For Sincere Inquisitors ONLY: MAD Explained

chickenman

a-atheist
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
GO AWAY
Let me start by asking that troublemakers and opposers who are already convinced of themselves please refrain from posting in this thread. I would appreciate it if people like godrulz, andyc, cistercian, and others with similar agendas stay away. I'll respectfully ask that the moderator(s) delete any posts by these people, as well as others that inappropriately challenge others and/or that simply want to oppose for the sake of opposing. godrulz et al, if you post I'll ignore it but report it, asking it to be deleted. Of course, I can't make forum rules, so I'm only expressing my desire.


COME ON IN
Several people have expressed a sincere desire to learn more about MidActs Dispensationalism. Whether or not those people ultimately conclude the same is irrelevant. They are sincere inquisitors.

This thread is for those people to ask questions. And they're absolutely welcome to offer challenges, as well. Sincere, open, non-compative people like Town Heretic, bodhigirsmiles, and bybee...this thread is for you to help you understand the MidActs position.



ON THE BIBLE
I'll kick it off by stating that MidActs Dispensationalism is an approach to reading and studying the Bible. Those of us who hold to this approach believe that we must read and study the Bible FORWARD, rather than BACKWARD. By this, I mean that we must understand what comes before Exodus before we can understand Exodus. We must understand "Old Testament" prophecy before we can understand Matthew. We must understand those things before we can understand what's going on in Acts. We believe that it is highly dangerous (to a doctrinal position that one formulates) for a person to read BACKWARD, meaning that he/she interprets an epistle, for instance, and then forces the things written previously to mean the same thing. We also believe it is dangerous to evaluate a book, chapter, or verse in and of itself. A verse HAS TO BE read and studied within the context of a book/epistle. That book/epistle HAS TO BE read and studied within the context of the commission of the human author (in the case of the epistles). And a book HAS TO BE read and studied through a biblical theology that first considers prophecy and God's stated plans.

If one labors over a verse or chapter but does not understand God's covenants, prophecy, and dispensed commissions, then the doctrine based on those verses will at best be accidentally correct and at worst downright heretical.

We also believe that we must take God's Word literally, unless the text demands that we don't. For example, when John sees a vision of a woman on a scarlet beast in Rev. 17, we can understand that in the future when his vision plays out, it won't actually involve a literal woman riding a literal scarlet beast, for the text defines what those two things represent. We gladly accept figurative language when the text demands it.

And we believe that God's Word is what is inspired, so we must rely in it, rather than relying on scholar's varying opinions on history, culture, or even the underlying Greek/Hebrew text. Scholarly opinions will always differ from one another, but God's Word will always remain steadfast. So we rest on it as our ONLY authority.



THE BASICS


Where it all starts:
  • God called out a chosen nation to be His special people above all the nations of the earth.
  • The nation continually rebelled against God, to the point that they even rejected His Son Jesus Christ Who physically came to earth to get them to repent and turn to God.
  • For one year after Jesus' earthly ministry, God gave them repeated chances to accept the good news of His Son and the coming kingdom and to bear fruit.
  • Because the masses still rejected Him, God put a halt to the prophesied timeline of delivering the kingdom to them. He relegated the chosen nation to the status of the disobedient Gentile nations, thus putting ALL people in the same boat (as opposed to Israel being the preeminent nation).
  • Upon doing so, God called out Paul to be the "apostle to the Gentiles", delivering the "gospel of the uncircumcision" - a message that was different in many ways from that which was previously delivered by those apostles that Jesus chose during His earthly ministry.
  • Jesus Christ from heaven dispensed to Paul a gospel message that was specifically pertinent to the Body of Christ, whereas He had previously from earth dispensed a gospel message to the Twelve that was specifically pertinent to the chosen nation of Israel who awaited their coming tribulation and promised kingdom.
  • These two messages were different. The book of Acts shows the transition away from one to the other and displays the resulting confusion…a confusion which, by the way, still exists today and for pretty much the same reason as back then.
How's that for starters?

I'd love to address any questions and expand on any points. Others who hold the same or similar positions (STP, voltaire, JohnW, Knight, Delmar, Nick, judging u, etc.) are absolutely welcome to chime in whenever you want. I'm perfectly happy shutting up and letting people smarter than me answer questions, if that's what it takes to help others truly understand the MidActs position. If I don't know something, I'll say I don't know. But I'd love to help those who are sincerely interested to understand more about our position.

Thanks,
Randy
 

Lurline

New member
Thanks for explaining... I wondered what MAD meant... I agree with this style of reading (for the most part).
 

-FoC-

New member
I completely disagree with much that Ive seen of the theology, but thanks for laying it out clearly :)
 

Adoration

New member
GO AWAY
Let me start by asking that troublemakers and opposers who are already convinced of themselves please refrain from posting in this thread. I would appreciate it if people like godrulz, andyc, cistercian, and others with similar agendas stay away. I'll respectfully ask that the moderator(s) delete any posts by these people, as well as others that inappropriately challenge others and/or that simply want to oppose for the sake of opposing. godrulz et al, if you post I'll ignore it but report it, asking it to be deleted. Of course, I can't make forum rules, so I'm only expressing my desire.


COME ON IN
Several people have expressed a sincere desire to learn more about MidActs Dispensationalism. Whether or not those people ultimately conclude the same is irrelevant. They are sincere inquisitors.

This thread is for those people to ask questions. And they're absolutely welcome to offer challenges, as well. Sincere, open, non-compative people like Town Heretic, bodhigirsmiles, and bybee...this thread is for you to help you understand the MidActs position.



ON THE BIBLE
I'll kick it off by stating that MidActs Dispensationalism is an approach to reading and studying the Bible. Those of us who hold to this approach believe that we must read and study the Bible FORWARD, rather than BACKWARD. By this, I mean that we must understand what comes before Exodus before we can understand Exodus. We must understand "Old Testament" prophecy before we can understand Matthew. We must understand those things before we can understand what's going on in Acts. We believe that it is highly dangerous (to a doctrinal position that one formulates) for a person to read BACKWARD, meaning that he/she interprets an epistle, for instance, and then forces the things written previously to mean the same thing. We also believe it is dangerous to evaluate a book, chapter, or verse in and of itself. A verse HAS TO BE read and studied within the context of a book/epistle. That book/epistle HAS TO BE read and studied within the context of the commission of the human author (in the case of the epistles). And a book HAS TO BE read and studied through a biblical theology that first considers prophecy and God's stated plans.

If one labors over a verse or chapter but does not understand God's covenants, prophecy, and dispensed commissions, then the doctrine based on those verses will at best be accidentally correct and at worst downright heretical.

We also believe that we must take God's Word literally, unless the text demands that we don't. For example, when John sees a vision of a woman on a scarlet beast in Rev. 17, we can understand that in the future when his vision plays out, it won't actually involve a literal woman riding a literal scarlet beast, for the text defines what those two things represent. We gladly accept figurative language when the text demands it.

And we believe that God's Word is what is inspired, so we must rely in it, rather than relying on scholar's varying opinions on history, culture, or even the underlying Greek/Hebrew text. Scholarly opinions will always differ from one another, but God's Word will always remain steadfast. So we rest on it as our ONLY authority.



THE BASICS


Where it all starts:
  • God called out a chosen nation to be His special people above all the nations of the earth.
  • The nation continually rebelled against God, to the point that they even rejected His Son Jesus Christ Who physically came to earth to get them to repent and turn to God.
  • For one year after Jesus' earthly ministry, God gave them repeated chances to accept the good news of His Son and the coming kingdom and to bear fruit.
  • Because the masses still rejected Him, God put a halt to the prophesied timeline of delivering the kingdom to them. He relegated the chosen nation to the status of the disobedient Gentile nations, thus putting ALL people in the same boat (as opposed to Israel being the preeminent nation).
  • Upon doing so, God called out Paul to be the "apostle to the Gentiles", delivering the "gospel of the uncircumcision" - a message that was different in many ways from that which was previously delivered by those apostles that Jesus chose during His earthly ministry.
  • Jesus Christ from heaven dispensed to Paul a gospel message that was specifically pertinent to the Body of Christ, whereas He had previously from earth dispensed a gospel message to the Twelve that was specifically pertinent to the chosen nation of Israel who awaited their coming tribulation and promised kingdom.
  • These two messages were different. The book of Acts shows the transition away from one to the other and displays the resulting confusion…a confusion which, by the way, still exists today and for pretty much the same reason as back then.
How's that for starters?

I'd love to address any questions and expand on any points. Others who hold the same or similar positions (STP, voltaire, JohnW, Knight, Delmar, Nick, judging u, etc.) are absolutely welcome to chime in whenever you want. I'm perfectly happy shutting up and letting people smarter than me answer questions, if that's what it takes to help others truly understand the MidActs position. If I don't know something, I'll say I don't know. But I'd love to help those who are sincerely interested to understand more about our position.

Thanks,
Randy



What do you believe Jesus means by ALL nations?


Luke 24
46He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Matt 28
19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
 

SaulToPaul

New member
Silver Subscriber
Hall of Fame
All nations. The Old Testament repeatedly prophesies of the time when Israel is saved, when they are a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, that the nations of the world will come to their King through them.

But, Israel fell in early Acts, and they were later scattered among the nations. They will rise again in the future, and be set apart above the nations.

The Old Testament prophesies of Israel's fall, diminishing, casting away, a time of trouble, and their regathering into a Kingdom.

We are currently living between the time of their casting away and the time of trouble. This period of time was a mystery hidden in God. You cannot find it in the Old Testament prophecies.

Paul is the specific apostle who was given the instructions to give to us for this period of time. Everything Peter and the eleven other apostles taught about was concerning the time of trouble, and their regathering into a Kingdom.
 

This Charming Manc

Well-known member
And a book HAS TO BE read and studied through a biblical theology that first considers prophecy and God's stated plans.

This quote explains very much why I struggle with alot of the 'exegisis' done by people froma MAD position.

I am of the opnion that our understanding of scripture should define our theology not our theology define our understanding of scripture'.
 

Adoration

New member


My question was in regard to these quotes from your OP:

# Upon doing so, God called out Paul to be the "apostle to the Gentiles", delivering the "gospel of the uncircumcision" - a message that was different in many ways from that which was previously delivered by those apostles that Jesus chose during His earthly ministry.

# Jesus Christ from heaven dispensed to Paul a gospel message that was specifically pertinent to the Body of Christ, whereas He had previously from earth dispensed a gospel message to the Twelve that was specifically pertinent to the chosen nation of Israel who awaited their coming tribulation and promised kingdom.


The two passages I posted seem to indicate that Jesus told the apostles to preach the gospel to all nations, not just Israel.


Your response didn't really address this.
 

chickenman

a-atheist
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Cistercian and TCM,

Based on volumes of staunch opposition posts from you two on other threads, I KNOW you're not here as sincere inquisitors. This is not a debate thread; it is a question and answer thread for sincere, interested people who want to learn more about our position. So I'll ask again, as I did in the OP, that you refrain from posting here and keep your questions and debating to another of the several threads that deal with the subject.

Please respect my wishes and don't interfere here.

Randy
 

Adoration

New member
Cistercian and TCM,

Based on volumes of staunch opposition posts from you two on other threads, I KNOW you're not here as sincere inquisitors. This is not a debate thread; it is a question and answer thread for sincere, interested people who want to learn more about our position. So I'll ask again, as I did in the OP, that you refrain from posting here and keep your questions and debating to another of the several threads that deal with the subject.

Please respect my wishes and don't interfere here.

Randy


This question is sincere:


How do you reconcile these two passages with MAD?



Luke 24
46He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Matt 28
19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
 

Ktoyou

New member
Hall of Fame
Do you want to know what I think? I too have some rules; I will present a dialogue, not an argument. My issue is a value your friendship, and STP but I like AMR and you are my friends away from home. My position is Mid-acts, but I do not know if it is dispensationalist, it could be, but I am not sure. I do not what anyone upset about what I say, because it is not worth it to me. I care for you all and I know I am right with God, my ideas might not be perfect, but they are good with God.

I may enter discourse if we can have it on theological issues closely related, but I am not up too heated argument not at this time. Let me know
Kat
 

Zeke

Well-known member
This question is sincere:


How do you reconcile these two passages with MAD?



Luke 24
46He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Matt 28
19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Why don't you start a tread with this question! One factor you should ponder is why did the Jews become so astonished when they found out a uncircumcisied gentile could also receive the words, the other point is that Jews from all the nations where present at pentacost and heard the Spirit speak through the apostles, And the message stayed in that context until years later when Peter had is vision.

They never understood the statement at the time it was spoken to them to mean all people, in all the nations in the context your thinking they did.


Zeke.
 

bybee

New member
Thank you!

Thank you!

GO AWAY
Let me start by asking that troublemakers and opposers who are already convinced of themselves please refrain from posting in this thread. I would appreciate it if people like godrulz, andyc, cistercian, and others with similar agendas stay away. I'll respectfully ask that the moderator(s) delete any posts by these people, as well as others that inappropriately challenge others and/or that simply want to oppose for the sake of opposing. godrulz et al, if you post I'll ignore it but report it, asking it to be deleted. Of course, I can't make forum rules, so I'm only expressing my desire.


COME ON IN
Several people have expressed a sincere desire to learn more about MidActs Dispensationalism. Whether or not those people ultimately conclude the same is irrelevant. They are sincere inquisitors.

This thread is for those people to ask questions. And they're absolutely welcome to offer challenges, as well. Sincere, open, non-compative people like Town Heretic, bodhigirsmiles, and bybee...this thread is for you to help you understand the MidActs position.



ON THE BIBLE
I'll kick it off by stating that MidActs Dispensationalism is an approach to reading and studying the Bible. Those of us who hold to this approach believe that we must read and study the Bible FORWARD, rather than BACKWARD. By this, I mean that we must understand what comes before Exodus before we can understand Exodus. We must understand "Old Testament" prophecy before we can understand Matthew. We must understand those things before we can understand what's going on in Acts. We believe that it is highly dangerous (to a doctrinal position that one formulates) for a person to read BACKWARD, meaning that he/she interprets an epistle, for instance, and then forces the things written previously to mean the same thing. We also believe it is dangerous to evaluate a book, chapter, or verse in and of itself. A verse HAS TO BE read and studied within the context of a book/epistle. That book/epistle HAS TO BE read and studied within the context of the commission of the human author (in the case of the epistles). And a book HAS TO BE read and studied through a biblical theology that first considers prophecy and God's stated plans.

If one labors over a verse or chapter but does not understand God's covenants, prophecy, and dispensed commissions, then the doctrine based on those verses will at best be accidentally correct and at worst downright heretical.

We also believe that we must take God's Word literally, unless the text demands that we don't. For example, when John sees a vision of a woman on a scarlet beast in Rev. 17, we can understand that in the future when his vision plays out, it won't actually involve a literal woman riding a literal scarlet beast, for the text defines what those two things represent. We gladly accept figurative language when the text demands it.

And we believe that God's Word is what is inspired, so we must rely in it, rather than relying on scholar's varying opinions on history, culture, or even the underlying Greek/Hebrew text. Scholarly opinions will always differ from one another, but God's Word will always remain steadfast. So we rest on it as our ONLY authority.



THE BASICS


Where it all starts:
  • God called out a chosen nation to be His special people above all the nations of the earth.
  • The nation continually rebelled against God, to the point that they even rejected His Son Jesus Christ Who physically came to earth to get them to repent and turn to God.
  • For one year after Jesus' earthly ministry, God gave them repeated chances to accept the good news of His Son and the coming kingdom and to bear fruit.
  • Because the masses still rejected Him, God put a halt to the prophesied timeline of delivering the kingdom to them. He relegated the chosen nation to the status of the disobedient Gentile nations, thus putting ALL people in the same boat (as opposed to Israel being the preeminent nation).
  • Upon doing so, God called out Paul to be the "apostle to the Gentiles", delivering the "gospel of the uncircumcision" - a message that was different in many ways from that which was previously delivered by those apostles that Jesus chose during His earthly ministry.
  • Jesus Christ from heaven dispensed to Paul a gospel message that was specifically pertinent to the Body of Christ, whereas He had previously from earth dispensed a gospel message to the Twelve that was specifically pertinent to the chosen nation of Israel who awaited their coming tribulation and promised kingdom.
  • These two messages were different. The book of Acts shows the transition away from one to the other and displays the resulting confusion…a confusion which, by the way, still exists today and for pretty much the same reason as back then.
How's that for starters?

I'd love to address any questions and expand on any points. Others who hold the same or similar positions (STP, voltaire, JohnW, Knight, Delmar, Nick, judging u, etc.) are absolutely welcome to chime in whenever you want. I'm perfectly happy shutting up and letting people smarter than me answer questions, if that's what it takes to help others truly understand the MidActs position. If I don't know something, I'll say I don't know. But I'd love to help those who are sincerely interested to understand more about our position.

Thanks,
Randy

Dear Randy, Thanks to StoP, yourself and even my friend John W. I have come to see the truth of your exegesis of "Mid-acts ( in context). I'm amazed that I missed it in all of my years of study. And as you all have seen I pretty stubbornly fought against it! Upon reading and rereading Pauls's epistles and of course The Acts of the Apostles, I have come to a new, logical and sensible appreciation of Paul's special "Dispensation" to the Gentiles and that Heavenly mystery which God had prepared for us. I feel that my understanding is much more complete now. I have begun to feel the heart of Paul. I saw him as harshly didactic and difficult to follow. Thanks be to God I view him now with clear eyes as a man truly called and dedicated to serving God. As an Open-Theist" myself, I see Paul as having a very personal relationship with God through his love of Jesus our Savior. I have kept an open heart to consider what others have to share. From the bottom of my heart, I thank you for giving me an exponential learning experience. I am, quite literally, reading the Word through better lenses! Thanks and blessings, bybee:cheers:
 

Tico

New member
Dear Randy, Thanks to StoP, yourself and even my friend John W. I have come to see the truth of your exegesis of "Mid-acts ( in context). I'm amazed that I missed it in all of my years of study. And as you all have seen I pretty stubbornly fought against it! Upon reading and rereading Pauls's epistles and of course The Acts of the Apostles, I have come to a new, logical and sensible appreciation of Paul's special "Dispensation" to the Gentiles and that Heavenly mystery which God had prepared for us. I feel that my understanding is much more complete now. I have begun to feel the heart of Paul. I saw him as harshly didactic and difficult to follow. Thanks be to God I view him now with clear eyes as a man truly called and dedicated to serving God. As an Open-Theist" myself, I see Paul as having a very personal relationship with God through his love of Jesus our Savior. I have kept an open heart to consider what others have to share. From the bottom of my heart, I thank you for giving me an exponential learning experience. I am, quite literally, reading the Word through better lenses! Thanks and blessings, bybee:cheers:

That is awesome! You're going to enjoy reading the scriptures more and more now. You won't feel like you're trying to cram square pegs into round holes every time you pick up the Bible.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
  • These two messages were different. The book of Acts shows the transition away from one to the other and displays the resulting confusion…a confusion which, by the way, still exists today and for pretty much the same reason as back then.
I have loved getting to know how applicable the theological arguments in Acts are today, even if they are applicable for all the wrong reasons.

I find the greatest barrier to clearly communicating the ideas of the bible come when we start quoting the bible. It seems like the things that are so clear in the text become victims to theological labels.
 

Adoration

New member
Why don't you start a tread with this question! One factor you should ponder is why did the Jews become so astonished when they found out a uncircumcisied gentile could also receive the words, the other point is that Jews from all the nations where present at pentacost and heard the Spirit speak through the apostles, And the message stayed in that context until years later when Peter had is vision.

They never understood the statement at the time it was spoken to them to mean all people, in all the nations in the context your thinking they did.


Zeke.

All nations were not present at Pentecost.

You claim that they didn't understand it to mean all people, yet Peter preached to and converted non Jews.

How do you know what they understood?

How do you explain St. Thomas going to India to preach the gospel?
 

assuranceagent

New member
:wave2: Hey Randy...glad you decided to do this thread! I've been bouncing little tidbits off of you and STP for a while now but it'll be good to focus on this for a while...

The first question that springs to mind:

In talking to STP recently, he helped me understand the distinction between the gospel of the Kingdom and the gospel of uncircumcision. (And I think it's clear that they are two different gospels...on that much I'm right there with you guys...)

It seems to me, though, that Paul indicates that Abraham, in particular and among others, was accounted righteous on the basis of his faith, just as we are. Now clearly his faith took different form than ours must since he was looking forward to Messiah while we get to look both ways. The question, though, has to do with the requirement for salvation during what I recognize as the dispensation of the Promise, or the time of the Abrahamic covenant.

It seems that you guys see the gospel of the Kingdom as a kind of development on the Abrahamic covenant, being the promise of earthly reward in exchange (at least in part) for obedience. Yet Paul seems to make a point of the fact that it was Abraham's faith that saved him, and not his works.

I'll leave James out for now since, if I understand correctly, in writing to the twelve tribes, he is preaching the gospel of the Kingdom...

So according to MAD, prior to and following this, sort of "parenthetical" dispensation of the gospel of uncircumcision, were works once a necessary ingredient for the salvation of men and will they be again?

Thanks Randy!
 

assuranceagent

New member
All nations were not present at Pentecost.

You claim that they didn't understand it to mean all people, yet Peter preached to and converted non Jews.

How do you know what they understood?

How do you explain St. Thomas going to India to preach the gospel?

cister...

It seems you've been asked nicely several times to refrain from this discussion.

I'd like to respectfully echo that request. It's not that we don't want debate or that we don't enjoy wrestling with the finer points of theology...but that's simply not what this thread is about.

There are those (like myself) who would be interested in simply learning more about the position, rather than attempting to poke holes in it. In order to effectively do that, we need an environment where it isn't likely that the subject matter of the thread will get derailed in favor of chasing this or that fringe issue or potential need for reconciliation or rebuttal.

There are plenty of places to debate the merits of MAD. Please go post there so the rest of us can use this thread to learn more about the views espoused by the position.

In fact, perhaps it'd be worthwhile to start a similar thread regarding your views from a Catholic standpoint. :thumb:

I do hope you'll be respectful of Randy's wishes to include only those who are genuinely interested in learning more and not those who are closed to the subject.

Thanks,

AA :e4e:
 
Top