Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?

Lighthouse · Jan 23, 2013

Ask Mr. Religion said:
How does the dispensationalist MAD proponent deal with these?

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/01/09/why-i-changed-my-mind-about-the-millennium/

If you are a premillennialist, whether dispensational or not, there are several things with which you must reckon:

• You must necessarily believe that physical death will continue to exist beyond the time of Christ's second coming.

• You must necessarily believe that the natural creation will continue, beyond the time of Christ's second coming, to be subjected to the curse imposed by the Fall of man.

• You must necessarily believe that the New Heavens and New Earth will not be introduced until 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.

• You must necessarily believe that unbelieving men and women will still have the opportunity to come to saving faith in Christ for at least 1,000 years subsequent to his return.

• You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally resurrected until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.

• You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally judged and cast into eternal punishment until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.

AMR

So?

Paulos said:
In the Old Testament, only Israel is called the "people of God", "God's chosen people", "the elect", "the saints/holy ones", the "wife of God", or other specific terms of identification. In the New Testament, only the Church is identified as by the same terms...This is one of the reasons why I take many of the spiritual promises to Old Testament Israel to be fulfilled in God's promises to the Church. In other words, Israel is the Church in the Old Testament and the Church is Israel in the New Testament.
Source: http://web.archive.org/web/19981206081555/http://www.chesco.com/~topcat/second.html

Point to one instance where Paul uses this terminology in reference to the Body of Christ.

Ask Mr. Religion · Jan 23, 2013

So...

Too many "irregular" truths, e.g., the mixture of resurrected and non-resurrected bodies in the millennium, for instance.

AMR

Guyver · Jan 23, 2013

Ask Mr. Religion said:
So...

Too many "irregular" truths, e.g., the mixture of resurrected and non-resurrected bodies in the millennium, for instance.

AMR

But there is Biblical reference to resurrections not happening all at once.

Revelation 20:5

What's your take on this?

Ask Mr. Religion · Jan 23, 2013

Guyver said:
But there is Biblical reference to resurrections not happening all at once.

Revelation 20:5

What's your take on this?

Folks who get the first resurrection to mean believers' bodily resurrection at the start of the millennium fail to distinguish the visionary, referential, and symbolic levels of meaning from each other.

See:
http://www.frame-poythress.org/genre-and-hermeneutics-in-revelation-201-6/

HINT:
To put it another way, the words for resurrection and life in 20:1-6 are no less and no more “literal” than are the words for beast and wound in 13:1-8.

Interpreting the first resurrection as bodily comes into direct conflict with 1 Cor 15, so that is a non-starter.

The first resurrection is, paradoxically, the physical death of believers. Paradox is common in John's visions, so this should not be a surprise.

AMR

Ask Mr. Religion · Jan 24, 2013

godrulz said:
Amill was a later thing, not an early one.

What does this mean in the discussion? Are you appealing to "newness" as being a cause for suspect? Really? :AMR:

AMR

Guyver · Jan 24, 2013

Ask Mr. Religion said:
Folks who get the first resurrection to mean believers' bodily resurrection at the start of the millennium fail to distinguish the visionary, referential, and symbolic levels of meaning from each other.

See:
http://www.frame-poythress.org/genre-and-hermeneutics-in-revelation-201-6/

HINT:
To put it another way, the words for resurrection and life in 20:1-6 are no less and no more “literal” than are the words for beast and wound in 13:1-8.

Interpreting the first resurrection as bodily comes into direct conflict with 1 Cor 15, so that is a non-starter.

The first resurrection is, paradoxically, the physical death of believers. Paradox is common in John's visions, so this should not be a surprise.

AMR

I don't see this at all. Litereally. I don't see the physical death of believers as the first resurrection...because it's never spoken of like that. Physical death is mentioned as ....sleep, sleep of death, rest, rest with your fathers, etc.

Deut 31:16
Daniel 12:2
Matthew 9:24
John 11:11
1 Cor 15:51

In fact, I think 1 Corinthians 15 speaks against what you are saying.

"However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man."

It's saying the natural first; then the spiritual. In fact it makes it more plain by saying that these bodies will actually be changed at Christ's coming.

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality."

Ask Mr. Religion · Jan 24, 2013

Guyver said:
I don't see this at all.

You wave off the link I posted. What is your interaction with its contents and rationale other than "I do not agree"? Did you read it or just focus on my scant summary?

AMR

godrulz · Jan 24, 2013

Ask Mr. Religion said:
So...

Too many "irregular" truths, e.g., the mixture of resurrected and non-resurrected bodies in the millennium, for instance.

AMR

Christ and the Church Age saints are resurrected/glorified. He comes back FOR the Church before the Tribulation and back WITH the Church at His visible Second Coming. Those who survive on earth who are righteous enter the millennium in natural bodies. We rule and reign as glorified saints over those with an earthly hope.

JWs are wrong on most things, but not wrong to see that God has a plan or restoration for earth in addition to heaven (they are wrong to limit heaven to 144K, but not wrong to see a Paradise earth in Scripture).

Both/and, not either/or.

godrulz · Jan 24, 2013

Ask Mr. Religion said:
What does this mean in the discussion? Are you appealing to "newness" as being a cause for suspect? Really? :AMR:

AMR

No, that would be a logical fallacy. I do see Augustine's negative influence in moving from sound views held by the incipient church to wrong views over time (cf. rise of Roman Catholicism, not the original truth accepted by the early church).

My arguments are based on Scripture, with the observation a relevant, but minor point. You should know I am not guilty of what you suspect since I embrace 'new' Open Theism.

Nick M · Jan 24, 2013

Ask Mr. Religion said:
You wave off the link I posted.

Why should he give thought to commentary over what the Bible says?

Lighthouse · Jan 24, 2013

Ask Mr. Religion said:
So...

Too many "irregular" truths, e.g., the mixture of resurrected and non-resurrected bodies in the millennium, for instance.

AMR

Where do you get that there will be resurrected and non-resurrected on the Earth during the Millennium?

Nick M · Jan 24, 2013

Lighthouse said:
Where do you get that there will be resurrected and non-resurrected on the Earth during the Millennium?

I don't see where it says all people will physically die. It does say he will rule with a rod of iron. I don't see why they can not reproduce in marriage as they are supposed to do.

Time will tell.

Lighthouse · Jan 25, 2013

Nick M said:
I don't see where it says all people will physically die. It does say he will rule with a rod of iron. I don't see why they can not reproduce in marriage as they are supposed to do.

Time will tell.

I agree.

Ask Mr. Religion · Feb 6, 2013

A good question:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/02/where-is-satan.html

AMR

Nick M · Feb 7, 2013

I don't see a question. If you have a question, just ask it. Even if you have to crib some site other than the Bible.

Ktoyou · Feb 8, 2013

I believe the Gentiles were always part of God's plan and further, the Gospel of John teaches upon faith, unlike Mathew who begins with the lean-age of Joseph, yet is Joesph the father of Jesus, the scripture says no.

Ask Mr. Religion · Feb 8, 2013

Nick M said:
I don't see a question.

View attachment 17708
Click link to enlarge image

I do. :AMR:

Nick M · Feb 9, 2013

If you have a question, then copy and paste it if you can't recall off the top of your head. I am not reading your links, or anybody elses for that matter. You are rather pathetic in every way.

Ask Mr. Religion · Feb 9, 2013

Nick M said:
If you have a question, then copy and paste it if you can't recall off the top of your head. I am not reading your links, or anybody elses for that matte. You are rather pathetic in every way.

Nick,

There is nothing in Scripture that teaches us we must confine the renewing of our minds solely within its borders. You and the rest of the "Just Me and My Bible" crowd are not doing anyone any favors. Rather, out of this contingent comes many of the most odd and heterodox views the church must deal with on a daily basis.

It is often asserted by devout people that they can know the Bible completely without helps. They preface their interpretations with a remark like this: “Dear friends, I have read no man’s book. I have consulted no man-made commentaries. I have gone right to the Bible to see what it had to say for itself.” This sounds very spiritual, and usually is seconded with amens from the audience.

But is this the pathway of wisdom? Does any man have either the right or the learning to by-pass all the godly learning of the church? We think not.

First, although the claim to by-pass mere human books and go right to the Bible itself sounds devout and spiritual it is a veiled egotism. It is a subtle affirmation that a man can adequately know the Bible apart from the untiring, godly, consecrated scholarship of men like Calvin, Bengel, Alford, Lange, Ellicott, or Moule....

Secondly, such a claim is the old confusion of the inspiration of the Spirit with the illumination of the Spirit. The function of the Spirit is not to communicate new truth or to instruct in matters unknown, but to illuminate what is revealed in Scripture. Suppose we select a list of words from Isaiah and ask a man who claims he can by-pass the godly learning of Christian scholarship if he can out of his own soul or prayer give their meaning or significance: Tyre, Zidon, Chittim, Sihor, Moab, Mahershalahashbas, Calno, Carchemish, Hamath, Aiath, Migron, Michmash, Geba, Anathoth, Laish, Nob, and Gallim. He will find the only light he can get on these words is from a commentary or a Bible dictionary.

 It is true that commentaries can come between a man and his Bible. It is true that too much reliance on commentaries may make a man bookish, and dry up the sources of his own creativity. But the abuse of commentaries is by no means adequate grounds to forsake the great, godly, and conservative commentaries which have been to our blessing and profit.
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w

oNotShowRevisions/> <w

oNotPrintRevisions/> <w

oNotShowMarkup/> <w

oNotShowComments/> <w

oNotShowInsertionsAndDeletions/> <w

oNotShowPropertyChanges/> <w

unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>HE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/> <w

ontFlipMirrorIndents/> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->
For more, see the src: Pitfalls

You need to stop straining your arm by all that patting of yourself on your back about how godly you are to confine yourself to Holy Writ, verus us mere mortals who do not mind standing on the shoulders of those that have come before us. It is embarrassing to you and to all who walk in faith. You seem to imply that men filled with the Spirit from the past have nothing to say to us and nothing to teach us. This chronoloigical snobbery is at the root of many problems in the church today. More importantly, Nick, the position you adopt is contradicted by that very Bible you claim to only confine yourself to in your own sanctification process. The irony and frequent contemptuous pity is not lost on the discerning reader. Just sayin'. :AMR:

AMR

godrulz · Feb 9, 2013

I second much of what AMR says, but would not condone much of what Calvin embraced (does not reflect what Scripture teaches).

The fact that the Bible reflects ancient cultures creates a barrier for the modern reader. We will simply lack complete understanding if we do not consider historical, cultural, grammatical research. Tools are an aid, not a replacement for Scripture. It is arrogant to assume these things don't matter or that they come by osmosis vs learning. Paul talked to extant believers to fill in gaps about the historical Jesus and His teachings that He did not get from divine revelation directly. Paul can do it, but it is beneath superspiritual Nick.

We can just read the Bible and understand, but we can also avoid pitfalls or get more out of it by way of accurate understanding and application with more help.

A doctor who just reads an outdated medical book or snubs the profs with clinical experience is not going to be good or right. A Bible student who shuns centuries of wisdom will also be immature. The Bible talks about godly teachers who are given to the Body for our help. Nick does not want the rest of us to learn from others (learn does not mean rely or not test), but he obviously has been influenced by others in his MAD circles (whether on TOL, TV shows, personal interactions, books, articles, internet, etc.). Everything Nick knows and believes about anything, including Bible, has not come passively in isolation. He has his influences like the rest of us and there is nothing wrong with this. One will not come up with his ideas repeated by others here by themselves. They are part of known circles, whether MAD, Exchanged Life, etc. He may have adopted some of STPs ideas, sozo's ideas, but he does not want us to be influenced by far greater thinkers in the church?!

Hypocrite! Learn to think critically instead of being so naive/gullible. If you would open your eyes, you would not be MAD, KJV-only, Exchanged Life, etc.

Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?

The Dark Knight

&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;Presbyterian (PCA) &#9

BANNED

&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;Presbyterian (PCA) &#9

&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;Presbyterian (PCA) &#9

BANNED

&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;Presbyterian (PCA) &#9

Well-known member

Well-known member

Reconciled by the Cross

The Dark Knight

Reconciled by the Cross

The Dark Knight

&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;Presbyterian (PCA) &#9

Reconciled by the Cross

Well-known member

&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;Presbyterian (PCA) &#9

Reconciled by the Cross

&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;Presbyterian (PCA) &#9

Well-known member

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9