Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?

[Lighthouse]

I have read Acts 15 and share the view that Paul and the others stood together against the false Judaizers. You wrongly think Paul was against the others and the false view was actually a second true gospel?!

I have never argued that Paul stood against anyone except those who preached the law to those for whom he was sent to preach grace, and those who preached falsities. You are a liar to claim otherwise.

I did not exist to sin in the first century. Your view is a denial of Open Theism that you claim to believe. One issue is that you confuse the perfect, objective provision in the first century with the subjective appropriation of it as people are born, sin, repent/believe.

You deny that Jesus died for all sin, regardless of who was to come.

Acts 15

1And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question.

5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”

You can't make it say what it doesn't say 'rulz. They were believers who said to follow the law.

He also cannot make it not say what it does say.

 

[godrulz]

Apparently you've never read Acts 15.


Really? When Christ died, I mean at the exact moment He died, were your sins forgiven?


What makes Paul the chief of sinners?


No one here negates the grace of God in the life of any other person. The issue is that we don't believe you've accepted His grace.


Why did the council raise an issue then when Paul explained to them the message he was preaching among the Gentiles? Why did Peter have to quell them if Paul was preaching the same exact message? And why did they end up asking that Paul at the least preached a few things they did? Mind you, Paul ended up preaching the opposite on at least a couple of those things.

If I'm reading it wrongly then why don't you explain to me what it truly means?


Are you forgetting that I used to agree with you on this subject?

I changed my view when faced with the actual text of Scripture. You can't even be bothered to post Scripture to make your case.

So I have your words and I have Scripture. Which one do you think I'm going to believe?

I have read Acts 15 and share the view that Paul and the others stood together against the false Judaizers. You wrongly think Paul was against the others and the false view was actually a second true gospel?!

I did not exist to sin in the first century. Your view is a denial of Open Theism that you claim to believe. One issue is that you confuse the perfect, objective provision in the first century with the subjective appropriation of it as people are born, sin, repent/believe.

Paul is using hyperbole to show that if God can forgive a Christian killer, his grace is sufficient for any sinner. The context illustrates grace, not MAD error. A word study on 'protos' is in order noting a semantical range of meaning.

I have received grace/Christ (Rom. 10:9-10; Jn. 1:12; Jn. 3:16) in 1978. I have not received the MAD error, big difference. I do not reject Paul/grace, but circ vs uncirc. (neither of us embrace or condone your supposed circ gospel today, so it is moot and not a salvific issue; you are making MAD into a cult and acting omniscient Judge vs God, godplayers). You are like the Calvinists who think us Open Theists are not saved?!


I have posted Scripture over the years including articles against MAD with verses. I have response to your MAD proof texts with exegesis, so your accusation is like the JWs who say trinitarians do not give them verses when we do. It still comes down to interpretation. This debate also involves paradigms, not just proof texts (your eisegesis is also not the same as exegesis).

 

[godrulz]

I have never argued that Paul stood against anyone except those who preached the law to those for whom he was sent to preach grace, and those who preached falsities. You are a liar to claim otherwise.


You deny that Jesus died for all sin, regardless of who was to come.


He also cannot make it not say what it does say.

I had to run at work so did not finish. See new post above.

I do not deny His perfect provision for all sin. I am just a consistent Open Theist (unlike you) to say the future is not yet. This does not mean the provision is not perfect, but it is not applied before the existence of the sinner and sin. Medical discoveries before was born are not dependent on the fact that I will be born and get sick. If and when any given person is born and becomes sick, the old discovery will apply and be efficacious only when it is appropriated. You have some kind of time travel theory and confuse the objective provision (perfect) in the first century with its subjective provision in any subsequent century. This is not disputed by most, except hyper-grace false teachers.

 

[Nick M]

I do not deny His perfect provision for all sin.

You do. You demon possessed pervert.

I am just a consistent Open Theist (unlike you) to say the future is not yet. This does not mean the provision is not perfect

Then why mention it? You are a self righteous blowhard and you are going to hell and rightfully so for perverting God's grace. Let you be accursed. Hyper grace? There is no such thing. Grace is grace.

 

[heir]

Christ died for my sins.

Gee, that's funny. You have always denied that your sins were back there in order for Christ to die for them. So now you believed the offences Christ was delivered for were yours?

Your proof texting KJV out of context without any regard to Greek word studies, etc.

I believe the King James Bible without any input from your religious, hierarchy.

You are arrogant in your ignorance.

I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day.

I have no patience with those who negate the grace of God

That is laughable! You fight against the very ones who testify the grace of God!

 

[heir]

The content of the message however was the same. What other "good news" is there except that about who Christ was and what He did for us?

Those two are different. Who Christ was is not the same as what Christ did.

This is the same message that was foretold by the prophets in the scriptures (Romans 1:2)

Romans 1:1-4 is the gospel of God; who Christ is and that God raised Him from the dead.

It is not the gospel of Christ; the what of the cross, that Christ died for our sins (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV).

This coming of this gospel was foretold in (Isaiah 52:7, Isaiah 61:1).

The gospel that Paul preached was a mystery hidden in the scriptures, the hidden wisdom of God in a mystery (1 Corinthians 2:6-8 KJV) until given by revelation of Jesus Christ (the risen, ascended, glorified Lord Jesus Christ) to and through the apostle Paul (Romans 16:25-27 KJV, Galatians 1:11-12 KJV)

Jesus said that He preached this gospel ( Luke 4:16-22)

The gospel that was preached in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John was the gospel of the kingdom (Matthew 4:23 KJV, Matthew 9:35 KJV, Mark 1:14 KJV) not Paul's my gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV) that is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth (Romans 1:16 KJV)

 

[godrulz]

You do. You demon possessed pervert.



Then why mention it? You are a self righteous blowhard and you are going to hell and rightfully so for perverting God's grace. Let you be accursed. Hyper grace? There is no such thing. Grace is grace.

Paul talked about those who used grace as a license for sin wrongly. There are true and false views about grace. The Calvinistic view of grace is not perfectly biblical. There is a teaching in the church (Joseph Prince, etc.) that is a mix of truth and error about grace. Some talk about the love of God, but do not balance it with the holiness of God (universalism).

Mormon views of grace combine self-works. Their view needs tweaking and is getting closer to truth than it was 30 years ago (thx to counter-cult ministries).

http://www.amazon.com/Hyper-Grace-Exposing-Dangers-Modern-Message/dp/1621365891

This is a more biblical, balanced view that emphasizes grace and the need for grace, but it also exposes extreme views that become a license to sin (which johnw thinks is from the Spirit, not the flesh or demonic).

I fully affirm His perfect provision for all sins of all men. I am not a TULIP Calvinist than limits it to the elect. I am also not a universalist (which seems to be where your view could logically go).

I think I know my view better than the straw man caricature of it that you use to slander me and wrongly negate the grace of Christ in my life. You are not principled, but have made this personal, like sozo did. You are a class A jerk.

 

[godrulz]

Gee, that's funny. You have always denied that your sins were back there in order for Christ to die for them. So now you believed the offences Christ was delivered for were yours?



I believe the King James Bible without any input from your religious, hierarchy.

I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day.That is laughable! You fight against the very ones who testify the grace of God!

If you follow Enyart, you need to ask him. He is an Open Theist and would admit that your sins are potential and only are reality when you exist and sin. They are not actualities in the first century. You confuse His objective provision in the first century with the subjective application of it over millions of lives over hundreds of years. Your view is incoherent, especially if you claim to be an Open Theist.

Your MAD and KJVO views are refutable and thrive on arrogant ignorance, not biblical evidence.

 

[godrulz]

Those two are different. Who Christ was is not the same as what Christ did.

Romans 1:1-4 is the gospel of God; who Christ is and that God raised Him from the dead.

It is not the gospel of Christ; the what of the cross, that Christ died for our sins (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV). The gospel that Paul preached was a mystery hidden in the scriptures, the hidden wisdom of God in a mystery (1 Corinthians 2:6-8 KJV) until given by revelation of Jesus Christ (the risen, ascended, glorified Lord Jesus Christ) to and through the apostle Paul (Romans 16:25-27 KJV, Galatians 1:11-12 KJV)The gospel that was preached in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John was the gospel of the kingdom (Matthew 4:23 KJV, Matthew 9:35 KJV, Mark 1:14 KJV) not Paul's my gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV) that is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth (Romans 1:16 KJV)

The problem with MAD is not Gospels vs Paul's writings, but post-cross circ vs uncirc. Even in Revelation, future Tribulation, the kingdom message is a corporate, eschatological issue and should not be confused with the individual, soteriological issue and the gospel of grace of the King of the kingdom. MAD is a wrong paradigm that makes simple mistakes like this.

 

[Bright Raven]

The problem with MAD is not Gospels vs Paul's writings, but post-cross circ vs uncirc. Even in Revelation, future Tribulation, the kingdom message is a corporate, eschatological issue and should not be confused with the individual, soteriological issue and the gospel of grace of the King of the kingdom. MAD is a wrong paradigm that makes simple mistakes like this.

Why is there two gospels mentioned post-cross;

Galatians 2:7 King James Version (KJV)

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

 

[godrulz]

Why is there two gospels mentioned post-cross;

Galatians 2:7 King James Version (KJV)

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

Give up the KJV proof text. Check other versions, genitive study in Greek, context, rest of the NT.

The best thinkers all agree that this is a demarcation of ministry, NOT two different post-cross gospel messages.

Peter went primarily to Jews initially and Paul went primarily to Gentiles eventually. This was not exclusive, but a missionary pattern, not two messages, but two target audiences/ministries.

MAD ends up being a denial of the finished work of Christ and is moot since the supposed circ gospel was for a very limited time and group. We are all Pauline/grace for 2000 years, so MAD is just a fringe heretical view that some turn into a test of eternal life instead of faith in Christ and His finished work.

I regret that AOG did not teach you better.

 

[Bright Raven]

What is the Gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of the mystery?

 

[Lighthouse]

I have read Acts 15 and share the view that Paul and the others stood together against the false Judaizers. You wrongly think Paul was against the others and the false view was actually a second true gospel?!

I did not exist to sin in the first century. Your view is a denial of Open Theism that you claim to believe. One issue is that you confuse the perfect, objective provision in the first century with the subjective appropriation of it as people are born, sin, repent/believe.

Fallacious.

Sins did/do not have to be actual for God to forgive them ahead of time. All He has to do is decide that no matter what those who are His are forgiven, and it's a done deal. You deny God is capable of such.

Paul is using hyperbole to show that if God can forgive a Christian killer, his grace is sufficient for any sinner. The context illustrates grace, not MAD error. A word study on 'protos' is in order noting a semantical range of meaning.

It means "first."
Now, let's see you do a word for word breakdown of the verse to support your argument...

I have received grace/Christ (Rom. 10:9-10; Jn. 1:12; Jn. 3:16) in 1978. I have not received the MAD error, big difference. I do not reject Paul/grace, but circ vs uncirc. (neither of us embrace or condone your supposed circ gospel today, so it is moot and not a salvific issue; you are making MAD into a cult and acting omniscient Judge vs God, godplayers). You are like the Calvinists who think us Open Theists are not saved?!

No, you have rejected it; as you stand there and deny its efficacy and reach.

I have posted Scripture over the years including articles against MAD with verses. I have response to your MAD proof texts with exegesis, so your accusation is like the JWs who say trinitarians do not give them verses when we do. It still comes down to interpretation. This debate also involves paradigms, not just proof texts (your eisegesis is also not the same as exegesis).

I'll believe you post Scripture when I see it.

I had to run at work so did not finish. See new post above.

I do not deny His perfect provision for all sin. I am just a consistent Open Theist (unlike you) to say the future is not yet. This does not mean the provision is not perfect, but it is not applied before the existence of the sinner and sin. Medical discoveries before was born are not dependent on the fact that I will be born and get sick. If and when any given person is born and becomes sick, the old discovery will apply and be efficacious only when it is appropriated. You have some kind of time travel theory and confuse the objective provision (perfect) in the first century with its subjective provision in any subsequent century. This is not disputed by most, except hyper-grace false teachers.

Application is irrelevant to the point. Christ died for all sin and therefore all sin was forgiven. Whether or not those extant and those to come would accept that is a different matter altogether.

 

[heir]

If you follow Enyart, you need to ask him.

You have always denied that your sins were back there in order for Christ to die for them. So now you believed the offences Christ was delivered for were yours?

He is an Open Theist and would admit that your sins are potential and only are reality when you exist and sin.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

And 2000 years before we were ever born "Christ died for our sins" 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV, having been made sin for us (2 Corinthians 5:21 KJV).

They are not actualities in the first century.

Romans 4:25 KJV

Your MAD and KJVO views are refutable and thrive on arrogant ignorance, not biblical evidence.

says the man who NEVER quotes scripture

 

[godrulz]

Heir, are you an Open Theist like Enyart or not? If you are, you are wrong. Our sins do not precede our existence in the 21st century. The cross is not dependent on whether you and I ever exist or not.

LH: When did you renounce Open Theism and become a universalist?!

 

[Nick M]

This goes back to his "initial justification" double talk. He had no sin in the first century, he didn't exist. So it can only be all future sin. Yet when he was "initially justified", his non existent first century sin was taken care of.

I believe it in context, not as a proof text for your views. Justification is about our initial coming to Christ we are declared righteous (legal term) and our past sins are dealt with. At that point of conversion, there are no future sins yet. Reconciliation deals with our past sins....My objection is to think we can persist in sheer rebellion, sin, and disobedience [/B]with impunity because non-existent sins have blanket forgiveness just because our past sins were dealt with at justification.

Of course he does not believe Christ died for all sin anyway. Including being insolent, a blasphemer of the Holy Spirit, and consenting to the deaths of his direct disciples.

...In reality, it is a reciprocal love relationship, not an unconditional zapping. Past sins can be dealt with, but this does not preclude the possibility of heinous future sins, including blasphemy, that cannot be swept under the carpet by a holy God (judgment starts with the house of God; Ananias and Sapp were struck down; I Cor. and I Jn. has temporal judgment of believer's sin by death).

And of course his sin did not exist in the first century, so I am not sure how that works with "initial justification"

Our sins did not objectively exist in the first century nor did we. This does not mean that when we do exist, sin, and get saved the provision was not real.

 

[godrulz]

My initial justification comments relate to SaultoPaul discussions and justification/sanctification, not this subject.

Sin has existed since Adam. The historical event of the death and resurrection of Christ is a once-for-all provision for all sin of all men. This does not mean universalism is true or that there is not a difference between perfect, objective provision rooted in the first century and actual, subjective appropriation as endless sinners become saints through the centuries by receiving Christ/gospel.

This is Christianity 101 and few dispute my basic understanding. It is you guys who are non-standard, so the burden of proof is on you. How much of this is semantics vs reality?

If you think our debate is enough to negate the blood of Christ (few genuine Christians would care about or understand this thread), then you have a false gospel of works or gnosticism.
:yoshi::loser::singer:

 

[Nick M]

My initial justification comments relate to SaultoPaul ...

It doesn't matter who they relate to.....

You claim two statements which are mutually exclusive. You do this because you are outside the faith.

 

[Lighthouse]

Here's a question for ya, Willie: If a Christian commits suicide what happens to their soul? Are they forgiven and allowed into Heaven?

 

[heir]

Heir, are you an Open Theist like Enyart or not?

No, I'm not. I have no problem with God's foreknowledge.

Our sins do not precede our existence in the 21st century.

The "body of the sins of the flesh" were most certainly there!

Colossians 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: