For Sincere Inquisitors ONLY: MAD Explained

[chickenman]

I wonder if anyone disagrees that a literal land was promised to the nation of Israel and that a literal kingdom was promised to Israel? And that these were/are irrevocable promises.

Those are two pretty important foundations of the MidActs position.

 

[mmstroud]

Thanks judging u and :chicken: man for your thoughtful responses to my questions. I think between you, my questions were answered.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I wonder if anyone disagrees that a literal land was promised to the nation of Israel and that a literal kingdom was promised to Israel? And that these were/are irrevocable promises.

apparently, Nang hasn't paroused this thread yet...

 

[chickenman]

:chuckle:
Maybe she's just trying to behave herself.

 

[Town Heretic]

TH,

Per your message, here's an example...

A former pastor of mine believes that we in the Body of Christ have been forgiven all trespasses (Col. 2:13). He also believes that the exact same doctrine is taught in all 27 books of the NT. So what do you think he does with this?

"For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." Matt. 6:14-15
​

He says that "forgiveness" here has nothing to do with forgiveness of sins as one would normally think of it. He says that Jesus is referring to our relationship with God. If we don't forgive one another, then we will have a strained relationship with God that can't be fully restored until we forgive our brother. But we are and do remain forgiven by God; nothing can undo that.

Pretty bizarre contortion of God's Word, if you ask me.

From the MidActs perspective, we simply recognize that Jesus, in the gospel accounts, is on earth ministering to Israel under the Old Covenant. Under the Old Covenant, forgiveness is conditional. We are just fine with Jesus' words exactly as written and as my 10-year old daughter would understand them. And we're okay with Paul saying something different, since it was a RISEN Jesus, after Israel was cut off, who gave Paul this different message.

Was that a good example?

Randy

Exactly the sort of helpful thing I was asking after with my earlier inquiry. :thumb: And would this be a good point to recommend your book for popular consumption? oly: I'm just saying, it's worth anyone's time who has an interest in this subject. :e4e:

 

[chickenman]

Exactly the sort of helpful thing I was asking after with my earlier inquiry. :thumb: And would this be a good point to recommend your book for popular consumption? oly: I'm just saying, it's worth anyone's time who has an interest in this subject. :e4e:

Thanks, TH. I appreciate that. It'd be a good doorstop, if nothing else.

 

[chickenman]

As MidActs Dispensationalists, we refuse to accept a traditional belief just because it is popular, has a long line of tradition, etc. One such very traditional and popular belief that we challenge is the idea that the Body of Christ began at Pentecost. This is an idea that, when tested, comes up sorely lacking.


If one accepts that Israel was promised a literal, earthly kingdom in the promised land, and if one accepts that the kingdom is being proclaimed as at hand in the Gospel accounts, then it is hard to understand the position that that all disappeared on the day of Pentecost. Here are some reasons why that is a difficult notion the accept:

• Pentecost is a Jewish feast (Feast of Weeks). Why would a non-national entity (Body of Christ), in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile, begin on a distinctly Jewish holiday?
• The Spirit is poured out at Pentecost. Ezekiel 11 prophecies that the Israel and Juda will be given a spirit that enables them to walk in God's statutes.
• Joel prophecied that the outpouring of the Spirit would be the beginning of end, that it would precede the Day of the Lord.
• Peter (after having just received the Spirit) announced that the outpouring of the Spirit was just what Joel spoke of.
• In Peter's sermon to the Jews (including Hellenists) in attendance, he preaches that Jesus was raised from the dead to sit on David's throne, and that that promise (bringing to mind the II Sam 7 kingdom promise) was for "you [men of Israel in Judea], your children [self-explanatory], and all who are afar off [the dispersion of Israelites, to whom the promise was given]."

In my opinion, people need to say that Peter was dead wrong if they want to say Pentecost marks the beginning of the Body of Christ. So in light of these bullet points, not the least of which is what Peter clearly says the event is, if one insists that Pentecost represents the "birth of the Body", then he must answer the question: What in the text demands that to be so?

I've literally never received a straightforward answer to the question.

Randy

 

[Ktoyou]

That's true, Kat. Whether we believe that God foreknew & planned the change in Acts 9 or not, it doesn't change the fact that a change was made. :up:

That is certainly true, changed in Acts 9 and I would say that was in God’s plan. He changes to us by revealing the mystery, but my position is He always knew and it was always His Divine plan

 

[Ktoyou]

As MidActs Dispensationalists, we refuse to accept a traditional belief just because it is popular, has a long line of tradition, etc. One such very traditional and popular belief that we challenge is the idea that the Body of Christ began at Pentecost. This is an idea that, when tested, comes up sorely lacking.


If one accepts that Israel was promised a literal, earthly kingdom in the promised land, and if one accepts that the kingdom is being proclaimed as at hand in the Gospel accounts, then it is hard to understand the position that that all disappeared on the day of Pentecost. Here are some reasons why that is a difficult notion the accept:

• Pentecost is a Jewish feast (Feast of Weeks). Why would a non-national entity (Body of Christ), in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile, begin on a distinctly Jewish holiday?
• The Spirit is poured out at Pentecost. Ezekiel 11 prophecies that the Israel and Juda will be given a spirit that enables them to walk in God's statutes.
• Joel prophecied that the outpouring of the Spirit would be the beginning of end, that it would precede the Day of the Lord.
• Peter (after having just received the Spirit) announced that the outpouring of the Spirit was just what Joel spoke of.
• In Peter's sermon to the Jews (including Hellenists) in attendance, he preaches that Jesus was raised from the dead to sit on David's throne, and that that promise (bringing to mind the II Sam 7 kingdom promise) was for "you [men of Israel in Judea], your children [self-explanatory], and all who are afar off [the dispersion of Israelites, to whom the promise was given]."

In my opinion, people need to say that Peter was dead wrong if they want to say Pentecost marks the beginning of the Body of Christ. So in light of these bullet points, not the least of which is what Peter clearly says the event is, if one insists that Pentecost represents the "birth of the Body", then he must answer the question: What in the text demands that to be so?

I've literally never received a straightforward answer to the question.

Randy

I agree fully here! Oh yes

 

[voltaire]

Im with ktoyou. I fully agree with randys bullet points, especially pentecost.

 

[Lighthouse]

No one expects the MAD inquisition.

 

[godrulz]

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."

SILENCE, infidel, or they will keel u?! Quit staring at them!

 

[godrulz]

Me too.

I hope the dissenters can force themselves to stay away. I can hear the gnashing of teeth outside the walls. I assume that's godrulz being restrained. :chuckle:

It is odd that you do not have to stay away when someone starts a thread against MAD, yet we have to stay away when you start one for it. So much for mature dialogue and freedom of speech.

I have a bruxism splint, so it protects my gnashed teeth somewhat.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

It is odd that you do not have to stay away when someone starts a thread against MAD, yet we have to stay away when you start one for it. So much for mature dialogue and freedom of speech.

I have a bruxism splint, so it protects my gnashed teeth somewhat.

If someone opened a thread and respectfully asked that Open Theists stay away, I think Randy would oblige them & not give it another thought.

 

[godrulz]

apparently, Nang hasn't paroused this thread yet...

Help, I can't breath. My muzzle is too tight and Nang is tethered to me, nagging me to death.

 

[Adoration]

If someone opened a thread and respectfully asked that Open Theists stay away, I think Randy would oblige them & not give it another thought.

Nobody asked for non MAD advocates to stay away.

As a Catholic I feel ultimately qualified to be called a "sincere inquisitor"!

 

[godrulz]

Nobody asked for non MAD advocates to stay away.

As a Catholic I feel ultimately qualified to be called a "sincere inquisitor"!

Yeh, thx for the Inquisitions. This could be part V for North Americans. Do you just Tazer people or are flames still in vogue?

 

[Adoration]

Yeh, thx for the Inquisitions. This could be part V for North Americans. Do you just Tazer people or are flames still in vogue?

Some info:

Officially it was not the Church that sentenced unrepenting heretics to death, more particularly to the stake. As legate of the Roman Church even Gregory IV never went further than the penal ordinances of Innocent III required, nor ever inflicted a punishment more severe than excommunication. Not until four years after the commencement of his pontificate did he admit the opinion, then prevalent among legists, that heresy should be punished with death, seeing that it was confessedly no less serious an offence than high treason. Nevertheless he continued to insist on the exclusive right of the Church to decide in authentic manner in matters of heresy; at the same time it was not her office to pronounce sentence of death. The Church, thenceforth, expelled from her bosom the impenitent heretic, whereupon the state took over the duty of his temporal punishment.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm

 

[chickenman]

It is odd that you do not have to stay away when someone starts a thread against MAD, yet we have to stay away when you start one for it. So much for mature dialogue and freedom of speech.

I have a bruxism splint, so it protects my gnashed teeth somewhat.

If someone opened a thread and respectfully asked that Open Theists stay away, I think Randy would oblige them & not give it another thought.

That's exactly right, STP.

Godrulz,
I know for a fact that there are some around here who are interested in learning (regardless of how they conclude) about the MidActs position. But they don't like the non-stop debate. And I know for a fact that they'd like to either participate in or at least just follow a conversation on the topic that isn't constantly interrupted. That's why I respectfully asked that you and others like you stay away.

As STP said, if you or anyone EVER asks me to stay out of a thread for any reason, then I'll oblige, without jumping in to throw a jab like you've done here.

So again, please stay away.

Randy

 

[chickenman]

Since I've received notes from others that are following the thread but not chiming in, then how about a slight shift to keep the thread progressing.

In my Tuesday night Bible study, we're studying Acts. I'd love to pick up here where we are in that study. Since we MidActs'ers have slightly varying ideas on some areas, then your insights will help me in the Bible Study (so this is obviously a self-serving request ). ANY MidActser...please offer whatever insights you have. And again, the sincere inquirers are welcome to ask questions, make comments, play devil's advocate, or whatever.



So far in our Acts study, we've covered the first 7 chapters where we've seen no evidence of the Body of Christ and tons of evidence that God's prophetic program is progressing along as planned. Of note, we've seen:

• After 40 days of Jesus teaching His chosen apostles things pertaining to the kingdom (Acts 1:3), they ask him if it is at this time that He would "restore the kingdom to Israel". After 40 days of training, we have to assume that they were asking an appropriate question based on an accurate understanding of the kingdom.
• Matthias is chose to replace Judas, bringing the number of apostles to sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes (Matt. 19:28) back up to the necessary 12.
• The Spirit is poured out, according to prophecy.
• Peter, having just been filled with the Spirit, makes it abundantly clear that the event is that of which Joel spoke. It's the beginning of events leading up to the Day of the Lord and the end.
• Peter preaches to the Jews that the one they murdered had risen to life, and He is the One promised to sit on David's throne, the promise that is to them, their children and to all who are afar off (their dispersed brethren).
• All believers begin living communally, selling all they have and dispersing to the needy, in keeping with the Lord's command of Luke 12:33 and in preparation of the coming kingdom.
• Peter's second sermon is like his first: you (his audience of Jews) murdered Jesus, who was raised back to life. Repent so that you can receive: 1) blotting out of sins (according to prophecy); 2) times of refreshing (as described in prophecies about the kingdom); 3) the return of Jesus, who was waiting in heaven until the times of restoration of all things (brining to mind the Ez. 37 prophecy about Him restoring Israel and Judah to the land and being their Prince and One Shepherd forever).
• Persecutions growing, beginning with Peter and John taken into custody and question, then imprisoned and beaten, then Stephen stoned and killed.
• Jesus stands, apparently ready to begin His judgments (see Mark 16:19 and compare with Ps. 110:1, Is. 3:13).

Before talking about events starting in chapter 8, does anyone have any thoughts on this other information? Any disagreements, comments, questions (from the MidActs or "sincere other")?

Thanks,
Randy