Is MAD ethics and or morals void? Is MAD ethics even Christian?

[Idolater]

The morals and ethics of the body of Christ are totally the work of the Spirit in us.

So that's just reads to me that it's a 'passive' thing to you.

 

[Idolater]

That isn't a point, it's you being an idiot.

Why don't you answer a couple questions then if you're so sure.

Tell me whether someone who murders 666 Ukrainians must first repent of that in order to be saved? Or do they just have to believe "Paul's Gospel", and they don't have to repent of murdering 666 Ukrainians first (or at all)?

And now tell me if a person who already believes in "Paul's Gospel" murders 666 Ukrainians, they are still saved, according to MAD, aren't they?

And then you can tell me how much of an idiot I am.

Answer the question. What does believing that the body of Christ started with Paul have to do with ethics? Why would my ethics be any different than yours? Why would my understanding of justice be any different? Why would my understand of love be any different? Why would I have to mix law with grace to understand right from wrong?

THE single most stridantly anti-sin, pro-righteous living preacher I have ever met in my life was Pastor Bob Enyart of Denver Bible Church in suburban Denver Colorado. His successor may prove to be his equal in this regard if he's lucky.

 

[Idolater]

You're a quack.

lol.

 

[glorydaz]

So that's just reads to me that it's a 'passive' thing to you.

Here's why....because any good thing that I can come up with is nothing but a work of the flesh.


In fact, I'd often end up thinking I'm doing something good only to realize the Lord had a better plan, and I'd merely gotten in His way.
My own plans always fall short of what I wanted. Sometimes it takes years for a person to figure that out.
It's known as going before the Lord. Once we accept the fact that we wait patiently on the Lord, resting in Him, that He is then able to do His work through us. Most often, we don't even know we're being used of the Lord.....that's merely to prevent us from boasting in what we could never have done on our own. Are you boasting in your ethics? I believe you are.

Why aren't those bad Maddies as holy and righteous as I am?

 

[glorydaz]

Why don't you answer a couple questions then if you're so sure.

Tell me whether someone who murders 666 Ukrainians must first repent of that in order to be saved? Or do they just have to believe "Paul's Gospel", and they don't have to repent of murdering 666 Ukrainians first (or at all)?

And now tell me if a person who already believes in "Paul's Gospel" murders 666 Ukrainians, they are still saved, according to MAD, aren't they?

And then you can tell me how much of an idiot I am.

Why aren't you this upset about the aborted babies?

You're being a hypocrite, as well and being completely ignorant of Paul's gospel.
Paul's gospel is full of mystery. Things that have never been revealed before the Risen Lord revealed them to Paul.

 

[glorydaz]

Would it be ethical and moral, according to MAD (Mid-Acts Dispensational) ethics and or morals, to tell Vladimir Putin to NOT murder 666 Ukrainians because he'll go to hell if he does so?

Oh look. I see the number 666. Maybe that's a sign the antichrist is near.

You'd best stop thinking about Putin, and ask yourself whether you're saved by faith alone or not.

If not, you're lost and whatever Putin does will pale in comparison to what you'll suffer in hell fire..

 

[Clete]

Why don't you answer a couple questions then if you're so sure.

You are the one who isn't answering questions.

Tell me whether someone who murders 666 Ukrainians must first repent of that in order to be saved? Or do they just have to believe "Paul's Gospel", and they don't have to repent of murdering 666 Ukrainians first (or at all)?

Non-sequitur.

One could not accept Paul's gospel (no need for quotes - Paul is the one who calls it that, not us.) without repentance.

And now tell me if a person who already believes in "Paul's Gospel" murders 666 Ukrainians, they are still saved, according to MAD, aren't they?

There is no sin so egregious that Christ's blood cannot cover it.

And then you can tell me how much of an idiot I am.

You are not only an idiot, you're a blasphemer and an unbeliever. Repent or you will go to the same Hell that Putin is headed to.

Clete

 

[Idolater]

Nearest I can tell from this whole discussion is that there are some Acts 9ers who basically hold to the idea that a true believer will not commit grave sin, it just will not happen, because the true believer is a new creation, the old man has died. So only the old man would ever do grave sin, and since the old man is dead in the true believer, the true believer will never commit grave sin.

And, since the new creation is resurrected, there's no way for him to die and be resurrected again, so if anyone who thinks he's a true believer, commits grave sin, then he is wrong, he is an unbeliever, infidel, blasphemer, all the bad things that I'm called itt and on TOL.

There is also another Acts 9er party though, who believes that a true believer might commit grave sin, and that it's not remarkable. I haven't seen any of that party itt.

 

[Right Divider]

Nearest I can tell from this whole discussion is that there are some Acts 9ers who basically hold to the idea that a true believer will not commit grave sin, it just will not happen, because the true believer is a new creation, the old man has died. So only the old man would ever do grave sin, and since the old man is dead in the true believer, the true believer will never commit grave sin.

And, since the new creation is resurrected, there's no way for him to die and be resurrected again, so if anyone who thinks he's a true believer, commits grave sin, then he is wrong, he is an unbeliever, infidel, blasphemer, all the bad things that I'm called itt and on TOL.

There is also another Acts 9er party though, who believes that a true believer might commit grave sin, and that it's not remarkable. I haven't seen any of that party itt.

Your understanding of MAD is terrible (as is your horrible RCC false doctrine).

Firstly, the Bible does not use the term "grave sin". It does use the term "sin unto death". I believe that this refers to sins that require the death penalty under the law.

Secondly, we don't claim that it's impossible for a saved person to sin. But that sin has already been dealt with and a saved person is NOT prone to sin due to our faith.

​

Rom 6:2 (AKJV/PCE)​

(6:2) God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?​

​

[Read all of Romans 6]​

​

Eph 4:24 (AKJV/PCE)​

(4:24) And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. ​

Thirdly, your use of the word "resurrected" here seems somewhat confused. Our resurrection is yet future.

2Tim 2:18 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:18) Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.​

​

 

[Idolater]

Your understanding of MAD is terrible

It's the best I can do, given that none of you ever teach its tenets clearly and openly and plainly in a way that distinguishes Acts 9erism from other schools of theology. You'll say things like, "We believe in the Bible." Great. That's completely unhelpful. So I'm doing the best I can through interpolations, triangulation, inference, and other reasoning approaches and tools.

(as is your horrible RCC false doctrine).

Firstly, the Bible does not use the term "grave sin". It does use the term "sin unto death". I believe that this refers to sins that require the death penalty under the law.

$$ Ro 1:29
Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
$$ Ro 1:30
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
$$ Ro 1:31
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
$$ Ro 1:32
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death

Secondly, we don't claim that it's impossible for a saved person to sin.

Nor does Catholicism. But you above call Catholicism "horrible doctrine."

But that sin has already been dealt with and a saved person is NOT prone to sin due to our faith.

​

Rom 6:2 (AKJV/PCE)​

(6:2) God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?​

​

[Read all of Romans 6]​

​

Eph 4:24 (AKJV/PCE)​

(4:24) And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. ​

That's basically what I said in my post.

Thirdly, your use of the word "resurrected" here seems somewhat confused. Our resurrection is yet future.

2Tim 2:18 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:18) Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.​

​

$$ Eph 2:1
And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins;
$$ Eph 2:2
Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world ...
...
$$ Eph 2:4
But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
$$ Eph 2:5
Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ ...

 

[Right Divider]

It's the best I can do,

If that's the best you can do, you're either very dumb or completely dishonest.

given that none of you ever teach its tenets clearly and openly and plainly in a way that distinguishes Acts 9erism from other schools of theology. You'll say things like, "We believe in the Bible." Great. That's completely unhelpful. So I'm doing the best I can through interpolations, triangulation, inference, and other reasoning approaches and tools.

Silly nonsense on your part.

Read up on some of this: https://graceambassadors.com/what-is-mid-acts-pauline-dispensational-right-division

$$ Ro 1:29
Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
$$ Ro 1:30
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
$$ Ro 1:31
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
$$ Ro 1:32
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death

Yes, thanks for confirming my point. There are sins that require the death penalty, but there are no sins deemed "grave sins". Though we can certainly say that those sins that require the death penalty are very grave.

Note that ALL SIN leads to death one way or another. Those "death penalty sins" require IMMEDIATE DEATH.

Nor does Catholicism. But you above call Catholicism "horrible doctrine."

I've said it before, but you're pretty dense.
Not ALL RCC doctrines are false. Just MANY (perhaps most) of them.

 

[Derf]

You can't. There's no real law for countries, there's only law inside of them. So if a regime does something evil like invade Ukraine and murder Ukrainians it's not like you arrest them and prosecute them in a court of law.

Now you do, apparently.

 

[JudgeRightly]

none of you ever teach its tenets clearly and openly and plainly in a way that distinguishes Acts 9erism from other schools of theology.

Bob Enyart did.

You refuse to read the book he wrote on the topic because it doesn't meet some arbitrary standard you hold it against:

Is this authoritative, standard, canonical Mid-Acts Dispensationalism? iow IF there's a problem in this book, does that mean there is logically necessarily a problem with MAD? Or are you just going to say, "Well Bob Enyart [of happy memory] was wrong on this or that point." I don't want to get involved in something that isn't authoritative, none of us has time to waste doing that.

So if you can commit to that, I'll read it, I promise. I mean generally, especially if two or more MAD's here can make that commitment, I'll read it.

And turnabout is fair play. I make the same commitment to you and everybody, about the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That book contains authoritative, standard, canonical Catholicism. If there's a problem in there, there's a problem with Catholicism.


Correct me if I'm wrong: One of the ideas is to always know to whom every Scripture is written. (For example we didn't read Genesis and build ourselves an ark.)

What is the other idea?

Is this authoritative, standard, canonical Mid-Acts Dispensationalism? iow IF there's a problem in this book, does that mean there is logically necessarily a problem with MAD? Or are you just going to say, "Well Bob Enyart [of happy memory] was wrong on this or that point." I don't want to get involved in something that isn't authoritative, none of us has time to waste doing that.

So if you can commit to that, I'll read it, I promise. I mean generally, especially if two or more MAD's here can make that commitment, I'll read it.

I was told by you that it's not authoritative MAD, so by your own words MAD does not speak in The Plot. RD said, "MAD says," and I'm saying, "Where does MAD say." You told me, "Not in 'The Plot,'" already. Are you changing your answer?

No, what you were told by me was that it's not authoritative in the way that you think that things like the Catechism are "authoritative".

That doesn't mean that "The Plot" not "authoritative" as a source of information.



LIar.



My answer is the same.

You want to know what MAD says, read "The Plot."

No, it's not the "be all end all" of texts. It was written by a fallible human being.

But you will never obtain a better understanding or overview of the Bible (aside from just reading the Bible itself) through any other man-made document than "The Plot."

Again, I place "The Plot" second to the Bible. What more of an endorsement do you want?

Authoritative?

That word means "able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable."

So sure, by definition, you can trust that "The Plot" is accurate or true, reliable even, but it is not perfect, because it was written by a fallible human being. Might it contain errors? Sure. But it's reliable.

And if it's not, then that's what this forum is for, to discuss beliefs and point out errors that others have.

Read it.

Or don't.

But, barring just reading and studying the Scriptures yourself, you will never understand the Bible better than you do now if you don't.

I'm pretty sure they still have the 30-day money back guarantee, so if you don't think it was worth reading after doing so, you can always get your money back. And If I remember correctly, they don't even tell you to return it.

"['The Plot'] is second only to the Bible itself [in authority]"

This indicates to me that "The Plot" at least contains authoritative MAD, but your refusal to commit to "The Plot" containing authoritative MAD contrariwise indicates to me that that's not the case. Can you tell me which is it? is "The Plot" authoritative MAD or not? I'm looking for the authoritative narrative or teaching or deposit of doctrine for MAD.

btw I'm saying the same about the Catechism that you say about "The Plot," except that the Catechism, because it includes Apostolic Oral Tradition as well as Scriptures, is equal with the Bible in authority. But that is distinct from saying the Catechism is authoritative Catholicism, you don't have to believe Catholicism's true to believe the Catechism contains all the authoritative tenets of Catholicism's narrative.

You don't have to believe in the content (e.g. in the Trinity or in the hypostatic union dual nature of Christ) to believe the Catechism is authoritative Catholicism.

You want to know MAD, read "The Plot."

Otherwise, let God be true, and every man (including the authors of your preferred books) a liar.