ECT glorydaz says that Romans is Written to Unbelievers

[tetelestai]

He is here to discourage anyone and everyone from believing anything dispensational.

I point out how wrong Dispensationalism is.

If you disagree, then prove me wrong, and I will learn something.

So far, you have failed to prove me wrong regarding Matt 24:34, 2 Peter 3, and now who Romans was written to

All you and heir have done is confirm to me that Dispensationalism is full of errors.

 

[tetelestai]

ALL those groups were "God fearing Jews" as v5 clearly shows.

If so, how then did they go from hearing Peter's gospel (which was allegedly different than Paul's gospel), to ending up in the Body of Christ?

MAD teaches that those who heard Peter's gospel were in a different program than those who heard Paul's gospel.

 

[tetelestai]

No; you conclude that we arrive at that in that way.

No, I conclude it when I see MADits type the phrase "Paul's, my gospel".

Here - The Mid-Acts Perspective as far back as about 300 AD:

Don't make me laugh.

There was no such thing as Dispensationalism before Darby invented it in the mid 1800's.

You Dispies try so hard to show that just one person taught such nonsense before Darby, but after years and years of searching for a shred of evidence, there is none.

 

[Danoh]

If so, how then did they go from hearing Peter's gospel (which was allegedly different than Paul's gospel), to ending up in the Body of Christ?

MAD teaches that those who heard Peter's gospel were in a different program than those who heard Paul's gospel.

No; you conclude that all who hold to Mid-Acts arrive at that in the way you conclude all who hold to Mid-Acts do.

Your assertion is off, because the conclusion you base it on - your conclusion - is off.

And your conclusion is off because the premise you deduce said conclusion from is also off.

Because the information you arrive at your premise from is off.

You turn what little anyone within Mid-Acts says, into a premise starved of much information [Romans thru Philemon] you then deduce from so little - your off-base conclusion; which you then assert.

And it makes sense to you only in light of all you have failed to consider, other than from your Partial Preterist Perspective; a perspective that, not surprisingly; arose out of this same failing of yours.

 

[tetelestai]

Here - The Mid-Acts Perspective as far back as about 300 AD:

Post #1, below:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4356290#post4356290

I told you not to make me laugh.

From the site you linked:

"The Difference Between Israel and the Church, the Body of Christ—Recovered in the 1800’s via John Nelson Darby, E.W. Bullinger, Sir Robert Anderson and others."

Your MAD hero claims that MAD's demarcation line between Israel and the church was preached up to the 300's AD, then lost for about 1,500 years until John Nelson Darby "recovered" it in the mid 1800's.

Another gem from your same site:

"The Pre-Tribulational Rapture of the Church, the Body of Christ—Recovered in the 19th Century via John Nelson Darby and included and popularized by C.I. Scofield in his Reference Bible in 1909."

As we see again, your MAD hero claims the secret rapture teaching was lost for 1,500 years then "recovered" by John Nelson Darby in the mid 1800's

Thanks for the laughs!!!!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

he is addressing unbelievers in verses 5-13, which is why Paul uses THEY in v14.

if Paul was addressing unbelievers he would have used the word "you" and not "they."

Here is how Paul addresses believers:

"Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?" (Ro.7:1).​

"For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father" (Ro.8:15).​

The word "address" means "to speak or write directly to" (Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary).

Here Paul is not writing directly to these unbelievers:

"How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" (Ro.10:14).​

Paul is not writing directly to them so he is not addressing them. If he was writing directly to these unbelievers this is the way that he would do it:

"How then shall you call on him in whom you have not believed? and how shall you believe in him of whom you have not heard? and how shall you hear without a preacher?"​

If Paul was addressing unbelievers that is what he would have written. But since that is not what He wrote then he was not writing to them directly.

Therefore, Paul was not addressing the unbelievers in chapter 10.

And if Paul was addressing unbelievers in the first part of chapter 10 then why would he all of a sudden stop addressing them and start refrrring to them as "they"?

And if Paul was addressing unbelievers at Romans 10 then why would he not include them where he says exactly whom his epistele was addressed to:

"To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ" (Ro.1:7).​

If his epistles were addressed to unbelievers also, why didn't he mention that?

 

[Danoh]

I told you not to make me laugh.

From the site you linked:

"The Difference Between Israel and the Church, the Body of Christ—Recovered in the 1800’s via John Nelson Darby, E.W. Bullinger, Sir Robert Anderson and others."

Your MAD hero claims that MAD's demarcation line between Israel and the church was preached up to the 300's AD, then lost for about 1,500 years until John Nelson Darby "recovered" it in the mid 1800's.

Another gem from your same site:

"The Pre-Tribulational Rapture of the Church, the Body of Christ—Recovered in the 19th Century via John Nelson Darby and included and popularized by C.I. Scofield in his Reference Bible in 1909."

As we see again, your MAD hero claims the secret rapture teaching was lost for 1,500 years then "recovered" by John Nelson Darby in the mid 1800's

Thanks for the laughs!!!!

No; you conclude that all who hold to Mid-Acts arrive at that in the way you conclude all who hold to Mid-Acts do.

Your assertion is off, because the conclusion you base it on - your conclusion - is off.

And your conclusion is off because the premise you deduce said conclusion from is also off.

Because the information you arrive at your premise from is off.

You turn what little anyone within Mid-Acts says, into a premise starved of much information [Romans thru Philemon] you then deduce from so little - your off-base conclusion; which you then assert.

And it makes sense to you only in light of all you have failed to consider, other than from your Partial Preterist Perspective; a perspective that, not surprisingly; arose out of this same failing of yours.

 

[tetelestai]

No; you conclude that all who hold to Mid-Acts arrive at that in the way you conclude all who hold to Mid-Acts do.

Your assertion is off, because the conclusion you base it on - your conclusion - is off.

And your conclusion is off because the premise you deduce said conclusion from is also off.

Because the information you arrive at your premise from is off.

You turn what little anyone within Mid-Acts says, into a premise starved of much information [Romans thru Philemon] you then deduce from so little - your off-base conclusion; which you then assert.

And it makes sense to you only in light of all you have failed to consider, other than from your Partial Preterist Perspective; a perspective that, not surprisingly; arose out of this same failing of yours.

Mr. Spock meets J.C. O'Hair

 

[Danoh]

Mr. Spock meets J.C. O'Hair

Lol

 

[Jerry Shugart]

As with your Partial Preterist school, Tel; there are some differences in understanding on some things between those who hold to Mid-Acts Dispensationalism.

Its partly due to difference in study approach.

It is not a matter of approach but instead in most instances it is a matter of unbelief. For instance, those in the Neo-MAD camp teach that the Jews who lived under the law could not be saved apart from works.

But it is their unbelief about what is said here which leads them to their false teaching:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (Jn.3:16).​

The Jews who lived under the Law cannot be excluded from the category "whosoever" so they too received everlasting life when they believed.

So the differences within the MAD camp is not because of differences in approach but instead is because some believe critical passages from the Bible and others do not!

 

[tetelestai]

if Paul was addressing unbelievers he would have used the word "you" and not "they."

That's correct.

It's really that simple.

 

[Danoh]

It is not a matter of approach but instead in most instances it is a matter of unbelief. For instance, those in the Neo-MAD camp teach that the Jews who lived under the law could not be saved apart from works.

But it is their unbelief about what is said here which leads them to their false teaching:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (Jn.3:16).​

The Jews who lived under the Law cannot be excluded from the category "whosoever" so they too received everlasting life when they believed.

So the differences within the MAD camp is not because of differences in approach but instead is because some believe critical passages from the Bible and others do not!

Romans 15:

17. Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
18. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

 

[Danoh]

That's correct.

It's really that simple.

Lol, you are agreeing with a person who has just called you a heretic also [in post #190].

 

[tetelestai]

Lol, you are agreeing with a person who has just called you a heretic also [in post #190].

"you" and "they" speak for themselves.

When you speak to a group of people, you don't refer to them as "they".

"they" is a third person pronoun.

 

[Danoh]

"you" and "they" speak for themselves.

When you speak to a group of people, you don't refer to them as "they".

"they" is a third person pronoun.

Whether I may or may not agree with that was not my point.

 

[john w]

I point out how wrong Dispensationalism is.

The habitual liar of TOL, caught, in another lie.


He "points out," which is advising....

Vs.

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

And, in order to be able to "point out how wrong Dispensationalism is," necessitates teaching, istructing, despite his spin to the contrary...


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

 

[StanJ]

If so, how then did they go from hearing Peter's gospel (which was allegedly different than Paul's gospel), to ending up in the Body of Christ?

MAD teaches that those who heard Peter's gospel were in a different program than those who heard Paul's gospel.

Peter and Paul preached the SAME gospel. 2 Peter 3:15 (NIV)

I don't really care what MAD teaches, only what the Bible teaches. ONE body, ONE church, ONE Christ, ONE program.

 

[Nick M]

On another thread I said that the tenth chapter of the epistle to the Romans was written to believers.

He is now ready to share the gospel with them. Them being Greek proselytes who first blessed Israel and are called Jews. They were not saints in the Body, but they were still of the house of God.

 

[StanJ]

if Paul was addressing unbelievers he would have used the word "you" and not "they."

He did use YOU, and apparently YOU need glasses.

The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

WHY exactly would Paul say this to believers who had already done this?

Your problem is you start ALL your responses with erroneous assertions or assumptions, then expound on your errors, which only produce MORE errors.

 

[john w]

Don't make me laugh.

There was no such thing as Dispensationalism before Darby invented it in the mid 1800's.

We laugh at your satanic lies:

"There was no such thing as Dispensationalism before Darby invented it in the mid 1800's."-you, above, spammed for the 1000th time

Vs.



"I have never said that dispensationalism was "wrong" because of how old it was. I specifically said that no one taught about Christ coming back twice before Darby did."--habitual liar Wimpy Tet.

“I never said it was wrong for how old it is.”-Tet.


vs.

"My argument is that if there is not one single trace of something for 1,800+ years by anyone, then it was invented.”-Tet.


Pathetic liar.

You Dispies try so hard to show that just one person taught such nonsense before Darby, but after years and years of searching for a shred of evidence, there is none.

We've showed you, over, and over . But your father, the devil, demon, keeps telling you to deny it.


Child of the devil.


You will burn soon....Tick, tick..............