For Sincere Inquisitors ONLY: MAD Explained

[SaulToPaul 2]

This is just one among several examples (and one on which I may be waaaayyyy off base) of the potential problems that a position such as this would or could resolve.

Absolutely, when we understand that the "kingdom saints" were not "saved" until the 2nd coming, the fact that they had to endure to obtain those promises is pretty easy to see. Since we in the Body ARE saved now, even if our faith fails, he remains faithful. He cannot deny himself (his own Body).

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Has the gospel of uncircumcision essentially always been in effect (as evidenced in the salvation of those like Rahab, who were gentiles) but only now, in this dispensation, has it come to the fore? Or was it something altogether new that began with Paul's commission?

Abraham was an exception. For him to believe God's promise required no action. The gospel of uncircumcision was hidden in the scripture, the scripture foresaw that God could justify the heathen through faith (like Abraham), but it doesn't mean that they were UNTIL Paul revealed it.

Rahab blessed some Jews, and she was blessed in return according to Gen 12:1-3 (KJV).

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Good questions, fellers! I'm enjoying this thread. :up:

 

[kmoney]

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. :e4e:

Also keep in mind that I have a tiger ally if this turns ugly.

Another guy who doesn't post here anymore (I miss him) said just the opposite, that MAD needs to be settled. He presented an interesting take on it. Certain parts do support that view.

 

[chickenman]

Next question: Regarding the gospel of uncircumcision and that of the Kingdom -- Is it possible to adhere to both? To be saved by the gospel of uncircumcision but to look forward to the earthly rewards of the gospel of the Kingdom as well? For the Jew only? Or not at all?

It appears to me that those two things are mutually exclusive, AA.

The gospel of the kingdom said: "Repent for the kingdom is at hand." Good news for an Israelite who awaited the national promise. In the promised kingdom, they would be under a new covenant where (like the Body of Christ) there would be eternal righteousness, sins would be blotted out forever, etc. But they would receive those promises AFTER they inherited their earthly promises.

The promises to the Body are spiritual promises that we receive immediately upon belief. We are baptized into the body, where we receive immediate forgiveness of sins, are immediately reckoned as righteous, etc. And we are seated in the heavenlies with Christ (who is our life).

So a member of the body (who got there by believing the gospel of Christ) is immediately saved and awaits a heavenly abode. A member of the circumcision was to faithfully endure to the very end, after which he would receive salvation, permanent forgiveness of sins (he could be forgiven before then, but not permanently), eternal righteousness, etc. He awaited an earthly abode (descriptions make it seem just like I imagine Eden was).

Based on that, I don't see how an "uncircumcision believer" (member of the Body) could receive the promises to the "circumsion believer".

I have more thoughts on that, but it would only confuse the issue now, so I'll leave it at that.

And one more: I'm still trying to get my head around the salvation by faith thing, since I want to separate that from the gospel of the Kingdom. Has the gospel of uncircumcision essentially always been in effect (as evidenced in the salvation of those like Rahab, who were gentiles) but only now, in this dispensation, has it come to the fore? Or was it something altogether new that began with Paul's commission?

Faith would and will always be fundamental to one's relationship with God. Without faith, one could be a good Israelite but not in good standing with God. And when God says to do something, then to have faith in God means to do that. So faith would have to manifest itself in whatever way God said. It couldn't be said of Noah that he had faith in God if he didn't build an ark. So the Israelite who wished to be in good standing with the nation (really important, since the promises were national) and with God would have to keep God's laws. Deut. 7:9; Prov. 7:2

Rahab would be an example of an uncircumcised duh: :chuckle Gentile blessing God's chosen people. She had heard of God's power, believed in Him, and aided the spies. Under the circumstances, hers was a great faith. So according the the Abrahamic promise of Gen. 12, Rahab was blessed by God. Nothing to do with the gospel of the uncircumcision, which was a ministry exclusively given to Paul.

I can tell you the biggest aspect of the MAD perspective that seems attractive to me, and the reason I've begun to focus more heavily on it:

Understanding Paul's commission as distinct from those who wrote before and after him has the necessary effect of offering almost instant apology for seemingly contradictory passages of scripture, particularly pertaining to the whole faith vs. works dialogue (hence my focus on that issue).

I bear what I believe to be more than reasonable explanations for many of those seeming contradictions, but many of them pose particularly hairy problems that I've always felt caused a stretch in justifying. For instance, Hebrews 6:4-6 has always struck me as a particularly difficult passage for the OSAS club (of which I am a member in good standing) and one for which I've never really heard what I feel to be an airtight apology. You could argue that he who fell, never possessed salvation to begin with, but the language used in the passage is strong, to say the least. I've never felt the argument was stood strong on it's own.

If I understand it correctly, MAD resolves this issue by positing that Hebrews is not written to the body, but to the Israelites, and is therefore pertaining to the gospel of the Kingdom.

This is just one among several examples (and one on which I may be waaaayyyy off base) of the potential problems that a position such as this would or could resolve.

I'd be interested to have one of our resident experts weigh in on those thoughts as well...

There's debate within the MidActs camp about Hebrews. Personally, I don't see how there could possibly be any debate. Everything about it fits cohesively within the context of the circumcision gospel of the kingdom. I'll be happy to give details if you like. But to answer your question, if Hebrews 6 is taken in a very straightforward manner, it's pretty clear that one can fall from the faith and it then be impossible for him to be restored. That same audience (of those who had fled for refuge - 6:18...sounds a lot like Acts 8:1) was told:

• to be diligent to enter God's rest (the promised land, cf. 3:18 where "rest" = "promised land"), lest anyone fall according to the same example (as Israel in the wilderness) of disobedience. (Heb. 4:11)
• to show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope until the end (Heb. 6:11)
• that willful sin after receiving the knowledge of truth would negate the sacrifice and result in "judgment, fiery indignation" (Heb. 10:26-27)
• they have need of endurance, so that after they had done the will of God, they would receive the promise (Heb. 10:36)
• not to refuse Him who speaks...for "if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven." (Heb. 12:25)
• etc.

Hebrews 6 is an easy read, if understood in the right context. Recognizing that Hebrews was written specifically for Israel preparing for her coming kingdom makes the book a pretty straightforward (for the most part) read.

Did I address what you were asking?

Thanks, bud.

Randy

 

[chickenman]

Could it be argued that the gospels (matthew thru John) can be placed in the OT?

:up:

I think the text actually demands that Matt-John be recognized as old covenant writings. It's fair, I suppose, that they are in the so-called "New Testament", since the "Old Testament" was already signed, sealed, and delivered before they were written. AND, they are written to chronicle the life of the One upon Whose death the new testament/covenant would be based.

I should have just said, "Yes". :chuckle:

Another guy who doesn't post here anymore (I miss him) said just the opposite, that MAD needs to be settled. He presented an interesting take on it. Certain parts do support that view.

Hilston?

 

[chickenman]

Good questions, fellers! I'm enjoying this thread. :up:

Me too.

I hope the dissenters can force themselves to stay away. I can hear the gnashing of teeth outside the walls. I assume that's godrulz being restrained. :chuckle:

 

[kmoney]

Hilston?

No. However, Hilston would have shared the same views. I believe the poster I have in mind was heavily influenced by Hilston.

 

[chickenman]

Oh! One more question while I'm here:

What is the significance of the crucifixion, ff. to the gospel of the Kingdom? Or is it significant? Was it always a part of God's plan (from the OV perspective -- so I guess this one will be a Randy question...)? or was it only the result of Israel's rejection and therefore only a part of the gospel of uncircumcision?

It was definitely always part of the plan. Is. 53...Dan. 9. His crucifixion would be the basis of the promised new covenant. God promised the nation that they would have eternal righteousness, once they inherited the kingdom. The crucifixion was hidden in the scriptures, but it was there nonetheless. And Matt. 26 et al reveal that that foretold crucifixion would be the basis for the foretold new covenant. Without the crucifixion, there could be no fulfillment of the promise of the new covenant and the promise of the kingdom.

 

[chickenman]

TH,

Per your message, here's an example...

A former pastor of mine believes that we in the Body of Christ have been forgiven all trespasses (Col. 2:13). He also believes that the exact same doctrine is taught in all 27 books of the NT. So what do you think he does with this?

"For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." Matt. 6:14-15
​

He says that "forgiveness" here has nothing to do with forgiveness of sins as one would normally think of it. He says that Jesus is referring to our relationship with God. If we don't forgive one another, then we will have a strained relationship with God that can't be fully restored until we forgive our brother. But we are and do remain forgiven by God; nothing can undo that.

Pretty bizarre contortion of God's Word, if you ask me.

From the MidActs perspective, we simply recognize that Jesus, in the gospel accounts, is on earth ministering to Israel under the Old Covenant. Under the Old Covenant, forgiveness is conditional. We are just fine with Jesus' words exactly as written and as my 10-year old daughter would understand them. And we're okay with Paul saying something different, since it was a RISEN Jesus, after Israel was cut off, who gave Paul this different message.

Was that a good example?

Randy

 

[Zeke]

Dear bybee, I don't want to rabbit trail the thread, we can talk about this in a PM. But, you and I are not children of Abraham. There was another mystery revealed after Acts 28 that concerns us

Hey brother Paul. You must be a new breed :jazz: of Mid Acts then, because thats a Acts 28 teaching. I see ya back there I am waiting for ya to catch up so come on.

Zeke.

 

[assuranceagent]

AA, a quick stab at this one:

The death, burial, and resurrection was always a part of the plan. If you look at the feast days that God gave to Israel in Leviticus, they outline the "prophetic program".

Yeah, I pretty much had that one nailed down per your point of view since so much is shared between us in that regard. I was mostly looking to see if :chicken: being of the OV persuasion, would differ with you on that point...

 

[mmstroud]

"Why does it matter?" Failure to recognize the God-determined divisions in scripture, specifically that between the Body of Christ and Israel, is THE cause of doctrinal division today.

I'm not sure I can agree with you 100% on this one :chicken: man... The church has divided on all sorts of doctrinal issues, some very important. While I haven't seen a study to support it, my theory is that most churches today divide over things far less significant.

Well, since I find myself here, I have a question. Maybe two.

First, with the focus on the Pauline writings, how does MAD treat the other New Testament writings? Do you quote from them? Is there any fear of treating them as inferior to the Pauline writings?

Okay, that was three questions... But I have another.

Before I came to TOL, I had never heard of MAD. I came from a straight-up Dallas Theological Seminary doctrine, I guess Acts 2? (wait, that doesn't count as a question, does it? Shoot, does that one? I give up...) church, pretty typical of what you find in Southern California. I have since moved, physically as well as doctrinally, to a (gasp - STP already know this and has decided to forgive me - I think) Reformed church.

I realize that with the exception of the New Testament church, organized and taught by the apostles who sat under Jesus' teaching, all of the various views, doctrines, denominations had their origin in the teachings of men who studied Scripture and came to various and differing conclusions about it. Do you know the history of how the MAD view came about? (And no fair just saying that it's what the Bible teaches - even in the earliest days of the church there were people who followed this or that theologian)

Meaning no disrespect whatever, one of the things that has concerned me about MAD is that there seems to be almost a disdain of all of the writings of the early Christians (Scripture excluded) and the councils that were held to discuss serious heresies that were in danger of infiltrating the church, and even the creeds that came out of those councils which merely stated in the affirmative some very important doctrines. I know this isn't exclusive to MAD, but it is one thing that concerns me. I guess that was a statement, not a question... So how about - What say you?

 

[voltaire]

CM. You said the crucifixion was hidden in the scriptures. If you mean the fact that it would be the basis of the new covenant, then i agree. But, Luke 24:25,26 shows that Jesus told them they were foolish for not believing the prophets concerning his crucifixion.

 

[Lighthouse]

Could it be argued that the gospels (matthew thru John) can be placed in the OT?

Yes.

 

[heir]

I know this is addressed to chickenman and I hope he responds to your inquiry, but I thought I would just chime in, hope you don’t mind.

I'm not sure I can agree with you 100% on this one man... The church has divided on all sorts of doctrinal issues, some very important. While I haven't seen a study to support it, my theory is that most churches today divide over things far less significant.

And whether they realize it or not the source of even those minor divisions are not distinguishing between Israel and the Body. How about some of the majors? What must I do to be saved? Is circumcision required? Must I keep the Sabbath? Is water baptism for today or isn’t it? Must I endure to the end or am I sealed? Am I to keep the dietary law or are all foods clean? Haven’t you ever noticed that both sides have their proof texts while throwing out the other? Is that how it is resolved? Are we ignoring the text that does not line up with a preconceived notion? And what does one say after their position has thrown out some of God’s word? Are we to add or take away from it?

First, with the focus on the Pauline writings, how does MAD treat the other New Testament writings? Do you quote from them? Is there any fear of treating them as inferior to the Pauline writings?

All Scripture is God breathed and the intent is never to disregard any of it. I have found that holding to MAD has aided and encouraged me to search ALL the scriptures rather than JUST reading what is written in red or just one verse or that verse which only further confused me. I have never read so much of the Bible as I do now. I can’t get enough of it. One can struggle to have sound doctrine if they ignore the audience, the message, the differences, etc. It seriously hurts us as ambassadors for Christ when we fail to know the biblical history of how things came about in the Bible. What was happening? Who was speaking? Who was the audience? What led up to that point? What is the context of this passage? Was that a fulfillment prophecy or something new?

Before I came to TOL, I had never heard of MAD. I came from a straight-up Dallas Theological Seminary doctrine, I guess Acts 2? (wait, that doesn't count as a question, does it? Shoot, does that one? I give up...) church, pretty typical of what you find in Southern California. I have since moved, physically as well as doctrinally, to a (gasp - STP already know this and has decided to forgive me - I think) Reformed church.

We all come from different places don't we? It is not the opinions of others that matter but what the word says. When I was a babe in Christ all I wanted was truth and all I got was milk. Before I knew it I was caught up in the word of faith movement. When I (hubby and I) began to inquire about anything other than their pet doctrines of miracles and tithing they really had no biblical answers. For a while it became very frustrating. My husband and I really had hard questions and they didn’t have the answers. We started searching the word and praying that we would find truth, the reliable kind of truth, not the tossed to and fro winds of doctrine. Long story short we believe that MAD is the position that God wants us all to hold for there is no need to be ashamed of Him or the gospel. There are no contradictions only different groups with different marching orders and different destinations.

I realize that with the exception of the New Testament church, organized and taught by the apostles who sat under Jesus' teaching, all of the various views, doctrines, denominations had their origin in the teachings of men who studied Scripture and came to various and differing conclusions about it. Do you know the history of how the MAD view came about? (And no fair just saying that it's what the Bible teaches - even in the earliest days of the church there were people who followed this or that theologian)

Just as we should obey God rather than man when man has it wrong so to we should believe God rather than man when man gets it wrong. What I mean is everyone that we run into in denominations and differing belief systems sincerely believes what they are espousing. So when there is disagreement where do we turn to find the truth? We turn to God in His word. Just because a majority believes one way does not make their position true. It is simply mob rule and it could very well be that because of a lack of understanding or their propensity to want it to be so through philosophical glasses they force it upon God and His word. Put on your it means what it says glasses (unless the text demands otherwise).

Meaning no disrespect whatever, one of the things that has concerned me about MAD is that there seems to be almost a disdain of all of the writings of the early Christians (Scripture excluded) and the councils that were held to discuss serious heresies that were in danger of infiltrating the church, and even the creeds that came out of those councils which merely stated in the affirmative some very important doctrines. I know this isn't exclusive to MAD, but it is one thing that concerns me. I guess that was a statement, not a question... So how about - What say you?

Huge question. Throughout the history of the world even in biblical times there were heretical teachings and doctrinal disputes. This is nothing new. There is always going to be tension, but it is because man will not pull down the wall of their tradition that plague them from being able to see the truth of the word. They just won’t let it go. They refuse to drop what they are attached to. Many are new to the Body and really want to know, others have been around for a while and are realizing that what they hold to be true isn't necessarily what the word says, some are willfully ignorant, some flock to the majority as it is comfortable there, and even still others desire to show themselves approved to God a workman that need not be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

[chickenman]

First, with the focus on the Pauline writings, how does MAD treat the other New Testament writings? Do you quote from them? Is there any fear of treating them as inferior to the Pauline writings?

We treat all writings in the Bible the same. We study them all to understand what they're for and we apply them accordingly. If Leviticus doesn't contain doctrine for me, then I don't force it to. But that doesn't mean Leviticus is inferior to any other book at all.

Okay, that was three questions... But I have another.

Before I came to TOL, I had never heard of MAD. I came from a straight-up Dallas Theological Seminary doctrine, I guess Acts 2? (wait, that doesn't count as a question, does it? Shoot, does that one? I give up...) church, pretty typical of what you find in Southern California. I have since moved, physically as well as doctrinally, to a (gasp - STP already know this and has decided to forgive me - I think) Reformed church.

I realize that with the exception of the New Testament church, organized and taught by the apostles who sat under Jesus' teaching, all of the various views, doctrines, denominations had their origin in the teachings of men who studied Scripture and came to various and differing conclusions about it. Do you know the history of how the MAD view came about? (And no fair just saying that it's what the Bible teaches - even in the earliest days of the church there were people who followed this or that theologian)

I honestly don't know, from personal study, the history of any view, system, or denomination. I understand that Dispensationalism began as a recognized system with Darby. But there were certainly many prior to Darby who recognized multiple dispensations in scripture. Perhaps it was E.W. Bullinger who popularized the MidActs subset of Dispensationalism, but I'm really not sure. Sorry.

Meaning no disrespect whatever,

No worries.

one of the things that has concerned me about MAD is that there seems to be almost a disdain of all of the writings of the early Christians (Scripture excluded) and the councils that were held to discuss serious heresies that were in danger of infiltrating the church, and even the creeds that came out of those councils which merely stated in the affirmative some very important doctrines. I know this isn't exclusive to MAD, but it is one thing that concerns me. I guess that was a statement, not a question... So how about - What say you?

Some people like some people and dislike others. There's not at all a general disdain for any of the early Christian writers. What many of us dislike is the popular reliance on tradition. We are commonly rebutted with arguments like, "Well, you're going against 2000 years of tradition." Personally, I respect and appreciate others today or 1,000 years ago who labor over scripture, who write and publish books, who teach in seminaries, etc. But those people are not inspired. And those people all disagree with one another. Yet in spite of the millions of brilliant thelogians over the centuries who can't come to agreement on Biblical truth, the Bible itself has always been consistent and steadfast. So we rely on It, and only It, for truth. Only the Bible is authoritative

It's really irritating for someone to shoot us down based on someone trusting in a person, rather than giving what we have to present (which we strive to do strictly from scripture) a fair shot.

Thanks for your questions, Double-M! I hope I addressed them adequately.

Randy

 

[chickenman]

CM. You said the crucifixion was hidden in the scriptures. If you mean the fact that it would be the basis of the new covenant, then i agree. But, Luke 24:25,26 shows that Jesus told them they were foolish for not believing the prophets concerning his crucifixion.

Hi, Voltage-meter.

After Jesus had risen, it should have been obvious what had happened. Yet on the road to Emmaus, two people tell Jesus (Whom they didn't recognize) the events of Jesus' crucifixion and how they were hoping that it was actually Jesus Who was to be the One to redeem Israel. But they finish by implying that since there was an empty tomb but no one found Jesus, maybe He wasn't the One (the don't say that, but it seems implied). Then Jesus says:

"O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?"
​

So they should have discerned what was happening, for sure. But prior to that, the truth that we can now see so clearly in scripture was hidden from them.

"Let these words sink down into your ears, for the Son of Man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men." But they did not understand this saying, and it was hidden from them so that they did not perceive it; and they were afraid to ask Him about this saying. Luke 9:44-45
​

So the crucifixion was definitely in the scriptures, and those knuckleheads after the resurrection should have been able to discern what was happening, but it doesn't change the fact that it was still hidden from them prior to that.

Thanks, bud. :wave2:

Randy

 

[chickenman]

Great post, Mary! You can jump in for me anytime!

Randy

 

[Stripe]

If the word of God works better divided into two parts (and I'd say that it is better this way) then I would not be comfortable with any division other than the one we have.

MAD is based upon sound doctrine, but it doesn't divide history into two. It only clarifies our current situation.