Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?

[DAN P]

I don't see the word 'trinity' in the Bible (MAD misunderstands the disp proof text), but I believe the concept.

The Holy Spirit birthed the Church supernaturally, not Paul naturally. It is based on Christ, not Paul.

Hi , and from your answer , you have no answer , how QUIANT is that !!

When I was Acts 2 , I could not answer what the Holy Spirit had written through Paul in Col 1:25 , in Eph 1:4 !!

By believing that MAD misunderstands the Disp proof text , BUT you believe the Concept , means that you speak out of both sides of your Mouth !!

dan p

 

[godrulz]

Huh?:dead:

 

[Guyver]

I don't see the word 'trinity' in the Bible (MAD misunderstands the disp proof text), but I believe the concept.

The Holy Spirit birthed the Church supernaturally, not Paul naturally. It is based on Christ, not Paul.

Everyone knows the word "trinity" is not in the Bible. Neither is the word "sola scriptura" but those who rightly divide know those are both truths. It doesn't even need to be said.

Your second point....obvious.....anyone who denies this denies the gospel, and no one is saying it. At least I hope not. Maybe you have misconstrued MAD's opinion?

There's no way that any Bible believer would place Paul over Jesus, I think that's actually an insulting insinuation to begin with.

 

[Guyver]

Nick....this question is for you.

In Galatians chapter 5, the Apostle Paul encourages believers to walk in the Spirit, saying this will nullify the works of the flesh. But in the very next verses he says...

"Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."

What do you think this means? What does it mean to not inherit the kingdom of God? Does this mean a person's not saved?

Does this mean if one who is in the Body of Christ drinks too much on occasion or lives with their girlfriend before getting married, that they have lost their salvation?

If not, why not?

 

[Guyver]

While we are waiting for Nick to respond...please allow me to make an unrelated point.

The point is about "Sola Scriptura." Martin Luther..right.

So, Martin Luther was right to deny the Roman Catholic Church (although he was a priest) and to question their beliefs. Not only their beliefs and practices......but the very canon of scripture!!!!!!

Martin Luther literally wanted to re-write the Bible and exclude the Book of James. Not right you say.

I agree.

But, don't you think that, that in itself speaks volumes?

Martin Luther himself did not trust the canon.

Why?

Because he recognized the Catholic Church for what it is.

 

[godrulz]

The canon reflects the work of the Spirit and the whole Church, not just RC. Luther was wrong in his understanding of James and should not have rejected it (his emphasis on Romans was commendable, but not his misunderstanding of James).

 

[Guyver]

The canon reflects the work of the Spirit and the whole Church, not just RC. Luther was wrong in his understanding of James and should not have rejected it (his emphasis on Romans was commendable, but not his misunderstanding of James).

OK.

Are you aware that there are a few books mentioned in scripture that are not included in the canon?

I'm sure you are.

Does 66 represent a number of completion?

66 out of 100 = .666666

Not a complete number. But the scriptures do make use of complete numbers....like... 3 or 7 or 40.

Forty days on the mountain. Forty years in the wilderness. Forty days fasting.

So, why not 70 books in the Bible? Or 77? How does Song of Solomon make it in....but Psalms of Solomon do not?

Who decided upon the canon? Was it the Roman Catholic Church? The same people who sponsored the Inquisition?

 

[godrulz]

What do you think the Bible consists of. What should we add or remove? Don't be like a Mormon or Muslim and cast doubt on Scripture that is not evidence based.

 

[Guyver]

What do you think the Bible consists of. What should we add or remove? Don't be like a Mormon or Muslim and cast doubt on Scripture that is not evidence based.

You didn't answer the question.

Who decided upon the canon?

 

[Guyver]

You don't seem to be responding right now GR. Allow me to ask one other question for whenever you get around.

Are the Septuagint and the Masoretic the same?

Thank you for your response to the two questions I have asked.

 

[godrulz]

You don't seem to be responding right now GR. Allow me to ask one other question for whenever you get around.

Are the Septuagint and the Masoretic the same?

Thank you for your response to the two questions I have asked.

LXX is a translation of Hebrew to Greek. Masoretic is Hebrew, is it not? The NT quotes the LXX at times....hmmmm.

Catholics were involved with the canon, but that is not the only factor. Catholics also defend the trinity, Deity/resurrection of Christ. So?

 

[Nick M]

Nick....this question is for you.

In Galatians chapter 5, the Apostle Paul encourages believers to walk in the Spirit, saying this will nullify the works of the flesh.

You know what he means right? It is the opposite of what GR always promotes. It is not trying to justify or sanctify or anything else. You can not begin in the Spirit, then be perfected by the flesh (good works).

But in the very next verses he says...

"Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."

The law reveals those things. Walk in the Spirit, do not watch what the flesh does. He does mention this throught his letters, especially Romans.

What do you think this means? What does it mean to not inherit the kingdom of God? Does this mean a person's not saved?

Yep. If you are going by that standard, you will be judged by it. (works will be counted as debt-Rom. 4)

Does this mean if one who is in the Body of Christ drinks too much on occasion or lives with their girlfriend before getting married, that they have lost their salvation?

If not, why not?

You can not lose salvation. It isnt' yours to earn or lose. If you choose to be judged on your own merit, you will go to hell. That is everybody. Paul says do what is right because it is right and honorable, not because you are perfecting the flesh.

 

[Nick M]

I'm going to give him credit for being honest about his beliefs, consistent, and not ducking any issues.

He did answer my questions and didn't duck any as many people often do.

You didn't answer the question.

I will give you slack beause I don't think you have been going around and around with him. It is in fact his M. O. I made a word document and copied and pasted all the obfuscating nonsense he has posted over the years. Perhaps you have seen me post it. I am not going to right now.

The only time he stands his ground is if he is saying a person can lose salvation.

 

[DAN P]

Huh?:dead:

Hi , and what part of post #121 , will I need to clarify for your understanding ??

Where is the verse in Acts 2 , that explains a dispensational change and where the EKKLESIA is birthed ??

dan p

 

[godrulz]

Hi , and what part of post #121 , will I need to clarify for your understanding ??

Where is the verse in Acts 2 , that explains a dispensational change and where the EKKLESIA is birthed ??

dan p

Principle, not proof text. You also have no verse to say it started with Paul, so this is why there is a difference of opinion. Virtually all thinking Christian agree that the Spirit/Christ birthed the Church with Jew/Gentile one in Him after the cross. Waiting for Paul's conversion is not the issue. Paul's issue is a missionary calling to expand the gospel and flesh out doctrinal details systematically. The basis for the gospel is Christ who predates Paul (duh).

 

[DAN P]

Principle, not proof text. You also have no verse to say it started with Paul, so this is why there is a difference of opinion. Virtually all thinking Christian agree that the Spirit/Christ birthed the Church with Jew/Gentile one in Him after the cross. Waiting for Paul's conversion is not the issue. Paul's issue is a missionary calling to expand the gospel and flesh out doctrinal details systematically. The basis for the gospel is Christ who predates Paul (duh).

Hi , and I have written it many times and on many other sites !!

SAUL was called by Grace in Gal 1:15 !!

In Gal 1:15 , it reads , " But when God was pleased , the one separating me from my mother's womb , having called ( me ) by His Grace ".

#1 , The first verb is " pleased " , EUDOKEO , and means " to choose , determine , decide , take pleasure in , perfer !!

#2 , The second verb is " separated " which is APHORIZO and means to Mark off by Boundries , to Limit , to Separate !!

#3 , The third verb is , " called " , which is KALEO , and means " to call , invite , to call by name !!

#4 , And verse 16 reveals why SAUL/PAUL was called , " to reveal His Son in me ".

#5 , To preach Him as the Gospel among Gentiles !!

What was he , SAUL/PAUL to preach , the Revelation of the Mystery , Rom 16:25 , Eph 3:2 and Col 1:25 !!

We have proof texts , and you will not QUOTE your proof Texts , why not ??

Are you Ashamed of your proof texts ??

Do you have proof texts ??

My proof texts , TRUMP whatever you will produce , so lets have THEM ??

The 12 apostles were bound by Matt 10:6 , " But go rather to the LOST SHEEP of the House of Israel ".

How SIDE STEP this ??

DAN P

 

[Guyver]

There you go again failing to recognize that two gospels were preached one to the Jew, one to the Gentile.

It would be nice if you could clarify this quite a bit BR.

What is the difference between the two gospels? Can you get specific and describe them both in detail?

 

[Guyver]

No, Open Theism is evidence based, closer to truth, than tradition. I did not say newer or majority or always right or wrong.

There are endless false teachings, faddish teachings. An argument against MAD based on evidence is not the same as an argument for Open Theism based on evidence.

When you say that Open Theism is evidence based GR...I have to assume that you are speaking to scriptural evidence. And by that, what you mean is that you are analyzing what the scriptures state to see if doctrines align....are false....or whathaveyou.

The problem is that is pretty much what everyone tries to do...but no one can pull off. We end up with splinter groups, differences of opinion, whathave you. I will speak to this point specifically on my next post, hopefully it will clear up what I'm talking about and give us something to discuss. There's plenty of scripture that confuses me because on the surface level they contradict.

MAD, and other dispensationalists are attempting to understand the scriptures as a whole. And in so doing, it's obvious to see that things change.

One could split it up in many many ways. There's the Old Covenant and the New. There's before Christ, after Christ. There's the Old Testament and the New Testament.

There was a time when people ate only vegetables and never died, then there's a time when people eat anything they want as long as they pray for their food...but everyone dies.

There's a time with the law, a time without the law. I could go on and on, but I'm going to stop so that I can get specific.

What MAD does as far as I can see, is attempt to understand exactly to whom the scriptures are referring when they break down a spiritual concept.

TBC.

 

[Guyver]

First point. Are we to love or hate?

Jesus said, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

John backs it up. "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God."

But Jesus also said we are to hate.

"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple."

To make it specific...... Peter said, we have left all to follow you. Jesus said....

"And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first."

But regarding the same issue....the Apostle Paul writes....

"But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."

So, which is it? Do we love or hate; do we abandon our household or care for them?

Why are there different commands?

How is it reconciled?

 

[Guyver]

Do we go into all the world and preach the gospel, or do we stay where we are, as we are and work for a living?

Mark 16, Matthew 28

I Cor 7

"But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches. Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called. Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. "

2 Thess 3

"For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat."

James 4

"Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, spend a year there, buy and sell, and make a profit”; whereas you do not know what will happen tomorrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away. Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that.”

So, do we abandon everything to go preaching the gospel or do we work for a living?