Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?

[Nang]

You can't even have a discussion about what is in the scripture because you ignore the scripture. Please comment SPECIFICALLY about the SCRIPTURE that I quoted. If you're a light to the blind then SHOW IT. Your ranting and raving like a lunatic is not godly. Stick to the SCRIPTURE. Explain the SCRIPTURE. You don't seem to be able to comment about the SCRIPTURE (only your incorrect interpretation).

Is their murder of the Lord GOOD NEWS to them? Because that's the only thing that Peter says.

Peter spoke of the death of Christ and the resurrection of Christ. It was good news, to any who might have actually participated in the crucifixion, that death did not hold this Man. The entire event was a determinate, supernatural, event from God that glorified God.

 

[Right Divider]

Peter spoke of the death of Christ and the resurrection of Christ. It was good news, to any who might have actually participated in the crucifixion, that death did not hold this Man. The entire event was a determinate, supernatural, event from God that glorified God.

Nang, once again you just won't listen to WHAT Peter ACTUALLY SAID.

How would ANY of his listeners KNOW that JESUS CHRIST DIED FOR THEIR SINS?

Please show THAT and quit repeating what WE ALL NOW KNOW because of the REVELATION that God gave US THROUGH PAUL.

 

[Nang]

Nang, once again you just won't listen to WHAT Peter ACTUALLY SAID.

How would ANY of his listeners KNOW that JESUS CHRIST DIED FOR THEIR SINS?

Please show THAT and quit repeating what WE ALL NOW KNOW because of the REVELATION that God gave US THROUGH PAUL.

Those that knew the messianic teachings of the Prophets of the "suffering servant" and the ordinances of the Passover, would understand John the Baptist's announcement of "The Lamb of God . . Who takes away the sins of the world."

Jesus Himself predicted His sufferings, and spoke of "being lifted up so that whoever believed in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." He spoke of his death and of resurrecting from death by His own power in three days.

So when Peter spoke of the crucifixion and resurrected of Jesus in Acts 2, his sermon would recall these earlier OT teachings as well as Jesus words and ministry, that spoke of the constant evangel throughout Jewish history. Luke 24:44

So to claim the gospel was never proclaimed until Paul, is simply untrue and an untenable position to try to hold.

 

[Right Divider]

Those that knew the messianic teachings of the Prophets of the "suffering servant" and the ordinances of the Passover, would understand John the Baptist's announcement of "The Lamb of God . . Who takes away the sins of the world."

Jesus Himself predicted His sufferings, and spoke of "being lifted up so that whoever believed in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." He spoke of his death and of resurrecting from death by His own power in three days.

So when Peter spoke of the crucifixion and resurrected of Jesus in Acts 2, his sermon would recall these earlier OT teachings as well as Jesus words and ministry, that spoke of the constant evangel throughout Jewish history. Luke 24:44

So to claim the gospel was never proclaimed until Paul, is simply untrue and an untenable position to try to hold.

So you're saying that Peter was ONLY preaching to Israel. Got it.

 

[Nang]

So you're saying that Peter was ONLY preaching to Israel. Got it.

Peter was preaching the gospel at Pentecoste.

Were we discussing his audience, or his message? Did you read the list of nationalities represented and recorded in Acts 1?

What do you make of Acts 2:39?

 

[godrulz]

Peter spoke of the death of Christ and the resurrection of Christ. It was good news, to any who might have actually participated in the crucifixion, that death did not hold this Man. The entire event was a determinate, supernatural, event from God that glorified God.

They must have cut out verses from Acts 2. They think that Peter had to expound like Paul did in Romans (more detail) for it to be valid. There is no salvation post-cross apart from Christ and the cross. MAD's second gospel for a very limited group and very limited time is beyond moot/academic (but still false) and a denial of His finished work.

MAD paradigms have totally undermined an ability to exegete and do sound NT theology. This is probably why it is often fringe radio preachers, not disciplined scholars, who even think it is possible.

 

[intojoy]

When a group does not have a sound biblical or intellectual basis/foundation to stand upon, they are reduced to ad hominem everytime they are confronted with fact.

These hyper-dispensationalists are badly brainwashed from the heretical authors they have picked to follow, and are so confused, they cannot form any decent argument without falling into arguments against each other . . . thus they offer no logical defenses at all in order to avoid embarrassing themselves.

Add to this, they cannot be convinced to read church history at all, in order to put their idols, Darby, Scofield, etc., into any perspective.

They have simply created an extremely shallow pond, in which they can pretend to be big fish, and there is absolutely no getting through to them at all.

Mad is the epitome of humanistic hermeneutics run full course resulting in mental and spiritual delusion.

Why? They possess no love of the truth. II Thessalonians 2:9-12

Was Schofield MAD ?

Sharpen your pencil!

 

[heir]

Your denial of Peter's words is absolutely no different than Meschak denying the inspiration of Paul's words. Both of you only :blabla: :blabla: and take away from the Holy Scriptures with your bad teachings.

Show where Peter preached that Christ died for our sins as the good news in Acts 2 or 3? Show where Peter preached that God raised Him from the dead for our justification?

 

[heir]

Peter was preaching the gospel at Pentecoste.

Which gospel?

 

[heir]

They must have cut out verses from Acts 2.

Where did Peter preach that Christ died for our sins as the good news and the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth in "early Acts"? You know he didn't. You know he preached a murder indictment to all the house of Israel and when those people were pricked in their heart they asked what they must do. You know that Peter told them to DO something. In Acts 3, you know that Peter preached a message of a FUTURE blotting out of sins for Israel at what many refer to as the second coming of the Lord. ALL of the above differ from what Paul preached and you know why. It's because it's another gospel! It's other doctrine! Over and over on this site you have been shown the truth and over and over you deny what saith the scriptures. You reject the truth.

 

[Nick M]

Isaiah 9

6 For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of His government and peace There will be no end, Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, To order it and establish it with judgment and justice From that time forward, even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

Acts 2

29 “Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne

 

[godrulz]

Isaiah 9

6 For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of His government and peace There will be no end, Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, To order it and establish it with judgment and justice From that time forward, even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

Acts 2

29 “Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne

OT prophecy has mountain peaks without the valley at times. One verse may contain truth (not all truths) about first and second coming. There is nothing in your verse to support MAD, just a misunderstanding of interpretation/theology. Quoting is not interpreting.

 

[Right Divider]

They must have cut out verses from Acts 2. They think that Peter had to expound like Paul did in Romans (more detail) for it to be valid. There is no salvation post-cross apart from Christ and the cross. MAD's second gospel for a very limited group and very limited time is beyond moot/academic (but still false) and a denial of His finished work.

MAD paradigms have totally undermined an ability to exegete and do sound NT theology. This is probably why it is often fringe radio preachers, not disciplined scholars, who even think it is possible.

Probably much like the "disciplined scholars" of Israel that Jesus spoke to in Matthew 23.

Truth is NOT determined by who or how many believe it. That is called a fallacy.

 

[heir]

MAD paradigms have totally undermined an ability to exegete and do sound NT theology. This is probably why it is often fringe radio preachers, not disciplined scholars, who even think it is possible.

You are so predictable.

Acts 28:22 KJV, 2 Timothy 2:2 KJV

The so called "scholars" your final authority. :vomit:

 

[Nang]

Quoting is not interpreting.

Indeed.

Quoting is not exegesis or example of good hermeneutics, either.

A quote should precede or conclude a teaching, and even this can be simple proof texting, if the teaching does not deal with the full context of the scripture.

Every scripture quoted should be able to stand the full scrutiny of the entire word of God.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

There is nothing in your verse to support MAD...

You do not even know what determined the beginning of the present dispensation so it is impossible that you can know that the present dispensation did not begin during the Mid Acts period of time.

Your faith is based on what some men say about the Scriptures instead of what the Scriptures actually say.

 

[godrulz]

Probably much like the "disciplined scholars" of Israel that Jesus spoke to in Matthew 23.

Truth is NOT determined by who or how many believe it. That is called a fallacy.

Majority is not always right nor is appeal to authority. They are logical fallacies, but not if the proposition is true. You cannot negate biblical truth by saying it is wrong because most Christians hold it?! Minority is also not always right. MAD really is not a credible view on many levels.

 

[godrulz]

You are so predictable.

Acts 28:22 KJV, 2 Timothy 2:2 KJV

The so called "scholars" your final authority. :vomit:

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

 

[godrulz]

You do not even know what determined the beginning of the present dispensation so it is impossible that you can know that the present dispensation did not begin during the Mid Acts period of time.

Your faith is based on what some men say about the Scriptures instead of what the Scriptures actually say.

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).

 

[Nick M]

Your faith is based on what some men say about the Scriptures instead of what the Scriptures actually say.

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?