:kookoo:
ECT What is your view of MAD and MADists? (Strictly for people who are not mad)
- Thread starter andyc
- Start date
:kookoo:
dodge
New member
andyc
New member
Yeah
And this was demonstrated when Jesus forgave the woman caught in the act of adultery.
Law demanded death, but Jesus offered grace. Same today!
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Do you follow everything Jesus said in the red letters?
Are there some things you cannot do?
andyc
New member
I know what you're leading up to. Let the context dictate who Jesus is speaking to, and why he's saying it.
So go ahead and quote what you have in mind.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
The bolded part is all that MAD wackos attempt to do. You are guilty of the same thing you accuse us of.
Don't be a hypocrite.
andyc
New member
Nonsense.
There was a time when Jesus was explaining the hypocrisy of the pharisees interpretation of the law, he wasn't teaching observance of the law.
Mads love to jump on these instances to try and prove that he was teacher of the law. Nope, he wasn't.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
andyc
New member
Let's have your example, and we'll test your assertion.
Wick Stick
Well-known member
Responding to the OP...
What is my opinion of MAD:
I don't agree with the two-gospels doctrine that underlies MAD, but I can certainly see how one could support it from Scripture as well as most mainstream doctrinal positions.
For me, the wheels come off of MAD when you look at history. It isn't that the belief doesn't exist in the annals of history. It's that the people who ascribed to a Paulian two-gospels approach, historically, were repeatedly and vigorously rebuked, debunked, and opposed by the bishops of the early churches. There's actually quite a bit written about it. It just isn't positive.
What is my opinion of MAD-ists:
Aside from one former acquaintance, who I considered a bit of an oddball, the only Mid-Acts Dispensationalists I've encountered have been on this board. It doesn't seem quite right to try to paint a whole group based only on internet interactions.
Anyway, the interactions have been mixed. My initial experience was very negative, with a few individuals being rude and condescending. I've found a few people since then who are better mannered and willing to talk.
In general, though, the community here seems to have an us-vs-them mentality. Frankly, at this board, MAD-ists appear to engage in a form of internet bullying, wherein the community will flood certain threads with off-topic posts, emoji's, and incendiary commentary to intentionally de-rail the thread.
What is my opinion of MAD:
I don't agree with the two-gospels doctrine that underlies MAD, but I can certainly see how one could support it from Scripture as well as most mainstream doctrinal positions.
For me, the wheels come off of MAD when you look at history. It isn't that the belief doesn't exist in the annals of history. It's that the people who ascribed to a Paulian two-gospels approach, historically, were repeatedly and vigorously rebuked, debunked, and opposed by the bishops of the early churches. There's actually quite a bit written about it. It just isn't positive.
What is my opinion of MAD-ists:
Aside from one former acquaintance, who I considered a bit of an oddball, the only Mid-Acts Dispensationalists I've encountered have been on this board. It doesn't seem quite right to try to paint a whole group based only on internet interactions.
Anyway, the interactions have been mixed. My initial experience was very negative, with a few individuals being rude and condescending. I've found a few people since then who are better mannered and willing to talk.
In general, though, the community here seems to have an us-vs-them mentality. Frankly, at this board, MAD-ists appear to engage in a form of internet bullying, wherein the community will flood certain threads with off-topic posts, emoji's, and incendiary commentary to intentionally de-rail the thread.
andyc
New member
I think there are quite a few people here who'd say the same.
When I first came to this forum, I'd never heard of mad. It was mostly a guy with the user name godrulz who used to continually counter everything they taught. At first i thought it was one of those harmless groups that are a little mixed up, but when I started to talk about salvation, and disagreed with their denial of repentance, and learned that they reject over two thirds of the new testament as directly applying to them, I knew that it was an extremely sinister belief system. At first I was taken back by how nasty these people were, but have since written them off as a cult anyway, so their jibes mean nothing to me.
Made up. You've been shown many verses, where the Lord Jesus Christ taught the law, directly out of the OT, demon.
Translated:I, WickedStiff, don't agree with this 2 pieces of good news, or more in the bible, doctrine, since I am clueless as to what the term "gospel" means. And I will just listen to Professor Judas/Demas says, and I'll be just fine.
Please teach us....
andyc
New member
No, twit.
Jesus pointed out where the law was taught wrongly, but he himself was not a teacher of the law.
Twit, you muse, tough "man,"little candya? Of course, you effeminate Penty, fruit cake types, would not say that to my face, would you, dopie carrot top weakling? No, you wouldn't....
No, you pudgy little punk, he taught the law, right from the OT. But your daddy the devil, keeps telling you, "Deny, my little demon son."
andyc
New member
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
My name and address has been on this site for over a year now.
I haven't yet seen you comin' up my drive to test yer theory, blowhard.
:jawdrop: :crackup:
Already did, demon, for the last 5 years.Your daddy the devil taught you well, wimp.
candyandy: This fake "Jesus" never taught the law, but the LORD God did:
Galatians 3:24 KJV Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.