Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?

[intojoy]

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".

Get outta here glory!

 

[glorydaz]

Get outta here glory!

You're such a teaser. Do you really think I don't know how much you love the attention I give you? :chuckle:

 

[intojoy]

You're such a teaser. Do you really think I don't know how much you love the attention I give you? :chuckle:

Maybe. But I like you more now that I've read up on mad. Is AFT a mad too? I'm thinking not.

 

[glorydaz]

Maybe. But I like you more now that I've read up on mad. Is AFT a mad too? I'm thinking not.

If I'm MAD, I don't know it. But I do know what can't be explained is explained when I hear those MAD hatters teach. :angel:

 

[intojoy]

Well we all have our foibles

 

[godrulz]

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.

Correct. It is a demarcation of ministry, not a MAD legit proof text of two true gospels post-cross (which would be a denial of His finished work). There is one true NT gospel post-cross with different target audiences and different ministry teams. The grammar, context, theology supports this and contradicts MAD's pivotal proof text (the KJV genitive issue is part of their problem).

 

[godrulz]

: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.

The one post-cross NT gospel is not based on Abe pre and post Abe. It is based on the person and work of Christ, OT vs NT, Israel vs Church. Rom. 4-5 also argues that the gospel is always by grace through faith, even for Abe. MAD's supposed true circ gospel of faith/works is a false Judaizer gospel condemned in Gal. 1.

Two gospel theories post-cross, pre-Paul are non-starters. The view is false and it is sad to see people wasting so much time and energy on it (KJV only is even worse....some are gullible on both these wrong views).

 

[intojoy]

Yea
What the heck is jerry thinking? He's a smart guy.

 

[Nick M]

MAD's supposed true circ gospel of faith/works is a false Judaizer gospel condemned in Gal. 1.

So I can murder and rape and all is ok, right?

 

[Nick M]

Correct. It is a demarcation of ministry

What does this mean?

 

[godrulz]

So I can murder and rape and all is ok, right?

johnw says you can; I say you cannot....

 

[godrulz]

What does this mean?

Demarcation of ministry is the majority interpretation of this verse because it fits the context and grammar. You see it as two gospels because of a preconceived view you must proof text out of context.

It refers to the idea of two ministry teams taking the one and same gospel to two different target audiences.

It is like Billy Graham primarily vs exclusively taking the gospel to North Americans, while Reinhard Bonnke taking the same modern gospel primarily vs exclusively to Africans.

Two true post-cross gospels is a denial of the one gospel of Christ (in part).

 

[intojoy]

Demarcation of ministry is the majority interpretation of this verse because it fits the context and grammar. You see it as two gospels because of a preconceived view you must proof text out of context.



It refers to the idea of two ministry teams taking the one and same gospel to two different target audiences.



It is like Billy Graham primarily vs exclusively taking the gospel to North Americans, while Reinhard Bonnke taking the same modern gospel primarily vs exclusively to Africans.



Two true post-cross gospels is a denial of the one gospel of Christ (in part).

Yes their pre conceived philosophical prejudice

 

[Nick M]

johnw says you can; I say you cannot....

So then he didn't really die for all your sin, just the little stuff. Got it. :up:

 

[Nick M]

It refers to the idea of two ministry teams taking the one and same gospel to two different target audiences.

To whom did Paul go to first?

To whom did Peter go to first?

To whom did Paul go second?

To whom did Peter go second?

 

[Nick M]

To whom did Paul go to first?

To whom did Peter go to first?

To whom did Paul go second?

To whom did Peter go second?

Are you still trying to come up with a simple answer?

 

[godrulz]

So then he didn't really die for all your sin, just the little stuff. Got it. :up:

Huh? He died for all sin. His provision is perfect, but this does not mean universalism or hyper-grace is true. Future sins do not exist. Forgiveness while sin is persisted in is also not biblical.

He died for big and little. Unbelief is a unique sin. His objective provision must be subjectively appropriated or it is not efficacious.

 

[godrulz]

To whom did Paul go to first?

To whom did Peter go to first?

To whom did Paul go second?

To whom did Peter go second?

The normative pattern is always Jew first, but not exclusively. There was also transition in the early church from Peter/Jerusalem center to Paul/Gentile center.

Even in the OT, the scope of Israel was to bless the whole world, not just them. Jn. 3:16 is universal and God's heart always.

Just because Jesus went to Jews first does not mean His intention was not for all men.

Paul was raised up to expand the gospel as the apostle to the Gentiles. This does not mean he started another true gospel to supplant another true gospel. Paul and Peter stood against false gospels based on their common gospel.

 

[intojoy]

The one post-cross NT gospel is not based on Abe pre and post Abe. It is based on the person and work of Christ, OT vs NT, Israel vs Church. Rom. 4-5 also argues that the gospel is always by grace through faith, even for Abe. MAD's supposed true circ gospel of faith/works is a false Judaizer gospel condemned in Gal. 1.

Two gospel theories post-cross, pre-Paul are non-starters. The view is false and it is sad to see people wasting so much time and energy on it (KJV only is even worse....some are gullible on both these wrong views).

Hmmm? Circ gospel?
I get the two gospel error from the posts, so the Judaizers who followed Paul and waited for him to leave and then went in to the Gentiles to force circumcision, what is it that MAD teaches on them?

Surly they're not saying this was Pete's gospel? Please.

 

[Nick M]

So I can murder and rape and all is ok, right?

johnw says you can; I say you cannot....

So then he didn't really die for all your sin, just the little stuff. Got it. :up:

Huh?

Lest anybody loses track of his double talk. Now watch the double talk, all in one post.

He died for all sin.

His provision is perfect, but this does not mean universalism or hyper-grace is true.

So then his provision is not perfect, if he did not die for blasphemers, murderers, and adulterers like David and Saul, called Paul in Greek.

Future sins do not exist.

What does that have to do with murder and adultery?

He died for big and little.

Except these big ones.

So I can murder and rape and all is ok, right?

johnw says you can; I say you cannot....

You double talking devious perverted of the gospel. How dare you blaspheme. This is not the first time we have had this exact same exchange, and you give the exact same double talk lies. Let you be accursed, and tossed in the fire.