:thumb:
Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
:thumb:
Son struggles with mental illness. Wife still struggles with MS.
Co-worker just killed himself at work.
I still know and love Jesus and the saints and the lost.
Circ vs uncirc can refer to Jew vs Gentile. After the cross, there is neither Jew/Gentile, but all are one in Christ through faith in His person and work. This is the one gospel with no room for a secondary one. If Paul wrote the verse to North Americans, he might have said the gospel of the Americans for STP and the gospel of the Canadians for rulz. Same gospel, but we take it to our specific people groups.
If he wrote in English, he would probably have said 'to' vs 'of' (which is true in Greek, but obscured by KJV).
Right Divider
Body part
Why don't you start a thread where you show us Peter and the eleven teaching "neither Jew/Gentile (male/female)" after the cross?
That's a lesson that I really need.
Acts 2 does teach this, but you guys refuse to admit it. Peter, John, Paul, James, etc. know one gospel post-cross. Pre-cross has transition, so look at their writings after the resurrection, not in the Gospels (though there is not even a problem there).
Right Divider
Body part
You mean where Peter keeps saying "Men of Israel", etc. etc.? :comeout:
The one gospel is contextualized primarily for a Jewish mindset in Acts 2, Hebrews, etc. It is contextualized for Jew and Gentile in Galatians, Romans, etc.
If I go to New York, I could preach and say 'men of NY'. If I go to Tokyo, I would say 'men of Tokyo'. I would preach the same gospel to both audiences. I would use different illustrations, metaphors, etc.
The DBR is in Acts 2 and I Cor. 15.
We could also find Pauline preaching that do not spout I Cor. 15:1-4 as he contextualizes the gospel of the person and work of Christ to Athenians (Unknown God), fleshly Corinthians, Pharisees, etc.
Jesus also did the same thing and preached the same message and principles without spouting a pat proof text that is identical.
Acts is transitional, selective history. Just because Paul fleshes things out in a systematic theology book and Peter pronounces it in a tract does not mean they are different messages. Paul preached his one gospel differently to Jews than when he preached to Gentiles.
We all do this in real life. My message is Christological whether talking to a six year old, atheist, JW, Mormon, Muslim, Catholic, post-modern agnostic, philosopher, etc., but the actual content is tailored for my target audience.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Is it possible that Jews/Gentiles were in the circumcision and Jews/Gentiles were in the uncircumcision?
How would that affect your view?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
The DBR alone in Acts 2 is not the same as 1 Cor 15:1-4.
It is missing the WHY of the cross.
heir
TOL Subscriber
Yep!
Right Divider
Body part
Christ death is not said to be "good news" in Acts 1-5. It is make to be a murder accusation.
Act 2:22-23 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: (23) Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
That's not a proclamation of GOSPEL (good news).</cut>
<cut> Act 2:36-37 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. (37) Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?</cut>
<cut></cut>
Do you think that was the GOSPEL (good news) that they had crucified the Lord that "pricked their hearts"?<cut></cut>
You have a bogus "interpretation" of the book of Acts.
Last edited:
heir
TOL Subscriber
Yep! It was presented as a murder indictment, but that God had raised Him up! Peter didn't glory in the cross! He did not preach the WHY of the cross, but a murder and a shame! And why Christ was raised from the dead according to Peter differs from Paul too, but shown over and over from the scriptures rulz rejects the evidence in favor of his allegiance to pentecostalism/denominationalism.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
You cannot be Pentecostal if your aren't Acts 2, and you can't be Acts 2 if Peter wasn't preaching to you.
Rulz is bound and determined to remain Acts 2, at all costs.
If someone could logically, from the scriptures (meaning exactly what they say), prove to me I am mistaken, I would abandon MAD in short order.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
"Equally capable, godly scholars through the centuries have agreed with me (Acts 2) and never considered your lunatic fringe view (MAD).
MAD is a non-starter".
How did I do filling in for you, rulz?
I think you might believe this leading to even parts of Paul's letters not being fully Pauline/uncirc.?! This strains credulity.
The who, what, why of the cross is developed in different emphasis and detail by different people, but same gospel.
MAD separating the person (who) and work (what) of Christ/cross/gospel strains credulity and is easily refutable (you cannot divorce the person and work of Christ....Paul, Peter, John, etc. did not, but MAD does).
There is one death and resurrection of Christ. Peter and Paul both affirmed it, but preached and adapted the message depending on the target audience. Paul did not preach in Athens the same way he preached the same gospel in the synagogue.
You guys do not know what you are talking about and my affirmation of continuationism vs cessationism is exegetical, not based on dispensational views (I had not heard of MAD until decades after I had been born again/Pentecostal).
MAD is wrong about cessationism, just like Calvinist John MacArthur is.
You cannot be Pentecostal if your aren't Acts 2, and you can't be Acts 2 if Peter wasn't preaching to you.
Rulz is bound and determined to remain Acts 2, at all costs.
If someone could logically, from the scriptures (meaning exactly what they say), prove to me I am mistaken, I would abandon MAD in short order.
There are many Acts 2 disps who are not Pentecostal, but secessionist like you.
I think your view is refuted, but you are to invested to reject it. You overestimate how theologically astute you guys are. If you were, you would not fall for MAD, KJVO, cessationism, etc.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Would you give us an F? Or a D-?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Yes sir, that's one subject you can't talk enough about....straining credulity.