Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Have I gone MAD???

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Lon View Post
    I understand. I've read a bit of MAD that I don't agree with (Bullinger, for instance), but a man I respect, with a seminary degree, told me I was well 'within' the Grace movement (grace alone) and within acceptable parameters of Mid Acts teaching 'so as to be indistinguishable."
    Well this reminds of Hillston (Hilston?), he or she was MAD but also not Open like most MADs here, more like you in apprehending God's sovereignty over the world, not so much emphasizing an Open future like most MADs here do. Do you remember Hillston? His or her posts might be worth a look to you.
    Originally posted by Lon View Post
    I do often agree with Mid Acts on many things and I also believe their instructions for reading the word of God are best for anyone to grasp the meaning of scriptures, but I'm unsure if it actually makes me Mid Acts. Likely just very sympathetic.

    Agree. For me, there is a lot that is 'the same' but Mid Acts cautions against those. Because of the continuity of scriptures I see, I'm pretty sure it keeps me from a Mid Acts label. Bullinger tags almost anything "Jewish" as not for us. Jesus and the Apostle Paul were, in fact Jews, so I disgree with the extreme of Bullinger's 'difference.' I cannot help BUT accept a lot of 'Jewish' attached to my Christianity.
    That's why we keep the Old Testament, it's not just the Jewish history but it's the Church history as well. We learn from Hebrews, that there were already a great deal of very famous OT heroes who were, before Christ came, nonetheless already Christians with the same Christian faith me and you and all MADs believe, namely the single idea that He died and on the third day He rose again (we start to differ from there, but this one idea is the Christian idea, the idea that all our ancestor martyrs died believing). The promise of the New Covenant /Testament was given to and through the ancestors of the Jewish people, and it would not only join together the then divided northern and southern kingdoms (Samaritans and Jews), but Isaiah and other promise it would be Gentile-inclusive as well.

    Since Christ, we have actually witnessed the unfolding of the Jewish religion side-by-side with the religion that Christ instituted, the former being the Jewish religion based upon the negation of the characteristic Christian idea of Christ's Resurrection, and the latter being the also Jewish religion based upon the Resurrection being nonfiction historical fact. Both traditions hold the Old Testament in the highest regard, one is living according to the belief that the New Covenant has arrived and the other is still convinced that the Old Covenant is in force, this is all obvious from a careful reading of Hebrews.
    Originally posted by Lon View Post
    Agree. There is evidence that the 7 churches were not all Jewish either. I'd want to ensure my theology was conclusive, but I do believe Grace alone saves us.


    Right, there are different types of Mid and Late Acts believers and you have to know which ones you are talking with. Some are barely past the 2nd Acts (Dispensationalists) and some are at the other end of the extreme where nothing "Jewish" is for them.

    Once discussion becomes difficult, even among Mid Acts one, to another, it is, if I'm correct, well 'within' Mid Acts discussion. I know a lot of Mid Acts disagree with Bullinger, for instance.


    It is. So many 'authoritative' people can leave the job of brow-beating to God and I've been pleased to not have to be a liaison between them and the Holy Spirit to another person. I don't need that headache.



    As far as "Jewish" mail, there is no way to read and grasp Hebrews 6:4 without realizing it isn't talking about loss of salvation, not at all. It is specifically addressing a Jewish problem (that doesn't exist today, but did then), of offering two sacrifices for sin, one the Lord Jesus Christ, and two, the presentation at the temple.
    And of course, there's no mystery, that the book titled Hebrews is written to Hebrews /Jews /the ancestors of Jewish people. So that's the plain context of the book. While MAD lumps this distinctively and clearly Jewish book /epistle together with all the non-Pauline books and calls the whole collection 'Jewish mail' is where I remain unconvinced by their argument. In fact a number of these supposedly 'Jewish' books pretty plainly refer to the Church, even if it is explicitly sometimes the Hebrew subpopulation, there are also plenty of teachings that are for the whole Body and not just the ancestors of the Jewish people. But even all that aside, the fact that there were Jews 'going to church' along with Gentiles, means that the MAD idea of two different clusters of people who both believed in Christ but who followed very different ideas otherwise, does not hold water.

    The Corinthian church celebrated Communion. The Corinthian assembly was not exclusively Jewish. Communion is granted by MAD to be a sacrament (not their word) of the New Covenant, a thing that MAD says is only for the ancestors of the Jewish people. Yet Paul obviously approved in not condemning that Gentiles were celebrating Communion along with however many Jews there were in that congregation in first century Corinth.
    Originally posted by Lon View Post
    Probably not, because I may have some inkling, but am 'wait and see' as I am with almost all eschatology.
    The only thing I know for certain is that the Church will play a dominant role in the End times, but beyond that, I'm like you; wait and see.
    Originally posted by Lon View Post
    A bishop is simply the keeper of doctrine, thus any denomination that adheres to theology is in line and 'fall under' the teaching and doctrine. I can never be Catholic because I believe strongly they've a lot of Judaized doctrine and structure, especially concerning 'playing Holy Spirit' in another's life. There is no mark of Christianity but the Holy Spirit dwelling within His own. The 'fruit' is encouraged, but in no way 'qualified' by any but Christ. We do not judge Another Man's servant. He/she stands before his/her Maker, not me or anybody else in 'supposed' authority. The RC, interposes often between in all of its practice (different discussion, different thread).
    Different thread for sure. But there is something to the historical fact that all the first generation bishops were created by the Apostles' own hands, and the literary fact that Paul instructed one of these bishops to repeat the process with other new bishops. But different thread, yes.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Idolater View Post
      Well this reminds of Hillston (Hilston?), he or she was MAD but also not Open like most MADs here, more like you in apprehending God's sovereignty over the world, not so much emphasizing an Open future like most MADs here do. Do you remember Hillston? His or her posts might be worth a look to you.
      Yes, and have talked with him.

      That's why we keep the Old Testament, it's not just the Jewish history but it's the Church history as well. We learn from Hebrews, that there were already a great deal of very famous OT heroes who were, before Christ came, nonetheless already Christians with the same Christian faith me and you and all MADs believe, namely the single idea that He died and on the third day He rose again (we start to differ from there, but this one idea is the Christian idea, the idea that all our ancestor martyrs died believing). The promise of the New Covenant /Testament was given to and through the ancestors of the Jewish people, and it would not only join together the then divided northern and southern kingdoms (Samaritans and Jews), but Isaiah and other promise it would be Gentile-inclusive as well.
      A bit awkward, here. The Lord Jesus Christ preached to 'captives in prison' when He was in Hades, thus Abraham and all O.T. saints are now 'Christians' but imposing "Christian" upon the O.T. is confusing things.

      Since Christ, we have actually witnessed the unfolding of the Jewish religion side-by-side with the religion that Christ instituted, the former being the Jewish religion based upon the negation of the characteristic Christian idea of Christ's Resurrection, and the latter being the also Jewish religion based upon the Resurrection being nonfiction historical fact. Both traditions hold the Old Testament in the highest regard, one is living according to the belief that the New Covenant has arrived and the other is still convinced that the Old Covenant is in force, this is all obvious from a careful reading of Hebrews.
      If anything, we read that sacrifices are over and fulfilled in Christ AND the warnings thereof are no longer available to Jews, who have no system of sacrifice any longer BUT for the Lord Jesus Christ.

      And of course, there's no mystery, that the book titled Hebrews is written to Hebrews /Jews /the ancestors of Jewish people. So that's the plain context of the book. While MAD lumps this distinctively and clearly Jewish book /epistle together with all the non-Pauline books and calls the whole collection 'Jewish mail' is where I remain unconvinced by their argument. In fact a number of these supposedly 'Jewish' books pretty plainly refer to the Church, even if it is explicitly sometimes the Hebrew subpopulation, there are also plenty of teachings that are for the whole Body and not just the ancestors of the Jewish people. But even all that aside, the fact that there were Jews 'going to church' along with Gentiles, means that the MAD idea of two different clusters of people who both believed in Christ but who followed very different ideas otherwise, does not hold water.
      Argument over details, but all Christians believe Jews, at the moment, have no access to the Father BUT through Jesus Christ. It demands something the same, but 'what that same thing(s) is(are) is in question. While Jews and gentiles may have attended together, it was less than the norm. Most Jews stayed in Jewish circles and most gentiles remained in gentile groups.


      The Corinthian church celebrated Communion. The Corinthian assembly was not exclusively Jewish. Communion is granted by MAD to be a sacrament (not their word) of the New Covenant, a thing that MAD says is only for the ancestors of the Jewish people. Yet Paul obviously approved in not condemning that Gentiles were celebrating Communion along with however many Jews there were in that congregation in first century Corinth.
      I'm not sure all MAD agree on this point, that communion isn't for Mid Acts believers. It depends on where they divide. Right Divider has been helpful in thread to show the differences. I'd have to defer to Mid Acts to address this one.


      The only thing I know for certain is that the Church will play a dominant role in the End times, but beyond that, I'm like you; wait and see.
      Different thread for sure. But there is something to the historical fact that all the first generation bishops were created by the Apostles' own hands, and the literary fact that Paul instructed one of these bishops to repeat the process with other new bishops. But different thread, yes.
      The debate would be over 'authority' and there is definitely a mixing when it comes to Catholicism, between Israel and gentiles. There may be a thread, or you can start another.
      My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
      Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
      Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
      Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
      No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
      Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

      ? Yep

      Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

      ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

      Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by steko View Post
        MAD means that Christ began a new dispensation of the gospel of the grace of GOD through the Apostle Paul in the middle of Acts when Israel's rejection of her Messiah came to it's fullness and GOD postponed the prophetic program for national Israel. GOD then began to bless the nations thru the cross in spite of Israel's failure.
        EXACTLY!

        Here are three quotes from the pen of Paul where he speaks of a "dispensation" that has been committed or given to him:

        "If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me toward you" (Eph. 3:2).

        "Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God" (Col.1:25).

        "...a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me" (1 Cor.9:17).

        The "dispensation" which was committed to Paul is in regard to "God's grace", a "ministry", and a "gospel." Here Paul sums up his dispensational responsibility:

        "But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20: 24).

        Paul began to preach that gospel to the Gentiles at Acts 13:46-48 so the present dispensation of the grace of God began at Acts13.


        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Lon View Post

          Thanks. I'm reading Finck at the moment, will move on to Stam. I'm a little surprised I agree at this point. I do acknowledge what you are saying is scripture so have to agree with it at this point.
          Don't bother with Fink because he teaches that those who lived under the law could not be saved apart from works or one kind or another. The Lord Jesus' following words spoken to the Jews who lived under the law clearly contradict the teaching of Finck:

          "Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life" (Jn.6:47).

          If you really want to know what Mid Acts teaches read Sir Robert Anderson.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post

            Don't bother with Fink because he teaches that those who lived under the law could not be saved apart from works or one kind or another. The Lord Jesus' following words spoken to the Jews who lived under the law clearly contradict the teaching of Finck:

            "Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life" (Jn.6:47).

            If you really want to know what Mid Acts teaches read Sir Robert Anderson.
            Thank you, Jerry. Appreciate the input. -Lon
            My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
            Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
            Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
            Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
            No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
            Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

            ? Yep

            Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

            ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

            Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Lon View Post

              Thank you, Jerry. Appreciate the input. -Lon
              At Your service!

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post

                At Your service!
                Welcome back, Jerry!
                Jer 23:5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD[YHVH], that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
                Jer 23:6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he[the Branch] shall be called, THE LORD[YHVH] OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by steko View Post

                  Welcome back, Jerry!
                  Thanks!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    The subject which really bothers me is the fact that so many Mid-Acts believers teach that the Hebrew epistles are not addressed to those in the Body of Christ. John Nelson Darby, who often called the father of modern dispensationalism and also held to a Mid Acts dispensational view, believed that the Hebrew epistles are addressed to those in the Body of Christ. So did Sir Robert Anderson and J. C. O'Hair and so did Cornelius Stam. Those men are the giants of Mid Acts dispensationalism.

                    Then along came Paul Sadler and he taught that the Hebrew epistles are not addressed to those in the Body of Christ and now practically all Mid Acts believers follow Sadler!

                    Sadler is indeed a man of God but he is not on the same level as the giants and he is clearly wrong.

                    The Scriptures declare that those who received the Hebrew epistles were taught be be waiting for an imminent appearance of the Lord Jesus at the rapture and only those in the Body will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Lon View Post
                      Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                      Since Christ, we have actually witnessed the unfolding of the Jewish religion side-by-side with the religion that Christ instituted, the former being the Jewish religion based upon the negation of . . . Christ's Resurrection, and the latter being the also Jewish religion based upon the Resurrection . . . . Both traditions hold the Old Testament in the highest regard, one is living according to the belief that the New Covenant has arrived and the other is still convinced that the Old Covenant is in force, this is all obvious from a careful reading of Hebrews.
                      If anything, we read that sacrifices are over and fulfilled in Christ AND the warnings thereof are no longer available to Jews, who have no system of sacrifice any longer BUT for the Lord Jesus Christ.
                      I agree with all that. What I was doing was setting a node at Christ, and seeing how each Jewish religion or Jewish religious tradition turned out, now two thousand years later, the one believing in Christ, and the other rejecting Him. Both Jewish; one Christian, one Nonchristian. What we see is, the Nonchristian Jewish religious tradition is mostly Jewish, and the Christian Jewish religious tradition is mostly Gentile. So that means that what MAD is saying has happened, it's just that the Jewish religious tradition that rejects Christ, is also not nearly as welcoming to Gentiles as the Jewish religious tradition that believes in Christ is. It's full, of Gentiles.
                      "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

                      @Nee_Nihilo

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                        So that means that what MAD is saying has happened, it's just that the Jewish religious tradition that rejects Christ, is also not nearly as welcoming to Gentiles as the Jewish religious tradition that believes in Christ is. It's full, of Gentiles.
                        Hi Idolater,

                        Exactly what do mean when you say "that means that what MAD is saying has happened"?

                        Thanks!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
                          The subject which really bothers me is the fact that so many Mid-Acts believers teach that the Hebrew epistles are not addressed to those in the Body of Christ. John Nelson Darby, who often called the father of modern dispensationalism and also held to a Mid Acts dispensational view, believed that the Hebrew epistles are addressed to those in the Body of Christ. So did Sir Robert Anderson and J. C. O'Hair and so did Cornelius Stam. Those men are the giants of Mid Acts dispensationalism.

                          Then along came Paul Sadler and he taught that the Hebrew epistles are not addressed to those in the Body of Christ and now practically all Mid Acts believers follow Sadler!

                          Sadler is indeed a man of God but he is not on the same level as the giants and he is clearly wrong.

                          The Scriptures declare that those who received the Hebrew epistles were taught be be waiting for an imminent appearance of the Lord Jesus at the rapture and only those in the Body will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air.
                          How did Anderson and Stam understand Hebrews as for gentiles? About 25 years ago, as I was reading Hebrews, I came across "Our forefathers" (Hebrews 1:1;3:1), "Hebrews," and sacrifices by the high priest for sins (Hebrews 5:1). It is then that Hebrews 6:4-6 describes a uniquely Hebrew problem: Going to the temple to sacrifice for sins that the Lord Jesus Christ had already died for. Gentiles didn't go to the temple but the application would have been easier for the gentile: he/she simply would not become a proselyte. So while Hebrews 'can' apply to gentiles, it is a message strongly for Jewish Christians, as I understand it. How did these men see otherwise?
                          My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                          Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                          Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                          Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                          No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                          Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                          ? Yep

                          Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                          ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                          Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Lon View Post

                            How did Anderson and Stam understand Hebrews as for gentiles? About 25 years ago, as I was reading Hebrews, I came across "Our forefathers" (Hebrews 1:1;3:1), "Hebrews," and sacrifices by the high priest for sins (Hebrews 5:1). It is then that Hebrews 6:4-6 describes a uniquely Hebrew problem: Going to the temple to sacrifice for sins that the Lord Jesus Christ had already died for. Gentiles didn't go to the temple but the application would have been easier for the gentile: he/she simply would not become a proselyte. So while Hebrews 'can' apply to gentiles, it is a message strongly for Jewish Christians, as I understand it. How did these men see otherwise?
                            Lon, there are both Jews and Gentiles in the Body of Christ (1 Cor.12:13) and Paul, at times, addressed Gentiles as Gentiles (Ro.11:13) so it should should surprise no one that the other apostles would address Jews as Jews.

                            Yes, the book of Hebrews is for Jewish Christians especially, but the book is addressed to those with a heavenly calling (Heb.3:3:1), and the Gentiles cannot be excluded from that category (compare Ephesians 2:6 with Hebrews 12:22).

                            Those who believe like Paul Sadler, that the doctrine contained in the Hebrew epistles is not for the Body of Christ, insist that the doctrine found in those epistles is for a furture dispensation. However, that idea is ridiculous because those epistles were written during the present dispensation and received by people living in the present dispensation. If those epistles are for a future dispensation then the authors of those epistles would have made it plain to those who received those epistles that they are for a future dispensation. And none of those authors made it plain to anyone that the doctrine contained in their epistles are for a future dispensation.


                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post

                              Lon, there are both Jews and Gentiles in the Body of Christ (1 Cor.12:13) and Paul, at times, addressed Gentiles as Gentiles (Ro.11:13) so it should should surprise no one that the other apostles would address Jews as Jews.

                              Yes, the book of Hebrews is for Jewish Christians especially, but the book is addressed to those with a heavenly calling (Heb.3:3:1), and the Gentiles cannot be excluded from that category (compare Ephesians 2:6 with Hebrews 12:22).
                              This seems closer to 2nd Acts Dispensationalism.

                              Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
                              Those who believe like Paul Sadler, that the doctrine contained in the Hebrew epistles is not for the Body of Christ, insist that the doctrine found in those epistles is for a furture dispensation. However, that idea is ridiculous because those epistles were written during the present dispensation and received by people living in the present dispensation. If those epistles are for a future dispensation then the authors of those epistles would have made it plain to those who received those epistles that they are for a future dispensation. And none of those authors made it plain to anyone that the doctrine contained in their epistles are for a future dispensation.

                              Interesting, I'd say it applied to a past dispensation, the time of transition between Jewish and Christian, as the sacrificial system for Jews is no longer extent. When I first understood this was the problem implicit in Hebrews: That of following two different God-given dynamics, the need for the book was essential at the time. I'm not sure how a gentile can directly apply Hebrews, other than looking nowhere else than Christ for salvation.

                              Again, appreciate your input. -Lon

                              My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                              Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                              Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                              Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                              No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                              Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                              ? Yep

                              Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                              ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                              Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post

                                Hi Idolater,

                                Exactly what do mean when you say "that means that what MAD is saying has happened"?

                                Thanks!
                                That there is historical evidence of two distinct Jewish religious traditions branching outward in time, one Christian and one Nonchristian, and that it is the Christian Jewish religious tradition (that believes in Christ) that is full of Gentiles, and the Nonchristian Jewish religious tradition is the one still primarily ethnically Jewish.
                                "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

                                @Nee_Nihilo

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X