ECT Would MAD be more accepted if Gal 2:7 were not in the text

[andyc]

if this is the only way that madists can feel free from legalism, they will fight to the death for what they regard as being justified. The problem is, the justification within mad i see is actually justification of the flesh, not spirit.

Your ideas are unbalanced, so buzz off.Take a hermeneutics course, pulease, to resolve any nuanced disagreement. You have bigger fish to fry since you reject much of the NT as Church Age truth. No wonder your perception of the gospel is distorted. You are making a typical unbalanced, rookie mistake.God is not reduced to an experiment like genetic fruit flies,and to pontificate and win an argument more than have mutual dialogue, is not credible.I believe it in context, not as a proof text for your views.

etc.


Cab anyone refresh my memory, as to just what were we discussing?

See what I mean?

 

[john w]

I think the topic was Lunatic Fringe by Red Rider. It's one of the songs on my training playlist when I lift weights. I'm pretty sure the lead singer is a distant relative of Leonard Blush.

I'm still diggin' my "Starlight Delight" tune, on my 8 track, along with that legend, Terry Jacks, and his "Seasons in the Sun" beat, which I play, when the market heads south. I wonder what causes that?

 

[musterion]

Poor taste.

 

[heir]

I think the topic was Lunatic Fringe by Red Rider. It's one of the songs on my training playlist when I lift weights. I'm pretty sure the lead singer is a distant relative of Leonard Blush.

:singer:

 

[john w]

See what I mean?

Get a grip, nit. You may reject what the Bible says, but at least interpret it properly.Your proof texts, using your interpretation, would lead to contradiction, so they must be interpreted somewhat figuratively.
It is hard to balance style with literalness, etc. (dynamic vs formal equivalence have pros and cons...compromise is inevitable for communication). etc.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I'm still diggin' my "Starlight Delight" tune, on my 8 track,

I'm not surprised you enjoy those risque lyrics, being a carnal MAD wacko.

 

[andyc]

Get a grip, nit. You may reject what the Bible says, but at least interpret it properly.Your proof texts, using your interpretation, would lead to contradiction, so they must be interpreted somewhat figuratively.
It is hard to balance style with literalness, etc. (dynamic vs formal equivalence have pros and cons...compromise is inevitable for communication). etc.

What do you think it means to walk in the Spirit?

 

[Nick M]

You armchair theologians could use a course in orthodoxy, orthopraxy, and orthodontics.

I can't condense 30 years of study from a variety of sources into a few posts. There are many resources to help you, but you prefer fringe writers over ones that can give you more biblical answers.

 

[Nick M]

What do you think it means to walk in the Spirit?

It means you pay no mind to the performance of the flesh. It is something you do not do.

For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.... 9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. 10 And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

 

[Nick M]

The main reason why I think MAD should be see as false to everyone in the mainstream denominations is because it is a denial of life in the Spirit walking by faith

Oh.

 

[andyc]

It means you pay no mind to the performance of the flesh. It is something you do not do.

For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.... 9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. 10 And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

Non madists....are you watching?

 

[john w]

What do you think it means to walk in the Spirit?

Truth does not run from error. Unity and love cannot come at the expense of truth.You can dish it out, but you cannot take it. You misrepresent and misunderstand my views, in context. etc., yet when I sarcastically adopt your ignorant strategy, you can't stand it. You also lack interpretation skills to elicit its true meaning in context. Quit being impulsive and take time to understand what people believe instead of overreacting to straw men. Your views are not even under the traditional, orthodox, mainstream Christian umbrella. God is not blind, deaf, and dumb, and the traditional church is being freed from some of the undue philosophical influences of tradition and philosophy that we have uncritically accepted. This is self-evident and does not require one proof text. Did you fall on your head out of your high chair, that affects your critical thinking, and results in sloppy, faulty eisegesis? Assuming Penty pet peeve doctrine is also not defensible and requires eisegesis and tradition above the Word to defend it.. It is time you get off your medication. The fact you use such extreme, lunatic fringe exegesis shows you lack integrity, credibility, and discernment, etc, etc. This is an e.g. of how we can misunderstand posts and beliefs. Try bifocals, in context. Who is your guru? Try using careful exegesis of all relevant passages, as this will divorce the metaphors, and avoid opening the door to square circles and married bachelors. For every proof text, there is a counter.


etc.

 

[john w]

I'm not surprised you enjoy those risque lyrics, being a carnal MAD wacko.

I affirm the Holy Bible, so I agree with those texts, but not when they are misinterpreted out of context. This does not prevent subjective error and reading preconceived ideas back into Scripture. Your opinions are not the authority. The Bible properly translated and interpreted it is. There is a difference between justification, sanctification, salvation, and relational fellowship, intimacy., etc., etc. Time for trifocals, buddy.. Time for you to come out of your closet. Post your picture, so I can throw darts.

etc.

 

[andyc]

Truth does not run from error. Unity and love cannot come at the expense of truth.You can dish it out, but you cannot take it. You misrepresent and misunderstand my views, in context. etc., yet when I sarcastically adopt your ignorant strategy, you can't stand it. You also lack interpretation skills to elicit its true meaning in context. Quit being impulsive and take time to understand what people believe instead of overreacting to straw men. Your views are not even under the traditional, orthodox, mainstream Christian umbrella. God is not blind, deaf, and dumb, and the traditional church is being freed from some of the undue philosophical influences of tradition and philosophy that we have uncritically accepted. This is self-evident and does not require one proof text. Did you fall on your head out of your high chair, that affects your critical thinking, and results in sloppy, faulty eisegesis? Assuming Penty pet peeve doctrine is also not defensible and requires eisegesis and tradition above the Word to defend it.. It is time you get off your medication. The fact you use such extreme, lunatic fringe exegesis shows you lack integrity, credibility, and discernment, etc, etc. This is an e.g. of how we can misunderstand posts and beliefs. Try bifocals, in context. Who is your guru? Try using careful exegesis of all relevant passages, as this will divorce the metaphors, and avoid opening the door to square circles and married bachelors. For every proof text, there is a counter.


etc.

What does it mean to walk in the Spirit?

 

[john w]

Non madists....are you watching?

You are begging the question, using circular reasoning (logical fallacy), assuming what you are trying to prove. , according to my exegesis, and generally accepted, sound, biblical proof texting of the relevant texts, in context, and generally accepted principles(GAP) of biblical, traditional, and historical hermeneutics, etc. and literary/textual criticism. You are outside of biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity, and what the church has historically taught, which is problematic, since your exegesis is divorced from what credible scholars, and evangelical, conservative, biblical scholarship has taught, blinded by your myopic wooden literalism, your unbalanced views, as you throw out the trees with the bath water. You are stereotyping out of ignorance., and are objectively apostate, in context. Biblical, normative Christianity judges your beliefs and pet peeve doctrines as being outside of the constructs of mainstream Christianity, based upon incorrect assumptions and conclusions, and preconceived notions.

You are getting a superficial understanding of Christianity from inaccurate or secular sources, w/o careful exegesis., and therefore you lack credibility to make simplistic judgments. You can find isolated quotes out of context to try to prove your point against right division, but that begs the question,


etc.

Any other questions, from the peanut gallery?

 

[john w]

What does it mean to walk in the Spirit?

This is still true in principle. If you would interpret in context (judging) instead of proof texting, you would have your answer….We interpret it in light of the context, Acts 1:8, Acts, church history, etc….. There is no reason to make a simple commission or John 3:16 KJV into a one gospel theory, or Jewish limitation, just because one has a preconceived Penty view. Interpret and apply in context to formulate a dispy view, but avoid the tendency to read one back into passages trying to make them fit our presumptions.The most basic teachings of Jesus become obscured by Penty, a reason to be critical of it…. so a dispy view must keep this as the starting point,… Interpretation and application. The historical narrative records a practice of the early church, but does not make it universally prescriptive. Some argue from this passage for communal living or socialism. This is bad exegesis/application, just as your narrow view is. Any commentary would shed light on this in context…. Penty is making a big mistake to marginalize the teachings of Jesus….. You underestimate how much Penty is based on assumptions and a few proof texts out of context. We can all list endless verses, but it still comes down to interpretation and guarding against the tendency to read our preconceived paradigms into the text…. Just as Calvinism vs Open Theism is about paradigms, not just proof texts (we use the same verses), so are the variety of Penty views (including the various views in your camp vs Acts 2...we also have nuanced views vs consensus on every point, despite using the same verses)…. Perhaps it is your minority view that is out of sync with truth?... The historical setting of the early church was different than the 21st century North American church. There are applicable principles, not prescriptions…. Can I pay for a Hermeneutics course for you?... This proof text is not a problem for Acts 2 views..

etc.

QED.

 

[andyc]

You are begging the question, using circular reasoning (logical fallacy), assuming what you are trying to prove. , according to my exegesis, and generally accepted, sound, biblical proof texting of the relevant texts, in context, and generally accepted principles(GAP) of biblical, traditional, and historical hermeneutics, etc. and literary/textual criticism. You are outside of biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity, and what the church has historically taught, which is problematic, since your exegesis is divorced from what credible scholars, and evangelical, conservative, biblical scholarship has taught, blinded by your myopic wooden literalism, your unbalanced views, as you throw out the trees with the bath water. You are stereotyping out of ignorance., and are objectively apostate, in context. Biblical, normative Christianity judges your beliefs and pet peeve doctrines as being outside of the constructs of mainstream Christianity, based upon incorrect assumptions and conclusions, and preconceived notions.

You are getting a superficial understanding of Christianity from inaccurate or secular sources, w/o careful exegesis., and therefore you lack credibility to make simplistic judgments. You can find isolated quotes out of context to try to prove your point against right division, but that begs the question,


etc.

Any other questions, from the peanut gallery?

What does it mean to walk in the Spirit?

 

[DAN P]

The good news is the same for both.

Both were redeemed by the same God and Savior by His son.

And that in spite of their seemingly different backgrounds.

And therefore their seemingly different needs

But both Israel and the Gentiles came from Adam and Eve.

Abraham was a Gentile. As were Sarah and Isaac and Rebekah and Jacob's wives.

MAD errs because it assumes that the dispensation of grace began in the middle of Acts, but actually started at Acts 2:1-4

Jacob was the first Israelite.

Hi and then Gal 2:7 , is wrong when the Holy Spirit has it written " THE UNCIRCUMCISION which is the gospel of Grace !!

Peter's message is called " THE CIRCUMCISION " a message to Jews only !

The Greek Article " THE " is in the front of Uncircumcision and Circumcision and it POINTS to a Different kind of Gospel .

Also notice that in verse 7 , ONLY calls Uncircumcision A GOSPEL and does not do it for Peter and just calls it " THE CIRCUMCISION ??

Because the EMPHASIZE is on " THE UNCIRCUMCISION !!:chuckle::chuckle:

DAN P

 

[john w]

What does it mean to walk in the Spirit?

God could have prevented rebellion by creating robots, and cosmic candy vending machines. What is your shoe size again?Why are you impersonating God? You are not Jehovah God, so quit blaspheming lest you get struck by lightning.Adding God and the Bible to your pet peeve doctrine, and hobby horse, lunatic, fringe views, does not validate nonsense.Mutually exclusive views are not equally valid, in context, etc.Are you a Jeffersonian closed Deist, or a Coolidge 7 point Calvinist? Did you fall out of your high chair, hit your head, resulting in dementia? May I recommend a traditional, normative orthrpraxic surgeon?


etc.

 

[musterion]

Can't we all just get a lawn?

- Rodney King,
spokesman for Cub Cadet mowers
from beyond the grave