Is M.A.D. a dangerous heresy? It demands much scripture to be ignored

[Tambora]

Do you seriously believe the 12 were never to go to the Gentiles?

At this point they weren't preaching the resurrection either (it hadn't happened). Were they also supposed to only preach forever what they were preaching that day?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Nice non-answer.

Do you seriously believe that instruction to the twelve in that day is the same instruction the BOC should adhere to today?

Gonna have to deal with this before you move the goalposts.

 

[john w]

I'm sure that you'd say that, even though I'm a "fraud", that it really doesn't matter, because once I've believed it really doesn't matter what kind of works I choose to do. I can choose to lie, misrepresent the Gospel, whatever feels good to me, right?

I think you'd say that if I did feel bad about being a fraud, I shouldn't try to change my nature to be more honest like God, because that would be trying to "earn my salvation". So… I should just stay the way I am, and trust grace.

If you think anything differently, that would be inconsistent.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

If course, MAD seems to teach that Jesus didn't really mean that, and point to Jesus saying "don't go to the Gentiles" way early in His ministry. ............
So they conveniently come up with a way to say that Scriptures like this were only for a dispensation that has been done away with.

Luke 18:22 KJV Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.


Sell all you have.


I thought so.

Fraud.

 

[Tambora]

The answer to James's question is "Faith without works is dead". Not the works of the law, but works of love. Works obedient to the Gospel.

You are mistaken.

The "works" James referred to was indeed the law, the whole law.

James 2:10-17 KJV
(10) For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
(11) For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
(12) So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
(13) For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.
(14) What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
(15) If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
(16) And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
(17) Even so faith, if it hath not works [of the whole law], is dead, being alone.​

James was not talking about just certain portions of the law, as some like to claim (only the ceremonial portions).
James is talking about the whole law.

 

[Tambora]

Follow that up with ....

Romans 3:28 KJV
(28) Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

 

[Clete]

You are mistaken.

The "works" James referred to was indeed the law, the whole law.

James 2:10-17 KJV
(10) For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
(11) For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
(12) So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
(13) For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.
(14) What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
(15) If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
(16) And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
(17) Even so faith, if it hath not works [of the whole law], is dead, being alone.​

James was not talking about just certain portions of the law, as some like to claim (only the ceremonial portions).
James is talking about the whole law.

When simply read and taken to mean what it plainly states there's no other possible understanding of the text. The only reason anyone questions this point is because of Paul's epistles. If you (anyone reading this) disagrees that this is what James was teaching you are interpreting James in light of Paul. Perhaps not intentionally, but nevertheless, that is what is happening.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

You put yourself in the position where you're omission shows that you are wrong. So, you got anything :idunno:

I'll make it simple: you don't, and are lying.

Freudian slip on your part. Don't try and blame yourself for that too. :chuckle:

 

[SimpleMan77]

You are mistaken.

The "works" James referred to was indeed the law, the whole law.

James 2:10-17 KJV
(10) For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
(11) For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
(12) So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
(13) For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.
(14) What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
(15) If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
(16) And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
(17) Even so faith, if it hath not works [of the whole law], is dead, being alone.​

James was not talking about just certain portions of the law, as some like to claim (only the ceremonial portions).
James is talking about the whole law.

You selectively start and stop where you want to prove your point.

The start of the 2nd chapter is clearly the start of this subject, and James is talking about treating the poor with the same respect as the rich. James then highlights the "royal law - thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself".

He then uses the law of Moses as an example of the uselessness of faith if you don't have love. Trying to claim faith if you treat people wrongly is just the same as killing someone, but justifying yourself by saying "I don't commit adultery". You are guilty of violating the law, regardless of if you break all of it.

Then he comes back to the main point that he is proving, and says "if you see a poor person with no food and freezing to death, and you say 'I hope you find clothes and food' but don't give him the help they need, your faith isn't doing you any good".

PAUL AGREES!! In Galatians 5:6, Paul says that true faith is "Faith which Worketh by Love". In other words, Faith minus Love is dead faith!!!!

 

[SimpleMan77]

MAD makes some wrong assumptions, based on a misunderstanding of the purpose and scope of the book of Acts.

First, the book of Acts is extremely important. It shows how those who were hand-trained by Jesus, those who spent roughly 245,000 man-hours being personally groomed by him interpreted His training on how to "Be the Church" (that's the equivalent of going to a training for 40 hours a week for 17 years!)

Second, the Bible is very efficient. Every word is in there for a reason. In the book of Acts there were literally hundreds of thousands of converts, and to tell the stories of all of them would take thousands of books. Every story in there is very important, and there for a reason.

For example, there are 4 main places it tells of people getting baptized in water and receiving the Holy Ghost. They are 1)Jews on the day of Pentecost, 2)Samaritans, 3)Gentiles, and 4)Disciples of John the Baptist (disciples who hadn't been baptized in Jesus name, the only proper baptism for the church after Jesus's ministry.

Very important. All 4 stories were told to show that the groups Jesus said they would reach in Acts 1:8 were reached, and all had to repent, be baptized in Jesus' name, and receive the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues. It covers everyone.

Another very important mistake of MADism is to assume that, just because Acts doesn't tell the testimony of something, then to assume it didn't happen. Peter preached to the first Gentiles in Acts 10, and said plainly that God had purified their hearts by faith (not by works of the law. This was way before Paul had his revelation). There were approx 9 to 17 years between Acts 10 & 15.

Just because Acts doesn't talk about the outreach to Gentiles between those years doesn't mean that it wasn't happening. Obviously Luke wrote about Paul's outreach because he travelled with him and heard his history. However, the Bible never says, ANYWHERE, that there wasn't preaching going on to the Gentiles.

Another faulty assumption: the Apostles taught that disciples had to keep the law of Moses. You won't find that anywhere. The Jewish disciples kept keeping parts of the law after Jesus' death, and even Paul said that was perfectly ok.

The Apostles and Paul together stood up to the only ones who were saying that - converted Pharisees(in Acts 15). They were the ONLY ONES who ever taught that after Jesus' death.

 

[SimpleMan77]

See my reply to Tambora

 

[SimpleMan77]

Nice non-answer.

Do you seriously believe that instruction to the twelve in that day is the same instruction the BOC should adhere to today?

Gonna have to deal with this before you move the goalposts.

If you're standing with your kids and say "wait, don't cross the road". A car passes, and you say "ok, let's cross". It's about timing. What if your kids take your first statement, and say "I'm never crossing this road because my parent told me not to".

Imagine if the disciples would have went into all the world without the message of Calvary. It wasn't time yet to reach the Gentiles. After Calvary, Jesus basically said "ok, we're ready to reach everyone with this message. As soon as you have the power (the Holy Ghost), go everywhere and reach everyone with this message".

C'mon - you know that you aren't being real here. Let's keep it real.

Jesus told them to not go to the Gentiles before Calvary, and afterward He told them to go. He never changed it after He told them to go to all nations. Never, ever, ever. Paul came along and God focused him specifically toward the Gentiles, but that outreach had already started.

 

[SimpleMan77]

The bible is history. Are you suggesting that Paul was lying then when he stated explicitly that the Twelve agreed that Paul should go to the Gentiles and they to Israel (the Circumcision)? Should we rip Galatians out of our bibles?

I have no problem with this. Peter started the Gentile outreach in Acts 10, and we don't know how much preaching to the Gentiles happened between Acts 10 & Acts 15 where the Apostles agreed that Paul should head up the Gentile outreach.

Galatians 2:7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.​

Notice that all I'm hitting you with here is the plain reading of the text of scripture.

Again, in the passage, the prepositional phrases "for the circumcised" and "for the uncircumcised" describe the same subject noun, the gospel. You look at it and see two different gospels. I look at it and see the same gospel, but an outreach that is focused two different directions. Like a local pastor and a missionary, each preaching the same gospel, but focused on a different audience. There is no way that that we can prove either way (although an English teacher would probably tell you the grammatical structure favors my interpretation). The only way to tell really is to examine the messages preached by both. You see inconsistencies when you look, I see one only complete harmonious gospel in their teachings. Even James' "Faith without works is dead" was referring to the "royal law" of love, and Paul said that his faith "worketh by love". There is no contradiction in their teachings at all that I can see. Both worked by love.


Philip, Apollos and the others you listed here were not Apostles, they were all taught what to preach by Apostles, only twelve of which were given the Great Commission and only one of which was given a gospel to preach by direct divine inspiration.

Actually Apollos was taught by Priscilla and Aquila, who were taught by Paul. I call Jesus' training of the 12 Apostles, some 240,000 man-hours of it, "divine inspiration". Paul's gospel, according to him, was the exact same as Peter's when they met in Acts 15. He said that the 12 "in conference added nothing to me".


That isn't what the text says. James is the one who stated explicitly in Acts 20 that ALL of his followers were zealous for the Law.

Paul had no problem with that. He had a problem with requiring it of people. If Jews today want to keep parts of the law in honor of their heritage it isn't a problem, as long as they don't do it thinking they will earn something for their salvation, and as long as they don't try to require other to do it. Paul said one keeps Jewish feasts and dietary laws, and another doesn't. He said that was fine as long as they didn't judge each other. You will find where Paul and the other Apostles allowed Jewish disciples to keep on keeping the law, but never one place that I know of where one of them taught it to Jews or Gentiles after receiving the Holy Ghost.


Paul is teaching here that unbelievers aren't going to be saved, although I understand your misunderstanding of the passage. This point touches the boundary past which a discussion of this kind cannot proceed. The problem is one of paradigm, not intellectual honesty or intelligence. You are essentially 'begging the question' with this point. I say that because the argument you are making is valid only from within your own theological paradigm but the validity of your theological paradigm is what you are trying to prove and thus the argument is invalid. The problem is that since the error is on the paradigm level it means that you cannot see it and I have no way to make you see it without causing you to look at it from my paradigm which you won't do without being convinced that it's valid which cannot be done by going down this road. It is a true dead end because I can clearly see that passage from your paradigm because I used to hold your paradigm and can, therefore, know that there is NO convincing you that you aren't seeing that passage correctly.

I'll toss one pebble into the pond concerning this point and see what sort of ripples it makes...

In the bible, there are Paul's epistles and then there's the whole rest of the bible. The only reason you believe that works have nothing to do with salvation is because of Paul. If Paul's epistles weren't in the New Testament, you would be observing the Sabbath, circumcising your male children on the eighth day of their lives and all the other things that the Law requires minus the sacrificial aspects which the author of Hebrews teaches is no longer to be observed. Without Paul, you would effectively be a Messianic Jew. What you do, whether you realize it or not, is that you take Paul basically at face value and you interpret the rest of scripture in light of his teachings.
The problem is that there are other Christians who do the reverse. Catholics, The Church of Christ, Messianic Jews and many others believe strongly that certain works are required for salvation. I went to a church as a child that believed that water baptism was required, for example. To one degree or another, what these believers do is just the opposite of what you do. They take the whole bible as face value and interpret Paul's epistle in such as way as to make them agree, which, interestingly, is precisely what you've done with that 1 Corinthians passage.

So who has the stronger argument? Is it the Baptists and other like them that take Paul's tiny portion of the bible and interpret the whole rest of scripture in its light or is the Church of Christ who does the exact opposite? Well, if those were the only two alternatives, there's no question that the latter is the stronger position to take.

Fortunately, there is a third alternative. The other two alternatives make a common assumption, that Paul epistles are aimed at the same group of people that the rest of the bible is aimed at, namely believers. Dispensationalism teaches that there is more than one group of believers, that the Body of Christ is a separate group from Israel, that those saved by grace alone are not the same as those saved under the dispensation of Law. Mid-Acts Dispensationalism goes one step further than this and teaches that the Body of Christ began with Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus in Acts 9. This distinction may seem a minor point but it happens to touch nearly every area of doctrine that you can think of and more importantly, it resolves countless doctrinal debates that have existed in the church for millenia and at the same time allows one to take every biblical author at face value rather than having to interpret one set in light of the other.

In fact, that single point is one of the very strongest arguments for its validity. The Baptists take Paul at face value and interpret the rest of the New Testament in light of his teaching. The Church of Christ takes the Gospels and the whole of the Bible really at face value and interprets Paul in that light. I take the whole entire thing at face value and make no attempt to make Jesus' or James' teachings agree with Paul's beyond what the plain reading of the text states. Of course, there are passages that are more difficult than others but on the whole, I totally take the bible to mean precisely what it says. And so when Jesus teaches that spiritual blessings are conditional (e.g. if you're meek, you'll inherit the Earth) then that doesn't cause me any doctrinal hot flashes because I understand who Jesus was talking to and why (i.e. the context). Same thing when James says as plain as day that works are required for salvation. He says that because it was true for those to whom he wrote the book (to the Jews, scattered abroad).
This idea that the Body of Christ began with Paul and that Paul was the singular apostle to the Body of Christ resolves not just the issue of whether works are required for salvation but all sort of issues like whether you can lose your salvation, is water baptism required, will there be a rapture and if so when will it occur relative to the Tribulation, should miracles be expected today, should we observe the sabbath, should we tithe, should we follow the Ten Commandments, should we be speaking in tongues and many other seemingly unrelated doctrinal issues.

Further, this single idea that the Body of Christ began in Act 9 answers several questions that most Christians cannot answer with any coherence.

Why did the twelve and their converts live in a commune? (Acts 3)

Nothing ever was taught requiring that, but they did it. Peter was clear that it was completely voluntary.

Why were James' converts "zealous for the law"? (Acts 20)

They had always done the law, and it would have been a huge shock (and wrong) to force them to start eating pork, not observing the literal Sabbath, etc. But it also was never allowed for them to teach that it had to be kept.

What is the meaning of the parable of the fig tree? (Matt. 24)

Luke 21 adds some valuable insight, when he inserts a "time of the Gentiles" between the fall of Jerusalem and the return of Jesus. You really have to take both accounts of this and put them together. Jesus never gave anything here as a conditional promise. If He would have been saying that he was coming back after the destruction of Jerusalem, but that it was conditional to the response of the Jewish nation, He would have said so. The Jewish nation had already refused him, so that is why the destruction was being foretold. Jesus told them that all nations would hate them for His name's sake, including Jerusalem.

Why was Israel cut off? (Romans 9)

Because as a nation they rejected Jesus. He cut them off during His ministry. Read Matthew 23:37, where He said essentially "you are now cut off as a nation, and the only way you will see Me in a salvific role from this time forward is to see "Me" in those I send".

Why did the Twelve disengage themselves from the Great Commission? (Galatians 2)

They didn't. They were called to get the Gospel out. That could be personally or by delegation. For that particular time they delegated the oversight of that to Paul (or rather agreed with the Holy Ghost's anointing him for that purpose). History tells us they later went to many different nations personally. We can disbelieve history, which I am fine with, but you can't prove that they didn't.

Why does the book or Revelation speak of only twelve apostles instead of thirteen? (Revelation 21)

There were actually other "Apostles", such as Barnabus. The names on the new Jerusalem were the 12 that had a special, appointed place by Jesus. Judas fell, and they appointed another who had been with them all the way through Jesus' ministry. Those 12 names are the foundation of New Jerusalem, underscoring their utmost authority. That is why Paul said that he knew his race would have been run in vain if his revelation didn't match perfectly with the Apostles (which he testified did match completely)

Why does Paul repeatedly refer to the gospel as "my gospel"?

Not because it was different, but because He did receive it directly from God. But again, he said that it matched perfectly with the one given to the Apostles by Jesus (in conference they added nothing to me)

Why did Paul have to explain the gospel he preached to the Twelve at the Jerusalem council? (Gal. 2 & Acts 15)

Because they had the ultimate authority, and some converted Pharisees were stirring up trouble. Peter said that God had first used him to preach "purification by faith" to the Gentiles, and reminded them that Paul's message was exactly in line with what he had first preached to the Gentiles.

Why did Peter state that some of the thing Paul teaches are "hard to understand"? (2 Peter 3:16)
Etc.

Paul is very deep in his knowledge and theology at times. He was much more educated than Peter. Even educated people still have a hard time fully understanding Paul (do you understand the third heaven, and him referring to a "man he knew"?). The problem is when anyone "wrests" Paul's words to put them at odds with Peter's or James'. Again, people say James and Paul disagree on works, but they both taught that faith had to work by love.

All answered by accepting one single premise. That the Body of Christ began with Paul's conversion in Acts 9 rather than in Acts 2 or earlier. Is it possible to have a stronger argument than that? I mean if ever there was an elegant piece of doctrine this has got to be it! Old Bill Ockham would be proud!

Anyway, that was a bit more than a pebble thrown in the pond but I couldn't help myself. Hopefully, this illustrates to some degree the magnitude of the disconnect between our two doctrinal paradigms and that I'm not just blowing smoke because I don't wish to respond to what surely seems to you to be a valid argument.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Let me say in conclusion that I really, really appreciate you taking the time to give a respectful, Bible-based answer. That is somewhat rare on this forum. I agree that we are approaching this from different angles and being affected by our individual paradigms, but I respect your opinion and approach.

I think that the biggest danger if I am wrong is that I have done more than necessary (repented, been baptized in Jesus' name, received the Holy Ghost just like in Acts with the same evidence, and using that power to love God and fellow man with all my heart). I certainly don't trust anything other than the blood of Jesus for my salvation though.

I think the biggest danger if most MADists are wrong is that they miss heaven. If Jesus really did mean "except you are born of water and of the Spirit", and that is for us today, then I'd hate to see people miss heaven over disobedience. If Paul was correct in requiring disciples in Acts 19 to be re-baptized in Jesus name and receive the Holy Ghost, and people reject it, what is the worst thing that can happen? If it really does take honestly trying to live our lives in a way that pleases God, and we say "I'm not going to try to be perfect because I am afraid it will look like works", what is the worst that can happen.

I think my "worst case" is that I make heaven. I think the worst case for many MADists (or other people who say that obedience isn't required) is unthinkable. I only say this in love, but I think it is necessary to consider.

 

[Crucible]

M.A.D.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I think my "worst case" is that I make heaven.

The "Worst case" that could happen to someone who doesn't place ALL their faith in Christ and none in themselves or anything else, is, Standing before God the Father and being judged by your works and cast into The Lake of Fire for eternity. You're giving yourself more credit than you deserve.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Water baptism, attending church every Sunday, and doing good works/deeds isn't what makes you a member of the Body of Christ and a Child of God.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

If you desire faith you'll find it here: Romans 10:17 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Start reading/studying the writings of The Apostle Paul: Romans through Philemon.

 

[Crucible]

Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

C
A
L
V
I
N
I
S
M

Let it sink in, Brofessor :wave:

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

It almost seems as if most people are blinded by the truth of the Grace Gospel and the Doctrine of MAD?

 

[Nang]

Water baptism, attending church every Sunday, and doing good works/deeds isn't what makes you a member of the Body of Christ and a Child of God.

No, but public confession of being cleansed of guilt and thereby raised to new life, and showing a desire to openly worship the God of such forgiving Grace, one day out of seven, along with performing holy acts of love and charity in His name, certainly does no harm and is an obvious way to share the Gospel . . Is it not?

 

[SimpleMan77]

The "Worst case" that could happen to someone who doesn't place ALL their faith in Christ and none in themselves or anything else, is, Standing before God the Father and being judged by your works and cast into The Lake of Fire for eternity. You're giving yourself more credit than you deserve.

Are you saying that the only way you can know that you have "ALL your faith in Christ" is that you purposely avoid anything that looks like obedience to biblical teaching? Start with Paul's instruction to "avenge not yourselves". That takes trying - working if you will - to overcome flesh. If I deny my nature and do that to please God I'm wrong? I don't think you're saying that, but I can't tell the difference.


Sent from my iPad using TOL