ECT Obsolete, aging and soon disappearing: why MAD is pointless

D

DAN P

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
Why do I call it pointless?

1, yesterday I found out that Mr Thought Police about reading 'other books' HAS BEEN READING OTHER BOOKS this whole time!

2, yesterday I found out that the big contradiction that MAD was supposed to have solved was James 2 about faith. Honestly, the density of these people. It is not a contradiction with Rom 4. James 2 is a question of whether faith is dead, Rom 4 is not. How can the two passages contradict?

I am seeking to know why the pop MAD teacher Del ___ said that in 68 everyone left Paul, and whether he meant they went back to Judaism, or just away from his letters and justification as in Romans/Gal/Phil/2 Cor. Also whether he meant those in Judea, where the pressure to conform to radical Judaism peaked that year. This is a new question to me. He mentions it in his presentation linked at the other thread on Gal 2.

I also think his chronology has problems. The confrontation of Peter in Gal 2 was not Acts 9. Peter, therefore, strayed more than once.
Click to expand...


Hi and in 1 Tim 4:6-14 is what you should read !!

dan p
 
D

Danoh

New member
Interplanner said:
That teacher was Les Feldick.

DanP, the question was 'departed him for what?' Feldick thinks they 'went back to the gospel accounts, and dumped his letters.'
Click to expand...

Again, mr double-standard, do you and Tet agree on all things? No.

What makes you think any MAD would agree with any other MAD on all things.

Les Feldick is where he is on that. Take it up with him.

It's not my view; I know that much.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Cool down. I'm asking if anyone knows if he meant 'deserted for the gospels' or 'deserted for Judaism'. He didn't clarify in that presentation. You might know; I don't. Not everything is about (for or against) you.
 
D

Danoh

New member
Interplanner said:
Cool down. I'm asking if anyone knows if he meant 'deserted for the gospels' or 'deserted for Judaism'. He didn't clarify in that presentation. You might know; I don't. Not everything is about (for or against) you.
Click to expand...

Seriously, you actually think I need calming down - after all my icons in response to you?

Here, have another :chuckle:

Lol

Personally, I think he doesn't know what he is talking about on some of those points.

Sounds like Stam's own conspiracy theories in his (Stam's) otherwise great commentary on Galatians.

That right there is my point about the "hazards" of OVER relying on books "about."

MADs are no exception.

My point has never been against books themselves.

As with a loaded gun; it's what people too often do with books that is too often the problem.

In both cases, people too quickly rely on either too readily, too often, and to too great an extent, as their means to an end.

One should challenge the heck out of what one reads - even when one thinks it is sound!

I guess we need book control :rotfl:

Anyway, my sense is that in 2 Timothy, Paul is referring to Believers far and wide, but also, far from the Jerusalem saints. Believers who abandoned the gospel of the grace of God for the very issue Paul is found dealing with throughout just about every one of his Thirteen Epistles - a mix of Law and Grace.

To this day, it is this very "other gospel; which is not another" that appeals to the masses.

Darby writes of having been under its bondage.

As the Reformers never really broke completely free of it.

As with you - you think you are "spiritual Israel."

Ten to one you believe in some sort of conditional blessing.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Danoh said:
Seriously, you actually think I need calming down - after all my icons in response to you?

Here, have another :chuckle:

Lol

Personally, I think he doesn't know what he is talking about on some of those points.

Sounds like Stam's own conspiracy theories in his (Stam's) otherwise great commentary on Galatians.

That right there is my point about the "hazards" of OVER relying on books "about."

MADs are no exception.

My point has never been against books themselves.

As with a loaded gun; it's what people too often do with books that is too often the problem.

In both cases, people too quickly rely on either too readily, too often, and to too great an extent, as their means to an end.

One should challenge the heck out of what one reads - even when one thinks it is sound!

I guess we need book control :rotfl:

Anyway, my sense is that in 2 Timothy, Paul is referring to Believers far and wide, but also, far from the Jerusalem saints. Believers who abandoned the gospel of the grace of God for the very issue Paul is found dealing with throughout just about every one of his Thirteen Epistles - a mix of Law and Grace.

To this day, it is this very "other gospel; which is not another" that appeals to the masses.

Darby writes of having been under its bondage.

As the Reformers never really broke completely free of it.

As with you - you think you are "spiritual Israel."

Ten to one you believe in some sort of conditional blessing.
Click to expand...



Spiritual Israel has no connection to mixing Gospel and law. There were no Reformers that did not distinguish them. If they did not, they were not reforming.

Spiritual Israel means those people who have faith in the Gospel, no matter what ethne. They are mature, not under the child-trainer. They are at work in the mission of the Gospel, announced centuries earlier in the Promise and by the prophets.

'Conditional blessing?' About what?

Thanks for a topical post, instead of one about a person.

Your denial about 'books about' simply means that you want everyone to agree with you. You have to earn that. You're not doing very well.

I said yesterday that I recently was told that MAD exists to resolve James 2. Do you know of some other reason? Did it think it resolved Gospel and law--ie, those who mix them?
 
Crucible

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
I noticed that MAD likes to steal a lot from the Calvinist measure of deducing God's ~revealed vs secret will~

Students trying to teach their master :rolleyes:

Just like Arminius tried with Calvin. It's unfortunate that so many indulge in 'professional heresy'.
 
D

Danoh

New member
Interplanner said:
Spiritual Israel has no connection to mixing Gospel and law. There were no Reformers that did not distinguish them. If they did not, they were not reforming.

Spiritual Israel means those people who have faith in the Gospel, no matter what ethne. They are mature, not under the child-trainer. They are at work in the mission of the Gospel, announced centuries earlier in the Promise and by the prophets.

'Conditional blessing?' About what?

Thanks for a topical post, instead of one about a person.

Your denial about 'books about' simply means that you want everyone to agree with you. You have to earn that. You're not doing very well.

I said yesterday that I recently was told that MAD exists to resolve James 2. Do you know of some other reason? Did it think it resolved Gospel and law--ie, those who mix them?
Click to expand...

Sheesh, talk about being in darkness - what are you; a vampire :crackup:

I might as well just deal with you as you deal with the MADs - as if all are not only one size fits all Dispensationalists, but clueless.

Very well. You are a Full Preterist and clueless.

Cry foul now; you're good for that kind of a double standard :chuckle:
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Grosnick Marowbe said:
Hebrews was written to the Hebrews, remember?
Click to expand...


Find something in it that does not apply to non Jews, going forward. It was written to those who had been Hebrews, but not to them only going forward. Not one chapter is limited to them about things that are now true in the Gospel.

Are we really going to have people who think that way here?
 
D

Danoh

New member
Interplanner said:
Find something in it that does not apply to non Jews, going forward. It was written to those who had been Hebrews, but not to them only going forward. Not one chapter is limited to them about things that are now true in the Gospel.

Are we really going to have people who think that way here?
Click to expand...

Yep - Mid Acts Dispensationalism.

Which you - ever the expert amateur - are completely clueless of.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Danoh said:
Yep - Mid Acts Dispensationalism.

Which you - ever the expert amateur - are completely clueless of.
Click to expand...


It's not that I'm clueless of them; it's that they are a waste of effort and space. I can't thing of one doctrine in Hebrews applied to the current believer that is only for Jewish ones. Maybe the line about 'the land will be burnt.' What utter 2P2P nonsense, which you still refuse to admit to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top