Is MAD ethics and or morals void? Is MAD ethics even Christian?

[Clete]

I have a PDF version of the first edition. If you can give me the necessary search terms, I can give that a try.

I'd search for any mention of the "day of redemption". If the teaching is in the book, it could not be presented without mentioning that phrase.

 

[Right Divider]

I'd search for any mention of the "day of redemption". If the teaching is in the book, it could not be presented without mentioning that phrase.

The Plot only mentions "day of redemption" twice and both cases are to contrast being sealed unto the day of redemption with "enduring to the end". (i.e., law vs grace, dispensational distinctions).

 

[Clete]

The Plot only mentions "day of redemption" twice and both cases are to contrast being sealed unto the day of redemption with "enduring to the end". (i.e., law vs grace, dispensational distinctions).

I figured. I've read the book a few times. Chances are good that I'd remember it if this teaching was in there.
It's going to for sure be in the Bible Studies. Likely in the set of studies on Ephesians.

 

[way 2 go]

Neither say that. You are reading things into the text.

For those who are not severely backslidden, there'd be no choice to make.


100% true - even for the severely backslidden, at least for some period of time.

so you're saying God mistakenly takes people to heaven
and then they have a choice ,only on judgement day , not based on faith

determined before judgement day
(II Corinthians 5:8) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord

This doesn't apply at all because no one in this parable was a member of the Body of Christ, neither was sealed by the Holy Spirit and both were very definitely capable of losing their salvation and so had either of them become "severely backslidden" they would have gone to Hell anyway. Thus, this passage doesn't apply even a little bit to this discussion.

your faith determines your destination

your will doesn't determine your destination after death but it can only if God mistakenly takes you to heaven do you get a choice

seems more of an open theism belief not biblical , Modus operandi

your faith determines your destination before judgement day
(Luke 16:22-23) [22] And it came to pass for the poor man to die and be carried by the agents to Abraham's bosom. And the rich man also died and was buried. [23] And having lifted up his eyes in Hades, being in torments, he sees Abraham from afar and Lazarus by his bosom.

do you think satan knew about the lake of fire & that it would be his eternal punishment before he fell ?
I know the demons know now Mat 8:29

 

[Clete]

so you're saying God mistakenly takes people to heaven

Stupidity.

I didn't read the rest. When you decide you want to engage the discussion honestly. I'll pick it back up. Until then, you're a waste of time.

 

[way 2 go]

"The actual point I am making is simply that the Holy Spirit has been given as a guarantee of our deliverance to the day of redemption, not the coercion of the will. That is, no one will be forced to go to heaven if they do not want to be there!"

so an open theism belief and not biblically supported

 

[Clete]

"The actual point I am making is simply that the Holy Spirit has been given as a guarantee of our deliverance to the day of redemption, not the coercion of the will. That is, no one will be forced to go to heaven if they do not want to be there!"

so an open theism belief and not biblically supported

Except for all the biblical (and rational) support that has been shown and that still exists for the entire world to read on this very thread!

People seem to have such a desire to reject my doctrine to the point of deluding themselves into thinking that the argument doesn't exist beyond the most recent post.

To this point, my doctrine hasn't been touched.

 

[Idolater]

you accuse [MAD of never] "[teaching] its tenets clearly and openly and plainly"

Yes.

Might be an unfair charge. Afterall where is Clavinism's tenets taught clearly and openly and plainly? Well in the Westminster canons.

I am used to this. I am used to being able, when I can't really understand what people mean or believe, to access and examine standards, canons, authoritative sources. Acts 9erism doesn't have that. Bob Enyart (of happy memory) wrote a book, and Grace Ambassadors operates a website, but there is nothing like the Westminster canons for Clavinism or the Catechism of the Catholic Church for Catholicism; for Acts 9erism.

That's undoubtedly more typical for the variety of different schools of Christian theology which exist today. Even Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't have such a source available, it cashes out basically with what their patriarchs say. The authority to judge between tenets is vested in their patriarchates.

what kind of dead \ death are you talking about ?

what kind of death are they worthy of ?

Death death. Death penalty. Spiritually anyway. Committing a grave win with full knowledge and deliberate consent would be fatal to your soul. This is the idea with grave sin. It's not the same as mortal or fatal sin, that is like the difference between a self-defense and a murder. You only murder when it's with full knowledge and deliberate consent. Otherwise it's closer to self-defense, which is not a death penalty.

are they already dead ?

Spiritually, your soul is. You take your own life, when you commit grave sin with full knowledge and deliberate consent.

if someone is made spiritually alive they continue on
spiritually alive in heaven for eternity
in a resurrected new incorruptible body

if someone is spiritually dead when they die the continue on
spiritually dead for eternity in hell

OK.

first death separation
Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

alive yet dead
Mat 8:22 And Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead."

What?

dead yet alive
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, the small and the great, stand before God

In Heaven, right?

dead and alive
Luk 16:22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried,
Luk 16:23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.

Hades could be purgatory.

 

[Clete]

Yes.

Might be an unfair charge. Afterall where is Clavinism's tenets taught clearly and openly and plainly? Well in the Westminster canons.

I am used to this. I am used to being able, when I can't really understand what people mean or believe, to access and examine standards, canons, authoritative sources. Acts 9erism doesn't have that. Bob Enyart (of happy memory) wrote a book, and Grace Ambassadors operates a website, but there is nothing like the Westminster canons for Clavinism or the Catechism of the Catholic Church for Catholicism; for Acts 9erism.

That's undoubtedly more typical for the variety of different schools of Christian theology which exist today. Even Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't have such a source available, it cashes out basically with what their patriarchs say. The authority to judge between tenets is vested in their patriarchates.

Does it really go that hard against your grain to simply trust God's word? Have you ever tried just simply reading the bible and taking it to mean what it seems to be saying? Just read the book of Romans or Galatians and see if the plain meaning of the words on the page square with your doctrine. Have you ever tried that before?

 

[Idolater]

Does it really go that hard against your grain to simply trust God's word?

Not at all.

Have you ever tried just simply reading the bible and taking it to mean what it seems to be saying?

Multiple times.

Just read the book of Romans or Galatians and see if the plain meaning of the words on the page square with your doctrine. Have you ever tried that before?

Yes. And I am confident the same holds for you and for Acts 9ers generally too. I just want to understand Acts 9erism better.

 

[Clete]

Not at all.



Multiple times.



Yes. And I am confident the same holds for you and for Acts 9ers generally too. I just want to understand Acts 9erism better.

You understand that doing what you claim to have done here is against your own doctrine, right?

I genuinely cannot fathom how it is possible for a person to be so internally conflicted that such a flagrant contradiction can exist within their mind while being so invisible to them that they are both capable and willing to utter claims such as you have just made.


If you want to understand Mid-Acts Dispensationalism, understanding the rule of reason in one's doctrine is a central point from which to start. You simply cannot hold self-contradictory ideas and think that it's alright or unavoidable to do so and have any chance at all of seeing through Mid-Acts Dispensational eyes.