Interplanner
Well-known member
Then you must have missed the fact that he was referring to men, women, slave, free, Jews, Gentiles, rich, poor, THE WHOLE TIME.
ECT MADists don't follow Paul
- Thread starter tetelestai
- Start date
Then you must have missed the fact that he was referring to men, women, slave, free, Jews, Gentiles, rich, poor, THE WHOLE TIME.
Interplanner
Well-known member
As the title says, MADists don't follow Paul, they don't even sound like him. The fracture everything that was unified.
The 'prophecy is interrupted' doctrine is a case in point.
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)
Everything you read in the NT is that excitement, that electricity that it is being fulfilled before their eyes! Only in MAD do you have this 'legal department' complication-sounding stuff that it doesn't really mean that. This pervades MAD.
The 'prophecy is interrupted' doctrine is a case in point.
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)
Everything you read in the NT is that excitement, that electricity that it is being fulfilled before their eyes! Only in MAD do you have this 'legal department' complication-sounding stuff that it doesn't really mean that. This pervades MAD.
Right Divider
Body part
And just WHAT "WHOLE TIME" was this?
Peter sure didn't preach this in Acts 2-14
Since you refuse to consider the differences and details in the ministries of the twelve apostles for the twelve tribes and the one apostle of the gentiles, we have nothing further to discuss. Remain in your ignorance, you clearly like it.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Every nation under heaven was represented at Pentecost by the fact that those people would go home with an extremely simple message: that if God can forgive those who killed his son, then that's pretty much everything. The Gospel got 'out' to the nations by shear force of this clear proposition. It didn't matter if those Jews went back and tried to evangelize or not. That's how 'dunamis' the Gospel is. But surely some of them did, because Judaism already had missionaries all over.
Peter made the MISTAKE of limiting the message to his own. Did you not notice the confrontation of him? But the expansion to all nations is all over the prophets and is all over in Jesus sayings. Of course, he had to build trust with the JEWS about this to get them to help, but that is a completely different question from whether it was for all the nations. That's why Lk 2 echoes Is 49 about the 'light to the nations' which is through the Light--Messiah.
Shame on you for confining a perfectly worldwide message with worldwide importance and depicting Christ and the apostles as compartmentalizing nuisances.
Peter made the MISTAKE of limiting the message to his own. Did you not notice the confrontation of him? But the expansion to all nations is all over the prophets and is all over in Jesus sayings. Of course, he had to build trust with the JEWS about this to get them to help, but that is a completely different question from whether it was for all the nations. That's why Lk 2 echoes Is 49 about the 'light to the nations' which is through the Light--Messiah.
Shame on you for confining a perfectly worldwide message with worldwide importance and depicting Christ and the apostles as compartmentalizing nuisances.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
If you would just study the entire bible, you would know that covenants were ratified by a shedding of blood. The New Covenant was ratified with the shed blood of Jesus Christ.
Hebrews 10:29
You contradict Matthew 4:4 and commit the sin warned about in Deut. 4:3, 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19
To NOT read Hebrews and Revelation is evidence of spiritual blindness.
Actually, the "parties" of the New Covenant is the Godhead, for the Father defined the Covenant of Grace; the Son performed the Covenant of Grace, and the Holy Spirit bestows and gathers in the beneficiaries of the Covenant of Grace. The New Covenant is all of God, and the saints (church) reaps the blessings and Kingdom that it promises!
Amen. This is the New Covenant that every Christian now lives under.
Speak for yourself . . .
Right Divider
Body part
If YOU would just study the entire Bible, you would not make such dumb statements like that.
Gen 9:8-17 (AKJV/PCE)
(9:8) ¶ And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, (9:9) And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; (9:10) And with every living creature that [is] with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. (9:11) And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. (9:12) And God said, This [is] the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that [is] with you, for perpetual generations: (9:13) I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. (9:14) And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: (9:15) And I will remember my covenant, which [is] between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. (9:16) And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that [is] upon the earth. (9:17) And God said unto Noah, This [is] the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that [is] upon the earth.
What blood was shed to ratify THIS covenant? Hint: none.
That is a silly and childish attempt to address what I said, or perhaps you go to Jerusalem three times a year for the feasts (or are they "just spiritual feasts" :dizzy
.Where did I ever say that I do NOT read those?
False accusations a plenty from you lairs. I read ALL of the Bible and actually understand ALL IN ITS CONTEXT!
Did you read ALL of the Bible to get that "idea"?
Jer 31:31-34 (AKJV/PCE)
(31:31) ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: (31:32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: (31:33) But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. (31:34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
You are blind and like it that way.
That was another silly thing to say.... well done!
These anti-Madists simply can not get it through their heads that MADs believe in Genesis thru Revelation.
Daniel's prayer in Daniel 9, for example, had been in light of, or from what perspective - the Law and the Prophets.
Was he neglecting any of those books written before him just because he did not mention them?
Would he have been walking in accord with the Law's strict diet restriction had he decided instead to follow Noah's largely UNrestricted diet just because Moses also wrote Genesis?
MAD is no different in its approach to how Daniel would have approached HIS diet - he would have done so in accord with Moses' diet restriction TO HIM, as one under the Law of Moses given Moses by God, not in Genesis, but many centuries later, later in Exodus.
Never mind the one more example of gaps in time in God's dealings that those three Books make obvious.
The Madist follows a course similar in principle to the one that Daniel followed within his context.
His had been the Scripture in light of the Law and the Prophets - no ham, or what have you, though that may have been permitted of Noah.
For the Madist the expression of that same principle differs in application just as it had obviously differed in application within each's - Noah's and Daniel's - particular context.
THAT is Dispensationalism - Distinctions In Identities.
The Madist's application of Noah's and Daniel's "same principle, different in application" being...
Genesis through Revelation in light of Romans thru Philemon.
When a book like Genesis had something to say that did not violate God's later, further revelation - the Law - Daniel appears to have been fine with those parts of Genesis that had continued on...
Danel 9's "Messiah the Prince" is first prophesied in Genesis 3.
While neither Adam and Eve's diet nor Noah's later in that same Book, would have been truth that Daniel would have had a right to claim for his obedience.
Likewise is the practice of this principle within MAD.
Where the application of one thing or another ANYWHERE in Scripture is in line with Romans thru Philemon, no problem.
Where although the principle is found to be the same, but not it's application, well, the Mid-Acts "Daniel" will go without the pork that is the tradition of men, no matter how many posts those confused in their "spiritual Israel" notion post against MAD's "Genesis thru Revelation in light of Romans thru Philemon."
Daniel's prayer in Daniel 9, for example, had been in light of, or from what perspective - the Law and the Prophets.
Was he neglecting any of those books written before him just because he did not mention them?
Would he have been walking in accord with the Law's strict diet restriction had he decided instead to follow Noah's largely UNrestricted diet just because Moses also wrote Genesis?
MAD is no different in its approach to how Daniel would have approached HIS diet - he would have done so in accord with Moses' diet restriction TO HIM, as one under the Law of Moses given Moses by God, not in Genesis, but many centuries later, later in Exodus.
Never mind the one more example of gaps in time in God's dealings that those three Books make obvious.
The Madist follows a course similar in principle to the one that Daniel followed within his context.
His had been the Scripture in light of the Law and the Prophets - no ham, or what have you, though that may have been permitted of Noah.
For the Madist the expression of that same principle differs in application just as it had obviously differed in application within each's - Noah's and Daniel's - particular context.
THAT is Dispensationalism - Distinctions In Identities.
The Madist's application of Noah's and Daniel's "same principle, different in application" being...
Genesis through Revelation in light of Romans thru Philemon.
When a book like Genesis had something to say that did not violate God's later, further revelation - the Law - Daniel appears to have been fine with those parts of Genesis that had continued on...
Danel 9's "Messiah the Prince" is first prophesied in Genesis 3.
While neither Adam and Eve's diet nor Noah's later in that same Book, would have been truth that Daniel would have had a right to claim for his obedience.
Likewise is the practice of this principle within MAD.
Where the application of one thing or another ANYWHERE in Scripture is in line with Romans thru Philemon, no problem.
Where although the principle is found to be the same, but not it's application, well, the Mid-Acts "Daniel" will go without the pork that is the tradition of men, no matter how many posts those confused in their "spiritual Israel" notion post against MAD's "Genesis thru Revelation in light of Romans thru Philemon."
Nang
TOL Subscriber
The covenant of the rainbow promising no further judgments with floods is part of the New Covenant of Jesus Christ . . for Noah had found grace from God. Genesis 6:8
Noah lived under the Covenant of Grace which was ratified with the blood of Jesus Christ.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Right Divider
Body part
Nang
TOL Subscriber
I gave you Scripture. Genesis 6:8 plainly says Noah knew the grace of God (which never comes from being under the old Covenant of Works). And for that reason, Noah and his sanctified family were spared God's wrath and judgment of the waters.
God is a Covenant God and His dealings with men is always according to either the Old Covenant (Law) or the New Covenant (grace).
The entire biblical account reveals this truth . . .
...given the stye your eye.
Right Divider
Body part
You equivocate without justification. Context tells us what the words mean, not just using a word OUT of its CONTEXT.
Noah "finding grace in the eyes of the LORD" is NOT the same thing as being saved by grace through faith. Both are grace, but difference. You make a mockery of the Word of God.
When was the Old Covenant given and what happened before that?
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Nang
TOL Subscriber
I disagree.
God's grace is always salvific. Without fail.
Noah was saved by the grace of God.
You cannot deny this . . . Did not God provide life for Noah & family (see I Peter 3:20) within the safety of the ark (symbolic of Jesus Christ Himself!) while destroying the rest of the condemned world in the Judgment?
Noah was saved and gifted with faith by the grace of God:
"By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith." Hebrews 11:7
Nang
TOL Subscriber
The Old Covenant was given to Adam before the fall. See Genesis 2:16-17
ClimateSanity
New member
I'm guessing that reading comprehension skills are three grade levels higher for the average dispy than the average church goer and the IQ 20 points higher.
Have your eyes checked lady.
Interplanner
Well-known member
The essay he's referring to is pretty bad. "If you can't say something briefly, you probably don't understand it yourself." He's also long if he's insulting. Each paragraph will have its dangling sentence and that gets real cluttered by the time you get to the end.
It is very condescending to say 'this is what Romans through Philemon says' when the person is merely trying to support 2P2P in Matthew through Acts. It is ignorant. D'ism is a Bible chopped beyond recognition.
It is very condescending to say 'this is what Romans through Philemon says' when the person is merely trying to support 2P2P in Matthew through Acts. It is ignorant. D'ism is a Bible chopped beyond recognition.
That's right, exactly. Dispies can comprehend and simply understand better than the average Joe. In fact, better than 99% of the entire world