What do you think?
ECT Would MAD be more accepted if Gal 2:7 were not in the text
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
oatmeal
Well-known member
The good news is the same for both.
Both were redeemed by the same God and Savior by His son.
And that in spite of their seemingly different backgrounds.
And therefore their seemingly different needs
But both Israel and the Gentiles came from Adam and Eve.
Abraham was a Gentile. As were Sarah and Isaac and Rebekah and Jacob's wives.
MAD errs because it assumes that the dispensation of grace began in the middle of Acts, but actually started at Acts 2:1-4
Jacob was the first Israelite.
musterion
Well-known member
I don't think it would matter, because the real objection people have to MAD is that it shows them there are things they believe are theirs -- things they rely on and take great pride in -- but which never were theirs. And no one wants to give them up.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
:up:
All the fun stuff: religion, signs and miracles, prosperity, thinking yourself a spiritual Jew
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
The good news for the circumcision (containing both Jews and Gentiles) is that Christ redeemed them, and if they by faith endure to the end, they will inherit the Holy City and be a priest and king.
The good news for the uncircumcision (containing both Jews and Gentiles) is that Christ redeemed us, forgave us, sealed us with the Spirit and has us already seated in him in the heavens, positionally, as trophies of his Grace.
Same Christ, same blood, same cross, different groups, different purposes, different inheritances.
Let them be different, God wanted them to be different.
You are too simplistic. I am not incorrect to point out the emphasis on studying Scripture, etc. for truth. The Spirit of Truth does lead us into truth, but you have to explain why so many sincere, godly believers have such a myriad of divisive, doctrinal views despite the same indwelling Holy Spirit, same sincerity, same prayerful study of Word, etc. (hint: noetic effects of sin; bad teaching; subjective, fleshly impressions mistaken for the Spirit, etc.)
The genitive has dozens of uses. KJV is weak or wrong here. I can accept it as is (the gospel of the Americans is the same as the gospel of the Chinese), but the best scholarship reflects a more accurate understanding of the genitive here (which is often 'of', but not always).
MAD falls apart at the level of original languages, as do the JW/Mormon cultic arguments from KJV only or their sectarian perversions like NWT (KJV is good, but not infallible)
MAD falls apart at the level of original languages, as do the JW/Mormon cultic arguments from KJV only or their sectarian perversions like NWT (KJV is good, but not infallible)
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Try sound exegesis rather than sloppy exegesis and eisegesis.
There is an interpretative issue. We all believe the words on the page, yet many come up with countless interpretations on any given text. You are proof texting this out of context of all relevant verses and simplistically refusing to consider the original language grammatical issues. You want to retain a preconceived error at all costs rather than actually do the hard work of exegesis.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Equally capable, godly, equally godly, capable, believers down through the ages have agreed that MAD is a non-starter.
Nah.....I'll just bring along some paper towels. :noid:
heir
TOL Subscriber
not to mention the fair shew in the flesh
heir
TOL Subscriber
:thumb:
False Prophet
New member
Not around here!
STP has more credible wisdom, balanced truth, maturity, discernment, love, etc. than you have in one finger.Your assertion begs clarification of context, without proper proof texting.
heir
TOL Subscriber
The minute you tell and even show someone with the scriptures that the gospel that is the power to save today is not the same as the gospel that was preached in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, people lose their marbles. They don't want to hear that it's not in the "red letters". They don't want to hear it that their favorite man behind the pulpit lies to them Sunday after Sunday as he hangs his hat in M, M, L, John and even Acts 2,3,4,5...
I believe what I read, but it must be correctly translated/interpreted. You tend to read your preconceived ideas into proof texts instead of looking at all relevant evidence and pulling ideas out of the text. Have you considered a balanced, credible, scrutinized, hermeneutics course? Who is your pastor?
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
No, BR, it would not matter. They don't reject MAD, because that is just an acronym used to distract or misdirect like a magician. They reject reconciliation on God's terms, and want to be accepted of their own flesh. They do not want to be cut of from their flesh. Because if they are cut off from their flesh, then...
You are proof texting an idiom as a wooden literalism to retain your wrong preconceptions. You are ignoring context to import preconceived idea (eisegesis), etc. Your shallow understanding of other views is indefensible, odd, and no credible, balanced, orthodox, traditional, mainstream, etc., scholar has your view on their radar. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Watch your semantics. Your view is more problematic, incoherent than you realize. I repeat this because you don't get it due to sectarian bias.
etc.
Some contradictions exist because of bad theology. To assume MAD is perfect when there is a more coherent view that resolves alleged problems is just ignorant arrogance and laziness (ironic). etc.
Are you an 8 point Lutheran Calvinist?