Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

For Sincere Inquisitors ONLY: MAD Explained

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by bybee View Post
    Dear Randy, Thanks to StoP, yourself and even my friend John W. I have come to see the truth of your exegesis of "Mid-acts ( in context). I'm amazed that I missed it in all of my years of study. And as you all have seen I pretty stubbornly fought against it! Upon reading and rereading Pauls's epistles and of course The Acts of the Apostles, I have come to a new, logical and sensible appreciation of Paul's special "Dispensation" to the Gentiles and that Heavenly mystery which God had prepared for us. I feel that my understanding is much more complete now. I have begun to feel the heart of Paul. I saw him as harshly didactic and difficult to follow. Thanks be to God I view him now with clear eyes as a man truly called and dedicated to serving God. As an Open-Theist" myself, I see Paul as having a very personal relationship with God through his love of Jesus our Savior. I have kept an open heart to consider what others have to share. From the bottom of my heart, I thank you for giving me an exponential learning experience. I am, quite literally, reading the Word through better lenses! Thanks and blessings, bybee
    That is awesome! You're going to enjoy reading the scriptures more and more now. You won't feel like you're trying to cram square pegs into round holes every time you pick up the Bible.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by chickenman View Post
      • These two messages were different. The book of Acts shows the transition away from one to the other and displays the resulting confusion…a confusion which, by the way, still exists today and for pretty much the same reason as back then.
      I have loved getting to know how applicable the theological arguments in Acts are today, even if they are applicable for all the wrong reasons.

      I find the greatest barrier to clearly communicating the ideas of the bible come when we start quoting the bible. It seems like the things that are so clear in the text become victims to theological labels.
      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
      E≈mc2
      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
      -Bob B.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Zeke View Post
        Why don't you start a tread with this question! One factor you should ponder is why did the Jews become so astonished when they found out a uncircumcisied gentile could also receive the words, the other point is that Jews from all the nations where present at pentacost and heard the Spirit speak through the apostles, And the message stayed in that context until years later when Peter had is vision.

        They never understood the statement at the time it was spoken to them to mean all people, in all the nations in the context your thinking they did.


        Zeke.
        All nations were not present at Pentecost.

        You claim that they didn't understand it to mean all people, yet Peter preached to and converted non Jews.

        How do you know what they understood?

        How do you explain St. Thomas going to India to preach the gospel?

        Comment


        • #19
          Hey Randy...glad you decided to do this thread! I've been bouncing little tidbits off of you and STP for a while now but it'll be good to focus on this for a while...

          The first question that springs to mind:

          In talking to STP recently, he helped me understand the distinction between the gospel of the Kingdom and the gospel of uncircumcision. (And I think it's clear that they are two different gospels...on that much I'm right there with you guys...)

          It seems to me, though, that Paul indicates that Abraham, in particular and among others, was accounted righteous on the basis of his faith, just as we are. Now clearly his faith took different form than ours must since he was looking forward to Messiah while we get to look both ways. The question, though, has to do with the requirement for salvation during what I recognize as the dispensation of the Promise, or the time of the Abrahamic covenant.

          It seems that you guys see the gospel of the Kingdom as a kind of development on the Abrahamic covenant, being the promise of earthly reward in exchange (at least in part) for obedience. Yet Paul seems to make a point of the fact that it was Abraham's faith that saved him, and not his works.

          I'll leave James out for now since, if I understand correctly, in writing to the twelve tribes, he is preaching the gospel of the Kingdom...

          So according to MAD, prior to and following this, sort of "parenthetical" dispensation of the gospel of uncircumcision, were works once a necessary ingredient for the salvation of men and will they be again?

          Thanks Randy!

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by cistercian View Post
            All nations were not present at Pentecost.

            You claim that they didn't understand it to mean all people, yet Peter preached to and converted non Jews.

            How do you know what they understood?

            How do you explain St. Thomas going to India to preach the gospel?
            cister...

            It seems you've been asked nicely several times to refrain from this discussion.

            I'd like to respectfully echo that request. It's not that we don't want debate or that we don't enjoy wrestling with the finer points of theology...but that's simply not what this thread is about.

            There are those (like myself) who would be interested in simply learning more about the position, rather than attempting to poke holes in it. In order to effectively do that, we need an environment where it isn't likely that the subject matter of the thread will get derailed in favor of chasing this or that fringe issue or potential need for reconciliation or rebuttal.

            There are plenty of places to debate the merits of MAD. Please go post there so the rest of us can use this thread to learn more about the views espoused by the position.

            In fact, perhaps it'd be worthwhile to start a similar thread regarding your views from a Catholic standpoint.

            I do hope you'll be respectful of Randy's wishes to include only those who are genuinely interested in learning more and not those who are closed to the subject.

            Thanks,

            AA

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by assuranceagent View Post
              cister...

              It seems you've been asked nicely several times to refrain from this discussion.

              I'd like to respectfully echo that request. It's not that we don't want debate or that we don't enjoy wrestling with the finer points of theology...but that's simply not what this thread is about.

              There are those (like myself) who would be interested in simply learning more about the position, rather than attempting to poke holes in it. In order to effectively do that, we need an environment where it isn't likely that the subject matter of the thread will get derailed in favor of chasing this or that fringe issue or potential need for reconciliation or rebuttal.

              There are plenty of places to debate the merits of MAD. Please go post there so the rest of us can use this thread to learn more about the views espoused by the position.

              In fact, perhaps it'd be worthwhile to start a similar thread regarding your views from a Catholic standpoint.

              I do hope you'll be respectful of Randy's wishes to include only those who are genuinely interested in learning more and not those who are closed to the subject.

              Thanks,

              AA

              I am interested.

              I don't find it convincing, but I want to know why some people do.

              In my opinion, it is clear that the message of Jesus and his instructions to the apostles are universal.

              I wondered how they reconciled his words with their beliefs.

              Do you believe that Jesus only meant Jews when he said all nations?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by cistercian View Post
                All nations were not present at Pentecost.

                You claim that they didn't understand it to mean all people, yet Peter preached to and converted non Jews.

                How do you know what they understood?

                How do you explain St. Thomas going to India to preach the gospel?

                I don't want to highjack this tread so start one on this subject and we can debate it there.
                Trying to awaken the divine principle in the belly of the fish.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by assuranceagent View Post
                  It seems to me, though, that Paul indicates that Abraham, in particular and among others, was accounted righteous on the basis of his faith, just as we are. Now clearly his faith took different form than ours must since he was looking forward to Messiah while we get to look both ways. The question, though, has to do with the requirement for salvation during what I recognize as the dispensation of the Promise, or the time of the Abrahamic covenant.
                  I think of it this way:

                  All men, through all of history, have been saved by exactly the same means - faith in God. Go has always had a means by which we could express that faith. Initially we could express faith by simply following one commandment, "Do not eat". Then people rejected God. Since then He has worked to re-establish relationship. Through sacrifice, law and ritual He has provided means by which men can express their faith. But this never changed the fact that men can only be saved by faith.

                  But those means were never meant to be the real thing. Now we can express faith "in spirit and truth" because God has updated the means by which we can express our faith.

                  The confusion arises because of the delay between the fact of Jesus' sacrifice and the revelation of the means of salvation.
                  Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                  E≈mc2
                  "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                  "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                  -Bob B.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Is MAD necessarily an Open Theist only understanding? It seems to me that it nearly must be and the question probably has you holding your sides and desperately refraining from spitting all over your keyboard/monitor. Keep in mind my theological training is only surpassed by my humility...

                    Glad you finally decided to do this.

                    Also keep in mind that I have a tiger ally if this turns ugly.
                    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                    Pro-Life






                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                      Is MAD necessarily an Open Theist only understanding? It seems to me that it nearly must be and the question probably has you holding your sides and desperately refraining from spitting all over your keyboard/monitor. Keep in mind my theological training is only surpassed by my humility...

                      Glad you finally decided to do this.

                      Also keep in mind that I have a tiger ally if this turns ugly.
                      I would think not, as to my understanding, I would assume Mid-Acts is independent of Open Theism, or the Settled view. I consider Delmar and Knight Brothers in Christ; however I made it known that I am coming from the other end of the spectrum. Now, I fully realize that faith in Christ leads to Grace and from Grace, we come into the Body of Christ and this is what counts most. Now I feel good with God and I would only make my point if others want to know, not to instruct, as that is easy accomplished by what I said. For me, it is a matter of expressing our views. I see a continual revelation and find in Acts and the Epistles of Paul the means were I came to understand what was necessary for me.
                      So, what?

                      believe it!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Is the following representative of the MAD position?

                        http://www.geocities.com/benwebb.geo/basics.html?200811

                        Accurate? Not? Why?

                        AMR
                        Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



                        Do you confess?
                        Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
                        AMR's Randomata Blog
                        Learn Reformed Doctrine
                        I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
                        Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
                        Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
                        The best TOL Social Group: here.
                        If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
                        Why?


                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                          Is MAD necessarily an Open Theist only understanding? It seems to me that it nearly must be and the question probably has you holding your sides and desperately refraining from spitting all over your keyboard/monitor. Keep in mind my theological training is only surpassed by my humility...

                          Glad you finally decided to do this.

                          Also keep in mind that I have a tiger ally if this turns ugly.
                          I do know at least a few settled view guys who are Mid acts dispies.

                          Whether it's "necessarily" OV or not, I think is a tricky question. I don't think it is, but I know some people do think that way. I'm an OV guy btw.



                          Cool thread Chickenman.
                          Marge: "Aren't you going to give him the last rites?"
                          Rev. Lovejoy: "That's Catholic, Marge - you might as well ask me to do a voodoo dance."



                          "Oh bother" said Pooh, as he chambered the next round.

                          Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            A fair request, but I did try to keep my enquirey polite and cultured rather than confronational and arguementative.

                            The difficulty is that ive never seen the particulat point I picked up on articlated anywhere else, so its hard to respond anywhere else.

                            Want to create another thread to look at that particlar issue?


                            Originally posted by chickenman View Post
                            Cistercian and TCM,

                            Based on volumes of staunch opposition posts from you two on other threads, I KNOW you're not here as sincere inquisitors. This is not a debate thread; it is a question and answer thread for sincere, interested people who want to learn more about our position. So I'll ask again, as I did in the OP, that you refrain from posting here and keep your questions and debating to another of the several threads that deal with the subject.

                            Please respect my wishes and don't interfere here.

                            Randy
                            SJKW Extraordinaire

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Thanks for starting this thread I've been curious about this view since I saw it here.

                              So right now, I mean at this very time, are there two gospels? One for gentiles and one for Jews?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by assuranceagent View Post
                                It seems to me, though, that Paul indicates that Abraham, in particular and among others, was accounted righteous on the basis of his faith, just as we are. Now clearly his faith took different form than ours must since he was looking forward to Messiah while we get to look both ways. The question, though, has to do with the requirement for salvation during what I recognize as the dispensation of the Promise, or the time of the Abrahamic covenant.

                                It seems that you guys see the gospel of the Kingdom as a kind of development on the Abrahamic covenant, being the promise of earthly reward in exchange (at least in part) for obedience. Yet Paul seems to make a point of the fact that it was Abraham's faith that saved him, and not his works.


                                So according to MAD, prior to and following this, sort of "parenthetical" dispensation of the gospel of uncircumcision, were works once a necessary ingredient for the salvation of men and will they be again?

                                Thanks Randy!
                                Howdy, bro!
                                If Randy doesn't mind, I'll take a stab at this.

                                Here's the initial promise to Abraham:

                                Genesis 12
                                1: Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
                                2: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
                                3: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

                                Immediately, we can see that there are two groups involved. A "great nation" and "the families (or nations) of the earth".

                                Fast forward a little.

                                Genesis 15
                                4: And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.
                                5: And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
                                6: And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

                                So, Abraham, a heathen, yet uncircumcised, was counted as righteous by faith alone. No action was required in believing God's promise.

                                Moving ahead, God changes his name from Abram to Abraham and...

                                Genesis 17
                                10: This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
                                11: And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
                                12: And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

                                14: And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

                                The covenant of circumcision is given to Abraham, and an action IS required to remain in this covenant.

                                So, within the umbrella of the Abrahamic covenant, Gen 12:1-3, God is now beginning to set apart the "great nation" within that covenant.

                                From Gen 17 forward, it's all about the circumcision. It's all about getting that "great nation" through whom the nations of the earth would be blessed.

                                Well, the Messiah comes to the circumcision. The majority reject him, he's crucified, buried, risen, and ascended. Israel continues to reject the ministry of the Holy Spirit in early Acts, Israel is fallen.

                                But, God raises up another apostle with a message that was hidden in the scriptures concerning Gentiles, the uncircumcision.

                                Gal 3
                                5: He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
                                6: Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
                                7: Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
                                8: And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
                                9: So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

                                So, instead of blessing the nations of the world through the rise of that "great nation", they are blessed through the fall of that "great nation"...and, he can do it by their faith alone.

                                During Acts, you have two groups. Both are the children of Abraham, and both fall under the umbrella of the Abrahamic covenant. One group, a nation, are children of Abraham (in circumcision). The other group, a Body, are children of Abraham (in uncircumcision). The covenant of circumcision requires action, works. No action is required of the uncircumcision.

                                You can follow these two groups through the book of Acts. You can see the circumcision being diminished, you can see the uncircumcision growing.

                                The two groups are clearly seen here,

                                Gal 2
                                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;
                                8: (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles: )
                                9: And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

                                In Galatians, Paul contrasts the two covenants which spawn these two groups. He contrasts the Abrahamic covenant with the Mosaic (the circumcision). The promise is unto both, the Jerusalem above which is free, is the mother of them all.

                                Hope this helps...
                                Originally posted by Interplanner
                                They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
                                Originally posted by Interplanner
                                You're too literal to get it.
                                Originally posted by Interplanner
                                The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X