Interplanner
Well-known member
I don't accept dictates from anyone; get over it. There has to be reasons; there has to be 2-3 witnesses on a question that is found in reference material.
ECT 8 Things that sink D'ism
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
I don't accept dictates from anyone; get over it. There has to be reasons; there has to be 2-3 witnesses on a question that is found in reference material.
Interplanner
Well-known member
It's about time for some comments on the 4 doctrines.
How did the dispensationalists on ECT get to the point of being mockers in resisting the truth according to II Timothy 3:8, II Peter 2: 2, II Peter 3: 3, and Jude 1: 18?
Is it that they are influenced by the Leftist mainstream media of 2016-2017?
I keep thinking of probably mostly older dispensationalists - Steve Quayle, Doug Hagmann and Rodney Howard-Browne - who are not obvious mockers and who have opposed the Marxist Left and the mainstream media in contrast to the apparent thinking of dispensationalists on ECT.
Steve Quail was one of the populist-patriot short wave broadcasters in the middle and late nineties who were the forerunners of the contemporary patriot-populist media. Doug Hagmann is a private investigator whose Hagmann Report became part of the Populist-Patriot new media. Like Quail, Hagmann is a dispensationalist and also like Quail, Hagmann is probably over 60.
Is it that they are influenced by the Leftist mainstream media of 2016-2017?
I keep thinking of probably mostly older dispensationalists - Steve Quayle, Doug Hagmann and Rodney Howard-Browne - who are not obvious mockers and who have opposed the Marxist Left and the mainstream media in contrast to the apparent thinking of dispensationalists on ECT.
Steve Quail was one of the populist-patriot short wave broadcasters in the middle and late nineties who were the forerunners of the contemporary patriot-populist media. Doug Hagmann is a private investigator whose Hagmann Report became part of the Populist-Patriot new media. Like Quail, Hagmann is a dispensationalist and also like Quail, Hagmann is probably over 60.
Saying it doesn't make it so, North.
Have you ever considered that we read the Bible instead of listening to authorities other than the Bible?
No idea who those people are. And I'm not sure how it's relevant to Scripture.
Interplanner
Well-known member
RJ wrote:
Have you ever considered that we read the Bible instead of listening to authorities other than the Bible?
...D'ists are 'an authority other than the Bible.' Just listen to RD and STP and Tam. They know no languages and they despise commentaries. Perfect candidates to dictate what D'ism says because:
(paraphrase) 'we have made sense out of the Bible which is otherwise a set of conflicting messages' --L. S. Chafer, early D'ist teacher at Dallas Th Seminary.
Have you ever considered that we read the Bible instead of listening to authorities other than the Bible?
...D'ists are 'an authority other than the Bible.' Just listen to RD and STP and Tam. They know no languages and they despise commentaries. Perfect candidates to dictate what D'ism says because:
(paraphrase) 'we have made sense out of the Bible which is otherwise a set of conflicting messages' --L. S. Chafer, early D'ist teacher at Dallas Th Seminary.
Right Divider
Body part
:french:
Right Divider
Body part
Neither do I accept your silly dictates; get over it.
Perhaps, but a million incorrect commentaries is of no use at all.
Interplanner
Well-known member
As I have said many times, it's one of the passages that totally busts the D'ist mentality, which is why they play cartoons instead of grow up and deal with it.
Interplanner
Well-known member
So this is a dictate?
"Simon has described to us how god at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this...
After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent...
that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who bear my name
says the Lord who does these things
that have been known for age."
The 'taking a people' was happening before them and was the prophecy.
"Simon has described to us how god at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this...
After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent...
that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who bear my name
says the Lord who does these things
that have been known for age."
The 'taking a people' was happening before them and was the prophecy.
Right Divider
Body part
Your story is only true in your feeble little mind and those of other commentarians that believe like you.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Nope, he just agreed that the salvation of Gentiles was in agreement with prophecy, NOT that they were
the raised tent of David. Your comprehension is terrible.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
You can know and understand everything that God wants you to know and understand with a KJB and the Holy Spirit.
Try it sometime. I dare you. Get a KJB and make up your mind to just believe exactly what it says.
Start at the beginning and go straight through it.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Story? Context! The council was coming to terms with the reality of Gentile christians. If they were slow in Acts 1 about 'the kingdom of israel' they were really slow about the reality of Gentile christians! Amos 9 is quoted to say yes, they were coming and it has been known for ages!
It is no more complicated than that.
Interplanner
Well-known member
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Of course Gentiles were coming in, but they are not the raised tent of David.
Only a fool would think so.
Best of three? So do you randomly select commentaries and open them up?
Why not just look at what the Bible says, and look at the context to see what a verse means? Seems to me that your method wouldn't be as reliable...
Interplanner
Well-known member
the first thing you find out is that not all of them speak about an issue that you would like them to. So you have to do some digging. If the publisher is respected and has a high view of Scripture, and the type of commentary is a Greek text commentary, then, yes, go with the best 2 of 3 that speak to a certain issue.
I have tried to paint the context of Rom 11 1000x and you have the same tapes running in your heads as now. Context means you tie in to chs 10 and 9 and even 2 about a true Jew. You have issues with Judaism the way Paul does.
You don't just find soundbytes and do electronic word searches, you really enter the person's world.
I have tried to paint the context of Rom 11 1000x and you have the same tapes running in your heads as now. Context means you tie in to chs 10 and 9 and even 2 about a true Jew. You have issues with Judaism the way Paul does.
You don't just find soundbytes and do electronic word searches, you really enter the person's world.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
:chuckle:
Interplanner
Well-known member
I don't randomly select commentaries; I have to know the publisher has a high view of Scripture. Or other references toward that.
Why not just look at what scripture says, and then go from there? Skip the commentaries entirely...