[Brother Vinny]

Hello, all.

My initial exposure to Acts Nine Dispensationalism (hereafter referred to as the acronym for Mid-Acts Dispensationalism, "MAD") was through the manuscript of Bob Enyart's The Plot. I ate it up. The Bible had become exciting to me as never before, and I became one of the doctrine's wholehearted defenders here at TOL (some of you were probably in diapers back then).

One of the things that struck me back then was that Bob did not seek to divide the church with MAD, but to use the doctrine as a unifying force. If memory serves, Bob saw Baptists, Methodists, Messianic Jews, and even Catholics, as brethren in the Body of Christ*, even though their doctrines disagreed with his own.

Fast forward about twelve years. The climate at TOL had never been what one would call a paradise, but it has worsened considerably. There appears to have cropped up a strain of hyperdispensationalism, by which I mean people who hold to MAD feel free to cast aspersion on the salvation of those who disagree, much the way a hypercalvinist would do. My question is, why has this sprung up?

Indeed, it seems illogical to me that such a mindset would spring up in the first place. One of the premises of MAD as set forth by The Plot was that once faith has been placed in Jesus Christ for salvation, the Christian cannot be lost regardless of sin in word, thought, or deed, up to and including denial of the faith. If this be the case, then this grace should also extend to those who have believed in Christ for salvation, even though they also cling to errant doctrine.

I'm hoping some of the MADherents here who espouse such a narrow view might come forward to explain their reasoning.

*Which is not to say he saw all members of any of these denominations as brothers and sisters in Christ

[tetelestai]

Originally Posted by Brother Vinny

Hello, all.

My initial exposure to Acts Nine Dispensationalism (hereafter referred to as the acronym for Mid-Acts Dispensationalism, "MAD") was through the manuscript of Bob Enyart's The Plot. I ate it up. The Bible had become exciting to me as never before, and I became one of the doctrine's wholehearted defenders here at TOL (some of you were probably in diapers back then).

One of the things that struck me back then was that Bob did not seek to divide the church with MAD, but to use the doctrine as a unifying force. If memory serves, Bob saw Baptists, Methodists, Messianic Jews, and even Catholics, as brethren in the Body of Christ*, even though their doctrines disagreed with his own.

Fast forward about twelve years. The climate at TOL had never been what one would call a paradise, but it has worsened considerably. There appears to have cropped up a strain of hyperdispensationalism, by which I mean people who hold to MAD feel free to cast aspersion on the salvation of those who disagree, much the way a hypercalvinist would do. My question is, why has this sprung up?

Indeed, it seems illogical to me that such a mindset would spring up in the first place. One of the premises of MAD as set forth by The Plot was that once faith has been placed in Jesus Christ for salvation, the Christian cannot be lost regardless of sin in word, thought, or deed, up to and including denial of the faith. If this be the case, then this grace should also extend to those who have believed in Christ for salvation, even though they also cling to errant doctrine.

I'm hoping some of the MADherents here who espouse such a narrow view might come forward to explain their reasoning.

*Which is not to say he saw all members of any of these denominations as brothers and sisters in Christ

Very astute observation Vinny

All of us non-MADists see this too, and have tried to say what you said, but all it does it further anger the MADists you are talking about.

[SaulToPaul]

Originally Posted by Brother Vinny

If this be the case, then this grace should also extend to those who have believed in Christ for salvation, even though they also cling to errant doctrine.

Lots of TOLers "believe in Christ", but when you dig further, you find that they actually reject the gospel of Christ given to Paul and go outside of Romans-Philemon to show you why they reject it.

The gospel is the main issue, but when talking to individuals, inevitably you are going to have to address "But Jesus said" and "But James said".

[Brother Vinny]

Originally Posted by SaulToPaul

Lots of TOLers "believe in Christ", but when you dig further, you find that they actually reject the gospel of Christ given to Paul and go outside of Romans-Philemon to show you why the reject it.

The gospel is the main issue, but when talking to individuals, inevitably you are going to have to address "But Jesus said" and "But James said".

But if they ever believed in the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, isn't this enough? In other words, aren't they still saved by the mechanics of MAD even though they don't ascribe to the doctrine?

[SaulToPaul]

Originally Posted by Brother Vinny

But if they ever believed in the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, isn't this enough? In other words, aren't they still saved by the mechanics of MAD even though they don't ascribe to the doctrine?

Yes, IF they have. I have no way of knowing, all I know is the words that they write. If their words contradict the gospel, it needs to be corrected.

[Brother Vinny]

Originally Posted by SaulToPaul

Yes, IF they have. I have no way of knowing, all I know is the words that they write. If their words contradict the gospel, it needs to be corrected.

I'm all for correction; it's the method I'm questioning.

For instance, do you at least begin with the assumption that someone who professes faith in Christ, and who belongs to one of the more. . . mainstream (for lack of a better word) denominations, is saved?

These people may believe the words of Paul, but have a different understanding of them than you do. Can you be sure your understanding is the correct one? If so, by what means?

All in all, it seems that you're blowing up what should be a secondary issue into a primary issue, and I'm not sure that's called for (and the MADherents from 10-12 years ago seemed to be in accord with that sentiment.)

[tetelestai]

Originally Posted by SaulToPaul

If their words contradict the gospel, it needs to be corrected.

Why is it so hard for you and the other MADists to understand that we think your words contradict the Gospel?

Yet, we consider you brothers in Christ, believers, saved, etc.

You fail to realize that you have turned your MAD beliefs into a works based religion. What you are saying (and Vinny sees it) is that unless one understands the Bible exactly the way you do, then their faith in Jesus Christ is not good enough.

IOW, someone has to hear the Gospel, believe the Gospel, and then be able to “understand” that what Jesus said and what James said is not for them. If the person accepts Jesus as his or her Savior, but then applies something that Jesus or James said to their life, then they are now somehow unsaved according to you.

[Adoration]

Originally Posted by Brother Vinny

[

I believe that MAD is faulty doctrine and that when adequately challenged proponents have nothing to fall back upon but insults.

It is easy to be polite when your views are accepted or ignored.

[Nick M]

Originally Posted by Brother Vinny

If memory serves, Bob saw Baptists, Methodists, Messianic Jews, and even Catholics, as brethren in the Body of Christ*, even though their doctrines disagreed with his own.

Fast forward about twelve years. The climate at TOL had never been what one would call a paradise, but it has worsened considerably.

Because the Pastor is wrong. Question them, and they reject the gospel given to Paul alone. All other gospels in any form are false.

Originally Posted by SaulToPaul

Lots of TOLers "believe in Christ", but when you dig further, you find that they actually reject the gospel of Christ given to Paul and go outside of Romans-Philemon to show you why they reject it.

The gospel is the main issue, but when talking to individuals, inevitably you are going to have to address "But Jesus said" and "But James said".

1 Corinthians 15:1-4 plus nothing.

[Nick M]

Originally Posted by Adoration

I believe that MAD is faulty doctrine and that

I know you are going to hell. See the difference?

Originally Posted by Brother Vinny

I'm all for correction; it's the method I'm questioning.

For instance, do you at least begin with the assumption that someone who professes faith in Christ, and who belongs to one of the more. . . mainstream (for lack of a better word) denominations, is saved?

These people may believe the words of Paul, but have a different understanding of them than you do. Can you be sure your understanding is the correct one? If so, by what means?

All in all, it seems that you're blowing up what should be a secondary issue into a primary issue, and I'm not sure that's called for (and the MADherents from 10-12 years ago seemed to be in accord with that sentiment.)

You are exactly right. People want to interpret it in some way, rather than believe it. Paul demands people believe it as is.

[Adoration]

Originally Posted by Nick M

I know you are going to hell. See the difference?



.

Yes, we see the difference.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by Brother Vinny

Hello, all.

My initial exposure to Acts Nine Dispensationalism (hereafter referred to as the acronym for Mid-Acts Dispensationalism, "MAD") was through the manuscript of Bob Enyart's The Plot. I ate it up. The Bible had become exciting to me as never before, and I became one of the doctrine's wholehearted defenders here at TOL (some of you were probably in diapers back then).

One of the things that struck me back then was that Bob did not seek to divide the church with MAD, but to use the doctrine as a unifying force. If memory serves, Bob saw Baptists, Methodists, Messianic Jews, and even Catholics, as brethren in the Body of Christ*, even though their doctrines disagreed with his own.

Fast forward about twelve years. The climate at TOL had never been what one would call a paradise, but it has worsened considerably. There appears to have cropped up a strain of hyperdispensationalism, by which I mean people who hold to MAD feel free to cast aspersion on the salvation of those who disagree, much the way a hypercalvinist would do. My question is, why has this sprung up?

Indeed, it seems illogical to me that such a mindset would spring up in the first place. One of the premises of MAD as set forth by The Plot was that once faith has been placed in Jesus Christ for salvation, the Christian cannot be lost regardless of sin in word, thought, or deed, up to and including denial of the faith. If this be the case, then this grace should also extend to those who have believed in Christ for salvation, even though they also cling to errant doctrine.

I'm hoping some of the MADherents here who espouse such a narrow view might come forward to explain their reasoning.

*Which is not to say he saw all members of any of these denominations as brothers and sisters in Christ

You're going to have to name names. From what I read most of the MAD people here do not question a man's salvation based on their opposition to MAD doctrine. I know a couple who might do such a thing, but they do that with pretty much any issue, the divinity of Christ to the best McD's burger...

So to make this into a MAD thing is to muddy the waters a bit.

[tetelestai]

Originally Posted by Stripe

You're going to have to name names.

Nick M, Butterfly, John W, and STP (maybe others) have all said that Godrulz is not saved because he doesn’t understand the Gospel the way it is supposed to be understood.

Even though Godrulz has repeatedly said that Jesus is his Savior, they tell him he is not saved over and over again.

[Knight]

Originally Posted by Brother Vinny

Fast forward about twelve years. The climate at TOL had never been what one would call a paradise, but it has worsened considerably. There appears to have cropped up a strain of hyperdispensationalism, by which I mean people who hold to MAD feel free to cast aspersion on the salvation of those who disagree, much the way a hypercalvinist would do. My question is, why has this sprung up?

There is some truth to that. Although I would also suggest that there are those such as Adoration, tetelestai, godrulz, that are equally argumentative (even obsessed) with stalking mid-acts folks around the forum. That in turn causes the mid-acts folks to be much more defensive.

If I'm being honest.... (I realize I am biased) but the mid-acts people seem to be the only people to use the Bible in a reasonable and rational way. They have listened and heard the other side and considered it. They tackle the issues head on.

So... before you crucify one side or the other you might want to look more closely and critically determine who is actually making the most biblically solid argument and set aside "style points".

[Knight]

Originally Posted by Brother Vinny

Indeed, it seems illogical to me that such a mindset would spring up in the first place. One of the premises of MAD as set forth by The Plot was that once faith has been placed in Jesus Christ for salvation, the Christian cannot be lost regardless of sin in word, thought, or deed, up to and including denial of the faith. If this be the case, then this grace should also extend to those who have believed in Christ for salvation, even though they also cling to errant doctrine.

I agree with that.

Would you also agree that guys like Adoration who has been banned from TOL for a couple days for starting 5-7 threads on the same day bashing the mid-acts position should also consider how they are treating their neighbors?