ECT The essential irrationality of Dispensationalism

[Danoh]

What is the mystery of Romans 16?

I see you thanked that, JR.

You might want to remove that thank you.

I meant to reply that he and I have been down this road before, and we are simply too far apart in each our respective understanding of various things in Romans for us to end up seeing eye to eye on either Romans 16:25, or verse 26

I click posted only his question alone, by accident - I'm not one to often employ the use of open ended questions, as I find them either baiting, or pointless.

In STP's case, the latter of those two.

We're simply too far apart in much of our understanding of Romans overall, for such a simple question and or answer to do this issue much justice, other than in the minds of overly simplistic individuals to begin with.

We go a round or two, and that is as far as it goes - he then simply ignores going any further (for whatever reason he does that).

Heck, he'd rather chase after IP, than deal with any of his own who do not hold his set in stone views :chuckle:

Nevertheless, Romans 5:8

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I see you thanked that, JR.

You might want to remove that thank you.

I meant to reply that he and I have been down this road before, and we are simply too far apart in each our respective understanding of various things in Romans for us to end up seeing eye to eye on either Romans 16:25, or verse 26

I click posted only his question alone, by accident - I'm not one to often employ the use of open ended questions, as I find them either baiting, or pointless.

In STP's case, the latter of those two.

We're simply too far apart in much of our understanding of Romans overall, for such a simple question and or answer to do this issue much justice, other than in the minds of overly simplistic individuals to begin with.

We go a round or two, and that is as far as it goes - he then simply ignores going any further (for whatever reason he does that).

Heck, he'd rather chase after IP, than deal with any of his own who do not hold his set in stone views :chuckle:

Nevertheless, Romans 5:8

I am not sure what you believe the mystery of Romans 16 to be.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

The reason the covenant is new is that it was done by Christ already. In fact, anyone in christ recieves it. 'sacrifices and offereings you did not desire, but a body you prepared' is how Hebrews describes the business of putting it into effect.

You are obstinately rebellious toward what the Word says here, sticking with 8:8 only and never reading anything else the NT says, which would demolish your argument. You drip with guilt whereas it is spreads grace, which says everything.

Worst of all, you are not doing your part in the ministry of reconciling men's sins because you have this total imaginary belief thanks to Chafer that there is some other purpose for the whole thing.

Your whole system is built on a guy who wanted to make himself famous for having figured out the otherwise confused Bible.

100% made up. Why?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

God supernaturally sent Peter to the Gentiles at the same time. In fact that is Peter's recollection of what happened in his account in ch 15.

Remember, the 12 were the guys who were dejected that christ didn't redeem Israel in Luke 24, and still asking about Israel's kingdom in Acts 1 where they were flatly rebuked for the nonsense. It's a really, really deep root, so deep that Chafer picked it up 19 centuries later and thought he could solve the bible with it and now has millions of baby Christians infected with 'knowledge' which is neither knowledge nor empowering them into the mission of Christ. But Chafer got worshiped for inventing it and that's what matters.

The fact that the issue of Acts 15 came up shows it was never cured even in the early Christian Jewish church.

Humanism. Unbelief.

Matthew 10:23 (KJV)

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

If it applies to escaping the destruction of Jerusalem yes. Does it? Otherwise it applies to anything from which we as believer might shrink back, because they were believers, and the community of faith is one, and this kind of command would not be given to a legal state.

100% made up.

 

[Right Divider]

God supernaturally sent Peter to the Gentiles at the same time. In fact that is Peter's recollection of what happened in his account in ch 15.

Why did God have to supernaturally send Peter?
Did the LORD Jesus Christ not do a good job?

 

[DAN P]

They were practicing the old covenant, not the new! There is no such ritual in the new, and there is no future new covenant for israel where the old rituals are "done right."

Hi and you believe that Israel was under the Law of Moses , when did Israel or the 12 apostles practice the New Covenant with a verse , especially in the light of 2 Cor 3:13-16 ??

If there is a VAIL over their hearts and can not understand the Law of Moses , how will they understand the New Covenant ??

Will you answer ??

dan p

 

[john w]

The reason the covenant is new is that it was done by Christ already.

The above says absolutely NADA, and can be deceitfully employed to address any doctrinal point.

Deceptive fraud, poser.

In fact, anyone in christ

The fraud is going to allegedly school us hillibillies in this "the Greek" jazz, even though he could not tell the difference between a "Hebrew National" and a gyros, and he uses small "c" in "Christ?"


Please teach us....Puh lease, Roger Rabbit?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Why did God have to supernaturally send Peter?
Did the LORD Jesus Christ not do a good job?

The Bible believer knows the answer is Matthew 10:23 (KJV).
IP will say something about denial, or another humanistic reason (vain imagination).

 

[Right Divider]

The fraud is going to allegedly school us hillibillies in this "the Greek" jazz, even though he could not tell the difference between a "Hebrew National" and a gyros, and he uses small "c" in "Christ?"

And yet he used the capital C for Chafer.

What a loser!

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

And yet he used the capital C for Chafer.

What a loser!

It's just a hobby, he's slapping together 2x4s with reckless abandon.

 

[Right Divider]

It's just a hobby, he's slapping together 2x4s with reckless abandon.

Anyone that sloppy when they are talking about our LORD Jesus Christ cannot be taken seriously.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Anyone that sloppy when they are talking about our LORD Jesus Christ cannot be taken seriously.

I think all of this is just an academic exercise for him.

 

[Interplanner]

Anyone that sloppy when they are talking about our LORD Jesus Christ cannot be taken seriously.

Nonsense, you fail to take on the question that explodes D'ism. I honor Christ in every way. I see no where in the NT that the GRAMMAR of casusal conversation is at the top of the list, and time is short. Get a life.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Nonsense, you fail to take on the question that explodes D'ism. I honor Christ in every way. I see no where in the NT that the GRAMMAR of casusal conversation is at the top of the list, and time is short. Get a life.

Why did you dismiss the sermon on the mount?

 

[Right Divider]

Nonsense, you fail to take on the question that explodes D'ism. I honor Christ in every way.

You do not even capitalize HIS NAME!

That is TOTAL disrespect no matter the venue!

 

[musterion]

God supernaturally sent Peter to the Gentiles at the same time. In fact that is Peter's recollection of what happened in his account in ch 15.

Remember, the 12 were the guys who were dejected that christ didn't redeem Israel in Luke 24, and still asking about Israel's kingdom in Acts 1 where they were flatly rebuked for the nonsense. It's a really, really deep root, so deep that Chafer picked it up 19 centuries later and thought he could solve the bible with it and now has millions of baby Christians infected with 'knowledge' which is neither knowledge nor empowering them into the mission of Christ. But Chafer got worshiped for inventing it and that's what matters.

The fact that the issue of Acts 15 came up shows it was never cured even in the early Christian Jewish church.

You didn't even try to answer my simple question. I'll type it more slowly.

Given the rip-roaring start (and that's a fact) of the "great commission" in Acts 2, why did God then bench the Twelve, as far as the Gentile world is concerned, and sent Paul to Gentiles instead?

 

[john w]

You didn't even try to answer my simple question. I'll type it more slowly.

Given the rip-roaring start (and that's a fact) of the "great commission" in Acts 2, why did God then bench the Twelve, as far as the Gentile world is concerned, and sent Paul to Gentiles instead?

"Half time adjustments?"

Wait....Remember, musty:

You're too literal to get it.....The days of literalism are over.

 

[musterion]

Threads like this would be a lot fewer if people, myself included, just admitted the obvious about IP and acted accordingly, Danoh notwithstanding.

 

[musterion]

"Half time adjustments?"

The most common answer I've heard, from the few willing to give one, is that the Twelve were disobedient (sinning) in their hatred of Gentiles, so God took away the G.C. and committed it to Paul. That's straight up slander without a shred of Biblical evidence to support it.

The second most common is the "division of labor" idiocy...had the G.C. gone as intended, the Twelve would have had a NATION of Spirit-filled Jews to go to the world, including Saul. God wouldn't have needed just one more guy.

Let's see what idle speculations IP can scrape out of his commentaries.