Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?

[Nick M]

Nick,

There is nothing in Scripture that teaches us we must confine the renewing of our minds solely within its borders.

No kidding. However, your red herring is irrelevant. Do you have a question or not? And as for your red herring, peoples opinions do not take authority over scripture.

You and the rest of the "Just Me and My Bible" crowd are not doing anyone any favors.

You are full of it. You are not to deviate from Paul's gospel. You do, and that is why you are outside the faith. You and your religion, like godrulz, are headed to hell.

But is this the pathway of wisdom? Does any man have either the right or the learning to by-pass all the godly learning of the church? We think not.

2 Corinthians 11:3

3 But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

There is a reason you rarely post scripture.

 

[Nick M]

There is nothing in Scripture that teaches us we must confine the renewing of our minds solely within its borders. You and the rest of the "Just Me and My Bible"

You need to stop straining your arm by all that patting of yourself on your back about how godly you are

So which is it? Are you going with what the Bible says, or what you make of it yourself? And then you pat yourself on the back with the solution you come up with outside the Bible. Nice contention you have built your false argument upon.

 

[godrulz]

Do you play chess, AMR? I will need someone to play with me in hell.

It is shocking that we are going to hell and Nick is not despite you and I affirming all essential, salvific truth that Nick does.

MAD has a sectarian/cultish mentality. If I ever do to Open Theism what Nick does to MAD, you can smack me in the head and have my 3000 volume library.

 

[Nick M]

Do you play chess, AMR? I will need someone to play with me in hell.

There will be no time for chess with your torement.

It is shocking that we are going to hell and Nick is not despite you and I affirming all essential, salvific truth that Nick does

2 Corinthians 11

12 But what I do, I will also continue to do, that I may cut off the opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the things of which they boast. 13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.

You seem to reduce it to an irreversible metaphysical change parallel to physical birth. In reality, it is a reciprocal love relationship, not an unconditional zapping. Past sins can be dealt with, but this does not preclude the possibility of heinous future sins, including blasphemy, that cannot be swept under the carpet by a holy God (judgment starts with the house of God; Ananias and Sapp were struck down

You believe your works will get you eternal life. Do you now deny this previous statement and admit you are wrong?

 

[godrulz]

There will be no time for chess with your torement.



2 Corinthians 11

12 But what I do, I will also continue to do, that I may cut off the opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the things of which they boast. 13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.



You believe your works will get you eternal life. Do you now deny this previous statement and admit you are wrong?

2 Cor. 11:4 applies in principle to us vs JWs. Their view of Christ as created Michael Archangel is another Jesus. You and I affirm the Deity/resurrection of Christ, Trinity, etc., so you cannot apply this verse to me without it applying to you. Everyone who disagrees with your pet MAD view does not fall into the category of non-Christian, false christ, false gospel. Do not misuse Scripture to negate the salvation of a fellow believer, idiot.

I have denied that works contribute to eternal life. I have said this for years. I have fully affirmed grace/faith (Jn. 1:12; Jn. 3:16; Rom. 1:16; Rom. 10:9-10; I Cor. 15:1-4; Titus 3:5; Eph. 2:8-10= shows the relationship between faith/works; I Jn. 5:11-13).

I have argued the gospel with unbelievers here that works are like filthy rags. God's standard is perfection and all the works in the world leave us short of the glory of God. I argue for Christ's finished work received by grace through faith. We add nothing to His shed blood. Works=religion; Christianity=relationship.

This should show that Nick is trying to make me look bad with false accusations, slander, misrepresentations. He cannot stand up to reason, so he resorts to argumentum ad hominem. Instead of admitting he is wrong about me, he will neg rep me for this as the spawn of Satan who needs to repent (yet his view denies that we need to repent).

Ironically, MAD adds a true gospel of faith+works post-cross (circ) denying His finished work. This is refuted by Gal. and Rom. I should be commended for rejecting a false works gospel, yet he accuses me of believing in one (I do not), while he promotes one himself?! Hypocrite.

One problem is that he thinks like a Calvinist. He assumes that an Arminian who talks about faith and continuance in the faith (vs OSAS) is making faith a work. This is false and Calvinism is wrong in its view of decretal determinism. Like Nick, they don't see it, but it is true.

The fact that Nick's buddies remain silent in the face of this shows that they are a sect who cares more about retaining their view than conforming it to Scripture and fostering love, unity in the Body (they create division while they claim to unify all doctrinal problems).

:ha::zoomin:

 

[Nick M]

I have denied that works contribute to eternal life.

I asked do you repent of this, because you are claiming salvation is conditional upon your performance.

You seem to reduce it to an irreversible metaphysical change parallel to physical birth. In reality, it is a reciprocal love relationship, not an unconditional zapping. Past sins can be dealt with, but this does not preclude the possibility of heinous future sins, including blasphemy, that cannot be swept under the carpet by a holy God (judgment starts with the house of God; Ananias and Sapp were struck down

I asked a simple question, and you can't even answer it.

I have fully affirmed grace/fait..... shows the relationship between faith/works.

100% outside the faith....The reason you try and have it both ways, is you don't really trust God all the way. So you try and cover all your bases.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I am going to just avoid direct conversation with Nick. His volatile and intractable temperment is not conducive for serious discussions. It will probably help his blood pressure,too, as it seems he is about to implode like Rumpelstiltskin stomping his little feet on the ground until he vanishes.

Fortunately Nick is not my regula fidei, so his rhetoric, neg reps, etc., especially as relates to my salvation are, well, irrelevant.

Moving on, the question posed at the link in my post still stands should anyone care to answer. Again, not seeking debates, but responses from those that actually do read things besides their Bibles (and internet discussion site posts) that I can accumulate into the running list of MAD distinctives I have been gathering (see earlier post).

AMR

 

[godrulz]

I asked do you repent of this, because you are claiming salvation is conditional upon your performance.



I asked a simple question, and you can't even answer it.




100% outside the faith....The reason you try and have it both ways, is you don't really trust God all the way. So you try and cover all your bases.

Eph. 2:8-10 talks about the root of faith for salvation and the fruit of works post-conversion. Take it up with Paul. You say I am outside the faith, but Paul mentions both in the same verses. Rom. 4-5 is clear about justification by grace through faith apart from works. Titus 3:5 also confirms this as does Jn. 3:16 (that you deny for the church?!). Works are post-conversion. They do not save or keep us.

Again, you lack integrity and credibility because you make a straw man of my views, despite my clarifications over and over to you. Then you think you are a hero because you can consign me to hell and tell others that I believe something myself and every other evangelical refutes.

Do you really think I made it through a conservative Bible College, years of church, pastoring, years of study, etc. and do not know or believe a Sunday School truth that Luther emphasized?

Idiot.

 

[Nick M]

I am going to just avoid direct conversation with Nick. His volatile and intractable temperment is not conducive for serious discussions. It will probably help his blood pressure,too, as it seems he is about to implode like Rumpelstiltskin stomping his little feet on the ground until he vanishes.

Said another way, I have no answer . All your obfuscation only makes you look big to low information people like Traditio and TSF. You are pathetic.

 

[godrulz]

Said another way, I have no answer . All your obfuscation only makes you look big to low information people like Traditio and TSF. You are pathetic.

He can talk circles around you, even if he is not right about everything. Look in the mirror. You are always attacking people more than you are providing substantial arguments yourself.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

What would a MAD position look like as an add-on to this chart:

View attachment 17714
[Click image to enlarge]

 

[Nick M]

Since you always want to just drop links, I went and found one that is not active with the webarchive.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030801...wers.com/Articles/Second Coming Confusion.htm

 

[godrulz]

What would a MAD position look like as an add-on to this chart:

View attachment 17714
[Click image to enlarge]

MAD seems to often be pre-trib, pre-mill., a common evangelical view. I don't think their eschatology is the biggest problem with the view. Two true gospel theories, confusing eschatological and soteriological issues, etc. is more germane?

 

[intojoy]

Galatians 2:7 for one.

But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised (Galatians 2:7 NASB)

Pretty pathetic example in my observation. I'm a high school drop out but I think it says there is one gospel there. It just had two ministers sharing the same message. I would need more evidence because this isn't any evidence at all. I'll look at the KJV since some mads are into that.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised ()

Pretty pathetic example in my observation. I'm a high school drop out but I think it says there is one gospel there. It just had two ministers sharing the same message. I would need more evidence because this isn't any evidence at all. I'll look at the KJV since some mads are into that.

:wave2:

I would suggest going back to Genesis and looking at how God dealt with Abraham before circumcision (gospel of uncircumcision) and how he dealt with Abraham after circumcision (gospel of circumcision).

It's a good study, MAD or not.

 

[intojoy]

But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (Galatians 2:7 KJV)

No, it's the same thing in the KJV. The gospel of the circumcision is salvation by grace alone thru faith alone in Christ alone plus nothing as shown in John chapter 3 by Yeshua Himself.

The gospel to Gentiles same thing
Grace alone thru faith alone in Christ alone plus nothing

I can see how this could turn into a heat seeking missile topic and I'm not interested in firing away. I'd never heard of mad before so its good to see what you believe even if I disagree.

Stick to evangelism

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; ()

No, it's the same thing in the KJV. The gospel of the circumcision is salvation by grace alone thru faith alone in Christ alone plus nothing as shown in John chapter 3 by Yeshua Himself.

The gospel to Gentiles same thing
Grace alone thru faith alone in Christ alone plus nothing

I can see how this could turn into a heat seeking missile topic and I'm not interested in firing away. I'd never heard of mad before so its good to see what you believe even if I disagree.

Stick to evangelism

I would suggest going back to Genesis and looking at how God dealt with Abraham before circumcision (gospel of uncircumcision) and how he dealt with Abraham after circumcision (gospel of circumcision).

It's a good study, MAD or not.

 

[intojoy]

I would suggest going back to Genesis and looking at how God dealt with Abraham before circumcision (gospel of uncircumcision) and how he dealt with Abraham after circumcision (gospel of circumcision).



It's a good study, MAD or not.

That's not a suggestion that I feel is warranted. I am fully convinced in my mind that there are no "two gospels" and I have no desire to debate it, it's not debatable to me.

We agree on salvation and that's enough for me. I'm leaving mad behind. It's ok for you guys to think the way you want to think I just can't agree with it.

Thanks for the effort tho. I know it is well intended.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

That's not a suggestion that I feel is warranted. I am fully convinced in my mind that there are no "two gospels" and I have no desire to debate it, it's not debatable to me.

We agree on salvation and that's enough for me. I'm leaving mad behind. It's ok for you guys to think the way you want to think I just can't agree with it.

Thanks for the effort tho. I know it is well intended.

Okie dokie.
Abraham is father of the circumcision and the uncircumcision. It would be a worthwhile study

 

[glorydaz]

Okie dokie.
Abraham is father of the circumcision and the uncircumcision. It would be a worthwhile study

Ignorance isn't bliss. I'm interested if you want to start a study on it. Clearly, there is a difference. All one needs to do is compare what the disciples preached and what Paul preached. I'd say ignorance results in the mixing of messages we see people like Jason putting forth. I think he's probably "half circumcised".