ECT If MAD is false, what is true?

[Lighthouse]

This is what kills me about the madist. They think they have all the answers. Everyone thinks they have all the answers and can convincingly prove their viewpoint using scripture just like the madist. What makes you think you’re so special?

The alternative I subscribe to is the truth.
32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."

3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.

In understanding the truth I see no contradictions at all and I don’t even have to say “well those books are not talking to me” or "that's not what it's really saying"

Mad is false and creates contradictions.

Before I ever heard of MAD, when I was in the Assemblies of God I saw contradictions everywhere; mostly coming from the pulpit, but in the Bible as well. Many things did not make sense.

Some were easily explained, as they existed between the time of the Law and the time after the DBR, etc. When the law was supposedly no longer in effect. But that didn't explain Peter's vision in Acts 10, for instance. But these things were mostly ignored by the pastors I heard preach, in any church I attended throughout that time.

Yes, contradictory.

If Paul was not sent to baptize, why did he do it?

You'd have to ask him.

And if you're going to act like that "contradiction" doesn't exist in the Scripture then you are nothing more than a heretic and a troll. Paul did actually state that he was not sent to baptize. And we know the 12 were.

 

[turbosixx]

Before I ever heard of MAD, when I was in the Assemblies of God I saw contradictions everywhere; mostly coming from the pulpit, but in the Bible as well. Many things did not make sense.

Some were easily explained, as they existed between the time of the Law and the time after the DBR, etc. When the law was supposedly no longer in effect. But that didn't explain Peter's vision in Acts 10, for instance. But these things were mostly ignored by the pastors I heard preach, in any church I attended throughout that time.

I know a little about the Assemblies of God but not that much.

And if you're going to act like that "contradiction" doesn't exist in the Scripture then you are nothing more than a heretic and a troll.

I really don't see any "contradictions" in scripture. There are a few things that I might not fully understand but they do not create contradictions.

Paul did actually state that he was not sent to baptize. And we know the 12 were.

Can you tell me what Paul meant by his statement based on the context.

 

[Lighthouse]

I know a little about the Assemblies of God but not that much.

All that's relevant here is that they are not MAD.

I really don't see any "contradictions" in scripture. There are a few things that I might not fully understand but they do not create contradictions.

Then you really don't understand them. You also probably don't know the Scriptures very well and they are mostly ignored by any teacher you have had.

Can you tell me what Paul meant by his statement based on the context.

Baptism was not part of his mission. He was not commanded to baptize as the 12 were. It's pretty plain and simple.

 

[turbosixx]

Then you really don't understand them. You also probably don't know the Scriptures very well and they are mostly ignored by any teacher you have had.

I'm no expert but I know them very well and do not ignore any part. I want all the pieces to fit as they should.

Baptism was not part of his mission. He was not commanded to baptize as the 12 were. It's pretty plain and simple.

What does that have to do with "there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment." if he was baptizing just as "Cephas" and "Apollos"?

 

[Crucible]

redundant thread after thread against MAD.

There are a hundred anti-Calvinist threads, and threads with no malleability which puts MAD on a pedestal.
At least make an attempt to not look like a deranged hypocrite, I mean come on now

 

[Crucible]

Yep! They know absolutely nothing about the "Spiritual Tool" that the MAD Doctrine represents, yet, they hate it.

'Spiritual tool', as in the MAD Decoder Ring™

I know perfectly well what it represents, and when I tell it the response is nothing more than questioning my salvation- basically the universal red flag of all dubious sects.

 

[Lighthouse]

I'm no expert but I know them very well and do not ignore any part. I want all the pieces to fit as they should.

If you know them then you wouldn't have issues with understanding.

And I wasn't saying you are the one doing the ignoring, however one can ignore the contradictions without ignoring the passages.

What does that have to do with "there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment." if he was baptizing just as "Cephas" and "Apollos"?

He wasn't forbidden from baptizing. There's nothing wrong with it. But the Great Commission still didn't apply to him, and there's a reason for that.

 

[turbosixx]

He wasn't forbidden from baptizing. There's nothing wrong with it. But the Great Commission still didn't apply to him, and there's a reason for that.

That answer is speculation and not context. Mad is basing baptism isn't part of the gospel on this single verse. Do you think it's wise not to consider the context? Especially since we see Paul baptizing believers "in the name of Jesus" just like Peter, Phillip and others.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Yes, contradictory.

If Paul was not sent to baptize, why did he do it?

The same reason he shaved his head and took a vow.

 

[Nick M]

Do you understand when the law ended for those who were under it?

Red herring. You stated all of the Bible is for you. You mocked people who say it isn't. This is your response to showing your double standard and not keeping that command from the Lord Jesus Christ to his disciples?

 

[dodge]

Originally Posted by turbosixx
Why would I keep it?? I'm not a Jew.

Originally Posted by turbosixx
In understanding the truth I see no contradictions at all and I don’t even have to say“well those books are not talking to me” or "that's not what it's really saying"



A bit contradictory there turbs

Moving on up:'


Rom 2:28
For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

Rom 2:29
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

 

[themuzicman]

There is no systematic theology that is infallible, as they are all constructed by man.

However, MAD has a sufficient number of obvious errors so as to not be taken seriously.

 

[turbosixx]

The same reason he shaved his head and took a vow.

Yes, Paul shaved his head and took a vow, but why did he do it? There was a reason and we are told the reason in the context. Just like when he circumcised Timothy, the reason is given in the context. Anytime Paul acted in a manner to "become all things to all men" we are told why in the context.

Can you show context why Paul baptized.

 

[turbosixx]

Red herring. You stated all of the Bible is for you.

Yes, all the bible is for us all. It's the story of Jesus from Gen. to Rev.

How can books before the body be TO the body?

You mocked people who say it isn't.

I'm merely trying to point out how absurd it is to say that books written to those who have put their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is not written to Christians. Especially in the light of the fact that Paul wrote to the exact same people.

This is your response to showing your double standard and not keeping that command from the Lord Jesus Christ to his disciples?

Again, this was before the establishment of the body which did away with those commandments.

 

[Nihilo]

The Lord Jesus Christ said, "I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

If the gates of hell ever prevail against His Church, then He is a liar and a fraud, and may God strike Him dead.

 

[Lighthouse]

That answer is speculation and not context. Mad is basing baptism isn't part of the gospel on this single verse. Do you think it's wise not to consider the context? Especially since we see Paul baptizing believers "in the name of Jesus" just like Peter, Phillip and others.

How is it speculation? Paul baptized people and said that he was not sent to baptize. One can only induce from those facts that baptism was not part of the message he was sent to preach and that he was not forbidden from baptizing as it was not forbidden in his message.

You do realize that 1 John 1:9 is the only verse that says to confess your sins, don't you? Why do you base a theological position that confession for forgiveness must be done over and over again on that single verse?

There is no systematic theology that is infallible, as they are all constructed by man.

However, MAD has a sufficient number of obvious errors so as to not be taken seriously.

Then you should be able to list at least a few.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

How is it speculation? Paul baptized people and said that he was not sent to baptize. One can only induce from those facts that baptism was not part of the message he was sent to preach and that he was not forbidden from baptizing as it was not forbidden in his message.

Others in company with Paul were baptizing as also did the disciples of Jesus while Jesus was not.

You do realize that 1 John 1:9 is the only verse that says to confess your sins, don't you? Why do you base a theological position that confession for forgiveness must be done over and over again on that single verse?

Only when or if the believer sins.

Jas 5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
Jas 5:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.
Jas 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

1Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jn 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Pro 28:13 He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.

LA

 

[Lazy afternoon]

This is for the frauds and the socially autistic who keep posting redundant thread after thread against MAD.

Put up or shut up.

Don't just attack MAD. Name a positive alternative. Don't be vague. Be specific. Identify by name (because they all have names or can be otherwise classified under known systems) the approach to Bible understanding that YOU believe should be adopted as true, and why.

If you don't name a specific one as an alternative to MAD, then you got nothing. You're just a fraud and a troll or a fool, whoever you are.

The alternative to MAD is to be filled with the Holy Spirit--

Eph 5:14 Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.
Eph 5:15 See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise,
Eph 5:16 Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.
Eph 5:17 Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is.
Eph 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;
Eph 5:19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;
Eph 5:20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

LA

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

The alternative to MAD is to be filled with the Holy Spirit--

Your ignorance astounds me.

 

[Clete]

This is for the frauds and the socially autistic who keep posting redundant thread after thread against MAD.

Put up or shut up.

Don't just attack MAD. Name a positive alternative. Don't be vague. Be specific. Identify by name (because they all have names or can be otherwise classified under known systems) the approach to Bible understanding that YOU believe should be adopted as true, and why.

If you don't name a specific one as an alternative to MAD, then you got nothing. You're just a fraud and a troll or a fool, whoever you are.

I love that you posted this because I happened to have been thinking along a parallel line of thought just earlier this morning.

It occurred to me that that pretty much all Christians are Mid-Acts Dispensationalists to one degree or another. Even those who explicitly reject it, accept it implicitly. How many non-Mid-Acts Christians have you even met that preach legalism without emphasizing the teachings of Jesus and the Twelve while minimizing (or ignoring) Paul's teaching? And how many non-Mid-Acts Christians have you ever met that preach grace alone apart from works that didn't do the reverse? Virtually all Christians divide the bible along the same line we do. We just do it on purpose and therefore more consistently.

If, for example, you attend a Church of Christ, you believe that you can lose your salvation and all your proof texts for that doctrine will be somewhere other than in the Pauline epistles while all your problem texts will be Pauline and you are very likely not even notice that fact.

If, on the other hand, you attend a Baptist church, the exact opposite will be the case. You believe that you cannot lose your salvation and all your proof texts will be Pauline while your problem texts will be in the whole rest of the bible and you're just as likely not to have noticed that Paul's writings are where the dividing line lands.

And because the distinctions they are making are not intentional and not even noticed, there is no consistency. The Church of Christ believer and the Baptist can both agree that we are identified in Christ, for example, and both would share the same set of proof/problem texts but the proof/problem texts are still divided along the line where Paul's letters are on one side and the rest of the bible is on the other.

There are exceptions to this, of course. You would not find this distinction on issues that are trans-dispensational such as the deity of Christ and the propitiatory nature of His death, the righteousness of the One and Only God who created all things, etc, etc, etc. On such issues, the distinction between Paul's epistles and the rest of scripture doesn't exist for any Christian including Mid-Acts Dispensationalists!

And so every Christian is either a Pauline Dispensationalist on purpose or he is one by accident and by implication.

What stronger argument could be made for the veracity of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism?

Resting in Him,
Clete