Announcement

Collapse

Theology Club Rules

For years many TOL members have asked for a special set of forums where theology could be discussed without the distraction of troublemakers and other distractions. To post in the Theology Club forums you must apply for membership (yes even TOL subscribers must apply). Almost all memberships will be approved however your membership will be revoked if you engage in anti-Christian rhetoric, repeated cases of red-herrings, quibbling over terms (equivocation), strawmen, false allegations, and other devices contrary to honest debate. In short the Theology Club is a place for honest and friendly discussion regarding theological topics.
See more
See less

Actual, Mid-Acts, Bible Study

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Theology Club: Actual, Mid-Acts, Bible Study

    Originally posted by SaulToPaul View Post
    Gentiles found in a synagogue vs pagan Gentiles
    They did not take the same path into the Body.

    RD: "This isn't rocket surgery, or brain science."
    No: it is worse; it is the surgical hack of the Acts 28er as he approaches the Scripture, imposed on the highly refined skill of the Acts 9.

    It is very simple: the Hybrid of both into an Acts 9/Acts 28 view is no different from how some end up leaving Dispensationalism in general.

    Such leave Dispensationalism for some other school of thought; when their not yet developed skill at properly studying a thing out on their own, meets with one seeming perplexity or another not seemingly solved for by the Dispensational approach.

    Off they go to writers and teachers "without the camp."

    The Hybrid is the result of something similar. Only, such within Mid-Acts, turned to Welch and Bullinger in search of possible solutions.

    In contrast; the 're-emergence of Mid-Acts itself arose out of the labor of those few within Dispensationalism in general, who simply stuck out the seeming perplexities, knowing they just needed more time in Scripture: further refining through the Scripture: both their greater knowledge of the whole of Scripture, together with a greater understanding of the Dispensational principle that Scripture itself teaches.

    This path is very evident throughout the likes of Anderson's; Stam's; O'Hair's; and Baker's both sound assertions, and mis-fires.

    Especially in O'Hair's, as he often writes of his previous mis-fires and how he had only much later been able to solve for them.

    We can each relate to all that; to some extent.

    One of the latter of men such as they once noted it had taken him 7 years in Scripture before he allowed himself to conclude he had finally understood the intended sense of one passage in Galatians he had long been perplexed by.

    A great exercise is to take a paragraph, say, from Romans 9, or even from Pastor Joel Finck's great little book "The Power of God unto Salvation" and attempt to work a thing out backwards from either's assertions.

    From their assertion; to where they are looking at things from, as implied by their assertions.

    This, towards attempting to identify what principles behind how a thing works, and or what principles of study, they appear to be relying on that result in their assertions.

    This, in turn, towards making conscious one's own use and application of how one thing or another, is properly studied out.

    In a sense, then, RD is actually off-base.

    Beyond the basics; the sound study of Scripture in more and more depth is very much like a "rocket science."

  • #2
    Wait a minute.
    This looks more like a history lesson of the various MAD views between the scholars and who agreed or disagreed with whom through history.
    With a side helping of your opinion as to where each of them hit or missed.

    I don't consider that a BIBLE study.
    With a side helping of my opinion that you sure do like to tell folks they have a 'my way or the highway' approach, when you yourself spend a lot of time telling folks they are on the wrong highway (ie. not the highway you are on).
    Not to mention that MADist that disagrees with your viewpoint is called a hybrid by you.



    Soooooo, what exactly is this thread for?

    We don't tell our children fairy tales so that they will know that monsters exist.
    They already know monsters exist.
    We tell our children fairy tales so that they will know that monsters can be killed.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Tambora View Post
      Wait a minute.
      This looks more like a history lesson of the various MAD views between the scholars and who agreed or disagreed with whom through history.
      With a side helping of your opinion as to where each of them hit or missed.

      I don't consider that a BIBLE study.
      With a side helping of my opinion that you sure do like to tell folks they have a 'my way or the highway' approach, when you yourself spend a lot of time telling folks they are on the wrong highway (ie. not the highway you are on).
      Not to mention that MADist that disagrees with your viewpoint is called a hybrid by you.



      Soooooo, what exactly is this thread for?
      Why is the MAD theology so important to you?
      It seems to me that it's not a big deal. I think that the position is wrong but it's not a doctrine of demons. It's simply a miscalculation based on a faulty premise that leads to the error imo.

      If a musterion is something totally hidden in the OT only now revealed by the NT then the gospel message of the Jewish Messiah being made a sacrifice for sin does not qualify because of the Messianic Christology of the OT.

      Is my definition of the musterion wrong in your view? If you define it as I do then you're just being hard headed because Yeshua's death, burial and resurrection for sins was given prior to the writing of the NT.




      Sent from my iPhone using TOL

      Comment


      • #4
        Perhaps we should go about finding how a proper definition of the term musterion can be reached. This way it can become clear if MADists are practicing teacher worship. I just don't see how the musterions can be defined to fit the idea that the cross was not known in the OT. It was. The mystery was in that Jews and Gentiles would become one body.

        The hard part would be for the MAD teachers to admit that their definition of a musterion is incorrect and that their teaching sinks or swims on the very definition of what Paul technically termed the musterions.

        The easy thing for the MAD teacher to do is pick on the replacement theology camp by focusing on its inconsistency concerning the literal Jewish covenants. But that is hardly a solid proof to their position.


        Sent from my iPhone using TOL

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Danoh View Post
          No: it is worse; it is the surgical hack of the Acts 28er as he approaches the Scripture, imposed on the highly refined skill of the Acts 9.

          It is very simple: the Hybrid of both into an Acts 9/Acts 28 view is no different from how some end up leaving Dispensationalism in general.

          Such leave Dispensationalism for some other school of thought; when their not yet developed skill at properly studying a thing out on their own, meets with one seeming perplexity or another not seemingly solved for by the Dispensational approach.

          Off they go to writers and teachers "without the camp."

          The Hybrid is the result of something similar. Only, such within Mid-Acts, turned to Welch and Bullinger in search of possible solutions.

          In contrast; the 're-emergence of Mid-Acts itself arose out of the labor of those few within Dispensationalism in general, who simply stuck out the seeming perplexities, knowing they just needed more time in Scripture: further refining through the Scripture: both their greater knowledge of the whole of Scripture, together with a greater understanding of the Dispensational principle that Scripture itself teaches.

          This path is very evident throughout the likes of Anderson's; Stam's; O'Hair's; and Baker's both sound assertions, and mis-fires.

          Especially in O'Hair's, as he often writes of his previous mis-fires and how he had only much later been able to solve for them.

          We can each relate to all that; to some extent.

          One of the latter of men such as they once noted it had taken him 7 years in Scripture before he allowed himself to conclude he had finally understood the intended sense of one passage in Galatians he had long been perplexed by.

          A great exercise is to take a paragraph, say, from Romans 9, or even from Pastor Joel Finck's great little book "The Power of God unto Salvation" and attempt to work a thing out backwards from either's assertions.

          From their assertion; to where they are looking at things from, as implied by their assertions.

          This, towards attempting to identify what principles behind how a thing works, and or what principles of study, they appear to be relying on that result in their assertions.

          This, in turn, towards making conscious one's own use and application of how one thing or another, is properly studied out.

          In a sense, then, RD is actually off-base.

          Beyond the basics; the sound study of Scripture in more and more depth is very much like a "rocket science."
          You really do babble on sometimes.

          When your post is 99.9% opinion, you remind me of IP.
          All of my ancestors are human.
          Originally posted by Squeaky
          That explains why your an idiot.
          Originally posted by God's Truth
          Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
          Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
          (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

          1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
          (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

          Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by intojoy View Post
            Why is the MAD theology so important to you?
            The importance to me is that MAD does not confuse the BOC with Israel's restored kingdom.

            Israel has a prophetic role for the split kingdom to become one again in a restored kingdom and being a light to Gentiles.
            In other words, through the rise and exaltation of Israel.

            The BOC is a seperate entity that is established during Israel's fall, not their rise.
            We don't find that in the OT, but is revealed with Paul from the risen Lord Jesus Christ.

            We don't tell our children fairy tales so that they will know that monsters exist.
            They already know monsters exist.
            We tell our children fairy tales so that they will know that monsters can be killed.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Tambora View Post
              The importance to me is that MAD does not confuse the BOC with Israel's restored kingdom.

              Israel has a prophetic role for the split kingdom to become one again in a restored kingdom and being a light to Gentiles.
              In other words, through the rise and exaltation of Israel.

              The BOC is a seperate entity that is established during Israel's fall, not their rise.
              We don't find that in the OT, but is revealed with Paul from the risen Lord Jesus Christ.
              Ok. Do you think that the BOC will be here on earth during the 1000 year kingdom?
              Thx


              Sent from my iPhone using TOL

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by intojoy View Post
                Ok. Do you think that the BOC will be here on earth during the 1000 year kingdom?
                Thx


                Sent from my iPhone using TOL
                I don't know of anything that would require that. In other words I don't know of any scripture that says we will be, or that we have any role to fulfill during that time.

                So, my initial response would be no.
                But I don't want that 'no' to mean that we CANNOT be here during the mil.
                In other words I don't want to argue from silence.
                And since I don't know of any scripture requiring that we be here, I prefer to leave it at that, and not try to make something up about how it could be.


                What about you? Do you think we have a role in the mil?

                We don't tell our children fairy tales so that they will know that monsters exist.
                They already know monsters exist.
                We tell our children fairy tales so that they will know that monsters can be killed.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                  You really do babble on sometimes.

                  When your post is 99.9% opinion, you remind me of IP.
                  Respond how ignorantly and intolerantly some of you will - nevertheless; the fusion of the Acts 9 approach with that of the Acts 28 into some sort of a means of solving for seeming holes in Acts 9 that you and some others on here have bought into is an error...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Tambora View Post
                    I don't know of anything that would require that. In other words I don't know of any scripture that says we will be, or that we have any role to fulfill during that time.

                    So, my initial response would be no.
                    But I don't want that 'no' to mean that we CANNOT be here during the mil.
                    In other words I don't want to argue from silence.
                    And since I don't know of any scripture requiring that we be here, I prefer to leave it at that, and not try to make something up about how it could be.


                    What about you? Do you think we have a role in the mil?
                    Isn't obvious he does?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Tambora View Post
                      I don't know of anything that would require that. In other words I don't know of any scripture that says we will be, or that we have any role to fulfill during that time.

                      So, my initial response would be no.
                      But I don't want that 'no' to mean that we CANNOT be here during the mil.
                      In other words I don't want to argue from silence.
                      And since I don't know of any scripture requiring that we be here, I prefer to leave it at that, and not try to make something up about how it could be.


                      What about you? Do you think we have a role in the mil?
                      Yes I do and I'd heard some Christians that felt the church was not going to be here but in heaven during that time. It just dawned on me that MADists might be some who had that position. Thanks for that.


                      Sent from my iPhone using TOL

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by intojoy View Post
                        Perhaps we should go about finding how a proper definition of the term musterion can be reached. This way it can become clear if MADists are practicing teacher worship. I just don't see how the musterions can be defined to fit the idea that the cross was not known in the OT. It was. The mystery was in that Jews and Gentiles would become one body.

                        The hard part would be for the MAD teachers to admit that their definition of a musterion is incorrect and that their teaching sinks or swims on the very definition of what Paul technically termed the musterions.

                        The easy thing for the MAD teacher to do is pick on the replacement theology camp by focusing on its inconsistency concerning the literal Jewish covenants. But that is hardly a solid proof to their position.
                        Inquiring minds would like to see authoritative and reliable MAD teaching somewhere and somehow, because right now it seems more like a nihilism; it's not this, it's not that, etc., etc. Of course that's a tall order, because no Christian position has such a thing, save for Catholics, arguably the Orthodox (and I argue not), and Calvinism's Westminster standards. I suppose there could be others, but those are the big ones.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Nihilo View Post
                          Inquiring minds would like to see authoritative and reliable MAD teaching somewhere and somehow, because right now it seems more like a nihilism; it's not this, it's not that, etc., etc. Of course that's a tall order, because no Christian position has such a thing, save for Catholics, arguably the Orthodox (and I argue not), and Calvinism's Westminster standards. I suppose there could be others, but those are the big ones.
                          Revelation 20:4-6: And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, and for the word of God, and such as worshipped not the beast, neither his image, and received not the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand; and they lived, and reigned with Christ a thousand years. The rest of the dead lived not until the thousand years should be finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that has part in the first resurrection: over these the second death has no power; but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

                          Here are some that co reign with Messiah in the kingdom. We will be included with them.


                          Sent from my iPhone using TOL

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by intojoy View Post
                            Revelation 20:4-6: And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, and for the word of God, and such as worshipped not the beast, neither his image, and received not the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand; and they lived, and reigned with Christ a thousand years. The rest of the dead lived not until the thousand years should be finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that has part in the first resurrection: over these the second death has no power; but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

                            Here are some that co reign with Messiah in the kingdom. We will be included with them.
                            "Will be?"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Nihilo View Post
                              "Will be?"
                              Well, I believe in a literal thousand year kingdom when Israel is saved and Messiah reigns from Jerusalem. During that time the church saints "we" will be reigning with the Tribulation saints. I figured it out that Jerry thinks he will be watching soap operas all day up in heaven during this time.


                              Sent from my iPhone using TOL

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X