User Tag List

Page 4 of 127 FirstFirst 12345671454104 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 1905

Thread: Is MAD doctrine correct?

  1. #46
    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
    The difference in the two Gospels is that the first from Peter to the Jews stresses repentance and baptism.

    Acts2:38
    KJV
    38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

    Paul stresses the death burial and resurrection of Jesus.

    1 Corinthians 15:1-4
    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:

    Here there are two different approaches to salvation; one given by Peter and one by Paul constituting two different gospels, one for the Jew, one for the Gentile.
    The problem is that you are pitting Acts 2 against I Cor. 15. Both are equally valid gospel truths if you interpret them right.

    It is a MAD myth that Acts 2 does not teach the person and work of Christ, including His death and resurrection, faith, etc.

    The way MAD understands baptism, repentance, etc. is not biblical. We give verses from a Pauline perspective on this, but the lights don't seem to go on.

    United Pentecostal Church proof texts Acts 2:38 as the gospel and insist on baptism in the name of Jesus only (vs trinity), repentance with legalisms, speaking in tongues as salvific, etc. Proper exegesis of the verse does not support their view nor MAD's.

    Grammatically, repentance, not baptism, is linked with remission (parenthetical issue in the original also). Understanding the relationship between water baptism as a practice in the early church and the condition of faith is important. You are importing a wrong assumption onto the text. It does not support your two gospel theory.

    The same problems arise with Lord's Supper/Communion. MAD is wrong in what it says about I Cor. 11, a Pauline passage.

    MAD is based on ignorance of sound NT theology/exegesis.

    Please revisit it critically vs gullibly.
    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.

  2. #47
    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 Lighthouse View Post
    Congratulations on missing my point.

    Also: Galatians 2:9


    I'm going by the record. Acts 10 gives an idea that Peter was reticent to go to Gentiles so early on. And then there is Gal. 2:9
    The whole context supports a demarcation of ministry, not two true gospels post-cross.

    One of us cannot see the forest for the trees. Your paradigm is wrong and it is propped up by proof texts misinterpreted.

    Must we wait until heaven for you to get it right?
    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.

  3. #48
    LIFETIME MEMBER Bright Raven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Calfornia
    Posts
    7,747
    Thanks
    228
    Thanked 2,859 Times in 1,847 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2087211
    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz View Post
    The problem is that you are pitting Acts 2 against I Cor. 15. Both are equally valid gospel truths if you interpret them right.

    It is a MAD myth that Acts 2 does not teach the person and work of Christ, including His death and resurrection, faith, etc.

    The way MAD understands baptism, repentance, etc. is not biblical. We give verses from a Pauline perspective on this, but the lights don't seem to go on.

    United Pentecostal Church proof texts Acts 2:38 as the gospel and insist on baptism in the name of Jesus only (vs trinity), repentance with legalisms, speaking in tongues as salvific, etc. Proper exegesis of the verse does not support their view nor MAD's.

    Grammatically, repentance, not baptism, is linked with remission (parenthetical issue in the original also). Understanding the relationship between water baptism as a practice in the early church and the condition of faith is important. You are importing a wrong assumption onto the text. It does not support your two gospel theory.

    The same problems arise with Lord's Supper/Communion. MAD is wrong in what it says about I Cor. 11, a Pauline passage.

    MAD is based on ignorance of sound NT theology/exegesis.

    Please revisit it critically vs gullibly.
    So you're saying that Acts 2:38 and 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 are not two different means of salvation? Then show us the salvation plan for the Jew.
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.

    Jim Elliot

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

    Tambora (October 25th, 2017)

  5. #49
    Does Whatever A Light-House Can Lighthouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Anderson, IN
    Posts
    20,720
    Thanks
    1,174
    Thanked 13,247 Times in 10,132 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147867
    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz View Post
    The whole context supports a demarcation of ministry, not two true gospels post-cross.
    Not the point right now.

    One of us cannot see the forest for the trees. Your paradigm is wrong and it is propped up by proof texts misinterpreted.

    Must we wait until heaven for you to get it right?
    No comment.


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

    Tambora (August 8th, 2017)

  7. #50
    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
    So you're saying that Acts 2:38 and 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 are not two different means of salvation? Then show us the salvation plan for the Jew.
    The gospel, based on the book of Romans, to Jew and Gentile, is grace/faith based. It is the power of God. Paul is defending the one gospel. It is bad enough that MAD makes Peter/James/John contradict vs complement Paul, but it also starts dividing up Paul's own letters into early/late/circ/uncirc?! This is ridiculous.

    Rom. 1:16-17

    I Cor. 15 is a good summary, but its principles are also in Acts 2. Acts 2 principles can also be found in Paul.
    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.

  8. #51
    Over 5000 post club
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    L.A.
    Posts
    5,431
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 700 Times in 515 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    228161
    Quote Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
    Congratulations on missing my point.

    Also: Galatians 2:9


    I'm going by the record. Acts 10 gives an idea that Peter was reticent to go to Gentiles so early on. And then there is Gal. 2:9

    Hi , so you will not explain what it says in Matt 28:19 and verse 20 really mean and you are trying to connect Matt 19 with Acts 10 ??

    Try seeing what Matt 28:10 , NATION/ETHNOS means and compare it with John 11:50 !!

    You will have to prove that Apostless in Matt 28:19 and 20 were to go to Gentiles !!

    Want to try ??

    Dying to hear your answer on Matt 28:19 and verse 20 ??

    dan p

  9. #52
    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 DAN P View Post
    Hi , so you will not explain what it says in Matt 28:19 and verse 20 really mean and you are trying to connect Matt 19 with Acts 10 ??

    Try seeing what Matt 28:10 , NATION/ETHNOS means and compare it with John 11:50 !!

    You will have to prove that Apostless in Matt 28:19 and 20 were to go to Gentiles !!

    Want to try ??

    Dying to hear your answer on Matt 28:19 and verse 20 ??

    dan p
    The Great Commission explicitly talks about all ethnos/people groups. This is not limited to Jews, but includes all Gentiles. Jn. 3:16 is the whole world (unregenerate man), not just Jews. This is consistent with Pauline thought also. Jesus, John, Paul, Peter, James were on the same page. God loves all men and Christ is the provision to make all men one in Him (whether Paul existed or converted or not).
    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.

  10. #53
    Over 5000 post club
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    L.A.
    Posts
    5,431
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 700 Times in 515 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    228161
    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz View Post
    The Great Commission explicitly talks about all ethnos/people groups. This is not limited to Jews, but includes all Gentiles. Jn. 3:16 is the whole world (unregenerate man), not just Jews. This is consistent with Pauline thought also. Jesus, John, Paul, Peter, James were on the same page. God loves all men and Christ is the provision to make all men one in Him (whether Paul existed or converted or not).

    Hi , and it seems that lighthouse can not answer and you will ?

    Then , explain what ETHNOS MEANS in Matt 28:19 and 20 ??

    Verse 20 will throw you both UNDER the Bus . as Peter , and James NEVER preached the Mystery , what IGNORANT COVENANT AND so-called Acts 2 believers theology so-called is , BY starting the Dispensation of the Mystery with a Jewish FEAST DAY !!

    DAN P

  11. #54
    Black Rifles Matter Nick M's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    16,833
    Thanks
    648
    Thanked 9,175 Times in 6,337 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147792
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick M View Post
    So tell us what it is and why.
    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz View Post
    The gospel relates to the person and work of Jesus Christ. There is only one cross, one Jesus. A gospel not based on His death/resurrection and grace/faith is a false gospel (see Romans; Galatians). Two true NT gospel theories (vs Israel/Church; OT/NT) is a non-starter without precedent apart from modern fads started by Bullinger, Stam, etc. It is a minority view for a reason (few actually see it in Scripture; we are talking essential gospel truth, so it is not something all believers should miss; regardless, it is moot since non-MAD follows Paul and would not accept a Jewish hybrid gospel anyway).

    The reason Paul went to Gentiles and others continued to reach Jews, etc. is a pragmatic missionary strategy repeated in all generations with numerous people groups. There is no reason to see multiple gospels/messages in all this vs a missionary strategy to take the gospel to all ethnos/people groups.

    This is not rocket science and I really don't understand why thinking people here fall for MAD.
    Why was their a boundry(demarcation-obfuscating) around the gospel when it was to bring one in Christ? You didn't answer. Imagine that.
    Jesus saves completely. http://www.climatedepot.com/ http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

    Titus 1

    For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped

    Ephesians 5

    11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Nick M For Your Post:

    Tambora (August 8th, 2017)

  13. #55
    Black Rifles Matter Nick M's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    16,833
    Thanks
    648
    Thanked 9,175 Times in 6,337 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147792
    Quote Originally Posted by Guyver View Post
    This statement is not really true
    Of course it is. Deconstruct it if you think it is wrong.

    it's kind of irrelevant Nick
    No, it is right to the subject. Those that attempt to justify themselves to God through the law will judged on it. The 4 gospels and early act state Israel was to endure to the end to be saved. Those in the Body of Christ do not do that, and if they do, it will be counted as debt. If you want the scripture refrence with each comment, say so. But I know you are reading it and believing it, so that might not be needed.


    Part of it is accurate...but there's a problem with trying to look at redemption just by the words recorded in the gospels, as there would be in trying to look at it only by the words of the prophets, the law and the Psalms.

    It would be like taking a picture....that picture being redemption... and then zooming in on it until all you see is image in the middle, with the rest of the image blurred around the outsides.
    Well, no. The 4 gospels and early acts are works based. Yes, the gospel of John states Jesus saves. He will not save those that are not his. Those that truly loved him and are his would keep his commandments (works)

    The four gospels speak to Christ's life and ministry here on this earth.
    To whom did he say he was sent?

    Paul wasn't the first person saved by believing the gospel. I don't know what you're talking about here.
    1 Timothy 1:16

    16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.


    He was an enemy that did not endure to the end and was saved. He was the first, he just said so.
    Jesus saves completely. http://www.climatedepot.com/ http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

    Titus 1

    For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped

    Ephesians 5

    11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Nick M For Your Post:

    Tambora (August 8th, 2017)

  15. #56
    LIFETIME MEMBER Bright Raven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Calfornia
    Posts
    7,747
    Thanks
    228
    Thanked 2,859 Times in 1,847 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2087211
    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz View Post
    The gospel, based on the book of Romans, to Jew and Gentile, is grace/faith based. It is the power of God. Paul is defending the one gospel. It is bad enough that MAD makes Peter/James/John contradict vs complement Paul, but it also starts dividing up Paul's own letters into early/late/circ/uncirc?! This is ridiculous.

    Rom. 1:16-17

    I Cor. 15 is a good summary, but its principles are also in Acts 2. Acts 2 principles can also be found in Paul.
    And what would the principles from Act 2 be
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.

    Jim Elliot

  16. #57
    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 Nick M View Post
    Why was their a boundry(demarcation-obfuscating) around the gospel when it was to bring one in Christ? You didn't answer. Imagine that.
    Even today, our strategy to reach Muslims differs dramatically from reaching atheists, Catholics, JWs, Mormons, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, nominal/liberal pseudo-Christians, etc.

    In reaching these target groups, there is debate on how much we contextualize/syncretize the gospel, but we do not come up with multiple gospels (two in MAD's case). Jew and Gentile are saved by the same cross, Christ, gospel. They become one in Christ based on the cross, not Paul.

    I understand the calling, commission, ministry, gospel of Paul, but MAD makes a mess of it all thinking there was an early caste system in the same local church, much of the NT is not really for the Church, denying legit Christian practices (water baptism/communion), having a gospel of faith/works post-cross?!, etc.

    Heresy. Quit wasting our time and renounce your false disp view.
    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.

  17. #58
    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
    And what would the principles from Act 2 be
    If you cannot see the Christocentric nature of Acts 2 or cannot see Paul's principles/gospel there, I cannot help you.

    One argument MAD makes is that Acts 2 talks about the person of Christ, while Paul talks about His work, etc. The Bible does not divorce the person and work of Christ, nor does your beloved Paul.

    Paul did NOT teach or believe MAD. It is a modern invention, a fad, a false teaching, one of endless wrong views on Scripture.
    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.

  18. #59
    Black Rifles Matter Nick M's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    16,833
    Thanks
    648
    Thanked 9,175 Times in 6,337 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147792
    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz View Post
    Even today, our strategy to reach Muslims differs dramatically from reaching atheists, Catholics, JWs, Mormons, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, nominal/liberal pseudo-Christians, etc.
    It does not. The Lord Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, lived a perefect life your place. He was crucified for your sin, and raised for you. You were reconciled back to God by his death, and receive is life when you believe. The message does not change.

    Paul went to Jews first, and preached the same to the gentiles. You claim there was a barracade around the ministry, and have not said why. Because you are false.
    Jesus saves completely. http://www.climatedepot.com/ http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

    Titus 1

    For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped

    Ephesians 5

    11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Nick M For Your Post:

    Tambora (August 8th, 2017)

  20. #60
    Does Whatever A Light-House Can Lighthouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Anderson, IN
    Posts
    20,720
    Thanks
    1,174
    Thanked 13,247 Times in 10,132 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147867
    Quote Originally Posted by DAN P View Post
    Hi , so you will not explain what it says in Matt 28:19 and verse 20 really mean and you are trying to connect Matt 19 with Acts 10 ??


    It means exactly what it says.

    However, we can see by Acts 10 that there was a time frame for going to Israel first and then to Gentiles, else Peter would not have needed prompting from God to go ahead and accept the invitation from Cornelius and go to his home and lead them to receive Christ.

    Try seeing what Matt 28:10 , NATION/ETHNOS means and compare it with John 11:50 !!

    You will have to prove that Apostless in Matt 28:19 and 20 were to go to Gentiles !!
    Wait, so you're arguing that they weren't ever meant to go to Gentiles?

    Want to try ??

    Dying to hear your answer on Matt 28:19 and verse 20 ??
    According to the lexicon I used it means any number of things, and in this instance it was translated as "nations."

    Why do you argue that it doesn't mean "all nations"?


  21. The Following User Says Thank You to Lighthouse For Your Post:

    Tambora (August 8th, 2017)

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