ECT If MAD is False Why Did Paul Make the Distinction in Romans 4:16?

[Right Divider]

RD do you have any sources of the churchianity view that is not D'ist. I hardly ever hear it. I know of one guy on a local Christian station who does not do D'ism and only mentions that occasionally. D'ism and 2P2P are far and away the standard view of the Bible believing church today because of all the Bible versions that plastered their notes in margins and footers, to explain the complications of 2P2P.

Well I don't believe in "D'ism or 2P2P" and am amused that you keep making those FALSE accusation about me.

Here are a few typical "churchianity" teachings:

• That the "church" began at Pentecost (many who believe this call themselves dispensationalists, maybe this is a source of some of your confusion).
• That everything from Matt 1:1 to Rev 22:21 is "NT" (you seem to fall into this category).
• That everything from Genesis 1:1 to Malachi 4:14 is "OT".
• That we (i.e., the "church") now lives in the new covenant/testament.
• That all of the Lords's apostles teach only and exactly ALL of the same things.
• That Israel has been done away with and the "church" has taken over.
• That the book of Revelation is all about the "church".

 

[Right Divider]

I've recognized at least one of my problems while working with you. I don't digest what others are saying long enough before I reply. I have since fixed that one.

I commend you for that. I too am working on that.

I don't have a problem with "dispensation". I understand God has dealt with man differently over the years. I just want to be sure I understand where one starts and one ends the same as God does.

I was just saying it, because many do.

Once again, I'm fully in agreement with you on that last one.

 

[Interplanner]

Well I don't believe in "D'ism or 2P2P" and am amused that you keep making those FALSE accusation about me.

Here are a few typical "churchianity" teachings:

• That the "church" began at Pentecost (many who believe this call themselves dispensationalists, maybe this is a source of some of your confusion).
• That everything from Matt 1:1 to Rev 22:21 is "NT" (you seem to fall into this category).
• That everything from Genesis 1:1 to Malachi 4:14 is "OT".
• That we (i.e., the "church") now lives in the new covenant/testament.
• That all of the Lords's apostles teach only and exactly ALL of the same things.
• That Israel has been done away with and the "church" has taken over.
• That the book of Revelation is all about the "church".

Yes, you defend everything about 2P2P.

The beginning of the church isn't much of an issue, but you are the one saying it is not the new covenant. That's 2P2P. 2P2P can't let it be the new covenant, because it says the 2nd program has to eventually happen, resume. You do subscribe to 2P2P, as I said. It has its roots in D'ism, as I said. You don't understand the issues.

You object to Heb 8:13. There is a new Israel (Rom 9) and it has gentiles in it. That Israel recieves all the promises to the fathers. 2P2P can't absorb that because it stops a 2nd program. You are 2P2P.

 

[Right Divider]

Yes, you defend everything about 2P2P.

The beginning of the church isn't much of an issue, but you are the one saying it is not the new covenant. That's 2P2P. 2P2P can't let it be the new covenant, because it says the 2nd program has to eventually happen, resume. You do subscribe to 2P2P, as I said. It has its roots in D'ism, as I said. You don't understand the issues.

You keep using ridiculous language (and you're not very good with language in the first place).

It's not that I "can't let", it's that I UNDERSTAND what the scripture SAYS. You, on the other hand, have a most insane story that you've attempted to FORCE upon the scripture. You look more crazy every time that you try to explain it in more detail.

You object to Heb 8:13. There is a new Israel (Rom 9) and it has gentiles in it. That Israel recieves all the promises to the fathers. 2P2P can't absorb that because it stops a 2nd program. You are 2P2P.

No, I do NOT object to ANY scripture. I object to YOUR perverted and obtuse mythology about it.

God has a plan for the earth, for which He chose a nation named Israel.
God has a plan for heaven, for which He chose a body of believers.

Apparently, you do not like either one and must mash them into oblivion.

Regarding Hebrews 8:13.... that verse does NOT give any indication of the exact timing of the change. You just like to believe that it does, because it fits what you want it to be.

 

[Interplanner]

You keep using ridiculous language (and you're not very good with language in the first place).

It's not that I "can't let", it's that I UNDERSTAND what the scripture SAYS. You, on the other hand, have a most insane story that you've attempted to FORCE upon the scripture. You look more crazy every time that you try to explain it in more detail.


No, I do NOT object to ANY scripture. I object to YOUR perverted and obtuse mythology about it.

God has a plan for the earth, for which He chose a nation named Israel.
God has a plan for heaven, for which He chose a body of believers.

Apparently, you do not like either one and must mash them into oblivion.

Regarding Hebrews 8:13.... that verse does NOT give any indication of the exact timing of the change. You just like to believe that it does, because it fits what you want it to be.

RD wrote:
God has a plan for the earth, for which He chose a nation named Israel.
God has a plan for heaven, for which He chose a body of believers.



That is 2P2P and you just said you are not. You don't know the Bible or the issues.

Yes Heb 8:13 gave timing. It was happening right then. That is the whole force of the passage; it is changing right then. Once Christ sacrificed, there was no need for any other.

The greatest buffoonery of 2P2P is the resumption of the Levitical system. They do it because they believe 2 programs are going on.

There is one faith, Lord, gospel, baptism, body, and NHNE.

 

[Right Divider]

RD wrote:
God has a plan for the earth, for which He chose a nation named Israel.
God has a plan for heaven, for which He chose a body of believers.

That is 2P2P and you just said you are not. You don't know the Bible or the issues.

If believers in BOTH plans are 2P, then you might have a point.

Do you deny that God has a plan for the earth and a plan for heaven?

Yes Heb 8:13 gave timing. It was happening right then.

Speculation on your part.

Why is it supposedly documented in a book called HEBREWS? I thought that you said that all distinction had been removed already.

That is the whole force of the passage; it is changing right then. Once Christ sacrificed, there was no need for any other.

Any other WHAT? Indeed, no more sacrifice for SIN. What about the shadow of things to some?

The greatest buffoonery of 2P2P is the resumption of the Levitical system. They do it because they believe 2 programs are going on.

There is one faith, Lord, gospel, baptism, body, and NHNE.

Ha Ha Ha..... one of your complaints in an earlier post was that Christ could NOT sit on David's throne because the earth was to be destroyed.

I don't believe that the "Levitical system" in its entirety will be restored, only the parts that are says to be eternal.

 

[Interplanner]

RD wrote:
Speculation on your part.

Why is it supposedly documented in a book called HEBREWS? I thought that you said that all distinction had been removed already.


This and what it thought I said are nonsense. All distinctions? They were removed in Christ; there is nothing offered to "Hebrews" audience that is not offered to all believers.

There is no separate plan for Israel vs the church. it always was to arrive at what we have now: believers in Christ in fellowship now in his new creation. That's the original promises of Gen 3 and 12 are for all nations.

Of course no further sacrifice. That's what hebrews says. The shadow of things to come was the old covenant; the reality is CHRIST and what was accomplished in him. You seriously have everything in Hebrews off by one era, or more. You're too late or too early.

The complaint about David's throne is nonsense. Christ is on that throne now; that is forever. There will not be a Judaistic kingdom or throne forever. David calls him Lord; how can he be his son?

there are no Levitical 'things' that last forever, except Christ himself. You are really off on this brother, not grasping what Hebrews is saying or why it exists. Christ is a Melchizedekian priest; not of Aaron. That was true before the Levitical priest existed.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

RD do you have any sources of the churchianity view that is not D'ist. I hardly ever hear it. I know of one guy on a local Christian station who does not do D'ism and only mentions that occasionally. D'ism and 2P2P are far and away the standard view of the Bible believing church today because of all the Bible versions that plastered their notes in margins and footers, to explain the complications of 2P2P.

In the history of humanity, has the majority EVER been right regarding the things of God?

 

[Interplanner]

In the history of humanity, has the majority EVER been right regarding the things of God?

No, why ask? Of course 2P2Pers are not in majority position relative to humanity or history. But as far as what is believed today among Bible-based Christians, they are majority. This is a recent manifestation. Also I find that the majority of them (in spite of objections here) 'stand with modern Israel' as part of that.

In the 19th century Jews in Europe started thinking about going back to the land because all they read was the OT. What does that tell you? THAT IT IS A DOCTRINE APART FROM AND OUTSIDE OF THE NT.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

No, why ask? Of course 2P2Pers are not in majority position relative to humanity or history. But as far as what is believed today among Bible-based Christians, they are majority. This is a recent manifestation. Also I find that the majority of them (in spite of objections here) 'stand with modern Israel' as part of that.

In the 19th century Jews in Europe started thinking about going back to the land because all they read was the OT. What does that tell you? THAT IT IS A DOCTRINE APART FROM AND OUTSIDE OF THE NT.

:chuckle:

 

[Interplanner]

So you have the Reformation church's crescendo of Handel's MESSIAH in which 70 of the 80 passages are from the OT to show that Christ is Messiah. In the late 1700s. Well-known, well-loved all over Europe and in America. In only 100 years, all that is to be dumped for Jewish people reading the OT as those the NT didn't exist and thinking they were to go back to the land?

Which mission did God give Christians or are there two gods and I missed that?

The fundamental proclamation of Christians is that Jesus of Nazareth was Messiah (as is) and he is now the enthroned Lord of the universe. Nothing about Judaism or in Judea matters pertaining to this, nor could it.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

So you have the Reformation church's crescendo of Handel's MESSIAH in which 70 of the 80 passages are from the OT to show that Christ is Messiah. In the late 1700s. Well-known, well-loved all over Europe and in America. In only 100 years, all that is to be dumped for Jewish people reading the OT as those the NT didn't exist and thinking they were to go back to the land?

Which mission did God give Christians or are there two gods and I missed that?

The fundamental proclamation of Christians is that Jesus of Nazareth was Messiah (as is) and he is now the enthroned Lord of the universe. Nothing about Judaism or in Judea matters pertaining to this, nor could it.

Huh?

 

[Interplanner]

go enjoy your cartoons, boy

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

go enjoy your cartoons, boy

Enjoy your dusty books that talk you out of believing the Holy Bible.

 

[john w]

It doesn't matter what I prefer or anyone else. What matters is what God prefers. God's word is a mirror and if we don't see ourselves in it, then we have to ask ourselves are we really his.

His word gives us instructions on how we are to conduct ourselves so that we may live godly lives.
Titus 2:11 For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men, 12 instructing us, to the intent that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly and righteously and godly in this present world;

Paul tested people to see if they were obedient and he said we should test ourselves as well.
1 Cor. 13:5 Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test!

When Paul says the Lord's servant must, that is instruction on how God wants someone in Christ to conduct themselves.
2 Tim. 2:24 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness.

If we do not conduct ourselves as the Lords servant, then we have to ask ourselves, who's servant are we.

Quite irrelevant.

The old reliable "personal" attacks trick, in hopes of eliciting sympathy from the audience.

Would you prefer "impersonal" attacks? All "attacks," by definition are "personal," slight of hand one.

 

[Interplanner]

Enjoy your dusty books that talk you out of believing the Holy Bible.

The material on Handel is common knowledge, but also featured in a recent docu-drama on what happened was it was being written.

The interests of the Jews is mentioned commonly in English novels of the period, for ex., DANIEL DERONDA.

What you are saying is that the non-NT view of the OT is the same as the NT view of it. Yet you think you have a coherent Bible when you say that. You got big problems.

 

[Interplanner]

STP:
You have to find another approach or shut it. I am quite persuaded that what I do is how the NT self-organizes and that 2P2P is entirely foreign in the direction of Judaism. You will have to dismantle that rather than use your trite formula 'just read the bible.'

I'm just trying to help you communicate here rather than repeat old cliches.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

The material on Handel is common knowledge, but also featured in a recent docu-drama on what happened was it was being written.

The interests of the Jews is mentioned commonly in English novels of the period, for ex., DANIEL DERONDA.

What you are saying is that the non-NT view of the OT is the same as the NT view of it. Yet you think you have a coherent Bible when you say that. You got big problems.

Do you enjoy Broadway?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

STP:
You have to find another approach or shut it. I am quite persuaded that what I do is how the NT self-organizes and that 2P2P is entirely foreign in the direction of Judaism. You will have to dismantle that rather than use your trite formula 'just read the bible.'

I'm just trying to help you communicate here rather than repeat old cliches.

Where does the NT cancel out land promises?

 

[Danoh]

Do you enjoy Broadway?

:rotfl: