MAD delineates the ones already delineated in Scripture. Your argument is with God, not us.
:nono:
MAD makes the word "dispensation" mean a period of time (which no Greek lexicon will define it as...). And then proceeds to manufacture "dispensations" that the bible never refers to as dispensations and ignores the very clear covenantal delineations of the bible.
I'll bet you believe that there is a dispensation of conscience right?
Where in the bible can I find that?
Do you want a simple and clear illustration of how MAD makes up dispensations?
The word οικονομια only occurs 9 times in the entire NT.
3 of those are used in Jesus' parable in Luke 16 to refer to the stewardship of the dishonest manager.
The other six are used by Paul:
1 Cor 9:17 where Paul talks about his responsibility to preach the gospel (nothing to do at all with any epoch of time).
Ephesians 1:10 Here Paul speaks of a plan for the fullness of time.
Ephesians 3:2 This one which the dispies love but is really best seen as Paul's responsibility to take the gospel to the gentiles
Ephesians 3:9 Where, again, it speaks of God's unfolding plan
Colossians 1:25 Very much the same idea as Ephesians 3:2
1 Tim 1:4 Which refers to the stewardship of faith in contrast to the speculations on geneologies.
Not a single time in all the bible does it refer to a "dispensation of conscience" or a "dispensation of innocence" or a "dispensation of patriarchal rule."
On the other hand, I can point out
specifically and unambiguously the covenants that God makes with man.
Every single one, I can give you
chapter and
verse.
Musterion said:
First, you have a choice to make here. Either words in the Bible mean things, or they do not.
I totally agree!
Which is why you are
not at liberty to take the work "dispensation" and contort it to mean something it doesn't in order to chop up the bible into sections the bible never refers to.
:nono:
Musterion said:
Put another way…either these, for the most part, are different “good newses” that are somehow distinct from one another, or they are all the exact same “good news” simply referred to by different labels. Which is the case?
Same gospel.
But if you are going to be consistent in applying your logic then you really should claim that Mark 1:1 speaks of a different gospel than Mark 1:14 since Mark uses different words to describe the gospel.
Is that what you believe?
Musterion said:
Second, if you want to know what various Gospels in the Bible actually mean (instead of trying to guess by what they’re called), try to perceive the terms of what each required…in other words, what is the exact “good news” proffered in each, and what were people expected or required to do about it. That’ll clue you big.
Good idea, and when you do so you find that the gospel that Jesus preached is as much about grace as the gospel that Paul preached.
Contrary to some MAD folks, Jesus didn't preach works righteousness.
Musterion said:
Third, Deut 6:25 is one of the many “good newses” in the Bible:
Where in the bible is this ever referred to as a gospel?
Words have meaning.
Musterion said:
You are too ignorant and confused as to what we actually believe to have posted this. Seriously. You posted a straw man and don't even know it.
Feel free to correct any misconceptions you think I have. Did the gospel of Jesus Christ, the son of God begin with Jesus or with Paul? Which gospel did Jesus proclaim?
Musterion said:
Anyway, Romans 1:2-3 contains the clue you need, if you have eyes to see it.
Romans 1:2-3 is a beautiful synopsis of the gospel.
So you tell me, was Jesus promised beforehand for the Jews in Jesus' time? Was He not the descendant of David of according to the flesh? Isn't that
more relevant for Jew than a gentile? Think here :think: isn't Romans supposed to be Paul preaching the gospel of the un-circumcision?
Musterion said:
And? In what respect are these the same Gospel that Paul said was revealed and committed unto him directly from heaven, which he received nor was taught by any man?
Which you think means what?
That the message of salvation to the gentiles is different than the message of salvation to the Jews?
:nono:
Why not let the passage be exegeted
in context.
"For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. 14 And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. (Galatians 1:11-17 ESV)"
Paul didn't say that he received a
completely different message than the one preached by Peter, he said that he didn't receive the gospel from Peter, or James, or John or anyone, he received the gospel from a revelation from Christ. Furthermore, he didn't run right out and seek the approval of the other apostles, he didn't need to. He got the gospel from Jesus Himself.
Musterion said:
See…either words mean things, or they don’t.
I agree!
So where in Galatians does it say that Paul received a
different gospel than the one Peter was preaching?
Hint: Saying that Paul didn't receive the gospel from Peter is not the same thing as saying that Paul received a different gospel.
What Paul does say is that there isn't another gospel (Gal 1:6) and that if Peter is preaching one, he is damned (Gal 1:8).
:jawdrop:
If MAD is right, Peter is burning in hell for preaching another gospel.
Musterion said:
Because (a) Paul said what he said and (b) Paul made the same distinction elsewhere.
Really, where?
Because so far you have been unsuccessful in giving us a valid example.
