ECT MADists don't follow Paul
- Thread starter tetelestai
- Start date
Interplanner
Well-known member
Can't help. I recognized only one word.
It sounds like you already know.
It sounds like you already know.
whitestone
Well-known member
seems like you would be rather versed on that fragment, Louis de alcazar is said to have used a similar manuscript as this that he termed "a better copy" in his primary works.
I study the Scriptures. You're going to have to try that with someone into your endless external sources.
You just don't get that.
You're unable to.
Interplanner
Well-known member
That's not true of you. You mention several. I'm sure you've read some Luther or Spurgeon or Augustine or Packer or Schaeffer or Stroebel or Wallace and appreciated them.
When you say "Bible" you do realize you mean "the-Bible-as-percieved-by-Brethren-Darby-Scofield" don't you?
There you go (endlessly) again in your usual projection of your over reliance on sources external to Scripture, including your own two cents - projecting that fool practice as being the very practice also of any one who so much as looks at a book cover on Amazon.
In another post you went on about what the word heresies used to mean. And you went into the Greek about this, that, the other.
Your over reliance on a source external to the text obvious.
For in the very chapter in which Paul uses that word in 1 Cor. 11, he has already related his intended sense as to his "there must be heresies" as being a reference to "divisions among you."
In hopes of illustrating a bit of my study process; I'll tell you how I deduced that without having to reach over to some external source.
Someone had shared a link with me in connection with a teaching on some things in 1 Cor. 11.
When the person on that link reached that passage in their teaching, they related their sense of that word as referring to false teaching.
I asked myself 'is that what Paul is actually referring to here; let me just read the chapter; see if Paul follows his usual practice of saying a thing in one way, he later says in another, and by that brings out his intended sense.'
I know this from time in the Scripture itself; noting its patterns and ever asking these kinds of questions, while face to face with the text itself - not in books by the likes of a Lee Stroebel - much of his "Case for Christ" of which is full of gaping holes, so bent on proving his case is he that he allows his logic to end up that sloppy.
It is obvious from my above words - obvious to me at least - that I am very well aware of my study process even as I am engaged in it.
In contrast to the endless writers of this and that - they do not appear aware of their unaware-ness of the often gaping holes in how and or where they are looking at a thing from to begin with.
While, my process of awareness throughout is how I ended up subscribing to A Mid-Acts, more or less.
In contrast to your error - the first time I posted that last sentence to you, you right off concluded I did not know if I subscribed to MAD or not.
That is how stuck you are in being unable to pause to examine if what you are understanding is actually what you are reading, or if it is what you are reading into it.
The more astute might have caught that mine were the words of one not married to a "one size fits all" MAD.
Mine were the words as to that of one ever open to getting back in the Scripture itself each time afresh to there ask it my oddball questions once more as if for the first time.
You haven't a clue where MAD is coming from; even less as to where I am coming from.
Thus, hopefully someone else will benefit from what I have shared in this post as to what might be the beginnings for them also, of a means whereby the Scripture is allowed to intrepret itself; its student just a bit more adept at staying out of the way.
Interplanner
Well-known member
You are a total fool Danoh. the passages that show that 'hairese' is to divide are in Scripture. But if there is a CONCRETE example you always start from that. For ex., sincere. Latin I think for without wax. it referred to pottery that had not been weakened by wax. That concrete ex. is the best place to start. The Lexicon like BDF shows what literature and when and where a word was used, so it should not be ignored unless it is more abstract than the doctrine being communicated by the NT.
Interplanner
Well-known member
I am well aware of where MAD is coming from from the list. it is imposing an outside system which is practically D'ism all over with some refinements because it believes its 2nd program in the Bible has to happen. MAD has no clue what happened with Peter and his visions. And several other things are as wrong as Mormonism.
Tonight on TBN they are showing the communist, atheists fighting for modern Israel again--the movie EXODUS. Anything to 'prove' or show the 2nd Ps have to happen. Any alliance, any price is OK.
TBN as your source "about" Dispensationalism, hunh :rotfl:
Interplanner
Well-known member
Because you've been so horrible about it for 2 years sir. At least today I found a list in another post that I've been asking you for for 2 years while you just bloviate about my broken record or over reliance or post icons and fail to say what Acts 13 or Gal 3 actually mean.
TBN is doing exactly what they think D'ism means and so it does to millions. That's your problem, not mine.
TBN is doing exactly what they think D'ism means and so it does to millions. That's your problem, not mine.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Can you at least say why you cannot compliment or praise Pastor Holford's tour of England abuot the DofJ which practically stopped the atheist pundit Payne's publishing his book? What have you got against that? Why do people know about 'Wesley' but nothing about Holford?
Francis A. Schaeffer and his wife Edith were both premillennialists and believed in the future restoration of National Israel back to the land.
Your Georgie boy (Holford) was nothing more than Preterism's version of Acts 2 Dispen-SEN-sationalists like Lindsey, Grant, et al.
In the same manner Lindsey, and their ilk over relied on sources external to Scripture towards first sensationalizing, that they might then point to 1948, as some sort of an "evidence from" supposedly "fulfilled prophecy that the Bible is true" your Preterist idols have been doing the same thing for centuries.
In your unbelief out of your willful ignorance of what Scripture has REPEATEDLY proven AGAINST an OVER reliance on sources EXTERNAL TO Scripture.
Holford was a fool. All any truly Bible based Bible student would have had to do to prove Paine dead wrong was point out from Scripture itself not only the endless holes in Paine's gross, severly incompetent use of those passages of Scripture that Paine had so misread his absolute nonsense into, but what the REAL issue was - FAITH IN things NOT SEEN.
Yours is ever the same mess - the attempt to prove Scripture is true via all sorts of whims of men, mind reading into this or that Apostle's mind, looking into this or that secular source ad nauseum.
Scholars and their endless legion of equally books based parrots; ever convinced the God of Scripture is completely helpless without their endless external sources.
This is an issue OF FAITH, you spiritual fool - of things NOT seen as one's evidence...
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 11:2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
King David's faith in the face of NO SEEMING hope whatsoever...
Psalms 27:12 Deliver me not over unto the will of mine enemies: for false witnesses are risen up against me, and such as breathe out cruelty. 27:13 I had fainted, unless I had believed to see the goodness of the LORD in the land of the living. 27:14 Wait on the LORD: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart: wait, I say, on the LORD.
Abraham's faith DESPITE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE contrary to God's Word to Him:
Romans 4:18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. 4:19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb: 4:20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 4:21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. 4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
You Biblically illiterate buffoon, you and yours have nothing on the actually Bible based student.
Apparantly, Holford had not believed passages like the following were ALL the evidence one needs.
John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
One either believes that as it is written, or one does not.
If Scripture has REPEATEDLY proven anything on this issue it is that where unbelief is the issue all the external evidence in the world against will only FURTHER "harden Pharaoh's heart" that much more, you fool.
Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. 10:18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. 10:19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you. 10:20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. 10:21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.
2 Corinthians 4:13 We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;
Nope.
Holford based his works on actual history.
Lindsay based his works on predictions.
Lindsay was/is a confused Darby follower just like you.
Interplanner
Well-known member
I've heard that from others, never from them. Must be that getting Schaeffer on your side is a big prize. My point was not his position on that but that he was 'outside' the Bible which Danoh is so paranoid about.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Danoh:
but what the REAL issue was - FAITH IN things NOT SEEN.
That's not how it works and I'm done trying to talk to you. The populace of England was persuaded that Holford not Payne was correct, based on EVIDENCE and God does give EVIDENCE. He might have got hard, but England was spared at least a generation. You are the fool. You spoke before actually reading Holford. adios.
but what the REAL issue was - FAITH IN things NOT SEEN.
That's not how it works and I'm done trying to talk to you. The populace of England was persuaded that Holford not Payne was correct, based on EVIDENCE and God does give EVIDENCE. He might have got hard, but England was spared at least a generation. You are the fool. You spoke before actually reading Holford. adios.
Must be. You've claimed him for your interpretation in more than one post.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Regarding eschatological stuff? Not that I know of. Other than confirm the 2nd coming in judgement, I don't know of any place that comes to mind where he would spell out details about raptures, Israel, tribulation, millenium, etc. He simply validated the 2nd coming and was very concerned about where our culture and society were going. That's all I know.