Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
We have the Word of God, but it is not limited to KJV.
http://www.amazon.com/The-King-James-Only-Controversy/dp/0764206052
Don't follow Ruckman and Riplinger (they are disgraceful). Check out Fee, Mounce, Wallace, Robertson, etc.
I have not been around much. This topic is active. If theology club means no non-MAD and if the thread is MAD is correct, not IS MAD correct? then correct me. If it is exclusive to MAD proponents, show me where it states that.
I love truth and hate error. Your pet doctrines cause unnecessary confusion and division in the Church and need exposing. Negating much of the NT for the Body of Christ has consequences and is bad theology.
We could go through The Plot and footnotes page by page, but I would not waste my time with someone as arrogant and ignorant as you. You do not think I am a Christian and lump me in with demons because I don't articulate your MAD and hyper-grace heresies.
All you have to do is generalize since there is so much wrong.
Why don't you show us what fell apart with the original language.
heir
TOL Subscriber
You sound like graceandpeace.
I believe the Bible means what it says, as it says it and to whom it says it and recognize while all of the Bible is for our learning, it is not all written directly to us or about us. I hold fast the form of sound words that I have heard of Paul. You hold your denominationalism above the word of God.
Those (such as yourself) who fail and/or flat out refuse to separate out the gospel of our salvation and the doctrine which stands in contrast to and/or contradicts that which is written to and for Israel past and future and are enemies of the cross and the ones with the "bad theology". You teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness. You can't follow the gospel or doctrine in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John or even that which was preached by Peter in Acts 2, 3, and so on. It's not the offer on the table. The offer on the table is the righteousness of God upon you by the faith of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:21-22 KJV) when you trust the Lord for salvation believing the word of truth (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV).
Last edited:
heir
TOL Subscriber
Where is it?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Doesn't exposing MAD pet doctrines create even more division, which you are against?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
It's interesting how the credible scholars are the ones who agree with you. All that disagree are incredible.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
The originals are long gone! Only the originals contained the inspired word of God, per Rulzian Theory.
When he says, "We have it", he means we have perhaps a 75-80% accurate version of the original.
Not perfect, but good enough to get the point across. And, even then, there are many translation issues...who the heck
knows what it really means.
Why don't you show us what fell apart with the original language.
He can't, because he's simply full of hot air.
The paradigm is flawed in many places. Out of the 10 doctrinal disputes MAD supposedly resolves, I agree with some vs all of them. Each issue needs to be looked at theologically and exegetically. MAD is not a panacea that solves these issues simplistically.
There are many issues....sentence within a sentence in English, for e.g., is not a strong exegetical principle and gets 'The Plot' into trouble at times. etc. etc. I have bigger fish to fry at the moment relating to Muslims, Mormons, JWs, atheists, KJVO, Open Theism vs Calvinism, etc. MAD is not on most people's radar and certainly not in the academic world where it totally lacks credibility (Ironside took care of Bulinger years ago).
I fully affirm Pauline truth, but your circ vs uncirc is totally moot since in your view it was for a very limited time and people. No evangelicals follow the false, legalistic second gospel you propose so you are tilting at straw men now.
KJV alone does not equal Word of God alone.
The evidence based view is that the original autographs in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic had a level of inspiration/superintendency not found in subsequent translations into other languages. Unlike other works of antiquity, there is a wealth of manuscript evidence that allows us to reconstruct the Greek, etc. texts to over 99% accuracy (with the small variant issues not affecting any Bible belief or practice). The art and science of textual criticism, translation theory, etc. allows us to not limit ourself to KJV since it is not the most accurate, readable version and lacked scholarship and MSS that we now have. It was a revision of earlier translations and 1611 is not even used by KJVO (Cambridge, 1769, etc. is). It can be shown that KJV is good, but imperfect. KJVO conspiracy theories are myth, not fact.
The real battle should be skeptics and Christians who challenge inerrancy, etc., not with sectarian, divisive, fringe KJVO causing unnecessary confusion and division in churches. Even if KJV was IT, many cults (Mormons, JWs, Westboro Baptist), etc. made your claim about just reading and believing it (which is not the same as interpreting and applying it properly in all cases).
MAD and KJVO are both heretical views, but you are still my sister in the Lord.
The wrong view is responsible for the division. We have a mandate to expose error and defend/proclaim truth. Christ causes division. Truth vs error causes division. The problem is Hamas, not Israel.
It can be shown that the originals have been reconstructed accurately to over 99%, not 75%! Going from Greek to English will create issues because the words and grammar differ. KJV preface/translators were NOT KJVO and shared my view on the inspiration and transmission of Scripture. You are a modern heresy without precedent in Church history. When KJV first came out, there was resistance and opposition just as when NIV, ESV, etc. came out. History proves you wrong..
One of your primary proof texts in Gal. 2:7. I keep telling you to learn about the genitive.
A.T. Robertson, Greek master: http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/robertsons-word-pictures/galatians/galatians-2-7.html
Mounce and Wallace go into more detail about objective vs subjective genitive, etc. etc. Check other versions and ask why they are not all like KJV. It has nothing to do with an anti-MAD conspiracy, but sound grammar.