musterion
Well-known member
His approach is off by as much as 45% whereas we hybrids are off as much as 35%.
So, we have no room to judge.
For a minute I thought Danoh posted that. Man, did that "we" strike me as funny.
His approach is off by as much as 45% whereas we hybrids are off as much as 35%.
So, we have no room to judge.
His approach is off by as much as 45% whereas we hybrids are off as much as 35%.
So, we have no room to judge.
For a minute I thought Danoh posted that. Man, did that "we" strike me as funny.
Personally, bro, I'd say that overall you're off by about less than 1% in terms our different understandings of Mid-Acts - but that is more than enough fodder for me to give you a hard time on for quite some time :chuckle:
_________
* As I am sure you are aware; Mid-Acts is far more than the few subjects repeatedly discussed on TOL.
Yeah; your double-standard will do that to you every time.
You might want to drop it.
Or not.
A couple years now of incessant sniping and strife just because of 1%?
That frog suits you perfectly :chuckle:
Nope, the main issue has been all the grace less ganging up on anyone who does not hold your club's views.
He can sure suck the joy out of bible study.And when they gang up on us, but are dead wrong, you often defend them and even ally with them, confirming them in error out of what can only be spite for us.
:rotfl:There is one unified coherent Christ. Beware D'ism and its tendency to fracture fractures.
You'll just have to wait for the "spiritual" explanation of that.Isaiah 52
9 Break forth into joy, sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem: for the Lord hath comforted his people, he hath redeemed Jerusalem.
There is one unified coherent Christ. Beware D'ism and its tendency to fracture fractures.
a. Christ according to/after the flesh.
b. Christ according to the revealing of the secret.
Different things are different for a reason - because they are not the same.
Read Stephen Sizer's books on Christian Zionism, such as Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon.
If someone came to this thread who had not read comments by the followers of Christian Zionism here recently - and there are more readers who are not TOL members than members - he or she might have no idea what is being argued here, or if some people here are just quarreling for the sake of a quarrel.
One of the reasons why what is being argued is not real clear here is because the argument over dispensationalist doctrines and New Testament scripture has been going on so long here that it gets tiresome saying the same thing over and over, so for entertainment and saying something new, what is often said is not helpful for understanding the issue between dispenmsationalism and scripture. Claiming that dispensationalism is not what that theology is said to be in the literature is part of this tired quarrel.
Look at: John 10: 16, Romans 12: 4-5, Ephesians 4: 4, Romans 10: 12, Galatians 3: 28, Romans 2: 28-29, John 10: 16, Romans 12: 4-5, Ephesians 4: 4, Romans 10: 12, Galatians 3: 28, Romans 2: 28-29, Romans 9: 6-8, Romans 11: 17-20, II Corinthians 3: 6-11, Galatians 3: 3, 16-17, 27-29, Galatians 4: 24-26, and Hebrews 10: 9, II Corinthians 3: 6-11, Galatians 3: 3, 16-17, 27-29, Galatians 4: 24-26.
Separation between what dispensationalism calls Israel - Old Covenant Israel - and what it calls the Church is the issue of separation theology. John10: 16, Romans 12: 4-5, Ephesians 4: 4
Romans 10: 12 and Galatians 3: 28 are related to the separation issue, also separating saved Jew from Saved Gentile or not separating them.
Romans 9: 6-8, Romans 11: 17-20,and Romans 11: 5 is New Testament separation according to being saved or not saved, which is a scriptural separation. Galatians 4: 24-26 is a separation also between the saved and not saved, which is New Covenant doctrine.
Hebrews 10: 9, II Corinthians 3: 6-11 are fundamental and systematic issues between dispensationalist doctrine and New Testament doctrine. In fact, if you accept these two scriptures as being fact, how can you then argue that somehow the Old Covenant is still in effect or will again be in effect in the future? Colossians 2: 16-17 fit in here too, concerning Old Covenant things existing in the New Covenant time.
Galatians 3: 3, 16-17, 27-29 are a little bit subtle, but Galatians 3 makes such a fundamental change that this too makes dispensationalism a false doctrine based on what is said in this chapter. Texts must be interpreted to say just the opposite someplace in order t0 justify dispensationalism. Romans 11: 26 is often used, which contradicts Romans 2: 28-29. Romans 9: 6-8 and Romans 11: 17-20. In view of what is taught in Romans 2: 28-29, Romans 9: 6-8 and Romans 11: 17-20 the children of God, the saved ones, the elect are distinguished from the mere children of the flesh who are of the bloodline but not saved. All Israel in Romans 11: 26 must then be all the elect, not all of the physical bloodline. But that is not what dispensationalism is about. It is about the multitude and not the remnant.
You don't have a correct understanding of even basic dispensationalism so this thread is pointless.
Why is the word 'covenant' not mentioned before Gen 6:18?
The Freemason and Dispensationalist Connection
Typical literalist mindset . . .