ECT WHAT DO PROPHETS DO IN OT an in GRACE ??

[turbosixx]

Honestly, until one gets where a particular system is looking at things from to begin with, looking at them instead, from within one's own system, one will not be able to see why the other side is asserting what it is.

I know from having been there myself.

A system of one kind or another is ever the issue; ever in place.

All have a Systematic Theology; whether they know it or not.

Ours is an Acts 9, aka Mid-Acts, Dispensational Theology.

The question is whether or not one has become so bound to one's system that the dynamics of other systems are either not able to be made sense of, nor even allowed their exploring.

Note, for example, my reply to Interplanner, and his in turn.

As Einstein put it "one cannot solve whatever is causing a problem, by the same kind of thinking that is causing it," or words to that effect.

See if this short video helps to see where we are coming from, just a bit more. Its speaker is someone I have over the years found I agree with to a very high degree:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNhTLRPpD7I

Get that out of the way - get where we are coming from to begin with.

Even more so, how we arrived at it. This is a question very few ask, let alone, soundly.

I will keep reading but the problem is he is twisting scripture to lay his foundation. Another example is where he said Paul was first.

Point # 2. The second affirmation that we want to make is that the Mystery was first revealed to Paul. Again in Ephesians 3, we have it stated that God committed it unto him. Compare that
with I Timothy 1. In Ephesians Paul says, "If ye have heard of the Dispensation of the Grace of God which is given me to you toward, how that by revelation He made known unto me the Mystery."
In I Timothy
1:16, he says, "Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should 25 hereafter believe on Him to life everlasting." According to this text, the Apostle Paul is the first one who was saved according to the current method of salvation.

He is taking 1 Tim. 1:16 out of context. Looking at the NASB it's evident.

1 Tim. 1:15 It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all. 16 Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life.


The same Greek word is used in v15 and 16.
prótos: first, chief
Original Word: πρῶτος, η, ον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: prótos
Phonetic Spelling: (pro'-tos)
Short Definition: first, before
Definition: first, before, principal, most important.

IF Paul was the first to be saved under the "current method" then baptism is part of that method.

Acts 22:16 Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.'

 

[Danoh]

I will keep reading but the problem is he is twisting scripture to lay his foundation. Another example is where he said Paul was first.

Point # 2. The second affirmation that we want to make is that the Mystery was first revealed to Paul. Again in Ephesians 3, we have it stated that God committed it unto him. Compare that
with I Timothy 1. In Ephesians Paul says, "If ye have heard of the Dispensation of the Grace of God which is given me to you toward, how that by revelation He made known unto me the Mystery."
In I Timothy
1:16, he says, "Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should 25 hereafter believe on Him to life everlasting." According to this text, the Apostle Paul is the first one who was saved according to the current method of salvation.

He is taking 1 Tim. 1:16 out of context. Looking at the NASB it's evident.

1 Tim. 1:15 It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all. 16 Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life.


The same Greek word is used in v15 and 16.
prótos: first, chief
Original Word: πρῶτος, η, ον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: prótos
Phonetic Spelling: (pro'-tos)
Short Definition: first, before
Definition: first, before, principal, most important.

IF Paul was the first to be saved under the "current method" then baptism is part of that method.

Acts 22:16 Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.'

Was Saul "a blasphemer" saveable per Acts 7:51 and Acts 26: 9-11, in light of Matthew 12:30-32, and Hebrews 2:2-5?

In light of that, was Paul, when he was saved; circumcision, or uncircumcision?

In Scripture; do the ways things have been prior to a transition automatically cease, when a transition from one dynamic to another begins?

Matthew 5's "think not" should tell you that no, they do not cease, just as Matthew 8's "go and shew thyself" shows you that, no, they do not.

Matthew being a good example of this principle because, Matthew, as with Acts, is a book about a transition from one dynamic to another, just as Romans 9-11 asserts about both those books.

 

[Interplanner]

Rom 9-11 speaks of both Matthew and Acts?

 

[turbosixx]

Was Saul "a blasphemer" saveable per Acts 7:51 and Acts 26: 9-11, in light of Matthew 12:30-32, and Hebrews 2:2-5?

In light of that, was Paul, when he was saved; circumcision, or uncircumcision?

In Scripture; do the ways things have been prior to a transition automatically cease, when a transition from one dynamic to another begins?

Matthew 5's "think not" should tell you that no, they do not cease, just as Matthew 8's "go and shew thyself" shows you that, no, they do not.

Matthew being a good example of this principle because, Matthew, as with Acts, is a book about a transition from one dynamic to another, just as Romans 9-11 asserts about both those books.

I don't see how that has any bearing on miss use of scripture to establish a point, in this case Point #2.

I quote Finck, "According to this text, the Apostle
Paul is the first one who was saved according to the current method of salvation."

Paul was baptized and he baptized people who believed.

Acts 16:14 A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household had been baptized,

Was the jailer circumcised yet Paul baptized him according to the words of Jesus.

Mark. 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Paul is using the same pattern the apostles used taught by Jesus after he had been commissioned.

 

[Interplanner]

There are no "methods" of salvation that matter. What matters is the perfect righteousness of Christ imputed or credited to a person. That means it goes to their standing, not that it changes all their behavior. Does the person realize they need that infinite resource?

 

[Danoh]

I don't see how that has any bearing on miss use of scripture to establish a point, in this case Point #2.

I quote Finck, "According to this text, the Apostle
Paul is the first one who was saved according to the current method of salvation."

Paul was baptized and he baptized people who believed.

Acts 16:14 A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household had been baptized,

Was the jailer circumcised yet Paul baptized him according to the words of Jesus.

Mark. 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Paul is using the same pattern the apostles used taught by Jesus after he had been commissioned.

Your questions - not your too soon assertions - are legitimate ones - finish the book...

And only you know your intent, and that you began from page one...

 

[turbosixx]

Your questions - not your too soon assertions - are legitimate ones - finish the book...

And only you know your intent, and that you began from page one...

Ok, I'll keep reading.

 

[Danoh]

Ok, I'll keep reading.

Please think on the following - note what I said about Paul on Mathew and Acts in Romans 9-11 - and how it flew completely past Interplanner's head.

Despite his forty plus years in "Luke in light of history" and all the rest - out of a Theology school - where men parrot men, and have been parroting men for centuries - he was unable to grasp what I said.

Why?

His overall perspective won't allow him to see what is right in front of him.

Not because he is some evil villain, or any of that. Neither because he is stupid; for he clearly is highly intelligent.

At the same time, in a great sense, all intelligence is, is collected information.

His overall perspective is the issue - it was never suited for seeing what is right in front of him. Because its origin is the reasoning of men "about" the Scripture, in contrast to reasoning about the Scripture "through" the Scripture.

The reasoning of men "about" a thing only ends one up having to have a thing explained to them - only to continue to keep them blind to seeing it.

Only after more of the right internal information about a thing - from - within - it - itself, were the eyes of Einstein's understanding, for example, able to see that he'd been off-base in a prior conclusion; earlier, he had concluded "man will never crack the atom."

How one looks at a thing; where one looks at it from, can either blind one from seeing it, or allow one to.

This is why I go on about these things emphasizing this "lens" issue more than simply asserting "well this passage says this..."

 

[Interplanner]

Please think on the following - note what I said about Paul on Mathew and Acts in Romans 9-11 - and how it flew completely past Interplanner's head.

Despite his forty plus years in "Luke in light of history" and all the rest - out of a Theology school - where men parrot men, and have been parroting men for centuries - he was unable to grasp what I said.

Why?

His overall perspective won't allow him to see what is right in front of him.

Not because he is some evil villain, or any of that. Neither because he is stupid; for he clearly is highly intelligent.

At the same time, in a great sense, all intelligence is, is collected information.

His overall perspective is the issue - it was never suited for seeing what is right in front of him. Because its origin is the reasoning of men "about" the Scripture, in contrast to reasoning about the Scripture "through" the Scripture.

The reasoning of men "about" a thing only ends one up having to have a thing explained to them - only to continue to keep them blind to seeing it.

Only after more of the right internal information about a thing - from - within - it - itself, were the eyes of Einstein's understanding, for example, able to see that he'd been off-base in a prior conclusion; earlier, he had concluded "man will never crack the atom."

How one looks at a thing; where one looks at it from, can either blind one from seeing it, or allow one to.

This is why I go on about these things emphasizing this "lens" issue more than simply asserting "well this passage says this..."

Line after line of non-communication. What are you saying about Matthew and Acts in Rom 9-11? Can you hire a reductionist who can clear out the crap out of your many lines that do nothing but protect your face?

What are you saying in 10 words?

 

[patrick jane]

I don't see how that has any bearing on miss use of scripture to establish a point, in this case Point #2.

I quote Finck, "According to this text, the Apostle
Paul is the first one who was saved according to the current method of salvation."

Paul was baptized and he baptized people who believed.

Acts 16:14 A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household had been baptized,

Was the jailer circumcised yet Paul baptized him according to the words of Jesus.

Mark. 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Paul is using the same pattern the apostles used taught by Jesus after he had been commissioned.

Acts 1:5 KJV - Acts 19:2-3 KJV - Acts 19:4-5 KJV - Acts 19:6 KJV -

 

[turbosixx]

Acts 1:5 KJV - Acts 19:2-3 KJV - Acts 19:4-5 KJV - Acts 19:6 KJV -

Gen. - Rev.

 

[Danoh]

Line after line of non-communication. What are you saying about Matthew and Acts in Rom 9-11? Can you hire a reductionist who can clear out the crap out of your many lines that do nothing but protect your face?

What are you saying in 10 words?

"No need to curse; no need..." - the late Mob Boss, Carlo Gambino

Lol

 

[Interplanner]

Incessant evasion. Good bye.

 

[Danoh]

Incessant evasion. Good bye.

I am trying to get you to have to let go of the lens of your tradition, that you might approach this assertion of mine afresh.

To simply give you the answer is to pit it once more against what you think is going on - the reasoning of men "about" a thing - even as you remain unaware that this is where you are looking at things from - from the reasoning of men "about" a thing.

Given this lens of yours you remain unaware of, even as you apply it, we can only disagree.

What you see as sound versus what I do.

Where is the Scripture in all this?

It is not. Yours is endless scholarship "about" things.

That is why I cautioned Turbo, not only that I may not necessarily agree with all that is in that book I recommended, but that he should not rely on it beyond what time it might save in giving him some sense of our view rather than going a thousand posts towards that.

To his credit, he is at least doing that much.

You. You can't be bothered.

What do you end up relying on? Your habit of reading into another's words; concluding, predictably, that what you are "seeing" is "evasion."

Fact is, if what we assert is sound, you will know one day that you could have bothered but chose not to.

 

[Interplanner]

All you do is psych ops, trying to tell me what is in my head. If you want to communicate SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE DAMN VERSE