Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?

SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Shasta said:
They could not have talked about the cross before it was revealed. It could not have been the power to save" until the work was finished. They could not have preached about the resurrection either until it had happened but I think it would be hard to preach any kind of "gospel" that did not include the Risen Christ. The disciples brought that part into the kerygma after the fact. As the light increased so their message expanded.

As God increases light, more is given to us and more is expected from us. There is no need to conceptualize the existence of two gospels of salvation, partition the NT or bring division into the Body of Christ when it is a matter of progressive revelation.
Click to expand...

Nevertheless, they preached "the gospel" in early Luke.
I wouldn't assume "the gospel" means "part of the gospel".
 
Nick M

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Shasta said:
They could not have talked about the cross before it was revealed. It could not have been the power to save" until the work was finished. They could not have preached about the resurrection either until it had happened
Click to expand...

Then what were they preaching when they preached the gospel of the kingdom?
 
Nang

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Nick M said:
Then what were they preaching when they preached the gospel of the kingdom?
Click to expand...

A large chunk of the full gospel message is the revelation of the Incarnation of the promised Savior. No sound gospel preached omits the truth that God the Son came in the flesh in the office of Mediator between God and men.

And the message the disciple's were commissioned to preach in the towns, was announcement that indeed the kingdom was at hand in the Incarnate Son, come in the flesh, as the Son of Man, Jesus Christ.

This was the good news they witnessed to . . . they had not yet witnessed the cross or the resurrection (as Shasta has explained to you), so the full gospel of all events was expanded through the Apostles and the early church.

You sow confusion when you try to separate one part of the gospel from another. Neither version of such a truncated gospel, has the power to save, for neither is the complete message.
 
glorydaz

glorydaz

Well-known member
Nang said:
You clearly implied Peter was preaching the cross without understanding it. You are receiving accolades for doing nothing but sowing confusion. . . but that is the normal fruit produced by dispensationalists. Dispies find and exert illegitimate powers by confusing and abusing the Holy Scriptures.
Click to expand...

Sowing confusion? Does this really confuse you, Nang? Did you even read it?

Luke 18:31-34KJV
Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again. And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.​
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Nang said:
You sow confusion when you try to separate one part of the gospel from another. Neither version of such a truncated gospel, has the power to save, for neither is the complete message.
Click to expand...

Who is sowing confusion but the one who says when the Holy Bible calls it "the gospel", it is really "part of the gospel"?

Who are you fooling?
 
glorydaz

glorydaz

Well-known member
Nang said:
You sow confusion when you try to separate one part of the gospel from another. Neither version of such a truncated gospel, has the power to save, for neither is the complete message.
Click to expand...

But, according to you, the Gospel does not have the power to save...one must be saved before they hear and believe. Hmmm...
 
Nang

Nang

TOL Subscriber
glorydaz said:
But, according to you, the Gospel does not have the power to save...one must be saved before they hear and believe. Hmmm...
Click to expand...


Ugh . . . I have never said what you claim in the bolded above. It is just your sick twist of my belief that regeneration precedes faith.

And for the mentally challenged, I point out that "regeneration" is not synonomous with "salvation."

"Salvation" is the complete deliverance of sinners to the state of grace, ultimately and completely realized in glory.

"Regeneration" is just the first act of this work of God; resurrecting the redeemed to life from death; from darkness to light.
 
Nang

Nang

TOL Subscriber
glorydaz said:
Sowing confusion? Does this really confuse you, Nang? Did you even read it?

Luke 18:31-34KJV
Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again. And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.​
Click to expand...

I already answered to this passage and included it in one of my earlier posts.

I am not confused, but evidently you are missing a lot . . .
 
Dialogos

Dialogos

Well-known member
glorydaz said:
But, according to you, the Gospel does not have the power to save...one must be saved before they hear and believe. Hmmm...
Click to expand...
:nono:

Nope.

Not what reformed theology teaches.

You can push that straw man down all you like, but at some point honestly constrains someone to at least try and accurately represent another person's theology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top