Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?

[SaulToPaul 2]

I spoke of two commissions. Peter was commissioned predominantly to preach to Jews and Paul was commissioned predominantly to Gentiles.

But why?

 

[Bright Raven]

But why?

Let me guess. Must be two gospels.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Let me guess. Must be two gospels.

God went to great lengths to keep the two ministries separate, yet the Christian religion goes to the same great lengths to mix them back up.

 

[Nang]

But why?

Why not?

It does not matter what the ethnicity of the audience consists of ... what matters is the gospel message of the preachers.


Peter and Paul were on the same page, because both were anointed by the Holy Spirit of God, as Apostles commissioned to share the gospel truths about the fulfillment of all kingdom prophecies in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ has ushered in a better and new Covenant of Grace that is to be proclaimed amongst all the world. The gospel is now global in nature; due to the nation of Israel losing her exclusive rights to holy ordinances of God because of her idolatry and spiritual adulteries.

 

[Nang]

Let me guess. Must be two gospels.

Illogical and unscriptural. . .

 

[Bright Raven]

Illogical and unscriptural. . .

Noted.

 

[Nang]

God went to great lengths to keep the two ministries separate, yet the Christian religion goes to the same great lengths to mix them back up.

This is not biblically accurate at all.

Who was the first Apostle sent to Cornelius in Acts 10?

Do you deny that those of the circumcision heard the gospel proclaimed by Paul?

And what do you think was the very purpose of the Decree of Jerusalem in Acts 15?

 

[godrulz]

Like this? These are verses you use when saying there is no grace.

Acts 5

4 While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

5 Then Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and breathed his last. So great fear came upon all those who heard these things. 6 And the young men arose and wrapped him up, carried him out, and buried him.

7 Now it was about three hours later when his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter answered her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much?”

She said, “Yes, for so much.”

9 Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 10 Then immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. And the young men came in and found her dead, and carrying her out, buried her by her husband.


Or maybe this....

Acts 10

13 And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.”

14 But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.”

Having Jewish baggage and prejudice does not mean he did not have the gospel and was clueless about the person and work of Christ.

God did not choose a non-Christian who got amnesia about the death and resurrection of Christ in early Acts vs late Gospels. He chose Peter to be the main player in the early church which happened to be majority Jewish. This shifted to a Gentile focus with Paul, but that is not tantamount to two different post-cross gospels.

This is basic NT theology with the burden of proof (failed) being on the new view that most have not heard of and without precedent among the greatest minds of the Spirit-led church for 2000 years.

 

[godrulz]

Note the agreement in Acts 15.

Then note WHO Paul preached to in Acts 16, Acts 17, Acts 18, and Acts 19.

Acts 15 was affirmation of Paul and the Jewish leaders against false Judaizers, not a usurping of a true circ gospel by a true uncirc gospel. MAD is guilty of a wrong paradigm forced into proof texts, not sound theology, not sound exegesis.

Gospel=good news and pre and post cross have differences, not post cross and post cross.

 

[godrulz]

Then why make a "demarcation of ministry"?

Jews were embracing the gospel and rejecting the gospel. The early church was birthed in a Jewish context, but expanded under Paul to the intended whole world. Jew/Gentile are one in Christ based on the cross, not Paul. We are talking missionary strategy and expansion of the gospel, not transition from one true gospel to another true gospel (like the true issue of going from Judaism to Christianity).

Acts is selective history and transitional. Jesus led them along in their understanding before and after the cross, but you proof text some verses while ignoring other ones that contradict your view. You even divide Paul's letters up in a strained way to try to retain a wrong preconceived view.

 

[godrulz]

But why?

Strategy. It is no different than Billy Graham starting out primarily vs exclusively to North Americans while Luis Palau went to South America first, but not exclusively. Bonnke was apostle to Africa, but now has crusades in America. Some went to China, India, etc., but they preached the same gospel if there were other nations represented in those countries.

The gospel is rooted in the person and work of Christ. There is only one such basis. Inventing a two gospel system post-cross means one would be a false gospel or denial of His finished work.

Demarcation of ministry is the clear issue that few deny. It resolves your proof texts and problem texts whereas your view creates contradictions, problems, and has negative implications for the relevance of the NT for the Church (chops up vs inspired unity of the Spirit through complementary vs contradictory authors).

I bet you a zillion$ I am right on the gist of this. I will be content to wait to heaven to collect (since you cannot be reasoned with now).

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Strategy. It is no different than Billy Graham starting out primarily vs exclusively to North Americans while Luis Palau went to South America first, but not exclusively. Bonnke was apostle to Africa, but now has crusades in America. Some went to China, India, etc., but they preached the same gospel if there were other nations represented in those countries.

The gospel is rooted in the person and work of Christ. There is only one such basis. Inventing a two gospel system post-cross means one would be a false gospel or denial of His finished work.

Demarcation of ministry is the clear issue that few deny. It resolves your proof texts and problem texts whereas your view creates contradictions, problems, and has negative implications for the relevance of the NT for the Church (chops up vs inspired unity of the Spirit through complementary vs contradictory authors).

I bet you a zillion$ I am right on the gist of this. I will be content to wait to heaven to collect (since you cannot be reasoned with now).

Oh.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Gospel=good news

Oh.

 

[godrulz]

I call it like I see it until proven otherwise. Possible? Plausible? Probable?

 

[Right Divider]

Acts 15 was affirmation of Paul and the Jewish leaders against false Judaizers, not a usurping of a true circ gospel by a true uncirc gospel. MAD is guilty of a wrong paradigm forced into proof texts, not sound theology, not sound exegesis.

Gospel=good news and pre and post cross have differences, not post cross and post cross.

Perhaps you can explain to the class why Peter (and the other eleven) never once preached the CROSS AS GOOD NEWS in Acts 2-5.

Not even once. Sure, I know what you'll say just like every one else that denies the distinctness of Paul's calling and ministry, Peter mentions the cross.

Not ONCE will you see Peter in Acts 2-5 tell anyone that they are saved because of Jesus' death on the cross.

 

[Nang]

Perhaps you can explain to the class why Peter (and the other eleven) never once preached the CROSS AS GOOD NEWS in Acts 2-5.

Not even once. Sure, I know what you'll say just like every one else that denies the distinctness of Paul's calling and ministry, Peter mentions the cross.

Not ONCE will you see Peter in Acts 2-5 tell anyone that they are saved because of Jesus' death on the cross.

All I can assume, is you do not consider Christ's crucifixion (Acts 2:23) to be the gospel.

What amazing evidence you provide that proves dispensationalists are spiritually blinded.

 

[Right Divider]

All I can assume, is you do not consider Christ's crucifixion (Acts 2:23) to be the gospel.

What amazing evidence you provide that proves dispensationalists are spiritually blinded.

SHOW ME/US where Peter claimed that the CROSS WAS GOOD NEWS in Act 2-5.

You show NOTHING.

There is a saying: PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

People like you always try to defect the question since it shows that you don't know what you're talking about or what the Bible says.

P.S. That He died for our sins was good new, not that he was murdered on the cross.

 

[Nang]

SHOW ME/US where Peter claimed that the CROSS WAS GOOD NEWS in Act 2-5.

Peter testified to Christ's crucifixion in Acts 2:23-24.

Who are you to say that was not revelation of good news?

P.S. That He died for our sins was good new, not that he was murdered on the cross.

Bah . . . you are just being a dispie dope.

 

[godrulz]

All I can assume, is you do not consider Christ's crucifixion (Acts 2:23) to be the gospel.

What amazing evidence you provide that proves dispensationalists are spiritually blinded.

The death and resurrection of Christ are seen in early Acts. Because the exact wording of I Cor. 15:1-4 is not used, they think it is not valid. MAD is clueless.

 

[Nang]

The death and resurrection of Christ are seen in early Acts. Because the exact wording of I Cor. 15:1-4 is not used, they think it is not valid. MAD is clueless.

MADists are truly Mad. . .

Totally delusional and crazy, nasty, stubborn, in their unbelief.