Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?

[way 2 go]

MAD makes a big deal about Paul's gospel like some Christians do not understand the gospel or grace. We do...our objection is to a two gospel theory vs one gospel post-cross, pre-Paul.

Were Peter & the eleven taught to keep the law by Jesus ?

Peter & the eleven were to evangelize all of Israel, did they do this?

Was all of Israel converted ?

Do we become Jews now ?

Was Israel cut off ?

Is Paul the apostle to the gentiles ?

 

[Nick M]

Evangelicals have always affirmed the Pauline gospel of grace/faith vs works. This is why we oppose MAD that calls a hybrid gospel of faith/works a true vs false gospel.

Is it legal for a Christian to commit an act that is sin?

 

[godrulz]

So you are saying that Paul preaches a gospel of grace plus works in Romans 4-5? If so, show the verses that are works oriented

NO. Paul preaches grace/faith alone and even argues that the Old Testament does so. MAD says the OT is faith/works and the so-called circumcision gospel is also faith/works. You guys need to go back and study theology and church history.

Where did I say Paul preached grace/works?! I said MAD teaches the non-Paul gospel does so despite being post-cross/finished work. The view is a non-starter and should be rejected, period.

 

[godrulz]

Is it legal for a Christian to commit an act that is sin?

Like smoking cigars? Just don't burn the building down.

 

[godrulz]

Were Peter & the eleven taught to keep the law by Jesus ?


Jesus and his disciples lived as Jews, pre-cross. MAD's issue is post-cross. Even Christians keep the moral (not ceremonial, civil) laws of God because we love Him, not in order to be saved (unless you are extreme antinominian and think adultery, murder, idolatry, lying, etc. is fine as a hyper-grace heretic).

Peter & the eleven were to evangelize all of Israel, did they do this?

The 12 did begin the Great Commission, but did not complete it. It is still going on today and Paul's followers also have not evangelized all either. The early church did start out with Jewish Christians based on the one gospel of the risen Christ (death, resurrection). Paul shared the same gospel and expanded the gospel to the Gentiles over time (without personally reaching all). There was a shift from a Jewish center in Jerusalem to an Antiochan Gentile center over time in missionary strategy, but the same one gospel because there is only one gospel, one Christ, Jew/Gentile one in Christ post-cross, pre and post-Paul.

Was all of Israel converted ? What is the point? Israel did go on to reject her Messiah as a whole despite individual Jews converting.

Do we become Jews now ?

The early church did not become Jews to be Christians. Just because some retained Jewish background does not mean all did or that it was a gospel issue. There was transition from old to new and Peter had to get up to speed on the details. Peter and Paul both preached the risen Christ, the only way to be saved by grace through faith apart from works.

Was Israel cut off ?

Rom. 9-11 shows that there was a shift from Israel to Church. You confuse individual salvation of Jew and Gentile through the one gospel and future, national, covenantal, eschatological issues with Israel (MAD proof texts reflect this confusion).

Is Paul the apostle to the gentiles ?

Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles. So? Peter and James initially, primarily, but not exclusively focused on Jews. Paul reached Jews first, then went to Gentiles primarily, but not exclusively. They all preached Christ and the ONE gospel, the power of God.

Two target audiences is NOT proof of two different gospel messages (Gal. 2:7 demarcation of ministry, not divergent messages).

 

[godrulz]

Romans 3:30King James Version (KJV)

30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

Hello?

 

[Nick M]

Like smoking cigars? Just don't burn the building down.

How about adultery? Is that legal for a Christian to do it? Don't beat around the bush with the small incidentals that you and Jason fight against.

 

[godrulz]

How about adultery? Is that legal for a Christian to do it? Don't beat around the bush with the small incidentals that you and Jason fight against.

Adultery is not necessarily illegal in non-Muslim countries. It is immoral in the eyes of God, though (for believer or unbeliever).

Is murder illegal, immoral, or both?

 

[Nick M]

Adultery is not necessarily illegal in non-Muslim countries. It is immoral in the eyes of God, though (for believer or unbeliever).

Is murder illegal, immoral, or both?

Answer the question. Is it legal (not a sin) for a Christian to commit adultery?

Not necessarily? You are pathetic.

 

[Brother Vinny]

Answer the question. Is it legal (not a sin) for a Christian to commit adultery?

Not necessarily? You are pathetic.

Could I ask for clarification of the question? Because I would separate what is legal in the municipal sense (governing authorities) versus what is legal in ecclesiastical sense (within the church), and both of these senses against what determines our legal standing before God.

In the case of adultery, it used to be illegal in the municipal sense. It is biblical grounds for excommunication within the church. And the Christian's legal standing before God is hidden in Christ; it is still a sin, and is still harmful and will have temporal consequences, but it will not be laid at the feet of the Christian in eternal court.

 

[Nick M]

Could I ask for clarification of the question?

Do you really think we are talking about statutory laws and not righteousness and salvation?

 

[Bright Raven]

Evangelicals have always affirmed the Pauline gospel of grace/faith vs works. This is why we oppose MAD that calls a hybrid gospel of faith/works a true vs false gospel.

Show us where MAD is faith plus works. Mad follows Pauline doctrine. Where does Paul's doctrine add works.

 

[way 2 go]

Romans 3:30King James Version (KJV)

30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

Hello?

Paul was circumcised & preached a gospel of uncircumcision

Col 3:11 Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.

Peter was not preaching against circumcision like Paul was
or there would not be this :

Act 11:2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, saying,
Act 11:3 "You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them."

Peter was for circumcision
Paul was against circumcision
that is one difference but the question is how big of a difference ?

 

[godrulz]

Answer the question. Is it legal (not a sin) for a Christian to commit adultery?

Not necessarily? You are pathetic.

I do not know what you mean. It is a sin for a Christian to commit adultery. In a secular society, it is not illegal. Moral and legal are two different things.

You are pathetic. Are you teaching false hyper-grace again?

 

[godrulz]

Show us where MAD is faith plus works. Mad follows Pauline doctrine. Where does Paul's doctrine add works.

MAD teaches circumcision vs uncircumcision. WE AGREE about Paul's gospel of grace/faith. I am not saying his gospel or any other true gospel teaches works.

MAD teaches two gospels post-cross. The so-called circ gospel is a gospel of faith/works. Ask the strident MAD proponents here what Peter, James, John vs Paul teaches. This is why I oppose MAD, not Paul.

 

[godrulz]

Paul was circumcised & preached a gospel of uncircumcision

Col 3:11 Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.

Peter was not preaching against circumcision like Paul was
or there would not be this :

Act 11:2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, saying,
Act 11:3 "You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them."

Peter was for circumcision
Paul was against circumcision
that is one difference but the question is how big of a difference ?

Peter was wrong to lack a back bone and was compromising with false teachers. He was rightly rebuked by Paul and grew a spine. He was in transition, but he preached grace/faith. He did not tell Gentiles to be circumcised. He preached faith in the risen Christ (read Acts and the Petrine letters), not Judaism/legalism. You have a wrong view of Peter vs Paul.

 

[intojoy]

Slice it any way you want. Is the more than one Gospel position of MAD correct?

No

 

[Lighthouse]

Like smoking cigars? Just don't burn the building down.

Smoking cigars is not a sin.

Romans 3:30King James Version (KJV)

30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

Hello?

Why the delineation between the two groups.

Answer the question. Is it legal (not a sin) for a Christian to commit adultery?

Not necessarily? You are pathetic.

There is a reason I have the twit on ignore.

 

[Nick M]

It is a sin for a Christian to commit adultery.

How can we who have died to sin still be in it? YOU CAN'T! We who have died have been freed from sin. All things are legal, not all things are helpful.

You think you can sin your way out of salvation, you are still a pervert, and will likely always be one.

 

[Nick M]

No

Show us where the 12 preached the death burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ for our justification. Show us where they are looking back on their salvation they already have and are dead to sin. All things are legal. Go, on. Show us.

You can quote any "New Testament" book outside of Acts 9-Philemon.