ECT MAD's Interp Misake

I

Interplanner

Well-known member
One of the interpretive rules of the Reformation, collected and illustrated by Ramm, was "the systematic overrules the incidental."

I don't think I've mentioned my observation that now that I have heard the "best" explanation of MAD, it breaks this rule. It is trying to go through the day-by-day events of a few chapters in Acts, in slow motion, and find little 'dispensational' shifts month by month among the apostles. This in turn makes things like Paul's participation in a ritual in Acts 21 to be "theological" statement, when in fact, it may only be a socially strategic act to get the attention of the leader in Judaism and/or in Roman admin which Paul was led to speak to.
 
patrick jane

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
Interplanner said:
One of the interpretive rules of the Reformation, collected and illustrated by Ramm, was "the systematic overrules the incidental."

I don't think I've mentioned my observation that now that I have heard the "best" explanation of MAD, it breaks this rule. It is trying to go through the day-by-day events of a few chapters in Acts, in slow motion, and find little 'dispensational' shifts month by month among the apostles. This in turn makes things like Paul's participation in a ritual in Acts 21 to be "theological" statement, when in fact, it may only be a socially strategic act to get the attention of the leader in Judaism and/or in Roman admin which Paul was led to speak to.
Click to expand...

[h=2]MAD's Interp Misake[/h]
Misake?
 
chrysostom

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Interplanner said:
One of the interpretive rules of the Reformation, collected and illustrated by Ramm, was "the systematic overrules the incidental."

I don't think I've mentioned my observation that now that I have heard the "best" explanation of MAD, it breaks this rule.
Click to expand...

it also breaks the common sense rule
 
D

Danoh

New member
chrysostom said:
it also breaks the common sense rule
Click to expand...

You mean YOUR "sense" of what is, or should be held as the "common sense" of things between people on a particular matter - in your case, on this issue.

For that is what the phrase "common sense" actually is - a sense of what goes with what, or should.

A sense held common or the same by a collective of people.

There was a time where it made sense to all that the best way to get from point a to point b was by horse.

With the invention of the auto-mobile; that sense of that - then commonly held by most - began to change...drastically.
 
Nick M

Nick M

Born that men no longer die
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Go ahead and tell us what these really mean.

18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”

11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.”

7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter
 
D

Danoh

New member
Interplanner will assert that Acts 15:11's "shall be" is in the present sense.

At least on this point, I have to agree.

It is in the present sense.

Even without having to resort to the Greek.

Galatians 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? 2:15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Danoh said:
You mean YOUR "sense" of what is, or should be held as the "common sense" of things between people on a particular matter - in your case, on this issue.

For that is what the phrase "common sense" actually is - a sense of what goes with what, or should.

A sense held common or the same by a collective of people.

There was a time where it made sense to all that the best way to get from point a to point b was by horse.

With the invention of the auto-mobile; that sense of that - then commonly held by most - began to change...drastically.
Click to expand...


but this technological analogy is the opposite direction we want to go. We don't want the newest, smoothest, technique. We want to strip away minds from what is actually there. The interp principle is valuable for that.
 
way 2 go

way 2 go

Well-known member
Nick M said:
Go ahead and tell us what these really mean.

18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”

11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.”

7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter
Click to expand...

:sherlock:

looks like a system
 
D

Danoh

New member
Interplanner said:
but this technological analogy is the opposite direction we want to go. We don't want the newest, smoothest, technique. We want to strip away minds from what is actually there. The interp principle is valuable for that.
Click to expand...

The new technology of the automobile analogy was not the point.

I was pointing out a principle.

But typical of your school; you mistook the example to be what I was talking about.

No surprise there; not in light of the absolute mess that your school has made of the difference between the literal and the literal through symbolism.

The point, bookworm; was the difference between one commonly held standard of measure and another.

Had I used instead the resulting meaning to the word "mouse" that the PC resulted in, you would have concluded I was talking about computers.

:chuckle:
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
No, you went toward a modern idea in the philosophic sense in which the text is nonsense and you have to provide your own meaning out of your existence, which is now the 'fact' that 'Israel' has existed for 70 years and is therefore--ka-ching-- what Acts 2 was about.

The historic way of reading the material never goes toward D'ism MADism or 2P2P.
 
D

Danoh

New member
Interplanner said:
No, you went toward a modern idea in the philosophic sense in which the text is nonsense and you have to provide your own meaning out of your existence, which is now the 'fact' that 'Israel' has existed for 70 years and is therefore--ka-ching-- what Acts 2 was about.

The historic way of reading the material never goes toward D'ism MADism or 2P2P.
Click to expand...

No, o ever clueless one - neither Acts 2 is about modern Israel, nor do Acts 2 Dispies assert it is.

You and your man-made "historic way" (actually, short for endless books "about").
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top