SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Have you been initially, but not terminally, justified Nick?
Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
Have you been initially, but not terminally, justified Nick?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
heir
TOL Subscriber
Regeneration, justification, sanctification (a few verses talk about an initial setting apart with many more talking about a progressive work until we die or are resurrected). He is also talking about saints who were in relationship with Christ and growing/walking in it. This text does not negate other verses and principles of sanctification used by Paul elsewhere that would not fit your past tense only theory. e.g. 2 Cor. 7:1
We all do interpreting. MAD just tends to proof text out of context...not a good thing.
Do you think I am a Christian? If not, why not. If so, then our fellowship is based on the person and work of Christ, not MAD (affirming a supposed circ group that neither of us thinks exists beyond the first century as a true group...so it is moot/academic, but you turn it into WW III).
I do. It is you foisting a wrong paradigm (eisegesis vs exegesis) onto proof texts. MAD falls apart with sound exegesis/original language research/all relevant verses/right paradigm.
There is a reason hardly any evangelicals embrace it and why it was not a view in church history until recently. Give your head a shake.
Wrong. Past tense, he is describing an event that happened.
1 Corinthians 6:11
And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
This is the "unconditional zapping" that you don't like.
Then why don't you tell us what dead to sin and alive to Christ really means, if it doesn't mean what Paul said.
I agreed that a couple uses of sanctification are equated with justification and are past tense to those who are addressed as believers. This does not negate the present and future tenses also used of the concept. There is an initial setting apart as holy (words have a range of meaning) AND an ongoing working out of His life in us over time cooperatively (hence the exhortations and imperatives hyper-grace error downplays or denies). It is both/and, not either/or.
Instead of looking at all relevant verses, you get ostrich syndrome to retain a simplistic, wrong view. This is not teachable and does not make you credible as a teacher.
Rom. 8 also uses past tense for glorification despite it usually being a future tense issue. We are not glorified yet, but the past tense can be used in Greek grammar to convey certainty and expectancy despite it actually being a future event. Since you guys despise facts, who can help you?
He said to consider, reckon, count yourself dead to sin and alive to Christ. This was in a context of Christians who were sinning (Rom. 6-8; I Cor.; Eph.; Gal.; I Jn.; Heb., etc.).
You are wrong to think a holy God is deaf, dumb, and blind.
You are lying sir. You did not answer and you won't now because you can't.
If Abraham believed God and God credited to him the righteousness of God that means he was justified by grace he was saved.
Isn't that what it says?
Oh, then for the umpteenth time (that you never answered), what does that passage really teach pops
JosephR
New member
11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13 Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness. 14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.
This seems pretty cut and dry and what Nick has been saying. It evens tells you what we are to do,be an instrument of righteousness as a newborn child of God.
This seems pretty cut and dry and what Nick has been saying. It evens tells you what we are to do,be an instrument of righteousness as a newborn child of God.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
The gospel of grace is not complete unless the following in "bold" is included, that believers are "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Ro.3:24).
Now for the umpteenth time the verse about Abraham does not teach the gospel and does not reveal the entire truth of the gospel! If you think it does then you do not even know the gospel.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
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. And then when confronted with these truths you run away from them as fastas you can with your tail between your legs!
Last edited:
Shasta
Well-known member
No, I do not think anyone was born again before the cross because that was one of the the works of the cross. It was what made the difference between New and Old Covenant believers. I will address that in my next post.
Let me deal with this last point first since you have tried to make it a number of times and it is so obviously false. You say that the Apostle John in his writings is communicating the "Jewish gospel" that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" but that for some reason he either did not understand or chose not to teach the "Gentile gospel" that Christ died for our sin. This is patently false by any standard of hermeneutic since in this same letter John also says And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world
(I John 2:2).
The Greek word translated "propitiation" (hilasmos/ἱλασμός) according to Thayer's Lexicon refers to a means of appeasing,"
Strongs says the word refers to a sin offering or forgiveness,
http://biblehub.com/greek/2434.htm
Accordingly the NET Bible translates 1 John 2:2 as and he himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for our sins but also for the whole world. (NET)
The same word appears again in 1 John 4:10
In this is love: not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins. (NET)
This is not playing word games. The Oxford dictionary defines "propitiate" as to Win or regain the favor of (a god, spirit, or person) by doing something that pleases them: the pagans thought it was important to propitiate the gods with sacrifices
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/propitiate
It is also a fitting word since in the LXX hilasmos was used for the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 25:9) τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ ἱλασμοῦ
How can you possibly say that the "Jewish gospel" was distinct and separate from the "Gentile gospel" and have the audacity to use as your supporting text one verse out of John's whole first epistle (1 Jn.5:24) when 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10, and 1 John 1:7 say that we are cleansed and forgiven on the basis of His atoning sacrifice? This is not the way to rightly divide the word of truth
BTW when I discussed your claims with a D.T.S. graduate yesterday he said they most certainly do not teach anything like MAD and furthermore that your whole idea of two gospels sounded heretical.
I intend on addressing more of what you have said. This particular error that was the most obvious and easy to point out though when I have before you ignored it.
Dialogos
Well-known member
:nono:
Look at the context.
Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
11 The saying is trustworthy, for: If we have died with him, we will also live with him;
12 if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us;
13 if we are faithless, he remains faithful-- for he cannot deny himself.
(2Ti 2:10-13 ESV)
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
How many times will I have to tell you that I believe that two different gospes were preached during the Acts period. Are you not aware that John's first epistle was written after that?
You are so convinced that only one gospel was preached during the Acts period but you have yet to give any evidence from the Scriptures to support that assertion.
To top it off you say that believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is not enough for anyone to be born of God. But that is contradicted by what the Apostle John says 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).
Of course when one believes this truth and are born of God they receive life and here John says that those who believe that jesus is the Christ, the Son of god, receive that life:
"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name" (Jn.20:31).
Frankly, all I have seen from you is the fact that you put more faith in what some men say about the Scriptures than you do in what the Scriptures actually say!
Shasta
Well-known member
Nobody believed this until Augustine. He thought that man was so corrupt that he had no choice. Therefore God had to determine unilaterally that man, certain select ones, believe involuntarily. This doctrine came from a Gnostic cult he had belonged to prior to his conversion. For several hundred years since the First Century the Church fathers strongly argued against predeterminism for freewill. They believed God influenced men to be saved and if they did not choose to do so it was on them. God could not be blamed for men's damnation. Augustine did not heed his predecessors the AnteNicene Fathers primarily because he could not read Greek and he was too influenced by Plato. With him everything including salvation and damnation was fixed. The AnteNicene Fathers on the other hand believed life and salvation was dynamic and living. The Platonic origins of this cult Manicheanism also explains Augustine's static view of time which is what predestination was based upon. Because Luther and particularly were Augustinian we now have a theology that purports to come from Paul when it comes from pagan Gnosticism. What I am saying is not hidden in history but well known.
Last edited:
Shasta
Well-known member
Men like people who write the lexicons? The purpose of linguistics is to understand what was said. Didn't you get your definitions from Greek references or is it only from man when the conclusion goes against MAD? You should not be offended or surprised when believers challenge you. After all, you hold the opinion of an extremely small minority. This does not in itself mean you are wrong but when something that is both extreme and unprecedented is proposed it is usually met with resistance. I say unprecedented because I have not found anyone advocating MAD before the 1800s. Apparently it took thousands of years studying the Book before some academic unearthed secrets that had remained as hidden as Joseph Smith's golden tablets. I wonder what the reformers or the great apologists of the Second Century would have thought had they been confronted with a doctrine that would result in reducing the authority of all non-Pauline writings and even that of Jesus Himself to that of helpful but not mandatory.
I know when the epistles and gospels were written. That is what was confusing You seemed to be arguing that John did not believe Jesus died for our sins when it was plain that he did. Apparently you think he did not figure out what the cross had accomplished until well after the period of Acts was over. In that case you should not presented the epistle of John as if it were an example of your supposed "Jewish Gospel" by quoting only those verses that support your theory since the other verses I quoted in the same letter speak of the work of the cross, (the atonement and cleansing by the blood of Christ), that is, the Gentile gospel. SINCE John was the last of the twelve apostles and he apparently accepted all parts of the gospel, the blood atonement of Christ as well as his divine identity as the Son of God and His Messiahship John's letters should be regarded as having equal authority and relevance to the writings of the Apostle Paul. The same must be said then of Peter's epistle since he also spoke of the "precious blood of Jesus."
Of course this does not answer that troubling scripture about how Jesus, right after the Resurrection, explained in detail the reasons for his suffering (on the cross) from all the scriptures that pertained to it. You also have to make up some fabulous way for Philip to explain about Jesus crucifixion while dodging the connection to those notable and graphic references to it Isaiah's prophecy. I mean, there is hardly anything in that passage but the cross.
Last edited:
Rom. 4-5 shows that grace/faith was the issue even in the OT.
MAD makes a post-cross gospel a faith/works gospel (false gospel, not a true gospel before Paul)?! It is a false view that is rightly rejected.