ECT Would MAD be more accepted if Gal 2:7 were not in the text

[musterion]

They'd take one look at him, terion of mus, and conclude, "short sale" at market-no need to "cover."

His business went under, and now he spends half of his waking day, sponging off his wife, to satisfy his daily "those mean ole bully MADists, hurt my feelings, so I'll get them" obsession.

Well, Darby ain't gonna refute himself.

 

[john w]

:dizzy:

You are using the term "wife" loosely on "post" 219. Sorry, punk; your attempts to "set me up" with her are rejected, as is your man crush on me, sweetie. Better "luck" in hell, your next stop.

 

[steko]

That quote from Ryrie is from Ryie's book " Dispensationalism Today" which was published in 1965.

Ryie was paraphrasing Daniel P. Fuller, a Presbyterian minister.

“Ignorance is bliss, and it may well be that this popularity would not be so great if the adherent of this system knew the historical background of what they teach. Few indeed realize that the teaching of Chafer came from Scofield, who in turn got it through the writings of Darby and the Plymouth Brethren.”

I've read the book.

Ryie, like most Dispies on TOL, didn't like being linked to Darby.

Having read the book, that was not apparent.
Ryrie freely admitted that Darby systematized Dispensationalism.

 

[tetelestai]

Ryrie freely admitted that Darby systematized Dispensationalism.

Yet you claim you learned it by just reading the Bible.

 

[john w]

:dizzy:

I'm needing a gopher boy, on weekends, to wash my car, and take care of a few "errands," Craigie, as, due to the market hitting record highs, I'm very busy. Interested? I'll pay you $8.12/hour-your weekly salary should pay for that 70 hours/week TOL ISP bill, and allow you to listen to "The Best of the Unbiblical Unanswer Man Hank Hannegraaf" on Netflix.

 

[john w]

Yet you claim you learned it by just reading the Bible.

You claim that you did not learn AD 70-ism/Preterism from fallible men, but from just reading the Bible, or from infallible men, sweetie.

 

[musterion]

Yet you claim you learned it by just reading the Bible.

Wow, you are an imbecile.

 

[MAD Max]

Darby Darby Darby

 

[steko]

Yet you claim you learned it by just reading the Bible.

I told you, I arrived at a dispensational understanding by reading the Bible in its plain sense long before I ever heard of Dispenstionalism, Darby, Scofield, Chafer, Walvoord, Ryrie, etc,.
Those that I've read since then have only confirmed what I already found in Scripture. I've also said that I don't walk lock-step with anyone and that I don't agree with anybody on every point.....very much less, you.

 

[john w]

Wow, you are an imbecile.

Yes, the "Big Top" Craigie circus marches on, as he is a spineless, troubled clown, in a parade of clowns, so obsessed, that he "tops" his previous scribble, with more juggling, and sophistry, and disjointed mutterings, and emotional spams of sophistry, that he can't think straight. I thought this "classic" Craigie stumper could not be topped, but he proves me wrong, every day:

"I am not here to teach, instruct, evangelize, or advise anyone."-Craigie Tet.

 

[steko]

Yet you claim you learned it by just reading the Bible.

I've been a Christian for thirty-five years.
I just now have read Ryrie's "Dispensationalism" over the last month for the first time, and largely as a result of your opposition.

Thank you! He makes a lot of sense and gives a good overview, though I don't agree with him on everything.
I highly recommend the book.

 

[john w]

Wow, you are an imbecile.

" Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
They were sealed until the Day of Redemption.

So, they were saved, but not technically until 70AD"



"Imbecile is, as imbecile does, Lt. musterion."-Forest Craigie Tetelestai

 

[john w]

I've been a Christian for thirty-five years.
I just now have read Ryrie's "Dispensationalism" over the last month for the first time, and largely as a result of your opposition.

Thank you! He makes a lot of sense and gives a good overview, though I don't agree with him on everything.
I highly recommend the book.

Watch out, Steko!!! He is armed to accuse you of "following the inventions/teachings of fallible men!!!!" Of course, he never follows men, and has infallible teachers, that taught him AD 70-ism/Preterism, and he got this "AD 70" "invention" just from reading the bible-no one ever mentioned it, until Craigie graced TOL. I seem to remember the mention of "AD 70," in Romans.....Wait....That was Daniel....Wait...That was the book of Maccabees.....Wait...Josephus mentioned it....

 

[musterion]

Okay, so, if someone was sealed until the (alleged) day of redemption 70 AD, then since that day is long past, it stands to reason no one needed to be sealed since then. If so, no one is saved, either, since Paul said all who are saved are sealed.

Like leftovers in a ziplock bag: not sealed, not saved.

Someone sure overthrew Craig's faith, whatever there was of it to begin with. Victim of a class A mindjob.

 

[steko]

Watch out, Steko!!! He is armed to accuse you of "following the inventions/teachings of fallible men!!!!" Of course, he never follows men, and has infallible teachers, that taught him AD 70-ism/Preterism, and he got this "AD 70" "invention" just from reading the bible-no one ever mentioned it, until Craigie graced TOL. I seem to remember the mention of "AD 70," in Romans.....Wait....That was Daniel....Wait...That was the book of Maccabees.....Wait...Josephus mentioned it....

You're right, he just almost had me convinced. :dizzy:

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Wow, you are an imbecile.

no more pretending you walk with Christ oK.

LA

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Wow, you are an imbecile.

Yes, he is! That's why I have him on permanent "EGGNORE!? That's
one up from; "IGNORE!"

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

no more pretending you walk with Christ oK.

LA

No more 'posting' for you, okay? We have had our fill of you!

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I told you, I arrived at a dispensational understanding by reading the Bible in its plain sense long before I ever heard of Dispenstionalism, Darby, Scofield, Chafer, Walvoord, Ryrie, etc,.
Those that I've read since then have only confirmed what I already found in Scripture. I've also said that I don't walk lock-step with anyone and that I don't agree with anybody on every point.....very much less, you.

EXCELLENT POST!

 

[Dialogos]

What I would like you to do is point out the one He made with us Gentiles during this dispensation of grace, after He quit dealing with Israel as Israel.

You mean the New Covenant, which was made with the house of Israel and Judah that Paul makes clear the believing gentiles are a part of because Christ on the cross has broken down the wall of hostility making one new man where there was two, thus making the gentiles co-heirs and fellow citizens (See Ephesians 2:1-22)?

There is a reason that Paul tells the Roman gentiles that they have been “grafted in” to the cultivated olive tree. God did not set aside the olive tree and plant some new tree, He grafted believing gentiles into the tree that had nourished the believers of the nation of Israel.
This is why Paul (the apostles to the gentiles) can call himself the minister of a new covenant (2 Cor 3:6) and why Paul instructs gentiles in the New Covenant ordinance of the Lord’s Supper (see 1 Cor 11:25).

Did you ever wonder why Paul was instructing the Corinthians in a commemoration of a covenant you don't believe they have any part of?

Struggling to reconcile these very clear truths of scripture with dispensational theology has led some dispies to claim there are two new covenants, one for Israel and one for the church.

:doh:

Hogwash!

What was He preaching in Mark 1:14?

“"The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." (Mar 1:15 ESV)[/quote]

What would have been the content of that good news?

See answer above.

Who was it intended for?

Israel until Jesus pronounced that the gospel be preached to all nations in Matthew 28.

What were they expected to do about it?

Repent, believe, be baptized. Same as today.

Grace goes all the way back to the Fall and so is not news.

And yet Paul can draw the following distinction.
But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace. (Rom 11:6 ESV)

God has extended grace since the fall of man. The issue here is what God expected the recipients of different good newses throughout history to believe or to do. THAT is what has changed over time. Grace has not.

I asked where in the bible it teaches this.
You replied:

It was good news.

It’s nice that you think this, but I don’t care what you think, I want to know where in the BIBLE we find the mosaic law referred to as a gospel.

Or is this another man made tradition that is part of the man-made superstructure dispensationalism tries to shoehorn the bible into?

Verse please… or have the honesty to admit that the only reason you believe this is because that’s what you been taught to believe.

If they met the condition, they would get the blessing.

Of course!

They didn’t.

Do you know why?

Do you believe that passage, in context, applies verbatim to us today?

Nope. And thank goodness. Because the New Covenant is a better covenant, with better promises sealed by the blood of a better Sacrifice made by a better Priest. (see pretty much the entirety of the book of Hebrews).

Works of righteousness, yes I think He did. Water baptism, for example, was a work of righteousness. It was non-negotiable. But today, it means nothing.

Paul preached works of righteousness.
Haven’t you ever gotten around to reading Ephesians 2:10?

Either you believe that Jesus preached that Israel was saved by faith plus obedience to the law or you believe that Jesus and Paul were harmonious in their soteriology.

Which is it?

On to Romans 1:2-3.

You said:

Of the core of the Gospel of the grace of God -- that is, of Christ Himself -- yes. But tell me: can someone be saved by hearing or reading and believing nothing of the Bible but Rom 1:1-5?

Yup.

If one confesses that Jesus is Lord (and truly means it) and genuinely believes that God raised Him from the dead, they are saved.

Now, if one is truly saved, the Holy Spirit will move in their lives so that they walk in the good works that God has created beforehand that they should walk in them.

Now you give some truly confusing answers:

Gentiles were cast off dogs at that point -- to whom Christ said He was not sent -- with no access to God unless they came via Israel. So your question is moot.

Huh?

You believe that Gentiles were cast off dogs at the time Paul wrote Romans?

:idunno:

Yes he did. Romans 16:25-26, where he referred to "my gospel" and said it was a secret never before revealed (Eph 3:8-9; Col 1:26). In order for Paul not to have lied about the content of his revelation being never before revealed, neither Peter nor any other man can have known it before God revealed it through Paul. Because words mean things...except, as you're sure to selectively decide, when they don't.

Where in those passages does it say that the gospel was revealed to Paul alone?

It doesn’t in Romans 16:25-26.
:nono:

Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith-- 27 to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen.
(Rom 16:25-27 ESV)​

It doesn’t say that Paul alone got the gospel of grace does it?

:nono:

Oh, Paul does call it “my gospel” and I suppose if you wanted to do some fancy pants mental gymnastics you could try and claim that this means it wasn’t Peter’s gospel, but then when you came across passages where Paul refers to Jesus as “my Lord” – like he does in Phil 3:8 – you would have to argue (to remain consistent) that this means that Jesus wasn’t Peter’s Lord.

:doh:

It doesn’t say that in Ephesians 3.

:nono:

To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things, so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. (Eph 3:8-10 ESV)​

In fact, Paul says that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known.

The Church predates the conversion of Paul as is clear from the fact that the Greek word ἐκκλησία describes the body of Christ even before Paul comes on the scene.

And it doesn’t in Col 1:26 either.

:nono:

of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known,
26 the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints.
(Col 1:25-26 ESV)​

In fact, it says that the mystery was revealed to his saints.

Is Peter one of His saints?

Hmmm.

:think:

1 Cor 1:2 says that “all those in every place that call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ…” are saints.

Did Peter do that?

:thumb:

Yup. Peter is a saint, Peter did that before Paul, and therefore the mystery is revealed to Peter as well.


Now, you try and avoid my comment here:

What Paul does say is that there isn't another gospel (Gal 1:6) and that if Peter is preaching one, he is damned (Gal 1:8). If MAD is right, Peter is burning in hell for preaching another gospel.

You say:

No. Galatians 2:8-9 addresses that. You are desperate to the point of stupidity.

You guys are so predictable. You just get insulting when you are backed against the wall theologically.

Gal 2:8-9 says that, historically, Paul was sent to the gentiles and Peter, James and John to the Jews. But Paul has already made it clear that any other gospel is a false gospel.

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
(Gal 1:6-8 ESV)​

First, verse 7 makes it clear, there is no other gospel!!!!

Second, If Peter were to come along and to preach to the Galatians a “so called” circumcision gospel that required obedience to the law to merit eternal life, then Paul says (verse 8) that he should be damned to hell for doing so.

Now you have a problem.

Because MAD has taught that Peter only preached a the gospel of the circumcision, and that 1 and 2 Peter are reflections of that unique gospel.

Peter wrote his epistles to the Galatians, 1 and 2 Peter, about 14 years later than Paul wrote Galatians, and he wrote it to the same audience as Galatians.

Houston, MAD has a problem.