Just look at that regulars here that reject Romans 5:18. I agree with Sozo now, and have for some time. They are outside the faith, and their argument against it is proof they do not believe.
Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
Just look at that regulars here that reject Romans 5:18. I agree with Sozo now, and have for some time. They are outside the faith, and their argument against it is proof they do not believe.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
It used to be Bullinger, but Tet has been on a Darby kick lately.
Shasta
Well-known member
It depends on what the poison is, what body system it affects and how potent it is. We can tolerate the ingestion of some types and amounts of toxins and still survive. I have read about people ingesting small amounts of Arsenic and developing a tolerance for it without dying. This is why I can listen to preachers and read authors those whose doctrines I do not follow 100% and still get something out of it. "Prove all things hold fast that which is good," the Apostle tells us. Some doctrines being fundamental cannot be changed at all those, for instance that are expressed in creeds such as the Apostle's Creed but, then the creeds were formulated just for that purpose. Any Bible that teaches heretical doctrines of course should be rejected. An example of this would be the New World Bible.
I take your analogy to go much farther than this and to suggest that one should reject a translation that is not 100% pure word of God but I have to ask what that specifically means. When the Bible says "the law of the Lord is perfect" and "the words of the Lord are pure words" He is not speaking of the KJV or NASB, or HCSV but the revelation given to men and recorded in the scriptures in their original languages which is Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Thus to be a 100% unadulterated expression of truth a Bible would have to unerringly. represent the ideas, wording, semantics and nuances of the original languages in such a way that the English reader will grasp it. Along with this is the assumption is that the source manuscripts are the oldest and most reliable.
The problem is that since Babel no two languages exactly correspond to each other. Who can definitively say that the Bible is better expressed in one translation than any other? Shall we trust this decision to an person with ecclesiastical authority or influence. Perhaps we could convene another Church Council to decide the matter. Maybe we should just put it to a vote on TOL. Talk about the Tower of Babel.
Over time we have found more and more texts of the Bible and our knowledge of First Century Greek has continued to grow. This has turned out to be a good thing because more and more liberal theories are now obsolete. Unlike esoteric religions we want people to read and study. The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM) is currently engaged in a project to digitize every Greek Manuscript of the Bible (http://www.csntm.org/). On the occasions I have interacted with these people I have found them to be very conservative evangelicals.
I grew up reading the KJV and so much of it remains locked in my memory. It was exceedingly easy to remember and when read properly it sounded elegant which is not something I can say for any modern Bible. However, no translation of scripture can have all the properties of the scriptures themselves or, rather, they do in so far as they reflect the meaning of the original scriptures.
All scriptures were given by inspiration of God. However, translation is the work of scholarship. The false prophet, con-man Joseph Smith claimed to be able to look through a seeing stone and see the tablets foreign words change to English. If only there were such tools.
Shasta
Well-known member
The KJV is not the inspired word of God. It is a translation of it. That other versions are imperfect, or that their errors are so egregious as to be misleading is sometimes the case. Our Church gave up dispensing the NIV (which I have never liked anyway).
Since you reason from the assumption that the KJV is inerrant you measure every version against it. If a passage in another version contains more than the KJV well then they have been added. If the contain less they have been redacted. The King James is not without errors too and should not be used as a benchmark.
Don't get me wrong though. I going to defend all the other translations. The issue of errors is so vast that it is best dealt as they come up.
I asked for your exegesis, not that of another. I'm still waiting.
Then exegete away.
I haven't forgotten anything. I don't argue that said verse proves MAD on its own. It doesn't. But you are unable to do comparative analysis to prove one way or the other, so you stand in the middle of the street loudly screaming worthless nothings into the air, like a lunatic.
I trust myself and to do what I can with the intellect and intelligence I have, and I trust in God to lead me to all understanding. I trust in no man if he cannot verify his argument; which is why I don't trust you.
Oh. That's what's going on here? You can't help yourself? I can believe that.
MAD thinks it alone is Pauline. This is nonsense. MAD hyper-divides Scripture and elevates Paul above everything making him compete with other inspired writers. Petrine, Pauline, Johannine, Christ, etc. complement, not contradict. This is Spirit-inspired NT unity undermined by MAD error.
1 Timothy 1
16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.
Check Greek lexicons and other English translations. All you are doing is proof texting your view (eisegesis). All Christians who reject MAD do not have a problem with the verse. It does not teach MAD in Greek nor English (nor did the KJV translators have MAD in mind when they translated the verse). Read the context, not one verse.
Then tell us what it really says.
1 Timothy 1
16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.
And that is not the KJB. This is.
16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
When in doubt, rulz needs you to check another version. Because he does not want it to say what it clearly says.
heir
TOL Subscriber
"MAD" rightly divides the word of truth. You don't even know what that means.
Romans 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
1 Corinthians 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
1 Corinthians 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. 16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.
2 Timothy 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
2 Timothy 2:7 Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things. 8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:
heir
TOL Subscriber
Don't talk to us about Spirit unity. You don't even endevour to keep the unity of the Spirit.
Ephesians 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Ephesians 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Ephesians 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Shasta
Well-known member
All these scriptures are saying is that was Paul was called to be an apostle to the Gentiles (so for that matter was Barnabas). I have not read any posts in this thread denying that. Of course Paul often ministered to the Jews. By custom he usually tried reaching them first. This was his custom as far along as Acts 17:1-3. Likewise, Peter who ministered primarily to the Jews also reached out to Gentiles (Acts 15:7) as did the Apostle John, whose ministry in his later years was primarily focused on Gentiles who by that time had become dominate in the Church. The Church Fathers write about this. His gospel was the last to be written as were his epistles which were written in the last decade of that century. They were all accepted as having apostolic authority and were believed to be inspired along with the other writings of the NT. This does not comport with MAD but it is nevertheless historical fact.
That there was originally a mission to the Gentiles and Jews, that the messages spoken to them might have been framed in a way they would best respond to is not in question. What you and the others are saying is that essential features of the core messages were different. What does that mean? Did Jewish believers have to adopt certain practices out the law that Gentiles did not? Were the Jews obligated to keep the moral law while the Gentiles had the option of living an immoral life? What truths were taught to one group and not to the other?
Another abused proof text you guys you to negate water baptism practiced by Paul?!
The ONE gospel is for Jew and Gentile. Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc. had a normative ministry pattern to Jews first. Paul also had a unique, expanded calling to take this same gospel to the ends of the earth as seen in the Great Commission (not limited to Jewish Christians) Mt. 28; Acts 1:8, etc.
MAD is a non-starter view.
Then after the space of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me. And I went up by revelation; and I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles but privately before them who were of repute, lest by any means I should be running, or had run, in vain. (*Galatians *2:*1-2 ASV)
to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles; straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood: neither went I up to Jerusalem to them that were apostles before me: but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother. (*Galatians *1:*16-19 ASV)
Explain how Peter and James did not rebuke Paul
to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles; straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood: neither went I up to Jerusalem to them that were apostles before me: but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother. (*Galatians *1:*16-19 ASV)
Explain how Peter and James did not rebuke Paul
Peter, James, John, Paul were all on the same page. They received Paul because he taught consistent with the gospel they believed (centered on Christ, not Paul). Just because Paul received it directly does not mean he was the first to do so or only one to know it.
Together, they stood against false Judaizers/teachers (Acts 15), but MAD makes the false gospel a true gospel (circ vs uncirc)?!
Together, they stood against false Judaizers/teachers (Acts 15), but MAD makes the false gospel a true gospel (circ vs uncirc)?!
Still don't get it do you.
This is the correct view of Acts. MAD is the one with the wrong view.
Shasta
Well-known member
Can you outline the specifics of the "Jewish gospel" and the "Gentile gospel" Where are they defined and differentiated in scripture such that a reader not already trained in MAD can see it?
There is one true gospel post-cross and many false gospels. MAD's two true gospels is unbiblical, illogical. The one gospel was contextualized for a Jewish audience (Hebrews) and more of a Gentile audience (Romans), but they were both great statements of the gospel.
MAD pits Paul against everyone else, including Jesus?! They are even forced to divide up some of Paul's letters into circ/uncirc portions to retain their view (rather than let the Word change their wrong view).