ECT An unintended compliment from an opponent of dispensationalism

SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
I don't take up the difference of those covenants in Genesis because the NT does not put any significance to it. Abraham was circumcised after he had already believed for his justification. We have to go back to that point with Paul in Gal 3 to sort it out.
Click to expand...

You never noticed that James refers to Abraham in circumcision, while Paul refers to him in uncircumcision.
I am not surprised. Your commentaries never told you about it.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
What happened to JR. Hopefully he learned he doesn't have a corner on Hebrews, not that I do, but I think he can tell I have read it lately.

D'ism has one set of conclusions it needs to come back to to protect Chafer's madness, of which they are all minions. Instead of working the core doctrines of the apostles and making the kingdom grow.
 
D

Danoh

New member
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Interplanner said:
that is the opposite of what Hebrews says. I believe D'ism to be as irrational as the secular social scientist who says "male and female genders are just social constructs to be overthrown." You want me to believe that Hebrews is only for Jews. Then you want me to believe that the new covenant is only for Jews. then, even though no one can miss that the new covenant in Christ is about the replacement of Judaism's worship and sacrifice system, I am supposed to believe that Hebrews is not for me AND (above) that every thing in the law will be practiced exactly.

D'ism is therefore fundamentally irrational and made up.

We are supposed to learn from it when things are shadows of Christ and when the reality of Christ has come. It has.
Click to expand...


The Law is not for us in this dispensation, so why would it be practiced at all?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top