SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Without the originals, how can you compare accuracy?
Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
Without the originals, how can you compare accuracy?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
How?
Paul agreed in Acts 15 to preach the gospel of uncircumcision (which you say is a demarcation of ministry) and then immediately began preaching to the circumcision.
Please explain.
heir
TOL Subscriber
opcorn:Both Paul and Peter preached to both Jew and Gentile.
Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
Act 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
Act 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Peter preached to Gentiles from the first.
Paul went to the Jew first--
Act 14:1 And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed.
LA
However there came a point in time when Peter preached to the Jews and Paul to the Gentile.
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;
The originals are faithfully reproduced in the wealth of MSS evidence, unlike any work of antiquity.
Your beef applies to Book of Mormon and Qur'an, not the Bible. If we did not have MSS to compare, we would not be able to arrive at the originals. KJVO is in the worse position because the MSS contradict the theory and assuming infallibility despite various KJV versions and no one standard to compare is begging the question, not evidence based thinking. KJV translators understood textual criticism, translation theory, unlike KJVO who argue against the translators themselves (you are falling for a modern myth that has been debunked and does more to undermine biblical authority among skeptics than to enhance it, ironically).
Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc. preached to all men, but a primary calling or target group/speciality was experienced or emerged over time. Billy Graham initially preached primarily to North Americans, but not exclusively so. This is a mission issue, not different gospels for different people.
Acts is selective history/transitional. You are simply reading your preconceptions into the passage, not exegeting it in context.
Again, demarcation of ministry, NOT two true post-cross gospels for a limited time (one would be a denial of His finished work....a gospel of faith/works is heresy, but MAD makes it true for some).
...
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
"Derive truth from" is pretty vague. I'd question whether there is anything in the universe from which NO truth can be gleaned. I bet I could even find something true in the Qu'ran. Of course, there are better ways of deriving truth than that...
I would say there are some "translations" that are more like paraphrases and thus that I would not qualify as actually being "the Word of God" though. I'd definitely put the Message and similar paraphrases in that category. That doesn't mean you can't read them, but you aren't really reading scripture when you read them.
Would you consider the New Living Translation in this category?
Then why is one a gospel to the Jews and the other a gospel to the Gentiles?
They are the one and only same true gospel to different target groups. The gospel to the Africans is the same as the gospel to the Chinese. A demarcation of ministry is missionary strategy, not two different gospels.
There is one Christ, one cross, one resurrection. This is the only basis for a true gospel post-cross. Going to Jews first and then Gentiles in expansion of the mission is NOT two different messages, but two different people groups. This is strategy, not different soteriology.
This is so basic that I don't know why some fall for MAD.
heir
TOL Subscriber
There are two gospels mentioned in Galatians 2:7 KJV
:nono: Then why did Paul go to the Jew first after they shook on it that Paul would go to the heathen and they to the circumcision?
heir
TOL Subscriber
According to the scripture, when will the sins for the people in Acts 3 be blotted out? Has the Body of Christ now received the atonement?
no such term and there is more than one gospel "post-cross". You want to make all of the Bible say the same thing to all people for all time, but it doesn't. The Bible says a lot of different things.
Why did Paul break the agreement in Galatians 2:9 KJV?
Acts 3 is confused by MAD when they don't distinguish eschatological issues relating to the future restoration of national Israel based on OT covenants and individual, personal, soteriological issues with Jews who now become one in Christ with Gentiles in the Body of Christ. There are national/corporate issues (Rom. 9-11) and individual salvation issues. Context determines which one is referred to. MAD has a propensity to proof text a preconceived idea out of context.
One gospel post-cross is a self-evident NT principle whether the term (cf. trinity) is in a verse or not. Two gospels is a modern theory by Bullinger, Stam, etc. There is no historical precedent for it and it is not held by credible NT scholars (Enyart is not Wesley, F.F. Bruce, etc.).
The Bible does distinguish Israel vs Church, OT vs NT, Jew vs Gentile, Christian vs pagan, etc. It does not make a hyper-division after the resurrection between supposed limited circ vs uncirc gospel that relies on a wrong paradigm and refuted proof texts.
As an Open Theist, you should not have a problem with a dynamic, evolving missionary strategy (shades of Enyart 'The Plot' that is right about some things and wrong about other things). A normative pattern to Jew first is not exclusive to Jew first. As their rejection increased and God's intent to reach the whole world (vs sectarian Jews) evolved, Paul assumed a changing and primary vs exclusive role. Billy Graham and Dwight Moody, Wesley, Whitfield, Billy Sunday, Finney, etc. all had their place in the harvest field, but that does not mean they all had different gospel messages.
heir
TOL Subscriber
godrulz cannot answer the questions
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Why does he always call you an open theist?
heir
TOL Subscriber
I don't know. I'm clearly not. He always brings up Bob, too.
That was a detailed, responsive answer based on common exegesis and consistent with dispensational views other than MAD proof texting. You are most unreasonable to say I cannot answer just because you don't agree or understand the answer. Sheesh.