There was no prohibition against it.
If you're going to make claims back them up.
Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
You are going to see his normal argument more often. His normal argument is that it doesn't mean what it says. Then he will not say what it (Paul) really means.
That there is no prohibition against doing something is not a reason to do it.
Last edited:
Israel had a commission. Paul was called into service, but in a different direction. Not all was revealed from the beginning.
Acts 26:16
16 But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you.
I'm going to give him credit for being honest about his beliefs, consistent, and not ducking any issues.
He did answer my questions and didn't duck any as many people often do.
Acts 26:16 is simply part of Paul's retelling to Governor Felix of the account of his conversion in Acts 9. Of course, it goes without saying that much was revealed to Paul in the years after his conversion.
Paul was baptized himself, and Paul baptized others. Where in the book of Acts or in any of Paul's epistles is it stated that water baptism has been abolished?
Paul clearly baptized, was baptized, supported baptism. The one proof text MAD uses simply shows that Paul did not personally baptize all of his converts (left it to others to do like Billy Graham does). The verse proves baptismal regeneration is false, not that the practice of identifying publicly with Christ and His Church no longer applies. Too many were exalting and following Paul, so he was wise to not let them create factions over the great Paul baptizing them, but not the other guy (context of I Cor. 1).
MAD relies on flimsy proof texting out of context. The above is one of many e.g. (e.g. Gal. 2:7 demarcation of ministry vs two gospels; I Tim. chief hyperbolic sinner, not first in Body of Christ, etc.; Acts 15 Paul and Jerusalem church standing against false Judaizers, not a new gospel supplanting another true one).
There you go again failing to recognize that two gospels were preached one to the Jew, one to the Gentile.
One gospel was preached to Jews, Gentiles (Africans, Muslims, Chinese, Europeans, South and North Americans, etc.) post-cross. This one gospel is the power of God and the one that makes Jew/Gentile one in Christ based on the ONE cross, one God, ONE Christ, one gospel, one shed blood, etc.
Your caste system with a faith+works gospel to Jews cannot be a true gospel nor a true dispensational view. You confuse issues with national, eschatological Israel and individual, personal soteriological issues (gospel is grace/faith, not works, person and work of Christ alone).
You have a wrong paradigm, a wrong disp view, a defective theology with proof texting out of context.
Go back to your roots. You have fallen for a fad.:deadhorse:
Not to get off point but is your Open View a fad? Answer the question and we'll get back on point.
We have examples of Paul's preaching the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles throughout the book of Acts. Direct quotes. How did Paul's preaching of the gospel to the Jews differ from his preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles?
I think you probably have to look at it according to Galatians 2:7. Can you see the difference from Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 15?
No, Open Theism is evidence based, closer to truth, than tradition. I did not say newer or majority or always right or wrong.
There are endless false teachings, faddish teachings. An argument against MAD based on evidence is not the same as an argument for Open Theism based on evidence.
Any given belief or interpretation rises or falls on its own merits.
TOL/Enyart MAD/Open Theism is an anomaly. Most Open Theists are on the right track with Open Theism, but those who are also MAD are wrong on the MAD issue, but not the Open Theism issue.
MAD is not wrong about everything, but its general assumption of two true post-cross gospels is impossible without denying His finished work.
I gave you a key: don't confuse national, eschatological issues with Jews/Israel and soteriological ones with individual Jews/Gentiles.
Any isolated text claimed by MAD for its view can be refuted with sound exegesis/theology/original language study, context, etc. I give you credible alternatives, but you prefer your preconceived idea.
It did not. Peter and others did contextualize the one gospel or focused on a target audience, but two true gospel theories is a non-starter error.
Acts 2 and I Cor. 15 both talk about the person and work of Christ. They are both gospel truth and emphasize the Deity, death, resurrection of Christ and faith in Him alone. Your interpretation of Acts 2:38 is flawed (wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions).
Gal. 2:7 (check context and other versions and Gk. genitive issue) is a demarcation of ministry, not two true messages. I am dogmatic about this and you are relying on a wrong interpretation to retain a wrong view. Change your view, not the Bible.
What do you find in 1 Cor 15 that isn't also found elsewhere in the four gospels, the first few chapters of Acts, and the general epistles?
Regarding Galatians 2:7, Paul is simply referring to the fact that when he preached the gospel to Gentiles, he did so within the context of Greek culture and understanding, whereas Peter and the others preached the gospel to the Jews within the context of Jewish culture and understanding. But the essence was the same. Sometimes Paul preached to crowds that were composed of both Jews and Gentiles, and his message to both groups was the same. Likewise, Peter at times also preached to Gentiles (Acts 15:7).
In Acts 17:22-34, we have an example of Paul preaching the gospel to a group of Gentiles. In this case, Paul did not appeal directly to the writings of Moses or the prophets. Instead, he spoke in general terms and quoted pagan Greek literature (Acts 17:28). Obviously, Paul did not do this when he preached the gospel to the Jews, and this is what Paul meant in Galatians 2:7. Not that there were two gospels, but that there were two contexts in which the same essential gospel was presented.
Last edited:
In addition to the above valid observations, the ministry specialists divided into target audiences with the same message. It is the same as some going to Africa today, while others going to China. How they get two vs one gospel out of this is beyond me.
Hi , and this is just one verse in Acts 9:20 , and 22 on what Saul preached to the Jews !!
Verse 20 , Saul was KERUSSO ( which means a herald ) proclaiming the CHRIST or the MESSIAH !!
Verse 22 , " proving that this One is the MESSIAH /CHRIST !!
Saul was not preaching Grace , but preaching that the one that they had hilled was their MESSIAH !!
DAN P
Hi , and why beat around the bush , JUST where in Acts 2 is the beginning of Acts 2 dispensationism ??
How can you connect it to Paul ??
I do not see the word OKIONOMIA /DISPENSATION in Acts 2 , so where is it ??
dan p
dan p
I don't see the word 'trinity' in the Bible (MAD misunderstands the disp proof text), but I believe the concept.
The Holy Spirit birthed the Church supernaturally, not Paul naturally. It is based on Christ, not Paul.