You have that commitment from me Idolater.
The Gospel of the Kingdom and the plot twist.
- Thread starter Nick M
- Start date
I've been keeping an eye on TOL for the past few years, and the the one thing that ALL of the people who disagree with MAD have in common is that they ALL completely miss or ignore the "no longer" part.
The key to understanding the Bible is Jesus was circumcised.
If one does not start there (and starting with God is always a good thing!), you CANNOT understand the Bible.
@Idolater The ONLY authority we have comes from God, and then directly from Scripture.
"The Plot" is NOT authoritative in the sense that you mean it, in the way that you think that the Catechism is "authoritative."
It IS, however, authoritative in that, compared to any other work written by men and NOT directly inspired by God (as Scripture is), it compresses (I'd use "condense," but that sort of implies that some material is left out) Bob's 35+ years (the Second Edition of The Plot was finished just before he passed) of Bible study into a three-hundred page book, in a manner that is easily accessible and even easier to understand, while still taking into account EVERYTHING that is in the Bible.
I don't know of any errors in it, if there are any. But it is internally consistent, and consistent with what the Bible teaches.
Bob said that if there was one thing He would ask God before he died, it's if there was any error in what he taught. That principle of wanting to teach what is right is evident in "The Plot."
I would go so far as to say that, if there ARE any errors in what he taught, and/or what is written in "The Plot," they are not significant enough to affect the rest of what he taught. And that's the same argument I make about the Bible itself: That any errors contained within do not affect the overarching story, the plot, of the Bible, the overview, which is a testament to how well it is written, and why it was written as a book, and not just a list of principles for people to follow. I'd even go so far as to say that it is second only to the Bible itself: you will never obtain a better understanding or overview of the Bible (aside from just reading the Bible itself) through any other man-made document than "The Plot."
I cannot give it any higher praise than that, for to do so would put it on the same level as the Bible, and I refuse to do that, and is something I caution @Jefferson and anyone else in calling "The Plot" authoritative, as explained above, which is by no means an exhaustive list.
Idolater, the only way you're going to find out whether "The Plot" is worth reading or not is to just read it. It WILL open your eyes.
Of course. That's what I meant. I assumed that went without saying. I obviously have a much less lofty definition of the word "authoritative" than Idolater since I did not grow up Catholic. Certainly Bob might have made some off-handed comment on some minor side issue I might disagree with. I've even debated Bob on his show before.
Last edited:
Okay, then I'm confused as to why Paul would continue to preach in the synagogues if Israel was cut off at the stoning of Stephen.
Even up to chapter 19
(Acts 19:8 KJV) And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.
That doesn't sound like someone who understood that Israel was cut off. Now I had previously put the pivot point in chapter 13, but had to reconsider given the above verse.
(Acts 13:46-47 KJV) Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.
Hey, it's a valid question.
Rhema
(Exodus 33:19 KJV) And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.
(Romans 9:14-15 KJV) What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
Sounds more like humans cannot understand the justice of God.
(John 16:7-8 KJV) Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
Rhema
I don't.
I know MAD does say that, and you know it.
One will repeatedly see MAD say that the gospel preached to the circumcision is a different gospel than preached to the uncircumcision.
Wrong.
Who is "our" ?
No, that describes the bible, not the book that Bob wrote about the bible.
No.
Nonsense.
The only authoritative anything that ANY Christian has is the bible itself. Just as your Pope's have not been infallible, Bob was not infallible. A major differences being that Bob never claimed to be infallible and if he made an error, in the book or anywhere else, then he wanted to be corrected more than anyone.
Having said that, Bob's treatment of the material is the clearest and most thorough that I've read - by far. His argument is the most eloquent I've ever heard for ANY doctrine of any stripe that I've ever even heard of. If you can refute a syllable of it, I'll be very much surprised, but I'd hear it eagerly.
Commit to what?
The one thing you do not have to worry about is that anyone who recommends that book is going to be intellectually dishonest about discussing it with someone that they've convinced to actually read it.
That's all the commitment you'll get from me, which is no more or less than you typically get from me anyway.
If that were actually true, you'd have acknowledged "a problem with Catholicism" a very long time ago. The mere fact that you think its authoritative is itself a problem.
No. That's just acknowledging the context of the passage. That isn't dispensationalism, that just called "reading". Your own priest would agree with that much!
Look, just read the book. Pretend that you've just got it all completely wrong and that you know nothing at all about dispensationalism whatsoever. Evaluate the arguments in the book ON THEIR OWN MERIT, not on whatever it is you think he might be leading towards. Based on what you've said here on TOL, you have a very distorted understanding of what dispensationalism teaches and I'd advise against trusting anything you think you know about it. Not that you don't have part of it correct but only that you have enough wrong that it make sense just to start fresh. If you read Bob's book, you will have a very clear understanding of what Mid-Acts Dispensationalism teaches and why they teach it.
And don't skip ahead, by the way! It will only lead to confusion if you do. At the very least, read all of the first four chapters before reading anything else in the book. After that, if you want to skip ahead at all, then read chapters 7 & 8 next but you'll do best if you just read it straight through.
Clete
Past tense!
There is no way that you'll ever convince me that you aren't mixing tenses on purpose. Your goal is confuse and obfuscate not to understand or discuss.
Says the lying fool.
How does ANY of this in any way refute what I said?
Justice is not irrational.
Just because YOU have a hard time understanding justice doesn't mean that humans cannot understand justice.
Justice is justice. Something is either just or it is unjust. There is no in-between. There is no "greater" or "lesser" justice.
Right Divider
Body part
My apology. I should have said that you seem to be completely ignorant of Mid Acts Dispensational doctrine.
You've certainly given that impression.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
MAD says that the gospel of the kingdom that Christ gave to the twelve is different from the gospel of the grace of God that God gave to Paul.
That is a fact.
Only because it is.
The twelve were able to preach the gospel of the kingdom to Israel for YEARS without knowing anything about the death of Christ.
Can we preach the gospel of the grace of God without preaching Christ's death? NO!!
Yes, Tambora, you do.
Jesus said:
“If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true.There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true. - John 5:31-32 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John5:31-32&version=NKJV
You are bearing witness of yourself. I'm telling you, as a secondary (or perhaps tertiary, as others in this thread and board have made the same observation to you) witness that you are, in fact, mashing the two gospels together, by saying that Peter, et al, and Paul taught the same thing. Two or three witnesses are needed to establish a matter.
That's literally what you do BY DEFINITION!
You, and people like you who reject dispensationalism, in rejecting dispensationalism, mash the two covenants that God made together, and obfuscate the distinctions between the two dispensations, saying they're the same, and try to make them fit together, when they do not.
They were active at the same time, but they were not, ARE NOT, the same.
The group of believers with whom we fellowship. Our canon is adopted from the Church of the East that was started by the Apostle Thomas in Parthia (i.e. Persia).
(Check out the table of contents.)
TheAramaicScriptures.com
The Holy Aramaic Scriptures: With a literal English translation and transliteration of The Eastern Peshitta New Testament Text, such as given in The Khabouris Codex.
www.thearamaicscriptures.com
Kindly,
Rhema
That's a LOT of conjecture being placed on one verse.
And just why wouldn't the following be the proper reference for Stephen in Acts 7?
(Deuteronomy 18:5 KJV) For the LORD thy God hath chosen him out of all thy tribes, to stand to minister in the name of the LORD, him and his sons for ever.
Jesus was standing to minister in the name of the LORD to Stephen.
Expanding the body posture of Jesus to encompass some "judgment" on the entirety of all Jews is a bit, well.... rather too expansive.
Rhema
(Acts 7:57 KJV) Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,