ECT Disposing of a MAD list

[God's Truth]

Why so much confusion? Because D'ism introduced propositions that are confusing and imposed them on the Bible and said this is the 'true' way to read the Bible. If you mix the time frames of Mt24A and B, there is nothing but confusion. If you start from 2P2P, there is nothing but confusion. If you don't make a science out of how the NT quotes the OT, then there is nothing but confusion when you use the OT.

If you "don't" make a SCIENCE out of it?

Don't make a science out of it and you should go against them with only a sword and not with the methods they use.

The sword of the Spirit is the word of God; see Ephesians 6:17

The earthly sword of those who have no understanding is a literal sword that can cut, and it is also man made doctrines by those who study man's ideas.

The sword of the Spirit is the word of God, it is the Holy Spirit, and understanding is given to those who obey, for they are the ones Jesus gives understanding to...the only ones he gives the sword to.

To their credit, the Brethren that started D'ism weren't just doctrinaire theologians. They had the 3-century-running problem of Protestant vs Catholic tension to deal with. I'm not going to say for them that they shouldn't have been so susceptible to what D'ism proposed. I've never had to grow up in or live in raw theological tension where windows of homes are broken by opponents, etc., on a daily basis.

I see what you mean, but think about this, those in the truth were even more attacked...they were the poor, the under educated (according to those breaking windows).

We who are in the truth have an assault against our souls every day, those who speak God's Truth. We are assaulted even when they only think of us in remembrance.

Look at what you are doing, you are hanging on to those who also followed the teaching of men. You are hanging onto those who studied in colleges...Luther did not go far enough with his corrections for himself, and for the Catholic religion, because he was still hanging onto the teachings of his college time and what Augustine and Augustus taught.

If you have no background in this, check a few histories or a few movies about the Elizabethan era of England, and then realize how many millions of people grew up in this tension from the 16th to the 18th centuries.

In my early debate life, I was almost drawn to such studies, but I am glad that I did not do such a thing, for I would probably have so much false information put in my head that I would no longer be able to hear the Truth, and I would once again have to repent for following false doctrines and teachers.

 

[Interplanner]

GT wrote:
If you "don't" make a SCIENCE out of it?

Don't make a science out of it and you should go against them with only a sword and not with the methods they use.

Sorry I don't follow most of what you are saying. Yes, you need to make a science out of how the NT quotes the OT. Otherwise it is helter-skelter trying to use the OT.

The skill of using the OT is so bad today that most people dangle everything on Ps 83 and Ezek 38+ and say, see, I'm an OT expert, and this is what is going to happen. But Jesus taught the apostles for 40 days and what he taught is what we find when our modern versions mark where the NT quotes the OT (NIV, etc.). Guess what? No use of Ps 83 or Ezek 38+. What does that tell you?

 

[Interplanner]

GT wrote:
In my early debate life, I was almost drawn to such studies, but I am glad that I did not do such a thing, for I would probably have so much false information put in my head that I would no longer be able to hear the Truth, and I would once again have to repent for following false doctrines and teachers.

Nonsense. You should know church history. 'Whoever does not know theological history is doomed to repeat it!'

There are facts of history that matter here and you should get familiar with them.

 

[God's Truth]

GT wrote:
If you "don't" make a SCIENCE out of it?

Don't make a science out of it and you should go against them with only a sword and not with the methods they use.

Sorry I don't follow most of what you are saying. Yes, you need to make a science out of how the NT quotes the OT. Otherwise it is helter-skelter trying to use the OT.

The skill of using the OT is so bad today that most people dangle everything on Ps 83 and Ezek 38+ and say, see, I'm an OT expert, and this is what is going to happen. But Jesus taught the apostles for 40 days and what he taught is what we find when our modern versions mark where the NT quotes the OT (NIV, etc.). Guess what? No use of Ps 83 or Ezek 38+. What does that tell you?

You can study the Bible your whole life intently, but you will never be given understanding unless you so one thing.

 

[God's Truth]

GT wrote:
In my early debate life, I was almost drawn to such studies, but I am glad that I did not do such a thing, for I would probably have so much false information put in my head that I would no longer be able to hear the Truth, and I would once again have to repent for following false doctrines and teachers.

Nonsense. You should know church history. 'Whoever does not know theological history is doomed to repeat it!'

There are facts of history that matter here and you should get familiar with them.

The only thing you need to learn is how to get understanding.

You would rather learn about things that do not matter...as Paul says... it is dung.

 

[Interplanner]

The only thing you need to learn is how to get understanding.

You would rather learn about things that do not matter...as Paul says... it is dung.

Yes, I do get understanding that way. Paul said his knowledge in Judaism was dung. I'm not referring to that, I'm referring to the skill of using the NT to interp the OT. You really need to pay attention.

 

[andyc]

What is sad and telling is how many thanks you have given to others---compared to what you have been given. Better to give than receive. Why haven't you given more thanks? Do you not think that those who thanked you would like to hear back from you?

It's a new thing isn't it. I barely visit this site now, only the occasional visits now and again. I could give more thanks I guess. Has this replaced the old rep system?

 

[God's Truth]

Yes, I do get understanding that way. Paul said his knowledge in Judaism was dung. I'm not referring to that, I'm referring to the skill of using the NT to interp the OT. You really need to pay attention.

Paul is not saying understanding in the Old Testament is dung. Paul quoted the Old Testament. The Old Testament was fulfilled in the New Testament! Paul was bragging about his blood line and his schooling.

God's Truth is not about blood relations and schooling.

 

[God's Truth]

It's a new thing isn't it. I barely visit this site now, only the occasional visits now and again. I could give more thanks I guess. Has this replaced the old rep system?

Thanks for reacting kindly back. As for the rep system...just click on the Thanks in the lower left side when you hear something you think you can agree on. We should encourage each other in the truth, and this world can be so cold it doesn't hurt to make a nice connection with someone online.

 

[Interplanner]

Paul is not saying understanding in the Old Testament is dung. Paul quoted the Old Testament. The Old Testament was fulfilled in the New Testament! Paul was bragging about his blood line and his schooling.

God's Truth is not about blood relations and schooling.

There's quite a list there in Phil 3, and it was all the things he was raised in Judaism. Whenever you read the OT at that time it had Judaism's layers on it, instead of Christ. That's why there was 40 days of teaching after the resurrection.

Theological history only clarifies the NT; there is no reason to be paranoid about it.

To look into something more recent, but that you would be even more interested in knowing, find out why Dr. Schaeffer (L'Abri fellowship) did not sound like a fundamentalist or spend any time on eschatology.

 

[God's Truth]

There's quite a list there in Phil 3, and it was all the things he was raised in Judaism. Whenever you read the OT at that time it had Judaism's layers on it, instead of Christ. That's why there was 40 days of teaching after the resurrection.

Theological history only clarifies the NT; there is no reason to be paranoid about it.

To look into something more recent, but that you would be even more interested in knowing, find out why Dr. Schaeffer (L'Abri fellowship) did not sound like a fundamentalist or spend any time on eschatology.

I do not really care much about what other men say. You do not get understanding from God that way. You get understanding by obeying God's Word.

Psalm 119:100 I have more understanding than the elders, for I obey your precepts.

 

[Interplanner]

But the materials and settings are 2000 years old. It does help to know background from that time.

In the Ephesus area, women would have statuettes of Diana as they went into labor. But Paul said you will be saved through childbirth as Christians. He did not mean they were going to be saved through Christ's own birth, or Mary's. He did not mean they would be saved by having children, as though Christian homes were to be pregnancy mills. He mean Christ would protect them, not Diana, so they did not need those 'taliswoman' statuettes. We gain clarity by knowing what was going on at the time.

'Not even the Father knows' is an expression from the feast of Trumpets. Other 1st century Judaica tell us about this. It had to start at a new moon, and they could not say exactly when that was because the proof of a new moon does not match any exact schedule. The text does not tell us, but other material does.

 

[God's Truth]

But the materials and settings are 2000 years old. It does help to know background from that time.

In the Ephesus area, women would have statuettes of Diana as they went into labor. But Paul said you will be saved through childbirth as Christians. He did not mean they were going to be saved through Christ's own birth, or Mary's. He did not mean they would be saved by having children, as though Christian homes were to be pregnancy mills. He mean Christ would protect them, not Diana, so they did not need those 'taliswoman' statuettes. We gain clarity by knowing what was going on at the time.

'Not even the Father knows' is an expression from the feast of Trumpets. Other 1st century Judaica tell us about this. It had to start at a new moon, and they could not say exactly when that was because the proof of a new moon does not match any exact schedule. The text does not tell us, but other material does.

I do not see how anyone needs to read about history to know God's Truth. We are told where understanding comes from, and we are not told to study history, or learn another language, etc.

 

[Interplanner]

I do not see how anyone needs to read about history to know God's Truth. We are told where understanding comes from, and we are not told to study history, or learn another language, etc.

And yet it is in three non-English languages! And it makes countless references to things 'outside' the Bible in normal history! And to other authors! You are on the wrong path.

 

[God's Truth]

And yet it is in three non-English languages! And it makes countless references to things 'outside' the Bible in normal history! And to other authors! You are on the wrong path.

God's written Word has always come to people in their language.

We do not get understanding the way you say. That is how I know I am on the right path.

What you teach is against what is written.

 

[Interplanner]

God's written Word has always come to people in their language.

We do not get understanding the way you say. That is how I know I am on the right path.

What you teach is against what is written.

This is fundamentalist nonsense. Paul once said "This (our faith's basic history) has not been done in a corner." It happened in real history, space and time. It is not true because it is 'in the Bible.' It is in the Bible because it happened in reality, because God is not a separate reality.

Look at one of his first miracles, the raising of the paralytic. The conversation is fascinating. He offers to prove forgiving sins by doing the miracle. The raising happened in actual public reality. Whether you knew anything about the Bible or Christ, a paralyzed man got up from his stretcher and rejoiced. That is true whether it was in the Bible or not. But Christ said that that showed he had authority to forgive sins, which is an invisible thing, not proven the same way as the raising.

Christ does things 'outside' of the Bible; the limits of reality are not just things in the Bible.

This conversation started about the Bretheren eschatology. They popularized futurism and antichrist and things in Israel in the 1800s because lots of British Christians were fed up with conflict between Protestants and Catholics. It helped people see that the Pope was not AC as such. That's why it helps to know what was going on in history. it was not very good homework and dangled from only a few verses. But that is a little bit about why it became popular when it did. It was not an established doctrine for most of the centuries of the Christian church.

 

[God's Truth]

This is fundamentalist nonsense.

Fundamentalists go against me. In all your studies, you do not even know that what I say is not fundamentalist teaching. How do you say such things? What happened to all your studying?

Paul once said "This (our faith's basic history) has not been done in a corner." It happened in real history, space and time. It is not true because it is 'in the Bible.' It is in the Bible because it happened in reality, because God is not a separate reality.

Look at one of his first miracles, the raising of the paralytic. The conversation is fascinating. He offers to prove forgiving sins by doing the miracle. The raising happened in actual public reality. Whether you knew anything about the Bible or Christ, a paralyzed man got up from his stretcher and rejoiced. That is true whether it was in the Bible or not. But Christ said that that showed he had authority to forgive sins, which is an invisible thing, not proven the same way as the raising.

Christ does things 'outside' of the Bible; the limits of reality are not just things in the Bible.

This conversation started about the Bretheren eschatology. They popularized futurism and antichrist and things in Israel in the 1800s because lots of British Christians were fed up with conflict between Protestants and Catholics. It helped people see that the Pope was not AC as such. That's why it helps to know what was going on in history. it was not very good homework and dangled from only a few verses. But that is a little bit about why it became popular when it did. It was not an established doctrine for most of the centuries of the Christian church.

I go by the Word of God as written in the Holy Bible. God knows how to preserve His Word,

Your history studies will not give you understanding.

Jesus tells us how to get understanding, and he tells us how in the Holy Bible.

 

[Interplanner]

re the last line above:
that's right. He said when you see the city surrounded with Roman army machinery, you know that the time of wrath in fulfillment of all that is written in the prophets is at hand (I'm merging Lk 19 and 21 on this).

 

[Interplanner]

Basic teachings of Mid Acts Dispensational right division
– Jesus, in his earthly ministry, ministered to the circumcision. (Rom 15:8, see here)
– [bold]The mystery of Christ was first revealed to Paul[/bold] (Col 1:25-26, 1 Tim 1:16, and here)
– Prophecy and mystery are different (Acts 3:19-21 vs Rom 16:25)
– Peter and Paul taught different messages (Peter prophecy, and Paul mystery: See here)
– Prophecy has been interrupted. (See here)
– The gospel of the kingdom is not the gospel of the grace of God (See here and here)
– Israel’s Church and the Church, the body of Christ, are different. (See here)


Here's the summary of madness (ie 2P2P is madness). I have recently heard that none of this is MAD, but only that Paul had a distinct apostleship.

However, by comparing verses in Eph 3 only 3 verses apart, we find that what Paul had was what was taught all the apostles, by the Spirit showing them what was actually there in the prophets.

 

[Interplanner]

Mid-Acts dispensational Bible study recognizes the importance of the mystery of Christ revealed to the apostle Paul as doctrine particular to the church in the present dispensation (Rom 16:25, Col 1:25-27, Eph 3:2-4).
While most Bible students would make the most important division in the Bible to be between Israel and the Church or the Old and New Testaments, mid-Acts Bible study teaches the most important distinction in your Bible to be the right division between God’s Mystery purpose, “kept secret since the world began”, and God’s Prophecy purpose, which had been “spoken since the world began” (Acts 3:19-21 vs. Rom 16:25).
Understanding the mystery of Christ revealed to Paul for us clears up the theological confusion that is created by blending Prophecy and Mystery doctrines. Some controversial doctrines resolved by Pauline right division include:
Baptism
Faith and Works
Sign Gifts
Salvation
God’s Will
Tongues
Jesus instructs us to identify Paul as our pattern (1 Tim 1:16; 1 Cor 4:16; 1 Cor 11:1). A failure to operate according to the Lord’s revelations to Paul often leads to frustration with denominational traditions, including:
Tithing
Prayer
Communion
Great Commission
Confession
Sabbaths and Holy Days
If you have been confused by some of these doctrines or frustrated by empty Church tradition, consider the Lord’s revelation to Paul and get some answers (2 Tim 2:7).
Basic teachings of Mid Acts Dispensational right division
– Jesus, in his earthly ministry, ministered to the circumcision. (Rom 15:8, see here)
– [bold]The mystery of Christ was first revealed to Paul[/bold] (Col 1:25-26, 1 Tim 1:16, and here)
– Prophecy and mystery are different (Acts 3:19-21 vs Rom 16:25)
– Peter and Paul taught different messages (Peter prophecy, and Paul mystery: See here)
– Prophecy has been interrupted. (See here)
– The gospel of the kingdom is not the gospel of the grace of God (See here and here)
– Israel’s Church and the Church, the body of Christ, are different.

All this misunderstands the grammar of Eph 3. It wants separation instead of shared-benefits of Eph 3. The kind of mystery here is the kind that would be most meaningful to Paul since he lead in Judaism; it the kind where the channel through which the messianic age came was a surprise to Judaism, not the age itself.