Uh....'rightly' divvy.
ECT 10 Principles of NT eschatology
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
- Status
Uh....'rightly' divvy.
Interplanner
Well-known member
There is no such thing. There's no doing spiritual Israel vs other etc. There is no 2P2P--two programs running in the Bible and never quite meeting. And that expression as D'ists use it is not what 2 Tim 3:16 is about.
Ugh, uhem; that would be 2 Tim. 2:15 NOT 2 Tim. 3:16.
Anyway, I don't that hold 2:15 is referring to dividing between things either. At least not right off.
For it is obvious that if Timothy had hoped to "of these things put them in mind...rightly" he would have to have been guided by some sort of a standard or means of enabling himself to know when and when he was not doing so.
And that right there results in, relies upon, and demands that Timothy note a division or distinction between the two.
Not to leave out the fact of all the distinctions or dividing between things that Paul himself relies on there as his means of communicating his actually intended sense to Timothy prior to, within, and after that passage (2 Timothy 2:15).
Even in that passage together with its accompanying ones there, the sense of "rightly dividing the word of truth" is that it unavoidably involves noting distinctions and or divisions between things that differ.
There is this...
2 Timothy 2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance...
And there is this...
2 Timothy 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred...
And that is one distinction or division between things; of the several others there, that Paul makes use of towards communicating his intended sense to Timothy - through distinctions between things that differ from one another.
In fact, the divisions or distinctions that Paul notes there are radically opposed to one another.
Sheesh, now I'm coming of like a book writer - the blah, blah, blah, and MAYBE a passage or two :chuckle:
Interplanner
Well-known member
You are on the right track with it though. The distinctions were about leading the churches. He doesn't mention OT themes, which is the first clue that D'ists are using the verse wrong.
And yes, there are other things to make distinctions about.
Hebrews certainly makes many distinctions and many of those are about how to handle the OT.
Interplanner
Well-known member
These propositions are irregular, unlike the contortions of D'ist or 2P2P or MAD systems. But they express what the NT says truly nonetheless.
When systems are used to filter the NT, you find all these people with their key exceptions or convolutions. they also can't just read a passage and say that passage is the NT summary, like Acts 13's sermon's conclusion. They have to 'handle' it first. Or like Eph 2-3 about the promises to Israel. They think such a passage is complicated while their system is simple.
When systems are used to filter the NT, you find all these people with their key exceptions or convolutions. they also can't just read a passage and say that passage is the NT summary, like Acts 13's sermon's conclusion. They have to 'handle' it first. Or like Eph 2-3 about the promises to Israel. They think such a passage is complicated while their system is simple.
As you usual; you are forever pointing your one finger at others as viewing these issues through a system even as you all the while remain oblivious to the fact of your three remaining fingers pointing right back at the fact that you yourself are inescapably viewing things through a system.
That is exactly what is wrong with too an academics based approach to things - one ends up a blind victim of its far too often one size fits all; end of any further thought outside of it's long solved for color by numbers scheme of things.
Systems of viewing a thing are inescapable.
The Anthropologist goes off into the bush with a system or model in toll about how to build a model of the system of a people she is out there studying the culture (system/model) of.
And she returns with that even as the subjects of her studies basically remain oblivious to the fact that they have been functioning in accordance with and within a highly complex system of one kind or another.
Your problem is you failed the course. You still wonder "why those people do that, that way; it makes no sense to me..."
You're right; it doesn't - it never does to those ignorant of how to properly approach walking in another's shoes before concluding.
40 years? 40 years of ignorance about the obvious.
You are too close to your own forest to see the obvious trees you yourself cannot escape relying on.
As a result, the fact is and remains - you do not know the Mid-Acts Dispensationlist. You think you do.
You think your parroting the parroting of those who came before you is spot on.
God forbid this should be pointed out to you - even as you continue to point out your one finger; oblivious to its other three companions doing their job as well - pointing back at their owner his own holes.
The Mid Dispensationalist may appear to your over academ-anaemia some comic book character; I'm sure.
But that just goes to show how oblivious you are to the actually very often objective thinker you are actually dealing with in the Mid-Acts Dispensationalist.
Go ahead now; cry foul once more only to return another day with your own finger pointing.
Wake up to the fact of your own duplicity already.
That is exactly what is wrong with too an academics based approach to things - one ends up a blind victim of its far too often one size fits all; end of any further thought outside of it's long solved for color by numbers scheme of things.
Systems of viewing a thing are inescapable.
The Anthropologist goes off into the bush with a system or model in toll about how to build a model of the system of a people she is out there studying the culture (system/model) of.
And she returns with that even as the subjects of her studies basically remain oblivious to the fact that they have been functioning in accordance with and within a highly complex system of one kind or another.
Your problem is you failed the course. You still wonder "why those people do that, that way; it makes no sense to me..."
You're right; it doesn't - it never does to those ignorant of how to properly approach walking in another's shoes before concluding.
40 years? 40 years of ignorance about the obvious.
You are too close to your own forest to see the obvious trees you yourself cannot escape relying on.
As a result, the fact is and remains - you do not know the Mid-Acts Dispensationlist. You think you do.
You think your parroting the parroting of those who came before you is spot on.
God forbid this should be pointed out to you - even as you continue to point out your one finger; oblivious to its other three companions doing their job as well - pointing back at their owner his own holes.
The Mid Dispensationalist may appear to your over academ-anaemia some comic book character; I'm sure.
But that just goes to show how oblivious you are to the actually very often objective thinker you are actually dealing with in the Mid-Acts Dispensationalist.
Go ahead now; cry foul once more only to return another day with your own finger pointing.
Wake up to the fact of your own duplicity already.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Another post without one Scripture to discuss, but plenty of general insult. Please shut up about it.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Can anyone out there let me know how to do the ignore step in the new format? I can't find it.
It matters not; as I am not posting to you, rather; about your duplicity.
You malign the Dispy and then cry like some self-over-indulged child; when called on it.
ClimateSanity
New member
We are serious thinkers. Many of us have sat in churches or listened to preaching on the tv and radio so many years hearing contradicting messages and interpretations that appear to come out of nothing except age old tradition. When we were given a method of biblical interpretation that made actual sense, we didn't let go and some us actually became great thinkers, not me however.
Interplanner
Well-known member
All I'm trying to show is that the NT does not get involved in 2nd guessing God's 'plan of the ages'; it just deals with what has taken place in Christ--the grace of God for the world. We know from the learning curve of the apostles that it wasn't all grasped at once. So what? That does not mean God had other programs going. And we have Gal 3:17 showing that what God originally meant was voided and replaced very early on.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Interplanner
Well-known member
Interplanner
Well-known member
To those lead deeper and deeper into insulting, here's some solid propositions to discuss, without anyone's persona to figure out. Please speak to specific items here!
ClimateSanity
New member
The multitude of contradictions made sense. The basic part of the system was separating Israel from the church and understanding the unique ministry of Paul. It also helps to realize that the Body of Cbrist was not prophecied in the OT.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Sorry, but how do contradictions made sense. Do you mean you saw a lot of contradictions on your own, but after hearing D'ism and futurism, things made sense? I do understand that and have seen that. But D'ism did terrible homework and was too in love with its conclusions.
Your last line is false, you know. There is plenty of it.
Your last line is false, you know. There is plenty of it.
Interplanner
Well-known member
10 Propositions (formerly 'principles') of NT eschatology
1, Rom 11 is prodding not prediction
2, Gal 3:17 is the true RT issue
3, Isaiah shifts Davidic promises; it is not a recent or even a Paul idea
4, Acts 26 shapes Israel's outcome
5, The "people" of Mt 21 are Christians
6, Rom 2 is about both Jew and Gentile on the day of judgement
7, 2 Pet 3 is the best passage on the future
8, NT eschatology does not mix 1st century Judean events with future worldwide day of judgement
9, the apostles spent their time expounding Ps 2, 16, 110, not Ps 83
10, "saved" in Rom 11 is justification from our debt of sin, not a future theocracy for Israel
1, Rom 11 is prodding not prediction
2, Gal 3:17 is the true RT issue
3, Isaiah shifts Davidic promises; it is not a recent or even a Paul idea
4, Acts 26 shapes Israel's outcome
5, The "people" of Mt 21 are Christians
6, Rom 2 is about both Jew and Gentile on the day of judgement
7, 2 Pet 3 is the best passage on the future
8, NT eschatology does not mix 1st century Judean events with future worldwide day of judgement
9, the apostles spent their time expounding Ps 2, 16, 110, not Ps 83
10, "saved" in Rom 11 is justification from our debt of sin, not a future theocracy for Israel
Interplanner
Well-known member
Simply noticing here that all the students here have no rebuttals to the 10 propositions.
Very well, but I'll be using your same format.
1, Rom 11 is prodding AND prediction
2, Gal 3:17 is NOT the RT issue
3, Isaiah DOES NOT shift Davidic promises; it is not a recent or even a Paul idea
4, Acts 7 shapes Israel's outcome
5, The "people" of Mt 21 are NOT Christians
6, Rom 2 is about both Jew and Gentile on the day of judgement
7, 2 Pet 3 is ONE OF the best passages on the future
8, NT eschatology MIXES 1st century Judean events with future worldwide day of judgement, see pnt 7.
9, BUT FOR PAULL the apostles spent their time expounding Ps 2, 16, 110, not Ps 83
10, "saved" in Rom 11 is justification from our debt of sin, BUT ALSO ABOUT a future theocracy for Israel.
We have solved nothing, bro via said outline approach.
I mean that; I'm not trying to be a smart aleck here.
1, Rom 11 is prodding AND prediction
2, Gal 3:17 is NOT the RT issue
3, Isaiah DOES NOT shift Davidic promises; it is not a recent or even a Paul idea
4, Acts 7 shapes Israel's outcome
5, The "people" of Mt 21 are NOT Christians
6, Rom 2 is about both Jew and Gentile on the day of judgement
7, 2 Pet 3 is ONE OF the best passages on the future
8, NT eschatology MIXES 1st century Judean events with future worldwide day of judgement, see pnt 7.
9, BUT FOR PAULL the apostles spent their time expounding Ps 2, 16, 110, not Ps 83
10, "saved" in Rom 11 is justification from our debt of sin, BUT ALSO ABOUT a future theocracy for Israel.
We have solved nothing, bro via said outline approach.
I mean that; I'm not trying to be a smart aleck here.
Interplanner
Well-known member
You are not worth talking to. Try someone else.
- Status