I have as well. So, now you attend a church that 'despises'
Despensatioalism? What principles does your present church
stand by? Grace? Works? Calvinistic approach? Liberal? What?
Nang's SPOTD is Tet's Hit Out of the Park!
- Thread starter Nang
- Start date
- Status
I have as well. So, now you attend a church that 'despises'
Despensatioalism? What principles does your present church
stand by? Grace? Works? Calvinistic approach? Liberal? What?
Somehow you Dispies think that Dispensationalism is the only doctrine that teaches faith only and grace.
Take away the Science Fiction eschatology and the demarcation line between the Jews and the church from Dispensationalism, and most Dispie churches are spot on when it comes to Paul's gospel regarding faith and grace.
So, except the difference between how the House of Israel and
the Body of Christ have two different messages, you're okay
with the Grace message that, one must first; hear the message,
then, place ones faith in Christ, be sealed by the Holy Spirit and
baptized (by the Holy Spirit) into the Body of Christ?
drbrumley
Well-known member
I didn't ask about them. I asked you when the church started.
So, you would agree that, Dispensationalists are in the Body of Christ,
in your opinion?
Your problem here is you insist that Dipensationalism is all one thing. Darby, I'm guessing, was Acts 2. and according to Wiki he defended Calvinism.
I happen to be Mid Acts and an open view Christian.
The truth is Christianity is all over the place and anyone who disagrees with you is off base.
:first:
Tet made it clear some time ago in this thread that he does consider Dispensationalists to be saved. Continuing on that line of questioning is almost as disruptive as his referring to the theology of some he considers to be saved as Satanic.
Why does it feel like everything you ask is intended as a trick question?
All my good works come from loving others because I love the Father. Love is a fruit of the Spirit.
Perhaps, since we are "all over the place..scrambling like cockroaches," according to you, who claims that you'd never name call, "personally attack" us with "character assassination, and insults, and refer to us as liars, you can clear the fog, a mite, sweetie, so we won't guess, on all these "inventions," according to you, as to when "the church" began.
.
"According to MAD the above verse isn't for us."-Tet
vs.
"I believe the Apostle Paul's teachings are mostly for those of us who live post 70AD"-Tet.
Lay out as to just what these "mostly for" teachings of Paul, are for us, and why. That way, we can understand when "the church" started, and perhaps "call it a day," declare "class dismissed," throw away all of our "Darby..Bullinger" books, SOF's, we all obviously study, more than you study J. Stewart Russell, Hank Hanegraaf........................and trash our Blavatsky/Crowley witchcraft manuals, and shut down TOL, the side benefit being we would not need to hear anymore, from clearly a "man" so obsessed with allegedly disproving the dispensational approach to interpreting scripture, he spends half of his miserable existence, rumaging through the net, for....
"I've finally found something that upsets Dispensationalists more than saying "John Nelson Darby".-Craigie the Clown
....in hopes of upsetting us meanie "dispies," who hurt his feelings, are not "nice" to him.
The weasel will punt, and then go into his "Not one dispie............" blah blah blah act/con game/deceptive ploy.
Watch.
Do be a dear-I've been asking you for 2 years:
Lay out as to just what these "mostly for" teachings of Paul, are for us, and why.
Craigie the Clown:
Last edited:
Observe the deception, sophistry, again-one of his "arguments" of sophistry, against Dispensationalism, as to why it is a "false belief system...dangerous"(his words):
"Dipensationalism is all over the place, when it comes to when the church started."
Thus, he "argues," and has "argued" this, ever since he arrived in TOL Dodge, as an example of what happens to a "man," who isolates himself, in a soundproof room, that, since we cannot agree, on a particular doctrine(s), it is therefore false.
An atheist, Muslim, deluded Hare Krishna monk in Pittsburgh, PA, part of the millennial kingdom in which we are obviously living right now,.........to Tet:
You "Christians are "all over the place, when it comes to...(fill in the blank of any doctrine, amongst hundreds, upon which members of the boc disagree)."
Therefore, Christianity is a false believe system.
Craigiie Corkie the Clown:Er, yes, but, well, uh, urr,.....Have you read John Nelson Darby?
Craigie Corkie the Clown "argues" that Christianity is false.
Deceiving, obsessed punk-even he realizes it.
And the w/o spine wimp will tell us what Calvinists believe, but not if they are a "false belief system." That is, he is so obsessed with "upsetting" those meanie dispies, and protecting the world from it's obvious "danger," he will not rebuke, "call out" the false doctrines, perversions, of other "groups," no matter what, as long as they are "non Dispensational."
This is clearly a two faced actor, hypocrite, troubled, insane "man," who can't think straight.
musterion
Well-known member
Most in the 1800s, if they were dispensational at all, assumed Body of Christ started in Acts 2. I'm pretty sure Darby did, as later did Scofield and Chafer, and as most dispensationalists do today.
The primary early exceptions I'm aware of were Bullinger and Anderson, who were mid-Acts (Anderson) and mid-late (Bullinger, depending on who you ask). Welch and others were Acts 28 but that was a slightly later development, post-midActs.
The mid-Acts movement really hit its stride in the '20s and '30s, when even the vaunted Harry Ironside was - believe it or not - as mid-Acts as anyone. Then he flipped to Acts 2, nastily, but that's another story.
Point is, Tetzo paints all dispies as Darbyites or Bullingerites without any distinction, showing (a) how clueless and lazy he is and (b) that it doesn't matter to him WHAT kind of dispie people are. Anyone who sees the distinction between the Body and Israel is his enemy because he's convinced he is Israel, so he won't tolerate contradiction. He can't afford to: it's the foundation of everything he believes. The residue of covenant theology (from Rome, ultimately) is the cause of almost every problem besetting the Body of Christ, and it's why dispensationalism has always been opposed as if it's from the Devil himself, instead of exactly what Paul taught.
The primary early exceptions I'm aware of were Bullinger and Anderson, who were mid-Acts (Anderson) and mid-late (Bullinger, depending on who you ask). Welch and others were Acts 28 but that was a slightly later development, post-midActs.
The mid-Acts movement really hit its stride in the '20s and '30s, when even the vaunted Harry Ironside was - believe it or not - as mid-Acts as anyone. Then he flipped to Acts 2, nastily, but that's another story.
Point is, Tetzo paints all dispies as Darbyites or Bullingerites without any distinction, showing (a) how clueless and lazy he is and (b) that it doesn't matter to him WHAT kind of dispie people are. Anyone who sees the distinction between the Body and Israel is his enemy because he's convinced he is Israel, so he won't tolerate contradiction. He can't afford to: it's the foundation of everything he believes. The residue of covenant theology (from Rome, ultimately) is the cause of almost every problem besetting the Body of Christ, and it's why dispensationalism has always been opposed as if it's from the Devil himself, instead of exactly what Paul taught.
“Thou hast spoken well,… Thou hast well said, (Exodus 10:29 KJV, John 4:17 KJV).
Any predictions on his "response?"
Vegas has it at 2/1, some flavor of "No one taught....Darby...Bullinger...you're in denial....," and 3/1 "Not one dispie can answer...."
musterion
Well-known member
A demand to explain some random, irrelevant verse from Habakkuk, probably, then several victorious "See?!" posts when it's ignored.
I'm betting, as a 10/1 long shot, something along the lines of this stumper, since it has NADA to do with the subject, but that has never phased this clown before:
"So, they were saved, but not technically until 70AD."-"expert" moron Craigie on "salvation"
musterion
Well-known member
Please tell me you made that up.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Well, not quite . . . Darby, at one point, defended the doctrine of Predestination, but he never was Reformed in his overall views.
I do not know your estimation and opinion of Charles Spurgeon, but Wiki also reveals Spurgeon was in opposition to Darby:
"Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle and contemporary of Darby, published criticism of Darby and Brethrenism.[15] His main criticism was that Darby and the Plymouth Brethren rejected the vicarious purpose of Christ's obedience as well as imputed righteousness. He viewed these of such importance and so central to the gospel that it led him to this statement about the rest of their belief."
This is one of the major reasons we left the Plymouth Brethren and their dispensational teachings.
The doctrine of "Imputed Righteousness" is foundational to the Reformed view, Covenant Theology, and the preaching of the one true Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Without the legal imputation of Christ's righteousness to the individual sinner, there is no redemption nor salvation from God.
- Status