Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

For Sincere Inquisitors ONLY: MAD Explained

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

  • #76
    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.
    Originally posted by mmstroud View Post
    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.
    2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

    Paul defines the word of truth as the gospel of your salvation (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV, Ephesians 1:13 KJV). Now, study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed by rightly dividing it!

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by mmstroud View Post
      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
      Funny how threads morph.


      For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." ~ Paul


      "You should never wave to someone you don't know. What if he doesn't have a hand? Then he'll just think you're being cocky!" ~Mitch Hedberg

      __.._

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by voltaire View Post
        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.

        Randy
        Funny how threads morph.


        For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." ~ Paul


        "You should never wave to someone you don't know. What if he doesn't have a hand? Then he'll just think you're being cocky!" ~Mitch Hedberg

        __.._

        Comment


        • #79
          Great post, Mary! You can jump in for me anytime!

          Randy
          Funny how threads morph.


          For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." ~ Paul


          "You should never wave to someone you don't know. What if he doesn't have a hand? Then he'll just think you're being cocky!" ~Mitch Hedberg

          __.._

          Comment


          • #80
            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.
            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


            • #81
              I wonder if anyone disagrees that a literal land was promised to the nation of Israel and that a literal kingdom was promised to Israel? And that these were/are irrevocable promises.

              Those are two pretty important foundations of the MidActs position.
              Funny how threads morph.


              For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." ~ Paul


              "You should never wave to someone you don't know. What if he doesn't have a hand? Then he'll just think you're being cocky!" ~Mitch Hedberg

              __.._

              Comment


              • #82
                Thanks judging u and man for your thoughtful responses to my questions. I think between you, my questions were answered.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by chickenman View Post
                  I wonder if anyone disagrees that a literal land was promised to the nation of Israel and that a literal kingdom was promised to Israel? And that these were/are irrevocable promises.
                  apparently, Nang hasn't paroused this thread yet...
                  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


                  • #84

                    Maybe she's just trying to behave herself.
                    Funny how threads morph.


                    For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." ~ Paul


                    "You should never wave to someone you don't know. What if he doesn't have a hand? Then he'll just think you're being cocky!" ~Mitch Hedberg

                    __.._

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by chickenman View Post
                      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
                      Exactly the sort of helpful thing I was asking after with my earlier inquiry. And would this be a good point to recommend your book for popular consumption? I'm just saying, it's worth anyone's time who has an interest in this subject.
                      You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                      Pro-Life






                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                        Exactly the sort of helpful thing I was asking after with my earlier inquiry. And would this be a good point to recommend your book for popular consumption? I'm just saying, it's worth anyone's time who has an interest in this subject.
                        Thanks, TH. I appreciate that. It'd be a good doorstop, if nothing else.
                        Funny how threads morph.


                        For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." ~ Paul


                        "You should never wave to someone you don't know. What if he doesn't have a hand? Then he'll just think you're being cocky!" ~Mitch Hedberg

                        __.._

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          As MidActs Dispensationalists, we refuse to accept a traditional belief just because it is popular, has a long line of tradition, etc. One such very traditional and popular belief that we challenge is the idea that the Body of Christ began at Pentecost. This is an idea that, when tested, comes up sorely lacking.


                          If one accepts that Israel was promised a literal, earthly kingdom in the promised land, and if one accepts that the kingdom is being proclaimed as at hand in the Gospel accounts, then it is hard to understand the position that that all disappeared on the day of Pentecost. Here are some reasons why that is a difficult notion the accept:
                          • Pentecost is a Jewish feast (Feast of Weeks). Why would a non-national entity (Body of Christ), in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile, begin on a distinctly Jewish holiday?
                          • The Spirit is poured out at Pentecost. Ezekiel 11 prophecies that the Israel and Juda will be given a spirit that enables them to walk in God's statutes.
                          • Joel prophecied that the outpouring of the Spirit would be the beginning of end, that it would precede the Day of the Lord.
                          • Peter (after having just received the Spirit) announced that the outpouring of the Spirit was just what Joel spoke of.
                          • In Peter's sermon to the Jews (including Hellenists) in attendance, he preaches that Jesus was raised from the dead to sit on David's throne, and that that promise (bringing to mind the II Sam 7 kingdom promise) was for "you [men of Israel in Judea], your children [self-explanatory], and all who are afar off [the dispersion of Israelites, to whom the promise was given]."
                          In my opinion, people need to say that Peter was dead wrong if they want to say Pentecost marks the beginning of the Body of Christ. So in light of these bullet points, not the least of which is what Peter clearly says the event is, if one insists that Pentecost represents the "birth of the Body", then he must answer the question: What in the text demands that to be so?

                          I've literally never received a straightforward answer to the question.

                          Randy
                          Funny how threads morph.


                          For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." ~ Paul


                          "You should never wave to someone you don't know. What if he doesn't have a hand? Then he'll just think you're being cocky!" ~Mitch Hedberg

                          __.._

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by SaulToPaul View Post
                            That's true, Kat. Whether we believe that God foreknew & planned the change in Acts 9 or not, it doesn't change the fact that a change was made.
                            That is certainly true, changed in Acts 9 and I would say that was in God’s plan. He changes to us by revealing the mystery, but my position is He always knew and it was always His Divine plan
                            So, what?

                            believe it!

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by chickenman View Post
                              As MidActs Dispensationalists, we refuse to accept a traditional belief just because it is popular, has a long line of tradition, etc. One such very traditional and popular belief that we challenge is the idea that the Body of Christ began at Pentecost. This is an idea that, when tested, comes up sorely lacking.


                              If one accepts that Israel was promised a literal, earthly kingdom in the promised land, and if one accepts that the kingdom is being proclaimed as at hand in the Gospel accounts, then it is hard to understand the position that that all disappeared on the day of Pentecost. Here are some reasons why that is a difficult notion the accept:
                              • Pentecost is a Jewish feast (Feast of Weeks). Why would a non-national entity (Body of Christ), in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile, begin on a distinctly Jewish holiday?
                              • The Spirit is poured out at Pentecost. Ezekiel 11 prophecies that the Israel and Juda will be given a spirit that enables them to walk in God's statutes.
                              • Joel prophecied that the outpouring of the Spirit would be the beginning of end, that it would precede the Day of the Lord.
                              • Peter (after having just received the Spirit) announced that the outpouring of the Spirit was just what Joel spoke of.
                              • In Peter's sermon to the Jews (including Hellenists) in attendance, he preaches that Jesus was raised from the dead to sit on David's throne, and that that promise (bringing to mind the II Sam 7 kingdom promise) was for "you [men of Israel in Judea], your children [self-explanatory], and all who are afar off [the dispersion of Israelites, to whom the promise was given]."
                              In my opinion, people need to say that Peter was dead wrong if they want to say Pentecost marks the beginning of the Body of Christ. So in light of these bullet points, not the least of which is what Peter clearly says the event is, if one insists that Pentecost represents the "birth of the Body", then he must answer the question: What in the text demands that to be so?

                              I've literally never received a straightforward answer to the question.

                              Randy
                              I agree fully here! Oh yes
                              So, what?

                              believe it!

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Im with ktoyou. I fully agree with randys bullet points, especially pentecost.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X