Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?

[Jerry Shugart]

I do not think that at that point Peter knew Jesus was to be the sacrifice for sin

Then you believe what I said earlier:

What about Peter? At the time when he said the following He did not even know that the Lord Jesus was to die:

"He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven" (Mt.24:16-18).​

Did not Peter receive the following blessings when he believed what the Father had revealed to him?:

"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life" (Jn.5:24).​

Of course Peter was saved when he believed the truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, even though he did not even know that the Lord was to die. But according to you mistaken ideas that could not possibly happen.

Why did you not address that?

Before the Resurrection, of course, Jesus spoke about the new birth and receiving eternal life. However, what he was merely giving them the right to claim the promise when it became available like a gift which is effectively not not actually yours. It was on layaway, if you will.

Why did you not even attempt to answer what I earlier said about that subject?:

According to the Lord Jesus no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born again (Jn.3:5-7). But what about Abraham, who died before the atonement? Of course he was born again because he will enter the kingdom:

“There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out” (Lk.13:28).​

According to the Lord Jesus no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of God (Jn.3:5-7). But what about Abraham, who died before the atonement? Of course he was born again because he will enter the kingdom:​

The promise of redemption from sins that were committed under the Old Covenant could be received on the full faith and credit of the one who had the authority to forgive sin. However, all the promises were pending final payment at Calvary. Had Jesus not gone to the cross He could not have forgiven sin. If He could have forgiven sin without the cross the the shedding of His blood was unnecessary and the Father would have shown Him that at Gethsemene but there was no other way.

Of course no sins could be forgiven unless the Lord Jesus died upon the Cross. But that does not mean that people could not receive the blessings which flow from the Lord Jesus'death PRIOR to the Cross.

You asked:

How does a "Son of God" even the promised Messiah save people from their sins?

Do you deny the fact He did that before the Cross, as witnessed by His words to the woman who washed His feet:

“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).​

When Jesus told people they were forgiven He was in a sense giving them a promissory note based upon what He was going to do on the cross. The full benefit could not be enjoyed until the note was paid for after He proclaimed tetelestai.

Are you saying that even though the Lord Jesus told the woman that her sins were forgiven that she really wasn't because the "full benefits could not be enjoyed" until later?

Are you saying that even though the Lord Jesus told her that she was saved she really wasn't because that benefit could not be enjoyed until later?

All I see from you is a failed attempt to defend your idea that everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is NOT born of God. All you are doing is denying what the Apostle John wrote here:

"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God...for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world? Only the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God" (1 Jn.5:1-5).​

 

[intojoy]

Are you under the illusion that verse says that those who believe are "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Jn.5:24)?

Otherwise, I cannot see why you would think that you have answered anything at all!

What have you been drinking, my grandson?

Zinfandel

Why won't you tell me what it says granpop?

 

[intojoy]

Yes, they could. I have already given you the example of David, who lived under the Law. He received the imputed righteousness of God by his faith:

"Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin" (Ro.4:6-8).​

No, James was not wrong. Earlier in the same epistle he tells us exactly how a person is saved:

"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures" (James 1:18).​

Was James wrong?

The verses you quoted are in regard to what one man may know about another man's faith:

"Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works" (James 2:18).​

Earlier I asked you the following question after quoting from Romans 4:

Here Paul used David, who lived under the law, as an example to illustrate the principle that salvation has always been apart from works.

And here is your answer:



I cannot understand why you quoted the verses from James which you did since you agree with me that “salvation has always been apart from works.“

That's it!
Abe believed God and got saved. Thanks

 

[godrulz]

godrulz denies it all the time when comes around. So does a whole load of people here.

I have affirmed I Cor. 15 and the Deity, death, resurrection of Christ, salvation by grace through faith apart from works, etc. since 1978.

You have the integrity and theological depth of a gnat.:singer:

 

[Nick M]

I have affirmed I Cor. 15 and the Deity, death, resurrection of Christ, salvation by grace through faith apart from works, etc. since 1978.

You have the integrity and theological depth of a gnat.:singer:

So then you have repented of these statements?

I believe it in context, not as a proof text for your views. Justification is about our initial coming to Christ when we are declared righteous (legal term) and our past sins are dealt with. At that point of conversion, there are no future sins yet. Reconciliation deals with our past sins. My objection is to think we can persist in sheer rebellion, sin, and disobedience with impunity because non-existent sins have blanket forgiveness just because our past sins were dealt with at justification.

The glorified body is irreversible/unconditional/unilateral since it is a metaphysical/ontological change that God will not reverse. Salvation is not metaphysical (confusion of categories on your part), but a reciprocal love relationship that is conditional and involving two parties. As in marriage, it is reversible (divorce is possible; analogies can be used both ways, so are limited). Spiritual rebirth is relational, not ontological like physical birth (so the unborn or unparent argument is lame).

You divorce salvation from ongoing relationship and being in Christ, the condition for eternal life (since it is in Him alone, not apart from Him I Jn. 5:11-13 present, continuous tenses). 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 Cor. and I Jn. has temporal judgment of believer's sin by death).

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.

Heb. 12 and I Jn. and Pauline writings contradict you (you dispensationalize away the former and are selective with the latter).

God is holy, not a deaf, dumb, blind idol with amnesia.

etc. blah blah; Jesus sees me as sinless even though I am fornicating, etc. blah blah)

It is NOT legal nor moral for a Christian. It is a sin, contrary to the will and Word of God. ....Are you saying abortion is lawful for a believer vs unbeliever, just not helpful?! Your harmartiology and soteriology needs correction.

 

[Nick M]

That's it!
Abe believed God and got saved. Thanks

Before or after circumcision? Was he not justified when he raised up his son on the altar?

 

[godrulz]

NIck fails to understand the full orb of salvation including justification, regeneration, sanctification, perseverance, etc.

 

[Nick M]

I have affirmed I Cor. 15 and the Deity, death, resurrection of Christ, salvation by grace through faith apart from works, etc. since 1978.

You have the integrity and theological depth of a gnat.:singer:

So then you have repented of these statements?

I believe it in context, not as a proof text for your views. Justification is about our initial coming to Christ when we are declared righteous (legal term) and our past sins are dealt with. At that point of conversion, there are no future sins yet. Reconciliation deals with our past sins. My objection is to think we can persist in sheer rebellion, sin, and disobedience with impunity because non-existent sins have blanket forgiveness just because our past sins were dealt with at justification.

The glorified body is irreversible/unconditional/unilateral since it is a metaphysical/ontological change that God will not reverse. Salvation is not metaphysical (confusion of categories on your part), but a reciprocal love relationship that is conditional and involving two parties. As in marriage, it is reversible (divorce is possible; analogies can be used both ways, so are limited). Spiritual rebirth is relational, not ontological like physical birth (so the unborn or unparent argument is lame).

You divorce salvation from ongoing relationship and being in Christ, the condition for eternal life (since it is in Him alone, not apart from Him I Jn. 5:11-13 present, continuous tenses). 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 Cor. and I Jn. has temporal judgment of believer's sin by death).

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.

Heb. 12 and I Jn. and Pauline writings contradict you (you dispensationalize away the former and are selective with the latter).

God is holy, not a deaf, dumb, blind idol with amnesia.

etc. blah blah; Jesus sees me as sinless even though I am fornicating, etc. blah blah)

It is NOT legal nor moral for a Christian. It is a sin, contrary to the will and Word of God. ....Are you saying abortion is lawful for a believer vs unbeliever, just not helpful?! Your harmartiology and soteriology needs correction.

 

[Nick M]

NIck fails to understand the full orb of salvation including justification, regeneration, sanctification, perseverance, etc.

What does that have to do with you claiming salvation is relational and you can sin your way out of it?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Zinfandel

Why won't you tell me what it says granpop?

Get off the Jack Daniels before returning, grandson!

You are making even less sense than before!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

NIck fails to understand the full orb of salvation including justification, regeneration, sanctification, perseverance, etc.

Did you really say this?:

The glorified body is irreversible/unconditional/unilateral since it is a metaphysical/ontological change that God will not reverse. Salvation is not metaphysical (confusion of categories on your part), but a reciprocal love relationship that is conditional and involving two parties. As in marriage, it is reversible (divorce is possible; analogies can be used both ways, so are limited). Spiritual rebirth is relational, not ontological like physical birth (so the unborn or unparent argument is lame).

Are you not aware that those who have been sanctified by the blood of the Lamb are "perfected forever"?:

"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all...For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified" (Heb.10:10,14).​

 

[intojoy]

Before or after circumcision? Was he not justified when he raised up his son on the altar?

Before circumcision.
And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness. (*Genesis‬ *15‬:*6‬ ESV)

 

[intojoy]

Get off the Jack Daniels before returning, grandson!

You are making even less sense than before!

What is this? seven times you've refused to answer me? I answered your questions...
This is a sign of weakness dad.

 

[godrulz]

What does that have to do with you claiming salvation is relational and you can sin your way out of it?

Unbelief is a unique sin. You wrongly think I mean any old sin.

I do not need to repent of my non-inspired/non-canonical statements. Perhaps what you need is for me to clarify them so you do not misunderstand/misrepresent them?

 

[godrulz]

What does that have to do with you claiming salvation is relational and you can sin your way out of it?

Relationships have a beginning, middle, possible end or not. The doctrine of justification is related to, but not identical to truths about sanctification and glorification.

 

[godrulz]

Did you really say this?:



Are you not aware that those who have been sanctified by the blood of the Lamb are "perfected forever"?:

"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all...For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified" (Heb.10:10,14).​

Try another translation of this difficult verse.

There are a couple of verses that equate justification and sanctification using the sanc. concept as an initial setting apart as holy unto God at conversion. There are many more that show a practical, progressive, aspect/reality worked out over time cooperatively.

The mistake is to assume all truth is in the couple of verses while ignoring an equally valid truth in many more verses (cf. JWs who think Sheol/Hades is always the grave and not place of departed souls in other contexts).

MAD relies on proof texts out of context in KJV or NKJV, not sound Greek or English evidence in context.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

What is this? seven times you've refused to answer me? I answered your questions...
This is a sign of weakness dad.

Go back and read my response. I did answer you but you are so confused that you cannot recognize that truth. Lay of the booze for a while and perhaps you will start thinking straight. At this time you are nothing but a bore!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

MAD relies on proof texts out of context in KJV or NKJV, not sound Greek or English evidence in context.

You make false charges against MAD because you are a Pentecostal who refuses to see the truth that the present dispensation did not begin on the day of Pentecost.

I will quote these verses from the NIV and not from either the KJV or NKJV. First, we can see that the Christian is told that he already possess eternal life:

"And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son" (1 Jn.5:11; NIV).​

And this is what the Lord Jesus says about those to whom He has given eternal life:

"My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish" (Jn.10:27-28; NIV).​

The Lord Jesus says that they shall never perish but you say that they can!

You deny the Lord Jesus' words and then you claim that you believe what is written in the Bible.

 

[Nick M]

Unbelief is a unique sin. You wrongly think I mean any old sin.

You divorce salvation from ongoing relationship and being in Christ, the condition for eternal life (since it is in Him alone, not apart from Him I Jn. 5:11-13 present, continuous tenses). 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 Cor. and I Jn. has temporal judgment of believer's sin by death).

 

[godrulz]

Temporal judgment (death) of a believer (Cor.; Acts) does not necessarily negate their salvation. Unbelief is the unique sin, the antithesis of saving faith. Apostasy is warned about in Scripture (falling away by believes). Many MAD say post-cross circ believers can fall away (vs OSAS), so it is not as unreasonable a concept as you are making out. Saying Pauline believers are OSAS, but post-cross non-Pauline ones are not OSAS ignores the fundamentals of redemption, reconciliation, perseverance rooted in the cross/Christ with or without Paul.