ECT What's MAD?
- Thread starter ARMcCarley
- Start date
heir
TOL Subscriber
Our "central practice" is to keep the main thing, the main thing: to preach the cross as the power of God (1 Corinthians 1:18 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV) which flies in the face of "historical, orthodox Christian theology"/"fundamental Christianity" (churchianity) represented by these (2 Corinthians 11:13-15 KJV) all over the world.
Amen.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Did no one understand the OT until the NT came along to tell us how to read it?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Patternology has it's place, as Holford showed, but neither 2P2P nor preterism is invincible in regards to subsequent falsification if one is prematurely combobulated into an erroneous vein of thought, leading us away from Gen 24:64 and into darkenessosity. Agreed?
Right Divider
Body part
Please elaborate on that piece of confusion.
I am ALREADY seated in heavenly places in Christ.
You, like so many, have a fixation on being part of Israels program when you should get on board with what God is doing NOW.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
:up:
That's his main problem. He's obsessed with being a part of a church that he cannot get into to save his life.
I don't know why anyone would disagree with that.
May I also say that you have a wonderful way with words in communicating to the average person with such lucidity and passion.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Communication is a lost art, going back to Babel, as Holford explains, the subjunctive thoughts that we try to relate in our speech is in contrast to counterimposing thoughts against the template of the mind and then bringing them gently out through words. Eph and Jude1A are critical in the NHNE/gospel enterprise as we are not to be duplicitous in thought or deed, but rather pensive and expressive as we seek to hold forth the breadth and depth of these truths. Agreed?
Right Divider
Body part
It's actually a bit of a split personality.
They want to be part of Israel's program and yet deny Israel's legitimate future. :doh:
Yes, I agree, but I would add that whilst holding forth the breadth and depth, one must consider that these truths are also rapidly extruded into the length and height by the mind's rexofor.
Maybe if you say it enough times, it will become true- the fact of the matter is that he had a far distant background which hardly held up when he started to be a mingling heretic with all sorts of heretical churches.
Calvinism is not an eschatological theology- the childish 'rapture' theory comes right out of Darbyism.
musterion
Well-known member
When that historical orthodox theology's most wicked and blasphemous sin is in presenting a god that lies...you're right.
Interplanner
Well-known member
The "veil" is what has to be defined. I don't think Paul thought it was inherent in the OT, but after the exile, Judaism began to read things a certain way. Veiled. I don't think Gal 3:17 is about the Law itself, but what Judaism did with it after the exile. It produced Pharisee Judaism, which I think you will agree is a problem. You just may not be as familiar with its eschatology as you should be. The veil is removed "in Christ."
Interplanner
Well-known member
Interplanner
Well-known member
There is nothing confusing about the total risk of the country in the mid-first century. Caiaphas knew what Dan 9 said and thought he could circumvent it by sacrificing Christ to pacify Rome, Jn 12. But he did not know all the issues and did not know the terms God had for preserving the land at that time. Not that I would expect him to!
It's very simple: either Israel works in the mission of the Gospel, or it is overrun by zealots in their agitation of Rome, which in turn decimates the country--which is what happened.
Please get more informed about 1st century Judean history before 'glomming' theology on it.
Interplanner
Well-known member
NOW? God is not doing anything with modern Israel. It is partly a renaissance of old covenant Judaism and partly a modern national independence movement. It is not a pouring out of the Spirit so that all flesh may see the glory of God in the face of Christ as was Pentecost and the early church.
I'm all for the nation to have independence and freedom (ie freedom from shari'a) but it has nothing to do with prophecy--not as the apostles did it, Acts 26:23, I Pet 1.
musterion
Well-known member
Would it shock you to know that most MADs, if not all, agree with pretty much every word you just said? Tet refuses to believe that so I have to wonder if you will.
Interplanner
Well-known member
That's great, but I keep hearing that there has to be a restored theocracy in the land with the worship system etc.
musterion
Well-known member
Only because we're futurists. Not because we think Israel (as it presently exists) has any claim or favor with God above any other nation. Tet refuses to grant us even that small measure of understanding but that's on him.