One In Christ
New member
Okay. How does that conflict with what I said?
ECT MADist thought for the day
- Thread starter andyc
- Start date
- Status
Okay. How does that conflict with what I said?
Lying piece of trash-you've been shown scores of passages over the years, by myself, and others, showing this, and yet you spam this "You can't show one verse from the NT that speaks of a future kingdom on planet earth for Israel" on every thread, serpent, and flip the bird at God the Father, and His Christ.
You can't name this "everyone" that allegedly saw the Lord Jesus Christ return in A.D. 70.
You can't name one believer that ever taught:
"The kingdom where there is no more death, tears, and sadness exists right now.....Yes, we are living in the millennial reign right now."-Craigy Tet.
Name them.
Show us one verse that says that signs are invisible, that the Pharisees had the kingdom of God within them, that Christianity is false, that everyone is saved, that Protestant-ism is false, and Catholicism is true, because of its age, and that we are to follow infallible men, as you, on record, claim.
Tet:
andyc
New member
This is the real reason why mad is so dangerous as a cult.
Acts 8:13 Then Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done.
Acts 8:20-23
20 But Peter said to him, "Your money perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God could be purchased with money! 21 "You have neither part nor portion in this matter, for your heart is not right in the sight of God. 22 "Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you. 23 "For I see that you are poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity."
I stay on topic: Why do you call me "Johnny," sweetie? Feeling guilty about being a stay at home husband, and feel the burning desire to prop up your "manhood," spineless one? Yes....
andyc
New member
Because you said that guilt is not necessary. Which would mean that salvation is not necessary.
I noticed you lie! And so do most on this site, Craigie:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3133914&posted=1#post3133914
Just yesterday...
"No one held to the tenets of MAD until John Nelson Darby invented dispensationalism in the mid 1800'"-Preterist con man Tet.
" That's not my argument.I have never said that dispensationalism was "wrong" because of how old it was. I specifically said that no one taught about Christ coming back twice before Darby did."-Tet.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...=82922&page=98
“I never said it was wrong for how old it is.”-Tet.
"No matter how hard you try, you can't take away the fact that dispensationalism was invented by John Nelson Darby in the mid 1800's...Why are most dispensationalists afraid and/or embarrassed to acknowledge that Darby invented what they believe?"-Deceiver Tet.
"My argument is that if there is not one single trace of something for 1,800+ years by anyone, then it was invented.”-Tet.
"... Deep down you know that your belief system has only been around for not even 50 years, and that it was "developed" by men..."-con artist Partial Preterist Soddy Tet.
"...Your false teachings of men is a false teaching since there is not one trace of it in the first three centuries. None of the early church fathers taught your theory, its only about 50 years old."-con artist Partial Preterist Soddy Tet.
"MAD didn't exist until the mid 1800's"-con artist Partial Preterist Soddy Tet.
__________________________
Why do you habitually lie, Craigie?
Tet:
_____________________________________________________-
Let's assume, "for the sake of argument," that this is a valid argument(reasons for a conclusion).
Show us Tet., any infallible men that taught the below, say, 50 years ago. Cite the references, and the men:
“And that is what happened. The Lord came in a way that everyone could see Him. However, He never touched planet earth, and when this event was over, He then sat on the throne in Heaven NOT on planet earth.”-Tet.
"There is NO earthly throne.Christ came in 70AD in the clouds. He didn't touch planet earth."-Preterist Craigee
"The kingdom where there is no more death, tears, and sadness exists right now."-Craigie
"Yes, we are living in the millennial reign right now."-Craigy Tet
"We now live in a new heaven and a new earth."-Tet
Tet. suffers another "death blow!"
Preterism is less than 100 years old, and it is taught by men, and is man made.Additionally, it is being taught by fallible men.
Therefore, it is unbiblical, and false teaching.
And Tet. calls me "stupid....not very bright."
Prediction: I silenced the deceiver Tet. again. Right, Craigie?
_______________
"That's not my argument, I have never said that dispensationalism was "wrong" because of how old it was."-Tet
vs.
"No one held to the tenets of MAD until John Nelson Darby invented dispensationalism in the mid 1800's"-Tet.
Tet.-the habitual liar of TOL.
One In Christ
New member
Right. Is salvation necessary for the atheist?
You cannot say guilt is a requirement because you will never be convicted 100% perfectly.
How much do you hate your sin? Is it enough?
andyc
New member
True conviction comes from God alone, and it might just be one thing that he nails you on, but that one thing will give you a sense of guilt that will cause you to genuinely seek forgiveness.
Otherwise there is no reason to be forgiven.
One In Christ
New member
How can God give us conviction, if we are separated from him (without Christ)?
Conviction follows salvation. Until you are saved, you have no idea of the gravity of the situation.
That conviction you felt before being saved is nothing
Compared to now, after growing with the Lord.
One In Christ
New member
The point is, MAD doesn't rely on anything for salvation, other than Christ. Is that wrong?
andyc
New member
What I highlighted in bold appears to be a contradiction.
However, it is true that conviction and guilt will also be experienced after salvation as you become more and more aware of the sinner you once were.
One In Christ
New member
I understand, and I knew you were going to pick on it as soon as I posted it. The fact is, I am not sure how it works, but the fact remains that repentance, although existent when someone comes to Christ, is not a requirement, because no one has the answer to how much...
It's not a requirement, because Christ took care of your salvation 100%
There is no room for your repentance in the formula.
andyc
New member
What you said in your thread was perfect, and it surprised me.
The only reason I jumped on it is because what you said is actually a tricky issue for the madists.
I feel that you are trying to give me answers that are compatible with mad, but as you keep meditating on Christ's forgiveness, eventually you'll see beyond the madness of hyperdispensationalism. Personally I believe that you are here for social inspiration, nothing more.
One In Christ
New member
"…… Repentance means to turn from sin... We have to turn from our evil deeds in order to receive salvation… Before God justifies us, we have to choose to repent and commit ourselves to him..We are repenting of our sin nature, as well as asking for forgiveness of sins previously committed…."-andycain
Out with the cross, and resurrection, as it did not satisfy the sin/sins issue.
A Muslim: We have to turn from our evil deeds in order to receive salvation.
Different cages....same dirty birds.
Out with the cross, and resurrection, as it did not satisfy the sin/sins issue.
A Muslim: We have to turn from our evil deeds in order to receive salvation.
Different cages....same dirty birds.
One In Christ
New member
Maybe, we'll see... As far as I see it now , MAD is credible, and until I come to a significant issue against it, I have no reason to change my views, but thanks for the concern
Absolutely!
When God told Israel of their promises, Israel expected to see them fulfilled in a physical manner.
And no reason they shouldn't, because they had seen so many of God's promises fulfilled to them in a physical manner just as God said He would do.
It is the preterists and replacement theologists that want to change most of those promises to some sort of non-physical fulfillment.
And to top it all off, they claim the supposed non-physical fulfillment was never meant for Israel to begin with.
It was promised that Elijah would come before the Messiah came.
Was this prophecy fulfilled?
Wile E. Coyote
New member
Yep! But they also expected that if they did not keep their part of the covenant that the promises would not be fulfilled at all, Jeremiah 18:9-10. Take Zechariah for example. It promises that the Lord would return to the Mt. of Olives. But look at the prologue to the book. God said it was conditional. He said,
"Return to Me and I will return to you," Zechariah 1:3.
And,
Yet surely My words and My statutes, Which I commanded My servants the prophets, Did they not overtake your fathers? Zechariah 1:6
Israel replied saying,
So they returned and said, "Just as the Lord of hosts determined to do to us,
According to our ways and according to our deeds, So He has dealt with us." Zechariah 1:6-7
God said that He was going to deal with them in the conditional manner that He dealt with their fathers with the proof being that their enemies overtook them. Israel believed that the promises were conditional but the Dispensationalists deny it.
Therefore, God will NEVER come to the Mt. of Olives. He said, "Return to me and I will return to you" and they did not return to the Lord.
First, this is a generalization. Second, the Dispensationalists do the same thing. The resurrection of the dead was promised to Israel, Hosea 13:14, I Corinthians 15:54-55. Yet the Dispensationalist say that it is fulfilled in the Church.
Until you can show that the promises were unconditional and until you are consistent in applying ALL promises including the resurrection of the dead to Israel alone I am persuaded that Dispensationalism is wrong.
- Status