SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Who received "all longsuffering" before Paul, and what does it entail?
Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
Who received "all longsuffering" before Paul, and what does it entail?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Equally capable godly scholars down through the ages disagree with your eisegetic conclusions. MAD is wrong.
JosephR
New member
To me it seems James is teaching the end result. That a person of the Body of Christ will be obedient to Gods will out of love and being one with the Body of Christ. And being obedient to Gods will is always a good work , if man recognizes it or not. And James was in Israel and a Jew of coarse so a good work would usually be described in the Law, but I don't think that is entirely true because as the prophet Isaiah wrote and Jesus reconfirmed love and mercy are above the Law.
Paul showed the beginning, the path to the gospel and salvation to the whole world, not just the Jew. And the way to salvation is thru the grace of God and faith in The Lord Jesus Christ. Not the Law. And made sure that it was understood that works are not the way to salvation, as He had seen in his life as a Pharisee.
so to me if one thinks good works is what saves then they missed the point, grace thru faith saves, then good fruit or works shows in a person.So both James and Paul are in perfect harmony with the word of God.
Posted from the TOL App!
Paul showed the beginning, the path to the gospel and salvation to the whole world, not just the Jew. And the way to salvation is thru the grace of God and faith in The Lord Jesus Christ. Not the Law. And made sure that it was understood that works are not the way to salvation, as He had seen in his life as a Pharisee.
so to me if one thinks good works is what saves then they missed the point, grace thru faith saves, then good fruit or works shows in a person.So both James and Paul are in perfect harmony with the word of God.
Posted from the TOL App!
Brother Vinny
Active member
Nice ad hom. I'm guessing the unwarranted insult is to make up for lack of content, or some other. . . shortcoming.
way 2 go
Well-known member
Jesus and his disiples went to Jews only
Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans,
Mat 10:6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
gentiles came to Jesus.
Mat 15:23 But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, "Send her away, for she is crying out after us."
Mat 15:24 He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Why is it so hard for some to see that William will never get it? He is literally [and I don't mean that figuratively] too stupid to ever understand.
And I answered you: Galatians 2:9
heir
TOL Subscriber
Yep! That's why it says, "unto you...unto you...unto you".
Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
heir
TOL Subscriber
Amen!
heir
TOL Subscriber
I don't believe it's because he's "too stupid". He's blinded because he believes not (2 Corinthians 4:3-4 KJV).
What was Paul's ultimate, primary calling? I have preached in Iceland, St. Lucia, Los Angeles, etc. but my main focus has been Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. I did not preach different gospels in these other places. I also preach much to JWs and Mormons, not just godless Gentiles. An eventual emphasis, calling, missionary strategy has different aspects in relation to others and opportunity, but that does not make more than one gospel.
Your point displays ignorance of the life and ministry of Paul and relies on simplistic proof texting and a wrong disp paradigm.
There is a context and an argument that you do not consider because you proof text out of context. It is not the same context as Paul's argument in Rom. 4-5.
Gal. 1 contrasts true and false gospels (your two gospel theory becomes a false gospel that denies the finished work of Christ). This is like our gospel of grace vs JW or Mormon gospel of works.
Gal. 2 is a demarcation of ministry based on the one true gospel fleshed out and contextualized for different target audiences in Romans and Hebrews.
There is a reason virtually no credible NT scholars or the average guy in the pew adopts MAD.
Don't be an idiot. 2 Cor. 4 would apply to those who deny the Pauline gospel (I deny the MAD heresy or the circ vs uncirc two gospel post-cross nonsense). Apply it to the enemies of the cross like Islam, JW, Mormon, Scientology, Buddhism, atheism, etc.
To make a fringe doctrinal dispute (MAD has NO credibility in academic circles and is virtually unknown among virtually all true global Christians) a salvific, essential issue is turning MAD into a sect or cult.
Again, don't be stupid.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Wasn't an insult, just a nickname, like Vince Carter...Vinsanity
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
During Acts - Jew first, then the Greek
Post Acts - Anyone
According to the Holy Bible
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Oh, I didn't realize. Sorry.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Why establish a demarcation of ministry, shake on it, and then not follow it at all?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
This is true. But the reason is much different than what you think.
Rulz gains his confidence in numbers, ignoring the concept of the small remnant that runs throughout the Bible.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
How did the academic circles respond to the Lord in the 1st century?