Mid Acts Disponsationalism

[heir]

A thought... no such being as "a homosexual," really...

"What's the nicest thing you can say to a "homosexual?" is the name of a thread Clete opened and I responded to with the word of reconciliation.

I suggested he open another thread with the same title to see where he's at (as they say) these days.

 

[Danoh]

"What's the nicest thing you can say to a "homosexual?" is the name of a thread Clete opened and I responded to with the word of reconciliation.

I suggested he open another thread with the same title to see where he's at (as they say) these days.

Hopefully, he'll be straight about it, lol

 

[heir]

Hopefully, he'll be straight about it, lol

LOL, but seriously, that would be here:

2 Corinthians 5:14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

2 Corinthians 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

2 Corinthians 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

 

[Clete]

"What's the nicest thing you can say to a "homosexual?" is the name of a thread Clete opened and I responded to with the word of reconciliation.

I suggested he open another thread with the same title to see where he's at (as they say) these days.

I don't recall having started such a thread, nor is there any thread currently in existence on this website. Not that I deny starting the thread. I'm sure I did! The point is that, if I did, it must have been years ago and it has since been wiped from the site.
It clearly hasn't been wiped from your memory though! I must have made quite an impression. Why don't you tell me what your recollection is of what I said before and I'll tell you if I have remained steadfast.

Clete

 

[Clete]

A thought... no such being as "a homosexual," really...

Only a sinner walking in his or her particular manifestation of humanity born fallen in Adam.

How about "a murderer"?
Is there a such being?

How about "a child molester"?
Is a man who rapes five year old children just "a sinner walking in his particular manifestation of humanity born fallen in Adam"?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Jerry Shugart]

If you want to defend Dispensationalism then defend it substantively. That's all I'm saying.

In fact that's good advice for anyone, right?
If you (i.e. anyone reading this) want to defend ANYTHING then defend it substantively!

I agree with you, Clete.

However, those in the Neo-MAD camp are unable to defend their ideas that those who lived under the law could not be saved apart from works!

Instead of attempting to defend their silly ideas about that all they do is attack those who quote verses which prove that their ideas are in error. How can they possibly say that the Jews who lived under the law could not be saved apart from works with these words in view?:

"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).​

Now let us see if even one of those people will dare address what is said at John 3:16 and how it relates to the Jews who lived under the law.

 

[Danoh]

How about "a murderer"?
Is there a such being?

How about "a child molester"?
Is a man who rapes five year old children just "a sinner walking in his particular manifestation of humanity born fallen in Adam"?

Resting in Him,
Clete

The point is that "sinner" or "saint" by the world's standards, by God's standard "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

Be it the "child molester," or the late Gandhi; Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and Mother Teresa combined.

Personally, where the child molester is concerned, I just might put down my Bible and pick up a baseball bat, but that still does not change the fact that real issue is that "all have sinned... and the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord," Rom. 3: 23; 6:23.

 

[Danoh]

I agree with you, Clete.

However, those in the Neo-MAD camp are unable to defend their ideas that those who lived under the law could not be saved apart from works!

Instead of attempting to defend their silly ideas about that all they do is attack those who quote verses which prove that their ideas are in error. How can they possibly say that the Jews who lived under the law could not be saved apart from works with these words in view?:

"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).​

Now let us see if even one of those people will dare address what is said at John 3:16 and how it relates to the Jews who lived under the law.

Why exactly does anyone owe it to Jerry to defend their views to him? Why does anyone owe it to him to have to agree with his notions, and outdated books based "authority" and a verse or two, ripped out of their overall setting, scope and context. Why does anyone owe it to him to have to lay out why and how specifically one agrees he alone is right, should one have made the mistake of having allowed their self to be lured into Jerry's self-serving agenda.

Fact is, differing views is not the issue. Jerry's narcissism is.

We all know the type. We're fellowshipping with one another when the same old individual le have had it with but give grace to, launches into his need not only to prove others wrong, but to have them lay out exactly why and how he, and he alone, is right....

Only to meet with the same nonsense on some other issue the next go around, and the next, and the next, and the...

There is a neurosis at work in such an individual that, because it comes from within some inner issue they have yet to apply the Cross to, continues to motivate this need of theirs to lord it over others.

The words, "leave me alone," falling on deaf ears. The words, "okay, I could care less where you are concerned as to this, as your motive is obvious - leave me alone" also falls on deaf ears.

The words, "well, um, please don't; take this wrong, but we were talking about those other issue" or "we were just hanging out, there is a time and a place for such things..." falling on deaf ears.

Why does it fall on deaf ears? Because it turns out that where such an individual and his actual agenda and its root origin are concerned - there is never a time and a place...

One can only imagine what such an individual's poor wife and children must have to suffer.

The one thing being certain...he will find someone sooner or later once more, bait and lure in, if but for a moment, and to their regret... these types always do...

Have a crack at him, Clete, see what I mean... Read through his various forum posts - the guy is a walking enemy making robot...

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Clete, why will none of those in the Neo-MAD community answer what I said about John 3:16 and how those words apply to the Jewish believers who lived under the law?

It seems as they have no answer but despite these words at John 3:16 they continue to insist that the Jews who lived under the law could not be saved apart from works:

"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).​

Frankly, it seems to me that they put more faith in what some men say abut the Scriptures than they do in what the Scriptures actually say!

 

[Clete]

Clete, why will none of those in the Neo-MAD community answer what I said about John 3:16 and how those words apply to the Jewish believers who lived under the law?

It seems as they have no answer but despite these words at John 3:16 they continue to insist that the Jews who lived under the law could not be saved apart from works:

"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).​

Frankly, it seems to me that they put more faith in what some men say abut the Scriptures than they do in what the Scriptures actually say!

Maybe I'm missing something. Your argument doesn't seem to follow.

Are you suggesting that what Mid-Acts Dispensationalists refer to as 'Kingdom believes' weren't required to believe in Jesus so long as they followed the Law?

If so, you've severely misunderstood something. I mean, by your own premise, they were Jewish BELIEVERS.


Maybe you're suggesting the opposite. That the Kingdom believers were saved by observance of the law. If you are suggesting that Mid-Acts doctrine teaches such a thing then the reason why no one will respond is probably because we don't believe that nor do we teach it or even imply it. Its similar to the accusation that we teach that we are free to do wickedly because we're under grace. Its a common accusation but it only demonstrates a misunderstanding of what grace is and of what the law was intended to do.

The Law has never been about salvation but rather judgment and condemnation. No Jew (or anyone else for that matter) was ever saved by observance of the Law. But just because one's observance of the Law isn't what saved your soul from Hell fire doesn't mean that its observance was optional. It wasn't. James stated flatly that faith without works is dead and that his followers where all "zealous for the Law". Even you wouldn't accuse James of stating that observance of the Law saves you, why do you accuse me (us) of saying such a thing? We say what James said. We just acknowledge James' audience where most Christians do not.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Jacob]

The Law is also about right living.

 

[Clete]

The point is that "sinner" or "saint" by the world's standards, by God's standard "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

By God's standard certain sins are crimes while other are not.

Be it the "child molester," or the late Gandhi; Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and Mother Teresa combined.

One of these you listed is guilty of a capital crime the others (so far as I know) are not. Can you tell me which should be executed (I know that two of them are already dead but I trust you understand the point of the question)?

Personally, where the child molester is concerned, I just might put down my Bible and pick up a baseball bat,...

Now THAT is a godly mindset! That is EXACTLY the way a Christian aught to feel toward those who commit acts of perversion, acts that God declares to be capital crimes. We do them no favor by being nice to them. Their behavior should be re-criminalized, they should be arrested, tried and upon conviction they should be publicly executed in a painful manner.

That is the kindest and most loving manner to treat such people!

...but that still does not change the fact that real issue is that "all have sinned... and the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord," Rom. 3: 23; 6:23.

Amen! And I know of no other manner of getting a man to start praying than to make him understand that he is getting ready to meet his maker.

Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.​

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

The Law is also about right living.

No, loving God is about right living. The Law is there to show you that you that right living is impossible for you to achieve.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Read THIS!

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Why exactly does anyone owe it to Jerry to defend their views to him? Why does anyone owe it to him to have to agree with his notions, and outdated books based "authority" and a verse or two, ripped out of their overall setting, scope and context. Why does anyone owe it to him to have to lay out why and how specifically one agrees he alone is right, should one have made the mistake of having allowed their self to be lured into Jerry's self-serving agenda.

Fact is, differing views is not the issue. Jerry's narcissism is.

We all know the type. We're fellowshipping with one another when the same old individual le have had it with but give grace to, launches into his need not only to prove others wrong, but to have them lay out exactly why and how he, and he alone, is right....

Only to meet with the same nonsense on some other issue the next go around, and the next, and the next, and the...

There is a neurosis at work in such an individual that, because it comes from within some inner issue they have yet to apply the Cross to, continues to motivate this need of theirs to lord it over others.

The words, "leave me alone," falling on deaf ears. The words, "okay, I could care less where you are concerned as to this, as your motive is obvious - leave me alone" also falls on deaf ears.

The words, "well, um, please don't; take this wrong, but we were talking about those other issue" or "we were just hanging out, there is a time and a place for such things..." falling on deaf ears.

Why does it fall on deaf ears? Because it turns out that where such an individual and his actual agenda and its root origin are concerned - there is never a time and a place...

One can only imagine what such an individual's poor wife and children must have to suffer.

The one thing being certain...he will find someone sooner or later once more, bait and lure in, if but for a moment, and to their regret... these types always do...

Have a crack at him, Clete, see what I mean... Read through his various forum posts - the guy is a walking enemy making robot...

Jerry is "self-absorbed" and MUST be right! People like him, cannot/will not allow himself to learn from others. He's
stubborn and mule headed.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Clete, why will none of those in the Neo-MAD community answer what I said about John 3:16 and how those words apply to the Jewish believers who lived under the law?

It seems as they have no answer but despite these words at John 3:16 they continue to insist that the Jews who lived under the law could not be saved apart from works:

"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).​

Frankly, it seems to me that they put more faith in what some men say abut the Scriptures than they do in what the Scriptures actually say!

Hey Jerry, do you see anywhere in Matthew through John where Jesus
or His Apostles preached, "The Grace Message?" In other words, Paul's
Gospel? The Jews were under the Law. The Jews were being
taught, "The Kingdom Message" by Christ and the rest. The Kingdom
Message relates to a time when, Christ will sit on Davids earthly throne
and rule over His people.

Paul came along and preached "The Grace Message." That message was
preached to the gentiles.

 

[Jacob]

No, loving God is about right living. The Law is there to show you that you that right living is impossible for you to achieve.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Read THIS!

The Law is about loving God and loving your neighbor.

 

[Clete]

The Law is about loving God and loving your neighbor.

It says to love God and to love your neighbor but that is not is not what its "about".

The Law's ministry is death, not life. Romans 7

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Jacob]

It says to love God and to love your neighbor but that is not is not what its "about".

The Law's ministry is death, not life. Romans 7

Resting in Him,
Clete

The Bible says the Law is good. Paul said the Law is not a cause of death. Sin is, not the Law.

The great commandment in the Law is to love God. And the second that is like it is to love your neighbor. The entire Law is about love of God and your neighbor.

 

[glorydaz]

It says to love God and to love your neighbor but that is not is not what its "about".

The Law's ministry is death, not life. Romans 7

Resting in Him,
Clete

opcorn:

 

[Tambora]

Maybe I'm missing something. Your argument doesn't seem to follow.

Are you suggesting that what Mid-Acts Dispensationalists refer to as 'Kingdom believes' weren't required to believe in Jesus so long as they followed the Law?

If so, you've severely misunderstood something. I mean, by your own premise, they were Jewish BELIEVERS.


Maybe you're suggesting the opposite. That the Kingdom believers were saved by observance of the law. If you are suggesting that Mid-Acts doctrine teaches such a thing then the reason why no one will respond is probably because we don't believe that nor do we teach it or even imply it. Its similar to the accusation that we teach that we are free to do wickedly because we're under grace. Its a common accusation but it only demonstrates a misunderstanding of what grace is and of what the law was intended to do.

The Law has never been about salvation but rather judgment and condemnation. No Jew (or anyone else for that matter) was ever saved by observance of the Law. But just because one's observance of the Law isn't what saved your soul from Hell fire doesn't mean that its observance was optional. It wasn't. James stated flatly that faith without works is dead and that his followers where all "zealous for the Law". Even you wouldn't accuse James of stating that observance of the Law saves you, why do you accuse me (us) of saying such a thing? We say what James said. We just acknowledge James' audience where most Christians do not.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Sounds about right.