For Sincere Inquisitors ONLY: MAD Explained

[chickenman]

Can you answer this question?Don't these verses say Jesus preached to those that were afar off (i.e. Gentiles ) ?
Eph 2:17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

Verse 17 does say that. But we know that Jesus didn't preach to the Ephesian Gentiles during His earthly ministry. But through Paul and his Gentile ministry, Jesus DID (figuratively speaking) preach to them.

1. Yes in the flesh. But Deut 30 speaks of circumcision of the heart.
2. If they receive the circumcision of the heart.
3. Both circumcised and uncircumcised can be the enemies of Israel. It was the circumcision that delivered up Jesus to the Romans.
Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

I totally agree with you. I was merely establishing a foundation. We can't overlook the foundation.

Here is one question that slipped by.
What did Paul mean when he said that not all Israel is Israel?

Thanks for pointing that out, Amos. Sorry I missed it.

But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel Rom. 9:6
​

Paul begins by expressing his sadness about Israel's current (at the time of his writing) state. They had rejected, en masse, the risen Messiah and had been cut off. He said that "the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises" pertained specifically to Israel. With Israel's current (then) state of rebellion and blindness, did that nullify the word of God, rendering the promises void? NO.

But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. Rom. 9:6a
​

The promises were national, but that didn't mean that all in the nation would partake, for many would be separated from the nation.

For they are not all Israel who are of Israel. Rom. 9:6b
​

Similarly, remember that it was Abram to whom the original promise of the land was given, with it being said "to your descendants I will give this land". Yet the promise was to be passed along to Isaac, the child of promise, and not Ishmael (even though Ishmael was one of "your descendants").

...nor are they all children because thy are the seed of Abraham: but, "in Isaac your sheed shall be called." Rom. 9:7
​

The promises were to Israel specifically and will ultimately be fulfilled for the nation. But just because someone was "of Israel" doesn't mean they were a shoe-in. Your comment about circumcision of the heart is an appropriate fit.

 

[chickenman]

Abraham with a barren wife, was told he would have not only a son (at age 75) but a whole multitude; and to have a son was the great desire of his heart, the first time God approached him.

Paul is not offered anything but told he will have suffering...for the sake of Jesus' Name the first time God speaks. Acts 9:15,16 Being a chosen vessel is connected with suffering for The Name.

Methinks that would be a salvation under the Kingdom moment according to MAD, no?

According to I Timothy 1:16, Saul's conversion and the way in which the Lord showed longsuffering and mercy to him were different than others before him. For he would be a pattern (which is the first of something) for those who would believe after him. So while I see the point you're trying to make, it seems we need to see Saul's conversion as being out of the kingdom program, rather than one that fits under the kingdom program. The flow of prophecy fulfillment begins changing with his conversion, whereas up to that point, things seem to be progressing along as expected and as planned.

Check out Genesis 12:1-3 (KJV) very carefully.
Was Paul due a blessing or a curse in Acts 9?

Good point. Paul was due a curse. He blasphemed the Spirit and persecuted the saints. Under the kingdom program, he had no hope.

That's my point. Because a blessing or a curse is being spoken of at all, that would be under the Kingdom realm? For the Body has no wrath for them?

It seems Paul is receiving wrath. Suffering for The Name.

Suffering for Christ isn't the wrath of God.

God said, "I will curse him that curseth thee". Paul cursed
the seed of Abraham, Jesus Christ.

Why wasn't he cursed?

II Cor 11:23,24,25,26,27,28,33

It fits right in with Peter's prediction for the Kingdom program-
I Peter 5:9,10

...after you have suffered awhile, God...will restore, establish, strengthen you.

Good dialogue, you too. Thanks for the questions and sticking with it, Sheila.

I'd just like to interject that commonalities don't make an equation. Sufferings were/are a part of any dispensation. Paul glorified in his sufferings, for in doing so he shared in Christ's sufferings. And he would endure suffering until his death. However, he wasn't required to endure them or risk losing his inheritance.

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written: "For Your sake we are killed all day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter." Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. Rom. 8:35-37
​

However, for those under the kingdom program who awaited the coming kingdom and the fiery trial that they were to endure - through which they were to "suffer" - endurance was required for them to inherit the promise.

Therefore do not cast away your confidence, which has great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise" Heb. 10:35-36

Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according the same example of disobedience. Heb. 4:11
​

Peter speaks confidently of his brethren, encouraging them to rejoice as they partake in Christ's sufferings (I Pet. 4:13) as they go through their fiery trials (4:12). In his second letter, he knows that their faith could be faltering as a result of scoffers who are trying to convince them that God is no longer planning on delivering on His promises to them (II Peter 3:1-4). So to ease their fears, he reminds them of the Lord's longsuffering and patience, and then reiterates that the Lord absolutely will indeed deliver on his promises and return one day. Without his exhortation, the chance existed that they could fall from their faith, falling into the same state as the false techers of II Pet. 2:20-22, and failing to endure faithfully to the end as required according to Heb. 10:36 and Matt. 24:13.

 

[chickenman]

Some thoughts concerning MAD:
The Cross is more for the Kingdom program then, being an OT Covenental activity, as Jesus came to fulfill the Law and not to abolish the Law?

No. The cutting off of Messiah was prophecied as being for Israel. However, a truth that was revealed by Jesus through Paul was that His death would be effectual for the world. It wasn't just for Israel. In Col. 1:14, Paul wrote that the Colossians have "redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins." He also wrote:

And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death... Col. 1:21-22
​

Also, repentance requires a turning away from sin and that is a Kingdom activity, right?

Well...Peter taught that one had to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, and then he would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. So in that sense, it was a kingdom requirement. We are baptized by the Spirit into Christ when we believe that Jesus died for our sins and rose to life. The gospel message to us doesn't include a REQUIREMENT to repent. However, repentance certainly has a place in Body doctrine. What a sad fool who wouldn't respond to the gift he's received by repenting of sin.

Under MAD, the Cross is not really a salvific remedy for the non-repentant, since no turning away from sin preceds salvation, but more of a Kingdom reality that is merely acknowledged by the Body as true?

I don't understand the question. The cross is the foundation for our salvation. Without it, we cannot be saved. So it is absolutely a salvific remedy.

Under MAD Jesus came for sinners not the righteous, and that would be the Kingdom saints who have to repent and await salvation for a later time. Is that so?

Jesus earthly ministry was to the house of Israel. That's why He came to earth. Matt. 10:5-6; Matt. 15:24. So yes, that's undeniable. But again, His crucifixion and resurrection is the foundation for salvation for the Body of Christ, too.



Thanks, again, for your questions and comments, Sheila.

Randy

 

[chickenman]

Another reason it seems Paul was saved under the Kingdom program is that after the Voice, he fasts for 3 days and nights from food and water. Jesus said after the bridegroom leaves then they will fast; a Kingdom activity.

Ananias comes and lays hands on Paul and he sees, is bapized and recieves the HS. This apostle or elder of Damascus brings Paul into the Faith the Kingdom program way. Acts 9:17,18

Acts 9:19,20

I agree that what happens next is consistent with requirements for the kingdom program. Why wouldn't it be? Jesus didn't make an announcement to Saul or anyone that anything had changed. He didn't teach Paul a bunch of new doctrine. He simply revealed Himself to Saul and told him where to go next. So of course Ananias would do what he was required to do (baptize). Saul wouldn't begin receiving any new revelation until shortly after that, when he goes to Arabia. Which leads to...

He heads straight for the Apostles. Acts 9:26

...the fact that he DIDN'T head straight for the apostles. He doesn't go back to Jerusalem for 3 years.

But when it pleased God...to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter...etc. Gal. 1:15-18
​

And reading through Galatians 2:1-10, it's made even MORE clear that the Jerusalem apostles contributed nothing to Paul's message and ministry. No, even though the text of Acts 9 summarizes some significant events, Paul is clear that it was a while before he went to Jerusalem and that he didn't go to consult with them. He went to simply tell them what was going on.

And Barnabas rescuses him by taking Paul under his wing, to convince the apostles he is a Believer. Acts 9:27

Barnabas gets the credit for taking care of Paul so far. Acts 9:28

Yeah, it probably woudn't have gone so well (so to speak :chuckle for Paul had people like Barnabus in Acts 9 and Peter in Acts 15 not been able to bear witness to what God was doing through Paul. Thank God for His wisdom.

 

[Sheila B]

. So while I see the point you're trying to make, it seems we need to see Saul's conversion as being out of the kingdom program, rather than one that fits under the kingdom program.

Why do we need to see that?

 

[Sheila B]

Well...Peter taught that one had to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, and then he would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. So in that sense, it was a kingdom requirement.

The gospel message to us doesn't include a REQUIREMENT to repent. However, repentance certainly has a place in Body doctrine.

I don't understand the question. The cross is the foundation for our salvation. Without it, we cannot be saved. So it is absolutely a salvific remedy.

My thoughts are that the Cross saves a sinner. Without repentance can there be salvation by the Cross?

Jesus did not come for the righteous. Why not? Because if we think we are righteous, we have nothing to be saved from.

Jesus, according to the non-repentant, will be a savior on another level: a savior for sinners, who have need of repentance, and I might surely believe He has done them that eternal good, but He has not done this for me since I have no need to repent.

But those with no need of repentance, have no need of salvation. They are already right with God in their own estimation, that is.

What good will repentance do me once I am saved? Once saved, there is no need at that point since I am made right by belief. That is, I do not need to turn away from sin once it is nailed to the Cross by my believeing.

It seems to me it will come before salvation; it is a useless exercise after and even an affront to the total efficiency of the Cross. No?

 

[Sheila B]

I agree that what happens next is consistent with requirements for the kingdom program. Why wouldn't it be? Jesus didn't make an announcement to Saul or anyone that anything had changed. He didn't teach Paul a bunch of new doctrine. He simply revealed Himself to Saul and told him where to go next. So of course Ananias would do what he was required to do (baptize). Saul wouldn't begin receiving any new revelation until shortly after that, when he goes to Arabia.

John 3:5 was fulfilled in Paul. When Paul received the HS on this day, by the laying on of Ananias' hands, are we to believe God indwelt Paul's soul, but Paul remained unsaved? Is that MAD?

 

[amosman]

But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel Rom. 9:6
​

Paul begins by expressing his sadness about Israel's current (at the time of his writing) state. They had rejected, en masse, the risen Messiah and had been cut off. He said that "the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises" pertained specifically to Israel. With Israel's current (then) state of rebellion and blindness, did that nullify the word of God, rendering the promises void? NO.

But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. Rom. 9:6a
​

The promises were national, but that didn't mean that all in the nation would partake, for many would be separated from the nation.

For they are not all Israel who are of Israel. Rom. 9:6b
​

Similarly, remember that it was Abram to whom the original promise of the land was given, with it being said "to your descendants I will give this land". Yet the promise was to be passed along to Isaac, the child of promise, and not Ishmael (even though Ishmael was one of "your descendants").

...nor are they all children because thy are the seed of Abraham: but, "in Isaac your sheed shall be called." Rom. 9:7
​

The promises were to Israel specifically and will ultimately be fulfilled for the nation. But just because someone was "of Israel" doesn't mean they were a shoe-in. Your comment about circumcision of the heart is an appropriate fit.

Don't we know that not all of Israel was cut off though? And are not the wild olive branches grafted into the natural olive tree which is Israel? You may want to just read all of chapter 11 to get it all in the proper context?

Rom 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

Rom 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;


Rom 11:19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.

Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Why do you think it requires the "fullness of the Gentiles" coming in before "all Israel" can be saved, and what does that mean, "all Israel"?

 

[chickenman]

Why do we need to see that?

Sorry; poor wording. I meant something more like: "...we should recognize that..."

My thoughts are that the Cross saves a sinner. Without repentance can there be salvation by the Cross?

Jesus did not come for the righteous. Why not? Because if we think we are righteous, we have nothing to be saved from.

Jesus, according to the non-repentant, will be a savior on another level: a savior for sinners, who have need of repentance, and I might surely believe He has done them that eternal good, but He has not done this for me since I have no need to repent.

But those with no need of repentance, have no need of salvation. They are already right with God in their own estimation, that is.

What good will repentance do me once I am saved? Once saved, there is no need at that point since I am made right by belief. That is, I do not need to turn away from sin once it is nailed to the Cross by my believeing.

It seems to me it will come before salvation; it is a useless exercise after and even an affront to the total efficiency of the Cross. No?

There's a recognition/acknowledgment, and then there's repentance. Two separate things. Believing the gospel means that one must, of course, recognize that he is a sinner in need of forgiveness. Afterall, the gospel message says: Christ died FOR OUR SINS and rose again. But repentance is the turning away from sin. So as I asked in another thread, to what extent does one have to turn away from sin BEFORE he can come to Christ? Paul teaches that when we are baptized into Christ, we become the righteousness of God IN HIM. He is strong when we are weak. HE was faithful from beginning to end. I can NEVER completely turn from my sin of my own strength. But IN HIM, I am reckoned as being dead to sin. If one has to turn from all his sin before coming to Christ, then that one will never turn to Christ. Saying "I don't want to be a sinner anymore" is good, but does nothing to make us righteous. Only by being baptized into Him can we be made righteous, by virtue of HIS righteousness.

 

[chickenman]

John 3:5 was fulfilled in Paul. When Paul received the HS on this day, by the laying on of Ananias' hands, are we to believe God indwelt Paul's soul, but Paul remained unsaved? Is that MAD?

I'm sorry, Sheila, but I don't understand what you're asking. Can you restate the question, please?

Also, can you demonstrate from scripture why you believe John 3:5 was fulfilled in Paul?

Thanks!
Randy

 

[chickenman]

Don't we know that not all of Israel was cut off though? And are not the wild olive branches grafted into the natural olive tree which is Israel? You may want to just read all of chapter 11 to get it all in the proper context?

Rom 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

Rom 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;


Rom 11:19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.

Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Why do you think it requires the "fullness of the Gentiles" coming in before "all Israel" can be saved, and what does that mean, "all Israel"?

Amos,
I see you started another thread about this. Since I don't want this to be a debate thread, then I'll leave this topic alone here and follow it over there.

Thanks,
Randy

 

[chickenman]

I haven't made an attempt to progress this thread since Page 14. So I'll give it a shot here by moving forward in Acts. I'd also like to point out something I noted to Andy in another thread. It's very difficult and USUALLY pointless to debate details without having agreement on more fundamental things. So if one is truly interested in understanding MidActs Dispensationalism or any other approach to scripture, then it makes no sense to go straight for disagreement on the doctrinal details of repentance, baptism, etc. There's rarely debate over the foundation, yet there's enormous debate over the details. It's backwards.

Nevertheless, it is what it is. So...

Acts 12 shows James the son of Zebedee killed by Herod, and Herod going after Peter. It concludes with the Jews exalting Herod as a god, and Herod enjoying it. So he's struck with worms and dies. Lots of interesting stuff in the chapter, but nothing that really progresses the topic at hand. So onto chapter 13.

This is a great intro to Paul's ministry. STP used the word "microcosm" in an old thread, for events in Paphos represent a mini version of Paul's entire ministry. Through the book of Acts, Paul always goes to the Jews first in every city he enters. He preaches the gospel of God (Jesus is the seed of David they've been awaiting, He was crucified, and He rose again) to them and to the God-fearing Gentiles. For those who believe, he expounds upon that gospel message.

Very often, the Gentiles are eager to hear Paul, and the Jews are eager to shut him down. In Acts 13:5-12, a Gentile named Sergius Paulus calls for Paul to hear the word of God. A Jew named Elymas intervenes, intent on turning the proconsul away from the faith. God blinded Israel (Rom. 11:25), and in Paphos, Paul does the same (literally) to Elymas.

This event at Paphos is a perfect illustration of what happens everywhere Paul goes through his Acts ministry. In fact, immediately following this, He travels to Antioch in Pisidia where it happens again. But this time, "Sergius Paulus" is the Jews and "Elymas" is the Gentiles. The God-fearing Gentiles begged for Paul to preach to them (Acts:13:42), and the Jews "were filled with envy; and contradicting and blaspheming, they opposed the things spoken by Paul" (Acts 13:45).

Here is where it is first announced publicly that God is turning from Israel to the Gentiles.

Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles" Acts 13:46
​

According to Romans 11, God was casting away Israel and, before a complete casting away, He was sending Paul to them first to draw out a remnant of those who would believe. Acts 13:46 shows clearly the PUBLIC announcement of this beginning to happen.

Throughout the rest of the book, we will continue to see staunch opposition against Paul. But it won't be JUST from the unbelieving Jews. it will also be from BELIEVING Jews.


Iconium, Lystra, Antioch and Jerusalem...coming up next.

 

[Sheila B]

Sorry; poor wording. I meant something more like: "...we should recognize that..."

Same question. Why do we need to recognize that? (That Paul is not saved under the Kingdom program?)

 

[chickenman]

Same question. Why do we need to recognize that? (That Paul is not saved under the Kingdom program?)

Because things begin changing with Saul's conversion. Up to that point, prophecy was unfolding in a manner that was completely foretold and expected. But with Saul, things start changing.

 

[Ktoyou]

Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles" Acts 13:46

Yes, I see this as the beginning of Paul's calling, one might say to the Gentiles, but I would say more except we have some thin-skinned persons here and I would not wish to offend them. Just as we have some who claim to be fine feathered, but act like plucked chickens with the least provocation.

I have in mind, that this does change the direction in Paul's ministry, what may be my own interpretation concerning the Jews.

 

[Sheila B]

Yes, I see this as the beginning of Paul's calling, one might say to the Gentiles,

I have in mind, that this does change the direction in Paul's ministry, what may be my own interpretation concerning the Jews.

This is what I hope to see. It does not seem to me correct to assume Paul has a different mode of salvation from what Jesus instituted. A different message perhaps, that I can see. But a different priesthood from the 12? Something other than the order of Melchisedek? I am still trying to grasp how that could be.

 

[Sheila B]

Hi Randy. I've thought, pondered and muddled around with the ministry of the original twelve apostles. Did they continue to preach, teach and read the Torah in the same synagogues as the Jewish worshipers who did not acknowledge Jesus? I'm thinking that once they entered into the "communal" living phase they must have had their own worship centers? I'm speaking of that time before Paul received his dispensation.

We see that tens of thousands have accepted the Faith from the apostles' teaching, of the Hebrew people. Acts 2:41 Acts 4:4 Acts 6:7

What happens to all these apostles and deacons? What happens to all these congregations that are Christians from Dan to Beersheba and some in Samaria?

 

[Sheila B]

This begs the question, once a person has received the Holy Spirit can he pass it on? The "Apostolic Succession" believes that the Holy Spirit has been passed from Peter's hands down through the generations to our present day. The Anglican belief is that only bishops can lay on hands and pass the Holy Spirit. Once Paul was inspirited he and his chosen assistants baptized. So I am assuming that "The Twelve" must have also had chosen assistants who were empowered to baptize? I'm interested to hear what others have to say here. peace, bybee

It seems to me that when Jesus "breathed on the Eleven" before His ascension John 20:21,22 that it was a breath of life similar to when Jesus breathed the breath of life into Adam "and he became a living being."

There seems (to me anyway) a need for there to be a connection -that Paul most definitely received something from the church elders and apostles in order to pass on this "Breath of life". If not, then anyone can pass on the Spirit, and somehow we all know we cannot pass on the Holy Spirit.

And Paul definitely passes on a gift of eldership to Titus and Timothy and probably many others.

I Timothy 4:14
I Timothy 5:22
II Timothy 1:6
Titus 1:5

Numbers 27:18-23 If the old priesthood had the powers of sanctification, forgiveness, atonement, and so on that it had, how could there be less power from the Cross- the True Lamb? Paul passes on this power to "his" elders. It had to have come from Christs' breath. The Apostles themselves were not brought into the church the Kingdom way. They received much more: the root of the power. Matthew 28:18,20
Mark 16:19,20

John 20:23 Paul must have gotten these powers from the church.

It is not until Acts 13:2 that Barnabas and Paul are called apostles. This "being separated" leads to Acts 14:14

 

[chickenman]

Hi, Kat! :wave2: Thanks for joining in!

Sheila,
Your last three posts pose wonderful questions/comments. Post #277 is a particularly good one that we MidActs'ers can differ on sometimes, so it should be a good discussion. Later today, when I have time to do more than drive-by, I'll take a stab at them.

Thanks for your continually respectful attitude on the thread. It's truly nice to have dialogue like this.

Randy

 

[Sheila B]

It's very difficult and USUALLY pointless to debate details without having agreement on more fundamental things. So if one is truly interested in understanding MidActs Dispensationalism or any other approach to scripture, then it makes no sense to go straight for disagreement on the doctrinal details of repentance, baptism, etc. There's rarely debate over the foundation, yet there's enormous debate over the details.

I agree about the basics being a necessary foundation. Somehow I got immediately hung up on MAD's idea of Paul not being saved through the Kingdom program. I can see no Scriptural basis for that viewpoint, and it seems to be a foundational point which I must agree with to proceed. Is that so?