ECT They Will Not Receive Thy Testimony: Acts 22: 17-21

[steko]

Why do you believe God's promise failed?

I don't.

Why do you believe a twisted version?

 

[steko]

Why do you believe God's promise failed?

I don't.
I believe it just like it's promised.
It's you who seek to fulfill it in some other way, not unlike Sarah trying to fulfill the promise to Abraham thru Hagar.

 

[Interplanner]

Quote Originally Posted by jamie View Post
Why do you believe God's promise failed?


I don't.
I believe it just like it's promised.
It's you who seek to fulfill it in some other way, not unlike Sarah trying to fulfill the promise to Abraham thru Hagar.





Interesting confusion. Steko, you do realize that when Paul uses Sarah vs Hagar, it is not intra-Israel, don't you? You are using the OT example to validate the old covenant all over again. You think you have improved things because of the spurious one Jamie is talking about, but you are both equidistant from the NT!

I heard the mental health amateurs earlier tonight. Hooey. all of D'ism's tenets, not just 2P2P is mistaken, all of them listed by AMR in Oatmeal's thread. They are all defiant of the NT.

So who in their right mind would NOT try to take it down and give people the food, the meat, of the Gospel of Christ and see that it gets preached instead of this dispute or this belief that there's going to be a kingdom from Jerusalem--not in the NHNE?

It is D'ism that is O/C with preserving Chafer's man-made 'system' of 2P2P to 'make the Bible make sense.'

You use the social Marxist tactics of insulting the speaker instead of rationally dealing with the things said.

You have no answer to me on Act 2:30, 13:32, 15 on Amos 9. If you butcher those, you do not have NT faith.

 

[Interplanner]

Chafer had to find sense, because he did not know that Christ was the Seed and that all promise is through him as the suffering and resurrected Christ (not a future David in jerusalem).

 

[steko]

Chafer had to find sense, because he did not know that Christ was the Seed and that all promise is through him as the suffering and resurrected Christ (not a future David in jerusalem).

Lewis Sperry Chafer knew very well that Christ was the seed through which all the promises would be fulfilled and they will be, just like GOD said.
It is you who stop short of believing that all of GOD's promises will be accomplished on the basis of Christ's finished work on the cross.
You change GOD's literal promises into metaphor which is the same as not believing them.

 

[Danoh]

Lewis Sperry Chafer knew very well that Christ was the seed through which all the promises would be fulfilled and they will be, just like GOD said.
It is you who stop short of believing that all of GOD's promises will be accomplished on the basis of Christ's finished work on the cross.
You change GOD's literal promises into metaphor which is the same as not believing them.

Leave it to IP to prove himself incompetent even at books "about."

The following is by Chafer (p. 2) - just Google the words....

pdf Lewis Sperry Chafer, D.D. President of the Evangelical...

The Abrahamic covenant anticipated both the earthly seed through Israel, and the spiritual seed that would stand related to GOD on the principle of faith. This covenant, being without human condition, simply declares the unchanging purpose of the Lord. It will be achieved in pure grace, apart from every human factor, and its accomplishments are eternal.

On the other hand, the covenant of the Mosaic law was a temporary, ad interim, dealing with GOD, which was deliberately chosen by the nation Israel, and which applied to them only. It was plainly designed to govern that people in their land, and for such time as might intervene between their acceptance of that covenant, and the coming of the promised Seed. The Seed is CHRIST. The coming of CHRIST into the world was the realization of the hope contained in the Abrahamic covenant, and, of necessity, the termination of the ad interim reign of the law.

 

[steko]

Leave it to IP to prove himself incompetent even at books "about."

The following is by Chafer (p. 2) - just Google the words....

pdf Lewis Sperry Chafer, D.D. President of the Evangelical...

Yep!

False accusations by IP.

 

[steko]

You use the social Marxist tactics of insulting the speaker instead of rationally dealing with the things said.

Yeah... I'm as mean as they come!

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Yes... obviously his obsession.

Then... he's compelsed to post.

Obselsive/compelsive... as they say.

Wonder what causes that?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Quote Originally Posted by jamie View Post
Why do you believe God's promise failed?


I don't.
I believe it just like it's promised.
It's you who seek to fulfill it in some other way, not unlike Sarah trying to fulfill the promise to Abraham thru Hagar.





Interesting confusion. Steko, you do realize that when Paul uses Sarah vs Hagar, it is not intra-Israel, don't you? You are using the OT example to validate the old covenant all over again. You think you have improved things because of the spurious one Jamie is talking about, but you are both equidistant from the NT!

I heard the mental health amateurs earlier tonight. Hooey. all of D'ism's tenets, not just 2P2P is mistaken, all of them listed by AMR in Oatmeal's thread. They are all defiant of the NT.

So who in their right mind would NOT try to take it down and give people the food, the meat, of the Gospel of Christ and see that it gets preached instead of this dispute or this belief that there's going to be a kingdom from Jerusalem--not in the NHNE?

It is D'ism that is O/C with preserving Chafer's man-made 'system' of 2P2P to 'make the Bible make sense.'

You use the social Marxist tactics of insulting the speaker instead of rationally dealing with the things said.

You have no answer to me on Act 2:30, 13:32, 15 on Amos 9. If you butcher those, you do not have NT faith.

All made up. Why?

 

[jamie]

I defend His irrevocable promise to David almost daily and every Sunday night during four hours of teaching.

I promised to pay rent each month without fail.

How many months can I skip?

Or does without fail mean without fail?

"I promised David your father, saying, 'You shall not fail to have a man on the throne of Israel.'"

 

[Interplanner]

Lewis Sperry Chafer knew very well that Christ was the seed through which all the promises would be fulfilled and they will be, just like GOD said.
It is you who stop short of believing that all of GOD's promises will be accomplished on the basis of Christ's finished work on the cross.
You change GOD's literal promises into metaphor which is the same as not believing them.

Then he said the bible was confusing because of what?

You will not find the literal plan validated by the NT. just read the ending of Hebrews 11-13. By literal, I mean in this normal line of history, at the end of it of course. The NT means in the NHNE. Where ordinary corporeality is not like what we think of now; God is the temple; there is no marriage, etc.

What D'ism fails on has been listed many times, the most important are:
1, David foresaw the resurrection as the enthronement
2, the resurrection completes promises to the fathers; without real estate
3, the 'raised fallen tent' of David is the Gentiles faith.

there is no grammatical way around those three things.

People who try to bust those and find some real land restoration totally miss the direction the NT went.

Steko, your comment on the cross is confusing. I'm the one who believes the cross is the completion. I don't see anywhere in the NT where 'there will be a restoration of the land of Israel because of the cross.' People usually say it will happen because of a promise way back in Israel's history, thus missing the point of Galatians 3 about those lines.

and don't forget one of the main declarations of the sermon in Acts 13 is that the promises to David are Christ's, quoting Is 49. That sets up v32. When 'what was promised' are declared fulfilled, I don't think the land is a consideration at all; it is David's throne/reign, which Christ began, of course.

When Chafer said the twain shall not meet, he proved he had not made sense of what was bugging him about the Bible. It never will until a person sees that Christ was the Seed, and all the nations will be blessed in him, and that that is the entire theme of Scripture.

 

[Right Divider]

The entire old covenant was only a copy or shadow of the real one in Christ. There is nothing going to be in the ancient capital Jersusalem now. David saw the enthronement. He is reigning and is to be preached as that. Are you doing that?

Made up by the great fiction writer and glamour scholar, Interplanner.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Then he said the bible was confusing because of what?

You will not find the literal plan validated by the NT. just read the ending of Hebrews 11-13. By literal, I mean in this normal line of history, at the end of it of course. The NT means in the NHNE. Where ordinary corporeality is not like what we think of now; God is the temple; there is no marriage, etc.

What D'ism fails on has been listed many times, the most important are:
1, David foresaw the resurrection as the enthronement
2, the resurrection completes promises to the fathers; without real estate
3, the 'raised fallen tent' of David is the Gentiles faith.

there is no grammatical way around those three things.

People who try to bust those and find some real land restoration totally miss the direction the NT went.

Steko, your comment on the cross is confusing. I'm the one who believes the cross is the completion. I don't see anywhere in the NT where 'there will be a restoration of the land of Israel because of the cross.' People usually say it will happen because of a promise way back in Israel's history, thus missing the point of Galatians 3 about those lines.

and don't forget one of the main declarations of the sermon in Acts 13 is that the promises to David are Christ's, quoting Is 49. That sets up v32. When 'what was promised' are declared fulfilled, I don't think the land is a consideration at all; it is David's throne/reign, which Christ began, of course.

When Chafer said the twain shall not meet, he proved he had not made sense of what was bugging him about the Bible. It never will until a person sees that Christ was the Seed, and all the nations will be blessed in him, and that that is the entire theme of Scripture.

Totally made up.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

and don't forget one of the main declarations of the sermon in Acts 13 is that the promises to David are Christ's, quoting Is 49. That sets up v32. When 'what was promised' are declared fulfilled, I don't think the land is a consideration at all; it is David's throne/reign, which Christ began, of course.

Made up, as usual.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

3, the 'raised fallen tent' of David is the Gentiles faith.

Completely made up. What's wrong with you?

 

[Right Divider]

The main priority of @Interplanner is to prove MAD wrong.

By beating up his straw-man built of lies.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

People who try to bust those and find some real land restoration totally miss the direction the NT went.

For the 29,727th time, the NT was concerned with the city and the heavens.

Show us the land cancellation for those it was promised to, and we will shut up.

 

[Right Divider]

Quote Originally Posted by jamie View Post
Why do you believe God's promise failed?

I don't.
I believe it just like it's promised.
It's you who seek to fulfill it in some other way, not unlike Sarah trying to fulfill the promise to Abraham thru Hagar.

Interesting confusion. Steko, you do realize that when Paul uses Sarah vs Hagar, it is not intra-Israel, don't you? You are using the OT example to validate the old covenant all over again. You think you have improved things because of the spurious one Jamie is talking about, but you are both equidistant from the NT!

I heard the mental health amateurs earlier tonight. Hooey. all of D'ism's tenets, not just 2P2P is mistaken, all of them listed by AMR in Oatmeal's thread. They are all defiant of the NT.

So who in their right mind would NOT try to take it down and give people the food, the meat, of the Gospel of Christ and see that it gets preached instead of this dispute or this belief that there's going to be a kingdom from Jerusalem--not in the NHNE?

It is D'ism that is O/C with preserving Chafer's man-made 'system' of 2P2P to 'make the Bible make sense.'

You use the social Marxist tactics of insulting the speaker instead of rationally dealing with the things said.

You have no answer to me on Act 2:30, 13:32, 15 on Amos 9. If you butcher those, you do not have NT faith.

All hogwash, as usual.

 

[Right Divider]

Then he said the bible was confusing because of what?

You will not find the literal plan validated by the NT. just read the ending of Hebrews 11-13. By literal, I mean in this normal line of history, at the end of it of course. The NT means in the NHNE. Where ordinary corporeality is not like what we think of now; God is the temple; there is no marriage, etc.

What D'ism fails on has been listed many times, the most important are:
1, David foresaw the resurrection as the enthronement
2, the resurrection completes promises to the fathers; without real estate
3, the 'raised fallen tent' of David is the Gentiles faith.

there is no grammatical way around those three things.

People who try to bust those and find some real land restoration totally miss the direction the NT went.

Steko, your comment on the cross is confusing. I'm the one who believes the cross is the completion. I don't see anywhere in the NT where 'there will be a restoration of the land of Israel because of the cross.' People usually say it will happen because of a promise way back in Israel's history, thus missing the point of Galatians 3 about those lines.

and don't forget one of the main declarations of the sermon in Acts 13 is that the promises to David are Christ's, quoting Is 49. That sets up v32. When 'what was promised' are declared fulfilled, I don't think the land is a consideration at all; it is David's throne/reign, which Christ began, of course.

When Chafer said the twain shall not meet, he proved he had not made sense of what was bugging him about the Bible. It never will until a person sees that Christ was the Seed, and all the nations will be blessed in him, and that that is the entire theme of Scripture.

Complete and utter nonsense.