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

[john w]

You and Thel will be eating high on the hog for a couple months.

:chew:

Wednesday night standing date...a little "TV," and cashew fudge...It all goes to my muscles...

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Right....

I forgot about the KJV only folks.

Nevertheless, even the KJV won't bail you out of the variety of "gospels" that all refer to a single body of knowledge proclaimed during the ministries of John the Baptist and the Lord Jesus.

Matthew refers to the gospel that Jesus preached as the gospel of the kingdom (Matthew 4:23) while mark refers to the gospel as the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Mark 1:1).

Are these different gospels?

No?

So would you agree that the bible can call the same gospel by different terms?


Of course.

That gospel progressively developed as the events of redemptive history progressed, of course.

So Jesus didn't publicly proclaim His death, burial and resurrection (though He did disclose this to His disciples even if they weren't prepared to hear it).

You look at the progressive development of the one gospel and impose a man made structure chopping it up in order to maintain the artificial distinction between the church and Israel. And you do so very inconsistently.

Most MAD folks I have heard believe that Jesus and Paul preached different gospels even though the scriptures refer to them both as the Gospel of Christ (See Mark 1:1 and Romans 1:16).




Which gospel is at hand heir?

The gospel of Jesus Christ or the gospel of the kingdom?

Mark doesn't appear to think they are different:

"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God"; (Mar 1:1 KJV)

"Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, (Mar 1:14 KJV)"

Are there two different gospels in Mark alone?

MADists will engage in small talk among themselves to avoid the truth of your post.

They are dishonest through and through.

LA

 

[patrick jane]

I really don't believe PJ knows anything about what, "MAD" stands for? He/she's just taking a wild guess?
"Usually" when someone designates themselves a "Christian OTHER" they are mixing, ' The True Gospel'
with some form of false doctrine! I would ask "PJ" to give a testimony of how he/she became a member
of "The Body of Christ?" And, does he/she know for certain where they will spend eternity, and why?

"Others" usually, cannot or will not comply with this request!

"others" are madists too. people i think. when did I become a member ? i have to check the date on my card. why would i, or anyone "comply" with your "request" ? your redundancy shows clearly, that you memorized a response(s) to PROVE YOUR Salvation and WHERE YOU will spend eternity. it's all about GM ! You are so unsure of YOUR Salvation, that you check others to see if they memorized the same few scriptures. I give my testimony to deserving, SINCERE people. everyone is deserving, but not everyone is sincere. i have nothing to "prove" to you or anyone here. i know who i am In Christ, you should know me too. i have given testimony and will again. not a "conditioned" response learned from people i post with

 

[patrick jane]

MADists will engage in small talk among themselves to avoid the truth of your post.

They are dishonest through and through.

LA

after a few months here, we all see

 

[john w]

MADists will engage in small talk among themselves to avoid the truth of your post.

They are dishonest through and through.

LA

That settles it, as Cousin It/Oprah weighs in.

 

[musterion]

:nono:

MAD makes the word "dispensation" mean a period of time (which no Greek lexicon will define it as...).

I do not do that, and I think MADs in general are informed enough not to do so either. Acts 2 dispensationalists, yes, but not us. I quote a MAD who was far wiser than I'll ever be:

Indeed, one of the greatest Bible teachers of the past generation defined a dispensation as follows:

"A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God."

This is incorrect, for a dispensation is not a period of time but the act of dealing out or that which is dealt out.

Much of what followed was built on that faulty premise, so I won't waste time on it.

On the other hand, I can point out specifically and unambiguously the covenants that God makes with man.

So can I.

What I would like you to do is point out the one He made with us Gentiles during this dispensation of grace, after He quit dealing with Israel as Israel.

Every single one, I can give you chapter and verse.

Just the one requested above, please.

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.

What was He preaching in Mark 1:14? What would have been the content of that good news? Who was it intended for? What were they expected to do about it?

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.

Grace goes all the way back to the Fall and so is not news. God has extended grace since the fall of man. The issue here is what God expected the recipients of different good newses throughout history to believe or to do. THAT is what has changed over time. Grace has not.

Contrary to some MAD folks, Jesus didn't preach works righteousness.

Works of righteousness, yes I think He did. Water baptism, for example, was a work of righteousness. It was non-negotiable. But today, it means nothing.

Where in the bible is this ever referred to as a gospel?

It was good news. If they met the condition, they would get the blessing. Do you believe that passage, in context, applies verbatim to us today?

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?

You already answered this above. Christ preached the Gospel of the Kingdom (Matthew 4:23; Mark 1:14).

Romans 1:2-3 is a beautiful synopsis of the gospel.

Of the core of the Gospel of the grace of God -- that is, of Christ Himself -- yes. But tell me: can someone be saved by hearing or reading and believing nothing of the Bible but Rom 1:1-5?

So you tell me, was Jesus promised beforehand for the Jews in Jesus' time?

Yes.

Was He not the descendant of David of according to the flesh?

Yes.

Isn't that more relevant for Jew than a gentile?

Gentiles were cast off dogs at that point -- to whom Christ said He was not sent -- with no access to God unless they came via Israel. So your question is moot.

Think here :think: isn't Romans supposed to be Paul preaching the gospel of the un-circumcision?

Note the distinction Paul draws between Romans 1:1-3 and Romans 16:25-26. Since you agree words mean things, these categorically cannot be the same, identical message. Question: Which one does Paul say establishes the believer?

That the message of salvation to the gentiles is different than the message of salvation to the Jews?

WHEN are you talking about?

Paul didn't say that he received a completely different message than the one preached by Peter

Yes he did. Romans 16:25-26, where he referred to "my gospel" and said it was a secret never before revealed (Eph 3:8-9; Col 1:26). In order for Paul not to have lied about the content of his revelation being never before revealed, neither Peter nor any other man can have known it before God revealed it through Paul. Because words mean things...except, as you're sure to selectively decide, when they don't.

So where in Galatians does it say that Paul received a different gospel than the one Peter was preaching?

See previous entry.

Hint: Saying that Paul didn't receive the gospel from Peter is not the same thing as saying that Paul received a different gospel.

See previous entry.

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). If MAD is right, Peter is burning in hell for preaching another gospel.

No. Galatians 2:8-9 addresses that. You are desperate to the point of stupidity.

 

[tetelestai]

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?

:up:

Using the logic of Dispensationalists, "God" would be a time period.

(Col 1:25 KJV) Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

 

[Nang]

:up:

Using the logic of Dispensationalists, "God" would be a time period.

(Col 1:25 KJV) Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

You mean, using the literalism of Dispensationalists, "God" would be a time period.

They are devoid of logic . . .

 

[heir]

:up:

Using the logic of Dispensationalists, "God" would be a time period.

(Col 1:25 KJV) Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

idiot


Paul was given a dispensation of God to fulfil the word of God, even the mystery...

Colossians 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:

Colossians 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

Colossians 1:26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

Colossians 1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

 

[tetelestai]

Paul was given a dispensation of God to fulfil the word of God, even the mystery...

Yes, I know.

But you guys make "dispensation" a time period.

Is "God" a time period?

 

[musterion]

See how he simply ignores what he doesn't like? Cultist.

 

[Nang]

See how he simply ignores what he doesn't like? Cultist.

Projecting, much?

 

[musterion]

Projecting, much?

Good point. I don't like you so I typically ignore you.

 

[musterion]

 

[MAD Max]

Is "God" a time period?

No, and neither is He a building.

"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."

But you guys make "dispensation" a time period.

If anyone calls a dispensation a time period, that would be incorrect. However, a dispensation lasts for a period of time.

The dispensation of God is simply a calling to oversee a specific purpose carried to completion, and it has both a beginning and end.

It is similar to an employer implementing his plan and having it be administered by an employee to completion.

In this case, God is implementing His plan through the apostle Paul, which He kept hidden, until the proper time. It has a beginning and an end. It is not a period of time, but it lasts for a period of time.

 

[DAN P]

Yes, I know.

But you guys make "dispensation" a time period.

Is "God" a time period?

Hi and it only the Un-initiated that call it a period of time , and adminstration , a stewardship or and economy !

OIKONOMIA mean OIKOS a House and NOMOS means a Law or House Law or the Revelation of the Mystery !!:chuckle::chuckle:

dan p

 

[tetelestai]

If anyone calls a dispensation a time period, that would be incorrect. However, a dispensation lasts for a period of time.

Sounds like double talk to me.

Here is what Wikipedia says (bold my emphases)

"Dispensational theology refers to the unified teachings of Dispensationalism that address what other views teach as divergent theologies in the Old Testament and New Testament. Its name reflects a view that biblical history is best understood as a series of dispensations, or separated time-periods, in the Bible."

Here are Darby's 7 Dispensations.

(I) Innocence
(2) Conscience
(3) Human Government
(4) Promise
(5) Law
(6) Grace
(7) Kingdom

From Encyclopedia Britannica:

"In response to the dilution of biblical postmillennialism, English and American Protestants, led by the 19th-century theologian John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren, elaborated a series of “dispensations,” or periods of time during which God interacts with humanity according to an evolving set of rules."

 

[musterion]

If I could report you for stubborn stupidity I would.

No MAD considers dispensations a period of time. Acts 2 dispensationalists, who are not consistent, often do.

Stop lying. We know better what we believe than you do.

 

[MAD Max]

You might think that this Darby fellow came before Paul, or even before God, but that is not true.

I'm not interested in what he thinks, and have little interest in what you think, but I do care a great deal what God thinks, and what He spoke to the apostle Paul concerning the dispensation of the grace of God.

You act is if the word only means what Darby thinks it means. Perhaps you should expand your knowledge beyond some man, and look into what God says it means.

Wikipedia does not define terms (not for me anyway), but God does. I suggest you focus your attention on His words, and not man's.

 

[steko]

Scofield's original Reference Bible called a dispensation a period of time, but L.S. Chafer didn't and neither does Charles Ryrie. Ryrie talks at length to distinguish dispensation from time period.

Dispensationalists do not all walk lock step, mainly because their hermeneutic is not from a fixed doctrine but from the literal plain speech of the Scriptures.

As I've said before, I arrived at my conclusions from simply reading the Word, long before I ever heard of Dispenstionalism.