Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?

[Bright Raven]

'correctly handling' is 'to cut straight' literally (found 2x in LXX and here Gk. orthotomounta). It is not a proof text for covenantalism vs dispensationalism (and especially not ultra/hyper-disp MAD-like views)!

Tell me how you can be saved through repentance and baptism. That is Peter's gospel.


Acts 2:38 King James Version (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.

 

[Nick M]

I agree with this as a demarcation of ministry, but two true NT gospel messages in light of the one finished work of Christ is false teaching.

Paul preached to the Jew first, then the gentile.

Peter preached to the Jew first, then the gentile.

So, what is the demarcation, since they both go to both parties? What is the difference?

 

[Nick M]

I believe the phrase "cut it straight," which is IIRC the literal translation, is idiomatic, perhaps borrowed from Paul's side trade as a tentmaker. Many translations render the idiom, "correctly handling," which I think is closer to the intended meaning.

Why do you think this? What context gives you the clues? Galatians 2 where Peter is the apostle of circumcision and Paul is the apostle of uncircumcision?

What are your clues to make you think it?

The Lord Jesus Christ in his earthly ministry said to enter into life, keep the commandments.

Paul said the commandments which are to bring life, bring death.

 

[godrulz]

Tell me how you can be saved through repentance and baptism. That is Peter's gospel.


Acts 2:38 King James Version (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.

This is a favourite Oneness/UPCI proof text for the gospel. Peter and Paul preached the same gospel of Christ's Deity, death, resurrection.

The problem is your proof texting and wrong interoperation of Acts 2:38, not with Peter's view of the gospel. If you think baptism is regenerational or a condition of salvation, then this is heretical and not something Peter taught. Instead of relying on KJV, dig deeper into the Greek grammar. The same Peter also said this: Acts 3:19 9 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

There is no mention of baptism (nor in Jn. 3:16, etc.). A similar structure is seen with John the Baptist. The condition was repentance, not baptism. Baptism was a normative outward symbol for men (and Paul supported it too), but heart repentance is what lead to salvation (with faith).

The Greek grammar in Acts 2:38 links repentance and remission, not baptism. This is not clear in KJV only. It is also a parenthetical structure again showing repentance/remission, not baptism/remission.

This is the difference between eisegesis and exegesis, proof texting and interpreting. MAD is a wrong paradigm relying on KJV proof texts out of context, not all relevant verses properly interpreted.

Petrine, Johannine, Pauline gospel/theology is complementary post-cross, not contradictory. You should go back to your AOG roots and not naively accept MAD.

 

[godrulz]

Paul preached to the Jew first, then the gentile.

Peter preached to the Jew first, then the gentile.

So, what is the demarcation, since they both go to both parties? What is the difference?

This was always the normative pattern from Jesus, ff. The first half of Acts shows a Jerusalem/Jewish Christian center of the early church with Peter as the man. The second half of Acts (selective history; transitional from Old to New) shows a shift to a Gentile/Antioch center of Christianity centered around Paul. As the Jews continued to reject the gospel, the missionary strategy expanded under Paul. Peter and Paul went to both, but their primary focus over time was a demarcation of ministry. None of this is two gospel stuff (which would be a denial of Christ's one finished work). Shifting the focus from Christ/Spirit/gospel to all things Paul is not a right reading of the history.

 

[godrulz]

Why do you think this? What context gives you the clues? Galatians 2 where Peter is the apostle of circumcision and Paul is the apostle of uncircumcision?

What are your clues to make you think it?

The Lord Jesus Christ in his earthly ministry said to enter into life, keep the commandments.

Paul said the commandments which are to bring life, bring death.

It is bad enough that you elevate Paul over Peter, John, James, but worse when you marginalize Christ and His teachings as if they are only for Israel.

 

[Nick M]

The second half of Acts (selective history; transitional from Old to New) shows a shift to a Gentile/Antioch center of Christianity centered around Paul.

Why couldn't Peter just keep doing it? Why the shift? You still have not explained why. You just keep repeating your claim, rather than proving it.

This is a favourite Oneness/UPCI proof text for the gospel. Peter and Paul preached the same gospel of Christ's Deity, death, resurrection.

Nobody has denied this, but instead stated why he was raised up. Let's check again, as though we have not done this literally hundreds of times with you.

Acts 2

29 “Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne

Romans 4

25 who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.

 

[Nick M]

It is bad enough that you elevate Paul over Peter, John, James, but worse when you marginalize Christ and His teachings as if they are only for Israel.

I can not do that unless they are saying something different.

 

[godrulz]

I can not do that unless they are saying something different.

The Jews continued to reject the Messiah, while the Gentiles were responding more and more. The Jerusalem center held its own, but Paul took the gospel to the next leg of the missionary journey. The same happens today with some reaching North Americans, while others reach Africans, Chinese, etc. The gospel is intended for the whole world. You confuse an evolving missionary strategy with more than one gospel (odd and false).

 

[Nick M]

The Jews continued to reject the Messiah, while the Gentiles were responding more and more.

There you go repeating your claim. State why. Peter and the 12 should have done it, they should have gone to the gentiles.

 

[godrulz]

There you go repeating your claim. State why. Peter and the 12 should have done it, they should have gone to the gentiles.

Peter did speak to Gentiles. It is a matter of primary focus. Using your logic, Billy Graham must have a different gospel than a guy who just goes to India/Indians?!

Your argument is from silence. Acts is historical narrative, not didactic. It records a pattern of evolving ministry consistent with Acts 1:8 (concentric circles). You have wrong assumptions and conclusions. Paul did not go to North Americans. So?

 

[Lighthouse]

William-

Can you tell us why in Romans 4:16 Paul writes as though there are to different groups of people one of which is of the law and the other of faith, and yet Abraham is the father of us all?

 

[Nick M]

Also Nick, there is no scriptural basis for cessationism.

Other than....they shall cease

 

[heir]

There is ONE gospel in the NT post-cross, not two (heir has written nothing to disprove this).

At Pentecost (a Jewish holy day)

Peter preached:

Acts 2:38 KJV 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 preached:

1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;


Peter preached that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead to sit on David’s throne:

Acts 2:30 KJV Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

Paul preached that Jesus Christ was delivered for our offences and raised again for our justification:

Romans 4:25 KJV Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.


Peter preached the blotting out of sins at the second coming of the Lord

Acts 3:19-21 KJV Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; 20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Paul writes that we have now received the atonement:

Romans 5:11 KJV And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

Peter said it was spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began:

Acts 3:21 KJV Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.


Paul says it was a secret since the world began

Romans 16:25 KJV Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

Paul's gospel was a mystery for had the princes of this world known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

1 Corinthians 2:6-8 KJV Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.


Peter said to Cornelius:

Acts 10:35 KJV But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Paul writes:

Titus 3:5 KJV Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Things that are different are NOT the same. They are clearly different gospels to the Bible believer.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Peter preached the blotting out of sins at the second coming of the Lord

Acts 3:19-21 KJV Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; 20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Paul writes that we have now received the atonement:

Romans 5:11 KJV And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

:up:

Indeed, Sister Mary. This is the key to understanding how there can be two churches during Acts, yet with one Christ, one cross, same shed blood.

Different church, different timing of receiving the atonement, different inheritance, different purpose. Same Christ.

 

[Brother Vinny]

Why do you think this? What context gives you the clues? Galatians 2 where Peter is the apostle of circumcision and Paul is the apostle of uncircumcision?

Ah, I have to buy in to the notion that Galatians 2 means what you think it means in order to understand 2 Tim 2:15 as you understand it?

What are your clues to make you think it?

The Lord Jesus Christ in his earthly ministry said to enter into life, keep the commandments.

Paul said the commandments which are to bring life, bring death.

Plus I have to buy in to the idea that the perceived tension between the teachings of Christ and those of Paul can only be resolved using a dispensationalist paradigm. Somehow Christianity existed some 1800 years, holding the Gospels and Paul's Epistles as indispensable parts of a whole canon of Scripture, without dispensational explanations of tensions like this one.

 

[Nick M]

Ah, I have to buy in to the notion that Galatians 2 means what you think it means in order to understand 2 Tim 2:15 as you understand it?

This is why I asked you what it means and why you think it means that, instead of what it clearly says.

Plus I have to buy in to the idea that the perceived tension between the teachings of Christ and those of Paul can only be resolved using a dispensationalist paradigm.

If you read the book front to back, it makes perfect sense. It is only those that start in the middle that try to make it a pound cake. So to speak.

Somehow Christianity existed some 1800 years, holding the Gospels and Paul's Epistles as indispensable parts of a whole canon of Scripture, without dispensational explanations of tensions like this one.

What? Are you referring to the Bible being hidden from the common folk, and that is what most of Europe was, by writing it in Latin?

 

[Ktoyou]

There are some misconceptions about MAD.
First is the idea if two Gospels.

Throughout the Old Testament, at least after Genesis, we have God interacting with His people, the people of Israel, the prophesy is to ‘the Jews’ the circumcised. Beginning in Acts 9 we have the beginning of unavailing the mystery, God had sent Jesus to wash away the sins since Adam; the sins of all people. The Gospel of Mathew begins with a chronology, beginning with Joseph to the House of David. Jesus is culturally the son of Joseph, yet Mathew does not preach another Gospel, one denying Jesus was not begotten by Joseph. The Gospel of Mathew was written to the Jews, and is one of the synoptic Gospels, yet the Gospel of Mark was written to the Romans, also a synoptic Gospel.

For the circumcised, the prophesy is the kingdom to come, where Jesus will sit on the throne of a peaceful would all in peace to the glory of God.

The Gospel of John, is not a synoptic Gospel, it was written to the gentiles, and behind with the eternal presence of the logos, the Word. Jesus is eternal, always present, and had come into the world to fulfill the prophesy, however, more than that, to wash away the sins of Adam, to make one, though faith in the Word to be born again, and blessed-baptized by the Holy Spirit.

It is the why the Gospels are read differently and why of four gospels, Mathew is written to the Jews, John, to the gentiles, Luke to the Greek, and Mark to the Romans, yet all the Gospels contain many similar messages, with the Gospel of John differing some, and may seem to be another Gospel, yet it , as with the other three, all are the good news about the Saviour, Jesus Christ, who came into the world to fulfill the Law, which only God could have fulfilled, and there is the difference.

The mystery, faith in Christ alone saves, yet the chosen people shall also have the prophesy fulfilled.

Two ways of knowing the Gospels.

Paul came for outside the original apostles, Paul was converted by the risen Christ, to carry the mystery to the gentiles. The mystery revealed, all were free though faith in Jesus as the Saviour, and all who believed were able the walk out of the darkness, to be reborn into the Body of Christ.

There is no eventual kingdom, nor events prescribed by the Law, all those in the Body of Christ are saved through Grace, all saved will be ruptured up before the Tribulation; they will be admitted to heaven.

The circumcised have the Law and remain though the times of Tribulation, as they were given the promise by God, where they will inherit the Kingdom on Earth, and eventually rejoice in heaven.

I believe MAD is the outcome if proper Biblical exegeses, and one who rightfully divides the Word of God, shall seek, bay faith alone, salvation. There are no criteria to be born into the Body of Christ, all; including all Jews may be saved by faith alone. The central is the Chosen People have another why to come to God, as this fulfills the prophesy.

Two ways to have eternal life with God.

 

[Brother Vinny]

This is why I asked you what it means and why you think it means that, instead of what it clearly says.

"[W]hat it clearly says," translated, "What I take it to mean through my theological framework based on a hyper-literal approach that does not take into account idiom, metaphor, etc."

If you read the book front to back, it makes perfect sense. It is only those that start in the middle that try to make it a pound cake. So to speak.

And yet it took 1800 years, 1500 of which the codified New Testament had a front, middle, and back through which to read, for someone to come up with dispensationalism? And during this time, Christians by and large were not Sabbath-keepers, ate bacon, and didn't avoid mixing fabrics. How ever did Christianity escape the clutches of the law before the Plymouth Brethren set things right?

What? Are you referring to the Bible being hidden from the common folk, and that is what most of Europe was, by writing it in Latin?

Oooh, zinger. I don't feel the need to defend Rome's actions; her apologists can engage you, there. Amazingly, even though the Bible was "hidden", the faith prevailed and grace made itself known, without the assistance of the dispensational paradigm.

 

[Nick M]

"[W]hat it clearly says," translated, "What I take it to mean through my theological framework based on a hyper-literal approach that does not take into account idiom, metaphor, etc."

There are a few Greek readers, one whose degree is language. We can consult those two if you don't like the current English translation. And one has an alternate rendering, but it doesn't go with the discussion.

And yet it took 1800 years, 1500 of which the codified New Testament had a front, middle, and back through which to read, for someone to come up with dispensationalism?

Is there a question or statement in here?