You have Merged together a combination "Kingdom Gospel/Grace Gospel belief system for yourself." That's not "Rightly Dividing" the Bible. You're completely WRONG!
Is M.A.D. a dangerous heresy? It demands much scripture to be ignored
- Thread starter SimpleMan77
- Start date
You have Merged together a combination "Kingdom Gospel/Grace Gospel belief system for yourself." That's not "Rightly Dividing" the Bible. You're completely WRONG!
Peter preached The Kingdom Gospel and Paul preached The Grace Gospel. Which will you choose?
Nice non-answer.
Was this instruction of Jesus to the Twleve for everyone at all times or not?
Matthew 10:5 KJV
(5) These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
If not, then something changed, didn't it?
Doesn't make the above scripture contradictory, for that is what that particular group was supposed to do at that time.
It was not for all people of all times.
You like to bark orders, don't ya?
Last edited:
You put yourself in the position where you're omission shows that you are wrong. So, you got anything :idunno:
I'll make it simple: you don't, and are lying.
SimpleMan77
New member
It absolutely changed.
Matthew 28:19-20
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
If course, MAD seems to teach that Jesus didn't really mean that, and point to Jesus saying "don't go to the Gentiles" way early in His ministry.
They say "you can't teach that someone has to to OBSERVE all the teachings of Jesus, or that would be salvation by works".
So they conveniently come up with a way to say that Scriptures like this were only for a dispensation that has been done away with.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Of course, you bible blenders/smorgasbordists seems to teach that the Lord Jesus Christ didn't really mean to sell all you have.
Luke 18:22 KJV Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
So you conveniently come up with a way to say that Scriptures like this were only for others, not you,but, in hypocrisy, talking out of both sides of your mouth,accuse others of not obeying all of the commands of the book.
Of course, you bible blenders/smorgasbordists seems to teach that the Lord Jesus Christ didn't really mean to show yourself to a Levitical priest.....
Mark 1:44 KJV And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
So you conveniently come up with a way to say that Scriptures like this were only for others, not you,but, in hypocrisy, talking out of both sides of your mouth,accuse others of not obeying all of the commands of the book.
You fraud.
SimpleMan77
New member
You will never find a time after the Holy Ghost was given in Acts 2 where the 12 apostles taught that anyone, Jews or Gentiles, had to keep the law of Moses.
They did acknowledge that many Jews were zealous for the law, and Paul said that was perfectly ok, as long as you didn't enforce your views on others.
He also fervently defended the Gentile Christians from converted Pharisees who were trying to say that they must keep the law.
The Apostles never taught any such thing. I challenge anyone to find anywhere the Apostles and Paul disagreed on this.
Paul was the one who instructed Timothy to be circumcised in Act 16, with no influence from the Apostles.
In Acts 21, Paul, at the Apostles' suggestion, and to prove that he himself kept the law, went through a purification ritual. Paul wouldn't have done this if he didn't agree with it. He was a man's man and would stand up to anyone.
The 12 Apostles didn't teach the Jews to abandon the law, but they didn't teach you had to follow it either.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Yes it did.
You know what that mean, don't you????
It means that not every instruction Jesus gave to His apostles at that time were NOT an instruction the BOC is to follow today.
That's a different instruction than the other before it, now isn't it?
Which just goes to further demonstrate that not ALL of the instructions Jesus ever gave to anyone applies to all people at all times.
You are mistaken, Dodge.
MAD teaches that the instruction "don't go to the Gentiles" was indeed what Jesus really meant for them to do at that time, but was not the instruction for all people at all times.
MAD teaches that ALL the instructions Jesus ever gave were NOT for all people of all times.
If you think "don't go to the Gentiles" was an instruction from Jesus to all people of all time, you are mistaken.
Do you at this time follow the instruction of Jesus to "don't go to the Gentiles"?
Or did the ministry/dispensation of that instruction come to a halt (ie. superseded by another instruction) ?
SimpleMan77
New member
Is M.A.D. a dangerous heresy? It demands much scripture to be ignored
It was superseded by Matthew 28:19 & 20, Luke 24:47-49, Acts 1:8. All of those said they were to go to all nations, starting at Jerusalem.
Jesus never changed that commission. The apostles did it, and we are still obeying it today.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
It was superseded by Matthew 28:19 & 20, Luke 24:47-49, Acts 1:8. All of those said they were to go to all nations, starting at Jerusalem.
Jesus never changed that commission. The apostles did it, and we are still obeying it today.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
SimpleMan77
New member
I'm sure that you'd say that, even though I'm a "fraud", that it really doesn't matter, because once I've believed it really doesn't matter what kind of works I choose to do. I can choose to lie, misrepresent the Gospel, whatever feels good to me, right?
I think you'd say that if I did feel bad about being a fraud, I shouldn't try to change my nature to be more honest like God, because that would be trying to "earn my salvation". So… I should just stay the way I am, and trust grace.
If you think anything differently, that would be inconsistent.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
And yet Paul did not compel Titus to do such instruction.
In fact, Paul teaches us that it is the weaker brother that insists on such instruction of the law, because they do not recognize the liberty in Christ.
It is not true that Paul would not do something if he didn't agree with it.
Paul was agreeable that he could eat anything, but Paul (our of courtesy) would not eat things the host thought to be unclean, even though Paul certainly agreed he had every right to.
Then MADists are correct that the ministry/dispensation of Jesus to "don't go to the Gentiles" is not for all people of all times.
That a big green check mark for MAD.
SimpleMan77
New member
But, if Paul thought for an instant that keeping the law was wrong he wouldn't have thought twice about standing up for truth.
The fact is that the Jewish disciples followed the law, and that continued after Paul's time. Their is nothing wrong with a Jew today keeping the law - even Paul taught that.
All the Apostles agree that it is not your purification, however. It is not your salvation. If you are trusting in the law of Moses for salvation you won't get it.
Peter testified of his preaching to the Gentiles, and said "God purified their hearts through faith". He preached that message before Paul had any revelation other than that Jesus was the Messiah.
James taught faith plus works of the law.
Paul taught faith without works of the law.
Things that differ are not the same.
The ministry/dispensation of Paul differed from the ministry/dispensation of James.
It certainly doesn't mean everything they taught was different.
But you should not keep on ignoring the differences.
You seem to think that what Jesus instructed at one time is for all time.
Romans 4:4-6 KJV
(4) Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
(5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
(6) Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
(4) Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
(5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
(6) Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
The bible is history. Are you suggesting that Paul was lying then when he stated explicitly that the Twelve agreed that Paul should go to the Gentiles and they to Israel (the Circumcision)? Should we rip Galatians out of our bibles?
Galatians 2:7 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 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 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.
Notice that all I'm hitting you with here is the plain reading of the text of scripture.
Philip, Apollos and the others you listed here were not Apostles, they were all taught what to preach by Apostles, only twelve of which were given the Great Commission and only one of which was given a gospel to preach by direct divine inspiration.
That isn't what the text says. James is the one who stated explicitly in Acts 20 that ALL of his followers were zealous for the Law.
Paul is teaching here that unbelievers aren't going to be saved, although I understand your misunderstanding of the passage. This point touches the boundary past which a discussion of this kind cannot proceed. The problem is one of paradigm, not intellectual honesty or intelligence. You are essentially 'begging the question' with this point. I say that because the argument you are making is valid only from within your own theological paradigm but the validity of your theological paradigm is what you are trying to prove and thus the argument is invalid. The problem is that since the error is on the paradigm level it means that you cannot see it and I have no way to make you see it without causing you to look at it from my paradigm which you won't do without being convinced that it's valid which cannot be done by going down this road. It is a true dead end because I can clearly see that passage from your paradigm because I used to hold your paradigm and can, therefore, know that there is NO convincing you that you aren't seeing that passage correctly.
I'll toss one pebble into the pond concerning this point and see what sort of ripples it makes...
In the bible, there are Paul's epistles and then there's the whole rest of the bible. The only reason you believe that works have nothing to do with salvation is because of Paul. If Paul's epistles weren't in the New Testament, you would be observing the Sabbath, circumcising your male children on the eighth day of their lives and all the other things that the Law requires minus the sacrificial aspects which the author of Hebrews teaches is no longer to be observed. Without Paul, you would effectively be a Messianic Jew. What you do, whether you realize it or not, is that you take Paul basically at face value and you interpret the rest of scripture in light of his teachings.
The problem is that there are other Christians who do the reverse. Catholics, The Church of Christ, Messianic Jews and many others believe strongly that certain works are required for salvation. I went to a church as a child that believed that water baptism was required, for example. To one degree or another, what these believers do is just the opposite of what you do. They take the whole bible as face value and interpret Paul's epistle in such as way as to make them agree, which, interestingly, is precisely what you've done with that 1 Corinthians passage.
So who has the stronger argument? Is it the Baptists and other like them that take Paul's tiny portion of the bible and interpret the whole rest of scripture in its light or is the Church of Christ who does the exact opposite? Well, if those were the only two alternatives, there's no question that the latter is the stronger position to take.
Fortunately, there is a third alternative. The other two alternatives make a common assumption, that Paul epistles are aimed at the same group of people that the rest of the bible is aimed at, namely believers. Dispensationalism teaches that there is more than one group of believers, that the Body of Christ is a separate group from Israel, that those saved by grace alone are not the same as those saved under the dispensation of Law. Mid-Acts Dispensationalism goes one step further than this and teaches that the Body of Christ began with Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus in Acts 9. This distinction may seem a minor point but it happens to touch nearly every area of doctrine that you can think of and more importantly, it resolves countless doctrinal debates that have existed in the church for millenia and at the same time allows one to take every biblical author at face value rather than having to interpret one set in light of the other.
In fact, that single point is one of the very strongest arguments for its validity. The Baptists take Paul at face value and interpret the rest of the New Testament in light of his teaching. The Church of Christ takes the Gospels and the whole of the Bible really at face value and interprets Paul in that light. I take the whole entire thing at face value and make no attempt to make Jesus' or James' teachings agree with Paul's beyond what the plain reading of the text states. Of course, there are passages that are more difficult than others but on the whole, I totally take the bible to mean precisely what it says. And so when Jesus teaches that spiritual blessings are conditional (e.g. if you're meek, you'll inherit the Earth) then that doesn't cause me any doctrinal hot flashes because I understand who Jesus was talking to and why (i.e. the context). Same thing when James says as plain as day that works are required for salvation. He says that because it was true for those to whom he wrote the book (to the Jews, scattered abroad).
This idea that the Body of Christ began with Paul and that Paul was the singular apostle to the Body of Christ resolves not just the issue of whether works are required for salvation but all sort of issues like whether you can lose your salvation, is water baptism required, will there be a rapture and if so when will it occur relative to the Tribulation, should miracles be expected today, should we observe the sabbath, should we tithe, should we follow the Ten Commandments, should we be speaking in tongues and many other seemingly unrelated doctrinal issues.
Further, this single idea that the Body of Christ began in Act 9 answers several questions that most Christians cannot answer with any coherence.
Why did the twelve and their converts live in a commune? (Acts 3)
Why were James' converts "zealous for the law"? (Acts 20)
What is the meaning of the parable of the fig tree? (Matt. 24)
Why was Israel cut off? (Romans 9)
Why did the Twelve disengage themselves from the Great Commission? (Galatians 2)
Why does the book or Revelation speak of only twelve apostles instead of thirteen? (Revelation 21)
Why does Paul repeatedly refer to the gospel as "my gospel"?
Why did Paul have to explain the gospel he preached to the Twelve at the Jerusalem council? (Gal. 2 & Acts 15)
Why did Peter state that some of the thing Paul teaches are "hard to understand"? (2 Peter 3:16)
Etc.
All answered by accepting one single premise. That the Body of Christ began with Paul's conversion in Acts 9 rather than in Acts 2 or earlier. Is it possible to have a stronger argument than that? I mean if ever there was an elegant piece of doctrine this has got to be it! Old Bill Ockham would be proud!
Anyway, that was a bit more than a pebble thrown in the pond but I couldn't help myself. Hopefully, this illustrates to some degree the magnitude of the disconnect between our two doctrinal paradigms and that I'm not just blowing smoke because I don't wish to respond to what surely seems to you to be a valid argument.
Resting in Him,
Clete