Slice it any way you want. Is the more than one Gospel position of MAD correct?
Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
Indeed! Even with us Jewish Christians!
Will you elaborate on what is meant by more than one Gospel?
Galatians 2:7 for one.
Doormat
New member
"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."
The highlighted was added by the translators, which is why it is set in italics in the translation. The verse is only about the one gospel.
Maybe we're dealing with an issue of semantics here?
Let's start by finishing the Gal 2:7 quote.
"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 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 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."
This is not saying that there are two gospels; but that the focus of the gospel is delivered to different groups: one Jewish, the other Gentile.
God chose Paul to be the Apostle to the Gentiles, even as Peter had been chosen by God to lead the church in Jerusalem. Peter and Paul weren't the only ones preaching the gospel. In any event, look at Peter's gospel message in Acts 2. He preached the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is the gospel.
"“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it."
This is also what Paul preached, and affirmed constantly.
Romans 15:19
Romans 1:16
1 Corinthians 2:2
1 Corinthians 15:1-5
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
1. Dispensational Theology distinguishes between Israel and the Church
2. Unaware that Jesus will be crucified, the 12 preach the gospel of the kingdom
3. Isaiah chapter 53
4. Rightly dividing the word: A scriptural necessity
5. The new covenant did NOT begin with the birth of Christ
6. Circumcision: The TOKEN of the Abrahamic Covenant
7. The children of Israel were to SEPARATE themselves from the Gentiles
8. God promised to BLESS those who blessed Abraham's "seed", the nation of Israel
9. Gentiles were not necessarily excluded from Christ's earthly ministry--but Christ was not sent directly to them. Gentiles could always be included in the promise of Genesis 12:1-3 (KJV).
10. In Acts 10, Cornelius does not portray today's salvation of Uncircumcised Gentiles
11. Jesus Christ was the seed in Acts 3, those Israelites who believed in him, and abided in him were counted as the seed, the Israel of God, and would be the vehicle (kingdom of priests and holy nation) by which the nations would be blessed (Great Commission).
12. The "Great Commission", being prophetic, was interrupted and never was, for the Body of Christ.
13. The "dispensation of grace": Prophecy interrupted; an unprophesied mystery begins
14. Grecians, in Acts chapters 6 and 11, were Greek-speaking JEWS, not Gentiles
15. The book of James was not written to Gentiles
16. The Apostle Paul - 14 passages which state that he is the Lord's Spokesman to the Gentiles
17. The four NT Gospels contain no message implying that Christ died for sins. The message of the four Gospels is to Israel to keep the law, endure, and be saved.
18. To be decided: Cessationism or non-cessationism for majority of MAD proponents? (Cessationism seems to be the majority view for MAD)
Then there is Mr. Enyart's "The Plot"
Mr. Enyart holds that Israel’s rejection (of a “yoke” they could not bear) of His sending of Christ thwarted God’s plan (Plan A), but not necessarily God’s purposes. Hence, a major “plot twist” occurs in the Scriptures, where, according to Mr. Enyart, God temporarily rejects Israel, and uses Paul to leverage “the Body” to evangelize the Gospel (Plan B). Ignoring the obvious issues with God’s purposes somehow being thwarted, Mr. Enyart compounds his error, leveraging faulty “sentence-within-a-sentence” interpretations, by asserting that Israel’s rejection of Christ as Messiah signaled a change by God from salvation under the law to salvation by grace—a change purportedly occurring in the book of Acts when Paul was converted (hence the Mid-Acts Dispensationalist tone of The Plot) and sent to evangelize the Gentiles.
You decide. :AMR:
AMR
Last edited:
AMR.....it's hard to understand what you're asking us to decide upon.. at least for me anyway.
You've listed many points.....but I'm not sure how to put together what you're saying here. Can you elaborate a little?
It seems that you're listing some MAD tenets? Some of them are right; others may or may not be easily demonstrated.
Which points do you disagree with?
You've listed many points.....but I'm not sure how to put together what you're saying here. Can you elaborate a little?
It seems that you're listing some MAD tenets? Some of them are right; others may or may not be easily demonstrated.
Which points do you disagree with?
Hi , and here is what non-dispensationalist fail to see in Gal 2:7 .
Here is a verse by verse translation og Gal 2:7 .
But , on the other hand , having seen that I have been ENTRUSTED with the Gospel of THE UNCIRCUMCISION just as Peter (was ) of THE CIRCUMCISION !!
#1 , The Grrek word ENTRUSTED is in the Perfect Tense , Passive Voice and in Indicative Mood .
#2 , This means that Paul's gospel HAD a beginning in Time Past , which is the Aorist tense or simple past tense , but also in the PRESENT TENSE which means the Gospel of the Un-circumcision KEPT on going forever , until Paul dies !!
#3 , This Beginning was in Acts 9:6 !!
#4 , The Passive Voice means that Christ picked Paul to preach the Gospel of the Un-circumcision and not man .
#5 , The Indicative Mood means that why Gal 2:7 , is a FACT .
#6 , Notice that Paul was ENTRUSTED with THE , THE , THE ( THE Greek ARTICLE , ( THE ) says it is a Specific Gospel and that SPECIFIC Gospel mean THE UNCIRCUMCISION , GOSPEL , PERIOD !!!!!!!!!!!
#7 , The last part of the verse " just as Peter ( was ) of THE CIRCUMCISION .
Here the Greek Articile " THE " points to Peters SPECIFIC gospel , THE CIRCUMCISION , and that speaks too , 2 Gospels in Gal 2:7 , Un-circumcision and Circumcision !!
From Eph 2:11 , the word CIRCUMCISION , speaks to Jews ONLY !!
Those that do not know the importance of the Greek Article should read Greek 101 !!
dan p
No, this is not sound NT theology nor biblical.
Gal. 2:7 is a demarcation of ministry (for the 100th time), not two true NT gospels (which would undermine His finished work). This MAD proof text is eisegesis, not exegesis (see master exegete/Greek expert A.T. Robertson on this).
Rom. 1:16 Post-cross, there is one gospel.
Rightly so.
True. They did as Jesus did, and instructed them to do.
Mark 1:14
Luke 4:43
Luke 9:2
Jesus sacrificial atonement foretold.
Of course. Otherwise one might think it's OK to jump around with rattlesnakes in church; or pray to the perpetual virgin.
Also true. The New Covenant is the covenant in his blood. Matthew 26:28
OK.
Yes again. What's the point? God was clear on why he wished it. Exodus 20:3
And he promised to bless Abraham's seed. And he promised they would be cursed if they rejected him...which they did continually. Deuteronomy 28
Also true. I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Matthew 15:24
Disagree. Saved means saved. Those of Cornelius' house were saved by the hearing and believing the gospel....the same as all people are to be.
1 Timothy 2:4
That's open to interpretation. Jesus is the seed, that's for sure.
John 12:24
The kingdom of priests and holy nation could also be in reference to Christ's coming millenial kingdom.
How? Why? When?
I don't know if prophecy was interrupted; but the dispensation of grace was certainly not unprophesied...it surely may have been a mystery to most Jews....but the salvation of Gentiles and all people by grace through faith was no mystery to God. Christ was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
OK. So what?
James identifies the people to whom he's writing in his intro.
"James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,
To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad:"
So? That's true. God himself said so. Acts 13:2 Acts 9:15
Never read it....so I have no comment. But with respect to God's purposes being thwarted....do you think it unprecedented?
Genesis 6:6
I said it once before, and I'll say it again. I don't know what you're asking people to decide upon.
Are you opposing dispensationalism or his open theism?
Probably both. AMR is Calvinistic, not dispensational, not Open Theist.
I'm trying to figure out if this is supposed to be an argument about dispensationalism or open theism. There's some good stuff out there on both sides of the two Gospels debate, depending on where you think we should divide.
But it's not worth arguing over Calvinism. The Presbyterian’s I know have been taught that total-deprave-rs are incapable of love and that God, through His grace, makes it irresistible for some not to love Him.
But Love is volitional. If it’s not resistible it’s not love, and if there’s no love there’s no such thing as a God of Love.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
As I am covenantal, I hold to neither view as a label, so I naturally would disagree with several aspects of the items in my post. But I am not posting the content to start some cage match, esp. given the rules for posting in this particular forum.
The point of my post was to test my own understanding of MAD.
The items I listed were gleaned from actual discussions on TOL about MAD and from what I could gather elsewhere. I previously tested this list here:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2713690#post2713690
And made some tweaks to the list following that discussion.
I see that most of them are agreed to by MAD proponents, but some are in dispute. I guess there is some disagreement even with the MAD camp, not that I expected there not to be.
What I am trying to do is gather a list of the MAD distinctives and then be able to craft something with three columns, adding MAD to the two columns in something like this table:
http://www.faithbibleonline.net/MiscDoctrine/DispCov.htm
So for those MAD supporters that are scratching their heads saying "so what?" to my list above, that is actually a good thing as I want to be as accurate as I can with this list.
AMR
Well, don't take what I say as MAD doctrine. I'm not MAD. I am studying dispensationalism now....and it's really helping me. I think it's right. It clears up the Bible quite a bit.....IMO.
In any event.....I have studied the scriptures....long time.
This is correct because there is no "MAD doctrine" as told by the false and misleading.
AMR said:
I agree. There is no doctrine that we follow. It is just a matter of reading the Bible and believing it. Nobody here avoids mixing cotton and wool, or is building a 300 cubit ark for salvation, and many eat bacon. You know those things are not written to you. It is as simple as that.
Not at all.
It is, and the evidence is that Paul and the Lord Jesus Christ did not preach the same thing. The opposite in fact. If it was that Paul was to just preach to gentiles, and Peter to Jews, why didn't they do that? They both did both.
Everyone claims to just read the Bible and believe it. There are many interpretative issues. People proof text out of context, fail to recognize a weak translation, import their own preconceived bias, etc.
We all follow doctrine if we have a belief about something. The question is if it is biblical doctrine/truth or a wrong doctrine/view.
Context does tell us that OT issues about Israel do not all apply to us (the moral ones about idolatry, immorality, etc. do apply to us). Comparing John's post-Paul teaching with early Levitical teaching to dismiss it for us is simply wrong/bad interpretation/application.
We don't build an ark like Noah, but what does that have to do with the principles in Peter, Paul, James, Jesus, John that do apply to us in the NT (they are consistent, complementary, not contradictory)?
http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Bible-All-Worth/dp/0310246040
This is a very readable introduction to the art and science of Bible interpretation (hermeneutics). It would save you from making the mistakes you do (and Enyart 'The Plot' and sentence within a sentence in English nonsense, etc.).
MAD falls apart with sound biblical interpretation principles.
http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Bible-All-Worth/dp/0310246040
The 12 were originally commanded to go into all the world, first to Israel then to the Gentiles. Why is it that changed; why was Paul called?