Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?

[Shasta]

Those who believe the church, the Body of Christ, started in Acts 2 are not dispensational. They are wrong dividers. The gospel in Acts 2 is NOT the gospel that Paul preached.

Jesus taught about the new birth (John 3:5-8). When His redemptive work was completed and He came back from the dead He went to the disciples and breathed on them saying "Receive the Holy Spirit" ( John 20:22). The Spirit who had been WITH them was then been put IN them …16 "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you. Thus He brought into reality what He had been speaking about previously.

They were born of the Spirit, an event which had been spoken of by three major prophets. Ezekiel 36:27 …26 "Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27"I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

This made them partakers of the New Covenant. This is why the Jews were surprised when the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit. That was a sign of the New Covenant that was to replace the Mosaic covenant. All who are part of the new covenant fellowship in the Blood of Christ, a reality which is enacted time and time again in the ceremony of Lord's supper. People were being born again immediately following the Resurrection. They did not have to await the introduction of a special gospel.

Because something was not said in a sermon does not mean that it was never said or taught. They did not have stenographers recording every word nor did they follow detailed outlines. If you want to know what the disciples knew and taught then read what Jesus told them in the gospels or read their beliefs as they are recorded in their epistles.

 

[Shasta]

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2072413&postcount=1

ty

 

[intojoy]

2 + 2 +2 =6. Therefore 2 +2 + 2 = 9?

Fascinating you can read the words on the page right, then say it wrong.

4 And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them. 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”

Galatians 2

4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage),

He went to Jerusalem because spies came to see what they were doing. Cause and effect. 2nd grade grammar and reading.



Galatians 2

11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.

So much for that.

13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.

Nowhere does Paul correct Peter or James on preaching the gospel.

Withstood to the face ... Is this Paul correcting another gospel? Or is that what your theology requires?

Peter did not eat with the Gentiles due to weakness in his own walk and Paul rebuked him for it. However doesn't this passage say that Peter ate with Gentiles before and then decided not to?

Yes it does.

That proves that Peter's gospel was the same as Paul's.

My passage records Paul asking James and Peter for their criticism of his gospel and they both agreed that Paul was teaching the very same one. And it took less than an hour.

My theology did not require me to read into the Galatians problem as I presented it. That is exactly what Galatians 2 and Acts 15 prove.

The literal observations as I read them (elementary level)
Are:

1. Judaizers were false brethren
2. Judaizers soteriology was salvation by the keeping of the 613 commandments.
3. Judaizers did not have apostolic authority.
4. James and Peter did not send them to the Gentiles.
5. Paul did not learn any doctrine from the leaders of the Jerusalem church.
6. The Judaizers came from Jerusalem.
7. Paul goes to Jerusalem because he wants to affirm to the Gentiles in Galatia that these Judaizers did not have any authority to speak for James or Peter.
8. Paul sought a private counsel just in case Paul had been in error.
9. James and company affirm Paul's soteriology.
10. James and co give Paul laws for gentile believers.
11. Paul takes those laws back to Gentiles and proved the Judaizers wrong.

Thank you for the correction on Pharisees that "believed".

11.5 what are false brethren? Saved people or unbelievers?

 

[intojoy]

Actually if Peter was guilty of preaching another gospel, why would Paul condemn Peter for not eating with the Gentiles?

Paul, who always preached to the Jew first would have not "withstood Pete to the face" he would have corrected Peter for having a different gospel.

Paul would have done this because by this time both Paul and Peter knew each preached the only true gospel. If this is the argument for MAD it is built on sand. It does not show Paul contradicting Peter in a different gospel.

This passage actually authenticates the fact that both understood the gospel. And that it was a rebuke for hypocrisy on Pete's part for Pete did not practice what Pete preached on this occasion.

Furthermore Galatians was written after the Acts 15 episode. In Galatians Paul said that anyone preaching a different gospel is under a curse - he is untouchable. Pete and the eat is post Acts 15! That according to the weakness of this as an argument for Paul correcting Pete's gospel, would mean that Paul isn't practicing what he taught concerning false teachers.

I rest my case

 

[godrulz]

He wants to be seen performing miracles in front of men in the synagogue and on the corner. Babbling in his phony demon inspired "tongue" that nobody understands.

Jesus continues his works, signs, wonders through His disciples and the early church in Acts (Acts 4 not in your Bible?).

Paul exhorts us to not despise spiritual gifts, earnestly desire them, including tongues. He corrects abuses and promotes right use. There is no exegetical basis for cessationism, something popularized by Calvinist B.B. Warfield and perpetuated by Calvinists like John MacArthur who attribute the works of the Spirit to demons, just like the Pharisees did (I agree with the JM about fleshly counterfeits, demonic counterfeits, but disagree that this disproves the genuine as promised in Scripture).

MAD is cessationist showing another problem with hyper-disp views compared to Scripture and reality (Pentecostalism is a powerful global movement in the Church and will be a key to world evangelism compared to Batpistic business/CEO models).

 

[godrulz]

Did you check other versions or commentaries?

I read Acts 2 in church. It includes the death and resurrection of Christ, but does not use the same words Paul did in I Cor. 15 (nor did Paul use these same words in other letters to other churches about the gospel). Get a grip. Acts is selective history, not didactic. It does not record everything Peter said or believed. The writings of Peter and John contain gospel truth just like Paul's writings.

 

[Lighthouse]

All I have been asking is a detailed description of the supposed two gospels. I do not know why I should be asked to go figure it out for myself. All of you have presented this as your position. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask questions about it.

I believe it is a mistake to assume that the relatively few sermons recorded in the book of Acts prior to Paul represent the totality of what the Apostles knew and were teaching. There were at least twelve full time apostles "on staff" who collectively retained the compendium of all that Jesus taught. They may not have understood all the implications of this knowledge or the depths of every mystery but they did understand the essentials.

Here is what the Twelve knew.

1. Jesus had told them many times He would suffer, die, be buried and, after three days rise again (Matt. 12:40 Matt 16:21 Matt 26:61 John 2:19-22) They were eyewitnesses of this and of His ascension

2. The idea of Christ being the ransom, the blood payment for sin had been taught to them not by Paul but by Jesus during His earthly ministry (Matthew 20:26-28). Peter and John wrote about this in their letters (1 Peter 1:18-20, 1 Peter 2:24, 1 John 1:7, 1 John 4:10)


3. After the Resurrection Jesus walked them through ALL the scriptures teaching them about what had prophesied and fulfilled
(Luke 24:44)

4. He also opened their minds so they could have spiritual understanding of those things (Luke 24:45)

5. "All the scriptures" would certainly have included key Messianic prophecies like Isaiah 53:4-6 . This passage shows that the death of Christ would bring about the forgiveness of sin and bring peace with God.

6. That His work on the cross would bring about the New Birth was taught by Jesus and passed on by the Apostles (John 3:3,1 Peter 1:23, 1 Peter 3:18-22, 1 John 1:7)

7. The disciples ,in fact, were the first to experience the New Birth (John 20:22)

8. John the Baptist had revealed to several of them that Jesus was the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). What would the symbol of the Passover lamb have meant to these Jews once Jesus work was complete and they were filled with the Spirit?


9. In their going through the Bible they would have certainly paused to focus on Jeremiah 31:31-3 Here, Jeremiah announces that God would make a new covenant with Israel which would result (among other things) in the forgiveness of sins.

10. This truth was further reinforced by the institution of the Covenant Supper "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. (Luke 22:20). which was to be practiced until the Day of the Lord.

Other truths about Christ, his Divine origin and nature, His supreme authority His ultimate role in judging mankind was also in the Gospels.

11. I would say that overall had a full gospel that was powerful to save people. What took them a while to understand is that this New Covenant was going not just to Israel but to the Gentiles. Still the same message or gospel was the truth that would save them too. Paul said he preached Christ Crucified, to both Jew and Gentile – one message delivered to two populations not two messages to two separate groups (I Corinthians 1:22-25)

12. God has invested the power to save solely in THE "message of the cross:" (I Corinthians 1:18) which comprises the "good news" (or gospel) prophesied and fulfilled in Jesus.

:doh:

I didn't say to only read Acts 1-8. I said to skip anything in Acts that dealt with Paul and also skip Acts 10 as it informs nothing that comes after, except Acts 15, which deals with Paul. I also said to then read all the epistles other than Paul's.

I suggested this because you will see that Paul preached many things the 12 did not, and vice versa.

Actually if Peter was guilty of preaching another gospel, why would Paul condemn Peter for not eating with the Gentiles?

Paul, who always preached to the Jew first would have not "withstood Pete to the face" he would have corrected Peter for having a different gospel.

Paul would have done this because by this time both Paul and Peter knew each preached the only true gospel. If this is the argument for MAD it is built on sand. It does not show Paul contradicting Peter in a different gospel.

This passage actually authenticates the fact that both understood the gospel. And that it was a rebuke for hypocrisy on Pete's part for Pete did not practice what Pete preached on this occasion.

Furthermore Galatians was written after the Acts 15 episode. In Galatians Paul said that anyone preaching a different gospel is under a curse - he is untouchable. Pete and the eat is post Acts 15! That according to the weakness of this as an argument for Paul correcting Pete's gospel, would mean that Paul isn't practicing what he taught concerning false teachers.

I rest my case

You fail, because Peter was preaching the gospel he was meant to preach. There was no reason for Paul to correct him on preaching a different gospel, because Peter was supposed to preach a different gospel.

What Paul wrote in Galatians was that anyone who preached another gospel to them [his audience] than the one Paul had already preached to them that person was to be accursed. He did not state that anyone who preached a different gospel in general was to be accursed.

 

[Shasta]

There is one true gospel post-cross and many false gospels. MAD's two true gospels is unbiblical, illogical. The one gospel was contextualized for a Jewish audience (Hebrews) and more of a Gentile audience (Romans), but they were both great statements of the gospel.

MAD pits Paul against everyone else, including Jesus?! They are even forced to divide up some of Paul's letters into circ/uncirc portions to retain their view (rather than let the Word change their wrong view).

I have seen this. One almost needs a color-coded bible to differentiate which parts pertain to one "gospel" and which to the other. Sometimes the two lie only within a few verses of another. An example is Romans which is supposed to begin with the general Jewish gospel yet which but later without explanation, transition or introduction begins presenting the other gospel. Since there is no internal evidence to support this the MAD template must be accepted a priori, imported and superimposed on the text. Such are my observations at this time.

The result that I cannot help notice is that the Gospels and all non-Pauline writings have been relegated to the category of something edifying to read but no more mandatory than "Our Utmost for out His Highest." This makes me wonder if the hidden agenda is to promote an un-Biblical version of a antinomian "grace" which is akin more the doctrines of the Catholic father Augustine than to the Biblical writers. This hardly seems equitable if the believing Jews for whom Christ also died are to be given more rigorous demands.

Like you I have been rather discouraged by the utter lack of interest in linguistic scholarship. People seem unable to distinguish between the works of men like Robertson and Wallace whose "comments" are based upon extensive knowledge of the structure of the Greek language and grammar versus those "commentators" whose remarks based upon simply what they read in the English versions. I never read those commentators but those who stay close to the grammar I pay attention to.

I always understood that the entire thrust of publishing the scriptures in the common people's language was what drove the reformation. Now some people no longer have that drive. Instead they have settled upon one and treat is if it and not the word possessed infallible verbal pleanry inspiration. Because the pinnacle of perfection has been reached there is no more hunger to delve into the original languages the English translations were based on. I hope I am wrong about this.

 

[Shasta]

Lighthouse;4021159]:doh:

I didn't say to only read Acts 1-8. I said to skip anything in Acts that dealt with Paul and also skip Acts 10 as it informs nothing that comes after, except Acts 15, which deals with Paul. I also said to then read all the epistles other than Paul's.

I suggested this because you will see that Paul preached many things the 12 did not, and vice versa.

I will have to think about this

 

[Lighthouse]

I will have to think about this

You also need to edit your post, as you jacked up the quote code.

Let me know if you find anyone other than Paul stating that circumcision is nothing, in the Bible.

 

[Shasta]

ty

Ty for the reference though I must confess there was not a lot there to answer my question. Traditional dispensationalism would agree that the the prophecies seem to link the coming of the Kingdom to earth would occur during the times of the Messiah and the outpouring of the Spirit, They did not see the delay between planting and the ultimate harvest when God gathers all His people from the four winds and takes control of planet earth. What I do not see is that Jesus' teachings are either irrelevant or merely recommendations. His words will never pass away and must be fulfilled. All Christians are called to follow the Master.

Then again I do not see Jesus as teaching the law as so many rabbis before Him had done. He taught the essence of the law not the ceremony or statute. He taught about what law the Holy Spirit would establish in us once our sins were atoned for and we put our faith in Him. Jesus contradicted the form of the law while affirming the law that works by His love. These words are eternal because this is the will of the Holy Loving God - for us to be like Him.

 

[Shasta]

You also need to edit your post, as you jacked up the quote code.

Let me know if you find anyone other than Paul stating that circumcision is nothing, in the Bible.

Sorry, I stay up late sometimes and write. I have a bad case of insomnia.

 

[godrulz]

It is a total misreading of Gal. 1 and 2 by MAD. I concur with Shasta's level-headed insights.

Gal. 1 contrasts the one true gospel with false gospels such as Judaizer faith+works error (that MAD promotes as a true Peter, John, James gospel?!?!).

Two true gospels post-cross is sheer MAD eisegesis/paradigm, not sound biblical theology/exegesis. I am 100% sure of this.

Gal. 2 is not promoting two true gospels, but a demarcation of ministry with the one gospel.

I don't think anyone reading the Bible apart from WT literature would become a JW. I don't think anyone reading the Bible apart from Calvinistic speakers/writers would become Calvinistic. I was familiar with countless false cults, religions, doctrinal disputes, etc. for 30 years, but only heard about MAD on TOL a few years ago. There is a reason it is not taken seriously in academic or lay circles. It simply is foreign to Scripture and requires simplistic influence from those few who promote it.

 

[Nick M]

All I have been asking is a detailed description of the supposed two gospels.

You should in fact, figure it out for yourself. Show us the good news (gospel) of the Kingdom. It is found in the "Old Testament" and red letters.

Go ahead and post it. If it is not in red letters, then its meaning was hidden in scripture.

 

[Shasta]

You should in fact, figure it out for yourself. Show us the good news (gospel) of the Kingdom. It is found in the "Old Testament" and red letters.

Go ahead and post it. If it is not in red letters, then its meaning was hidden in scripture.

I have posted a number of doctrines that the disciples were taught. These included the role of Christ as the redeemer, the Lamb of God who through the atoning work on the cross offer to the world forgiveness of sins. The word said He took them through the whole of scripture both the Law (the 5 books) and prophets showing them how He was the fulfillment of all the promises. Throughout His earthly ministry Jesus had said that He was the life and that if men would believe on Him they would have eternal life. His own resurrection was much more than the resurrection of Lazarus since it was something that could be imparted to believers.

On the basis of what you think they should have said in a few sermons you have concluded that they forgot all they knew. If they had been taught as all students were taught by their Rabbis they would have been able to recite all the essentials of Christ's life, words and works. While we have no record of everything they said we cannot suppose they did not pass on what they had been taught. If you read their epistles their beliefs are stated in more detail.

No "gospel" can bring salvation from sin without the blood. If men were brought to salvation under the Apostle's ministries then they taught salvation by faith in Christ through His blood.

 

[heir]

Pentecostalism is a powerful global movement in the Church and will be a key to world evangelism compared to Batpistic business/CEO models).

2 Corinthians 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

2 Corinthians 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

2 Corinthians 11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

As Nick M the Great has repeatedly asked you, why agree to a demarcation of ministry, shake on it, then immediately break it and ignore it?

Still no answer from clicherulz?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Check Greek lexicons and other English translations. All you are doing is proof texting your view (eisegesis). All Christians who reject MAD do not have a problem with the verse. It does not teach MAD in Greek nor English (nor did the KJV translators have MAD in mind when they translated the verse). Read the context, not one verse.

Who received "all longsuffering" before Paul?

 

[Nick M]

These included the role of Christ as the redeemer, the Lamb of God who through the atoning work on the cross offer to the world forgiveness of sins.

Go ahead and show this in the red letters real quick if you don't mind. Meaning him telling them he was dying for their sin, show where he explained Isaiah 53, the Passover, how it all related to him and how he said to enter into life.

Allow me.

Matthew 5

18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 19

16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”

17 So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

Matthew 23

Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.

Rather than go on and on and on with the requirements to enter the kingdom of heaven...I will respond with a quick one from Paul.

17 So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.

Romans 7

10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

MAD is a non-starter view.

Why are you in the MAD group, wasting time on a non starter?