Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?

Brother Vinny

Active member
There are a few Greek readers, one whose degree is language. We can consult those two if you don't like the current English translation. And one has an alternate rendering, but it doesn't go with the discussion.

I like several of the current translations. Let's agree to use the ESV, shall we?

Is there a question or statement in here?

Yeah, there were about 1500 years between the time when the New Testament was codified, at which time one could rightfully say one had read it "front-to-back," and the time when Dispensationalism was born. Why so long?
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
There are some misconceptions about MAD.
First is the idea if two Gospels.

Throughout the Old Testament, at least after Genesis, we have God interacting with His people, the people of Israel, the prophesy is to ‘the Jews’ the circumcised. Beginning in Acts 9 we have the beginning of unavailing the mystery, God had sent Jesus to wash away the sins since Adam; the sins of all people. The Gospel of Mathew begins with a chronology, beginning with Joseph to the House of David. Jesus is culturally the son of Joseph, yet Mathew does not preach another Gospel, one denying Jesus was not begotten by Joseph. The Gospel of Mathew was written to the Jews, and is one of the synoptic Gospels, yet the Gospel of Mark was written to the Romans, also a synoptic Gospel.

For the circumcised, the prophesy is the kingdom to come, where Jesus will sit on the throne of a peaceful would all in peace to the glory of God.

The Gospel of John, is not a synoptic Gospel, it was written to the gentiles, and behind with the eternal presence of the logos, the Word. Jesus is eternal, always present, and had come into the world to fulfill the prophesy, however, more than that, to wash away the sins of Adam, to make one, though faith in the Word to be born again, and blessed-baptized by the Holy Spirit.

It is the why the Gospels are read differently and why of four gospels, Mathew is written to the Jews, John, to the gentiles, Luke to the Greek, and Mark to the Romans, yet all the Gospels contain many similar messages, with the Gospel of John differing some, and may seem to be another Gospel, yet it , as with the other three, all are the good news about the Saviour, Jesus Christ, who came into the world to fulfill the Law, which only God could have fulfilled, and there is the difference.

The mystery, faith in Christ alone saves, yet the chosen people shall also have the prophesy fulfilled.

Two ways of knowing the Gospels.

Paul came for outside the original apostles, Paul was converted by the risen Christ, to carry the mystery to the gentiles. The mystery revealed, all were free though faith in Jesus as the Saviour, and all who believed were able the walk out of the darkness, to be reborn into the Body of Christ.

There is no eventual kingdom, nor events prescribed by the Law, all those in the Body of Christ are saved through Grace, all saved will be ruptured up before the Tribulation; they will be admitted to heaven.

The circumcised have the Law and remain though the times of Tribulation, as they were given the promise by God, where they will inherit the Kingdom on Earth, and eventually rejoice in heaven.

I believe MAD is the outcome if proper Biblical exegeses, and one who rightfully divides the Word of God, shall seek, bay faith alone, salvation. There are no criteria to be born into the Body of Christ, all; including all Jews may be saved by faith alone. The central is the Chosen People have another why to come to God, as this fulfills the prophesy.

Two ways to have eternal life with God.

This is totally MAD, and you are without doubt, MAD. :kookoo:
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
William-

Can you tell us why in Romans 4:16 Paul writes as though there are to different groups of people one of which is of the law and the other of faith, and yet Abraham is the father of us all?

Just as Rom. 1-3 shows universal condemnation for Jew/Gentile, so Rom. 4-5 shows the one gospel of grace/faith will make Jew/Gentile one in Christ. There is nothing to support MAD in Romans.

I have not read the other posts, but it is likely the same old thing. MAD is simply poor theology, poor dispensationalism, poor exegesis.
 

Brother Vinny

Active member
If the MAD view wants to use Galatians 2 to say that there are two gospels--one entrusted to Paul, the other to Peter and the others of the Twelve--does this not pose a dilemma in light of Galatians 1? Paul has just pronounced anathema on those who would bring his listeners another gospel. Wouldn't the Twelve and their converts face anathema for bringing, even inadvertently, their gospel to a member of the Body of Christ?
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
If the MAD view wants to use Galatians 2 to say that there are two gospels--one entrusted to Paul, the other to Peter and the others of the Twelve--does this not pose a dilemma in light of Galatians 1? Paul has just pronounced anathema on those who would bring his listeners another gospel. Wouldn't the Twelve and their converts face anathema for bringing, even inadvertently, their gospel to a member of the Body of Christ?

There are two gospels in the NT: THE true gospel and false gospels. Gal. 1 contrasts the true gospel with the false Judaizer gospel. MAD makes this false gospel of faith+works into a true gospel later supplanted by a Pauline gospel of Grace/faith alone. This is nonsensical. Gal. 2:7 theologically, contextually, grammatically is a demarcation of ministry with the one gospel, not MAD's two gospels (I did not read the post denying MAD teaches two gospels, but it does according to proponents who do not play semantical games or use mental gymnastics to defend this relatively new view without historical precedent in church history).
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Yeah, there were about 1500 years between the time when the New Testament was codified, at which time one could rightfully say one had read it "front-to-back," and the time when Dispensationalism was born. Why so long?

When Constantine converted, the Bible was taken away from the masses. As chrysostom says here, it is dangerous and we shouldn't have it. Because then we will find out what it says.
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Rom. 4-5 shows the one gospel of grace/faith will make Jew/Gentile one in Christ.

Grace? Faith? So now you are OSAS?

Heb. 12 and I Jn. and Pauline writings contradict you (you dispensationalize away the former and are selective with the latter).

God is holy, not a deaf, dumb, blind idol with amnesia.

etc. blah blah; Jesus sees me as sinless even though I am fornicating, etc. blah blah)

Seems not.
 

Brother Vinny

Active member
When Constantine converted, the Bible was taken away from the masses. As chrysostom says here, it is dangerous and we shouldn't have it. Because then we will find out what it says.

Constantine died in 337 AD. The New Testament wasn't organized and codified until the Council of Hippo in 393.

You're not making any sense.
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Constantine died in 337 AD. The New Testament wasn't organized and codified until the Council of Hippo in 393.

You're not making any sense.

Church "Fathers" put it together well before then. Paul's letters were written well before 200 years ago. It seems you just don't like what it says.
 

Brother Vinny

Active member
Church "Fathers" put it together well before then. Paul's letters were written well before 200 years ago. It seems you just don't like what it says.

Believe what you like. IIRC, weren't you the guy who thought two stacks of six loaves would translate in the ancient mind to the value of 66?
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Grace? Faith? So now you are OSAS?





Seems not.

Evangelicals have always affirmed the Pauline gospel of grace/faith vs works. This is why we oppose MAD that calls a hybrid gospel of faith/works a true vs false gospel.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
where do you see MAD as having a works doctrine?

The gospel (so-called) of the uncircumcision for Jewish Christians (supposedly) is not grace/faith alone, but works, baptism, repentance, obedience, laws, not OSAS, etc. This is a false gospel and denial of the finished work of Christ that predates Paul's conversion and is rooted in the cross and Pentecost, not Paul (Paul's issue was expansion of the gospel to the Gentiles, not to start a later true second gospel different from the one before him). Few question this paradigm. MAD is false. Don't fall for it.
 

Bright Raven

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The gospel (so-called) of the uncircumcision for Jewish Christians (supposedly) is not grace/faith alone, but works, baptism, repentance, obedience, laws, not OSAS, etc. This is a false gospel and denial of the finished work of Christ that predates Paul's conversion and is rooted in the cross and Pentecost, not Paul (Paul's issue was expansion of the gospel to the Gentiles, not to start a later true second gospel different from the one before him). Few question this paradigm. MAD is false. Don't fall for it.

And what does Paul say to believe;


1 Corinthians 15:1-4 King James Version (KJV)

1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Is this a gospel of works?
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
And what does Paul say to believe;


1 Corinthians 15:1-4 King James Version (KJV)

1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Is this a gospel of works?


NO. Paul deals with faith/works Judaizers in Galatians 1; Romans, etc.

I Cor. 15 is a gospel summary we all use. It has the same principles as Peter and John.

MAD is a moot point since it said that the two gospels were for a limited people and time in the first century. Making a divisive doctrine today is misguided. It misunderstands the transitional nature of the early church and biblical theology of John, James, Peter, Paul. It is a wrong disp view (I am Acts 2 disp).
 

Bright Raven

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
NO. Paul deals with faith/works Judaizers in Galatians 1; Romans, etc.

I Cor. 15 is a gospel summary we all use. It has the same principles as Peter and John.

MAD is a moot point since it said that the two gospels were for a limited people and time in the first century. Making a divisive doctrine today is misguided. It misunderstands the transitional nature of the early church and biblical theology of John, James, Peter, Paul. It is a wrong disp view (I am Acts 2 disp).

Show it! Salvation is always by grace.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Show it! Salvation is always by grace.

Yes, Rom. 4-5 shows that salvation is always by grace, but MAD creates a caste system in the early church post-cross?! The conditions for receiving and remaining in grace before Paul was faith+works, etc., but faith alone after Paul. This is not biblical even in the OT.

MAD makes a big deal about Paul's gospel like some Christians do not understand the gospel or grace. We do...our objection is to a two gospel theory vs one gospel post-cross, pre-Paul.
 

Bright Raven

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Yes, Rom. 4-5 shows that salvation is always by grace, but MAD creates a caste system in the early church post-cross?! The conditions for receiving and remaining in grace before Paul was faith+works, etc., but faith alone after Paul. This is not biblical even in the OT.

MAD makes a big deal about Paul's gospel like some Christians do not understand the gospel or grace. We do...our objection is to a two gospel theory vs one gospel post-cross, pre-Paul.

So you are saying that Paul preaches a gospel of grace plus works in Romans 4-5? If so, show the verses that are works oriented
 

way 2 go

Well-known member
Yes, Rom. 4-5 shows that salvation is always by grace, but MAD creates a caste system in the early church post-cross?!
you mean does away with the caste system of the Jews
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Col 3:11

new gospel tho


The conditions for receiving and remaining in grace before Paul was faith+works, etc., but faith alone after Paul. This is not biblical even in the OT.

never before ,that's right

Rom 16:25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery, having been unvoiced during eternal times;

no longer works

Rom 11:6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Just as Rom. 1-3 shows universal condemnation for Jew/Gentile, so Rom. 4-5 shows the one gospel of grace/faith will make Jew/Gentile one in Christ. There is nothing to support MAD in Romans.

I have not read the other posts, but it is likely the same old thing. MAD is simply poor theology, poor dispensationalism, poor exegesis.
:blabla:

Seriously, are you incapable of making actual arguments with evidence and Scripture, etc.?

If the MAD view wants to use Galatians 2 to say that there are two gospels--one entrusted to Paul, the other to Peter and the others of the Twelve--does this not pose a dilemma in light of Galatians 1? Paul has just pronounced anathema on those who would bring his listeners another gospel. Wouldn't the Twelve and their converts face anathema for bringing, even inadvertently, their gospel to a member of the Body of Christ?
This is why they agreed to go to different groups.

But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do.
-Galatians 2:7-10 [v9]
 
Top