For Sincere Inquisitors ONLY: MAD Explained

[Jerry Shugart]

I don't care that you disagree. I care HOW you disagree. HUGE difference.

Again, when you cannot answer the message you attack the messenger. I will give you a chance to actually respond to the "message" because now I will disagree what you said here:

With that in mind, the context of John 5:24 is, again, all about the resurrection. Verses 21, 25, 28, and 29 each speak very specifically about a future resurrection. And verse 24 speaks of "pass[ing] from death unto life", something which looks to me to be another way to put..."resurrection". Which makes sense, considering that the verse is surrounded by resurrection passages.

According to you the following verse is about the "resurrection":

"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life" (Jn.5:24).

According to you this verse is about resurrection and so if you are right then when a person believed Him they were resurrected and went from having a "natural" body to having a "spiritual" body:

"So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body" (1 Cor.15:42-44).

If you are right then we must believe that those who were in their natural bodies when they believed went from having a corruptible body to having an incorruptible and immortal body:

"For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory" (1 Cor.15:53-54).

I find that it is impossible for me to believe that those who heard the Lord Jesus and believed while they were in a natural body were resurrected into a spiritual, incorruptible and immortal body.

Randy, have you even considered that you are confusing being "born again" by the word of truth and being resurrected? They are two separate and distinct things. I cannot believe that all those who heard and believed the Lord Jesus while He walked the earth were resurrected when they believed His words.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

What is it that you do not understand Jerry? This thread is not open for debate. It is for those who wish to learn about what MADists believe. See post #1. Ask valid questions or leave the thread alone.

You must remember that it was Randy Himself who brought me into this discussion when he said:

I addressed this very thing in a response to Jerry a while back. Click here for that post.

No one forced Randy to bring a discussion from another thread to this one. And now that he has done so are you saying that I do not have the right to defend myself on these points which Randy himself brought up?

Besides that, I am explaining the original Mid Acts position of Sir Robert Anderson and J.C. O'Hair and not the Neo-MAD position of Randy.

So if anyone is actually interested in learning about what the MADists believe then they should listen to me and not those who are in the Neo-MAD camp.

 

[Nick M]

Besides that, I am explaining the original Mid Acts position of Sir Robert Anderson and J.C. O'Hair and not the Neo-MAD position of Randy.

Actually, he is explaining what Paul said.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Actually, he is explaining what Paul said.

Actually, my words were addressing the subject of this thread: "MAD Explained."

Of course I would not expect anyone in the Neo-MAD camp to actually discuss the meaning of the Lord Jesus' words at John 5:24. I would not expect any of them to state their opinion of whether they agree with Randy that the verse is about "resurrection." He wrote:

With that in mind, the context of John 5:24 is, again, all about the resurrection. Verses 21, 25, 28, and 29 each speak very specifically about a future resurrection. And verse 24 speaks of "pass[ing] from death unto life", something which looks to me to be another way to put..."resurrection". Which makes sense, considering that the verse is surrounded by resurrection passages.

Let us look at the verse:

"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life" (Jn.5:24).

One of the most respected teachers in the original MAD community, J.C. O'Hara, said the following about the verse and he said nothing that even hints that a resurrection is in view:

"The statement of our Lord Jesus Christ, recorded in John 5:24, should certainly give assurance to any one whose trust is in the Word of God...The believer has eternal life. The believer shall not come into judgment. The believer has passed out of death into life. Most certainly God wants believers to have a positive "know so" salvation, the real assurance of salvation. Hear God's own Word:

"'These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may KNOW that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the Son of God.' I John 5:13

"The Greek word, translated 'know', is 'iedo', and the other definition in the Greek dictionary is 'perceive' and 'to be sure'. Can you not see then that God wants you to know, 'to be sure', that you have eternal life; because you believe unto the salvation of your soul. You did not obtain your salvation by earning it or by laboring for it. Neither do you retain it because you are paying for it with your good works " (J.C. O'Hair, THAT YE MAY KNOW THAT YE HAVE ETERNAL LIFE; "Bible Study For Bereans"; March 1936).

J.C. O'Hair understood that the verse is speaking about "salvation" and not "resurrection."

Perhaps you are willing to defend Randy's interpretation and tell us why J.C. O'Hair is in error?

 

[Choleric]

Same here. Sorry for the long delay. I look at a thread sometimes without having time to do anything in it. Then it drops off my UCP radar, and I forget.

I totally understand!

I wrote:

To which you responded:

There are certainly a lot of places like that in the scriptures – places where only faith or belief is mentioned. But that's not something new. Even in the prophetic scriptures that undeniably include the keeping of the commandments, it was said that “the just shall live by his faith” (Hab. 2:4), with no elaboration on keeping the law. It was understood that faith in God meant doing what He said to do. And the faithful man under the law would keep the law. So every time Jesus spoke of “believing”, He wasn't required to spell out what the believing man would do. It was understood; it permeated their way of life, their history, their relationship with God, etc.

I addressed this very thing in a response to Jerry a while back. Click here for that post.

I read through your post to Jerry. Rather than get too bogged down on this for now, I will try to focus on the covenants. Suffice it for now to say that I think the word "abide" is one we would have a disagreement on. But we can get to that later.

When you refer to the “law of liberty in Christ”, can you tell me where you're getting that phrase? Are you referring to the “law of liberty” that is in James? Or are you using the phrase generically of just the idea of our liberty in Christ?

Well, both. I had in mind James (forgetting how you see James) but also the general application of our freedom (liberty) in Christ. 2 Cor 3:17, Gal 5:1

I asked:

To which you responded:

The four gospel accounts are just like I Chronicles in the sense that they are simply a chronicling something. In the case of the gospels, they're chronicling [part of] the life of Jesus. So they're not like epistles that are written for the purpose of giving instruction/doctrine for living. They're simply accounts of His life (including Luke, a letter written to Theophilus). In them, it's easy to see that the time period represented in them was a time when Israel was definitely operating under the old covenant and awaiting the time of their people's restoration...being brought into the promised land and promised kingdom and promised new covenant.

The purpose of John is stated in John 20:31. Luke gives his purpose for writing to Theophilus in Luke 1:1-4. Surely all four accounts were written for similar purposes: to give any reader factual information about their Messiah so they could know what He did, what He preached, how He suffered, how He died and rose, etc. The accounts are necessary to be able to know the One Who is to be believed upon for salvation.

So that's how I take the gospel accounts. As true, inspired accounts of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. They are for us all. But it's obvious that the time period in them was for Israel operating under the old covenant. So when we see doctrinal matters in them "(show yourself to the priest", "keep the commandments", "do what the Pharisees say because they sit in Moses' seat", "tithe", etc.), we have to simply accept that they pertained to Israel and not us who are in the Body of Christ.

I agree that the gospels were for the Jews under the OC and I agree with you that they are more history than doctrine. That being said, we look at John 3 and see a great picture of Eph 2:8-9. We see the discourse with Jesus and Nicodemus and get a good understanding of what the coming dispensation of salvation by grace through faith would look like (though I understand you will likely disagree with my take on John 3).

I also agree that a large percentage of the doctrine we see (ie Matt 25 , Matt 5) are not for the BOC, but for the millennial kingdom. I guess you could boil my question for you regarding the gospels can be summed up more specifically like this: "Is there any doctrine in the gospels for the Church?" My answer would be yes. (ie John 3)

I said: "I see that and I think it makes a great deal of sense, which is where my "new heart" question comes from. I see verses that agree with this conclusion like Rom_9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

But how about these verses:

Gal_3:15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
Gal_3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

I'm not sure what you're asking me about these passages. Can you clarify?

My original question (and where I would like to spend some more time, but no hurry) was regarding the covenant(s) and the application to the BOC and whether, in your view, we are under the New Covenant. You said that you didn't believe we were and so the verses I posted above were regarding the covenant. Eph 2 is the most specific as Paul writes to the church, he says we were at one time outside the covenants but we now aren't. What is Paul talking about in your view? What covenants was Paul talking about that the church is now participating in?

Okay. Fire away if you have any specifics, and I'll do my best. And if I don't know or am not sure, then I'll tell you. And maybe someone else can chime in if they have an answer.

Amen, brother. :cheers:

OK, and Jerry, I do appreciate your input as I am trying to deepen my understanding. I like to get different perspectives as I learn. Thanks Randy! :thumb:

 

[Butterfly]

You and I have been around this block many times before, Jerry. You're cocky (as tambora clearly sees), you're patronizing, you're pushy, and you can't stomach the idea of someone disagreeing with you, so you act this way. You certainly don't exemplify Eph. 4:1-3.

Again, I've not interest in playing your games. So please take them to one of the other ten million threads where your mess will fit in.

Thanks,
Randy

People like Jerry and Tet have not one ounce of SINCERITY when they discuss the mid-acts issue. They are only here to smear and play slanderous games against the belief. In other words, discussing with them is a waste of time.

Jerry has been playing this game for a lot of years. Nothing new for him.

 

[tetelestai]

From this point forward, I'll certainly refrain from any more of this pointless exchange with you, Jerry. If you want to respectfully contribute in this thread, then please do so. Otherwise, please leave so that those who have said they like having a non-debate thread can actually have it.

Thanks,
Randy

Could you kindly ask your fellow MADist to not make negative comments about me in your thread?

It's really not fair to ask certain people to not participate in your thread, but then at the same time allow others in your thread to make negative comments about them.

Thanks

People like Jerry and Tet have not one ounce of SINCERITY when they discuss the mid-acts issue.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

People like Jerry and Tet have not one ounce of SINCERITY when they discuss the mid-acts issue.

I am very sincere when I discuss the mid-acts view because I believe that the present dispensation began in the middle of the book of Acts. To even suggest that I am not sincere is ridiculous.

They are only here to smear and play slanderous games against the belief. In other words, discussing with them is a waste of time.

I am here to defend the original teaching of MAD against those from the Neo-Mad community,

Jerry has been playing this game for a lot of years. Nothing new for him.

Since you know that you cannot answer the points I made about Randy's idea that John 5:24 is about "resurrection" you attack me personally.

If you think that you can actually defend his view have at it. Nothing is stopping you. But so far no one has even attempted to defend his idea. Perhaps you will be the first.

 

[chickenman]

You're right, tet.

Butterfly and anyone else (me too), let's stick to the stated purpose of this thread. I made the mistake of jabbing at Jerry and starting a pointless exchange with him. Let's keep this to information only, explaining the MidActs view (including different flavors) to anyone sincerely interested in learning more about it. No patronizing, no comebacks, no jabs, etc.

Let's keep it clean, please.

Thanks, everyone, for your consideration.

 

[chickenman]

Choleric,
I'm on my phone right now so unable to do a whole lot. Tied up all day tomorrow. I'll respond to your post as soon as I can.

Thanks for your post.

Randy

 

[Ktoyou]

You're right, tet.

Butterfly and anyone else (me too), let's stick to the stated purpose of this thread. I made the mistake of jabbing at Jerry and starting a pointless exchange with him. Let's keep this to information only, explaining the MidActs view (including different flavors) to anyone sincerely interested in learning more about it. No patronizing, no comebacks, no jabs, etc.

Let's keep it clean, please.

Thanks, everyone, for your consideration.

You might try speaking to him in Mandarin? I doubt it would make any difference, besides he might thing you,:idunno: are talking about mandarin chicken?

 

[Ktoyou]

Ok, all joking aside, this is a serious informative thread. If you disagree, start our own thread. Keep off here unless you want to learn about the topic! Otherwise, it is the woodshed for you!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

OK, and Jerry, I do appreciate your input as I am trying to deepen my understanding.

Choleric, I will do my best to give you an understanding of the original Mid-Acts teaching.

My original question (and where I would like to spend some more time, but no hurry) was regarding the covenant(s) and the application to the BOC and whether, in your view, we are under the New Covenant.

If anyone could be considered the father of systemized Mid-Acts dispensationalism it would be Sir Robert Anderson (1841-1918). He said:

"Our spiritual and eternal blessings do not depend on a covenant made with us, but upon a testament under which we are beneficiaries" (Anderson, Types in Hebrews [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1978], 56).

I think that his words there indicate that he believed that our spiritual and eternal blessings do not come from the New Diatheke promised to the houses of Israel and Judah (Jer.31:31).

I would say that the New Diatheke promised to Israel is corporate in nature and its fulfillment remains in the future:

"And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins" (Ro.11:26-27).

 

[Nick M]

"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life" (Jn.5:24).

Jesus spoke of divine righteousness often. So what. He also told Israel to do all that the pharisee says to do and observe, and to endure to the end or they will not be saved.

 

[Choleric]

Choleric, I will do my best to give you an understanding of the original Mid-Acts teaching.

I appreciate it.

If anyone could be considered the father of systemized Mid-Acts dispensationalism it would be Sir Robert Anderson (1841-1918). He said:

"Our spiritual and eternal blessings do not depend on a covenant made with us, but upon a testament under which we are beneficiaries" (Anderson, Types in Hebrews [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1978], 56).

I think that his words there indicate that he believed that our spiritual and eternal blessings do not come from the New Diatheke promised to the houses of Israel and Judah (Jer.31:31).

I would say that the New Diatheke promised to Israel is corporate in nature and its fulfillment remains in the future:

"And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins" (Ro.11:26-27).

ok. But what about eph 2:12? Paul said we (Gentiles) were once alienated from the covenants buy now we aren't? How do the covenants to Abraham come into play?

Sorry for the brevity. On my phone. Thank Jerry.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

ok. But what about eph 2:12? Paul said we (Gentiles) were once alienated from the covenants buy now we aren't? How do the covenants to Abraham come into play?

Howdy Brother,

I'll keep it simple, and short. Here's the basic idea that Paul is getting at:

In the Old Testament, the Atonement was only for Israel and those Gentiles gathered among the People. It was not for every single person on the face of the earth. The majority of the world was excluded. If they believed in the one true God, they would have to align themselves with Israel to benefit of the sacrifices.

The mystery of the gospel, as explained in Ephesians, is that the Atonement was made for all people, even those Gentiles who were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise...whether they wanted to be atoned or not...whether they believed in the one true God or not.

By doing this, God provided a means of salvation today completely apart from Israel, and totally apart from any covenant promises to Israel. This is the dispensation of the grace of God. God offers grace to anyone and everyone whether they want it or not.

This truth was testified by Paul...first...in due time.

 

[Choleric]

Howdy Brother,

I'll keep it simple, and short. Here's the basic idea that Paul is getting at:

In the Old Testament, the Atonement was only for Israel and those Gentiles gathered among the People. It was not for every single person on the face of the earth. The majority of the world was excluded. If they believed in the one true God, they would have to align themselves with Israel to benefit of the sacrifices.

The mystery of the gospel, as explained in Ephesians, is that the Atonement was made for all people, even those Gentiles who were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise...whether they wanted to be atoned or not...whether they believed in the one true God or not.

By doing this, God provided a means of salvation today completely apart from Israel, and totally apart from any covenant promises to Israel. This is the dispensation of the grace of God. God offers grace to anyone and everyone whether they want it or not.

This truth was testified by Paul...first...in due time.

So would a good explanation of this be found in Gal 3:13-29...

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

So would a good explanation of this be found in Gal 3:13-29...

The Galatians were heirs according to the promise. Abraham's seed.

The Ephesians were joint-heirs, partakers of the promise in Christ, NOT BY PROMISE but by the gospel. The mystery of the gospel.


There is a difference. I don't want to complicate things too much. And, Jerry will disagree. But, in short, some of the Gentiles that Paul preached to during Acts were in the covenants of promise (like the Galatians). The Gentiles preached to after Acts were outside the covenants of promise (like the Ephesians).

Both sets were joined in the same Body. This is the fellowship of the mystery.

Jew/Gentiles in the promises - Acts

+

Gentiles outside the promises - post Acts


These are the twain who form the ONE NEW MAN.

 

[Choleric]

The Galatians were heirs according to the promise. Abraham's seed.

The Ephesians were joint-heirs, partakers of the promise in Christ, NOT BY PROMISE but by the gospel. The mystery of the gospel.


There is a difference. I don't want to complicate things too much. And, Jerry will disagree. But, in short, some of the Gentiles that Paul preached to during Acts were in the covenants of promise (like the Galatians). The Gentiles preached to after Acts were outside the covenants of promise (like the Ephesians).

Both sets were joined in the same Body. This is the fellowship of the mystery.

Jew/Gentiles in the promises - Acts

+

Gentiles outside the promises - post Acts


These are the twain who form the ONE NEW MAN.

:shocked: I think I need a book. A big one, with small words. I am starting to wonder if I really want to go down this rabbit hole.

I appreciate the feedback STP.

How do you establish that the Galatians were partakers of the promise yet the Ephesians weren't? What promise were the Galatians partaking of? Gen 12?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

How do you establish that the Galatians were partakers of the promise yet the Ephesians weren't? What promise were the Galatians partaking of? Gen 12?

It's the promise of the Spirit, eternal life.

Both were partakers of the promise. But, how they got there was different. The Galatians were heirs of the promise by being in the commonwealth of Israel. The Ephesians were made partakers of the promise, despite being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel.

If you would like to discuss this outside of the thread, I'd be glad to.


I don't want to distract you from some of the simpler concepts of "MAD".


Later, Bro :wave2: