignorance" of the written word of God.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

My attack is on MAD for its incompetence, and because it does not know how the NT uses the OT.

No. Your "attack" is against the Apostle Paul and the Gospel he received from the Ascended Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I consider MAD to be a cult and a fraud that indoctrinates people against the plain meaning of Acts 13's sermon which is the official sample apostolic sermon summarizing what huge themes of the Bible were meant to be about. Point by point, MAD is darkness on these things.

When ruminating upon Eph 2J, and Ezekiel 37Y, I cannot help but think of the red dirt synopsis. Do you?

 

[Interplanner]

When ruminating upon Eph 2J, and Ezekiel 37Y, I cannot help but think of the red dirt synopsis. Do you?

Just read it 10x aloud and it will speak for itself--Act 13's sermon.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Just read it 10x aloud and it will speak for itself--Act 13's sermon.

Acts 13A and Acts 13B are juxtaposed with Amos 3C, leading to erroneous conclusions regarding the red dirt prophetic plan which is indeed a spiritual enterprise only combobulated properly with book learning.

 

[Interplanner]

Acts 13A and Acts 13B are juxtaposed with Amos 3C, leading to erroneous conclusions regarding the red dirt prophetic plan which is indeed a spiritual enterprise only combobulated properly with book learning.

I'm sorry you think that's what theological learning is about.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I'm sorry you think that's what theological learning is about.

Which part of my statement are you discodified with, and which do you have an adverse rumination?
Matt 24A could not be more clear.

 

[Sherman]

We've all done this for years.
I guess it boils down to the fact that some madists are incapable of respecting the simple wishes for just one thread. Shame, cause I was hoping to get the opinions of people who stay well away from the mad debates.

​I tend to stay away from these debates myself because I am no expert.

 

[Sherman]

I have been a member of TOL since April of 2007 and have started numerous threads over the years, with the assurance that I as the OP, could freely designate known protestors of my views ahead of time, that they would not be allowed to interfere with my threads.

I was never advised otherwise . . .

Also, I have participated in numerous threads where other (non-dispensational or OT) OPs have exerted the same privilege.

Since 2007 I have assumed that was a right of TOL membership that protected TOL members who went to the trouble of starting threads to share their Christian views, from unnecessary or malicious interference, if such anticipated interference was precluded and prohibited from the thread, from the very start.

Never, was this courtesy to OP's ever limited to only Open Theism posters, to my knowledge.

Now, all of a sudden, only Open Theists are given freedom to post without opposition? But all differing views remain subject to Open Theistic interference and opposition despite the OP's desires and requests to initiate a thread free from such opposition?

This will have to be taken up with the upper management. I will forward this to one of the admins. I am only a Mod. I don't make policy, I only enforce existing policy.

 

[Nihilo]

The Catechism is, in effect, what the Lord Himself says to us today in matters of faith, doctrine and morals. The Catechism teaches that you don't have to obey the pope, to be a true Christian. So that's probably why you don't see any explanation for "why we should obey popes" coming from Catholics.

Mormons say the same thing about their books

Mormonism was invented in the 1800s.

, their prophet and 70 apostles. Same basic model is yours

Same basic model means the Mormons stole the idea.

, both rejecting the word of God in favor of human authorities. Prove them wrong and that you're right.

There is either an official Church teaching office, or there is not. If there is not, then neither Mormonism nor Holy Catholicism is correct. But if there is an official Church teaching office, then it is definitely not Mormon, because supra.

 

[Sherman]

[/B]

Okay only one, but, not this one. I'll let you know later which one I chose.

He does have a point. You are getting a little excessive. You have the entire Theology club and he has this one thread.

Please do not marginalize TOL threads or TOL members, the topics and threads that interest some TOL members might not interest you. Just ignore threads and TOL members that do not interest you.

I will start taking people out of the thread that are here just to marginalize the thread. This isn't a goofball thread like URANTIA. This is another shade of Christianity. If you are not interested, just go to the thread that does capture your interest.

 

[meshak]

It's a false belief system invented by a man (John Nelson Darby), that was based on a "vision" from a teenage girl.

Dispensationalism was invented during "the age of the cults" around 1830.

Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell, and Ellen White were contemporaries of Darby.

However, the really funny thing about Dispies/MADists is how they live in denial. They do everything they can to disassociate themselves, and what they believe from Darby.

It would be like a Mormon claiming Joseph Smith had nothing to do with Mormonism.

Please don't mix non-trins with MADism.

thank you.

 

[john w]

Please don't mix non-trins with MADism.

thank you.

TOL has you on ignore. Good day to you, sir. Blessings.

 

[glorydaz]

If Im wrong, create a thread to tackle where Im wrong.
Some years ago chickenman created a thread for those seeking to understand mad, it was requested that mad debatrs stay out of that thread, which we did. Later the thread was moved to the theology club. Out of respect, I have not joined that, because I understand its not a place for debate.
The mads here are incapable of respecting the wishes of someone interested in what non mads think of mad.

Im beginning to think you cant keep out of this thread because youre concerned by what non mads might actually think of you when the facts are presented.

Nah....we just don't like being slandered any more than you do.

For instance, your claim that MADS ignore most of the Bible and don't believe it's written for them. WRONG. It's that kind of nonsense that needs to be addressed. All the Bible is written for us, but it's not all addressed specifically to us. Can't you recognize the difference between what you claimed and the truth?

 

[God's Truth]

Nah....we just don't like being slandered any more than you do.

Ironic.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Nah....we just don't like being slandered any more than you do.

For instance, your claim that MADS ignore most of the Bible and don't believe it's written for them. WRONG. It's that kind of nonsense that needs to be addressed. All the Bible is written for us, but it's not all addressed specifically to us. Can't you recognize the difference between what you claimed and the truth?

True.

Dandy andy does not try to obey Leviticus, but just because certain letters are called "the new testament" in his Bible, he thinks they are for his direct obedience.

 

[dodge]

Madists please respect the fact that this thread is not for you.

I'm wondering what non mad evangelical christians think of mad.
Do you see it as as a harmless modern opinion of grace with a overweighted interest in Darby flavored eschatology?
Do you see it as a dangerous movement that is more cultish than Christian?

I'm really wanting you to nail your colors to the mast here with an honest opinion.
I'm going to be brutally honest and say that I don't think mad is harmless. I think it's extremely cultish, and should be warned against among fellow evangelicals.
The denial of repentance, water baptism, the born again experience, and removal of two thirds of the new testament directly applying to christians today, makes mad a cult. A gnostic style cult at that.

You may disagree, but don't shrink back from telling us what you really think, even if you're friendly with these people. What do you really think about mad?

I have not studied MAD for a long time, but they ( Madist ) remind me of JW'S, Mormons and Roman Catholics. They emphasize a few scriptures,and take many scriptures out of context to make their beliefs work for them. They completely miss the big picture of the GOSPEL and marginalize the gospel so they can make a gospel for the Jews and another for the gentiles. MAD is confusion and God is not the author of confusion.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I have not studied MAD for a long time, but they ( Madist ) remind me of JW'S, Mormons and Roman Catholics. They emphasize a few scriptures,and take many scriptures out of context to make their beliefs work for them. They completely miss the big picture of the GOSPEL and marginalize the gospel so they can make a gospel for the Jews and another for the gentiles. MAD is confusion and God is not the author of confusion.

Anything you don't understand is confusing. But to say it is confusion because you do not understand it is incorrect.