For Sincere Inquisitors ONLY: MAD Explained

[zippy2006]

:nono:

I guess that is my main question CM. I read through Galatians and James and bits of Romans and Phillipians the other day to compare. I agree that much of it makes it seem like Paul is teaching something rather different to different people, and I had some questions ready for the Catholics and traditionalists, but when I got towards the end of Galatians everything started to make more sense to me.

Especially these verses:

Gal 5:19
Gal 5:20
Gal 5:21 "...of which I tell you beforehand, just as I told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God"
Gal 5:22

Gal 6:1-3
Gal 6:4-5

I've still inquired to some Catholic and Protestant friends, but the problem has been lessened by Paul himself. James seems to be saying the same thing as the above verses, though using different words :think:

Am I right in saying that you believe Paul brought a slightly different Gospel to the Gentiles instead of Jesus of Nazareth (in his time on earth) bringing the original Gospel? That doesn't seem too far out to me, but it does require a good bit of evidence to back up in the face of the traditional view that Jesus came to save the Gentiles too in the first place and there has only ever been one Gospel. No doubt Paul played a huge role in spreading the Gospel to the Gentiles and in clarifying their standing in the Body, but is there enough to go so far as MAD seems to? (unless I am misinterpreting? :idunno

 

[Nick M]

I don't understand the difference really though. Most Christians say that Christ brought the Gentiles to God, but you say that Paul did, right?

No. You are asking about things not said here. We are saved by Christ. Not Paul. But he is the first sinner saved, and the example. Care to show where Jesus or Israel ministered to gentiles that cursed Israel?

Does any of this contradict the traditional view?

What do you mean? The tradition is that gentiles blessed Israel. The perverted version from religion is that they did not. Those that cursed Israel were cursed. Those that bless Israel are blessed.

So you are saying that Jesus only helped because they laid themselves below Israel?

You tell me. When did Jesus help her. Right after she agreed she was a dog hoping for scraps from the masters table.

The story of the Canaanite woman is a challenge, that’s for sure … most
scholars would hold that Matthew is teaching two things with it, two themes
that frequently appear as emphases in his Gospel. First, he is teaching the
importance of perseverance in prayer and trust,

No it isn't. It is an historical event, as the four biographies all are. That is terrible and demonic. This is what people say who want to try and interpret the Bible. I am only highlighting. You don't understand because you don't read or possibly believe.

Don't both Paul and Jesus talk about the greatest commandment: to love God with all your might and to love your neighbor as yourself? Galatians 5:16-26

Go ahead and love your neighbor as yourself, and see if that gets you through the gate. The letter to the Galatatians is begging them to let go of the tradition, and walk in the Spirit. That means knowing that no behavior makes you accecptable.

Who has fallen short? Who has loved their neighbor enough to enter eternal life?

Why can this not be read as the Body beginning with Jesus and the cross?

The cross is where the sins of the world go. Starting with Paul. Why are you trying to reconcile that which is not reconcilable. Some say Paul is false, others say James is wrong. Neither is wrong. They are different messages to different groups.

Here is Paul on justification through faith verses works.

Romans 4

2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.

3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”

4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,

Here is James on justification through works and faith.

James 2

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?

That is a rhetorical question with the answer of NO! You must do works, as Christ taught. Yet Paul says if you do works, they will be counted as debt. Same gospel, are you really saying this?

18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?

22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?


24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

James claims Abraham (after circumcision) is justified by works, offering up his son. Paul said (before circumcision) he is justified by believing God. James says his faith was made perfect by works. He added to faith. What does Paul say about adding works to faith.

Galatians 3

1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth

2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?

And ultimately, Paul says this about the law.

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse

Which goes directly against what Jesus taught.

Matthew 23

1 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,

Either Paul and Luke are wrong, or Paul is teaching something new, not revealed from Christ until Paul.

 

[chickenman]

Hi, zippy.
To clarify, I was shaking my head at godrulz; not you.

I'll come back later when I have time and address your post to me.

Take care,

Randy

 

[Pam Baldwin]

What do you mean? The tradition is that gentiles blessed Israel. The perverted version from religion is that they did not. Those that cursed Israel were cursed. Those that bless Israel are blessed.

Absolutely! And will be so again after the Body is raptured.

Go ahead and love your neighbor as yourself, and see if that gets you through the gate. The letter to the Galatatians is begging them to let go of the tradition, and walk in the Spirit. That means knowing that no behavior makes you accecptable.

Who has fallen short? Who has loved their neighbor enough to enter eternal life?

The letter to the Galatians is admonishing them to not put themselves under Law again.
Who has fallen short? Everyone, since the Law cannot and could not save anyone. Wasn't the Law given to show man how sinful we are? Rom. 3:20. Isn't it impossible to "please" God except by faith? Heb 11:6.

The cross is where the sins of the world go. Starting with Paul. Why are you trying to reconcile that which is not reconcilable. Some say Paul is false, others say James is wrong. Neither is wrong. They are different messages to different groups.

:thumb:

Here is Paul on justification through faith verses works.

Romans 4

2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.

3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”

4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,

Here is James on justification through works and faith.

James 2

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?

That is a rhetorical question with the answer of NO! You must do works, as Christ taught. Yet Paul says if you do works, they will be counted as debt. Same gospel, are you really saying this?

18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?

22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?


24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

James claims Abraham (after circumcision) is justified by works, offering up his son. Paul said (before circumcision) he is justified by believing God. James says his faith was made perfect by works. He added to faith. What does Paul say about adding works to faith.

Galatians 3

1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth

2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?

And ultimately, Paul says this about the law.

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse

Which goes directly against what Jesus taught.

Matthew 23

1 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,

Either Paul and Luke are wrong, or Paul is teaching something new, not revealed from Christ until Paul.

Salvation was and is only through the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ....we are justified by that alone, God was satisfied for the penalty of our sins at the "cross".

We, the Body, are not "under" the burden of the "Law". The Jews and Gentiles obeyed their law as a result of regeneration....as a "proof" to others of their regeneration. The Law saved no one.

The "different" gospels have to do with what we ARE....we are the Body of Christ, no Jew, no Gentile, no bond, no free etc. Our hope is to be on the Throne ruling with Christ. The Jews and Gentiles have earthly hopes....

 

[chickenman]

Hi, zippy.

I guess that is my main question CM. I read through Galatians and James and bits of Romans and Phillipians the other day to compare. I agree that much of it makes it seem like Paul is teaching something rather different to different people, and I had some questions ready for the Catholics and traditionalists, but when I got towards the end of Galatians everything started to make more sense to me.

Especially these verses:

Gal 5:19
Gal 5:20
Gal 5:21 "...of which I tell you beforehand, just as I told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God"
Gal 5:22

Gal 6:1-3
Gal 6:4-5

I've still inquired to some Catholic and Protestant friends, but the problem has been lessened by Paul himself. James seems to be saying the same thing as the above verses, though using different words :think:

According to Paul (that which he learned from the risen Jesus), we in the Body are made righteous (II Cor. 5:21), holy and blameless (Eph. 1:4) by virtue of being in Christ. Having been baptized by the Spirit into Christ (Rom. 6:4), we have put on Christ (Gal. 3:27), and it is no longer we who live, but Christ lives in us (Gal. 2:20) and is our life (Col. 3:3-4).

So since we are who He is (righteous, holy, etc.) by virtue of being in Him, how can we be judged as an adulterer, idolater, etc. (the things in the Gal. 5) list? We are not under a law that judges and condemns those things. We are in Christ and are judged according to what HE is, not according to what we do.

A similar passage to the one you referenced in Gal. 5 is I Cor. 6:9-10, where Paul writes:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effiminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. I Cor. 6:9-10
​

So, since one of the Corinthian brethren was a fornicator (I Cor. 5:1), then surely he wouldn't be able to inherit the kingdom of God, right?

Actually, in the next verse, Paul says otherwise.

And such were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. I Cor. 6:11
​

So even the fornicator in their midst, the one from whom they were to disfellowship, was said to be washed clean, sanctified, and justified. That's because in Christ, he was judged to be what Christ was - righteous.

Am I right in saying that you believe Paul brought a slightly different Gospel to the Gentiles instead of Jesus of Nazareth (in his time on earth) bringing the original Gospel?

During His earthly ministry, Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom. The early pages of this thread should show the clear evidence for that. His ministry was one to prepare Israel for their coming promised kingdom (a literal kingdom on earth). The gospel He and the Twelve preached was one for Israel and Israel alone, though that would certainly include proselytes, as they were included in prophecy as well. Basically, a Gentile could come to God by coming through the nation of Israel.

Paul didn't preach the good news that a promised earthly kingdom was at hand. He preached the gospel of grace, a message contained within the gospel of the uncircumcision (Gal. 2:7). Whereas Peter et al preached the gospel of the kingdom that was contained within the gospel of the circumcision (Gal. 2:8).

So yes, Jesus (on earth) and Paul preached different good news messages.

That doesn't seem too far out to me, but it does require a good bit of evidence to back up in the face of the traditional view that Jesus came to save the Gentiles too in the first place and there has only ever been one Gospel.

As I mentioned earlier, Gentiles are included in prophecy. But according to prophecy, what would be required of them to inherit the promises? And is that the same requirent under Paul's teaching? That's the key.

The idea of there always having been only one gospel doesn't make a bit of sense. The gospel was preached to Abraham (Gal. 3:8). Was it preached to Abraham that if he believed that Jesus Christ died for his sins and rose again, then he would be saved? Of course not, but this is the gospel that saves, according to I Cor. 15:1-4.

There are several good news (gospel) messages in scripture. Some totally differ from one another. Some overlap one another in some ways. But there's most certainly not just one.

No doubt Paul played a huge role in spreading the Gospel to the Gentiles and in clarifying their standing in the Body, but is there enough to go so far as MAD seems to? (unless I am misinterpreting? :idunno

Yes.


How have you done with this thread so far? Have you been able to read everything up to this point?

Thanks for your questions, zippy, and for your respectful attitude about your differences.

Sincerely,

Randy

 

[chickenman]

By the way, zippy, I said:

"During His earthly ministry, Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom. The early pages of this thread should show the clear evidence for that. His ministry was one to prepare Israel for their coming promised kingdom (a literal kingdom on earth). "
​

If you disagree that this is established early on in this thread, then don't hesitate to ask me or anyone to elaborate on that point (what Jesus preached on earth) here. I'll be happy to.

Thanks,
Randy

 

[Nick M]

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2333814&postcount=261

Tico with the help of the flying pig summarizes it nicely.

 

[Tico]

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2333814&postcount=261

Tico with the help of the flying pig summarizes it nicely.

It´s such a simple message that even those with Oppositional Theology Disorder (OTD) can understand it.

The only other closing argument easier than this one was when the defendant admitted he was guilty on the stand during cross examination.

 

[zippy2006]

Hi, zippy.

:wave2:

According to Paul (that which he learned from the risen Jesus), we in the Body are made righteous (II Cor. 5:21), holy and blameless (Eph. 1:4) by virtue of being in Christ. Having been baptized by the Spirit into Christ (Rom. 6:4), we have put on Christ (Gal. 3:27), and it is no longer we who live, but Christ lives in us (Gal. 2:20) and is our life (Col. 3:3-4).

So since we are who He is (righteous, holy, etc.) by virtue of being in Him, how can we be judged as an adulterer, idolater, etc. (the things in the Gal. 5) list? We are not under a law that judges and condemns those things. We are in Christ and are judged according to what HE is, not according to what we do.

A similar passage to the one you referenced in Gal. 5 is I Cor. 6:9-10, where Paul writes:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effiminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. I Cor. 6:9-10
​

So, since one of the Corinthian brethren was a fornicator (I Cor. 5:1), then surely he wouldn't be able to inherit the kingdom of God, right?

Actually, in the next verse, Paul says otherwise.

And such were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. I Cor. 6:11
​

So even the fornicator in their midst, the one from whom they were to disfellowship, was said to be washed clean, sanctified, and justified. That's because in Christ, he was judged to be what Christ was - righteous.

Well, I guess first I just have a problem with the plain meaning of such verses as these:

I Cor. 6:9-10
Gal 5:21

When I read those it seems sort of clear that "those who practice such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God."

I think I understand your point about being in the Spirit though... A few thoughts: if we are truly in Christ and in the Spirit, then why would we practice such things anyway? Also, doesn't "pratice" mean something particular, like continually engage in or submit to such sins? I understand that salvation is not lost for a fornicator, but isn't that because that's what they were, rather than are?:

And such were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. I Cor. 6:11​

You couldn't consistently practice fornication (thus putting it above God and being a slave to it rather than He) and inherit the Kingdom could you?

I also wonder if "were" in that passage excludes the fornicator? Why was he disfellowshipped if he was in the Body?

During His earthly ministry, Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom. The early pages of this thread should show the clear evidence for that. His ministry was one to prepare Israel for their coming promised kingdom (a literal kingdom on earth). The gospel He and the Twelve preached was one for Israel and Israel alone, though that would certainly include proselytes, as they were included in prophecy as well. Basically, a Gentile could come to God by coming through the nation of Israel.

Paul didn't preach the good news that a promised earthly kingdom was at hand. He preached the gospel of grace, a message contained within the gospel of the uncircumcision (Gal. 2:7). Whereas Peter et al preached the gospel of the kingdom that was contained within the gospel of the circumcision (Gal. 2:8).

So yes, Jesus (on earth) and Paul preached different good news messages.

Right, I did read through quite a bit of that here and it made sense to me at the time, but then I looked at some of the counterpoints and those made a lot of sense as well . To be honest the counterpoints make more sense to me but I was also brought up according to those beliefs :idunno:.

One of the bigger points seems to be that Paul and Peter seem to preach the same Gospel after a time (after Paul rebukes Peter), and that both preach to the "other's group" at times. Paul would at times preach to Jews and Peter would at times preach to Gentiles, even though they usually stuck to their own group so to speak. There is also the fact that Paul successfully rebuked Peter for treating the Gentiles differently than the Jews.

As I mentioned earlier, Gentiles are included in prophecy. But according to prophecy, what would be required of them to inherit the promises? And is that the same requirent under Paul's teaching? That's the key.

The idea of there always having been only one gospel doesn't make a bit of sense. The gospel was preached to Abraham (Gal. 3:8). Was it preached to Abraham that if he believed that Jesus Christ died for his sins and rose again, then he would be saved? Of course not, but this is the gospel that saves, according to I Cor. 15:1-4.

There are several good news (gospel) messages in scripture. Some totally differ from one another. Some overlap one another in some ways. But there's most certainly not just one.

That's another thing, Jesus replied to the Jewish leaders that the greatest commandment was to love your neighbor as yourself and to love the LORD with all of your heart. Paul often refers to this same sort of formula for his Gentile listeners.

Also, doesn't Paul say in Galatians that Abraham's faith is what gave him righteousness?

Gal 3:6 Thus Abraham "believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."
Gal 3:7 Realize then that it is those who have faith who are children of Abraham.

Yes.


How have you done with this thread so far? Have you been able to read everything up to this point?

Thanks for your questions, zippy, and for your respectful attitude about your differences.

Sincerely,

Randy

I think I've read about 65% of everything that was said. A lot seemed to be higher level interactions between fellow MidActers so I couldn't really follow much of that. It seems that the definition of MAD varies a bit from person to person as well.

I think I'm getting an understanding of it a bit, but I may have to start reading up on the opposing views a bit more now since I don't have a very firm foundation in any particular view :noid:. ...at least as far as dispensationalism in general goes with respect to each view.

Thanks for your help CM :e4e:

 

[chickenman]

Hi, zippy.

Well, I guess first I just have a problem with the plain meaning of such verses as these:

I Cor. 6:9-10
Gal 5:21

When I read those it seems sort of clear that "those who practice such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God."

If we go off the word "practice" as the key, then we have to define the word somehow. If a person covets 3 times, is that considered practicing it? If they do it 3 times every year, is that considered practicing it? Who gets to decide what "practice" means? Since those things are identifications according to the law for Israel, then it doesn't take multiple times of doing something for it to be a practice. For breaking just one commandment just one time makes one guilty of breaking the whole law (James 2:10).

So I think the distinction in those passages has to be between those that are in Christ and are free from the law and made righteous and just by His actions, versus those that are not and are therefore under the condemnation of the law ("the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God").

I think I understand your point about being in the Spirit though... A few thoughts: if we are truly in Christ and in the Spirit, then why would we practice such things anyway? Also, doesn't "pratice" mean something particular, like continually engage in or submit to such sins? I understand that salvation is not lost for a fornicator, but isn't that because that's what they were, rather than are?:

And such were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. I Cor. 6:11
​

You couldn't consistently practice fornication (thus putting it above God and being a slave to it rather than He) and inherit the Kingdom could you?

When we are baptized by the Spirit into Christ, we are made righteous at that moment. We're not under the law (Rom. 6:14). Therefore we can't transgress the law (Rom. 4:15). Christ kept the law perfectly, and we are judged according to what He did and according to who He is.
Can a person still tell a lie after they've been baptized into Christ? Yes, but that sin is not imputed unto him. If he can still tell a lie, how many lies can he tell before he would forfeit his inheritance? Who gets to make that judgment call? What practice of what sin would cause a person to lose his inheritance...his position in Christ? Remember, coveting is in the list with fornicating. Reviling is in there as well, along with envying and strife. If someone believed the gospel of Christ and, thus, the Spirit baptized him into Christ, could that person live in strife with another? If so, is he removed from his position in Christ?

I hope you see what I'm getting at. Once we believe the gospel and are baptized into Christ, it's no longer about what we do (in terms of our eternal position), but it's ALL about what He did and who He is. If he died for us while we were His enemies (Rom. 5:10), how much more of an enemy could we possibly become?

I also wonder if "were" in that passage excludes the fornicator? Why was he disfellowshipped if he was in the Body?

Paul instructed them to disfellowship with him because that is the proper judgment against fellow believers who engage in certain types of behavior. He said:

I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators; yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous [etc...]; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if a man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous...[etc...]; with such a one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within? I Cor. 5:9-12
​

Right, I did read through quite a bit of that here and it made sense to me at the time, but then I looked at some of the counterpoints and those made a lot of sense as well . To be honest the counterpoints make more sense to me but I was also brought up according to those beliefs :idunno:.

Understood. If you'd like me to address any of those specific things, I'll be happy to.

One of the bigger points seems to be that Paul and Peter seem to preach the same Gospel after a time (after Paul rebukes Peter), and that both preach to the "other's group" at times. Paul would at times preach to Jews and Peter would at times preach to Gentiles, even though they usually stuck to their own group so to speak. There is also the fact that Paul successfully rebuked Peter for treating the Gentiles differently than the Jews.

Paul and Peter both preached the good news of God...the good news that He had delivered on His promise of the seed of David. They both preached that Jesus was the fulfillment of that promise (at least that He had come) and that He was crucified and rose again. Paul refers to that good news as the "gospel of God" in Romans 1:1-4.

Peter, however, never preached that if you believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins and rose again, then you were saved by grace through faith. He never preached that you'd be baptized into Christ (the "one new man").

They preached some things in common, but not everything.

That's another thing, Jesus replied to the Jewish leaders that the greatest commandment was to love your neighbor as yourself and to love the LORD with all of your heart. Paul often refers to this same sort of formula for his Gentile listeners.

Yes. Again, every word that Paul spoke and wrote was not mutually exclusive of those spoken/written by Peter et al.

Also, doesn't Paul say in Galatians that Abraham's faith is what gave him righteousness?

Gal 3:6 Thus Abraham "believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."
Gal 3:7 Realize then that it is those who have faith who are children of Abraham.

Well, he said that God counted Abraham's faith unto him as righteousness.
Abraham was said to be the father of two groups. He believed, and that believe alone was accounted unto him for righteousness. Therefore, he could be the father of those who simply had faith. Later, he was circumcised. As a result, he became the father of those who would be circumcised as he was.

I think I've read about 65% of everything that was said. A lot seemed to be higher level interactions between fellow MidActers so I couldn't really follow much of that. It seems that the definition of MAD varies a bit from person to person as well.

Yes, we all agree on the big stuff and vary on details. There are a few people around here who like to try to corner MidActs'ers by saying stupid things like "MAD says this" or "MAD believes that" or "to be MAD, you have to believe this", etc. It's irritating and silly. As I see it, this is all that is required to be a MidActs Dispensationalist: believe that the Body of Christ could not have begun until God called out and commissioned Paul in mid-Acts. That's it. With that, a great many details fall in line with one another and we, therefore agree on those things. But we differ on many details. The goal is that we could work together to come to common ground on those details one day.

I think I'm getting an understanding of it a bit, but I may have to start reading up on the opposing views a bit more now since I don't have a very firm foundation in any particular view :noid:. ...at least as far as dispensationalism in general goes with respect to each view.

Thanks for your help CM :e4e:

If you or anyone else ultimately concludes differently than me, then that's okay by me. I can't stand it when people become turds in their disagreements, though. I can't fellowship with people like that. But I can fellowship and have good discussions with people who disagree with me but are not turds.

So thanks, zippy, for your respectful questions and comments. You are definitely...not a turd.

Randy

 

[chatmaggot]

As an aside...I just recently saw the review on Amazon for Chickenman's book by a fella named Gregory Reed.

It is so long! I read about half of it and it seems he might have read your book but didn't "get" the book. Not that he had to believe it...but he didn't quite understand what you were saying.

For example he says:

He teaches that today in the grace age or church age that Isreal [sic] or Jews relating to their flesh, culture, customs and nation are required to keep the law.

I was going to sign up just so I could respond to his post and invite him to this thread....but I doubt he would even go back to read any of the other comments. His review reads more like an advertisement for the Holy Bible Recovery Version.

 

[chickenman]

As an aside...I just recently saw the review on Amazon for Chickenman's book by a fella named Gregory Reed.

It is so long! I read about half of it and it seems he might have read your book but didn't "get" the book. Not that he had to believe it...but he didn't quite understand what you were saying.

For example he says:



I was going to sign up just so I could respond to his post and invite him to this thread....but I doubt he would even go back to read any of the other comments. His review reads more like an advertisement for the Holy Bible Recovery Version.

Yeah, I saw that review the other day. You're right; he didn't get it. That quote that you posted is a perfect illustration. I don't believe anything like what he said I believe.

Oh well, considering how unpopular the MidActs position is, that person certainly wasn't and won't be the first one to give me a thumbs down.

Later, po-tater!

 

[chickenman]

Bumping this thread, in case anyone wants to post in a place where we can discuss things without having to wade through endless debate.

STP et al, post your thoughts here for other MidActs'er or sincere inquirers to interact with. I'm game for learning.

Randy

 

[chickenman]

Bumping this thread, in case anyone wants to post in a place where we can discuss things without having to wade through endless debate.

STP et al, post your thoughts here for other MidActs'er or sincere inquirers to interact with. I'm game for learning.

Randy

 

[Bright Raven]

Bumping this thread, in case anyone wants to post in a place where we can discuss things without having to wade through endless debate.

STP et al, post your thoughts here for other MidActs'er or sincere inquirers to interact with. I'm game for learning.

Randy

hi Randy, could you address the issue of communion again.

 

[Choleric]

Well, I am genuinely interested. To be fair, I am not one who would agree with MAD, and as you probably know, I can be very dogmatic :angel:

That being said, I have changed my mind many times regarding things I was very dogmatic about ie preterism. I have, in the past few years, began to see the dispensational nature of the Scripture much more clearly and it has helped me a great deal.

That being said, I don't see why we have to separate the pauline epistles from Hebrews through Revelation. I understand that much of the gospels (matthew particularly) and revelation deal a great deal with the coming kingdom of heaven on earth and I understand the dispensational nature of those.

I understand James seems to contradict Romans, but I don't really have any problem reconciling the two. Peter speaks of being born (1 Pe 1:23) again, and I don't have any issue with believing him. I will admit that the one book in the bible I have not spent much time studying is Acts. I am open to correction and appreciate you taking the time to explain what you see as my error in interpretation. :thumb:

 

[Nick M]

STP needs a haircut.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

STP needs a haircut.

:chuckle:

Nick should give up :smokie:

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

That being said, I don't see why we have to separate the pauline epistles from Hebrews through Revelation.

:wave:

The biggest difference in Paul vs. Hebrews-Revelation is the fact that the Body of Christ has already received the atonement (having been raised with Christ), whereas the church of God will receive the atonement when Christ returns...so, they must endure faithful in order to receive it.

Once you see this distinction, most of the problem verses disappear. And, the need to water down and mix clear passages in order to harmonize the two disappears.

 

[chickenman]

hi Randy, could you address the issue of communion again.

Hi, BR. Good to see you. I hope you're doing well.

There are varying views on communion in the MidActs camp. So my position isn't at all the consensus opinion. But here's a brief overview of what I believe.

Christians/churches today generally base their partaking of the Lord's supper on the Luke 21 passage, because they believe that Jesus' words are directed at them, and therefore He is commanding them:

"This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me." Luke 22:19​

But if Jesus was, indeed, giving a commandment to us in the Body of Christ to eat bread and wine in remembrance of Him, then we should do it as they did it. It was part of the Passover for them. So from that point forward, the apostles would know that on the Passover (which was once a year), they would memorialize Christ's sacrifice for them during the meal in which they had also been commanded to remember what God had done for them coming out of Egypt (annual Passover established in Ex. 12). If that is for us, then we are to slaughter a lamb and keep the meal on the 14th day of the first month of every year.

Paul, in I Cor. 11, gets on to the Corinthian believers for dishonoring the Lord in the way they gather together and eat. It looks to me (some would disagree, I think) that Paul wasn't necessarily telling them to partake of the Lord's supper. He told them what Jesus had told him...about what happened at Jesus' last supper.

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, "Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, "This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." I Cor. 11:23-25​

Since the Corinthian audience was made up of those who had come out of the synagogue in Corinth, they without question knew and had kept the Passover. So I'm guessing that they likely still gathered once a year for the Passover. And in so doing, knowing what Paul told them, they should have honored the Lord's sacrifice when they gathered together to partake. Yet they were taking from those who had nothing (the "church of God"), effectively "despising" them, filling their bellies, etc. Pretty much consistent with what we see about them throughout the whole letter, they didn't give a flip about any symbolic significance of the meal. They weren't coming together for the Lord's supper. They were coming together to do what they knew best: to indulge in their flesh. So that's why he wrote that section of the letter and rebuked them for their behavior.

But he never tells them they have to partake. He just says:

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. I Cor. 13:26​

I believe, being former synagogue Jews and God-fearing Gentiles who kept the Passover, and having been told about Jesus' last supper at Passover, then they would have just done it once a year.

But we aren't and have never been under the Passover ordinance. We're not to gather annually to remember it. Therefore, we're not under an ordinance to also, with the Passover, memorialize the Lord's sacrifice for us in that way.

That being said, "all things are lawful for us", according to Paul. So if any of us want to remember His sacrifice in a symbolic way, where we gather together and break bread and drink wine, we are free to do that. We are free to not do that, also. We can do it without suffering condemnation, and we can refrain and still not suffer condemnation.

Here are the things of which I'm certain:

• There's no command whatsoever for the members of the Body to partake.
• Of those today who believe we are commanded to partake, there's no agreement on frequency. Yet, in scripture, no frequency has to be commanded, for it was obvious that it accompanied the Passover (again, Luke 22 et al). It was once a year.
• "Communion" in churches today doesn't look anything like it looked in scripture. It's a meal in scripture. In addition to bread and wine, there was a lamb. So a teeny tiny cracker and a thimble of grape juice is based on tradition, not on scripture.

These things tell me that the "communion" of today isn't patterned after scripture. That doesn't mean that it's necessarily wrong. The error is in making the claims about it that so many do ("it's a commanded ordinace", "Paul commanded the Corinthians to partake", etc.). Again, I'm free to eat a little bitty teeny tiny cracker and a drop of grape juice and take that moment to consider His sacrifice for me, allowing those things to symbolize His body and blood. But no one should NEED to do that in order to remember what He did for us. We should be able to wake up every day and thank the Lord for what He did. For me, a cracker doesn't make me MORE thankful.

So again, we're free to partake or not to partake. It's up to us and the Holy Spirit.

Any other MidActs'er or sincere inquirers are welcome to jump in and give your position if it differs from mine. I'm always up for learning and changing my view, if it's warranted.

Thanks,
Randy