Theology Club: MAD, as blunt as it is likely to get (for discussion)


Well-known member
I believe the order is salvation and then the deep things of God. Most of the time we are trying to show lost people the deep things, but they have not the spirit which is of God that they can know those things. They must be saved first.

1 Corinthians 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.

1 Corinthians 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

1 Corinthians 2:3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.

1 Corinthians 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

1 Corinthians 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

1 Corinthians 2:6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

1 Corinthians 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

1 Corinthians 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

1 Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

1 Corinthians 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

1 Corinthians 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

1 Corinthians 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Does that answer your question?

I agree.

What would you say to professing MADs who blend?

Christian Liberty

Well-known member
Back for like two seconds.... likely to regret it.

Musterion, was anyone saved between the death of the Apostle John and what you would consider the reemergence of the doctrine of dispensationalism?

Christian Liberty

Well-known member
Thank you.

Why did you make the death of John the starting point of your range in question?

Not playing games; making sure both sides understand all terms used before discussing/arguing about them.

no worries, its cool by me :)

I honestly don't know how MAD affects this. I've got the intention of being respectful, but its a very strange and foreign system in comparison to what I deal with at a daily basis.

But generally speaking, there is an understanding that the Bible writers were correct in everything they said. That is, obviously nobody thinks John or Peter or Paul believed in a false gospel. There's also generally an agreement among all Christians (forgive me, but I'm gonna use the term broadly here) that the 66 books of scripture are inerrant and authoritative.

After John dies, you get into the era of the church fathers. We have writings from them, in every era. The *vast* majority of them believed in things you'd consider damnable heresy, from how I interpret your post. I think all of them taught baptismal regeneration. Interestingly, you might think they had a point if MAD is rejected, whereas most low church evangelicals would not. Think of passages like Acts 2:38 and 1 Peter 3:21, which seem to teach baptismal regeneration. obviously those passages wouldn't apply at all to Gentiles in the MAD system.

So basically I start there because the data we really have on the first century is the Bible, and everyone has some interpretation or another of that that's consistent with what they believe, but from the 2nd century on we have fallible authorities (*how* they are fallible varies depending on which Christian tradition you come from but nobody puts a patristic epistle on the same level as a Biblical one.)

So at any rate, did anybody believe what you'd consider the Biblical gospel from the death of John to the reemergence (to you, I believe it was invented then, but however you look at it) of dispensationalism? If not, were there even any Christians?

Christian Liberty

Well-known member
And for you notice he did NOT say people are saved by mid-Acts dispensationalism, saved by being Pauline in doctrine, or saved by Paul? Did you catch that? He didn't say it because no MAD believes it (whereas Calvinists often do equate TULIP = Gospel). Getting that out of the way before someone lobs that same old dud of a grenade again.

Technically he didn't, but I think its at least as close as what many people say about Roman Catholics. ie "there may be true Christians in the Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church isn't Christian" or such. MOST Calvinists who say Calvinism is the gospel are being rhetorical rather than 100% consistent, but I still find it annoying.

I'll admit that while I'm decently well read on church history for a layman, I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that by the standards you've laid down here you'd either have to say there were no Christians at all between 100-1800 (I mean, if you don't believe me, just read the Epistle of Barnabas. Read Justin Martyr's First Apology. Read a few epistles of Cyprian. Definitely read Jerome because that'll definitely make you go crazy :D Read the First Council of Nicaea.) Or you'd have to say that if there were any, they were secret and there's no real evidence that they existed, but you just assume they did anyone, on faith, based on your (no offense, fairly unusual in the grand scheme of things) interpretation of the Bible. At that point it seems much more reasonable to be a Catholic, or at least to be a more tolerant Protestant (I'm not sure the Fathers agreed with all elements of current Catholicism, but they agreed with enough to put them in the same boat as them based on what you've laid down here.)

Christian Liberty

Well-known member
I still wanna know if there were any actual Christians in church history or if hardline dispensationalists (heck, the same argument goes for most Protestants to be honest) basically have to fall back on trail of blood type ahistorical argumentation