Jewish, Gentile, African, Chinese, Arabic, Spanish, American, Canadian, French, etc. CHRISTIANS are held to the same standard and become Christians through the same Jesus/God/gospel.
Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
Jewish, Gentile, African, Chinese, Arabic, Spanish, American, Canadian, French, etc. CHRISTIANS are held to the same standard and become Christians through the same Jesus/God/gospel.
The one finished work of Christ and the one gospel make it impossible for there to be two true post-cross gospels. MAD is based on a wrong paradigm and a few proof texts out of context.
Apart from Luther, MAD, and some others, most do not have trouble reconciling Peter, James, John, Paul writings. There is nothing NT/Body/Church unfriendly in Acts ff. if we exegete it properly (a few things are for future, national Israel, but context dictates this).
The cross is the basis for Jew/Gentile becoming one in Christ. This reality predates Paul's unique ministry and calling. Paul was called and prepared in a unique way to expand the scope of the gospel, but this is NOT a reason to speculate about him getting another gospel than the early church had before his conversion. Most read Acts 15, etc. differently than MAD (so I am suggesting MAD is wrong in its interpretation of Scripture; wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions).
The difference in the two Gospels is that the first from Peter to the Jews stresses repentance and baptism.
Acts2:38
KJV
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Paul stresses the death burial and resurrection of Jesus.
1 Corinthians 15:1-4
KJV
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
Here there are two different approaches to salvation; one given by Peter and one by Paul constituting two different gospels, one for the Jew, one for the Gentile.
Congratulations on missing my point.
Also: Galatians 2:9
I'm going by the record. Acts 10 gives an idea that Peter was reticent to go to Gentiles so early on. And then there is Gal. 2:9
The problem is that you are pitting Acts 2 against I Cor. 15. Both are equally valid gospel truths if you interpret them right.
It is a MAD myth that Acts 2 does not teach the person and work of Christ, including His death and resurrection, faith, etc.
The way MAD understands baptism, repentance, etc. is not biblical. We give verses from a Pauline perspective on this, but the lights don't seem to go on.
United Pentecostal Church proof texts Acts 2:38 as the gospel and insist on baptism in the name of Jesus only (vs trinity), repentance with legalisms, speaking in tongues as salvific, etc. Proper exegesis of the verse does not support their view nor MAD's.
Grammatically, repentance, not baptism, is linked with remission (parenthetical issue in the original also). Understanding the relationship between water baptism as a practice in the early church and the condition of faith is important. You are importing a wrong assumption onto the text. It does not support your two gospel theory.
The same problems arise with Lord's Supper/Communion. MAD is wrong in what it says about I Cor. 11, a Pauline passage.
MAD is based on ignorance of sound NT theology/exegesis.
Please revisit it critically vs gullibly.
The whole context supports a demarcation of ministry, not two true gospels post-cross.
One of us cannot see the forest for the trees. Your paradigm is wrong and it is propped up by proof texts misinterpreted.
Must we wait until heaven for you to get it right?
So you're saying that Acts 2:38 and 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 are not two different means of salvation? Then show us the salvation plan for the Jew.
The gospel, based on the book of Romans, to Jew and Gentile, is grace/faith based. It is the power of God. Paul is defending the one gospel. It is bad enough that MAD makes Peter/James/John contradict vs complement Paul, but it also starts dividing up Paul's own letters into early/late/circ/uncirc?! This is ridiculous.
Rom. 1:16-17
I Cor. 15 is a good summary, but its principles are also in Acts 2. Acts 2 principles can also be found in Paul.
Hi , so you will not explain what it says in Matt 28:19 and verse 20 really mean and you are trying to connect Matt 19 with Acts 10 ??
Try seeing what Matt 28:10 , NATION/ETHNOS means and compare it with John 11:50 !!
You will have to prove that Apostless in Matt 28:19 and 20 were to go to Gentiles !!
Want to try ??
Dying to hear your answer on Matt 28:19 and verse 20 ??
dan p
The Great Commission explicitly talks about all ethnos/people groups. This is not limited to Jews, but includes all Gentiles. Jn. 3:16 is the whole world (unregenerate man), not just Jews. This is consistent with Pauline thought also. Jesus, John, Paul, Peter, James were on the same page. God loves all men and Christ is the provision to make all men one in Him (whether Paul existed or converted or not).
Hi , and it seems that lighthouse can not answer and you will ?
Then , explain what ETHNOS MEANS in Matt 28:19 and 20 ??
Verse 20 will throw you both UNDER the Bus . as Peter , and James NEVER preached the Mystery , what IGNORANT COVENANT AND so-called Acts 2 believers theology so-called is , BY starting the Dispensation of the Mystery with a Jewish FEAST DAY !!
DAN P
Why was their a boundry(demarcation-obfuscating) around the gospel when it was to bring one in Christ? You didn't answer. Imagine that.
Of course it is. Deconstruct it if you think it is wrong.
No, it is right to the subject. Those that attempt to justify themselves to God through the law will judged on it. The 4 gospels and early act state Israel was to endure to the end to be saved. Those in the Body of Christ do not do that, and if they do, it will be counted as debt. If you want the scripture refrence with each comment, say so. But I know you are reading it and believing it, so that might not be needed.
Well, no. The 4 gospels and early acts are works based. Yes, the gospel of John states Jesus saves. He will not save those that are not his. Those that truly loved him and are his would keep his commandments (works)
To whom did he say he was sent?
1 Timothy 1:16
16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.
He was an enemy that did not endure to the end and was saved. He was the first, he just said so.
And what would the principles from Act 2 be
Even today, our strategy to reach Muslims differs dramatically from reaching atheists, Catholics, JWs, Mormons, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, nominal/liberal pseudo-Christians, etc.
In reaching these target groups, there is debate on how much we contextualize/syncretize the gospel, but we do not come up with multiple gospels (two in MAD's case). Jew and Gentile are saved by the same cross, Christ, gospel. They become one in Christ based on the cross, not Paul.
I understand the calling, commission, ministry, gospel of Paul, but MAD makes a mess of it all thinking there was an early caste system in the same local church, much of the NT is not really for the Church, denying legit Christian practices (water baptism/communion), having a gospel of faith/works post-cross?!, etc.
Heresy. Quit wasting our time and renounce your false disp view.
If you cannot see the Christocentric nature of Acts 2 or cannot see Paul's principles/gospel there, I cannot help you.
One argument MAD makes is that Acts 2 talks about the person of Christ, while Paul talks about His work, etc. The Bible does not divorce the person and work of Christ, nor does your beloved Paul.
Paul did NOT teach or believe MAD. It is a modern invention, a fad, a false teaching, one of endless wrong views on Scripture.
It does not. The Lord Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, lived a perefect life your place. He was crucified for your sin, and raised for you. You were reconciled back to God by his death, and receive is life when you believe. The message does not change.
Paul went to Jews first, and preached the same to the gentiles. You claim there was a barracade around the ministry, and have not said why. Because you are false.
:doh:
It means exactly what it says.
However, we can see by Acts 10 that there was a time frame for going to Israel first and then to Gentiles, else Peter would not have needed prompting from God to go ahead and accept the invitation from Cornelius and go to his home and lead them to receive Christ.
Wait, so you're arguing that they weren't ever meant to go to Gentiles?
According to the lexicon I used it means any number of things, and in this instance it was translated as "nations."
Why do you argue that it doesn't mean "all nations"?