This used to be one of my favorite threads to read.
For Sincere Inquisitors ONLY: MAD Explained
- Thread starter chickenman
- Start date
I will not debate you in this thread, Jerry. Sorry. I'm happy to respond to your position in another thread, though.
If you'd like to respectfully lay out your position in this thread, then that's great. Feel free. I agree with you that it would be good for others to read and learn and evaluate. So fire away. Just don't expect me to engage with you and do the opposite of what I set out to do with this thread. You can still accomplish what you want (showing the "stark contrast") by doing it this way. That's fine by me.
Thanks,
Randy
With all that said, if Jerry would agree to not persist and try to force a debate...if he'd agree to lay out his view and I respond and we walk away agreeing to disagree, then I'm fine with addressing it here. But experience says that won't happen, though, hence my refusal to engage.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I would just ask Jerry, when he quotes John 5:24, to go ahead and quote verses 25-29 too.
Choleric
New member
So then how does your understanding differ from (for lack of a better term) orthodox?
Last edited:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Since STP brought this up then I will respond. Here are verses 25-29:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation" (Jn. 5:25-29).
How does one do good or do the will or work of God? Please consider the following exchange:
"Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent" (Jn.6:28-29).
This matches up perfectly what the Lord Jesus said earlier:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath eternal life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (Jn.5:24).
STP, I answered your verses now perhaps you will answer mine. Why should anyone believe that "faith" and faith alone was not enough to save the Jews at the time the Lord Jesus walked the earth, especially with the following exchange in view? The Lord Jesus said the following to the woman who anointed His feet with ointment:
"And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also? And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace" (Lk.7:48-50).
He told her that her faith had saved her! That matches perfectly with what He said at John 5:24.
In His grace,
Jerry
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
...
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Jerry, I will address John 5 on your thread. I want to be thorough, so it may take a few days to prepare. thanks
Choleric
New member
So then how does your understanding differ from (for lack of a better term) orthodox? Why call it "mid-acts?" What are the defining points of this theology?
Hey bro.
I've told others before that the only thing DEMANDED by the MidActs position is to believe that the dispensation of the grace of God could not have been instituted before Paul came on the scene (in "mid-acts"). So that's why we're called MidActs Dispensationalists. I believe that many things should fall in line when one believes that, but it's obvious that there are disagreements within our camp. Some MidActs'er believe in tongues today (not many, but some do). We can differ on when that dispensation began (Acts 9, 11, 13). Etc. So Jerry, like many of us, is "mid-acts" for that reason.
I BELIEVE Jerry sees it that way. Correct me if I'm wrong, Jerry. I don't mean to step on toes.
Randy
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Choleric, as I said earlier my understanding agrees with what might be called orthodox Mid Acts dispensationalism. What Randy teaches (and I call Neo-MAD) is not the same teaching that the original Mid Acts dispensationalists taught.
The orthodox or original poistion is that the present dispensation began at Acts 13 when Paul began to fulfill His stewardship to preach the "gospel of grace." Here are three quotes from the pen of Paul where he speaks of a "dispensation" that has been committed or given to him:
"If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me toward you" (Eph. 3:2).
"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" (Col.1:25).
"...a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me" (1 Cor.9:17).
The "dispensation" which was committed to Paul is in regard to "God's grace", a "ministry", and a "gospel." Here Paul sums up his dispensational responsibiblity:
"But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20: 24).
The Neo-MAD people define the beginning of the present dispensation by saying that Paul was the first member in the Body of Christ so therefore the present dispensation began at Acts 9 when Paul was converted. However, their evidence is tenuous at best and there is nothing that even hints that the beginning of the Body of Christ is the same thing as the beginning of the dfispensation of grace.
The defining point is that if we are going to know our dispensational responsibility then we certainly should know when the present dispensation began. It is a serious mistake to take responsibilities and principles from the previous dispensation and apply those things to this dispensation.
For instance, if we mistakenly begin the present dispensation on the day of Pentecost then we will mistakenly make the following principles apply for today:
"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover" (Mk.16:17-19).
If we mistakenly begin the present dispensation on the day of Pentecost and preach the gospel that was preached then we will be preaching a gospel that is centered on the identity of Jesus--that He is the Christ, the Son of God. Instead, we should be preaching a gospel that is centered on the "purpose" of His death--that He died for our sins.
These things are very important to understand if we are to be faithful servants of the Lord.
In His grace,
Jerry
I forgot to respond to this, Choleric. I'll get back with you shortly when I have a few minutes. Just didn't want you to think I'm ignoring this.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Randy,
I now have the other thread set up. It is entitled "Neo-MAD and John 5:24."
I am looking forward to your response.
In His grace,
Jerry
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Choleric, you might be interested in the teaching on this subject by one of the leaders of the Neo-MAD crowd. Paul Sadler, the President of the Berean Bible Society (the largest organization that promotes the Neo-Mad view) first says that the Jews who lived prior to this dispensation had to do works in order to be saved:
"According to James, Abraham served as a 'pattern' to the circumcision that faith and works were 'required' for salvation under their program" [emphasis added] (Sadler, "Studies in the Epistle of James", The Berean Searchlight, January, 2006, p.10).
To demonstrate this man's confusion he also teaches that these same Jews were saved by faith alone:
"The Lord said to Nicodemus under this same program, 'That whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life' (John 3:15,16). Those who believe in Him here are said to have eternal life. We know from the record that Nicodemus responded to the Master's words and received eternal life" [emphasis added] (Sadler, "The Life and Letters of the Apostle Peter", The Berean Searchlight, August, 2002, p.10).
Surely Pastor Sadler's words here cannot be misunderstood. He is saying that those who "believe" in Him are said to have eternal life and Nicodemus received eternal life because he responded to the words spoken by the Lord Jesus. Pastor Sadler then says that this same method of obtaining eternal life is also true in regard to those who received the Epistle of James:
"When the Word of the Lord, in conjunction with the conviction of the Spirit, pierced through the darkness of Nicodemus' heart he responded in faith and was wonderfully saved! This was also true of those to whom James was writing, which in their case gave them the privilege of being called the 'first fruits of God's creation'" [emphasis added] (Sadler, "Studies in the Epistle of James", The Berean Searchlight, November, 2005, p.9).
Nicodemus was saved when he responded in faith and that is also true in regard to all those to whom James was writing in his epistle. Pastor Sadler makes it plain that they were saved by the Word of God, writing that "Not only were they saved by the Word of God, they were to make an application of it in their lives" [emphasis added] (Ibid., p.10).
Pastor Sadler refers to those who received the Jewish epistles as "kingdom saints", and he says that once saved they could not lose their salvation:
"While there are those who believe the kingdom saints could lose their salvation, we are not of that number" (Sadler, "The Life and Letters of the Apostle Peter", The Berean Searchlight, August, 2002, p.10).
If words have any meaning then we can understand that Pastor Sadler teaches that once the "kingdom saints" believed the Word of God then at that moment they were saved and they could not lose that salvation. That leaves no place for "works" of any kind contributing to their salvation in any way. That completely contradicts Pastor Sadler's assertion that "faith and works were required for salvation" in regard to the same kingdom saints.
Since the leader of the Neo-MAD movement is confused then we can expect that those who are following his teachings are also confused.
In His grace,
Jerry
Thanks Jerry. I'm at the hospital with my 7-yr old right now. She's having outpatient surgery. I'll try to get to that thread later today.
Choleric
New member
Thx Randy.
Choleric
New member
Thanks for the clarity. I look forward to more once cm gets back :thumb:
Sorry, I keep forgetting about this. My bad.
John 3
There can be zero question that the words are figurative. For if they were literal, then it would be referring to what came to Nicodemus' mind when Jesus said: "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). To him, it sounded like Jesus was saying you have to crawl back in the womb and be literally re-born.
Since that's the literal meaning, and since that's impossible, then it is totally figurative, and the context has to define it for us. A person today might say he's been born again if he's been a drug addict for 20 years, but now he's sober and has a new life.
The first time the phrase shows up in scripture is John 3:3. And it gets defined in the context as "born of the Spirit" (vs. 5, 6, 8). And since we in the Body of Christ have received the Spirit, people want to read back into the text that that's referring to when we receive the Spirit and are saved. But I don't think that's what Jesus is talking about. What Jesus was talking about could be found in the scriptures ("OT" writings), for he tells Nicodemus:
Nicodemus had the means to know what Jesus was talking about.
It pertained to the kingdom of God, for Jesus said that a man cannot see the kingdom unless he has been "born again".
So how would Nicodemus or any of Israel be "born again"? Since it refers to being "born of the Spirit", and to entering the kingdom, and it was something that Nicodemus should have known (from the writings), then I can only conclude that Jesus (in John 3) was referring to Ezekiel 37. In that passage, Ezekiel is told of a day when the Lord would put His Spirit into the dead of Israel, raise them up, and bring them into the land and into their kingdom. This passage fits the criteria of John 3 ("born of the Spirit", entering the kingdom, should have been known by Nicodemus - a teacher of the law).
For the record, I don't (generally speaking) have a problem with the idea of saying that we're born again. For we in the Body of Christ have been "born again" in a sense. We've been raised to a new life. The analogy falls apart in places for sure. But in a manner of speaking, we have been "born again". It's just not really accurate to say that's what Jesus is referring to in John 3. But I won't lose sleep hearing the phrase used for us.
I Peter
Again, it's a figure of speech that the context has to define. Peter defines it pretty straightforward earlier in the chapter when he writes:
I don't see how anyone would even try to dispute the idea that Peter was writing to dispersed Israelites. And considering what he says about them in his references to Hosea (that they were now His people and now had mercy), then his phrases "begotten again" and "born again" mean simply that they were now re-made something that they were un-made in time past.
"Born again" is just a generic figure of speech that has to be defined by the context. It means two different things in John 3 and I Peter 1. And again, I don't have a problem with the phrase being used to describe us in the Body. But it can't be said that we're born again, according to John 3 and I Peter 1.
Agree or not, did that all make sense? Let me know if you need me to clarify further.
Thanks, my friend.
Randy
What does "born again" mean? Because the phrase has so permeated Christendom, then it has a connotation that has become the definition and a synonym to the word "saved" or something like that. But what is the biblical definition of "born again"? Is there a single biblical definition?
John 3
There can be zero question that the words are figurative. For if they were literal, then it would be referring to what came to Nicodemus' mind when Jesus said: "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). To him, it sounded like Jesus was saying you have to crawl back in the womb and be literally re-born.
Nicodemus saith unto him, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" John 3:4
Since that's the literal meaning, and since that's impossible, then it is totally figurative, and the context has to define it for us. A person today might say he's been born again if he's been a drug addict for 20 years, but now he's sober and has a new life.
The first time the phrase shows up in scripture is John 3:3. And it gets defined in the context as "born of the Spirit" (vs. 5, 6, 8). And since we in the Body of Christ have received the Spirit, people want to read back into the text that that's referring to when we receive the Spirit and are saved. But I don't think that's what Jesus is talking about. What Jesus was talking about could be found in the scriptures ("OT" writings), for he tells Nicodemus:
Jesus answered and said unto him, "Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?" John 3:10
Nicodemus had the means to know what Jesus was talking about.
It pertained to the kingdom of God, for Jesus said that a man cannot see the kingdom unless he has been "born again".
So how would Nicodemus or any of Israel be "born again"? Since it refers to being "born of the Spirit", and to entering the kingdom, and it was something that Nicodemus should have known (from the writings), then I can only conclude that Jesus (in John 3) was referring to Ezekiel 37. In that passage, Ezekiel is told of a day when the Lord would put His Spirit into the dead of Israel, raise them up, and bring them into the land and into their kingdom. This passage fits the criteria of John 3 ("born of the Spirit", entering the kingdom, should have been known by Nicodemus - a teacher of the law).
For the record, I don't (generally speaking) have a problem with the idea of saying that we're born again. For we in the Body of Christ have been "born again" in a sense. We've been raised to a new life. The analogy falls apart in places for sure. But in a manner of speaking, we have been "born again". It's just not really accurate to say that's what Jesus is referring to in John 3. But I won't lose sleep hearing the phrase used for us.
I Peter
...being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. I Peter 1:23
Again, it's a figure of speech that the context has to define. Peter defines it pretty straightforward earlier in the chapter when he writes:
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead... I Peter 1:3
Peter was writing to the dispersion of Israelites.Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia... I Peter 1:1
He writes about them...But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. I Peter 2:9-10
This lines up perfectly with:Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. Ex. 19:5-6
...and...Then said God, Call his name Lo-ammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God. Hos. 1:9
...and...And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God. Hos. 2:23
Peter wrote to his countrymen. A people who were "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people" (cf. Ex. 19:5). A people who in time past were not a people and had not obtained mercy (cf. Hos. 1:9) but now were His people and had obtained mercy (cf. Hos. 2:23).I don't see how anyone would even try to dispute the idea that Peter was writing to dispersed Israelites. And considering what he says about them in his references to Hosea (that they were now His people and now had mercy), then his phrases "begotten again" and "born again" mean simply that they were now re-made something that they were un-made in time past.
"Born again" is just a generic figure of speech that has to be defined by the context. It means two different things in John 3 and I Peter 1. And again, I don't have a problem with the phrase being used to describe us in the Body. But it can't be said that we're born again, according to John 3 and I Peter 1.
Agree or not, did that all make sense? Let me know if you need me to clarify further.
Thanks, my friend.
Randy
This makes no sense whatsoever.