Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?

[Paulos]

well i come from the mid acts disp view

are you saying Paul teaches you must be water baptized ?

Paul was water baptized himself (by Ananias in Acts 9:18; cf. Acts 22:16), and Paul clearly taught and practiced water baptism, as recorded throughout the book of Acts:

Acts 16:14-15
And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

Acts 16:28-33
28 Paul called with a loud voice, saying, “Do yourself no harm, for we are all here.” 29 Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.

Acts 18:5, 8
Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ...And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.

Acts 19:4-5
Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.​

 

[way 2 go]

Just a thought

1 Corinthians 1:17
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

 

[Paulos]

As far as this goes, the commonwealth of Israel, in general, was cut off for their rejection of Jesus as Messiah. Which is why Paul does not refer to them in the second part of that passage, but rather states we are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, of which those who remain[ed] lost sheep of the house of Israel were/are not a part.

Jesus is still of the commonwealth of Israel, and the Church is His Body. Therefore, the Church is of the commonwealth of Israel through Jesus (Ephesians 2:12-13).

 

[Lighthouse]

I don't see that it does Paulos. So this is probably a point that I would not be in agreement with MAD....especially as you put it here. That's right...IMO.

But, as Nick said with reference to 1st John not being written to the Body of Christ because of the notion of obeying commandments, and as the link I posted said that Paul's gospel differs from that of Peter, John, and even Jesus....it's the notion of obeying commandments. MAD people do not like to associate salvation with works of any kind. It is by grace through faith....which is obviously true...but how that works in the real world is something that a MAD person should probably address. Cause I could think of several things a saved person shouldn't do, wouldn't do...and Paul himself lists a bunch.

Just because we shouldn't do something doesn't mean we would lose our salvation if we did them. That's the center of this issue. But, just because we would not lose our salvation doesn't mean we should feel free to just go about doing these things, either.

 

[Lighthouse]

Jesus is still of the commonwealth of Israel, and the Church is His Body. Therefore, the Church is of the commonwealth of Israel through Jesus (Ephesians 2:12-13).

He's not part of the commonwealth that was cut off; the part that was provoked to jealousy.

 

[godrulz]

well i come from the mid acts disp view

are you saying Paul teaches you must be water baptized ?

No one teaches that you MUST be baptized. Peter and Paul both taught the validity and importance of water baptism, but neither considered it a regenerational or salvific issue.

Jn. 3:16 and Acts 3:19 (Peter) do not teach water baptism as essential to belief.

 

[Lighthouse]

No one teaches that you MUST be baptized. Peter and Paul both taught the validity and importance of water baptism, but neither considered it a regenerational or salvific issue.

Jn. 3:16 and Acts 3:19 (Peter) do not teach water baptism as essential to belief.

John 3:16 was before all followers of Christ were made a royal priesthood; until then baptism was a requirement for the priests, in the law. And yet John the Baptist was baptizing all who would come in looking forward to that time. And Peter is quoted in Acts 2 recommending water baptism. He also says Cornelius' family should not be denied it. He clearly believed it to be necessary. Even in his own epistle he recommended it, again.

 

[godrulz]

Just a thought

1 Corinthians 1:17
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

The context of this does not negate Paul's belief and practice on baptism elsewhere. Paul chose to personally not baptize his converts because too many were elevating him as super-apostle vs others. Rather than feed their pride that Paul personally baptized them, he let others do it. Billy Graham also does not personally baptize his crusade converts, yet he believes in it and leaves it to local churches to do it.

The verse does show that the gospel is not water baptism, but the person and work of Christ. Some groups do make it regenerational or essential for salvation, but they are wrong. Likewise, you are wrong to use this verse to negate it as an act of obedient discipleship and identification with Christ and His Church.

This is classic MAD proof texting/eisegesis. Other verses establish Paul's biblical, balanced view on baptism, so a wrong interpretation of this verse is the problem.

Acts 2:38; Acts 3:19 The Greek grammar links repentance and remission, not baptism and remission. Baptism was a normative practice in the early church. It was by immersion (vs peso) and for believers. It was post-conversion, not a condition of it. It does not contradict all the verses by Jesus, Peter, Paul, etc. about repentant faith alone.

Exegesis, not MAD paradigm, solves doctrinal disputes.

 

[godrulz]

John 3:16 was before all followers of Christ were made a royal priesthood; until then baptism was a requirement for the priests, in the law. And yet John the Baptist was baptizing all who would come in looking forward to that time. And Peter is quoted in Acts 2 recommending water baptism. He also says Cornelius' family should not be denied it. He clearly believed it to be necessary. Even in his own epistle he recommended it, again.

Baptism was the normative practice of the church, including Pauline ones. You are misreading the evidence to make it necessary/salvific before Paul.

 

[Paulos]

He's not part of the commonwealth that was cut off; the part that was provoked to jealousy.

Of course, Jesus is not part of the commonwealth that was cut off, for "They are not all Israel who are of Israel" (Rom 9:6). It is the part of the commonwealth that was cut off that is not of Israel.

However, is Christ no longer of Israel? Is not Jesus Christ the Son of David according to the flesh (Matt 1:1, Acts 13:22-23, Rom 1:3) and heir to his throne (Luke 1:32)? Are we not members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones? (Eph 5:30) How can members of Christ's flesh not be members of Israel? Is Christ's body divided?

 

[Lighthouse]

Baptism was the normative practice of the church, including Pauline ones. You are misreading the evidence to make it necessary/salvific before Paul.

You have failed to show me to be in error.

If what I read to mean it was necessary and salvific does not, then show me it does not mean that by showing me what it does mean.

Of course, Jesus is not part of the commonwealth that was cut off, for "They are not all Israel who are of Israel" (Rom 9:6). It is the part of the commonwealth that was cut off that is not of Israel.

Don't you mean they are of Israel, but are not Israel?

Or did Paul mean that some who are not Israel are part of Israel?

However, is Christ no longer of Israel? Is not Jesus Christ the Son of David according to the flesh (Matt 1:1, Acts 13:22-23, Rom 1:3) and heir to his throne (Luke 1:32)? Are we not members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones? (Eph 5:30) How can members of Christ's flesh not be members of Israel?

See above.

Also, we are not part of any of the covenants made with Israel, because those covenants that were not replaced with another were put on hold until the fulness of the Gentiles comes in [Romans 11:25].

 

[Guyver]

So...no one could handle my questions at the end of post 180 then?

 

[DAN P]

So...no one could handle my questions at the end of post 180 then?

Hi , and what question was missed ??

dan p

 

[Guyver]

Hi , and what question was missed ??

dan p

The one at the end of post 180. One page back...down at the bottom.

 

[DAN P]

I What could throw a monkey wrench in MAD doctrine is if Paul believed it too. If one thinks that Paul wrote Hebrews...as many or even most seem to accept....even the writer of Hebrews thought that the end was near.

Hebrews 10:25

Would you or anyone like to comment on what I have said here? How could one explain that the Apostles fully expected the end to come any time and said so....when we are still here two thousand years later?

Do you think that the notion of MAD with respect to the suspension of prophecy and insertion of a "Mystery" period of salvation by grace explains this?

Hi , and we see that before Hebrews 10:25 was written , that the disciples aked Jesus in Acts 1:1-9 , Jesus held a bible study with the disciples as the next things that were to happen !!

Then , the discipes asked Jesus a question , verse 6 , " wilt thou at this time RESTORE AGAIN THE KINGDOM TO iSRAEL ?

They had been promised a Kingdom with the MESSIAH as their king with the 12 , sitting on 12 thrones judging Israel !!


What they did not understand the Jesus had to die first !!

Israel would be set aside , in 70 AD , which is the NEAR VIEW !!

Then Christ would raise up anther Apostle , preaching Grace and not the Law of Moses !1

Then in Rom 11:25 , " until the Fulness of thre Gentiles be come in " , speaking to the Departure/Rapture !!

Then God will AGAIN be dealng with Israel which then becomes the FAR VIEW which is separated by 2000 years !!

dan p

 

[Guyver]

Pretty good anwer Dan P. If I were to answer my own question, I would have answered it similarly....except I would have emphasized with what Jesus said here...

"And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority."

So, thanks for being one to step up to a hard question.

The apostles didn't know, and did speak contrary to this fact.

 

[Nick M]

So, thanks for being one to step up to a hard question.

The apostles didn't know, and did speak contrary to this fact.

What hard question?

 

[Nick M]

John wrote it is the last hour....two thousand years ago. This is obviously not correct as the world that we know still turns. 1 John 2:18

What could throw a monkey wrench in MAD doctrine is if Paul believed it too. If one thinks that Paul wrote Hebrews...as many or even most seem to accept....even the writer of Hebrews thought that the end was near.

Hebrews 10:25

Would you or anyone like to comment on what I have said here?

Paul did think the restoration (end as they knew it) was near. He said so. This isn't a point or issue. Things changed. Romans 11:11

Israel stumbled and fell. That is core "MAD doctrine". What of it? And it is clear Paul did not write Hebrews. The author says he learned from others. End of story.

 

[Guyver]

What hard question?

The apostles said that it was the last of times when they were writing the scriptures. It's recorded in the Bible.

That was two thousand years ago.

That was the heart of my question. How to explain the discrepancy between what they said would happen and what has happend.

You have addressed it in the post you made above this one.

 

[Guyver]

Paul did think the restoration (end as they knew it) was near. He said so. This isn't a point or issue. Things changed. Romans 11:11

Israel stumbled and fell. That is core "MAD doctrine". What of it? And it is clear Paul did not write Hebrews. The author says he learned from others. End of story.

What you're saying here is that Paul had not received the "revelation" speaking to the length of time between when the scriptures were written and now when he wrote some epistles.

At the time he wrote some of the Bible, he still thought the end was near.

Peter had a clue and spoke to it. He said that the longsuffering of the Lord was for salvation. Which pretty much backs up the doctrine that you embrace....on this point.

Now if you could just address my other point in the other thread...that'd be great.

It's not hard to find...because in case you hadn't noticed there's not much action in this section of the forum.