Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?

[DAN P]

Hi , and just what is your other point ??

It , looks like another OP will be why Paul wrote Hebrews !!

I have not answered some posts as you said that you wanted Lighthouse and Nick to reply , so I stayed out , especially , since it was not my thread !!

dan p

 

[Nick M]

The apostles said that it was the last of times when they were writing the scriptures. It's recorded in the Bible.

That was two thousand years ago.

It is proof of the change. Only a fool like godrulz would say otherwise.

 

[Nick M]

What you're saying here is that Paul had not received the "revelation" speaking to the length of time between when the scriptures were written and now when he wrote some epistles.

In Acts he recounts what he was told on the road to Damascus that Luke did not hear. He recounts that Jesus said things are not yet revealed to him.

Peter had a clue and spoke to it. He said that the longsuffering of the Lord was for salvation. Which pretty much backs up the doctrine that you embrace....on this point.

Only with the gospel of circumcision.

 

[Guyver]

Only with the gospel of circumcision.

Don't see that part. What did the gospel of circumcision last... 40 years?

Two thousand years gone by.

The "gospel" of the circumcision was snuffed out almost immediately, then the Catholics took over.

 

[Lighthouse]

So...no one could handle my questions at the end of post 180 then?

Let me see.

I don't see that it does Paulos. So this is probably a point that I would not be in agreement with MAD....especially as you put it here. That's right...IMO.

But, as Nick said with reference to 1st John not being written to the Body of Christ because of the notion of obeying commandments, and as the link I posted said that Paul's gospel differs from that of Peter, John, and even Jesus....it's the notion of obeying commandments. MAD people do not like to associate salvation with works of any kind. It is by grace through faith....which is obviously true...but how that works in the real world is something that a MAD person should probably address. Cause I could think of several things a saved person shouldn't do, wouldn't do...and Paul himself lists a bunch.

I have two points here. The first is that just because John said the commandments, doesn't necessarily mean that he was referencing the Law of Moses....Jesus gave a new commandment...love one another.

Next point...and this is kind of a big deal to me...because MAD may have this one right. At least their doctrine of the suspending of prophecy supports it. When you read the Epistles you see that Peter and John spoke of the time of the end being at hand. They literally believed that Christ could return at any minute. This makes me think that these things were written before the destruction of the temple...and that they were wrong. We are sitting here talking about it two thousand years later.

You linked 1 Peter 4:7 that states the end is at hand.

John wrote it is the last hour....two thousand years ago. This is obviously not correct as the world that we know still turns. 1 John 2:18

What could throw a monkey wrench in MAD doctrine is if Paul believed it too. If one thinks that Paul wrote Hebrews...as many or even most seem to accept....even the writer of Hebrews thought that the end was near.

Hebrews 10:25

Would you or anyone like to comment on what I have said here? How could one explain that the Apostles fully expected the end to come any time and said so....when we are still here two thousand years later?

Do you think that the notion of MAD with respect to the suspension of prophecy and insertion of a "Mystery" period of salvation by grace explains this?

Paul did not write Hebrews as evidenced by the fact that the greeting present in all of his other epistles is not present; and the fact that it is a letter to the Hebrews when Paul agreed to go to the Gentiles.

And just because we shouldn't do certain things does not mean our salvation is in jeopardy if we do them; and we certainly are not saved/justified by any works [good or bad] that we do or do not do.

And they certainly expected the end to come because it was supposed to, until a change was made because of the rejection of Jesus by the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

 

[Guyver]

OK Lighthouse....if Paul didn't write Hebrews....who did? Who was more qualified?

And if no one knows who wrote the Book of Hebrews...how did it make it in to the canon?

I'm not saying it shouldn't be there...cause it sure seems righteous to me.

I'm not criticizing your response, because I appreciate it. But the part I don't get is this.

And they certainly expected the end to come because it was supposed to, until a change was made because of the rejection of Jesus by the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

The problem I have with this point is found in the following scripture.

Amos 3:7

What say you?

 

[Lighthouse]

OK Lighthouse....if Paul didn't write Hebrews....who did? Who was more qualified?

And if no one knows who wrote the Book of Hebrews...how did it make it in to the canon?

I'm not saying it shouldn't be there...cause it sure seems righteous to me.

I don't know, but it doesn't bear any sign Paul wrote it and even runs along the ideals preached by Peter, James and John rather than Paul.

It is also not necessary for one to be more qualified, but rather as qualified...

Beyond that as long as it belongs it doesn't matter who wrote it. But there were nine other men among the disciples, and maybe others who don't have much mention.

I'm not criticizing your response, because I appreciate it. But the part I don't get is this.

The problem I have with this point is found in the following scripture.

Amos 3:7

What say you?

He did reveal the change to them.

 

[Guyver]

He did reveal the change to them.

Where is that recorded? Can you get specific about it please?

 

[Lighthouse]

Where is that recorded? Can you get specific about it please?

The reveal itself may not be recorded, but the evidence that they came to understand it was clear.

 

[Guyver]

The reveal itself may not be recorded, but the evidence that they came to understand it was clear.

Wait.....I posted Amos which states the Lord reveals it to his prophets before he does something. You said he did.

Then I ask how, and you say it's not recorded. That doesn't make sense. There were prophets in the church at that time.

Acts 13:1

Notice anyone special in that number?

 

[Lighthouse]

Wait.....I posted Amos which states the Lord reveals it to his prophets before he does something. You said he did.

Then I ask how, and you say it's not recorded. That doesn't make sense. There were prophets in the church at that time.

Acts 13:1

Notice anyone special in that number?

How does it not make sense that the event of the revelation was not recorded? It is clear in what is recorded that they knew of the change.

And Jesus did prophesy of the possibility of the change with the parable of the fig tree.

 

[Nick M]

Don't see that part. What did the gospel of circumcision last... 40 years?

From Genesis 12, and God said it was everlasting. Later God moved to kill Moses for not circumcising his son on the 8th day. Everlasting is just that. That doesn't mean they don't need a savior, it means he has an agreement (covenant) with them.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

How does the dispensationalist MAD proponent deal with these?

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/01/09/why-i-changed-my-mind-about-the-millennium/

If you are a premillennialist, whether dispensational or not, there are several things with which you must reckon:


• You must necessarily believe that physical death will continue to exist beyond the time of Christ's second coming.


• You must necessarily believe that the natural creation will continue, beyond the time of Christ's second coming, to be subjected to the curse imposed by the Fall of man.


• You must necessarily believe that the New Heavens and New Earth will not be introduced until 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.


• You must necessarily believe that unbelieving men and women will still have the opportunity to come to saving faith in Christ for at least 1,000 years subsequent to his return.


• You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally resurrected until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.


• You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally judged and cast into eternal punishment until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.


AMR

 

[godrulz]

So? I do not see a problem with this if we carefully establish a chronology. Pre-mill was the original view of the church and the one supported by a normative, literal vs allegorical (leads to amill) approach.

The only unbelievers in the millennium will be born during that time. They will not go in from the Tribulation as unbelievers (to clarify one of your points).

Are you amill?

(Dwight Pentecost, 'Things to Come', compares and contrasts various views; I would also resonate with John Walvoord's writings on this=Dallas TS).

 

[Paulos]

Pre-mill was the original view of the church...

Not necessarily. Justin Martyr was premillennial, but even he wrote in chapter 80 of his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew that "many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise" (link). "The early Church fathers, e.g., Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Papius, admitted that there were many other Christians who were quite orthodox and not premillennial" (link). Subsequently, the brightest theologians of the early Church were amillennial, including Origen, Athanasius, and Augustine.

 

[Paulos]

Also, we are not part of any of the covenants made with Israel, because those covenants that were not replaced with another were put on hold until the fulness of the Gentiles comes in [Romans 11:25].

In the Old Testament, only Israel is called the "people of God", "God's chosen people", "the elect", "the saints/holy ones", the "wife of God", or other specific terms of identification. In the New Testament, only the Church is identified as by the same terms...This is one of the reasons why I take many of the spiritual promises to Old Testament Israel to be fulfilled in God's promises to the Church. In other words, Israel is the Church in the Old Testament and the Church is Israel in the New Testament.​

Source: http://web.archive.org/web/19981206081555/http://www.chesco.com/~topcat/second.html

 

[godrulz]

Not necessarily. Justin Martyr was premillennial, but even he wrote in chapter 80 of his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew that "many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise" (link). Subsequently, the brightest theologians of the early Church were amillennial, including Origen, Athanasius, and Augustine.

Augustine was not that early. Origen had so many wrong ideas, including pre-existence of souls (he was too fond of pagan philosophy). I am not sure about Athanasius, but the real issue is what does the Bible teach (early Fathers were fallible and disagree with each other). Amill was a later thing, not an early one.

 

[godrulz]

In the Old Testament, only Israel is called the "people of God", "God's chosen people", "the elect", "the saints/holy ones", the "wife of God", or other specific terms of identification. In the New Testament, only the Church is identified as by the same terms...This is one of the reasons why I take many of the spiritual promises to Old Testament Israel to be fulfilled in God's promises to the Church. In other words, Israel is the Church in the Old Testament and the Church is Israel in the New Testament.​

Source: http://web.archive.org/web/19981206081555/http://www.chesco.com/~topcat/second.html

There is a distinction between OT Israel and NT Church. This is one of the strengths of dispensationalism (both are the people of God, but God's covenants with Israel are not all fulfilled in the Church; He has a future plan of restoration for Israel under the Messiah and the Body of Christ during this Church Age of Israel's rejection).

 

[Paulos]

There is a distinction between OT Israel and NT Church. This is one of the strengths of dispensationalism (both are the people of God, but God's covenants with Israel are not all fulfilled in the Church; He has a future plan of restoration for Israel under the Messiah and the Body of Christ during this Church Age of Israel's rejection).

The earliest Christian teachers did not generally distinguish between the Church and Israel: there was ONE faith, ONE Lord, ONE baptism, and ONE Church and Body and Christ!​

Source: http://www.ministers-best-friend.co...-Thesis-from-DALLAS-THEOLOGICAL-SEMINARY.html

 

[Nick M]

• You must necessarily believe that physical death will continue to exist beyond the time of Christ's second coming.

So you think people can not reproduce after his arrival in Revelation 19? Why is that?

15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written:

Is ruling the people with a rod of iron the same as grace?

You must necessarily believe that the natural creation will continue, beyond the time of Christ's second coming, to be subjected to the curse imposed by the Fall of man

Why must I believe that? I believe the Bible, and it says there will be a new heaven and a new earth.

You must necessarily believe that the New Heavens and New Earth will not be introduced until 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.

2 He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; 3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished.

No new heaven and earth yet.

7 Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea. 9 They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them.

Hmmm, people are rebelling against God after the 1000 years.

You must necessarily believe that unbelieving men and women will still have the opportunity to come to saving faith in Christ for at least 1,000 years subsequent to his return.

I suspect that those devoured will not be saved. Just a hunch....

You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally resurrected until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.

5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally judged and cast into eternal punishment until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.


Maybe if you read the Bible instead of books about religion you wouldn't look like such a fool.