For Sincere Inquisitors ONLY: MAD Explained

[chickenman]

Well, I am genuinely interested. To be fair, I am not one who would agree with MAD, and as you probably know, I can be very dogmatic :angel:

You're actually the type of person this thread is for, my friend. It matters not to me that you disagree with the overall MidActs position. You're interested in hearing why we believe what we believe, and you're not hostile in your disagreement. So you can hang around as long as you like. :up:

That being said, I don't see why we have to separate the pauline epistles from Hebrews through Revelation. I understand that much of the gospels (matthew particularly) and revelation deal a great deal with the coming kingdom of heaven on earth and I understand the dispensational nature of those.

This seems to be common misconception. We're often looked at as attempting to reconcile seemingly differing passages, and supposedly the way we've found to do that is to separate Heb-Rev from Paul's letters. But that's not our approach at all. We don't start with an apparent contradiction and then try to figure out how to reconcile it. We start with the author and his commission, if we are able to know that information (which we can without a doubt about Peter, James, and John). Then we look at the content. A good test is: if the scriptures excluded Acts through Philemon, what would a person then think about Heb-Rev? I don't see how it's possible for anyone to deduce salvation by grace through faith from them. Looking at them this way, there's a harmony with the gospel accounts, prophecy, and the overall promises to Israel.

So we start with that, then we evaluate the differences. And for the most part, where we see differences, we simply recognize and accept that it's because of the different audiences and promises pertaining to those audiences.

I understand James seems to contradict Romans, but I don't really have any problem reconciling the two. Peter speaks of being born (1 Pe 1:23) again, and I don't have any issue with believing him. I will admit that the one book in the bible I have not spent much time studying is Acts. I am open to correction and appreciate you taking the time to explain what you see as my error in interpretation. :thumb:

Are you asking me (or one of us) to give my take on Peter's "born again"? Fire away with a specific question, and we'll have fun working through it.

Thanks for your interest, choleric. Good to see you around.

Randy

 

[Choleric]

You're actually the type of person this thread is for, my friend. It matters not to me that you disagree with the overall MidActs position. You're interested in hearing why we believe what we believe, and you're not hostile in your disagreement. So you can hang around as long as you like. :up:

Thx.

This seems to be common misconception. We're often looked at as attempting to reconcile seemingly differing passages, and supposedly the way we've found to do that is to separate Heb-Rev from Paul's letters. But that's not our approach at all.

See, I've learned something new already.

We don't start with an apparent contradiction and then try to figure out how to reconcile it. We start with the author and his commission, if we are able to know that information (which we can without a doubt about Peter, James, and John). Then we look at the content. A good test is: if the scriptures excluded Acts through Philemon, what would a person then think about Heb-Rev? I don't see how it's possible for anyone to deduce salvation by grace through faith from them. Looking at them this way, there's a harmony with the gospel accounts, prophecy, and the overall promises to Israel.

Ok

So we start with that, then we evaluate the differences. And for the most part, where we see differences, we simply recognize and accept that it's because of the different audiences and promises pertaining to those audiences.

ok. I am typing on my iPhone right now so I can't get too detailed, but look forward to digging deeper on this.

Are you asking me (or one of us) to give my take on Peter's "born again"? Fire away with a specific question, and we'll have fun working through it.

Thanks for your interest, choleric. Good to see you around.

Randy

Well, yes. I heard a mid-acts guy try to explain away peters mentioning of being born again by saying he was talking of the nation of Israel.

I guess it is just one of the mid-acts statements that has stuck with me. I am under the impression that you don't believe the Jews were sealed and they were in fact not born again. Am I correct there? What is your take on peters statement?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

We start with the author and his commission, if we are able to know that information (which we can without a doubt about Peter, James, and John). Then we look at the content. A good test is: if the scriptures excluded Acts through Philemon, what would a person then think about Heb-Rev? I don't see how it's possible for anyone to deduce salvation by grace through faith from them.

Randy,

If you don't know how to deduce salvation by grace through faith for Peter, James and John then please consider the words of the Lord Jesus Hilmself spoken to Jews like those men:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath eternal life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (Jn.5:24).

His words cannot be any plainer. The only requirement for receiving eternal life and the promise not to come into condemnation is to believe. PERIOD!

Peter makes it plain that his salvation is the result of "grace" and if it is grace then it cannot be of works. He said:

"We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are" (Acts 15:11; NIV).

Those in the Neo-MAD camp have not been able to answer these things in an intelligent manner but yet they still insist that the Jews who lived while the Lord Jesus walked the earth could not be saved by faith alone.

In His grace,
Jerry

 

[chickenman]

Randy,

If you don't know how to deduce salvation by grace through faith for Peter, James and John then please consider the words of the Lord Jesus Hilmself spoken to Jews like those men:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath eternal life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (Jn.5:24).

His words cannot be any plainer. The only requirement for receiving eternal life and the promise not to come into condemnation is to believe. PERIOD!

Peter makes it plain that his salvation is the result of "grace" and if it is grace then it cannot be of works. He said:

"We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are" (Acts 15:11; NIV).

Those in the Neo-MAD camp have not been able to answer these things in an intelligent manner but yet they still insist that the Jews who lived while the Lord Jesus walked the earth could not be saved by faith alone.

In His grace,
Jerry

Thanks for your thoughts, Jerry.

By the way, to clarify, I believe salvation by grace can be seen in Peter's writing. But he spoke of a grace to come. I know we still disagree, but I should have been clearer in what I wrote.

Thanks,
Randy

 

[Jerry Shugart]

By the way, to clarify, I believe salvation by grace can be seen in Peter's writing. But he spoke of a grace to come. I know we still disagree, but I should have been clearer in what I wrote.

First let us look at the following verse again:

We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are" (Acts 15:11; NIV).

The Greek word translated "are saved" is in the "aorist" tense:

"The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time" (Blue Letter Bible).

Whether or not Peter spoke of a grace to come does not negate the fact that he makes it clear that his salvation was according to the principle of "grace." And that rules out the idea that "works" of any kind were necessary for his salvation.

Do you agree with that or not?

Why shouln't we believe that those Jews who heard and believed the words of the Lord Jesus were saved by grace through faith at the moment they believed those words? After all, He said:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath eternal life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (Jn.5:24).

Those who believed Him were passed from death unto eternal life when they believed Him.

Do you agree with that or not?

In His grace,
Jerry

 

[Choleric]

First let us look at the following verse again:

We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are" (Acts 15:11; NIV).

The Greek word translated "are saved" is in the "aorist" tense:

"The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time" (Blue Letter Bible).

Whether or not Peter spoke of a grace to come does not negate the fact that he makes it clear that his salvation was according to the principle of "grace." And that rules out the idea that "works" of any kind were necessary for his salvation.

Do you agree with that or not?

Why shouln't we believe that those Jews who heard and believed the words of the Lord Jesus were saved by grace through faith at the moment they believed those words? After all, He said:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath eternal life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (Jn.5:24).

Those who believed Him were passed from death unto eternal life when they believed Him.

Do you agree with that or not?

In His grace,
Jerry

Jerry,

Just to clarify your position as I watch your conversation on this thread, aren't you mid-acts as well?

 

[Nick M]

Randy,

If you don't know how to deduce salvation by grace through faith for Peter, James and John then please consider the words of the Lord Jesus Hilmself spoken to Jews like those men:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath eternal life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (Jn.5:24).

His words cannot be any plainer. The only requirement for receiving eternal life and the promise not to come into condemnation is to believe. PERIOD!

Peter makes it plain that his salvation is the result of "grace" and if it is grace then it cannot be of works. He said:

"We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are" (Acts 15:11; NIV).

Those in the Neo-MAD camp have not been able to answer these things in an intelligent manner but yet they still insist that the Jews who lived while the Lord Jesus walked the earth could not be saved by faith alone.

In His grace,
Jerry

So the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31 was not made to the nation of Israel?

The sins of individual Jews were forgiven and individual Jews were saved. But the fulfillment of the New Covenant made with the "nation" of Israel remains in the future, as witnessed by Paul's words here:

"And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins" (Ro.11:26-27).

The fulfillment of the New Covenant remains in the future.

In His grace,
Jerry

What if they didn't observe and do the works of Moses, as they were instructed to do, after the resurection?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry,

Just to clarify your position as I watch your conversation on this thread, aren't you mid-acts as well?

Yes, I agree with the original teachers of Mid Acts dispensationalism and not this new strain, which I call Neo-MAD. The original teachers, men like Sir Robert Anderson and J.C. O'Hair, taught that all men in every dispensation were saved by grace through faith apart from works. They also taught that the doctrine in Hebrews through Jude applied to the Body of Christ.

In His grace,
Jerry

 

[Jerry Shugart]

What if they didn't observe and do the works of Moses, as they were instructed to do, after the resurection?

You are assuming that the Law of Moses was in regard to salvation. It was not! Instead, it was in regard to "fellowship":

Philip W. Grossman writes that "It cannot be emphasized too strongly that 'the law of animal sacrifices,' in the words of Dr. Chafer, 'was the divinely appointed means for a Jew in the Old Testament—one who was already in a covenant relation with God—to be restored to a fellowship which had been broken by sin.' In other words, these ceremonial sacrifices performed by the priests teach what we may call restoration truth, not salvation truth. Just as 1 Jn. 1:9 does not teach salvation but tells how a saved person, a Christian whose fellowship with God has been interrupted by sin, may have that fellowship restored by confessing, so also the Jew who was one of God's own could be brought back to the place of fellowship, after he had wandered away, and that by bringing the appropriate sacrifice. Thus while we can see today that the blood of bulls and goats was a figure of the blood of Jesus Christ which is able to 'cleanse us from all unrighteousness,' the ministries of the priest had a present purpose for the Jew other than that as serving as a figure of the saving work of Christ" [emphasis added] (Grossman, "Jewish Anticipation of the Cross," Bibliotheca Sacra, July 1949, Vol. 106, #423, pp.367-368).

If the Jewish believer did not keep the Law he was still saved since he was born again, born of God.

In His grace,
Jerry

 

[Nick M]

So if they want to enter into life, lawlessness is the way. Got it.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

So if they want to enter into life, lawlessness is the way. Got it.

Instead of misrepresenting my position why don't you answer the following words of the Lord Jesus where He does speak of entering into life?:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath eternal life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (Jn.5:24).

It is by "believing" that the Jews entered into life:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (Jn.3:16).

What do you not understand about these verses?

In His grace,
Jerry

 

[Nick M]

Jerry, I quoted you in two posts for you to answer for yourself. You said Peter is already saved for believing, and in the other said he is saved in the future. Which is it? I really think you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

And I didn't misrepresent you. Jesus said to keep the commandments, observe Moses law and ordinances and obey the pharisee. He confirms this after his death and resurection. No matter how much you want it to not be so.

 

[Nick M]

And I believe what the Bible says. Jesus will save those in Israel that believe him. If they believe him, they will keep his commandments.

 

[chickenman]

Jerry,
Do me a favor, please. I started this thread a while back so we could discuss and share with no debate. I worked hard at keeping contentions out of here. Though it's been dormant for a while, I'd still like to keep it that way. With that said, you ask an important question. I've addressed it before, but I'm happy to address it again. But since I know we won't agree and you'll want to persist, then please start a thread about that specific question. I'll be happy to address it in that thread as soon as I have some time later today or tomorrow.

Fair enough?

Thanks,
Randy

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry,
Do me a favor, please. I started this thread a while back so we could discuss and share with no debate.

Randy, on your initial post on this thread you said:

"Several people have expressed a sincere desire to learn more about MidActs Dispensationalism. Whether or not those people ultimately conclude the same is irrelevant. They are sincere inquisitors."

I believe that those with a sincere desire to learn MORE about Mid Acts Dispensationalism deserve to learn the original beliefs among those in the Mid Acts camp.

And I am here to provide them with that teaching. If those belefs happen to be different than your beliefs then so be it. If you do not care to defend your views then so be it. But I intend that those who sincerely want to learn more about Mid Acts dispensationalism hear more than one side of it.

In His grace,
Jerry

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry, I quoted you in two posts for you to answer for yourself. You said Peter is already saved for believing, and in the other said he is saved in the future. Which is it? I really think you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

Where did I ever say that Peter's salvation remained in the future? Please at least make an attempt to refrain from misrepresenting me.

In His grace,
Jerry

 

[Jerry Shugart]

And I believe what the Bible says. Jesus will save those in Israel that believe him.

So you agree that those who heard and believed His words were saved when they "believed"?

In His grace,
Jerry

 

[chickenman]

Randy, on your initial post on this thread you said:

"Several people have expressed a sincere desire to learn more about MidActs Dispensationalism. Whether or not those people ultimately conclude the same is irrelevant. They are sincere inquisitors."

I believe that those with a sincere desire to learn MORE about Mid Acts Dispensationalism deserve to learn the original beliefs among those in the Mid Acts camp.

And I am here to provide them with that teaching. If those belefs happen to be different than your beliefs then so be it. If you do not care to defend your views then so be it. But I intend that those who sincerely want to learn more about Mid Acts dispensationalism hear more than one side of it.

In His grace,
Jerry

Jerry,
I told you I WOULD defend my beliefs. But because I know how persistent with your differences you are, and because I don't want this to be a debate thread, then I'm willing to address your question in ANOTHER thread.

Feel free to post away in here. But please respect the purpose of the thread and don't be contentious about it.

Thanks,
Randy

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Feel free to post away in here. But please respect the purpose of the thread and don't be contentious about it.

Randy,

Just because I might defend what I think that the Scriptures are teaching does not mean that I am being contentious.

I'm willing to address your question in ANOTHER thread.

I would rather you do it on this thread so others can see the stark contrast between what was originally taught in Mid Acts dispensationalism and what is being taught in the Neo- Mid Acts camp.

Then those with a sincere desire to find out the teaching of MAD can make up their own mind as to who is right and who is wrong.

In His grace,
Jerry

 

[Nick M]

So you agree that those who heard and believed His words were saved when they "believed"?

In His grace,
Jerry

Sorry Randy. Jerry, if they loved him they would keep his commandments. Do you not believe Jesus?