PETER AND PAUL PREACHED DIFFERENT GOSPELS

[Right Divider]

Not sure why this is going on. There is no poor intent in the questions. No dodges. Just discussion. There is absolutely no confrontation in my posts other than the ones mentions for the purpose of fleshing out MAD AND the divergence with other systematic theologies. I do debate rigorously with Open Theism, not with MAD. Here discussion suffices. There is no dodge, no 'know better.'

Again, hellfire sermons save people.

Peters speech in Acts 2 is not a "hellfire sermon". He is addressing Israel and their rejection of their King. He is not preaching the gospel of the grace of God.

And, BTW, I was not judging your motives.

So does John 3:16. As far as the two, yes, I agree there are certain, absolutely differences. All I'm attempting is to see both where there are differences, and where anything is the same. Why? As I already stated, today, there is one gospel that saves.

The gospel of the kingdom is not specially about individual salvation from sin. It is about Israel and their kingdom on the earth. The one that Jesus told them to pray for:

Mat 6:10 KJV Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

There is no disagreement, just discussion for what is being said to be meaningful. You may never get through to someone like GT BUT you guys did and do give me a lot to think about. Sometimes, like here, I'm not against you, I'm for your discussion and even when disagreeing, still appreciate how MAD has been a great sounding board for my own scriptural understanding. Most of us never pay this much attention to differences.

Many people ignore them completely. That's what causes a lot of confusion.

It has been great for my scriptural understanding, whether I agree with you guys or not. That alone is worth the discussion. I certainly would like others to participate in MAD discussions, with questions, rather than an immediate knee-jerk.

Amen to that!

With both MAD and Open Theism tied together, these discussions also flesh out why the two are hand-in-hand on TOL.

Thanks. One point of probable disagreement: Paul WAS an Apostle. What binds them? They were all given instruction directly by the Lord Jesus Christ, 12 while with Him and after His resurrection, Paul after His resurrection. They were all 12 hand-chosen by the Lord Jesus Christ.

Not sure what "hand-chosen" means. Judas Iscariot was also "hand-chosen".

Joh 6:70-71 KJV Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? (71) He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

Barnabas was also an apostle (Acts 14:14). So was the Lord Himself (Hebrews 3:1).

Thank you again.

You're welcome and thank you as well.

 

[Lon]

I completely disagree with your generalization that "certainly the emphasis upon the gentile church in Acts". Acts is all about Israel and their fall.

History is 'just what happened' and so I agree to a point, however Luke wrote this to Theophilis. Clearly the direction becomes gentile-centered. How 'complete' is your 'complete disagreement?' The end of Acts is gentile-centered.

The first 8 chapters of Acts is completely a continuation of God working with and on Israel.

In my mind: The setting, the story is absolutely caught up in gentiles by the end of the book. I don't think the disagreement too stark if we both see the other's point. I see yours, so I don't think we completely disagree. Some of those you hang around are given to exaggeration rather than precision. Theology must necessarily be precise. Because of this, there are many points MAD makes that I must acquiesce.
I hiked once with a man that knew vegetation. I had no idea that there were plants all around me that could help save my life, had never looked at trees as sources of vitamin C etc. I've come to appreciate my hikes in a way I'd never done before. Mad has done similar for me, so I'm thankful for these conversations.
Often, MAD forces one to see a point they may have never seen before and I see MAD discussion as a service, whether someone agrees or not, with showing another what they'd otherwise miss in Scripture. [/QUOTE]

Totally false. The Jewish leaders were called Jews (or Israeltie's). The first ones called Christians were not in Israel at all, they were in Antioch in Sryia.

It doesn't matter who was first 'called' a Christian. These Jews, following Jesus, were 'Christ'ians. It is not possible that this can be 'totally false,' not even in MAD. The division can never be so stark that it NEVER sees continuity. We aren't going to change, at least anytime soon, from our respective theologies, but a nuance of appreciation, both directions, is a good thing. There are also plants I've learned to avoid as unhealthy while on my hikes. The two perspectives of differences and sameness are important. It is in this vein that I'm in thread. If it isn't serving, however, I can leave the thread. It is not my intention to do more than discuss these points. As such, this conversation is beneficial to me. If it isn't mutual, let me know. I can bow out in deference, but again, I appreciate the discussion.

Same to you -RD.

-Lon

 

[Right Divider]

History is 'just what happened' and so I agree to a point, however Luke wrote this to Theophilis. Clearly the direction becomes gentile-centered. How 'complete' is your 'complete disagreement?' The end of Acts is gentile-centered.

I still disagree. The end of Acts shows Israel's continued rejection of Christ. What, exactly is "more gentile-centered" about it?

When Israel was God's people:

Israel first, believing gentiles next... unbelievers, both Jews and gentiles, on the outside.​

When Israel was set aside and Christ revealed the body of Christ:

No distinction between believing Jews and gentiles... unbelievers , both Jews and gentiles, on the outside.​

When Israel is restored, it's back to the first one.

In my mind: The setting, the story is absolutely caught up in gentiles by the end of the book.

The books of Acts is not a gradual move from Israel to the gentiles. I'm not even sure that that means. Paul makes it clear in Romans that Israel's fall is temporary and they will one day be restored.

Rom 11:11-15 KJV I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. (12) Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? (13) For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: (14) If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. (15) For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

I don't think the disagreement too stark if we both see the other's point. I see yours, so I don't think we completely disagree. Some of those you hang around are given to exaggeration rather than precision. Theology must necessarily be precise. Because of this, there are many points MAD makes that I must acquiesce.
I hiked once with a man that knew vegetation. I had no idea that there were plants all around me that could help save my life, had never looked at trees as sources of vitamin C etc. I've come to appreciate my hikes in a way I'd never done before. Mad has done similar for me, so I'm thankful for these conversations.
Often, MAD forces one to see a point they may have never seen before and I see MAD discussion as a service, whether someone agrees or not, with showing another what they'd otherwise miss in Scripture.

Here's one that many also ignore, but it has great significance.

2Co 5:16 KJV Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

Here Paul puts a great dividing line between Christ's earthly ministry to Israel (where Paul calls Christ 'a minister of the circumcision' [Rom 15:8]) and Christ's "new thing" (which Paul calls the 'one new man' [Eph 2:15]).

It doesn't matter who was first 'called' a Christian.

It was important enough for God to make note of it in scripture.

These Jews, following Jesus, were 'Christ'ians.

In a sense perhaps, but Jesus was a Jew under the law just like the rest of Israel.

It is not possible that this can be 'totally false,' not even in MAD. The division can never be so stark that it NEVER sees continuity.

Israel and the body of Christ are very distinct. There is no continuation going on here. Though, of course, because Christ is the center of both there will be much in common.

We aren't going to change, at least anytime soon, from our respective theologies, but a nuance of appreciation, both directions, is a good thing.

I once believed many of the things that you (and much of Churchianity) believe. I now see the error and I hope that you will too.

There are also plants I've learned to avoid as unhealthy while on my hikes. The two perspectives of differences and sameness are important. It is in this vein that I'm in thread. If it isn't serving, however, I can leave the thread. It is not my intention to do more than discuss these points. As such, this conversation is beneficial to me. If it isn't mutual, let me know. I can bow out in deference, but again, I appreciate the discussion.

-Lon

I also appreciate the discussion. You are always a gentleman and I very much appreciated that.

 

[God's Truth]

Israel was told by God that they would be built up into a nation ruled by her King, Jesus Christ. But they rebelled, and killed their Messiah and his servants, and so God cut them off and grafted in the Gentiles.

No way; God' didn't say Jesus was going to rule on earth. That's why the Jews missed their Messiah, because they thought Jesus was going to be as an earthly king.

God cut off and hardened the Jews who didn't already have faith in Him before Jesus came. God bound them to the same place as the disobedient Gentiles.

God was coming to make a new covenant to be based on faith.

The Jews who already belonged to God by faith, they now had to go through Jesus to remain God's.

Jesus said he would not lose one that God gave him.

The Jews who already had faith in Jesus came to him because they recognized what Jesus was saying were the words of God.

Jesus said when he is crucified, then all people, the but off Jews and the Gentiles could come to him to be saved.

Paul calls it Jews first then Gentiles, because it was spoken to the Jews who had the old covenant with God.

Here it is again, because you missed it the first time.

He also spoke this parable: [JESUS]“A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none.Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, ‘Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down; why does it use up the ground?’But he answered and said to him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it.And if it bears fruit, well. But if not, after that you can cut it down.’ ”[/JESUS] - Luke 13:6-9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...p;version=NKJV

Jesus specifically said that If Israel did not bear fruit, that she would be cut off after a year.

That parable is about individual people.

Israel didn't bear fruit, and after a year, God cut them off and grafted in the Gentiles with Paul being their Apostle.

That is not truth. God had already cut off faithless Jews and it was ALWAYS the plan for JESUS TO let the GENTILES in to have salvation.

 

[God's Truth]

:duh:


You are not paying the slightest bit of attention to what I said.


No kidding...

You are quite seriously retarded. I can longer try to dialog with a complete moron.

This post from you to me is proof you don't have any truth.

 

[God's Truth]

Not sure why this is going on. There is no poor intent in the questions. No dodges. Just discussion. There is absolutely no confrontation in my posts other than the ones mentions for the purpose of fleshing out MAD AND the divergence with other systematic theologies. I do debate rigorously with Open Theism, not with MAD. Here discussion suffices. There is no dodge, no 'know better.'


Again, hellfire sermons save people. So does John 3:16. As far as the two, yes, I agree there are certain, absolutely differences. All I'm attempting is to see both where there are differences, and where anything is the same. Why? As I already stated, today, there is one gospel that saves. There is no disagreement, just discussion for what is being said to be meaningful. You may never get through to someone like GT BUT you guys did and do give me a lot to think about. Sometimes, like here, I'm not against you, I'm for your discussion and even when disagreeing, still appreciate how MAD has been a great sounding board for my own scriptural understanding. Most of us never pay this much attention to differences. It has been great for my scriptural understanding, whether I agree with you guys or not. That alone is worth the discussion. I certainly would like others to participate in MAD discussions, with questions, rather than an immediate knee-jerk. With both MAD and Open Theism tied together, these discussions also flesh out why the two are hand-in-hand on TOL.


Thanks. One point of probable disagreement: Paul WAS an Apostle. What binds them? They were all given instruction directly by the Lord Jesus Christ, 12 while with Him and after His resurrection, Paul after His resurrection. They were all 12 hand-chosen by the Lord Jesus Christ.




Thank you again.

You are a person against me because I prove easily that your Calvinistic beliefs are false.

Just read what you said about me "someone like GT". So do you think your flattery speckled with insult about me is going to get you through to them?

You are not right in the head and heart.

Do you think you will get through to someone like Right Divider?

 

[God's Truth]

The end of Acts shows Israel's continued rejection of Christ.

Luke went with PAUL who was sent far away to the Gentiles, because the Jews who did not believe in Jesus yet did not trust Paul they thought he was preaching Jesus just to trick them so they could have them dragged off to prison.

The other apostles continued to preach too.

When Israel was God's people:

Israel first, believing gentiles next... unbelievers, both Jews and gentiles, on the outside.​

When Israel was set aside and Christ revealed the body of Christ:

No distinction between believing Jews and gentiles... unbelievers , both Jews and gentiles, on the outside.​

When Israel is restored, it's back to the first one.

Why on earth would you ever say that?

The books of Acts is not a gradual move from Israel to the gentiles. I'm not even sure that that means. Paul makes it clear in Romans that Israel's fall is temporary and they will one day be restored.

No; Paul is explaining to the Gentiles that it must have looked as if God cut off the Jews forever.

The cut off Jews are able to get saved, after Jesus was crucified, just like the Gentiles can. See Acts where Peter tells the cut off unbelieving Jews (after Jesus was crucified) that they could be saved by repenting of their sins and believing:

Acts 2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23 This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.



Now listen to what they have to do to GET SAVED:

36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”
37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”
38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Here's one that many also ignore, but it has great significance.


Here Paul puts a great dividing line between Christ's earthly ministry to Israel (where Paul calls Christ 'a minister of the circumcision' [Rom 15:8]) and Christ's "new thing" (which Paul calls the 'one new man' [Eph 2:15]).


It was important enough for God to make note of it in scripture.


In a sense perhaps, but Jesus was a Jew under the law just like the rest of Israel.

The law was ABOUT JESUS.

Jesus came and fulfilled the law.

The law with the purification works were a SHADOW AND TEACHING TOOL ABOUT JESUS.

Jesus came and was the Lamb used to sacrifice for sins.

All the various external washings done by the Jews according to the old law are no more because Jesus washes us.

Israel and the body of Christ are very distinct. There is no continuation going on here. Though, of course, because Christ is the center of both there will be much in common.

WHEN JESUS walked the earth he TAUGHT the JEWS to BE IN HIM. THAT IS about the body of Christ.

 

[JudgeRightly]

No way; God' didn't say Jesus was going to rule on earth.

Denying it won't change the fact that God promised Israel an earthly kingdom.

It's why the Apostles couldn't understand that Jesus was going to die.

That's why the Jews missed their Messiah, because they thought Jesus was going to be as an earthly king.

See, even you agree that Israel believed their kingdom to be on earth. Why would they believe that if that's not what their scriptures said?

Did God lie to His people in the Old Testament?

God cut off and hardened the Jews who didn't already have faith in Him before Jesus came. God bound them to the same place as the disobedient Gentiles. God was coming to make a new covenant to be based on faith.

The Jews who already belonged to God by faith, they now had to go through Jesus to remain God's.

Jesus said he would not lose one that God gave him.

The Jews who already had faith in Jesus came to him because they recognized what Jesus was saying were the words of God.e

Jesus said when he is crucified, then all people, the but off Jews and the Gentiles could come to him to be saved.

Paul calls it Jews first then Gentiles, because it was spoken to the Jews who had the old covenant with God.

Your fairytale is getting old. Try reading and learning scripture instead.

That parable is about individual people.

Saying it doesn't make it so, and completely ignores the MANY times in scripture where Israel is referred to as a fig tree.

That is not truth.

Again, saying it doesn't make it so.

God had already cut off faithless Jews

The fact that you refuse to point to a specific point in scripture and/or time that shows or indicates God cutting off the "faithless Jews" shows that you have no idea as to what you're talking about.

I point to the scripture where it is clearly shown where God cuts off Israel and grafts in the Gentiles, and you ignore it.

Which means that you're not interested in correction, GT, that makes you stupid.

As Pastor Enyart says:

"Stupid doesn't make you sin, but sin makes you stupid."

and it was ALWAYS the plan for JESUS TO let the GENTILES in to have salvation.

Duh. But no one knew about it before Paul. He called it a mystery kept secret since the world began.

 

[God's Truth]

It's why the Apostles couldn't understand that Jesus was going to die.

God didn't say Jesus was going to rule on earth.
The Apostles were told Jesus was going to die and raise again.

See, even you agree that Israel believed their kingdom to be on earth. Why would they believe that if that's not what their scriptures said?

Jesus came and taught what was SPIRITUAL. Scripture does not say Jesus would sit on a throne on earth.

Did God lie to His people in the Old Testament?

A blood related to Abraham is sitting on the throne! That is Jesus on the throne in heaven.

Your fairytale is getting old. Try reading and learning scripture instead.

I have scripture for everything that I say.

Saying it doesn't make it so, and completely ignores the MANY times in scripture where Israel is referred to as a fig tree.

Jesus also compares the saved Israelites to a cultivated OLIVE TREE, and the Gentiles to a wild (uncultivated) olive tree; and unbelieving Jews as branches.

The fact that you refuse to point to a specific point in scripture and/or time that shows or indicates God cutting off the "faithless Jews" shows that you have no idea as to what you're talking about.

Luke 19:42 and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace--but now it is hidden from your eyes.

I point to the scripture where it is clearly shown where God cuts off Israel and grafts in the Gentiles, and you ignore it.

Paul rebukes your line of thinking when he tells the Gentiles that he is a Jew himself and GOD SAVED HIM. Proof that all of Jews aren’t cut off forever.
Romans
11 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
² God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
³ Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
⁴ But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
⁵ Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Which means that you're not interested in correction, GT, that makes you stupid.

As Pastor Enyart says:

"Stupid doesn't make you sin, but sin makes you stupid."

I prove my beliefs with scripture and wisdom from God.
How much correction from me are you doing here?
Looks like all that rude insults that you said to me can easily apply to you.

and it was ALWAYS the plan for JESUS TO let the GENTILES in to have salvation.
Duh. But no one knew about it before Paul. He called it a mystery kept secret since the world began.

PETER SAID IT FIRST.

Even John the baptizer said it, and the woman at the well.

So what if not all understood right away?
You know now.

 

[Lon]

I still disagree. The end of Acts shows Israel's continued rejection of Christ. What, exactly is "more gentile-centered" about it?

When Israel was God's people:

Israel first, believing gentiles next... unbelievers, both Jews and gentiles, on the outside.​

When Israel was set aside and Christ revealed the body of Christ:

No distinction between believing Jews and gentiles... unbelievers , both Jews and gentiles, on the outside.​

When Israel is restored, it's back to the first one.


The books of Acts is not a gradual move from Israel to the gentiles. I'm not even sure that that means. Paul makes it clear in Romans that Israel's fall is temporary and they will one day be restored.

Thank you. No comment from here, but on the next:

Here's one that many also ignore, but it has great significance.


Here Paul puts a great dividing line between Christ's earthly ministry to Israel (where Paul calls Christ 'a minister of the circumcision' [Rom 15:8]) and Christ's "new thing" (which Paul calls the 'one new man' [Eph 2:15]).

It is an interesting observation. At first I was going to reply from memory "I don't believe that's what he (Paul) meant...." The moment of pause sees your point. I'd always thought this was about the difference between the time before becoming Spiritual and renewed ourselves. There is a good deal of weight behind your idea here so a good bit of food for thought.

It was important enough for God to make note of it in scripture.

Well, yes, but "Christian" is from Χριστιανός, and Peter calls even those Jews 1 Peter 4:16. While Acts records the 'first' it 1) simply means Christ 'ians' (like, follower) and 2) applies to Jews who are "Christ" "ians" too. :e4e:

In a sense perhaps, but Jesus was a Jew under the law just like the rest of Israel.

:think:

Israel and the body of Christ are very distinct. There is no continuation going on here. Though, of course, because Christ is the center of both there will be much in common.

:up: As I said, where you divide, I add, but I appreciate, as with above, the need to look from another's perspective. Maybe it doesn't work both ways, I'd assume most MAD already have come from 2nd Acts Dispensationalism, Covenant, and other traditional backgrounds.

II once believed many of the things that you (and much of Churchianity) believe. I now see the error and I hope that you will too.

Not to the same extent as you, but I do believe all of us need to always pay attention to what is different as well as what is the same as well as be corrected when we get it wrong. For me? It'd be some future position, somewhere in between. I'm a partial preterist as well (not sure anybody but you will know the significance for this discussion).

I also appreciate the discussion. You are always a gentleman and I very much appreciated that.

In Him -Lon

 

[Right Divider]

Well, yes, but "Christian" is from Χριστιανός, and Peter calls even those Jews 1 Peter 4:16. While Acts records the 'first' it 1) simply means Christ 'ians' (like, follower) and 2) applies to Jews who are "Christ" "ians" too. :e4e:

1 Peter was written much later than the time that those others were first called Christians. It's in the Bible for a reason.

:up: As I said, where you divide, I add, but I appreciate, as with above, the need to look from another's perspective. Maybe it doesn't work both ways, I'd assume most MAD already have come from 2nd Acts Dispensationalism, Covenant, and other traditional backgrounds.

God called Paul distinctly as an individual apostle, as opposed to calling twelve apostles that will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes tribes of Israel. I've heard all kinds of convoluted stories about why God called Paul if he was just going to preach the identical things that the twelve were already preaching. They're all very illogical and usually boil down to "the gentiles needed a guy". Which makes no sense at all... twelve for Israel and only ONE for the entire rest of the world.

Acts 2 dispensationalism is very confused and frankly irrational. It is clear that God was continuing His program with Israel throughout Acts 1-8. It's not until Acts 9 when a clear change is made with the calling of Paul.

Not to the same extent as you, but I do believe all of us need to always pay attention to what is different as well as what is the same as well as be corrected when we get it wrong. For me? It'd be some future position, somewhere in between. I'm a partial preterist as well (not sure anybody but you will know the significance for this discussion).

In Him -Lon

You're overcome that some day.

Thanks for the civil discussion.

 

[Lon]

1 Peter was written much later than the time that those others were first called Christians. It's in the Bible for a reason.


God called Paul distinctly as an individual apostle, as opposed to calling twelve apostles that will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes tribes of Israel. I've heard all kinds of convoluted stories about why God called Paul if he was just going to preach the identical things that the twelve were already preaching. They're all very illogical and usually boil down to "the gentiles needed a guy". Which makes no sense at all... twelve for Israel and only ONE for the entire rest of the world.

Acts 2 dispensationalism is very confused and frankly irrational. It is clear that God was continuing His program with Israel throughout Acts 1-8. It's not until Acts 9 when a clear change is made with the calling of Paul.


You're overcome that some day.

Thanks for the civil discussion.

Acts 2, Rylie Dispensation was a difficult class. I'd always been more Covenant, always looking for cohesion, but MAD discussion clarified a lot of that (go figure).

There are several reasons God may have called Paul. A different gospel would certainly qualify. A different audience would too, though. For the most part, I leave a lot of Divine plan in Divine hands. While MAD does seem to build a compelling case, there are yet, for me, too many things that don't add up. Some of it may be the need for better explanation, for instance, I'd start with the gospel today, and work backwards. Another would be to realize that even among MAD, there are different camps (I have to remind myself because something I may disagree with one MAD over, another MAD at times, agrees - the same way as with talking with Calvinists, or even Rylie/Scofield Dispensationalists as well).

Thank you also. A LOT of threads would go really well if we saved the debate at times. Obviously there is a place for such. This being in the regular section, it is up for debate-grabs, but as I said, I'd rather learn from discussion,. We've both been through threads where there is simply no one listening, and posturing galore (a bit here). "For him/her who has ears" is about the best that can be done along with a bit of prayer and hope something will stick. In Him, -Lon

 

[Right Divider]

Acts 2, Rylie Dispensation was a difficult class. I'd always been more Covenant, always looking for cohesion, but MAD discussion clarified a lot of that (go figure).

It makes complete sense to me why MAD would clarify the discussion a lot. :idea:

There are several reasons God may have called Paul. A different gospel would certainly qualify. A different audience would too, though.

Why would God call just one more apostle if it was all the same information? Why would the different audience be a good explanation? If God wanted to get the message to gentiles, why did He call a zealous Jew?

For the most part, I leave a lot of Divine plan in Divine hands.

You know very well that that is a cop-out.

While MAD does seem to build a compelling case, there are yet, for me, too many things that don't add up.

Like what?

Some of it may be the need for better explanation, for instance, I'd start with the gospel today, and work backwards.

It's interesting that you say that. One of the big problems that people have (and I would especially say this about most of Christianity) is that they read later events and knowledge back into the earlier texts. This blurs things and creates doctrinal confusion.

Another would be to realize that even among MAD, there are different camps (I have to remind myself because something I may disagree with one MAD over, another MAD at times, agrees - the same way as with talking with Calvinists, or even Rylie/Scofield Dispensationalists as well).

The same can be said for any major way of understanding. Atheists use that as a knock on Christianity in general. It's doesn't mean anything. That's why I like to stick with the Bible and sound reasoning and logic.

Thank you also. A LOT of threads would go really well if we saved the debate at times. Obviously there is a place for such. This being in the regular section, it is up for debate-grabs, but as I said, I'd rather learn from discussion,. We've both been through threads where there is simply no one listening, and posturing galore (a bit here). "For him/her who has ears" is about the best that can be done along with a bit of prayer and hope something will stick. In Him, -Lon

:cheers:

 

[DougE]

Acts 2, Rylie Dispensation was a difficult class. I'd always been more Covenant, always looking for cohesion, but MAD discussion clarified a lot of that (go figure).

There are several reasons God may have called Paul. A different gospel would certainly qualify. A different audience would too, though. For the most part, I leave a lot of Divine plan in Divine hands. While MAD does seem to build a compelling case, there are yet, for me, too many things that don't add up. Some of it may be the need for better explanation, for instance, I'd start with the gospel today, and work backwards. Another would be to realize that even among MAD, there are different camps (I have to remind myself because something I may disagree with one MAD over, another MAD at times, agrees - the same way as with talking with Calvinists, or even Rylie/Scofield Dispensationalists as well).

Thank you also. A LOT of threads would go really well if we saved the debate at times. Obviously there is a place for such. This being in the regular section, it is up for debate-grabs, but as I said, I'd rather learn from discussion,. We've both been through threads where there is simply no one listening, and posturing galore (a bit here). "For him/her who has ears" is about the best that can be done along with a bit of prayer and hope something will stick. In Him, -Lon

There are a lot of camps in mid acts...one has to be careful with any teachings....any questions. feel free to ask me, and weigh my responses to scripture.

 

[Lon]

There are a lot of camps in mid acts...one has to be careful with any teachings....any questions. feel free to ask me, and weigh my responses to scripture.

Yeah! Oh boy, I've seen some of your 'in-house' fights LOL. Thank you for the offer and encouragement. I assumed it was why it was in this section. -Lon

 

[Lon]

It makes complete sense to me why MAD would clarify the discussion a lot. :idea:


Why would God call just one more apostle if it was all the same information? Why would the different audience be a good explanation? If God wanted to get the message to gentiles, why did He call a zealous Jew?

It is a valid question, but doesn't it leave us with assumptions rather than answers? A lot of theology systematics do need to rely on making sense, but (not a contention set up, but a reason why there are so many different camps: ) we need compelling evidence to follow trails. For me? It took awhile. In regular Dispensation seminary "Hyper Dispensationalism" was anathema. Because I was more Covenant/New Covenant at the time, acquiescing, of course, "Dispensation" is a biblical term, I didn't quite have a horse in the race, just warned lightly to avoid heresy in which "Hyper" dispensation was cast.

You know very well that that is a cop-out.

It just is, what it is, ESPECIALLY in my camp. It is rather a leaning on God wherever our mysteries went unsolved. Granted, at this point in conversation MAD has given answers but let me focus a second: "Divine" means "God" and God's business, with no apology from me, isn't always mine.

Like what?

There are threads and threads dedicated to disagreements.. Perhaps about 1/5 of them capture my attention as valid concerns. My particularly largest concern is that Paul reiterates a lot of O.T. and gospel. For me, it forces me to see more cohesion than MAD would focus upon, you mention pretty much this issue below:

It's interesting that you say that. One of the big problems that people have (and I would especially say this about most of Christianity) is that they read later events and knowledge back into the earlier texts. This blurs things and creates doctrinal confusion.

So, for the most part, I like seeing the difference, but I often tie the ideas from scripture back in. Perhaps the largest portion of the above, is about where Israel plays in future events. Being a partial preterist, there are a lot of prophecies I see as past concerning Israel as well as being subsumed by the Cross and especially the fulfillment of many of those. Paul does tell us that there is no longer Jew or gentile, while still saying something of Israel will be addressed in the future with the reminder that 'not all Israel is Israel."

The same can be said for any major way of understanding. Atheists use that as a knock on Christianity in general. It's doesn't mean anything. That's why I like to stick with the Bible and sound reasoning and logic.


:cheers:

Yeah, it isn't a disclaimer, just trying to know whose house I'm in. Rather, I'd hope it'd add grace, not be a problem. IIt just helps to remember not to bin all apples as simply apples. I don't like granny-smith, do like red-delicious and honeycrisp.

In Him -Lon

 

[Right Divider]

There are threads and threads dedicated to disagreements.. Perhaps about 1/5 of them capture my attention as valid concerns. My particularly largest concern is that Paul reiterates a lot of O.T. and gospel. For me, it forces me to see more cohesion than MAD would focus upon, you mention pretty much this issue below:

We have to be very careful to understand why Paul quotes the OT. Sometimes Paul quotes the old testament because some principles are universal. That does NOT mean that the body of Christ is not distinctly different from the nation of Israel.

In one case Paul quotes OT and then says NAY. Showing that he is NOT applying OT doctrine to the body of Christ. (Romans 8:36-37).

Paul does tell us that there is no longer Jew or gentile, while still saying something of Israel will be addressed in the future with the reminder that 'not all Israel is Israel."

When Paul says "they are not all Israel which are of Israel", he is excluding unbelieving Israel from the promise. He is NOT saying at all believers are some sort of "spiritual Israel".

Also, Paul is not saying that "there is no longer Jew or gentile", he says that there is neither in the body of Christ. In Romans 11, Paul describes the restoration of Israel.

 

[Lon]

We have to be very careful to understand why Paul quotes the OT. Sometimes Paul quotes the old testament because some principles are universal. That does NOT mean that the body of Christ is not distinctly different from the nation of Israel.

In one case Paul quotes OT and then says NAY. Showing that he is NOT applying OT doctrine to the body of Christ. (Romans 8:36-37).

Agree on these points. I've started a thread in the no-debate theology section, to discuss a disconnect between Open Theism and behavior. In it, I'd said that the O.T. was the lowbar for Christian behavior never anticipating that any Open Theist/MAD would or ever could debate that point (Beatitudes Galatians 5 1 Corinthians 7,13 etc.)

I mention this simply because I agree with you above, but it'd seem that I'd be more consistently living MAD than some who are MAD Open Theists, or at least on the particular subject that Paul does indeed call us to be 'nicer than God' specifically because vengeance is His, alone. Elisha certainly called down a curse from God, but it was a time where prophets were His hand. So, here, in our agreement about being very careful, I find it odd that anybody would disagree. Its a weird thread to me, with disagreement. Any light on such a matter? (and as always, enlightenment is appreciated, thanks). Another example: Some would like to see Israel's law in effect in America, for instance. I suppose it is why there are differences within MAD. As I said, I've seen some of the inhouse bruhahah's: a disagreement on what from the OT applies and which do not? The reason I'm fascinated is simply because there is such strong emphasis on the O.T. being for Israel, in MAD discussions, that any going back to the O.T. seems weird in light of VERY IMPORTANT grace teaching. :idunno: (probably needs a separate thread, has already been discussed in a separate thread) :idunno:

When Paul says "they are not all Israel which are of Israel", he is excluding unbelieving Israel from the promise. He is NOT saying at all believers are some sort of "spiritual Israel".

Also, Paul is not saying that "there is no longer Jew or gentile", he says that there is neither in the body of Christ. In Romans 11, Paul describes the restoration of Israel.

I understand your point of view. Where anyone stand on the millennial reign, such usually stems from one's understanding of Israel in the future of God's plan. The Church of Christ (not affiliated, not endorsing), believe God's plan for Israel is nothing more or less than salvation through Jesus Christ. The reason I am 'partial' as a preterist, is because I believe I have to be. The website and Church of Christ teaching is that there is no future other than in Christ, for Israel, and importantly, that there is no distinction: just Christians (also using Galatians 3:28, Romans 10:12). Yet, I have to bow to scriptures as far as all Dispensationalists give regarding a future plan. While I've doubts, I recognize that in scripture, there are often recurring fulfillment of prophecy as well as difficulty in seeing all prophecy as fulfilled ( preterism). - I don't believe all prophecy fulfilled just a lot of it, nor does fulfillment in any necessity, negate further fulfillment of the same. Different discussion, hope I'm not too far off the thread intent.

Thank you again for the meaningful discussion.
In Him -Lon

 

[Right Divider]

I understand your point of view. Where anyone stand on the millennial reign, such usually stems from one's understanding of Israel in the future of God's plan. The Church of Christ (not affiliated, not endorsing), believe God's plan for Israel is nothing more or less than salvation through Jesus Christ.

Many people seem to believe this. Which should make them wonder why God documented SO much over the course of about 1500 years with Israel. To me, that's silly and simplistic.

The reason I am 'partial' as a preterist, is because I believe I have to be. The website and Church of Christ teaching is that there is no future other than in Christ, for Israel, and importantly, that there is no distinction: just Christians (also using Galatians 3:28, Romans 10:12). Yet, I have to bow to scriptures as far as all Dispensationalists give regarding a future plan. While I've doubts, I recognize that in scripture, there are often recurring fulfillment of prophecy as well as difficulty in seeing all prophecy as fulfilled ( preterism). - I don't believe all prophecy fulfilled just a lot of it, nor does fulfillment in any necessity, negate further fulfillment of the same. Different discussion, hope I'm not too far off the thread intent.

You don't have to be a partial preterist (or any kind of preterist) to believe that many prophecies have been fulfilled. That's obvious. But many people just sweep the rest under the run as if they are also fulfilled. When you compare Isaiah 60 with Revelation 21 many things become clear, including Israel place as the head nation with gentiles nations serving and Israel and being blessed by it.

Notice that the new Jerusalem has the twelve gates with names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel on them. Also note the foundations have the names of the twelve apostles on them. Then there's this:

Rev 21:24-25 KJV And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. (25) And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.

Isaiah talks about these things too:

Isa 60:11-12 KJV Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought. (12) For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.

Isa 60:14-16 KJV The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee, The city of the LORD, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel. (15) Whereas thou hast been forsaken and hated, so that no man went through thee, I will make thee an eternal excellency, a joy of many generations. (16) Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.

Thank you again for the meaningful discussion.
In Him -Lon

You too.

 

[Lon]

Many people seem to believe this. Which should make them wonder why God documented SO much over the course of about 1500 years with Israel. To me, that's silly and simplistic.

For me: To show the low bar, especially during our 'enlightened' Western culture. JV is just as important as Varsity, or Varsity wouldn't be as good as they should be. Then, to show that obedience is a difficult thing: we are broken. I was reading up on another theologian who has fallen, not hard, but fallen. It took King David to remind me to be more gracious (still hate to see anybody lose their ministry or harm another, in some of these cases). A little less simplistic? It depends if their story, His-story, conveys the message. The vast majority of those who are Christ's are not Jews (I think, have a bit of study behind the assertion).

You don't have to be a partial preterist (or any kind of preterist) to believe that many prophecies have been fulfilled. That's obvious.

:up:

But many people just sweep the rest under the run as if they are also fulfilled. When you compare Isaiah 60 with Revelation 21 many things become clear, including Israel place as the head nation with gentiles nations serving and Israel and being blessed by it.

Notice that the new Jerusalem has the twelve gates with names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel on them. Also note the foundations have the names of the twelve apostles on them. Then there's this:

Isaiah talks about these things too:



You too.

:think: A partial preterist does see this as future, but in the sense that Israel was first, and those coming after are 'grafted in' such that our blessings are couched in the King of Israel. So, yes, I see this as future, but perhaps see options for how it plays out in fulfillment.

That said, 'difference' is huge in the future. Some will sit at His right hand. Others will be given double/triple portions. Therefore, though there is neither Jew nor Gentile under the gospel, there are indications I certainly am compelled to see. In appreciation -Lon