Theology Club: Actual, Mid-Acts, Bible Study

[Danoh]

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."

 

[Tambora]

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?

 

[intojoy]

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

 

[intojoy]

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

 

[Right Divider]

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.

 

[Tambora]

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.

 

[intojoy]

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

 

[Tambora]

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?

 

[Danoh]

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...

 

[Danoh]

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?

 

[intojoy]

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

 

[Nihilo]

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. :idunno:

 

[intojoy]

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. :idunno:

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

 

[Nihilo]

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?"

 

[intojoy]

"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

 

[Tambora]

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. :idunno:

I think that is because MAD is not a denomination, etc., with creeds and traditions and such.
It's just a term used to separate those that believe a particular point from those that do not believe that particular point.
The particular point being that the BOC is not Israel, but a completely different entity from Israel.

I mean, there is no MADism vs. Calvinism, because even among Calvinists you will find some that believe Israel will be restored on earth and some that don't.

It's kinda like the term 'pre-trib'.
It's not a denomination, but just a term we throw out there to separate those that think the rapture happens before the tribulation, as opposed to those that don't.


In other words, folks can believe what MAD does and still be a member of most any denomination.

 

[Tambora]

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

Maybe you could detail your reasoning a bit more, cause I'm not seeing anything in the above that DEMANDS that it can only be about the BOC.

 

[Tambora]

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

Do you hold the view of pre-trib rapture?

 

[Nihilo]

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.

:rotfl: I audibly cracked up.

What if the first resurrection is just baptism---when first we believed---and the real mystery is what 1000 years means, especially in light of the other famous 1000 year passages, but also, perhaps, maybe, :think:, in light of how long the One Church was also one organization, on the earth, from about AD 30 to AD 1054? It's not exact, no. Not as exact as the Lord's prediction of how long it would be, before Rome wrecked the temple, that was 40 years straight-up-and-down. But the duration from AD 30 to 1054 is within what a statistician would call "3% accuracy," which is . . . not great, honestly. But 1054 - 30 = 1024, which is exactly, FWIW, 2^10, which is kind of like the "binary thousand," and why the megabyte and kilobyte and gigabyte and terabyte aren't actually 1000 bytes, but are 1,024 bytes. So in "the Greek," are we talking about a "kiloyear," or is it 1000 years?

2nd Peter 3:8 (KJV) Psalm 90:4 (KJV)

 

[Nihilo]

I think that is because MAD is not a denomination, etc., with creeds and traditions and such.
It's just a term used to separate those that believe a particular point from those that do not believe that particular point.
The particular point being that the BOC is not Israel, but a completely different entity from Israel.

I mean, there is no MADism vs. Calvinism, because even among Calvinists you will find some that believe Israel will be restored on earth and some that don't.

It's kinda like the term 'pre-trib'.
It's not a denomination, but just a term we throw out there to separate those that think the rapture happens before the tribulation, as opposed to those that don't.


In other words, folks can believe what MAD does and still be a member of most any denomination.

Well, you tricked me. I, after years of trying, didn't "figger out" that MADism was primarily an eschatological distinction in Christian theology. Very interesting Tambora, thank you. :e4e: :think: