Announcement

Collapse

Theology Club Rules

For years many TOL members have asked for a special set of forums where theology could be discussed without the distraction of troublemakers and other distractions. To post in the Theology Club forums you must apply for membership (yes even TOL subscribers must apply). Almost all memberships will be approved however your membership will be revoked if you engage in anti-Christian rhetoric, repeated cases of red-herrings, quibbling over terms (equivocation), strawmen, false allegations, and other devices contrary to honest debate. In short the Theology Club is a place for honest and friendly discussion regarding theological topics.
See more
See less

For Sincere Inquisitors ONLY: MAD Explained

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • For Sincere Inquisitors ONLY: MAD Explained

    GO AWAY
    Let me start by asking that troublemakers and opposers who are already convinced of themselves please refrain from posting in this thread. I would appreciate it if people like godrulz, andyc, cistercian, and others with similar agendas stay away. I'll respectfully ask that the moderator(s) delete any posts by these people, as well as others that inappropriately challenge others and/or that simply want to oppose for the sake of opposing. godrulz et al, if you post I'll ignore it but report it, asking it to be deleted. Of course, I can't make forum rules, so I'm only expressing my desire.


    COME ON IN
    Several people have expressed a sincere desire to learn more about MidActs Dispensationalism. Whether or not those people ultimately conclude the same is irrelevant. They are sincere inquisitors.

    This thread is for those people to ask questions. And they're absolutely welcome to offer challenges, as well. Sincere, open, non-compative people like Town Heretic, bodhigirsmiles, and bybee...this thread is for you to help you understand the MidActs position.



    ON THE BIBLE
    I'll kick it off by stating that MidActs Dispensationalism is an approach to reading and studying the Bible. Those of us who hold to this approach believe that we must read and study the Bible FORWARD, rather than BACKWARD. By this, I mean that we must understand what comes before Exodus before we can understand Exodus. We must understand "Old Testament" prophecy before we can understand Matthew. We must understand those things before we can understand what's going on in Acts. We believe that it is highly dangerous (to a doctrinal position that one formulates) for a person to read BACKWARD, meaning that he/she interprets an epistle, for instance, and then forces the things written previously to mean the same thing. We also believe it is dangerous to evaluate a book, chapter, or verse in and of itself. A verse HAS TO BE read and studied within the context of a book/epistle. That book/epistle HAS TO BE read and studied within the context of the commission of the human author (in the case of the epistles). And a book HAS TO BE read and studied through a biblical theology that first considers prophecy and God's stated plans.

    If one labors over a verse or chapter but does not understand God's covenants, prophecy, and dispensed commissions, then the doctrine based on those verses will at best be accidentally correct and at worst downright heretical.

    We also believe that we must take God's Word literally, unless the text demands that we don't. For example, when John sees a vision of a woman on a scarlet beast in Rev. 17, we can understand that in the future when his vision plays out, it won't actually involve a literal woman riding a literal scarlet beast, for the text defines what those two things represent. We gladly accept figurative language when the text demands it.

    And we believe that God's Word is what is inspired, so we must rely in it, rather than relying on scholar's varying opinions on history, culture, or even the underlying Greek/Hebrew text. Scholarly opinions will always differ from one another, but God's Word will always remain steadfast. So we rest on it as our ONLY authority.



    THE BASICS


    Where it all starts:
    • God called out a chosen nation to be His special people above all the nations of the earth.
    • The nation continually rebelled against God, to the point that they even rejected His Son Jesus Christ Who physically came to earth to get them to repent and turn to God.
    • For one year after Jesus' earthly ministry, God gave them repeated chances to accept the good news of His Son and the coming kingdom and to bear fruit.
    • Because the masses still rejected Him, God put a halt to the prophesied timeline of delivering the kingdom to them. He relegated the chosen nation to the status of the disobedient Gentile nations, thus putting ALL people in the same boat (as opposed to Israel being the preeminent nation).
    • Upon doing so, God called out Paul to be the "apostle to the Gentiles", delivering the "gospel of the uncircumcision" - a message that was different in many ways from that which was previously delivered by those apostles that Jesus chose during His earthly ministry.
    • Jesus Christ from heaven dispensed to Paul a gospel message that was specifically pertinent to the Body of Christ, whereas He had previously from earth dispensed a gospel message to the Twelve that was specifically pertinent to the chosen nation of Israel who awaited their coming tribulation and promised kingdom.
    • These two messages were different. The book of Acts shows the transition away from one to the other and displays the resulting confusion…a confusion which, by the way, still exists today and for pretty much the same reason as back then.
    How's that for starters?

    I'd love to address any questions and expand on any points. Others who hold the same or similar positions (STP, voltaire, JohnW, Knight, Delmar, Nick, judging u, etc.) are absolutely welcome to chime in whenever you want. I'm perfectly happy shutting up and letting people smarter than me answer questions, if that's what it takes to help others truly understand the MidActs position. If I don't know something, I'll say I don't know. But I'd love to help those who are sincerely interested to understand more about our position.

    Thanks,
    Randy
    Funny how threads morph.


    For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." ~ Paul


    "You should never wave to someone you don't know. What if he doesn't have a hand? Then he'll just think you're being cocky!" ~Mitch Hedberg

    __.._

  • #2
    By the way, M.K. Nawojski...this might be a good place for you to get back in the swing of things.

    Post away!!
    Funny how threads morph.


    For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." ~ Paul


    "You should never wave to someone you don't know. What if he doesn't have a hand? Then he'll just think you're being cocky!" ~Mitch Hedberg

    __.._

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks for explaining... I wondered what MAD meant... I agree with this style of reading (for the most part).

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Lurline View Post
        Thanks for explaining... I wondered what MAD meant... I agree with this style of reading (for the most part).
        Hi, Lurline. Welcome to TOL.
        Funny how threads morph.


        For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." ~ Paul


        "You should never wave to someone you don't know. What if he doesn't have a hand? Then he'll just think you're being cocky!" ~Mitch Hedberg

        __.._

        Comment


        • #5
          I completely disagree with much that Ive seen of the theology, but thanks for laying it out clearly
          Wm Tipton
          For the truth about remarriage from Gods word, please see our homepage

          Comment


          • #6
            We also believe that we must take God's Word literally, unless the text demands that we don't.
            I think thats a given, isnt it
            Wm Tipton
            For the truth about remarriage from Gods word, please see our homepage

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by chickenman View Post
              GO AWAY
              Let me start by asking that troublemakers and opposers who are already convinced of themselves please refrain from posting in this thread. I would appreciate it if people like godrulz, andyc, cistercian, and others with similar agendas stay away. I'll respectfully ask that the moderator(s) delete any posts by these people, as well as others that inappropriately challenge others and/or that simply want to oppose for the sake of opposing. godrulz et al, if you post I'll ignore it but report it, asking it to be deleted. Of course, I can't make forum rules, so I'm only expressing my desire.


              COME ON IN
              Several people have expressed a sincere desire to learn more about MidActs Dispensationalism. Whether or not those people ultimately conclude the same is irrelevant. They are sincere inquisitors.

              This thread is for those people to ask questions. And they're absolutely welcome to offer challenges, as well. Sincere, open, non-compative people like Town Heretic, bodhigirsmiles, and bybee...this thread is for you to help you understand the MidActs position.



              ON THE BIBLE
              I'll kick it off by stating that MidActs Dispensationalism is an approach to reading and studying the Bible. Those of us who hold to this approach believe that we must read and study the Bible FORWARD, rather than BACKWARD. By this, I mean that we must understand what comes before Exodus before we can understand Exodus. We must understand "Old Testament" prophecy before we can understand Matthew. We must understand those things before we can understand what's going on in Acts. We believe that it is highly dangerous (to a doctrinal position that one formulates) for a person to read BACKWARD, meaning that he/she interprets an epistle, for instance, and then forces the things written previously to mean the same thing. We also believe it is dangerous to evaluate a book, chapter, or verse in and of itself. A verse HAS TO BE read and studied within the context of a book/epistle. That book/epistle HAS TO BE read and studied within the context of the commission of the human author (in the case of the epistles). And a book HAS TO BE read and studied through a biblical theology that first considers prophecy and God's stated plans.

              If one labors over a verse or chapter but does not understand God's covenants, prophecy, and dispensed commissions, then the doctrine based on those verses will at best be accidentally correct and at worst downright heretical.

              We also believe that we must take God's Word literally, unless the text demands that we don't. For example, when John sees a vision of a woman on a scarlet beast in Rev. 17, we can understand that in the future when his vision plays out, it won't actually involve a literal woman riding a literal scarlet beast, for the text defines what those two things represent. We gladly accept figurative language when the text demands it.

              And we believe that God's Word is what is inspired, so we must rely in it, rather than relying on scholar's varying opinions on history, culture, or even the underlying Greek/Hebrew text. Scholarly opinions will always differ from one another, but God's Word will always remain steadfast. So we rest on it as our ONLY authority.



              THE BASICS


              Where it all starts:
              • God called out a chosen nation to be His special people above all the nations of the earth.
              • The nation continually rebelled against God, to the point that they even rejected His Son Jesus Christ Who physically came to earth to get them to repent and turn to God.
              • For one year after Jesus' earthly ministry, God gave them repeated chances to accept the good news of His Son and the coming kingdom and to bear fruit.
              • Because the masses still rejected Him, God put a halt to the prophesied timeline of delivering the kingdom to them. He relegated the chosen nation to the status of the disobedient Gentile nations, thus putting ALL people in the same boat (as opposed to Israel being the preeminent nation).
              • Upon doing so, God called out Paul to be the "apostle to the Gentiles", delivering the "gospel of the uncircumcision" - a message that was different in many ways from that which was previously delivered by those apostles that Jesus chose during His earthly ministry.
              • Jesus Christ from heaven dispensed to Paul a gospel message that was specifically pertinent to the Body of Christ, whereas He had previously from earth dispensed a gospel message to the Twelve that was specifically pertinent to the chosen nation of Israel who awaited their coming tribulation and promised kingdom.
              • These two messages were different. The book of Acts shows the transition away from one to the other and displays the resulting confusion…a confusion which, by the way, still exists today and for pretty much the same reason as back then.
              How's that for starters?

              I'd love to address any questions and expand on any points. Others who hold the same or similar positions (STP, voltaire, JohnW, Knight, Delmar, Nick, judging u, etc.) are absolutely welcome to chime in whenever you want. I'm perfectly happy shutting up and letting people smarter than me answer questions, if that's what it takes to help others truly understand the MidActs position. If I don't know something, I'll say I don't know. But I'd love to help those who are sincerely interested to understand more about our position.

              Thanks,
              Randy


              What do you believe Jesus means by ALL nations?


              Luke 24
              46He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

              Matt 28
              19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

              Comment


              • #8
                All nations. The Old Testament repeatedly prophesies of the time when Israel is saved, when they are a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, that the nations of the world will come to their King through them.

                But, Israel fell in early Acts, and they were later scattered among the nations. They will rise again in the future, and be set apart above the nations.

                The Old Testament prophesies of Israel's fall, diminishing, casting away, a time of trouble, and their regathering into a Kingdom.

                We are currently living between the time of their casting away and the time of trouble. This period of time was a mystery hidden in God. You cannot find it in the Old Testament prophecies.

                Paul is the specific apostle who was given the instructions to give to us for this period of time. Everything Peter and the eleven other apostles taught about was concerning the time of trouble, and their regathering into a Kingdom.
                Originally posted by Interplanner
                They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
                Originally posted by Interplanner
                You're too literal to get it.
                Originally posted by Interplanner
                The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

                Comment


                • #9
                  And a book HAS TO BE read and studied through a biblical theology that first considers prophecy and God's stated plans.
                  This quote explains very much why I struggle with alot of the 'exegisis' done by people froma MAD position.

                  I am of the opnion that our understanding of scripture should define our theology not our theology define our understanding of scripture'.
                  SJKW Extraordinaire

                  Comment


                  • #10

                    My question was in regard to these quotes from your OP:

                    # Upon doing so, God called out Paul to be the "apostle to the Gentiles", delivering the "gospel of the uncircumcision" - a message that was different in many ways from that which was previously delivered by those apostles that Jesus chose during His earthly ministry.

                    # Jesus Christ from heaven dispensed to Paul a gospel message that was specifically pertinent to the Body of Christ, whereas He had previously from earth dispensed a gospel message to the Twelve that was specifically pertinent to the chosen nation of Israel who awaited their coming tribulation and promised kingdom.

                    The two passages I posted seem to indicate that Jesus told the apostles to preach the gospel to all nations, not just Israel.


                    Your response didn't really address this.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Cistercian and TCM,

                      Based on volumes of staunch opposition posts from you two on other threads, I KNOW you're not here as sincere inquisitors. This is not a debate thread; it is a question and answer thread for sincere, interested people who want to learn more about our position. So I'll ask again, as I did in the OP, that you refrain from posting here and keep your questions and debating to another of the several threads that deal with the subject.

                      Please respect my wishes and don't interfere here.

                      Randy
                      Funny how threads morph.


                      For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." ~ Paul


                      "You should never wave to someone you don't know. What if he doesn't have a hand? Then he'll just think you're being cocky!" ~Mitch Hedberg

                      __.._

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by chickenman View Post
                        Cistercian and TCM,

                        Based on volumes of staunch opposition posts from you two on other threads, I KNOW you're not here as sincere inquisitors. This is not a debate thread; it is a question and answer thread for sincere, interested people who want to learn more about our position. So I'll ask again, as I did in the OP, that you refrain from posting here and keep your questions and debating to another of the several threads that deal with the subject.

                        Please respect my wishes and don't interfere here.

                        Randy

                        This question is sincere:


                        How do you reconcile these two passages with MAD?



                        Luke 24
                        46He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

                        Matt 28
                        19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Do you want to know what I think? I too have some rules; I will present a dialogue, not an argument. My issue is a value your friendship, and STP but I like AMR and you are my friends away from home. My position is Mid-acts, but I do not know if it is dispensationalist, it could be, but I am not sure. I do not what anyone upset about what I say, because it is not worth it to me. I care for you all and I know I am right with God, my ideas might not be perfect, but they are good with God.

                          I may enter discourse if we can have it on theological issues closely related, but I am not up too heated argument not at this time. Let me know
                          Kat
                          So, what?

                          believe it!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by cistercian View Post
                            This question is sincere:


                            How do you reconcile these two passages with MAD?



                            Luke 24
                            46He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

                            Matt 28
                            19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
                            Why don't you start a tread with this question! One factor you should ponder is why did the Jews become so astonished when they found out a uncircumcisied gentile could also receive the words, the other point is that Jews from all the nations where present at pentacost and heard the Spirit speak through the apostles, And the message stayed in that context until years later when Peter had is vision.

                            They never understood the statement at the time it was spoken to them to mean all people, in all the nations in the context your thinking they did.


                            Zeke.
                            Trying to awaken the divine principle in the belly of the fish.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Thank you!

                              Originally posted by chickenman View Post
                              GO AWAY
                              Let me start by asking that troublemakers and opposers who are already convinced of themselves please refrain from posting in this thread. I would appreciate it if people like godrulz, andyc, cistercian, and others with similar agendas stay away. I'll respectfully ask that the moderator(s) delete any posts by these people, as well as others that inappropriately challenge others and/or that simply want to oppose for the sake of opposing. godrulz et al, if you post I'll ignore it but report it, asking it to be deleted. Of course, I can't make forum rules, so I'm only expressing my desire.


                              COME ON IN
                              Several people have expressed a sincere desire to learn more about MidActs Dispensationalism. Whether or not those people ultimately conclude the same is irrelevant. They are sincere inquisitors.

                              This thread is for those people to ask questions. And they're absolutely welcome to offer challenges, as well. Sincere, open, non-compative people like Town Heretic, bodhigirsmiles, and bybee...this thread is for you to help you understand the MidActs position.



                              ON THE BIBLE
                              I'll kick it off by stating that MidActs Dispensationalism is an approach to reading and studying the Bible. Those of us who hold to this approach believe that we must read and study the Bible FORWARD, rather than BACKWARD. By this, I mean that we must understand what comes before Exodus before we can understand Exodus. We must understand "Old Testament" prophecy before we can understand Matthew. We must understand those things before we can understand what's going on in Acts. We believe that it is highly dangerous (to a doctrinal position that one formulates) for a person to read BACKWARD, meaning that he/she interprets an epistle, for instance, and then forces the things written previously to mean the same thing. We also believe it is dangerous to evaluate a book, chapter, or verse in and of itself. A verse HAS TO BE read and studied within the context of a book/epistle. That book/epistle HAS TO BE read and studied within the context of the commission of the human author (in the case of the epistles). And a book HAS TO BE read and studied through a biblical theology that first considers prophecy and God's stated plans.

                              If one labors over a verse or chapter but does not understand God's covenants, prophecy, and dispensed commissions, then the doctrine based on those verses will at best be accidentally correct and at worst downright heretical.

                              We also believe that we must take God's Word literally, unless the text demands that we don't. For example, when John sees a vision of a woman on a scarlet beast in Rev. 17, we can understand that in the future when his vision plays out, it won't actually involve a literal woman riding a literal scarlet beast, for the text defines what those two things represent. We gladly accept figurative language when the text demands it.

                              And we believe that God's Word is what is inspired, so we must rely in it, rather than relying on scholar's varying opinions on history, culture, or even the underlying Greek/Hebrew text. Scholarly opinions will always differ from one another, but God's Word will always remain steadfast. So we rest on it as our ONLY authority.



                              THE BASICS


                              Where it all starts:
                              • God called out a chosen nation to be His special people above all the nations of the earth.
                              • The nation continually rebelled against God, to the point that they even rejected His Son Jesus Christ Who physically came to earth to get them to repent and turn to God.
                              • For one year after Jesus' earthly ministry, God gave them repeated chances to accept the good news of His Son and the coming kingdom and to bear fruit.
                              • Because the masses still rejected Him, God put a halt to the prophesied timeline of delivering the kingdom to them. He relegated the chosen nation to the status of the disobedient Gentile nations, thus putting ALL people in the same boat (as opposed to Israel being the preeminent nation).
                              • Upon doing so, God called out Paul to be the "apostle to the Gentiles", delivering the "gospel of the uncircumcision" - a message that was different in many ways from that which was previously delivered by those apostles that Jesus chose during His earthly ministry.
                              • Jesus Christ from heaven dispensed to Paul a gospel message that was specifically pertinent to the Body of Christ, whereas He had previously from earth dispensed a gospel message to the Twelve that was specifically pertinent to the chosen nation of Israel who awaited their coming tribulation and promised kingdom.
                              • These two messages were different. The book of Acts shows the transition away from one to the other and displays the resulting confusion…a confusion which, by the way, still exists today and for pretty much the same reason as back then.
                              How's that for starters?

                              I'd love to address any questions and expand on any points. Others who hold the same or similar positions (STP, voltaire, JohnW, Knight, Delmar, Nick, judging u, etc.) are absolutely welcome to chime in whenever you want. I'm perfectly happy shutting up and letting people smarter than me answer questions, if that's what it takes to help others truly understand the MidActs position. If I don't know something, I'll say I don't know. But I'd love to help those who are sincerely interested to understand more about our position.

                              Thanks,
                              Randy
                              Dear Randy, Thanks to StoP, yourself and even my friend John W. I have come to see the truth of your exegesis of "Mid-acts ( in context). I'm amazed that I missed it in all of my years of study. And as you all have seen I pretty stubbornly fought against it! Upon reading and rereading Pauls's epistles and of course The Acts of the Apostles, I have come to a new, logical and sensible appreciation of Paul's special "Dispensation" to the Gentiles and that Heavenly mystery which God had prepared for us. I feel that my understanding is much more complete now. I have begun to feel the heart of Paul. I saw him as harshly didactic and difficult to follow. Thanks be to God I view him now with clear eyes as a man truly called and dedicated to serving God. As an Open-Theist" myself, I see Paul as having a very personal relationship with God through his love of Jesus our Savior. I have kept an open heart to consider what others have to share. From the bottom of my heart, I thank you for giving me an exponential learning experience. I am, quite literally, reading the Word through better lenses! Thanks and blessings, bybee

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X