Not necessarily...
1 Peter 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
ECT "Things that are different" included Gentiles
- Thread starter heir
- Start date
Not necessarily...
1 Peter 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
Nope.
You need to CAREFULLY compare Acts 9 with Galatians 1, and Acts 15, as to what Paul had accomplished in Syria and Cilicia, back in Acts 9.
Your study approach is lacking a bit more thoroughness.
Of course, you only take offense to having pointed out to you "that which is lacking in your faith."
You are not the issue, heir.
Christ ALONE is.
Quit making yourself the issue when things are pointed out to you.
Galatians 2:20 is the issue.
Not you.
Proverbs 27:17.
musterion
Well-known member
God's Word will stand and will accomplish whatever He intends.
Just as there is Scripture that is no longer in force because it was written people in the past, likewise there is Scripture that will not...cannot...be completely fulfilled until the future.
This is why preterism is both stupid and blasphemous: it's selectively tries to limit God on what He may and may not do in the future.
Other than in the spirit of say, a passage like Romans 15:4: such things matter not directly; if they do not apply directly.
And the fact is that your entire system is different from that of the Dispy's.
The result being that a verse here and there pointed out by you is not going to impact a thing based on an entire system; on a constellation of many elements comprising both the whole, and its' every aspect.
That is exactly why the Dispy does not buy into your assertion that the Lord already returned - yours is an assertion based on an entire and vastly different system that you hold to.
And that is no defence of yours.
Case in point - Interplanner holds to a system very similar to your own, and even he disagrees with your assertion that the Lord already returned.
I know, time for you to inadvertently plug Darby.
So thank you very much for doing so :chuckle:
Nope.
Darby was not Acts 28.
Neither was Bullinger the founder of what became known as Bullingerism.
He only became known as its' founder because the writers of endless books "about" that you ever over rely on have always been not only sloppy in their research on these things, but lacking in basic integrity whenever it was pointed out they were being sloppy in who they were attributing to what.
Exactly the two poor qualities you continually manifest driving your exact same erroneous rhetoric, in just about your every post on here.
That just proves the incompetence of your myopia.
Might as well throw out the teaching that Jesus was the Son of God - because the RCC holds to that same assertion.
Or that Christ died for our sins - because the RCC holds this same assertion.
And you might as well quit holding to that - because the Dispy holds to those.
Be it Darby (known in connection with a major work on Dispensationalism), or Russell (known in connection with a major work on Preterism) and every other man known in between, what matters first is not the source.
Rather, as the Apostle Paul himself put it of the witness of even a heretic - what matters first is whether or not "this witness is true" - Titus 1:12-14.
That principle right there, IP, is why I agree with you where I alone often do, when I do. Where I find your "witness" on some point "is true."
In contrast, in your above post, you are basically practicing the double-standard of many on here who oppose your views - the practice of failing to concede a point based on its' source.
Let go the narrow mind of your obvious myopia, bro.
Last edited:
Even IP knows it was taught in one form or another before Darby :chuckle:
But again, source is not the first concern, Titus 1:12-13.
"...this witness is true" Tel.
Some of them immediately run to the woodshed.
Never as to their pals, though.
One more trait not found within many MADs outside of this fringe group and their Hybrid on TOL.
I won't be surprised if she soon closes down this thread - a habit of hers when things don't go her way - as with that major hypocrite on here, Musterion.
Though he is even worse; he is ever attempting to get people who do not hold his extremist nonsense either booted out of a thread, or completely banned from TOL.
THIS is the grace these so called gospel of grace hypocrites and their pals apparantly actually hold to on here.
Titus 1:12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
Nope, that is not why she and hers end up at this error of theirs on Ephesians and other points.
The vast majority of Mid-Acts Based Dispensational Pastor-Teachers do not hold these hybrid fringe views of heir's and her pals on here.
It is clear this fringe group has deviated from properly studying a thing out, as a result of never having learned how to, to begin with.
Of course, pointing this out as a possibility only rubs such the wrong way.
Last edited:
Actually, Anderson's views are far closer to what became known as Acts 28 Dispensationalism.
A point Jerry has ever denied.
Only to prove otherwise, when he posts a writing from Anderson in which Anderson does not appear a 28er only to Jerry :chuckle:
You remain clueless, Tel.
musterion
Well-known member
You've long dumped every MAD who isn't you into the same doctrinal bucket of hybrids, genius, so from your perspective if I'm asking about her errors I'm automatically asking about my own.
Rubbish - their future is future.
Jews today who do not turn back to the God of their Fathers and trust that Chrisr died for their sins are hell-bound, just like anyone else who does not trust that Christ died for their sins.
There isn't a true Dispy who says otherwise.
While future Jews who do not turn back to the God of their Fathers can expect the same fate.
Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
Acts 3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
You remain clueless "about" Dispensationalism.
Nope. Yours are far worse.
Case in point, she does not hold your extremist bigotry of capital punishment for homosexuals.
Her view is that Christ died for their sins too and they need to hear that.
Last edited:
Again, why is it so hard for you guys to understand that when NT writers quoted OT verses, it wasn't because they were still to be fulfilled? They quoted them because they were being fulfilled when they quoted them.
Yes, the cross.
(1 John 2:2) He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Excuse me, but I preach what is in Christ and historically true. I don't know if that is what you mean by preterist, so if you speak about me again, it is the historical view of what is true in Christ, got it?
It doesn't matter to them.
The New Covenant destroys their Dispensationalism, so...that's why every Darby Follower has to deny it.
"was established" is different than "may be established".