Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?

Nang

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Bright Raven said:
Because they preached the Gospel of Kingdom. They did not have the fullness of the Gospel of Grace.
Click to expand...

A question:

How can the Gospel of Grace be announced in its (eventual) fullness, apart from first announcing God the Son has come in flesh and has declared the kingdom has come, and is at hand?

What would be the significance of the later death and resurrection of Jesus, except to confirm these first announcements of the kingdom come?

The O.T. promises of the kingdom come and the provision of a Savior, was verified by the witness of Jesus, and ratified by His blood spilt on the cross. It was proven to be a spiritual, heavenly, and everlasting kingdom, by the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.

How can, or why would, MAD people separate and make two gospels out of this full evangelistic (gospel) and saving message?

Why would they even want to?
 
Bright Raven

Bright Raven

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Nang said:
A question:

How can the Gospel of Grace be announced in its (eventual) fullness, apart from first announcing God the Son has come in flesh and has declared the kingdom has come, and is at hand?

What would be the significance of the later death and resurrection of Jesus, except to confirm these first announcements of the kingdom come?

The O.T. promises of kingdom come and the provision of a Savior, was verified by the witness of Jesus, and ratified by His blood spilt on the cross. It was proven to be a spiritual, heavenly, and everlasting kingdom, by the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.

How can or why would MAD people separate and make two gospels out of this full evangelistic (gospel) and saving message?

Why would they even want to?
Click to expand...

You tell me.

Galatians 2:7 King James Version (KJV)

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
 
Nang

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Bright Raven said:
You tell me.

Galatians 2:7 King James Version (KJV)

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
Click to expand...



What makes you think this was 2 gospels?

Galatians 2:8 says the message was effectually worked within both Paul and Peter:

"For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles."

Who could this same power, "He" refer to, but "God accepteth no man's person" who is contextually identified in Galatians 2:6.

Paul (half Jew) was commissioned to take the gospel to the gentiles and Peter (full Jew) was commissioned to take the same gospel, worked effectually by God, to the Jews.

This is a difference in audience; both equal in the eyes of God, and therefore not a difference in message nor efficicacy (power to save).
 
Bright Raven

Bright Raven

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Nang said:
What makes you think this was 2 gospels?

Galatians 2:8 says the message was effectually worked within both Paul and Peter:

"For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles."

Who could this same power, "He" refer to, but "God accepteth no man's person" who is contextually identified in Galatians 2:6.

Paul (half Jew) was commissioned to take the gospel to the gentiles and Peter (full Jew) was commissioned to take the same gospel, worked effectually by God, to the Jews.

This is a difference in audience; both equal in the eyes of God, and therefore not a difference in message nor efficicacy (power to save).
Click to expand...

What makes you think it isn't. The Word says it is.
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Nang said:
What makes you think this was 2 gospels?

Galatians 2:8 says the message was effectually worked within both Paul and Peter:

"For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles."

Who could this same power, "He" refer to, but "God accepteth no man's person" who is contextually identified in Galatians 2:6.

Paul (half Jew) was commissioned to take the gospel to the gentiles and Peter (full Jew) was commissioned to take the same gospel, worked effectually by God, to the Jews.

This is a difference in audience; both equal in the eyes of God, and therefore not a difference in message nor efficicacy (power to save).
Click to expand...
Wow Nang, that is one of the silliest things I've seen on here for a while. Where in the world do you get the false idea that Paul was a "half Jew"? There is NO such thing.
Php 3:5 KJV Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
​
Just because he was a Roman citizen does not make him any less a Jew (as in Israelite).

You've picked up some very strange and false teachings.
 
Nick M

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Nang said:
oink oink oink oink

pearls-on-swine-24169895106.jpg
Click to expand...

:up:
 
Nick M

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Dialogos said:
Not what reformed theology teaches.

You can push that straw man down all you like, but at some point honestly constrains someone to at least try and accurately represent another person's theology.
Click to expand...

Nang said:
Well, I believe God Almighty is running the universe, down to every detail, according to His predetermined will and good pleasure.
Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

Nang said:
Yes. In fact, until one is born again from above, they cannot comprehend ("see") the kingdom (John 3:3) or respond to the gospel. (I Corinthians 2:11-14)

Nang
Click to expand...

So go ahead and refute the sow.
 
G

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
SaulToPaul said:
Peter preached the gospel for 3 years, he preached that Jesus is the Christ, but had no clue about the cross.

This is a fact.
Click to expand...

Nang refuted you. You cannot read the Gospels, Acts, and Petrine writings and make your statement with a straight face.:singer:
 
G

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
SaulToPaul said:
You don't have a clue what you are saying.

I KNOW they didn't preach the cross during those 3 years, but the HOLY BIBLE says they preached the gospel of the kingdom.

Humble yourself, and accept correction.
Click to expand...

You are throwing in pre-cross stuff and ignoring post-cross Peter stuff. You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Acts 2 disps recognize kingdom preaching issues, etc. Your beef is with post-cross two gospels, so quit jumping all over the place.
 
Nick M

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
godrulz said:
You are throwing in pre-cross stuff and ignoring post-cross Peter stuff.
Click to expand...

Like this? These are verses you use when saying there is no grace.

Acts 5

4 While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

5 Then Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and breathed his last. So great fear came upon all those who heard these things. 6 And the young men arose and wrapped him up, carried him out, and buried him.

7 Now it was about three hours later when his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter answered her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much?”

She said, “Yes, for so much.”

9 Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 10 Then immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. And the young men came in and found her dead, and carrying her out, buried her by her husband.


Or maybe this....

Acts 10

13 And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.”

14 But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.”
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
godrulz said:
Nang refuted you. You cannot read the Gospels, Acts, and Petrine writings and make your statement with a straight face.:singer:
Click to expand...

Peter preached THE GOSPEL in early Luke, but didn't know about the cross.

The Holy Bible said it was THE GOSPEL not PART OF THE GOSPEL.

Ask the Lord help thou thy unbelief.
 
Nang

Nang

TOL Subscriber
SaulToPaul said:
Note the agreement in Acts 15.

Then note WHO Paul preached to in Acts 16, Acts 17, Acts 18, and Acts 19.
Click to expand...

There was nothing in the inclusive Decree of Jerusalem, that precluded Paul from "being all things to all men." I Corinthians 99:22 and Ephesians 3:9.

I have no idea what causes you to think any Apostolic teaching or gospel message ever changed from what was given them by the power and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
 
Nang

Nang

TOL Subscriber
SaulToPaul said:
Then why say it's the same gospel to two groups?
That is what you said, a different audience.
Click to expand...

I spoke of two commissions. Peter was commissioned predominantly to preach to Jews and Paul was commissioned predominantly to Gentiles. Two different commissions, but the same message.

However, on occasions, Peter preached to Gentiles also, and Paul preached to Jews, as the Spirit of God led them. (Who was in audience at Pentecost?!) Different audiences, at different times, but the one and same commission to preach the gospel message, always.

Neither of their commissions, precluded either Paul nor Peter proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ and His grace to all the nations, wherever and whenever they were led by the Holy Spirit of God.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top