Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?

[godrulz]

This is exactly how William is. Shamefully. He trusts himself to maintain a relationship to earn salvation. And as such, God will honor his request to judge him on his works.

rulz, do you really want to spend eternity with Osama bin laden?

We are saved by grace through faith apart from works (Jn. 1:12; Jn. 3:16; Rom. 1:16; Rom. 10:9-10; I Cor. 15:1-4; Eph. 2:8-10/shows faith as root and works as fruit; Titus 3:5; I Jn. 5:11-13).

You misrepresent my view.

Calvinists make the same vapid accusation that you do against Arminians. Saving faith (justification) and continuance in the faith (perseverance) is NOT a work. It is remaining/abiding in Him once we know Him in contrast to rejecting Him before or after conversion. OSAS is false teaching with possibility of apostasy/falling away sternly warned about in addition to the great assurance believers (those who believe and continue to believe, not work and continue to work like Islam)...Jude 24; Rom. 8:28-30.

Your view is more consistent with deterministic Calvinism, not free will Arminianism and Open Theism.

MAD also understands non-OSAS for circ despite the fundamentals of salvation being consistent post-cross for all men (men are sinners; Christ is Saviour).

You are out of step with huge chunks of the Body of Christ. Rejecting your wrong views is not rejecting God, gospel, Christ.

If there is another way to be saved than the clear verses I listed, tell it to the world (virtually all Christians would agree with me).

You are the one with no theological depth, not me.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The birth of the Church was supernatural by the Holy Spirit, based on the person and work of Christ, not the mission of Paul (hence Acts 2 consensus).

What evidence can you give to support the idea that the present dispensation began on the day of Pentecost?

Why is the present dispensation called the "dispensation" or "stewardship of the grace of God"?

Who are the stewards during the present dispensation?

OSAS is false teaching with possibility of apostasy/falling away sternly warned about...

Give me just one verse that speaks of falling away from salvation.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

You are out of step with huge chunks of the Body of Christ.

Majority is not always right nor is appeal to authority.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

We are saved by grace through faith apart from works

Saving faith is not divorced from loving obedience to the revealed moral law of God.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

The Bible is my final authority

Which is correct?

Mark 1:2 (KJV)
Mark 1:2 (NIV)

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

You are the one with no theological depth, not me.

We are just ignorant fishermen, simply simple simpletons.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

The birth of the Church was supernatural by the Holy Spirit, based on the person and work of Christ, not the mission of Paul (hence Acts 2 consensus).

What happened to the church in the wilderness? (Acts 7)
Where do they belong in God's plan?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

This is probably why it is often fringe radio preachers, not disciplined scholars, who even think it is possible.

Same attitude the Pharisees had toward the unlearned fishermen.

 

[Nick M]

Majority is not always right nor is appeal to authority.

Oh, really? Do you think I will delete my word documents I made from your 50,000 posts of drivel? The mouths of the circumcision must be stopped, starting with yours.

99% of evangelical believers would not have a problem with these defensible principles,

The vast majority of godly Christians have not heard of MAD. The best of conservative, biblical, evangelical scholarship rejects it if they have heard of it.

You confuse MAD with the Gospel. You have created a sect/cult around a specious view.

The vast majority of believers reject MAD or have never heard of it.

I am a servant of Christ who along with other giants in church history (Arminius, Wesley, etc.) see that Calvin, Augustine, Luther, etc. were not right about everything (nor wrong about everything). Whitefield and Edwards may have been wrong and John Wesley right.

The majority of believers are probably not

The vast majority of Spirit-led believers for 2000 years reject this recent.

Huh? The vast majority of evangelical Christians are Acts 2 and solidly Reformational in justification

Why? The majority of believers are Acts 2 and are doing just.

Few believers deny these basic truths.

not to defend a majority view that you reject for your myopic heresy (sinless perfectionism).

This eliminates millions of genuine believers, the great giants of the faith through the centuries, the best of godly, theologically capable scholarship in the world. Give me a massive break….If we made up a quiz of things that sozo believes to be essential to be a non-self-righteous Christian, the vast majority of Jesus-loving Christians would go to hell in his mind.

Most of us are Protestant/Reformational in our basic understanding of salvation/justification. Just because Whitefield, Wesley, Edwards, Finney, etc. disagreed about nuances of sanctification, does not mean that only one of these godly men were true believers. A course in logical fallacies might also help sozo.

There are a variety of Pentecostal views with many different denominations (100s or 1000s) that do not agree on every point of doctrine. I am a classical Pentecostal. We are possibly the most sound doctrinally. I have a B. Th. from a Pentecostal College. I have followed Pentecostal varieties for decades. The vast majority of Pentecostals, including scholars, would not agree with the idea …Most Pentecostals/scholars reject their errors.

The vast majority of believers agree on the essentials. The exact nature of sovereignty and free will is left in tension in Scripture.

The vast majority affirm the Deity and resurrection of Christ, Bible as the Word of God, salvation by grace through faith apart from works, virgin birth, Trinity, etc. Styles of worship, church government, ethnic/cultural differences, modes of baptism, nature of communion, etc. may be divisive, but they are peripheral issues.

I am not sure the majority of Christians are Calvinistic, but most believers live as though free will is true. I suppose even a Calvinist thinks compatibilism vs incompatibilism leaves room for free will, but it strains the definition and is not libertarian freedom.

99% of evangelical believers would not have a problem with these defensible principles,

The vast majority of godly Christians have not heard of MAD. The best of conservative, biblical, evangelical scholarship rejects it if they have heard of it.

The vast majority of believers reject MAD or have never heard of it.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Oh, really? Do you think I will delete my word documents I made from your 50,000 posts of drivel? The mouths of the circumcision must be stopped, starting with yours.

:BRAVO:

 

[heir]

The Bible is my final authority and why I reject MAD. Your anti-intellectualism is the problem, not sound scholarship.

You don't have a "the Bible". You use several, and don't believe any of them.

 

[godrulz]

Which is correct?

Mark 1:2 (KJV)
Mark 1:2 (NIV)

In this case, probably NIV. Textual variants, translation issues, KJV adding things that don't belong to help the Bible, etc. must be looked at case by case. It does not undermine the Word of God in general. It is just reality going from one language to another and the same problems would occur in secular works.

The myth of KJVO is just that.

 

[godrulz]

You don't have a "the Bible". You use several, and don't believe any of them.

KJV is not a perfect Bible. Thinking it is displays great ignorance and ignoring the evidence. It is wise to compare Bibles, use language tools, etc. KJV translators did that themselves and rejected KJVO mentality.

I believe the Bibles when properly translated and interpreted.

Rejecting your wrong interpretation of the Bible is not rejecting the Bible. Don't be so arrogant.

 

[godrulz]

Same attitude the Pharisees had toward the unlearned fishermen.

Paul was not in that category. A snake handler using the Bible will spout the same rhetoric you are doing. He may die while the scholars who properly interpret the Word will not.:loser:

 

[heir]

KJV is not a perfect Bible.

Which "the Bible" is your final authority?

 

[Bright Raven]

KJV is not a perfect Bible.

Which perfect bible do you use?

 

[godrulz]

Which "the Bible" is your final authority?

It is simply begging the question and arbitrary contrary to evidence to say the KJV is the final authority. This was not God's intent nor the KJV translator's intent. They were in the position to know and would resist KJVO controversy stronger than I am.

The Greek manuscript evidence is over 99% accurate with no significant issue. Any major evangelical translation will lead to the same doctrine and practice. Just using KJV will still lead to countless interpretations as evidenced by Mormons, JWs, Westboro Baptists, etc. who use KJV.

KJVO (Riplinger, Ruckman, etc.) conspiracies about moderns removing grace, Deity of Christ, etc. can be shown to be nonsensical. The same arguments can also be used to show that KJV is weaker at times in some verses. To be consistent, you should say KJV is trying to hide truth.

We are all in the same boat. You have a simplistic error: KJV alone=Word of God alone. Proponents even say that if the underlying Greek disagrees with KJV, then the Greek must be wrong (that the KJV is based on)?! When the wealth of MSS evidence disagrees with KJV, there is no logical, biblical reason to favour KJV over the evidence.

This leaves us with the necessity of textual criticism, hermeneutics, translation theory that honors God and His Word. KJVO undermines the credibility of men of God and the Word itself. Turning it into a sect is even more odious.

 

[godrulz]

Which perfect bible do you use?

What a stupid KJVO comment? KJV is not perfect and neither are other Bibles (except original autographs). KJV translators built on the work of preceding translations and limited manuscripts and scholarship compared to now. Subsequent KJV versions (no one uses 1611) also involved needed revisions. NKJV is not perfect, but it too into account important knowledge of Granville Sharp rules, etc. to make KJV closer to original Greek and stronger on the Deity of Christ in Peter, etc. This is not tampering, but building on the good legacy of KJV.

Virtually everyone who uses KJV does not come up with MAD. What is your point?

 

[Bright Raven]

What a stupid KJVO comment? KJV is not perfect and neither are other Bibles (except original autographs). KJV translators built on the work of preceding translations and limited manuscripts and scholarship compared to now. Subsequent KJV versions (no one uses 1611) also involved needed revisions. NKJV is not perfect, but it too into account important knowledge of Granville Sharp rules, etc. to make KJV closer to original Greek and stronger on the Deity of Christ in Peter, etc. This is not tampering, but building on the good legacy of KJV.

Virtually everyone who uses KJV does not come up with MAD. What is your point?

I did not say that it was. You assumed that. I was just asking if the KJV is not good enough, which translation do you use?

 

[heir]

It is simply begging the question and arbitrary contrary to evidence to say the KJV is the final authority.

It is a simple question to answer if "the Bible" is your final authority. Which "the Bible" is your final authority?