ECT What's MAD?

[vfirestormv]

I am in my 40's and not a liberal. Does my ignorance come from following the Bible as well as Paul's teaching too? You are the ones who claim to follow Paul's teachings until Paul says something that your doctrine can not sustain. Like we are graffed in and repent and to strive for righteousness.
The MAD doctrine produces lazy Christians who can say, I have my salvation so buzzer off while I continue my sinning... which is not what Paul or any of the Bible teaches.

Again more bad rep for posting the truth. Like I am going to cry about the faulty rep system??? My posts will speak for themselves as they are backed up with solid Bible teaching. But thanks for the neg rep GM...

 

[Lon]

https://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/are-we-hyper-dispensationalists/

This may not speak for every MAD and I do not agree with every point Havard raises, particularly regarding Bullinger, but it's essentially "it."

Quick question: Are you sure this isn't an article addressing the difference between regular dispensationalists and hyper ones?

"As far as most Acts 2 folks are concerned" -Berean Bible Society (from your link)

MAD would be 'mid Acts' rather than acts 2 and so I'm pretty sure, both by the stance of the berean society and this article, it doesn't address the difference between MAD and Hyper but correct me here if I am incorrect. Thanks again. Lon

From here, it seems the largest difference between MAD and hyper, is the observation of baptism and the Lord's Supper. Is this the main difference as you understand it?

 

[musterion]

Thank you very much. Heading over to read now.

You're welcome. I do appreciate the fact that, for all our other disagreements, I've never known you to set up straw men or deliberately misrepresent MAD, and that shows integrity.

 

[meshak]

Again more bad rep for posting the truth. Like I am going to cry about the faulty rep system??? My posts will speak for themselves as they are backed up with solid Bible teaching. But thanks for the neg rep GM...

Now you have done it.

From now on, you will receive barrage of neg reps from GM.

There are a quite few members getting the same from him.

And he is a hero member of this forum because of it.

 

[musterion]

Quick question: Are you sure this isn't an article addressing the difference between regular dispensationalists and hyper ones?

Not quite. It's addressing the accusations long leveled at mid-Acts by traditional/Acts 2 dispensationalists. He does note that the biggest real difference between Acts 2 and mid-Acts is (a) when the Body of Christ began and (2) what place, if any, does water baptism have in the Body of Christ. Of those two, it's the second that has caused the most flack against us, for reasons that are truly scary to contemplate.

MAD would be 'mid Acts' rather than acts 2 and so I'm pretty sure, both by the stance of the berean society and this article, it doesn't address the difference between MAD and Hyper

Actually it does...I've seen others do a better job at it but as the quick overview it was intended to be, Havard's writeup will suffice. Anyway, you'll see his point when you read it.

 

[Tambora]

The MAD doctrine produces lazy Christians

Do mean good works?
For you have no idea how many good works I have done.

who can say, I have my salvation so buzzer off while I continue my sinning...

Did you continue sinning when you were saved?
If so, then you claim the same thing --- continuing to sin has no effect on your salvation.

 

[Lon]

Not quite. It's addressing the accusations long leveled at mid-Acts by traditional/Acts 2 dispensationalists. He does note that the biggest real difference between Acts 2 and mid-Acts is (a) when the Body of Christ began and (2) what place, if any, does water baptism have in the Body of Christ. Of those two, it's the second that has caused the most flack against us, for reasons that are truly scary to contemplate.

Actually it does...I've seen others do a better job at it but as the quick overview it was intended to be, Havard's writeup will suffice. Anyway, you'll see his point when you read it.

Thanks again. Really appreciate it. I added a bit more in that post *(you are blazing fast on reply this morning ).

Basically, it was the question regarding the main difference. I'm trying to understand who/why a MAD wants to distance specifically away from Hyper. Is it specifically the observance of the Lord's Supper and Baptism?

Perhaps even more pertinent, do we have both on TOL and do you guys often disagree? I would say I've not clued-in on this part of the TOL discussion in the past, though I know I've seen disagreements in-camp as it were, I didn't pay attention like I'm doing now. Thanks again.

-Lon

 

[vfirestormv]

Now you have done it.

From now on, you will receive barrage of neg reps from GM.

There are a quite few members getting the same from him.

And he is a hero member of this forum because of it.

Will not bother me in the slightest. The pharisees never liked the truth either. They will do the same to any that will dare stand against them. I have had nothing but hate come toward me from them once they knew I did not stand for their doctrine. I don't try to argue or belittle the person as they seem to do, but would rather present scripture. But once you call them on that, the name calling and neg reps begins. Such is life...


Edit: I will not delete my post but I do want to apologize to most of the rep's of MAD, as I took the acts of a few and included it to most of MAD which just is not true. From most, although some intense disagreement, I have never been personally attacked or hated on.
So again, this is me saying I was wrong for saying that.

 

[vfirestormv]

Do mean good works?
For you have no idea how many good works I have done.


Did you continue sinning when you were saved?
If so, then you claim the same thing --- continuing to sin has no effect on your salvation.

You are correct, it has no effect on our salvation. But you can't hardly find a post on here where someone talks about good works that a MAD rep. doesn't jump on it and say "that's a works salvation." It is a works salvation, I got salvation for nothing and has caused me to work for Him because of it.

 

[musterion]

Basically, it was the question regarding the main difference. I'm trying to understand who/why a MAD wants to distance specifically away from Hyper. Is it specifically the observance of the Lord's Supper and Baptism?

I personally don't bother, because (1) it never works no matter what I say, and (2) there's a lot of things EWB has been accused of believing that is used as a club against people like me, but which I've seen no hard evidence that the man ever actually believed. And what I have read of the man, he was eminently devout and sound in the faith, not to mention absolutely brilliant, as was Sir Robert Anderson (a book of whose I'd recommend to you above anyone else's).

Perhaps even more pertinent, do we have both on TOL and do you guys often disagree?

I think our in-house disagreements are relatively minor but as far as true out-and-out hyperdispensationalists (Acts 28, if anyone), I know of none on TOL at this time.

I would say I've not clued-in on this part of the TOL discussion in the past, though I know I've seen disagreements in-camp as it were, I didn't pay attention like I'm doing now. Thanks again.

No problem. And I think it'd be fair to say (just for the sake of conversation) that the inside baseball controversies MADs have are NOTHING compared with those within the Reformed camp, eh? I pay attention to those, too, as you may have noticed.

 

[musterion]

But you can't hardly find a post on here where someone talks about good works that a MAD rep. doesn't jump on it and say "that's a works salvation."

Again you lie or lied about paying attention, for this was explained to you as well.

We believe that we were created for good works in Christ. NOT ONE MAD WILL SAY GOOD WORKS HAVE NO PLACE IN THE BELIEVER'S LIFE.

Where we differ from easily 95% of TOL posters is on whether good works have any impact or relevance to one's salvation if he/she is in Christ. We say "no." Good works neither obtain, maintain nor prove one is or isn't saved...Christ Himself said so. And that includes our rejecting water baptism, which I believe you said is evidence someone has not believed the Gospel of Christ even if one has believed it.

So if anyone here is preoccupied with salvational works...it ain't us. You've made water baptism into a work of righteousness without which salvation is, at best, dubious if not impossible.

 

[vfirestormv]

Why is it that most MAD rep's get overly angry and start name calling and saying that someone is not saved or our God is a bumbling idiot and leaving bad rep for someone who disagrees with their theology? First off, I would never call your God anything like that because I don't know if you are saved or not and I am not going to blaspheme my God. Secondly, if you or whoever are saved, then you are my brothers and sisters in Christ. Now we may disagree about a lot of things but it does not change the fact that we are to love one another. Call me out on scripture that you think I am misquoting and I will do the same. But don't attack me personally as if you hate me. Which I hope you don't. I have never seen so much hatred on a predominantly Christian board in my life.



edit: again I must apologize for saying most, when it has only been the acts of a few.

 

[musterion]

You said you doubt my profession of faith in Christ based on my rejection of water baptism.

 

[meshak]

Will not bother me in the slightest. The pharisees never liked the truth either. They will do the same to any that will dare stand against them. I have had nothing but hate come toward me from them once they knew I did not stand for their doctrine. I don't try to argue or belittle the person as they seem to do, but would rather present scripture. But once you call them on that, the name calling and neg reps begins. Such is life...

good for you.

 

[Lon]

No problem. And I think it'd be fair to say (just for the sake of conversation) that the inside baseball controversies MADs have are NOTHING compared with those within the Reformed camp, eh? I pay attention to those, too, as you may have noticed.

Well, but as you say:

... as far as true out-and-out hyperdispensationalists (Acts 28, if anyone), I know of none on TOL at this time.

It seems like I remember John W talking about Bullinger, but perhaps he was just fielding the accusation of being a Bullingerite or Bullingerism.

Thanks again for your helpful response.

 

[vfirestormv]

Again you lie or lied about paying attention, for this was explained to you as well.

We believe that we were created for good works in Christ. NOT ONE MAD WILL SAY GOOD WORKS HAVE NO PLACE IN THE BELIEVER'S LIFE.

Where we differ from easily 95% of TOL posters is on whether good works have any impact or relevance to one's salvation if he/she is in Christ. We say "no." Good works neither obtain, maintain nor prove one is or isn't saved...Christ Himself said so. And that includes our rejecting water baptism, which I believe you said is evidence someone has not believed the Gospel of Christ even if one has believed it.

So if anyone here is preoccupied with salvational works...it ain't us. You've made water baptism into a work of righteousness without which salvation is, at best, dubious if not impossible.

Well that is exactly what I believe that we are created to good works. But then why all the hostility toward me because I differ from your views on there being more than one gospel.

And no I do not believe that if you are not water baptized that that is proof you don't believe. I only said that I think we should do it. Not that it was of any requirement. The thief on the cross was never baptized with water either. I believe there are death bed salvations where the now believer has had not one work for Christ yet he is saved because he believed on the Son of God and His finished work.

 

[Doom]

Having been a Christian many years, I'd never heard of this MAD thing. No cult has added to the Christian faith of the Bible. If I don't need them, why would I need this? Which leads to the most important question, then: who cares?

If you had been around during the time of Martin Luther, you would have opted for the RCC, and called Luther's views "a cult".

You have no case.

 

[vfirestormv]

You said you doubt my profession of faith in Christ based on my rejection of water baptism.

No sir, you find that post. It does not exist. I have always maintained that you say you believed in Christ and I have always called you a brother because of that profession.

In fact I believe that most of MAD rep's are saved as they believe grace alone by faith alone in Christ alone. But I disagree that there is more than one Church or more than one gospel. And I am adamant about it because I feel it dishonors Christ to think that salvation ever came from any other way than through the cross.
But in no way do I hate or even try to attack any person who holds that view, I simply try to refute the view with scripture and reasoning, the same way you do by defending it.

 

[musterion]

Well, but as you say:


It seems like I remember John W talking about Bullinger, but perhaps he was just fielding the accusation of being a Bullingerite or Bullingerism.

I'm almost certain he was.

Look, there's a lot Bullinger wrote that I agree with and - I guarantee - you'd agree with too. Does that make either of us "Bullingerites"? Calvin wrote SOME things I'd agree with, but I'm not a Calvinist.

It's one thing to apply a label - any label - to oneself. Fine, have at it. It's quite another to have a label slapped on you for the sole purpose of shutting you up. That's what the whole Bullingerism (or if you're TetNang, "Darbyism") thing is about.

 

[Tambora]

Do mean good works?
For you have no idea how many good works I have done.


Did you continue sinning when you were saved?
If so, then you claim the same thing --- continuing to sin has no effect on your salvation.

You are correct, it has no effect on our salvation.

Great.
Our works have no effect on our salvation.

But you can't hardly find a post on here where someone talks about good works that a MAD rep. doesn't jump on it and say "that's a works salvation."

When they speak of their own good works, they are boasting of something that has no effect on salvation.
It's just, well, boasting of their own works.

I do not boast of my good works.
I just do them without drawing attention to them or myself.
Cause it ain't about what I do, or what you do. It's about what Christ did.

It is a works salvation, I got salvation for nothing and has caused me to work for Him because of it.

It's nice that you do good works.
We expect good works from everyone, whether they are a believer or not.
But it has nothing to do with their getting salvation or keeping salvation.
If it did, then even an atheist might have done more good works than you have.
So, the good works are the not the criteria for whether one is saved or not.