For Sincere Inquisitors ONLY: MAD Explained

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
So what is the national "end of sins", "reconciliation for iniquity", and "everlasting righteousness" for, following the 70 weeks, if individuals already have those things before then?
Randy, you seem to be having trouble distinguishing between the forgiveness of sins for "individuals" and the forgiveness of sins for the whole "nation" of Israel.

Individual Jews can have their sins forgiven, as witnessed by the following words of the Lord Jesus spoken to one of the members of the commonwealth of Israel:

"And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also? And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace" (Lk.7:48-50).

Later we hear Peter appeal to the "nation" of Israel to repent and turn to God in order to have her sins blotted out and under that condition the Lord Jesus would be sent back to that nation:

"Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be blotted out, that the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you" (Acts 3:19-20).

This is referring to the forgiveness of sins for the "nation" of Israel while the verses I quoted from the book of Luke is referring to the forgiveness of sins for "individuals."

Do you see the difference? Can you understand that the sins of an "individual" Jew can be forgiven while at the same time the forgiveness of sins for the "nation" of Israel remains in the future?

In His grace,
Jerry
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
We just need to drop the labels, drop the reliance on the "MAD" fathers as authoritative, and just believe what is written, let the chips fall where they fall.
STP,

Perhaps you overlooked this post so I will repeat it in the hope that you will respond.

I am having trouble attempting to reconcile your statement about just believing what is written and what you actually teach. Earlier you said
According to covenant promises, Peter's sins were paid for on the cross, but they would not be blotted out until the day of atonement at the 2nd coming. That's when he would be saved.
If the Jewish believers sins will not be blotted out or forgiven until sometime in the future then why does John tell them that their sins are already forgiven?:

"I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake" (1 Pet.2:12).

if the Jewish believers could not be saved until later then how do you explain the following words of the Lord Jesus spoken to one of those Jews?:

"And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also? And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace" (Lk.7:48-50).

It seems to me that these verses directly contradict your teaching. Perhaps you can explain why they do not.

In His grace,
Jerry
 

chickenman

a-atheist
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Randy, you seem to be having trouble distinguishing between the forgiveness of sins for "individuals" and the forgiveness of sins for the whole "nation" of Israel.

No need to be condescending. I was asking YOU what YOU believe so I can understand what YOU believe. I was not stating anything about what I believe.

Thanks,
Randy
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
No need to be condescending.
Randy, I was not being condescending. Instead, I was attempting to find out exactly what it was that you do not understand about my view. That is why I said that you "seem" to be having trouble distinguishing between the forgiveness of sins for "individuals" and the forgiveness of sins for the whole "nation" of Israel.

If that wasn't the case then all you had to say is that you have no problem distinguishing between the two.
I was asking YOU what YOU believe so I can understand what YOU believe. I was not stating anything about what I believe.
Perhaps next time you could be more specific in regard to your questions. I think that would help.

Did what I say answer your question?

In His grace,
Jerry
 

graceandpeace

New member
chickenman:

Those of us who hold to this approach believe that we must read and study the Bible FORWARD, rather than BACKWARD

but, this is the opposite of what the new covenant says., so my question is this:

How do you understand these verses?

2 Cr 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which [vail] is done away in Christ.


2Cr 3:15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.


2Cr 3:16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.

As I read it, until you come to Christ, via the new covenant, you cannot rightly discern the old.
 

chickenman

a-atheist
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Hi, grace.

The quote of mine, to which you responded, was:
Randy said:
Those of us who hold to this approach believe that we must read and study the Bible FORWARD, rather than BACKWARD
You responded:
chickenman:



but, this is the opposite of what the new covenant says., so my question is this:

How do you understand these verses?

2 Cr 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which [vail] is done away in Christ.


2Cr 3:15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.


2Cr 3:16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.

As I read it, until you come to Christ, via the new covenant, you cannot rightly discern the old.
Can you clarify your response ("this is the opposite of what the new covenant says")? It looks like you might be responding to something else. I don't understand how this relates to: "Those of us who hold to this approach believe that we must read and study the Bible FORWARD, rather than BACKWARD".

I'll restate what I meant with that, just in case. What I intended to convey was that one can't possibly understand Matthew, for instance, without knowing the things that were written before it. Same with Acts, etc.

That's what I meant by reading backward versus reading forward.

Anyway, if you could clarify your response, that would help me out a lot.

Thanks,
Randy
 

chickenman

a-atheist
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Refresh for graceandpeace, in case you missed my response.

Thanks,
Randy
 

Ryan Collins

New member
Hi, grace.

The quote of mine, to which you responded, was:

You responded:

Can you clarify your response ("this is the opposite of what the new covenant says")? It looks like you might be responding to something else. I don't understand how this relates to: "Those of us who hold to this approach believe that we must read and study the Bible FORWARD, rather than BACKWARD".

I'll restate what I meant with that, just in case. What I intended to convey was that one can't possibly understand Matthew, for instance, without knowing the things that were written before it. Same with Acts, etc.

That's what I meant by reading backward versus reading forward.

Anyway, if you could clarify your response, that would help me out a lot.

Thanks,
Randy
AKA: Can't understand the New Testament unless we understand the First Testament?
 

graceandpeace

New member
Hi, grace.

The quote of mine, to which you responded, was:

You responded:

Can you clarify your response ("this is the opposite of what the new covenant says")? It looks like you might be responding to something else. I don't understand how this relates to: "Those of us who hold to this approach believe that we must read and study the Bible FORWARD, rather than BACKWARD".

I'll restate what I meant with that, just in case. What I intended to convey was that one can't possibly understand Matthew, for instance, without knowing the things that were written before it. Same with Acts, etc.

That's what I meant by reading backward versus reading forward.

Anyway, if you could clarify your response, that would help me out a lot.

Thanks,
Randy

Hi Randy,

I just meant that what the new covenant reveals is that the old covenant cannot really be understood, until you come to Christ through the new, and it can cause confusion to someone that does not have the holy spirit to try to discern the revelation of God by starting in the old first.

That's all. It appears a contradiction to what the new covenant itself says..in other words.
 

chickenman

a-atheist
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Hi Randy,

I just meant that what the new covenant reveals is that the old covenant cannot really be understood, until you come to Christ through the new, and it can cause confusion to someone that does not have the holy spirit to try to discern the revelation of God by starting in the old first.

That's all. It appears a contradiction to what the new covenant itself says..in other words.

Okay, I understand what you were trying to say now.

I want to be clear, though, that I never suggested anything about trying to discern the revelation of God strictly from the old. I simply said you have to start there. Otherwise, you read things in Matthew, or Acts, or Revelation, etc that cannot be fully understood. Trying to understand Acts (for example) without first having read and gained comprehension of Genesis through the four gospel accounts means that the reader is forced to make up things about what the kingdom is, what the "times of refreshing" is, what the "times of restitution" is, what is the "promise made of God unto our fathers", etc.

So much of what we read in Matt-Rev is defined in Gen-Mal. So we have to read, study, and know it.

Thanks,
Randy
 

Ryan Collins

New member
Hi, Ryan.

Did you read the beginning of the thread, or just start with the post to which you responded?

Thanks,
Randy

Just popped my head in. I'm under the impression and affirmation that someone cannot fully understand the New Testament without the First Testament and someone cannot fully understand the First Testament without the New Testament.
 

chickenman

a-atheist
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I just saw someone write that "MAD is built on silence". If anyone is sincerely interested in learning more about what MidActs Dispensationalism is really built on, then this is a good thread. I'll be happy to even start over for those really interested. And as I've said numerous times, it matters not to me what you ultimately conclude. This is for information purposes, only.

I'll throw in a quick thought for starters. To say "MAD is built on silence" is completely contrary to what us MidActs'ers believe. It's actually built on very specific things that were written and spoken. For instance, tradition says that Pentecost marked the birth of the church. This is said in spite of the fact that Peter actually tells us in Acts 2 EXACTLY what's going on at Pentecost. And while it certainly involves a church, it sho' ain't the church which is His body.

Anyway, just throwing that out in case others who don't know what MidActs'ers believe, and how we get there, want to find out from me and/or others of us.

Conclude what you want, based on your own study of the scriptures, but know the facts about the position.

Thanks,
Randy
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Hi Randy,

I just meant that what the new covenant reveals is that the old covenant cannot really be understood, until you come to Christ through the new, and it can cause confusion to someone that does not have the holy spirit to try to discern the revelation of God by starting in the old first.

That's all. It appears a contradiction to what the new covenant itself says..in other words.

You have it exactly backwards, which is why all the denominations exist. People say they need to be water baptised because the Bible says so. But you have to see who that was written to and why. It was written to Israel for the priesthood. That is just an example. We only have one baptism now, which is by the Holy Spirit into Christ.
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
One point, among many:

There are two related, yet distinct aspects of the Lord Jesus Christ presented in the so-called "New Testament." The first is the Lord Jesus Christ "according to the flesh,"(2 Cor. 5:16), or Israel's Messiah, the "Christ", the seed of David, who came to Israel alone-Mt. 10:6, 15:24, Romans 15:8. Paul says "yet now henceforth know we him no more." Christendom as a whole has gone to this aspect of Christ (the sermon on the mount, the "Lord's prayer," Matt 24..........) to build its doctrine. At its root, this is the reason we're in confusion..

But Paul received the revelation of the mystery [the secret] which presents a previously unrevealed aspect of the Lord Jesus Christ, i.e., He as head of the previously unheard of (and impossible) Jew/Gentile body of Christ, the one and only true church in this dispensation. This is the aspect of Christ Paul says we're to follow today. Doing so puts you in a minority today.

We have to distinguish between these two aspects of the Lord Jesus Chrsit - it's the same Lord, yes, but two aspects of His ministry to believers. His latter ministry, through Paul, our apostle(Romans 11:13) supersedes, temporarily, His earlier, Israel-centered ministry. That earlier ministry is, for all practical purposes, presently obsolete and non-applicable-temporarily. It will resume after members of the body of Christ are removed from "this present evil world"(Gal. 1:4-notice Paul is talking to already justified, saved members="he might deliver us"=this delivery is speaking to us being "beamed up")

This is where "Pauline dispensationalism" comes out on top as the most biblically literal means of interpretation, the one that can take every passage of Scripture exactly as it lays, without resorting to allegorization/spiritualization /"spin"/word gymnastics/smoke and mirrors/"it does not really mean this.....".....as to make the Holy Bible fit one's theological beliefs (which Covenant/ Reformed theology does without batting an eye).

This is why Paul tells us to "rightly divide" the Word of truth (2 Tim 2:15), as a command, not suggestion, and to test the things that differ within Scripture (Phil 1:10).
 

chickenman

a-atheist
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
JohnW,
Please let's leave the debate and going-after-each-other out of this thread. If this thread comes back to life, then my hope is that it can maintain the purpose of ONLY being an informative thread for sincere inquirers.

Thanks,
Randy
 

chickenman

a-atheist
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Of course you can, GP. Per the OP, and with the support of Knight, then we've been able to keep this thread MOSTLY debate-free. So you're welcome to address any points you like. But if it looks like it's going to result in a debate, then there are other places for that.

As I've said several times, the point of this thread is SIMPLY and ONLY to inform. If you want to know about MidActs Dispensationalism, then this is a safe place to find out about it.
 

graceandpeace

New member
Of course you can, GP. Per the OP, and with the support of Knight, then we've been able to keep this thread MOSTLY debate-free. So you're welcome to address any points you like. But if it looks like it's going to result in a debate, then there are other places for that.

As I've said several times, the point of this thread is SIMPLY and ONLY to inform. If you want to know about MidActs Dispensationalism, then this is a safe place to find out about it.

Ok, thanks..I wont debate it then, just give my perspective...on the point that Nick had made.:wave:
 

graceandpeace

New member
Quote:
Originally Posted by graceandpeace
Hi Randy,

I just meant that what the new covenant reveals is that the old covenant cannot really be understood, until you come to Christ through the new, and it can cause confusion to someone that does not have the holy spirit to try to discern the revelation of God by starting in the old first.

That's all. It appears a contradiction to what the new covenant itself says..in other words.

Nick:


You have it exactly backwards, which is why all the denominations exist.

I don't think I do, and the reason the denominations exist, in my opinion is because they try to mix old covenant and new covenant; as if they are one and the same.


But, my point was about what it says here:


Hbr 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

Hbr 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

When people do not understand the difference between the old and new covenants and that the old was only a ministration of death; and they likewise begin to mix life and death as if they can be mixed, confusion comes. This is why it is apparant as His word says to only read the OLD, through the eyes of knowing the NEW:

2 Cor 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which [vail] is done away in Christ.

According to God's word, you must come to Christ before you can rightly read the old covenant.

Now to this:





People say they need to be water baptised because the Bible says so. But you have to see who that was written to and why. It was written to Israel for the priesthood. That is just an example. We only have one baptism now, which is by the Holy Spirit into Christ.

The new covenant is a revelation...it grows over time. That is why we are told to grow in grace and in knowledge...you don't understand everything perfectly in an instance.

Water baptism is not against the promises of God, but is merely a physical tradition that is used to show the 'born again' experience. It tells the story, so to speak. Of course you do not need it to be saved, because no ritual is what saves to begin with..it is merely an example of the true baptism, just as the sabbath was a shadow of the true rest we have in Christ; just like the old circumcision was a shadow of what we now have in the true form, circumcision of the heart. God does not change..He gives us these things to point to a REALITY; and water baptism is just that; a shadow.

It was made for those whom have not yet come to Christ to get the picture of the true that was to come.

It has no power of itself.

But, what you should know is that ALL ot saints were baptised with the SAME spiritual baptism that we whom are now added go through:

I am ONLY speaking of those whom walked by FAITH..NOT FLESHLY ISRAEL:

1 Cr 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;


1Cr 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

(Moses was used by God to give the fleshly race the stone law; but he himself was not under that form of law; he walked by faith, too.)

1Cr 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;


1Cr 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

God does not change.

There is always that which is physical/shadow..and, then the spiritual reality follows.

We, as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Moses, and all the others of faith; were of the one true seed of Abraham, and that seed IS/WAS Christ.
 
Top