ECT Madism refuted by the Bible.

[Clete]

Lol, the poor guy is going to have to put us all on ignore...

I didn't put him on ignore, I just have little patience for people who claim to be life long experts who then make fallacious arguments that my youngest daughter (13 years old) could dismantle against something that only vaguely resembles the issue he's supposedly an expert in.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

You are not very familiar with how D'ism has fared down through time. If you go back to the heyday of Ryrie who has a chapter in D'ISM TODAY that expressly says there are 2 watertight programs and peoples, you have the core of the problem: a complication. Everything you look at from that point on will be subject to a complication that you might actually be reading something for people to know 2000 years from now.

May I then please define complicated as 'attempting to ground on flimsy prooftexts around which everything else must dangle, and for which we need tons of teachers to teach the dangling.' Those texts are the end of Mt 23 about 'until you say 'blessed is he...' and Rom 11:26 about 'all Israel...saved...' There are also countless discredited texts, for ex., Acts 13's sermon punchline, or Eph 2-3 about the promises to Israel or Rom 9:26 which supports the 'Israel' that is both Jew and Gentile with 4 distinct OT quotes.

I grew up in it and have listened to it for 40 years; none of this is guesswork or rumor or 2nd hand. I have spoken directly to Sauerwein and Walvoord.

One of the complications you mentioned is about Israel being cut off. That's not the complication. the complication is that after that happened (referring to the ethne as such), D'ism says that the ethne is to be the focus of God's work once again in the future. So you are minding your own business reading somewhere, and the D'ist says no, that has to do with the _______ in the future. Or that such and such an OT passage can't be about the believer because it is about the millenium. Or that what the apostles say about a passage is not even known while 3 D'ist teachers are quoted about it (Amos 9). Or that Ps 2, 16, 110 may be the most commonly quoted passages from the Psalms, but the D'ist quotes 89 and Ezek 38, 39 100x more often than those three.

So in another attempt to be simple: the NT is the authoritative reading of the OT. The D'ist reading is very complicated, ie, manipulated to fit a system.

As you know from the list of 10 propositions about NT eschatology, one of the other big complications is the avoidance of Gal 3:17. This tells us what really got replaced theologically. But D'ism has come along and called something else replacement theology. This is not just complication, it is confusion. Could it be that the reason D'ism did this is because it truly has the same beliefs as Judaism, which Gal 3:17 was referring to?

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Gal 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

Eph 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
Eph 2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
Eph 2:17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
Eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Heb 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
Heb 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
Heb 12:25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:

LA

 

[Lazy afternoon]

I didn't put him on ignore, I just have little patience for people who claim to be life long experts who then make fallacious arguments that my youngest daughter (13 years old) could dismantle against something that only vaguely resembles the issue he's supposedly an expert in.

If you had anything to say of worth then you should say it, instead of waffling on about the characters of others as if that makes you right.

LA

 

[Clete]

Every single individual I have read or heard who goes against Dispensationalism in general, has the exact same basic approach and resulting conclusion...

Off they went to look for it in history books...

Why do they do this? Why does the Dispy who is a fool do that also - run off to the history books?

Because for them, that is how what Scripture is talking about is sorted out - "read books about it; and then read their same reasoning into the Scripture...its been reliable for that, so lets see what my favorite book writers have to say about Dispensationalism..."

You take someone like that with years and years in that - I seriously doubt such an individual has much objective reasoning left in them...

I came close to that path myself once, some years back when I almost bought into an Acts 2 Dispy's advice - "just read books about the Bible..."

Only to find the same old holes I was already leary of...

Much later; when I ran into them after my learning the Mystery; his books based reasoning failed him miserably and I found he was no real friend...

So I find it humorous that people like Interplanner right off assume that Mid-Acts is another books based hand me down..

You make an excellent point. He could be doing exactly that, assuming that Acts 9 Dispensationalism is just a slightly different flavor of the dispensationalism that Ryre or Scofield taught. While they are certainly related, Acts 9 Dispensationalism is, it seems to me, much more intellectually consistent and therefore is perhaps far less "confusing". Interplanner would do better by asking questions rather than continuing on his present course of attempting to display an expertise that is, at best, transferred from the history books he's read.

Incidentally, the answer to your question about why people run off to history books is precisely because people today are not taught how to think for themselves. They intuitively distrust their own thinking and search for the emotional safety that comes with someone else's (an "experts") opinion. The public schools system has been quite successful at implanting "group think" into the culture.

Having said that, however, I have no problem with people writing books. Books are terrific ways to teach anything, including theology (Rom. 10:14). The point is though that you aught not replace the effort of you own mind with that of someone else based on the notion that they are somehow smarter than you are. I, for example, was convinced of the truth of Acts 9 Dispensationalism through Bob Enyart's book, The Plot. But it wasn't Bob Enyart that convinced me, it was the arguments that did so. Of course it was Bob Enyart who was making the arguments but the fact that he was the one making the argument was irrelevant. If Paul Puckett (just a random guy I used to work with) had made the same arguments, I'd have been just as convinced. The fact that it was Bob Enyart and not Paul Puckett, however, is because Bob was, in fact, a theology expert and Puckett was not. What it boils down to is discernment, a quality one cannot have without self-esteem which you will not have if you don't trust your own ability to think.

 

[Clete]

If you had anything to say of worth then you should say it, instead of waffling on about the characters of others as if that makes you right.

LA

Hypocrite!

 

[Danoh]

Nope, Clete, no problem with the actual role of books here either.

Lock me up in a bookstore and movie house, throw away the key; and I'll be just fine with that - I love books of all kinds and read several at a time throughout any given month.

I fight with them and jot notes in them just as often, lol

I - love - books!

And yet, I still prefer just rereading Romans 5 a dozen times. Or Ephesians 1. Or...

As is...

 

[Interplanner]

I didn't put him on ignore, I just have little patience for people who claim to be life long experts who then make fallacious arguments that my youngest daughter (13 years old) could dismantle against something that only vaguely resembles the issue he's supposedly an expert in.

There's no point in saying that without an exact example, of which I've given 50 against D'ism.

 

[Interplanner]

You make an excellent point. He could be doing exactly that, assuming that Acts 9 Dispensationalism is just a slightly different flavor of the dispensationalism that Ryre or Scofield taught. While they are certainly related, Acts 9 Dispensationalism is, it seems to me, much more intellectually consistent and therefore is perhaps far less "confusing". Interplanner would do better by asking questions rather than continuing on his present course of attempting to display an expertise that is, at best, transferred from the history books he's read.

Incidentally, the answer to your question about why people run off to history books is precisely because people today are not taught how to think for themselves. They intuitively distrust their own thinking and search for the emotional safety that comes with someone else's (an "experts") opinion. The public schools system has been quite successful at implanting "group think" into the culture.

Having said that, however, I have no problem with people writing books. Books are terrific ways to teach anything, including theology (Rom. 10:14). The point is though that you aught not replace the effort of you own mind with that of someone else based on the notion that they are somehow smarter than you are. I, for example, was convinced of the truth of Acts 9 Dispensationalism through Bob Enyart's book, The Plot. But it wasn't Bob Enyart that convinced me, it was the arguments that did so. Of course it was Bob Enyart who was making the arguments but the fact that he was the one making the argument was irrelevant. If Paul Puckett (just a random guy I used to work with) had made the same arguments, I'd have been just as convinced. The fact that it was Bob Enyart and not Paul Puckett, however, is because Bob was, in fact, a theology expert and Puckett was not. What it boils down to is discernment, a quality one cannot have without self-esteem which you will not have if you don't trust your own ability to think.

My view of Gal 3:17 is entirely a matter of thinking for myself. I know of nothing else Paul could be talking about except Judaism doing the switches he is invalidating there. I don't know any commentary that caught that. All I did was realize the people barking about RT were bludgeoning me and that when I started thinking for myself about Gal 3:17, the RTs were backward to the truth.

 

[Interplanner]

Danoh wrote:
Quote Originally Posted by Danoh View Post
Lol, the poor guy is going to have to put us all on ignore...


Obviously not. And I don't mean people who are sympathetic. I'm referring to your 100 posts that have no texts or exegetical detail in them but are full of generalized insults. You would be the ONLY one like that and the only one I would put on ignore if I find it.

 

[ClimateSanity]

The type of exegesis you do is determined by the assumptions you make. Danoh is scrutinizing your assumptions and how you arrived at them. If he makes an exegetical post with scripture, you will simply dismiss it out of hand as beginner or ignorant. You don't want exegesis; you want exegesis that you approve of.

 

[Danoh]

Interplanner posted the following on one of "Faither's" fool threads...

"The work of God is to believe on him he has sent." Jn 6. Obviously in this ex., there is nothing you do that matters. It is what he did. It may make you surrender as a side-effect. If you were in Judaism as the audience was, you have to surrender those Judaistic things to believe only on him. But it is, finally, Christ's own work that is believed upon. So there is a legitimate place for believing on the work someone else has done, on the surrendering that someone else has done.

That part I have bolded is simply his reading into things; is off base, and is a reading into things about Judaism shared by Partial Preterism in general; the very "system" that Interplanner subscribes to.

This notion in his own mind that his is an independent appraisal and conclusion is simply not the case.

The reason "it feels right" to him is because that is how the error that is Scholastic Mysticism manifests itself in its' adherents.

One is spoonfed by "the Scholars" endless intuitions parroted by them throughout their generations

Such become one's own "system..."

Next thing one knows - Voila!

One is now able to parrot the exact same kind of intutions as if one's own.

Agustine infected the church with this Greek heresy that fool Plato expounded - the very "system" of wisdom about a thing through one's own intuition alone that the Apostle Paul mocked in 1 Cor. 1.

Fact is, that in Scripture, Judaism (Moses) remains very much a part of the Little Flock's core (Twelve) "Apostles doctrine."

John 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

John 1:47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile! 1:48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee. 1:49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

John 5:44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? 5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

That right there was what Paul later described in...

Romans 2:24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. 2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Note/Compare this...

John 5:44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?

With this...

Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Note...

Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. 7:52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: 7:53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

Note...

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Acts 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Acts 3:1 Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour.

Guided by the Spirit in all truth, they continued observing Judaism (Moses).

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

That just doesn't fit Scholastic Mysticism so its' adherents simply conclude "the Twelve had to have been confused; what I am reading there simply does not fit my books based (erroeneous) intuitions about what all transpired with the coming of Jesus!"

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Hypocrite!

Yep!

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

There's no point in saying that without an exact example, of which I've given 50 against D'ism.

I fear you're one of the least intelligent posters on TOL? Please don't feel offended, I had to speak the truth to you, my friend. Hopefully, you'll do a little more studying? I'll keep you posted on your advancements and declines.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

If you had anything to say of worth then you should say it, instead of waffling on about the characters of others as if that makes you right.

LA

The problem is, you have no character. Somebody had to tell you.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

The problem is, you have no character. Somebody had to tell you.

Grosnick is the best evidence that one should never become MAD like him.

Madists refuse water baptism. That should enough to know they do not have the Spirit of Christ in them and they speak accordingly.

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? (Paul)arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

LA

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Grosnick is the best evidence that one should never become MAD like him.

Madists refuse water baptism. That should enough to know they do not have the Spirit of Christ in them and they speak accordingly.

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? (Paul)arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

LA

For your sake, you better hope that salvation can be earned by doing good works/deeds? The truth is, it can't. However, you and a number of others on TOL seem to think you're good enough to make it. I think that's called "being delusional" if I'm not mistaken? Good luck, though.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

By the way folks, a word of warning: "Stay off of that LA Freeway." It comes to a "DEAD END."

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Hey LA, a word to the wise: (that's not you) Water Baptism doesn't save anyone. The Holy Spirit must seal you, indwell you, and place you into the Body of Christ. There's only one Baptism and that's by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Ephesians 4:5 "One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

 

[Lazy afternoon]

For your sake, you better hope that salvation can be earned by doing good works/deeds? The truth is, it can't. However, you and a number of others on TOL seem to think you're good enough to make it. I think that's called "being delusional" if I'm not mistaken? Good luck, though.

Luk 21:34 And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.
Luk 21:35 For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth.
Luk 21:36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

LA