In other words, you cannot refute the logic?
I am going to get you kidnapped and deprogrammed from your sects.
:noid:
Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
In other words, you cannot refute the logic?
I am going to get you kidnapped and deprogrammed from your sects.
:noid:
The really funny part of this post is that you are stating what we claim, which is what the Bible says. Read my sig. You say that didn't happen.
Brother Saint John W the great cataloged them once, I copied it for just such an occasion. And they are often with him.
I quote the bible when necessary...(forget exact verse).. I have books in my library that refute you in detail that you cannot refute. They do a better job than I would in a few posts…...Google may also help....If you study biblical theology (looking at books, authors, etc.) instead of systematic theology or ultradispensationalism, you would see that... As it is, commentators disagree on… I believe sound evangelical scholarship totally refutes what you are saying … He is not worth reading in light of the sound scholarship that exists ..Sound NT scholarship recognizes.... Whole books have been written on it… The vast majority of godly Christians have not heard of MAD. The best of conservative, biblical, evangelical scholarship rejects it if they have heard of it…. Exact reference again? Did you check other versions or a commentary?... Buy a good commentary for the various opinions on… Hermeneutical books point out that… Even in your traditional view, scholars do not express your issues…I am not an expert on MAD and do not consider it a prominent enough view to gain much academic attention…Sound NT scholarship comes to different conclusions…Who was the prominent author (s) who held to it in your movement?.. I think you will be hard pressed to find commentators who would agree with you…As the Bible Knowledge Commentary points out,… it is not even on the radar of credible NT scholars…. I can't condense 30 years of study from a variety of sources into a few posts… any credible commentary or systematic theology will give you the arguments and verses…. I agree with the commentary. .. Listen to the Doctor (D. M. L-Jones), not radio preachers with weak NT backgrounds. …There is a reason it is a marginal view that lacks credibility among NT scholars…"Feel free to refute the many books written that contradict your views…. There is a reason no NT scholar… It is enough solid scholarship to silence MAD… an ignorant JW who blindly follows an organization or their misquoting of our scholars…. You underestimate the caliber of scholars that God has raised up to keep the sheep from falling for false teaching and ignorance on important subjects. Why should I trust you as an expert on things, and reject those with proven track records and godly character/insights? Eph. 4:11-13 vs internet wannabees with no training or accountability…Any credible biblical theology of John and Paul or any credible commentary or NT scholar or average believer has no problem with I Jn. vs Paul.....There are many resources to help you, but you prefer fringe writers over ones that can give you more biblical answers….but I should ignore more credible sources and their documented evidence? Why, pray tell?!.... What school did you go to again?... I went to Bible College in the early 80s, but have no scholastic club except TOL (which is not very scholastic)...MAD confuses corporate, missional issues with individual, redemptive issues....I did not read this in a book (except the Bible), but I think it is a valid observation..They confuse these concepts, a rookie mistake...OSAS makes sense in deterministic Calvinism, not in a free will, relational theism....Nick's view seems to reduce us to sock puppet automatons and requires ignoring large sections of Scripture. He also misunderstands the nature of faith vs works, morals vs metaphysics, Star Trek vs Star Wars, Venus vs Mars, etc...You are simplistic to think it is a matter of what the Bible says when you interpret and twist to fit a preconceived idea. It is arrogant to assume that godly, capable, great thinkers through the centuries who reject MAD (new doctrine anyway) are clueless or without the leading of the Spirit….Mormons have a false gospel and false Christ.
You are simplistic to think it is a matter of what the Bible says. Thank you rulz, for outing yourself over and over.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Even the top Acts 2 dispensationalists recognize the truth that Paul was the first to preach the "purpose" of the Cross. In a Bible tract entitled Paul's Gospel Acts 2 dispensationalist William R. Newell wrote:
"The twelve Apostles (Matthias by Divine appointment taking the place of Judas) were to be the 'witnesses' (Acts 1:22) of Christ's resurrection--that is, of the fact of it. They were not to unfold fully the doctrine of it, as Paul was...But unto none of these twelve Apostles did God reveal 'the great body of doctrine for this age'...The great doctrines that Paul reveals may be outlined as follows...The fact and the Scripturalness of righteousness on the free gift principle--that is, of Divine righteousness, separate from all man's doings, conferred upon man as a free gift from God" (Newell, Paul's Gospel).
After reading this Bible tract Lewis Sperry Chafer, the founding President of Dallas Theological Seminary ( Acts 2), said:
"This is a great tract, a clear treatise on the truth of God for this age. The author was one of America's greatest Bible expositors. It glorifies the Savior as the author desired it to do. It should be distributed by hundreds of thousands" (Editor, Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Autumn 1994, Volume 7:12).
Today Dallas Theological Seminary is considered the leading Acts 2 dispensational seminary in the world, and the founding President of that seminary recognized the fact that the "gospel of grace" was not preached by anyone before Paul.
The second President of Dallas Theological Seminary, John F. Walvoord, wrote that "The gospel of Grace was given to Paul as a 'new' revelation" (Walvoord, "The Preincarnate Son of God", Bibliotheca Sacra, Oct.-Dec. 1947, Vol. 104, # 416, p.422).
Since Paul was the first to preach the gospel of grace then anyone who will use their brain can understand that the Twelve were preaching a different gospel on the day of Pentecost. That means that two different gospels were preached during the Acts period.
But in your unbelief you deny what is obvious to the most eminent members of the Acts 2 community. Your idea that the "good news" that the Lord Jesus died for our sins in the same "good news" as the preaching that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, marks you off as a fool!
Shasta
Well-known member
Jesus left more commentary than necessary to show the disciples that He was the lamb of God that died for the sins of the world, whose blood justifies all those who believe on Him. I point again to these references about what Jesus said in his post resurrection appearances first to the disciples on the Road to Emmaus and then privately to the Twelve. To the first group Jesus explained ,"the things concerning Himself in ALL the Scriptures " Now I think even the KJV translates "all" to be all. That means He went through all the Messianic scriptures and applied them to the historic events that had happened (Luke 24:25-27).
About his visitation with the disciples the word says 44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
The Law, Prophets and Psalms meant the Tenach, that is, the whole Bible. A central Messianic prophecy that would have answered WHY he had to suffer and die was
Isaiah 53 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
This is only one of a number of scriptures about why the Messiah would have to suffer. According to this passage Messiah's death would cleanse a person from transgressions and iniquities so that they might be healed and have peace with God.
Isaiah 53:11 adds ...my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. This word "justify" (δικαιόω) in the LXX is the same word Paul uses in his epistles to describe the work of "making a person as clean as if they never had sinned." It was not, as some seem to think, a Pauline neologism.
http://studybible.info/interlinear/Isaiah 53:11 a
Lexicographer Joseph Henry Thayer definesδικαιόωthis way:
Thayer:
1) to render righteous or such he ought to be
2) to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
3) to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be
So when it is asked how the disciples knew about the meaning of the cross, that the effect was cleansing, the forgiveness of sin and the justification of all those who would believe, the answer is here. We need not wonder if they preached this message for in subsequent verses Jesus said they would proclaim repentance for forgiveness of sins (Luke 24:47). They knew the connection between Christ's death and the forgiveness of sin. Furthermore Jesus said they would take it to all nations (Luke 24:47). Lastly he said the must wait until the promise of the Spirit came so they would be supernaturally empowered accomplish their mission (Luke 24:49)
About his visitation with the disciples the word says 44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
The Law, Prophets and Psalms meant the Tenach, that is, the whole Bible. A central Messianic prophecy that would have answered WHY he had to suffer and die was
Isaiah 53 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
This is only one of a number of scriptures about why the Messiah would have to suffer. According to this passage Messiah's death would cleanse a person from transgressions and iniquities so that they might be healed and have peace with God.
Isaiah 53:11 adds ...my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. This word "justify" (δικαιόω) in the LXX is the same word Paul uses in his epistles to describe the work of "making a person as clean as if they never had sinned." It was not, as some seem to think, a Pauline neologism.
http://studybible.info/interlinear/Isaiah 53:11 a
Lexicographer Joseph Henry Thayer definesδικαιόωthis way:
Thayer:
1) to render righteous or such he ought to be
2) to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
3) to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be
So when it is asked how the disciples knew about the meaning of the cross, that the effect was cleansing, the forgiveness of sin and the justification of all those who would believe, the answer is here. We need not wonder if they preached this message for in subsequent verses Jesus said they would proclaim repentance for forgiveness of sins (Luke 24:47). They knew the connection between Christ's death and the forgiveness of sin. Furthermore Jesus said they would take it to all nations (Luke 24:47). Lastly he said the must wait until the promise of the Spirit came so they would be supernaturally empowered accomplish their mission (Luke 24:49)
And again, this meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know until Paul.
Acts 10
Not so Lord!
You can't change the facts of the Bible.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Where do we find that?
Shasta
Well-known member
I am not. It says he referenced everything about himself in the Law, prophets and in the Psalms and furthermore that he "45...opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures." (Luke 24:45) so how can you possibly say the meaning was hidden from them?
Acts 2 mentions the Messiahship, Lordship, death, resurrection of Christ, core gospel truths affirmed by Paul.
A Judaizer false gospel that you call a true circ gospel is impossible in light of His finished work on the cross. You confuse transitional issues, rudimentary understanding and the simplicity of the gospel with later, detailed doctrinal fleshing out, national/eschatological vs individual/soteriological issues, etc.
MAD is a wrong paradigm that relies on proof texts out of context in KJV vs Greek.
Jerry: Using Acts 2 disps to disprove Acts 2 is odd.
Last edited:
heir
TOL Subscriber
Where did Peter preach that Christ died for our sins in Acts 2?
Where did Peter preach that Christ was raised again for our justification in Acts 2?
heir
TOL Subscriber
Acts 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Of course you left out the heart and soul of the gospel Paul preached. H.A. Ironside, a well known Acts 2 dispensationalist (and chief critic of MAD), says the following about the "gospel" which we are to preach today:
"All through those OT dispensations, the gospel was predicted, and when Jesus came, the gospel came with Him. When He died, when He was buried, and when He rose again, the gospel could be fully told out to a poor lost world. Observe, it says, 'that Christ died for our sins.' No man preaches the gospel, no matter what nice things he may say about Jesus, if he leaves out His vicarious death on Calvary's Cross" [emphasis added] (Ironside, God's Unspeakable Gift [London: Pickering & Inglis, 1908], Chapter 2).
The gospel which was preached on the Day of Pentecost said nothing about about the "vicarious death on Calvary's Cross."
So according to Ironside the gospel for today was not preached on the day of Pentecost. But of course this is way above your head. You are so foolish that you think that the "good news" that Christ died for our sins is the same "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
Shasta
Well-known member
These were the prophecies concerning WHY Jesus had to suffer and die - the burning question that was foremost on the disciples' minds. Twice in Luke 24 it states how Jesus went through the Law, prophets and Psalms to explain why He had to suffer. It was a comprehensive overview and in all those scriptures the reasons were clearly explained.
The particular passage I quoted, Isaiah 53, was only one of many. It speaks of our having obtained healing , the forgiveness of sins, justification and peace with God. This teaching did not go over their heads. Jesus made sure of that when He opened their eyes and gave them spiritual insight into what He was saying.
LUKE 24
10 But the LORD was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.
Here we see Christ as the sacrificial offering removing guilt.
11 As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many,
As He will bear their iniquities.
This word "justify" is the same Greek word Paul uses in his epistles
4 Surely our griefs He Himself bore,
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted.
This is most certainly a picture of Christ
on the cross5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our peace fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.
Here are the benefits I alluded to:
removal of transgressions and iniquity,
peace (with God) and
healing (of the human soul)
That we were rebels in need of redemption can be seen in the following verse
6 All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.
This scripture was quoted in the Synoptics referring to Jesus general refusal to defend Himself
7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He did not open His mouth;
Like a lamb that is led to slaughter,
And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers,
So He did not open His mouth.
According to the Bible Jesus went through these and many other scriptures giving the Apostles spiritual understanding. He did the same to those followers on the Road.
Read Acts 2. It talks about His death and resurrection (I Cor. 15). Just because Paul systematically fleshes it out does not mean it was not the sole basis for salvation in Acts 2.
When we give a person a simple gospel tract about Christ and His work, they can get saved. The big theology books come later during discipleship.
There is no basis post-cross for salvation other than grace/faith in the person/work of Christ. Two gospel theories are nonsense.
If Peter talks about Christ's person and work (Messiah, LORD/God, death, resurrection), and he did (like Paul), in a sermon versus doctrinal treatise (Paul did later, but Paul's sermons also did not have the detail you are demanding compared to his systematic theology letters), then you are simply wrong (this is Sunday School stuff).
Historical narrative reporting that some Jewish Christians retained law (cleared up in Acts 15 with Paul agreeing with Jerusalem) does not mean this was the true gospel understanding that they did not need to grow in understanding over time.
The gospel principles are rooted in the person and work of Christ (which is one only). Narrative about new believers needing to grow in understanding is not promoting MAD (foreign to biblical thinkers until modern Bullinger, Stam, etc.).
You are misusing a MAD critic to promote MAD? Read his whole paper and it will undermine vs support your views. Pentecost was a simple sermon rooted in the person and work of Christ. It was not a formal, doctrinal treatise fleshed out later in the NT. There is one vs two true NT gospels. MAD is wrong (your version is less wrong, apparently).
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Prove it.
We have an uninterrupted sermon preached by Peter on the day of Pentecost beginning at Acts 2:14 and ending at Acts 2:36. In that sermon there is not a word about God's "grace" and there is not a word about the purpose of the Lord Jesus' death on the Cross.
Despite this many were saved and then baptized with water after hearing Peter's sermon.
No one on this forum is as foolish as you are, and you prove it over and over again by insisting that the "good news" that Christ died for our sins is the same "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
Do you never tire of making a fool out of yourself?
The person and work of Christ go together in the gospel. If He is not the Son of God, the death of Michael the Archangel (JW) is worthless. If He is the Son of God, but did not die and rise again, we also don't have a gospel.
Acts is selective historical narrative. Many preachers preach a simple call to faith in Christ and His death/resurrection like Peter did without going into doctrinal detail like Paul did in every tract or Sunday sermon.
Peter, Hebrews, etc. contextualizes the gospel for a Jewish audience. Paul contextualized it for a Gentile audience. Jesus did not use the same 4 spiritual laws tract with every individual he met. Paul used a different approach in the synagogue (Jews) than he did in Athens (philosophers).
Your argument is lame and a desperate attempt to support a wrong preconceived view.
Acts is selective historical narrative. Many preachers preach a simple call to faith in Christ and His death/resurrection like Peter did without going into doctrinal detail like Paul did in every tract or Sunday sermon.
Peter, Hebrews, etc. contextualizes the gospel for a Jewish audience. Paul contextualized it for a Gentile audience. Jesus did not use the same 4 spiritual laws tract with every individual he met. Paul used a different approach in the synagogue (Jews) than he did in Athens (philosophers).
Your argument is lame and a desperate attempt to support a wrong preconceived view.
Shasta
Well-known member
It does your cause no service to call other people fools. The savior even says not to do that...unless you are one of those who believe the Savior's words are no longer in force but are merely good advice. Just so we get it straight, I also believe there is only one gospel.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
If it was common knowledge that the OT reveald that the Messiah would die for sins then why did those closest to Him not even know He was to die? (see Luke 18:33-34).
Again, why did those closest to Him not even know that He was going to die?
That is not found at Luke 24 but instead at Isaiah 53.Besides that, the prophet who wrote that did not understand the significance of the Lord's suffering. Here is what Peter said:
"Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven" (1 Pet.1:10-1).
Here Peter is saying that the prophets searched diligently in an effort to determine what the prophecies concerning Christ's suffering did signify but it was not revealed unto them. Even the Twelve Apostles, those closest to the Lord Jesus, did not realize that He was going to die. They certainly did not know the "purpose" of the Cross, that "Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God" (1 Pet.3:18).
This does not tie the bearing of sins to the death of the Lord Jesus.
Then why did those closest to Him not know that He was going to die? The reason why no one knew was because it was kept secret and not revealed in the OT. And that is exactly what Paul is referring to here:
"But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Cor.2:7-8).
The enemies of God would not have crucified the Lord Jesus if they had known the purpose of His death. Therefore, that purpose was kept secret and it was not revealed in the OT.