User Tag List

Page 1 of 127 12341151101 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 1905

Thread: Is MAD doctrine correct?

  1. #1
    LIFETIME MEMBER Bright Raven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Calfornia
    Posts
    7,719
    Thanks
    225
    Thanked 2,837 Times in 1,831 Posts

    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2059333

    Is MAD doctrine correct?

    Slice it any way you want. Is the more than one Gospel position of MAD correct?
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.

    Jim Elliot

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Bright Raven For Your Post:

    Tambora (October 25th, 2017)

  3. #2
    LIFETIME MEMBER vegascowboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Somewhere on the prairie...
    Posts
    1,883
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 129 Times in 125 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    101508
    Indeed! Even with us Jewish Christians!
    The L-rd bless you and keep you;
    The L-rd make his face shine upon you,
    And be gracious to you;
    The L-rd lift up his countenance upon you,
    And give you peace.



    Abortion is murder. Period.

  4. #3
    Veteran Guyver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Tardation
    Posts
    263
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by Bright Raven View Post
    Slice it any way you want. Is the more than one Gospel position of MAD correct?
    Will you elaborate on what is meant by more than one Gospel?
    Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same.

  5. #4
    LIFETIME MEMBER Bright Raven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Calfornia
    Posts
    7,719
    Thanks
    225
    Thanked 2,837 Times in 1,831 Posts

    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2059333
    Quote Originally Posted by Guyver View Post
    Will you elaborate on what is meant by more than one Gospel?
    Galatians 2:7 for one.
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.

    Jim Elliot

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Bright Raven For Your Post:

    Tambora (October 25th, 2017)

  7. #5
    Over 500 post club Doormat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    In a temple made without hands.
    Posts
    719
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2441
    Quote Originally Posted by Bright Raven View Post
    Galatians 2:7 for one.
    "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."

    The highlighted was added by the translators, which is why it is set in italics in the translation. The verse is only about the one gospel.
    So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.

  8. #6
    Veteran Guyver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Tardation
    Posts
    263
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by Bright Raven View Post
    Galatians 2:7 for one.
    Maybe we're dealing with an issue of semantics here?

    Let's start by finishing the Gal 2:7 quote.

    "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."

    This is not saying that there are two gospels; but that the focus of the gospel is delivered to different groups: one Jewish, the other Gentile.

    God chose Paul to be the Apostle to the Gentiles, even as Peter had been chosen by God to lead the church in Jerusalem. Peter and Paul weren't the only ones preaching the gospel. In any event, look at Peter's gospel message in Acts 2. He preached the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is the gospel.

    "“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it."

    This is also what Paul preached, and affirmed constantly.

    Romans 15:19
    Romans 1:16
    1 Corinthians 2:2
    1 Corinthians 15:1-5
    Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same.

  9. #7
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    6,128
    Thanks
    3,415
    Thanked 3,108 Times in 1,847 Posts

    Blog Entries
    144
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147674
    Quote Originally Posted by Bright Raven View Post
    Slice it any way you want. Is the more than one Gospel position of MAD correct?
    1. Dispensational Theology distinguishes between Israel and the Church

    2. Unaware that Jesus will be crucified, the 12 preach the gospel of the kingdom

    3. Isaiah chapter 53

    4. Rightly dividing the word: A scriptural necessity

    5. The new covenant did NOT begin with the birth of Christ

    6. Circumcision: The TOKEN of the Abrahamic Covenant

    7. The children of Israel were to SEPARATE themselves from the Gentiles

    8. God promised to BLESS those who blessed Abraham's "seed", the nation of Israel

    9. Gentiles were not necessarily excluded from Christ's earthly ministry--but Christ was not sent directly to them. Gentiles could always be included in the promise of Genesis 12:1-3 (KJV).

    10. In Acts 10, Cornelius does not portray today's salvation of Uncircumcised Gentiles

    11. Jesus Christ was the seed in Acts 3, those Israelites who believed in him, and abided in him were counted as the seed, the Israel of God, and would be the vehicle (kingdom of priests and holy nation) by which the nations would be blessed (Great Commission).

    12. The "Great Commission", being prophetic, was interrupted and never was, for the Body of Christ.

    13. The "dispensation of grace": Prophecy interrupted; an unprophesied mystery begins

    14. Grecians, in Acts chapters 6 and 11, were Greek-speaking JEWS, not Gentiles

    15. The book of James was not written to Gentiles

    16. The Apostle Paul - 14 passages which state that he is the Lord's Spokesman to the Gentiles

    17. The four NT Gospels contain no message implying that Christ died for sins. The message of the four Gospels is to Israel to keep the law, endure, and be saved.

    18. To be decided: Cessationism or non-cessationism for majority of MAD proponents? (Cessationism seems to be the majority view for MAD)

    Then there is Mr. Enyart's "The Plot"

    Mr. Enyart holds that Israel’s rejection (of a “yoke” they could not bear) of His sending of Christ thwarted God’s plan (Plan A), but not necessarily God’s purposes. Hence, a major “plot twist” occurs in the Scriptures, where, according to Mr. Enyart, God temporarily rejects Israel, and uses Paul to leverage “the Body” to evangelize the Gospel (Plan B). Ignoring the obvious issues with God’s purposes somehow being thwarted, Mr. Enyart compounds his error, leveraging faulty “sentence-within-a-sentence” interpretations, by asserting that Israel’s rejection of Christ as Messiah signaled a change by God from salvation under the law to salvation by grace—a change purportedly occurring in the book of Acts when Paul was converted (hence the Mid-Acts Dispensationalist tone of The Plot) and sent to evangelize the Gentiles.

    You decide.

    AMR
    Last edited by Ask Mr. Religion; January 15th, 2013 at 10:43 PM. Reason: Updated #12, Added #17, #18
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  10. #8
    Veteran Guyver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Tardation
    Posts
    263
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    120
    AMR.....it's hard to understand what you're asking us to decide upon.. at least for me anyway.

    You've listed many points.....but I'm not sure how to put together what you're saying here. Can you elaborate a little?

    It seems that you're listing some MAD tenets? Some of them are right; others may or may not be easily demonstrated.

    Which points do you disagree with?
    Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same.

  11. #9
    Over 5000 post club
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    L.A.
    Posts
    5,427
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 693 Times in 509 Posts

    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    226013
    Quote Originally Posted by Bright Raven View Post
    Galatians 2:7 for one.

    Hi , and here is what non-dispensationalist fail to see in Gal 2:7 .

    Here is a verse by verse translation og Gal 2:7 .

    But , on the other hand , having seen that I have been ENTRUSTED with the Gospel of THE UNCIRCUMCISION just as Peter (was ) of THE CIRCUMCISION !!

    #1 , The Grrek word ENTRUSTED is in the Perfect Tense , Passive Voice and in Indicative Mood .

    #2 , This means that Paul's gospel HAD a beginning in Time Past , which is the Aorist tense or simple past tense , but also in the PRESENT TENSE which means the Gospel of the Un-circumcision KEPT on going forever , until Paul dies !!

    #3 , This Beginning was in Acts 9:6 !!

    #4 , The Passive Voice means that Christ picked Paul to preach the Gospel of the Un-circumcision and not man .

    #5 , The Indicative Mood means that why Gal 2:7 , is a FACT .

    #6 , Notice that Paul was ENTRUSTED with THE , THE , THE ( THE Greek ARTICLE , ( THE ) says it is a Specific Gospel and that SPECIFIC Gospel mean THE UNCIRCUMCISION , GOSPEL , PERIOD !!!!!!!!!!!

    #7 , The last part of the verse " just as Peter ( was ) of THE CIRCUMCISION .

    Here the Greek Articile " THE " points to Peters SPECIFIC gospel , THE CIRCUMCISION , and that speaks too , 2 Gospels in Gal 2:7 , Un-circumcision and Circumcision !!

    From Eph 2:11 , the word CIRCUMCISION , speaks to Jews ONLY !!

    Those that do not know the importance of the Greek Article should read Greek 101 !!

    dan p

  12. #10
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    9,273
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    11793
    Quote Originally Posted by Bright Raven View Post
    Slice it any way you want. Is the more than one Gospel position of MAD correct?
    No, this is not sound NT theology nor biblical.

    Gal. 2:7 is a demarcation of ministry (for the 100th time), not two true NT gospels (which would undermine His finished work). This MAD proof text is eisegesis, not exegesis (see master exegete/Greek expert A.T. Robertson on this).

    Rom. 1:16 Post-cross, there is one gospel.
    Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

    They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
    I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

    Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

    "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

    The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

  13. #11
    Veteran Guyver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Tardation
    Posts
    263
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    1. Dispensational Theology distinguishes between Israel and the Church.
    Rightly so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    2. Unaware that Jesus will be crucified, the 12 preach the gospel of the kingdom [
    True. They did as Jesus did, and instructed them to do.

    Mark 1:14
    Luke 4:43
    Luke 9:2

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    3. Isaiah chapter 53
    Jesus sacrificial atonement foretold.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    4. Rightly dividing the word: A scriptural necessity
    Of course. Otherwise one might think it's OK to jump around with rattlesnakes in church; or pray to the perpetual virgin.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    5. The new covenant did NOT begin with the birth of Christ
    Also true. The New Covenant is the covenant in his blood. Matthew 26:28

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    6. Circumcision: The TOKEN of the Abrahamic Covenant
    OK.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    7. The children of Israel were to SEPARATE themselves from the Gentiles
    Yes again. What's the point? God was clear on why he wished it. Exodus 20:3

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    8. God promised to BLESS those who blessed Abraham's "seed", the nation of Israel
    And he promised to bless Abraham's seed. And he promised they would be cursed if they rejected him...which they did continually. Deuteronomy 28

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    9. Gentiles were not necessarily excluded from Christ's earthly ministry--but Christ was not sent directly to them. Gentiles could always be included in the promise of Genesis 12:1-3 (KJV).
    Also true. I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Matthew 15:24

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    10. In Acts 10, Cornelius does not portray today's salvation of Uncircumcised Gentiles
    Disagree. Saved means saved. Those of Cornelius' house were saved by the hearing and believing the gospel....the same as all people are to be.

    1 Timothy 2:4

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    11. Jesus Christ was the seed in Acts 3, those Israelites who believed in him, and abided in him were counted as the seed, the Israel of God, and would be the vehicle (kingdom of priests and holy nation) by which the nations would be blessed (Great Commission).
    That's open to interpretation. Jesus is the seed, that's for sure.
    John 12:24

    The kingdom of priests and holy nation could also be in reference to Christ's coming millenial kingdom.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    12. The "Great Commission", being prophetic, was interrupted
    How? Why? When?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    13. The "dispensation of grace": Prophecy interrupted; an unprophesied mystery begins
    I don't know if prophecy was interrupted; but the dispensation of grace was certainly not unprophesied...it surely may have been a mystery to most Jews....but the salvation of Gentiles and all people by grace through faith was no mystery to God. Christ was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    14. Grecians, in Acts chapters 6 and 11, were Greek-speaking JEWS, not Gentiles
    OK. So what?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    15. The book of James was not written to Gentiles
    James identifies the people to whom he's writing in his intro.

    "James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,
    To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad:"

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    16. The Apostle Paul - 14 passages which state that he is the Lord's Spokesman to the Gentiles
    So? That's true. God himself said so. Acts 13:2 Acts 9:15

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Then there is Mr. Enyart's "The Plot"

    Mr. Enyart holds that Israel’s rejection (of a “yoke” they could not bear) of His sending of Christ thwarted God’s plan (Plan A), but not necessarily God’s purposes. Hence, a major “plot twist” occurs in the Scriptures, where, according to Mr. Enyart, God temporarily rejects Israel, and uses Paul to leverage “the Body” to evangelize the Gospel (Plan B). Ignoring the obvious issues with God’s purposes somehow being thwarted, Mr. Enyart compounds his error, leveraging faulty “sentence-within-a-sentence” interpretations, by asserting that Israel’s rejection of Christ as Messiah signaled a change by God from salvation under the law to salvation by grace—a change purportedly occurring in the book of Acts when Paul was converted (hence the Mid-Acts Dispensationalist tone of The Plot) and sent to evangelize the Gentiles.
    Never read it....so I have no comment. But with respect to God's purposes being thwarted....do you think it unprecedented?

    Genesis 6:6

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    You decide.
    I said it once before, and I'll say it again. I don't know what you're asking people to decide upon.
    Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same.

  14. #12
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    21
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2255
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Mr. Enyart holds that Israel’s rejection (of a “yoke” they could not bear) of His sending of Christ thwarted God’s plan (Plan A), but not necessarily God’s purposes. Hence, a major “plot twist” occurs in the Scriptures, where, according to Mr. Enyart, God temporarily rejects Israel, and uses Paul to leverage “the Body” to evangelize the Gospel (Plan B). Ignoring the obvious issues with God’s purposes somehow being thwarted, Mr. Enyart compounds his error, leveraging faulty “sentence-within-a-sentence” interpretations, by asserting that Israel’s rejection of Christ as Messiah signaled a change by God from salvation under the law to salvation by grace—a change purportedly occurring in the book of Acts when Paul was converted (hence the Mid-Acts Dispensationalist tone of The Plot) and sent to evangelize the Gentiles.
    Are you opposing dispensationalism or his open theism?

  15. #13
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    9,273
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    11793
    Quote Originally Posted by DOCTA4me View Post
    Are you opposing dispensationalism or his open theism?
    Probably both. AMR is Calvinistic, not dispensational, not Open Theist.
    Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

    They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
    I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

    Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

    "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

    The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

  16. #14
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    21
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2255
    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz View Post
    Probably both. AMR is Calvinistic, not dispensational, not Open Theist.
    I'm trying to figure out if this is supposed to be an argument about dispensationalism or open theism. There's some good stuff out there on both sides of the two Gospels debate, depending on where you think we should divide.

    But it's not worth arguing over Calvinism. The Presbyterian’s I know have been taught that total-deprave-rs are incapable of love and that God, through His grace, makes it irresistible for some not to love Him.

    But Love is volitional. If it’s not resistible it’s not love, and if there’s no love there’s no such thing as a God of Love.

  17. #15
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    6,128
    Thanks
    3,415
    Thanked 3,108 Times in 1,847 Posts

    Blog Entries
    144
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147674
    Quote Originally Posted by DOCTA4me View Post
    Are you opposing dispensationalism or his open theism?
    As I am covenantal, I hold to neither view as a label, so I naturally would disagree with several aspects of the items in my post. But I am not posting the content to start some cage match, esp. given the rules for posting in this particular forum.

    The point of my post was to test my own understanding of MAD.

    The items I listed were gleaned from actual discussions on TOL about MAD and from what I could gather elsewhere. I previously tested this list here:

    http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...90#post2713690

    And made some tweaks to the list following that discussion.

    I see that most of them are agreed to by MAD proponents, but some are in dispute. I guess there is some disagreement even with the MAD camp, not that I expected there not to be.

    What I am trying to do is gather a list of the MAD distinctives and then be able to craft something with three columns, adding MAD to the two columns in something like this table:

    http://www.faithbibleonline.net/Misc...ne/DispCov.htm

    So for those MAD supporters that are scratching their heads saying "so what?" to my list above, that is actually a good thing as I want to be as accurate as I can with this list.

    AMR
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us