1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Au contraire, all you madists think Paul had to hatch folks rather than travail in birth.
ECT There is only one Gospel
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
Au contraire, all you madists think Paul had to hatch folks rather than travail in birth.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Believe it or not, I thought of that before I posted
Want a cookie :chuckle:
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Nope.:jawdrop:
But as my wife just got home from work, I'd like sumpthin' similar sounding. :Wamba:
musterion
Well-known member
Paul warned believers to reject and avoid the divisive after one or two admonitions. What he would consider dissension - dissent from what? - and how the admonition and rejection should look, isn't agreed upon and is obeyed consistently by almost no one on TOL. But Paul still said it. This site would largely cease to exist if it were obeyed.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Nicely done, sir!Are you saying the trichotomous view is akin to superstition?
AMR
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Interplanner
Well-known member
What does a Dispensationalist believe in your opinion? How does it differ from what you believe?
Interplanner
Well-known member
"The sine qua none of Dispensationalism is that there are two separate programs throughout the Bible--one for Israel and one for the church." --Ryrie in D'ism Today.
I grew up believing that until I actually read Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians as is instead of things to cherry pick for personal Christian growth inspirations.
At the D'ist college I attended, I realized that theology was something they created; it was not to be found in the NT itself. No that was far too complex for a person; you "needed" them.
I grew up believing that until I actually read Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians as is instead of things to cherry pick for personal Christian growth inspirations.
At the D'ist college I attended, I realized that theology was something they created; it was not to be found in the NT itself. No that was far too complex for a person; you "needed" them.
So, you ought to be able to answer this question easily. What does a Dispensationalist believe in your opinion? How does it differ from what you believe?
At the same time; this site is a forum: a site for the open exchange and or challenging of understandings.
The rules of the game, so to speak, will differ from those, say, in a local assembly, where debate is the exception; not the norm.
Though I heard of an assembly sometime back that was trying out a kind of a debate approach within their assembly.
Their Pastor would preach a sermon followed by time allowed for whomever wished to express their difference of opinion.
Not sure how that turned out though. But it would appear that could only end in chaos.
Paul himself was often perceived as being divisive and run out of one place or another; and often in real danger.
And he has been perceived as such by some not only over the centuries; but continues to be perceived as such by some to this very day.
The issue is ever the same in these kinds of things - as in all areas of life - one man's perception and or understanding of a thing, is perceived by another as anything but; and visa versa.
Seems its always been that way; in all walks if life...
As with many of those men; you took one thing to be another; followed by your turning to another of a different kind; in your mind.
Trading in one thing turned into a sacred cow set in stone, for another.
In reality, you're just one more individual too close to his one tree, to see that he is actually surounded by a forest of distinctions between things that differ in key aspects.
And in life, we each end up one version of that; or another.
In this, it is often best to be somewhat "more or less" on a thing.
To strive to ever keep an open mind; at the same time that one feels one has concluded on a thing.
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
If you had read and believed the NT, you would have no problem seeing two groups:
1. This group receives the atonement when the LORD returns
2. This group has already received the atonement
They cannot be the same.
You want them to be the same, and that's where all of your problems begin.
I'm sorry but I find this almost impossible to believe.
First of all, Ryrie's "sine qua none" is far more than what you stated. It includes...
1. A clear distinction between Israel and the Church.
2. The consistent use of literal interpretation.
3. A concerted emphasis on the glory of God as the underlying purpose for His actions. (Dispensationalism Today [1965], 43, 44).
Personally, I'd argue with the third point, I think. I'd had to read more fully to understand just what Ryrie means by that but my intuition tells me that there's a flavor of Calvinism in that comment. God's actions do bring Him glory but that doesn't have to be the goal of the action in order for it to be the truth. God is not a narcissist.
But that somewhat paraphrased quotation of Ryrie could have been retrieved from the internet almost instantly. It's the rest of your statement that doesn't ring true to me.
No one grows up as a dispensationalist and then decides to drop it after reading Paul's epistles. That comment was clearly false. Further, it is a defining characteristic of the Dispensationalist to NOT cherry pick the scriptures. Sort of the whole point of Dispensationalism is consistency. Consistency in the plain reading of scripture as well as consistency in the rational interpretation and application of it in the formulation of doctrine as well as in the understanding of our relationship with God. Consistency is THE defining hallmark of the Dispensational system.
And your last comment I know for a fact is simply a lie. I can't tell if you just made it up as you wrote it, or if it's a lie you've been telling yourself for whatever reason but Dispensationalism is the opposite of complex! It's the Calvinims of the world that are twisted messes of intellectual knots that no one but ivory tower, seminary faculty lounge fat heads can "understand".
The simple need a teacher is true of all doctrinal systems (Romans 10:14), but you sure don't need any college or seminary to understand Dispensationalism. You can grab any 150-page book off the shelf of practically any bookstore and read it and you'll get it. You can read Bob Enyart's 'The Plot' and you will literally know more about the bible than 90% of people getting paid money to preach sermons every Sunday. There are even individual threads on this website that do a quite thorough job of explaining the basics principles of the Dispensational system. It isn't nearly the massively complex system you pretend it to be and one certainly does not need a college education to understand or to apply it.
Resting in Him,
Clete
I have no idea what your beef with Donah is and I'm not sure that I really care but you might want to explain yourself a little more clearly because it looks to me like you are the one attacking a fellow Mid-Acts Dispensationalists.
I've never had cause to have any issue with Danoh but I don't read every post and I'm not saying that you're wrong or right about Danoh because I literally have no idea what you're referencing. I'm just saying that without context, your comments SEEM somewhat hypocritical. I think you'd do yourself a favor by explaining in a bit more detail just what you find so problematic.
Respectfully,
Clete
musterion
Well-known member
Which (making them the same) is where all the anti-eternal security, "persevere or else" and works salvationist types come from.
musterion
Well-known member
Having been among them once, I totally get it, as all MADs do. They're taught to invest doctrinal faith in the dire warnings they've had preached at them from Israel's biblical content, and so are left to do what they can about the resulting contradictions with grace. Usually, pretend they contradictions aren't there, or diminish/ignore Paul by somehow drafting him into the 12. A few go as far as questioning whether Paul was even an apostle.
But along comes something like MAD, merrily offering solutions to those contradictions by questioning the foundations of that mislaid doctrinal faith. So you find yourself conflicted -- you can't not see some of the correct points dispensationalism raises but, based on your prior programming, to question what you always believe (ta-da!) puts you at grave risk of "falling away" or something. So dispensationalism must be rejected a priori and (as far as TOL is an indicator) is hated above pretty much every other system.
It's a mental loop, a trap, a form of having been taken captive by vain philosophies, and it works very well. I have firsthand knowledge of this: I once threw Stam's book across the room and wrote in a margin, "I WILL NEVER BELIEVE WHAT THESE PEOPLE TEACH."
But along comes something like MAD, merrily offering solutions to those contradictions by questioning the foundations of that mislaid doctrinal faith. So you find yourself conflicted -- you can't not see some of the correct points dispensationalism raises but, based on your prior programming, to question what you always believe (ta-da!) puts you at grave risk of "falling away" or something. So dispensationalism must be rejected a priori and (as far as TOL is an indicator) is hated above pretty much every other system.
It's a mental loop, a trap, a form of having been taken captive by vain philosophies, and it works very well. I have firsthand knowledge of this: I once threw Stam's book across the room and wrote in a margin, "I WILL NEVER BELIEVE WHAT THESE PEOPLE TEACH."