For Sincere Inquisitors ONLY: MAD Explained

[Bright Raven]

[/B]

Hi Randy!

I bolded the parts that I am commenting on.

Generally speaking, I do agree with what you've written. Everyone is at different places in their understanding of the Hope and Scriptures. ( This goes along with what I wrote in my previous post)

But Mid-Acts Dispensationalism is not an "merely an approach to scripture". It is what one must understand when approaching Scripture using a normal hermeneutic- understanding Scripture the way it was written: the audience, the grammar and all. In a sense, yes, after one understands how to go about understanding the Word, MAD comes through....and then using that, can understand things in light of that. I think that we really do agree, it's just the way you posted it.

Concerning the issues of tongues, baptism etc., once someone understands MAD, I would think that part of that is the Body Hope and law. If one understands that what Paul preached was a gospel void of any Mosaic law AND outward "signs" that they cannot hold to tongues , baptism, miracles, etc. IOW, if they still hold to those things- then they really aren't MAD yet!

Pam :upright:

Hi Pam,

Thanks so much for this post. The old eyes are opening more and more each day as I read this thread and study. I had earlier asked about spiritual gifts and the applicability of them to Mid-Acts Dispensationalism. I was having difficulty to say the least since even Paul spoke in tongues. I really started to think, ponder, meditate and study. This is what I came up with. It seems to have answered my question.

1 Corinthians 12:31

31 But earnestly desire the best gifts. And yet I show you a more excellent way.

Thanks Pam,
Raven

 

[Bright Raven]

I'm caught up now. The questions will flow as they arise.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Chickenman,
I'm catching up a bit more now and have run into a question. During my reading there was a short exchange of ideas between Tetelestai and Pam Baldwin concerning the applicability of Jesus teachings and MAD, in which it was stated that 0% of Jesus teaching is to MADists. The question arose for me in this respect. If my understanding is somehow flawed, please correct me.

It was stated that Communion is not applicable to MAD theology. Why then does Paul address the following issue. If it is not applicable to MAD Theology why is it so important that Paul would admonish them in his letter

1 Corinthians 11:17-29 (KJV)

17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.
18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper.
21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do ing remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.


Am I correct in understand that that we are not to partake of the "Lord's Supper"/communion. This seems to contradict what Paul is saying in this passage in that he admonishes the Corinthians for partaking of it in an unworthy fashion.

I have an excellent word document on the Lord's Supper (I did not write it), if you'd like me to email it to you.

 

[Bright Raven]

I have an excellent word document on the Lord's Supper (I did not write it), if you'd like me to email it to you.

Sure.

 

[chickenman]

I've let this thread fall by the wayside. I'll be happy to keep it going if others see that it could be fruitful to do so.

Let me know.

Thanks,
Randy

 

[heir]

I've let this thread fall by the wayside. I'll be happy to keep it going if others see that it could be fruitful to do so.

Let me know.

Thanks,
Randy

I don't know if my voting yes counts, cm, but I certainly would like you to continue.

 

[amosman]

I've let this thread fall by the wayside. I'll be happy to keep it going if others see that it could be fruitful to do so.

Let me know.

Thanks,
Randy

Keep it going Randy. We need a place to ask questions about mid-act dispensationalism where we don't get called names.

I have stumbled into a question about the 7 churches in Revelations. These 7 churches are in Asia ( Turkey ) but MAD says they are all ethnic Jews ? It sure seemed to me that Jesus was talking to 7 churches that were Christian ( Jew and Gentile ) . It also seemed that Jesus was talking to the whole church down through time until His return. What can you tell me about this ?

 

[chickenman]

Keep it going Randy. We need a place to ask questions about mid-act dispensationalism where we don't get called names.

I have stumbled into a question about the 7 churches in Revelations. These 7 churches are in Asia ( Turkey ) but MAD says they are all ethnic Jews ? It sure seemed to me that Jesus was talking to 7 churches that were Christian ( Jew and Gentile ) . It also seemed that Jesus was talking to the whole church down through time until His return. What can you tell me about this ?

Hi, amos.

I think it can be demonstrated from the text pretty easily that those were (and will be, since the time referenced has been postponed) Jewish churches made up of kingdom believers awaiting the "tribulation" (not generally, but specifically, the time of Jacob's trouble) and the coming kingdom.

I'll be happy to back that claim up. But first, you say that it seems to you that Jesus was talking to "churches that were Christian (Jew and Gentile)". I agree with the words. But I believe you're talking about Body of Christ churches, an idea with which I disagree. So if I'm right, what in the text shows you that they are Body of Christ churches?

Also, when you say that He's "talking to the whole church down throughout time until His return", what do you mean?

Thanks,
Randy

 

[Pam Baldwin]

Hi, amos.

I think it can be demonstrated from the text pretty easily that those were (and will be, since the time referenced has been postponed) Jewish churches made up of kingdom believers awaiting the "tribulation" (not generally, but specifically, the time of Jacob's trouble) and the coming kingdom.

Hi Randy! It's been while since I've been on TOL. Glad this thread is s-l-o-w moving, for my sake

Anyway, I agree that the churches in Revelation were Jewish made up of kingdom saints.

Maybe we need some definitions for the words to help understand what John means when he says "church".

Christian Acts 11:26....And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
Seeing that this referred to ones before Paul revealed the Body, the ones called 'Christians" were NOT Body saints. (Ask Hilston, he'll tell you) So you could say that the saints in Revelation were Christians....just not Body saints.

Synagogue was a building where the Jews gathered for religious purposes. The emphasis would be that this is a BUILDING....not the people. From the root word "sunagw" which means "to gather together", the verb form .

church is a calling out from- ek(out of)klesiacalled/named. This is referring to the PEOPLE, and not a building. Check out the useages of "church" in the Bible. It was used of Jewish saints:
Acts 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

So, in Revelation , "church" is used because John is referring to the saints (Kingdom) that were called out in different regions.

Pam :upright:...it's good to be back

 

[tetelestai]

church is a calling out from- ek(out of)klesiacalled/named. This is referring to the PEOPLE, and not a building. Check out the useages of "church" in the Bible. It was used of Jewish saints:
Acts 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

So, in Revelation , "church" is used because John is referring to the saints (Kingdom) that were called out in different regions.

Pam :upright:...it's good to be back

Hi Pam:

A few thoughts on your interesting post:

You say that a "church" is never referred to as a "building" in the Bible. Let's look at Col 4:16

(Col 4:16) And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

Here Paul is telling the Colossians to read his epistle amongst themselves, and to read it "in the church" of the Laodiceans. If Paul isn't referring to a physical building, then wouldn't it have made sense to say "amongst the Laodiceans"?

Paul also tells the Colossians to likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

This one verse raises some other MAD questions.

Is this "church" of Laodiceans in Laodicea the same people as the "church" mentioned in Rev 3:14-22? According to your MAD statement that "church" can only mean Kingdom believers, then I would think "yes" is your answer.

However, I would think that MAD has to say no, because why would Paul be telling Colossian Body believers to see to it that his Body epistle is read to a Kingdom "church", but more important, why does Paul then tell the Colossian Body believers to make sure they read a Kingdom epistle from the "church" of Laodicea?

 

[Pam Baldwin]

Hi tetestai:

Good questions.

Hi Pam:

A few thoughts on your interesting post:

You say that a "church" is never referred to as a "building" in the Bible. Let's look at Col 4:16

(Col 4:16) And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

Here Paul is telling the Colossians to read his epistle amongst themselves, and to read it "in the church" of the Laodiceans. If Paul isn't referring to a physical building, then wouldn't it have made sense to say "amongst the Laodiceans"?

Even though the saints more than likely met inside of a building, that is not what Paul is saying- read this "inside of the building" of the Laodiceans.

I'm sure you've heard that old saying "the PEOPLE are the church". Well, there is truth to that. If you look at "church" as a gathering of called out ones (in the Body's case- called out from the nations), it is a noun form referring to that GROUP.....wherever they are. in this case- the called out ones in Laodicea.

The epistle was written to the brethren and saints at Laodicea.
The overseers( elders) were the ones who received the letter, and after they read it, they were to read it to the whole group of believers there.

en means : in, amongst, on, at ,within. It is locative. Any way you look at it, it means that it was to be read in, amongst, within, at
the Body at Laodicea......whereever they were when they gathered. ...even at a picnic if it was 21st century

Is this "church" of Laodiceans in Laodicea the same people as the "church" mentioned in Rev 3:14-22? According to your MAD statement that "church" can only mean Kingdom believers, then I would think "yes" is your answer.

However, I would think that MAD has to say no, because why would Paul be telling Colossian Body believers to see to it that his Body epistle is read to a Kingdom "church", but more important, why does Paul then tell the Colossian Body believers to make sure they read a Kingdom epistle from the "church" of Laodicea?

Revelation is speaking of the future "church" ultimately in the Third generation.

No, the epistle that Paul says to read is HIS epistle. They would have known what he was talking about. Ephesians seems to be the laodicean Epistle that Paul is referring to. They are very similar.

 

[tetelestai]

Hi tetestai:

Good questions.



Even though the saints more than likely met inside of a building, that is not what Paul is saying- read this "inside of the building" of the Laodiceans.

I'm sure you've heard that old saying "the PEOPLE are the church". Well, there is truth to that. If you look at "church" as a gathering of called out ones (in the Body's case- called out from the nations), it is a noun form referring to that GROUP.....wherever they are. in this case- the called out ones in Laodicea.

The epistle was written to the brethren and saints at Laodicea.
The overseers( elders) were the ones who received the letter, and after they read it, they were to read it to the whole group of believers there.

en means : in, amongst, on, at ,within. It is locative. Any way you look at it, it means that it was to be read in, amongst, within, at
the Body at Laodicea......whereever they were when they gathered. ...even at a picnic if it was 21st century



Revelation is speaking of the future "church" ultimately in the Third generation.

No, the epistle that Paul says to read is HIS epistle. They would have known what he was talking about. Ephesians seems to be the laodicean Epistle that Paul is referring to. They are very similar.

Ok Pam, I concede that "church" never refers to a physical building, and can only mean a group of people.

So, with that in mind, I still am confused with MAD's take on Col 4:16.


If "church" can only refer to a gathering of Kingdom believers, then why would Paul tell the Colossians to make sure his Body epistle is read by the Kingdom Laodiceans? And why would Paul want the Kingdom Laodicean epistle to be read by the Body Colossians?

 

[Lighthouse]

Ok Pam, I concede that "church" never refers to a physical building, and can only mean a group of people.

So, with that in mind, I still am confused with MAD's take on Col 4:16.


If "church" can only refer to a gathering of Kingdom believers, then why would Paul tell the Colossians to make sure his Body epistle is read by the Kingdom Laodiceans? And why would Paul want the Kingdom Laodicean epistle to be read by the Body Colossians?

What makes you certain the Laodiceans were of the Kingdom and not the Body?

 

[tetelestai]

What makes you certain the Laodiceans were of the Kingdom and not the Body?

I think I misunderstood what Pam was saying.

At first I thought she was trying to show that the word "church" could only mean Kingdom believers, but I now think what she was really trying to do was show that the word "church" meant a group of believers in time, and not a physical building.

I think she is saying that "church" was used to describe Jews, then Kingdom believers, then Body believers, and then will be used again for Kingdom believers.

It gets tricky when "church" is used to describe both Kingdom and Body believers that were alive at the same time (providing MAD is correct of course)

 

[chickenman]

"Church" appears, to me, to be just a generic word that is defined by the context. In some cases, it refers to the Body of Christ. Elsewhere, it's Israel in the wilderness. It's also a physical gathering of people. And the group of kingdom believers, beginning with the little flock.

Just a generic word.

 

[Pam Baldwin]

"Church" appears, to me, to be just a generic word that is defined by the context. In some cases, it refers to the Body of Christ. Elsewhere, it's Israel in the wilderness. It's also a physical gathering of people. And the group of kingdom believers, beginning with the little flock.

Just a generic word.

Absolutely! I guess that I didn't say that too well before.

 

[Butterfly]

(Col 4:16) And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

Paul also tells the Colossians to likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

As we know, this "epistle" is not in our Bible. So anything gathered from it would be 100% speculative as to its contents.

 

[Andy Curry]

Oh I have so many questions but my question for now is, When someone wants to accept what Jesus did for them on the cross must they ask for forgiveness for there past sins or just put there faith in Jesus and believe the gospel?

 

[Butterfly]

When someone wants to accept what Jesus did for them on the cross must they ask for forgiveness for there past sins or just put there faith in Jesus and believe the gospel?

It depends who you ask. Some say you must "feel sorry", "promise to be good", "repent" (has numerous meanings), "stop sinning", "change your life", "ask Jesus into your heart", "promise to stop sinning", along with a dozen of other things.

Let me ask you, what is the "gospel"?

 

[chickenman]

Oh I have so many questions but my question for now is, When someone wants to accept what Jesus did for them on the cross must they ask for forgiveness for there past sins or just put there faith in Jesus and believe the gospel?

Hi, Andy.
If it was a requirement to ask for forgiveness for all past sins, I hope the individual has a good memory. :chuckle:

Rather, one has to recognize that he is a sinner and believe in his heart that Jesus died for his sins, was buried, and rose again (I Cor. 15:1-4). When/if he has truly done that, he will be baptized by the Spirit into Christ, in which he will forever be reckoned as holy, blameless, and righteous, since the life of his Savior - the only one who is TRULY holy, blameless, and righteous - is now his life.

Hope I explained that okay. If not, at least I proved I can cram a lot of commas into one sentence. :chuckle:

Randy