ECT The mission to the nations has been known for generations

I

Interplanner

Well-known member
The Amos 9 quote in Acts 15 not only clarifies what the mission to the nations was in relation to the restored temple, it says it was known for generations.

This is why the mission to the nations and the church it generated is not in itself the mystery nor a Plan B nor an interposition nor an interruption nor a band-aid nor caught God by surprise.

The quote ITSELF says that outreach to the nations was planned for a very long time. This verse matches Eph 3A because it is not the joining of the nations into Israel's promise and blessing that was the mystery; it was HOW this was done through the Gospel, not the Law.
 
D

Danoh

New member
This Plan B is YOUR delusion.

YOU are the one asserting some sort of a Plan B - that God turned to the Gentiles when Israel failed this supposed mission of yours.

Fact is, the mission in the OT is to bring worship from all over the world to and at Jerusalem.

Isaiah 2:1 The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. 2:2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. 2:3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. 2:5 O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the LORD.

It is not Paul's mission - which is NOT a Plan B.

Rather, Paul's is a different mission altogether.

Paul's concerns that other aspect of God's Two-Fold Purpose: the Heavenly.

Two aspects of ONE "plan" - "IN Earth AS IN Heaven."

Ephesians 1:8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; 1:9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

Ephesians 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

ONE Two-FOLD Purpose IN Christ...

Ephesians 3:15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Not to and at Jerusalem literally. Not in the Judaistic, theocratic sense. It is true in Christ. I don't think you know what 'in Christ' means or meant to Paul.

You are still allowing two plans, peoples, gospels, temples, ways of salvation, which is what Judaism wants to believe (giving it the benefit of the doubt that it is willing to be tolerant--I'm not sure about that). Gal 3:17: Judaism voided and switched the promise of Christ with the Law. Paul's career goal was to unmake this.
 
ClimateSanity

ClimateSanity

New member
You have a closed mind inter. I realize that MAD interpretation can cause depression in a religious mind whose psychological well being is dependent on what he thinks he knows. I can imagine a turn to atheism would be preferable to rethinking what you draw comfort from.
 
D

Danoh

New member
Man are you driven by blindingly erroneous bias.

Twice I have sided with you on the sense of Peter's "shall be saved, even as they."

And yet, you STILL hold to YOUR notion that all MADs hold to TWO salvations :chuckle:

*By the way, one reason I sided with you on the above was because if Peter's "shall be saved" was a reference to a future salvation - as a SMALL MINORITY within MAD erroneously assert - then Paul's "might be justified" also means what it APPEARS to be in the voice of - of uncertainty.

Which, it is not.

But anyway, you, Interplanner, remain clueless about the very subject of your threads.

You have yet to demonstrate you understand Acts 9 Dispensationalism.

Perhaps you might run against Trump.

You're about as prepared to address the issues you yourself bring up as he always proves he also never is as to the issues he himself raises...

:crackup:
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Danoh said:
I'll take that as a compliment...

:rotfl:
Click to expand...


I could care less what % a certain belief is of MAD, got it? That's the whole problem. You think it is valid, it is not. I'm just dealing with one clear NT doctrine at a time and would appreciate it if you would shut up about MAD this or that, which is increasingly sounding mentally ill.

The mission to the nations was known for generations, said Amos, quoted by the conference. Eph 3, when not read by those who are mad, also says that. It does not say that the mission to the nations was the mystery or unknown.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Danoh said:
Man are you driven by blindingly erroneous bias.

Twice I have sided with you on the sense of Peter's "shall be saved, even as they."

And yet, you STILL hold to YOUR notion that all MADs hold to TWO salvations :chuckle:

*By the way, one reason I sided with you on the above was because if Peter's "shall be saved" was a reference to a future salvation - as a SMALL MINORITY within MAD erroneously assert - then Paul's "might be justified" also means what it APPEARS to be in the voice of - of uncertainty.

Which, it is not.

But anyway, you, Interplanner, remain clueless about the very subject of your threads.

You have yet to demonstrate you understand Acts 9 Dispensationalism.

Perhaps you might run against Trump.

You're about as prepared to address the issues you yourself bring up as he always proves he also never is as to the issues he himself raises...

:crackup:
Click to expand...



Yes I understand Acts 9 D'ism. It is wrong and false and misguided and selective and amateur. Any questions?
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Danoh said:
Man are you driven by blindingly erroneous bias.

Twice I have sided with you on the sense of Peter's "shall be saved, even as they."

And yet, you STILL hold to YOUR notion that all MADs hold to TWO salvations :chuckle:

*By the way, one reason I sided with you on the above was because if Peter's "shall be saved" was a reference to a future salvation - as a SMALL MINORITY within MAD erroneously assert - then Paul's "might be justified" also means what it APPEARS to be in the voice of - of uncertainty.

Which, it is not.

But anyway, you, Interplanner, remain clueless about the very subject of your threads.

You have yet to demonstrate you understand Acts 9 Dispensationalism.

Perhaps you might run against Trump.

You're about as prepared to address the issues you yourself bring up as he always proves he also never is as to the issues he himself raises...

:crackup:
Click to expand...


that "may" voice of older English is never uncertainty. It always means it must be met by agreement or participation by the recipient; in the NT cases that means faith.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
I just stopped by another church with an Israel national flag. They believe it is prophecy. It is 2P2P. Not saying you would, but you must know that there are so many that do, and the sine qua non of D'ism is the line from Ryrie.
 
D

Danoh

New member
Interplanner said:
I just stopped by another church with an Israel national flag. They believe it is prophecy. It is 2P2P. Not saying you would, but you must know that there are so many that do, and the sine qua non of D'ism is the line from Ryrie.
Click to expand...

Being that most simply don't know any better (as with most within any school) what you are encountering when you run accross that is likely Acts 2 Dispies.

Their MAJORITY holds to that; whereas VERY FEW within Acts 9 Dispensationalism hold the view that today's Israel is in "fulfillment of prophecy."

In fact, we're always noting A DISTINCTION BETWEEN Prophecy and Mystery.

Whether you agree with MADS or not on this distinction, is another matter.

On another note; I've been meaning to ask you for your take on the assertion of some within Partial Preterism that "the Rapture" took place in 70AD.

This is what we all ought to be doing - comparing notes - not spitting out derisives at one another's view, just because we each have a different understanding.

Don't go there and I won't jump down your back about it.

Plain and simple.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
You shouldn't have too much distinction between prophecy and mystery because the prophets said it was there (the nations inclusion) but the HOW is mysterious even to them.

No 'rapture' took place in the events of the DofJ, just the escape (from Israel) at the signal of the city being surrounded. The reason Paul gave it so much attention right then (in Thess letters) was to answer or compare how living vs dead believers meet up. And 'right then' because it was expected so soon, and people were champfering for answers. With that urgency and the DofJ out of the way, it's details don't really matter any more. Obviously, those living at the moment when time is up will be 'changed'.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
I doubt I'm brilliant, but I try to be honest about which passages are self-organizing and that they decimate most human teaching. Human teaching is kata sarka--it is what Judaism would conclude from the OT.

I found out yesterday that Mr Thought Police about 'other books' has been reading them all this time!

I found out yesterday that MAD thinks the big contradiction of the NT is James 2 and they get the 'prize' for solving it.

I found out yesterday that Mr Feldick thinks that Gal 2 is Acts 9's confrontation of Peter. Nope.

It is very hard to care what MAD is about when you start from these facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top