ECT What is the true root objection to MAD?

[heir]

Peter proclaimed the Gospel of Jesus Christ

not the gospel of Christ

 

[Desert Reign]

I fail to see how a primarily literal interpretation is needlessly complicated.

Ah, but that's not what I said. I used the term 'wooden'.

Allegorization is where things get stupid, imo.

And I didn't suggest that either.

That's two straw men that you needed to justify your position.

I really don't mind if you want to stick your head in the sand and avoid a discussion of the subject. I don't feel upset and I can still get along with you fine. But if you want to advance, if you want to get somewhere, if you are so convinced of your position that you want me to get somewhere, then I suggest that you engage with what I did say, not what I didn't say.

 

[musterion]

Ah, but that's not what I said. I used the term 'wooden'.

And I didn't suggest that either.

That's two straw men that you needed to justify your position.

Not straw men.

1. You called our literal interpretations "wooden." First of all, sez you. Prove it's wooden, i.e., that it is inaccurate or does violence to the Word of God.

2. The only real alternative to any kind of literalism is non-literalism (duh). You're either advocating one or the other.

3. On the off-chance you are advocating some kind of literalism, why is yours superior to and less "wooden" than ours?

 

[musterion]

Peter proclaimed the Gospel of Jesus Christ . . . not a "murder indictment."

Nang's just trolling now.

 

[Nick M]

Of course it is the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ. I never said otherwise . . .

Liar.

I think Paul's one teaching in I Corinthians 15 is gospel, but overemphasized, at the expense of the rest of the gospel teachings that permeate all of scripture.

MAD would do better to focus on the teachings of Jesus, in order to know the full Gospel message of grace.

We are better to focus on the red letters not written to us. Your words.

 

[Nang]

We are better to focus on the red letters not written to us. Your words.

Not my words . . .

 

[john w]

Even Jesus?

MADist do not read the gospels, apparently, for Jesus prophesied and taught several times about His decreed death and resurrection.

The master did prophesy late in His ministry, that He was to die, and be raised-the facts, according to prophesy. But He never taught the doctrinal significance of it, nor did the 12, as it was was hid from the 12, until after it occurred. You were shown, chapter and verse, in which to soak that evil Clavinist/Calvinist head in. And yet, for almost 3 years, the 12, including your saint Judas, preached "the gospel of the kingdom," the good news of the impending kingdom of heaven upon the earth, as "the days of heaven upon the earth"(survey Deuteronomy).

But, since your final authority is your "the church" SOF, you spam grunts, snorts, emotional, satanic mutterings, not addressing the scriptures presented, or "spiritualizing" them away, by spamming "Figurative...The church is Israel..." jazz.

Deceitful, and clueless, is your MO.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Act 10:42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
Act 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 11:1 And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.

Act 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
Act 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
Act 15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
Act 15:17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

Peter preached the remission of sins and the first to preach salvation to the gentiles.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

That the gospel of the kingdom does not equal 1 Cor 15:1-4 should not even be a question for the rational human being.

It is only through the cross of Christ and Acts 2:38 that anyone may enter the Kingdom of God.

The Kingdom of God is now and increasing.

LA

 

[rainee]

Hi Musterion,
You have started first thing with something I object to...

First, my own understanding of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism is briefly this:

God chose a nation through whom He promised to someday bless the whole earth.

If MADS do not start with Adam they are no followers of Paul imho.

That nation was Israel and that choosing involved various covenants.
Christ Jesus came as Israel’s promised Redeemer, and through Israel – His nation of priests – He would redeem the whole world.

If you start with the nation don't you skip Abraham, Isaac and Jacob??

But I guess you are right? For it is because of that nation that we gentiles are able to know about Adam, Noah, and so forth all the way to The Lord Jesus The Christ.

The problem is, Israel rejected Him. Not every individual Jew did so but Israel corporately, as a nation, despised Him and had Him crucified by Rome. But rising from the dead and ascending into Heaven, His apostles preached that if Israel repented and believed on Him as their Messiah, He would return to establish the long-awaited Kingdom, just as God had promised and as the Old Testament prophets had foretold.

This has so many problems inherent in it that I don't know where to begin. First there is no "problem" in Israel as a nation rejecting Him - if it is the fulfillment of prophecy. And it is. But if y'all know that do you accept it? Or ignore it? I fear you are disobedient. Rebellion is like witchcraft so we just have to see if you are purposefully disobedient to the point of "rebellious." For I assure you NO Christian group of a mainstream type - even that you have ever found fault with- was purposefully disobedient in their doctrine.. They wanted truth. Everyone of them.


But - you - you guys talk about the twelve. I work with prophecy so I think I know who the twelve are in Revelation. But nobody has to - it doesn't matter right now. But you guys claim a man called a devil by The Lord is one of them. You call them "the twelve" as if the eleven were not deeply disturbed by Judas and added two, one of them to replace him, one to replace the first to be martyred on the apostle list in Acts. It's like you guys don't have Acts. Well but of course, you don't - do you. You start with Romans?

But once again, Israel refused to bow to her Messiah. After the leaders stoned Stephen to death, God temporarily set Israel aside and temporarily suspended all fulfillment of prophecy.

Trust me - you can't do OT prophecy. You are totally in error.
But you know what? Many, many believers have not known what to do about Israel and Scriptures. They have been confused, and gotten things quite wrong - but for now has it really mattered? :idunno:
Just please know - when it makes sense to them - it will make total sense. Where that will leave you - is wrong - what effect will that have? I don't know.

Here is what really upset me:

At that point, God began to usher in the previously unmentioned dispensation of grace, which is now in effect and will remain so until He decides to bring it to an end.

What you mean is an age of grace. Not a distribution or dispensing of grace -- that is a big mistake.

During this age of grace, salvation is no longer to the Jew first. Previously unknown blessings and riches are promised equally to Jew and Gentile alike on the simple basis of faith alone in Christ’s death, burial and resurrection for the individual’s sin, without works of any kind either to be saved, stay saved or prove that one is saved, for God knows those who are His.

If it went to Paul first and then to you then you are wrong -- again.

Now this is my understanding of MAD hopefully briefly:

You don't get baptized because the Jew first did it.

I guess you don't read the gospels as if they are to be understood and applied by you because it shows the Gospel went to the Jew first too?

I don't know what you have against The Lords Supper, maybe because you are all weird? But it was with the Jew first.

BUT here is the good news: You made me realize that previously Christianity was preoccupied with salvation only.

You know that is what TULIP is all about, don't you? Salvation.

But when Gros said "I believe in Faith Only just like Paul said!"
I knew something was wrong. So I quoted to him a dozen verses at least of Paul saying faith and love - and not one of you - any of you said anything to explain positively about that, you simply pretended it didn't happen. But you had already sparked me. I don't need you after you do that. Just like you don't need me if I spark you. So I thought about the next step in Christianity - like is there life after salvation - because look at y'all. When you believe you are dead in Christ do you think you will grow and become anything? Paul who also saw himself that way said: 1 Corinthians 15:10

So he was not simply dead in Christ. He was a developing unique personality that had the Holy Spirit growing him. It wasn't just faith only, it was a smorgasbord.

Lastly leave that old thing about Jews being different in their Gospel alone. Please. Peter was CORRECTED by Paul for letting the circumcision get off with him and help him forget THE ONE TRUE GOSPEL that is to the Jew first. And if the first be last and the last first
what do we care? AS long as we make it.

 

[musterion]

Okay, Rain. I'll play along.

Here is what really upset me:

At that point, God began to usher in the previously unmentioned dispensation of grace, which is now in effect and will remain so until He decides to bring it to an end.

What is it about that upsets you.

 

[csuguy]

My objection to MAD is that it goes against the scriptures and requires the invention of many fantasies to maintain it. Example: they must reject Romans 11 where Paul, speaking to the Gentiles, explains that they have been grafted-in with Israel - and tells them not to be arrogant, as if they were somehow superior to the Israelis who were broken off. He warns them that the Gentiles can also be broken off, and that those who have already been broken off may be grafted-back in.

MAD rejects Israel, and they constantly attempt to separate themselves from Israel - but salvation is from the Jews, according to Christ.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

My objection to MAD is that it goes against the scriptures and requires the invention of many fantasies to maintain it. Example: they must reject Romans 11 where Paul, speaking to the Gentiles, explains that they have been grafted-in with Israel - and tells them not to be arrogant, as if they were somehow superior to the Israelis who were broken off. He warns them that the Gentiles can also be broken off, and that those who have already been broken off may be grafted-back in.

MAD rejects Israel, and they constantly attempt to separate themselves from Israel - but salvation is from the Jews, according to Christ.

MAD rejects true Israel of the Spirit and prefers Israel of the flesh.

MAD believers they are taken away into Heaven and leaves 7 years of tribulation to the Jews.

MAD believes God can raise up super Jews from nothing for the tribulation, which He can not do with His Church.



LA

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

It is only through the cross of Christ and Acts 2:38 that anyone may enter the Kingdom of God.

The Kingdom of God is now and increasing.

LA

Why do you want remission of sins?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

MAD rejects true Israel of the Spirit and prefers Israel of the flesh.

Made up

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Example: they must reject Romans 11 where Paul, speaking to the Gentiles, explains that they have been grafted-in with Israel - and tells them not to be arrogant, as if they were somehow superior to the Israelis who were broken off. He warns them that the Gentiles can also be broken off, and that those who have already been broken off may be grafted-back in.

I don't reject it. It means exactly what it says.

Before you can understand the Olive Tree, you have to ask yourself why hadn't the Romans heard the gospel of Christ yet? Romans 1.

 

[csuguy]

I don't reject it. It means exactly what it says.

It is good you accept it - the other MADists on here attempt to ignore the passage altogether or else invent some fiction so that they can say that the passage doesn't apply to them. They put up blinders whenever Israel is mentioned.

So then - you accept that the Gentiles have been grafted-in with Israel and thereby recieve the nourishment of the root. Do you also accept that we are under the New Covenant, promised to Israel? Or do you reject the New Covenant as inapplicable to us?

Before you can understand the Olive Tree, you have to ask yourself why hadn't the Romans heard the gospel of Christ yet? Romans 1.

Some of them had, but most of them had not because they had not been told about Christ or the gospel yet.

Romans 10:14-17 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? 15 How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!”

16 However, they did not all heed the [j]good news; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word [k]of Christ.​

 

[Cross Reference]

calvinist doctrine on free will is more intolerable than mad
and
even more confusing

the biggest problem I have with the mad is what they say
namely:
they are saved
they don't sin

both statements are dangerous to
those who are not sure they are saved
those who still think they are sinning

Absolutely!! And in addition it is a distraction away from understanding mans salvation has everything to do with man being a satisfaction to God for which He was created, i.e., an eternal habitation for
Himself [Godhead] set in a multi-membered body of glorified human flesh.

 

[Nick M]

My objection to MAD is that it goes against the scriptures and requires the invention of many fantasies to maintain it. Example: they must reject Romans 11 where Paul, speaking to the Gentiles, explains that they have been grafted-in with Israel - and tells them not to be arrogant, as if they were somehow superior to the Israelis who were broken off.

Which gentiles are grafted in, and to where are they grafted? Knowing what Romans 11 says, I await your answer.

Romans 11

11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!

 

[rainee]

Okay, Rain. I'll play along.

At that point, God began to usher in the previously unmentioned dispensation of grace, which is now in effect and will remain so until He decides to bring it to an end.

What is it about that upsets you.

Well I am going to be frank, I think the idea of an "age of grace" comes from their reading of "age of the gentiles". My teachers have said another phrase, "the Church Age". But I think it is neither of these things.

I think what has been seen is one powerful aspect that is the result of of : John 16: 7 -
And a reference made here: Ephesians 1:10

But what does Paul call it? Age of Grace? No. Church Age? No.

He calls it war.

And he refers to it a number of places and ways but here is one you know and love hopefully here: Ephesians 2:1-2

So your "previously unmentioned dispensation of grace" is not that at all spiritually speaking, imho.