ECT If MAD is false, what is true?
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
- Status
The name of this fantasy is TRUTH.
Yep :thumb:
turbosixx
New member
I'd like to challenge you on that.
Interplanner
Well-known member
They don't know what that means. They do cartoons and insult and putdowns, but not so much attention to conclusions about a text.
If I'm taking those words out of context on their face value then what did he mean? Go ahead and tell us what he meant when he said he was not sent to baptize?
Actually, they had only been baptized with John's baptism, which clearly was not the one baptism.:dunce::duh:
And Paul didn't compromise. He became as they so they might listen to what he had to say when he preached the mystery they had never heard [:listen:because it was previously unrevealed].
What deduction? I said "induce," not "deduce."
How convenient.
Prove it.
:hammer:
What is the New Covenant?
:chuckle:
Interplanner
Well-known member
The New Covenant was the accomplishment of Christ for believers. It was between God and Christ and Christ was acting on our part. We enjoy justification from sins and eternal life through Christ. He condensed it all down by saying his blood (suffering) was the completion of the new covenant, at the last supper.
This gospel also brings the Spirit of God for God's work. He renovates the believer in a completely different way than the law did, and he spreads the message all over the earth through the Spirit.
This gospel also brings the Spirit of God for God's work. He renovates the believer in a completely different way than the law did, and he spreads the message all over the earth through the Spirit.
Scripture?
The book of Holford :chuckle:
themuzicman
Well-known member
LOL.. This is pure denial by the MAD proponent, ignoring:
Paul does chide them for failing to act properly regarding this sacrament, but then he reaffirms their participation in the new Covenant by telling them that they are, in fact, to drink from its cup.
themuzicman
Well-known member
Love how this kind of post gets those who think their tradition is infallible going. It really exposes those who are here to humbly debate their theology and those who are arrogantly here to proclaim their own tradition and ignore others.
Of the various individuals on here who together hold a very similar view in many things, one group might be said to consist of Interplanner, Tetelestai, and I Am A Berean.
And yet, there are some things they each hold a different understanding of.
Likewise is the case with those on here who assert a Mid-Acts Dispensational Perspective, or Acts 9 Dispensationalism.
The majority outside of TOL who hold to Mid-Acts Dispensationalism hold to 1 Cor. 11's communion.
A few do not. Most do. One or two, and perhaps one or two more on TOL, do. Most on TOL do not appear to.
Again; as with any school of thought, there are bound to be different understandings on one thing or another here and there by the participants within a same school.
The thing to do is to alert others to the fact that the view one is espousing may or may not be held by others within one's particular school of thought.
Not only out of respect for the views of one's fellows within a same school, but also, so as not to misrepresent one's view as being the view held by all within said school.
At the same time, the responsibility of those of you on here who do not hold to Mid-Acts Dispensationalism is to remember that the above has been pointed out to you.
Unless you simply have no interest in fair play.
Thus, far, very few on either side of this issue have continually appeared to show that fair play towards one and all as to this issue, is not your desire.
Did you mean "
lain:"?
Is every cup used at "communion" the new covenant in His blood? Or was it just the first one? Does it count if the cup contains grape juice instead of wine? And where does Paul tell then that they are to drink from said cup?
where else does Paul refer to the new covenant?
- Status