Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?

[godrulz]

Let us say that it is a doctrine that you do not like. Galatians 2:7 show the difference between the ministries of Peter and Paul, one to the Jews, the other to the Gentiles. A gospel to the circumcision and a gospel to the uncircumcision. For it has already been shown that the Jew was saved through repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38) and the Gentile through the DBR of Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).

You are misinterpreting Acts 2:38 just like UPCI (Oneness) does.

Gal. 2:7 is a demarcation of ministry, but you wrongly proof text KJV at the expense of understanding Greek genitive (cf. other English versions).

I cannot help you. I doubt you really understand MAD in light of more credible views. You have stumbled on a simplistic system that claims to resolve problems, but it is not based on sound exegesis/theology and creates more problems than it solves.

 

[godrulz]

The NASB translation has an asterisk at the word "to" in this verse:

"But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to* the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to* the circumcised" (Gal.2:7; NASB).​

At the two asterisks we read, "Literally, of the uncircumcision" and "Literally: of the circumcision."



Since you obviously believe that the present dispensation did not begin during the Mid Acts period then tell me what you think determined when the present stewardship or dispensation of grace began.

There are dozens of ways to translate the genitive. Those without training/experience think it must be 'of'. This is simply wrong (even the KJV does not always do so in other contexts.

Grace is rooted in Christ, not Paul. I am a dispensationalist, not a hyper-dispensationalist. Grace precedes Paul and is based on the cross and resurrection of Christ. Whether the first Jewish Christians or Peter had full Pauline understanding or not, they had a grace gospel. There is no grace/faith +works true gospel except in MAD and false Judaizers that Peter and Paul rejected.

 

[godrulz]

Anything, but what the text actually says.

This is a vapid statement. There is a reason translations disagree at this point. An intermediate Gk. grammar has dozens of uses of the genitive (beyond simply 'of') and dozens of pages explaining with e.g. We have better understanding than the KJV translators did. When KJV translated Gal. 2:7, they did not think it supported MAD or two NT gospels. This is a modern heresy not found in church history. The final proof is that KJV was not consistent and also translated the genitive differently in other places consistent with grammatical possibilities and range of genitive use.

MAD thrives on ignorance, not information. It is arrogant to be dogmatic when one is selectively ignoring evidence. I cannot help you. I want an evidence based position that stands up to scrutiny because that is truly rightly dividing the Word and honouring the God of the Word.

 

[Nick M]

Anything, but what the text actually says.

You are simplistic to think it is a matter of what the Bible says.

 

[heir]

I want an evidence based position that stands up to scrutiny because that is truly rightly dividing the Word and honouring the God of the Word.

You reject the evidence that has been shown to you over and over. And spare me the "rightly dividing" talk. You don't even know what that means in the slightest.

 

[Dialogos]

But to the Gentiles Paul says that first he preached to them that Jesus died for our sins and those believing that gospel were saved ( 1 Cor.15:1-4).

Again, not at Mars Hill. Paul did not preach that Jesus died for our sins.

 

[Dialogos]

To have heard the word of this salvation, they would have had to be in the synagogue of the Jews fearing God as Paul was sent to the Jew first and also to the Greek, the called, at that time.

What?

So Paul's gospel is only preached in synagogues now?

Acts 13:26 Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.

Amen. Not sure how this helps your argument, but amen.

1 Corinthians 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

And amen again.

One gospel.

 

[Dialogos]

...And here is comes, the discussion about Gal 2:7. Really, the whole of MAD doctrine rises and falls on a peculiar translation of this verse, doesn't it...

The problem is, as godrulz has been arguing, you want make the use of the genitive case to prove some distinction in substance. But if you do that you will destroy the meaning of dozens of other bible passages where the genitive is applied to the word gospel.

For example:

we have the gospel "of the circumcision" which must be distinct from the gospel "of the circumcision." Right?

So then we also have the "gospel of the kingdom (Matthew 4:23)" and the "gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God (Mark 1:1)" and the "Gospel of God" (Mar 1:14)" and the "Gospel of Christ" and the "Gospel of your salvation (Ephesians 1:13) and the "Gospel of peace" (Eph 6:16) and Gospel of the glory of the blessed God. (2 Th 1:18)"

So of the genitive creates such a distinction in Gal 2:7 then it does so not only in Gal 2:7 it does so in these other passages as well.

So MAD folks, there aren't two gospels, there are at least 9.

 

[heir]

What?

So Paul's gospel is only preached in synagogues now?

:doh: During the time of Paul's first sending...(Acts 17:1-2 KJV)

Amen. Not sure how this helps your argument, but amen.

That's who Paul was first sent. It was not made known that we were included yet.

And amen again.

Jews and Greeks, those to whom Paul was first sent...still didn't include the likes of you and me.

 

[heir]

So MAD folks, there aren't two gospels, there are at least 9.

No one that I know of has argued that there were only two gospels period. The reason that Galatians 2:7 KJV keeps coming up is it is the quickest way to show someone there is more than one gospel in the Bible. There clearly are more than two in the Bible.

 

[Dialogos]

:doh: During the time of Paul's first sending...(Acts 17:1-2 KJV)

Wrong.

Paul preached at Mars Hill right after he preached in the synagogue.

:doh:


Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols.
17 So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be there.
18 Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, "What does this babbler wish to say?" Others said, "He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities"-- because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection.
19 And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting?
20 For you bring some strange things to our ears. We wish to know therefore what these things mean." (Act 17:16-20 ESV)

What gospel did Paul preach on Mars Hill. And what gospel were those who believed saved by?

 

[heir]

Wrong.

Paul preached at Mars Hill right after he preached in the synagogue.

:doh:


Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols.
17 So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be there.
18 Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, "What does this babbler wish to say?" Others said, "He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities"-- because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection.
19 And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting?
20 For you bring some strange things to our ears. We wish to know therefore what these things mean." (Act 17:16-20 ESV)

What gospel did Paul preach on Mars Hill. And what gospel were those who believed saved by?

Where does it say they were saved?

 

[heir]

Wrong.

I was saying to have heard the word of this salvation, they would have had to be in the synagogue of the Jews fearing God as Paul was sent to the Jew first and also to the Greek, the called, at that time. And used Acts 17:1-2 KJV to show you that it was his manner...

Those at Mars Hill would have had to have done the same...That's why we see Paul departing them

Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Acts 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Acts 17:32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.

Acts 17:33 So Paul departed from among them.

 

[Dialogos]

I was saying to have heard the word of this salvation, they would have had to be in the synagogue of the Jews fearing God as Paul was sent to the Jew first and also to the Greek, the called, at that time. And used Acts 17:1-2 KJV to show you that it was his manner...

Those at Mars Hill would have had to have done the same...

Heir, what gospel did Paul preach to the gentiles at Mars Hill? Its a simple question.

The gospel of the circumcision or the gospel of the uncircumcision.

Its a simple question, why do you avoid answering it?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

There are dozens of ways to translate the genitive. Those without training/experience think it must be 'of'. This is simply wrong (even the KJV does not always do so in other contexts.

The context proves that the KJV translation at Galatians 2:7 is the correct one. Let us look at this verse:

"And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain" (Gal.2:2).​

In The Bible Knowledge Commentary written by the Dallas Seminary faculty we read Donald K. Campbell say the following about this verse:

"Paul seized this oppurtunity to consult with the other apostles 'privately' connerning the message he was preaching to the Gentiles. This does not mean that Paul sought their approval of its truth and accuracy, for he had received the gospel from God by revelation. Rather, he wanted them to consider its relationship to the gospel they were proclaiming" [emphasis added] (Ibid., 593).​

If the gospel Paul preached among the Gentiles was the same gospel which he preached among the Jews then why would he need to go to Jerusalem in order to consider its relationship to the gospel which he had preached earlier in the company of some of the Apostles (Acts 9:27-29)? Of course there would be no reason for him to do that if the gospel which he earlier preached with other apostles was the same one that he was preaching to the Gentiles.

If there is only one gospel then it would make no sense for him to distinguish a gospel as one which he preaches among the Gentiles: " that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles."

It would make no sense for Paul to say that if there was only one gospel.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

What gospel did Paul preach on Mars Hill. And what gospel were those who believed saved by?

As Heir said, there is no evidence that anyone was saved there. Paul did not preach a gospel once he was mocked. Instead, he left their presence.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

For the life of me, I cannot understand this vapid argument that tries to divorce the person and work of Christ, germane to the ONE true gospel post-cross, pre-Paul.

MAD arguments are weak and the reason very few people have even heard of the erroneous teaching. Turning it into a confusing, divisive sect is odious (cf. KJVO).
:argue::noid:

It really is a non starter.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Even in KJV, the context and wording exegetically does not support MAD (you are guilty of eisegesis).

As Nick M the Magnificent has repeatedly asked you, why shake hands on a demarcation of ministry, then immediately break it?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

but it is not based on sound exegesis/theology and creates more problems than it solves.

It's definitely weak in the areas of orthodoxy, orthopraxy, and orthodontics.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

You are simplistic to think it is a matter of what the Bible says.

Indeed, I'm afraid heir is guilty of being a simple simpleton.