SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
2 Tim 1:15 (KJV)
ECT If MAD does not believe this then why do they not deny it?
- Thread starter Lazy afternoon
- Start date
- Status
2 Tim 1:15 (KJV)
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Yer attachment starts in Galatians 3.
Grave error.
Paul knew he was going to the heathens from jump street.
There was no later command.
Galatians 1:16 KJV
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
Yes! Please do!
turbosixx
New member
Yes, there was a called out of God's people before Acts but it wasn't the one purchased by Christ's blood.
Acts 20:28 Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
LA,
You began this thread with posting some issues that you couldn't get any Mid-Acts Dispensationalists to address. I addressed them in as intellectually honest a manner as I know how but you remain undeterred and seem to want to insist that my position is somehow an outlier and that your understanding of our doctrine is still accurate. It isn't.
Your posts on this thread since I showed up here show an unwillingness to discuss anything but rather a desire on your part to preach and to erect straw men to knock over. Typically, I'd just blow you off and let you live blissfully in your ignorance but for whatever reason I've decided to make an exception and see if I can get an honest attempt on your part to answer a question or two in defense of your own position. After all, turn about is fair play! The hope is genuinely to spark a real exchange where perhaps you'll leave with, at the very least, a better understanding of what it is you're fighting against because if you persist with this idea that all we are doing is trying to figure out a way to preserve the denial of a pet doctrine of yours, you're never going to get anything but a bunch of people thinking you're one scoop shy of an ice cream sundae.
Give a crack at answering the following question(s)...
If the gospel message preached by Paul is the same message preached by Peter then what's the point of Paul in the first place?
Weren't there already twelve Apostles? Wheren't all twelve indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:32 - 2:4)? Wasn't it the Apostles that were given the Great Commission by Christ Himself as well as all authority to act in His absence, even the authority to forgive sins? (Matt. 28:16-20 & John 20:19-23). Was the indwelling of the Holy Spirit insufficient to make them both willing and able to preach the gospel to the whole world?
Why Paul?
I have another question for you...
Are you a communist?
Sounds like a ridiculous question but it isn't. You want to have a church modeled after the church Peter lead in the first century? Better put your house on the market!
Acts 4:32 - 5:11
Why was the first century church in Jerusalem communal and why shouldn't the church be communal today?
I look forward to your answers.
Resting in Him,
Clete
You began this thread with posting some issues that you couldn't get any Mid-Acts Dispensationalists to address. I addressed them in as intellectually honest a manner as I know how but you remain undeterred and seem to want to insist that my position is somehow an outlier and that your understanding of our doctrine is still accurate. It isn't.
Your posts on this thread since I showed up here show an unwillingness to discuss anything but rather a desire on your part to preach and to erect straw men to knock over. Typically, I'd just blow you off and let you live blissfully in your ignorance but for whatever reason I've decided to make an exception and see if I can get an honest attempt on your part to answer a question or two in defense of your own position. After all, turn about is fair play! The hope is genuinely to spark a real exchange where perhaps you'll leave with, at the very least, a better understanding of what it is you're fighting against because if you persist with this idea that all we are doing is trying to figure out a way to preserve the denial of a pet doctrine of yours, you're never going to get anything but a bunch of people thinking you're one scoop shy of an ice cream sundae.
Give a crack at answering the following question(s)...
If the gospel message preached by Paul is the same message preached by Peter then what's the point of Paul in the first place?
Weren't there already twelve Apostles? Wheren't all twelve indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:32 - 2:4)? Wasn't it the Apostles that were given the Great Commission by Christ Himself as well as all authority to act in His absence, even the authority to forgive sins? (Matt. 28:16-20 & John 20:19-23). Was the indwelling of the Holy Spirit insufficient to make them both willing and able to preach the gospel to the whole world?
Why Paul?
I have another question for you...
Are you a communist?
Sounds like a ridiculous question but it isn't. You want to have a church modeled after the church Peter lead in the first century? Better put your house on the market!
Acts 4:32 - 5:11
Why was the first century church in Jerusalem communal and why shouldn't the church be communal today?
I look forward to your answers.
Resting in Him,
Clete
turbosixx
New member
I don't see how it's different and I'm trying to see from everyone’s perspective. Paul even compares what the gospel he preaches with that of the other apostles to be sure he hasn’t “run in vain”.
Gal. 2:1 Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. 2 It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.
They see Paul had been “entrusted” with the gospel just as Peter had.
2:7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised.
The apostles recognize the “grace” given to Paul and give him the “right hand of fellowship”
2:9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
The only comment they have is:
2:10 They only asked us to remember the poor-the very thing I also was eager to do.
The only difference I see is the audience and even then Paul still preach to anyone and everyone.
Acts 17:…where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
How is Paul's message different?
Yeh, I noticed that after I posted it. It's an image, and it's so small I can't read it until it's posted. I didn't draw it but it's a little off I admit
Shasta
Well-known member
So your argument is that all those generations of believers, some of whom knew the Apostles, the Apologists and martyrs were all apostates?
Shasta
Well-known member
Paul was prepared in many ways to take the message to the nations for many reasons. He was educated and very well aware of all the philosophies and religions that were prevalent in that time. He knew how to talk to the many people's who lived beyond the borders of Israel. Paul was not only called but prepared to head up the outreach to the Gentile nations. Likewise Peter lead the mission to the Gentiles. I do not see that they needed to have fundamentally different messages nor do I see that the plan did not evolve over time. In fact it did, which is why later many of the Twelve left Israel to start missions in different nations at the time. History tells us that is what they did. Out of the original Apostles apparently only James stayed in Jerusalem and continued to minister exclusively to the Jews until around 68 AD.
At least they never explicitly said "there are two (or more) gospels" Still less did they teach about what the different "gospels" were, elaborating on the similarities and differences between them. If there had been a "Jewish Gospel" common sense would have dictated that it needed to be precisely identified so that people would not confuse that with the false "gospel" of the Judaizers.
The word "communist" implies the use of force to coerce people to give up their possessions. There is no place where we read that the Holy Spirit issued general orders to everyone to give up all they had to the community. Ananias and Sapphira were not made to give up there possessions. As Peter told them
4While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? (Acts 5:4)
Their sin was lying to the Holy Spirit - telling everyone that they had given all the money to the community when they had held back part of the price.
Sometimes on the mission field believers have a communal economy so their needs will be met while they focus on a the work of the ministry. I think it is clear that, at that time and place, the Spirit was leading a lot of people to give up their fortunes at that. I happen to think God was encouraging them to not focus on their jobs an homes so the Church could band together in an effort to reach out to their fellow Jews. This is speculation but it seems to fit what was going on at the time. He wanted them to be going out with the message of the gospel. Some, like Philip went out. For most, it seems to have taken persecution before they spread out. I do not think we can make what God was doing at a particular time as a mandate for all believers of all times.
The way things are going I can see the day when Christians might have to band together communally in order to survive. We had best not assume God is through with that pattern of life.
I agree.
Paul was an example of an Israelite who converted to being a Christian and what manner of life they must expect and keep.
There is only one gospel and both Paul and James are in agreement.
The works which will not save are the works a man might attempt to do in order to become saved, and the works after being saved are the works which show one is obedient to the one who saved them, without which one is not truly saved (even if they believe something) or one is reprobate and lost like Judas was.
Judas believed Christ, but did not surrender his heart fully to the Lord and betrayed Christ, just as all like him have done since in the following of their religion if perchance they can cover up their having turned away from the holy commandment given them. 2 Peter ch 2.
LA
You spent most of your time making speeches.
For a start there were more than the Apostles baptized in the Holy Spirit which was the authority to preach.
John said this to all who came to him to be baptized in water--
Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Mat 3:12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
Jesus repeated it, not only to the Apostles--
Act 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
Act 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
Act 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
Act 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
You make the common mistake in thinking men receive the indwelling of the Spirit before they are Baptised in the Spirit. Both begin at the same time.
Joh 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
Joh 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
Joh 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
Act 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
Act 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
Act 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Act 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
Act 8:20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.
You are suggesting the church was communist?
The church is still communal as you call it and Paul taught it---
2Co 8:14 But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality:
2Co 8:15 As it is written, He that had gathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no lack.
What sort of church are you a member of?
The modern version is not the Bible version, but some are the Bible version.
LA
Last edited:
Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Interplanner
Well-known member
For me, they are just too busy trying to formulate. They need to just let the various key statements of Scripture clash where they will.
Mat 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Act 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
Act 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Huh?
MAD is doctrinaire. They think there is a 'perfect' system in the NT that will have everything in a correct 'spot.' Nonsense. Meanwhile, while spending so much effort trying to find that elusive thing, they missed the plain meaning of the passages that say how the Bible is to be organized--or Biblical history, or theological history. Acts 13, 26, Eph 2, 3, Rom 3, 4, Gal 3, 4, Heb 8-10, 2 Cor 3-5.
The one belief that the new covenant is not in effect right now is red flag enough to consider the whole thing mad-ness. It is theology at its worst.
You could have said none of this - none of it - if you knew a thing about what you're talking about.
You're simply a follower of Covenant Theology or Process theology or whatever and reject the whole notion of anything else once you find one point, no matter how insignificant, that doesn't sound right to your hearing.
What in the world would make someone like you (the intentionally anti-intellectual) want to even join a website like this?
You are simply, wrong.
Yep.
Do not pretend that you do not know what the word communism means today, and what you were trying to infer by it.
You are being dishonest.
You have slipped from your carefully crafted responses designed to insult to the real you which MAD doctrine almost always produces.
Look up Cebu rubbish dump.
Psa 37:25 I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread.
Like many, you sin the sin of presumption.
Why not believe what Paul teaches?
Are there no MADists in your area, you could get together with and do nothing with.
LA
- Status