User Tag List

Page 3 of 23 FirstFirst 12345613 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 343

Thread: The essential irrationality of Dispensationalism

  1. #31
    LIFETIME MEMBER steko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    12,430
    Thanks
    21,797
    Thanked 18,617 Times in 10,439 Posts

    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147692
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    ON the last point:
    I'm trying to make D'ism collapse. .
    You're failing at it.

    When I first came to TOL I wondered at the dispensationalist old timers why many didn't give lengthy explanations of their position.
    At that time I was taking great pains to answer every objection that I could with lengthy explanations.
    Gradually, I learned that I was involved in a war of attrition and most objectors really weren't looking for cogent, comprehensive explanations. It began to appear to me that they mostly wanted to demonstrate their supposed intellectual superiority and seek to impress onlookers of how clever they were in exposing the errors of the dispensational consideration of Scripture. Most, I find, are really not interested in the possibility that they might have it all wrong.

    Now most of us just sit back with tongue in cheek and let such all-wise persons remain ignorant in their ranting.
    Jer 23:5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD[YHVH], that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
    Jer 23:6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he[the Branch] shall be called, THE LORD[YHVH] OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to steko For Your Post:

    patrick jane (August 29th, 2017),Right Divider (August 29th, 2017),Tambora (August 29th, 2017)

  3. #32
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    near Olympic National Park
    Posts
    12,045
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 641 Times in 568 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    186459
    Titus 2:15

    I'm not going to let a Tambora look at the Core NT theology and say I have not accepted truth. She full of it to say so. She should be agreeing 95-100%, last I checked on what historic Christianity. She/they WANT division, war, disagreement, etc.
    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

  4. #33
    Silver Member patrick jane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    homeless
    Posts
    27,008
    Thanks
    11,661
    Thanked 13,616 Times in 10,951 Posts

    Blog Entries
    27
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147788
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    Titus 2:15

    I'm not going to let a Tambora look at the Core NT theology and say I have not accepted truth. She full of it to say so. She should be agreeing 95-100%, last I checked on what historic Christianity. She/they WANT division, war, disagreement, etc.
    You're the one who wants war and division, you make thread after thread bad mouthing D'ism because you can't read and you're full of it.
    1 Corinthians 15:1-2 KJV - 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV -


    Colossians 1:13-14 KJV - Colossians 1:15-16 KJV - Colossians 1:17-18 KJV -

    Colossians 1:19-20 KJV - Colossians 1:21-22 KJV - Colossians 1:23 KJV -

    Colossians 1:25-26 KJV 27, 28, 29 - Ephesians 1:7 KJV - Ephesians 1:12-13, 14 -



  5. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to patrick jane For Your Post:

    Right Divider (August 29th, 2017),steko (August 29th, 2017),Tambora (August 29th, 2017)

  6. #34
    LIFETIME MEMBER steko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    12,430
    Thanks
    21,797
    Thanked 18,617 Times in 10,439 Posts

    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147692
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    Titus 2:15

    She/they WANT division, war, disagreement, etc.
    Nope, we were here first.
    You brought the war, disagreement, etc. and continue to do so.
    Anybody ever tell you, "You're obsessed" ?

    Jer 23:5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD[YHVH], that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
    Jer 23:6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he[the Branch] shall be called, THE LORD[YHVH] OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to steko For Your Post:

    Right Divider (August 29th, 2017),Tambora (August 29th, 2017)

  8. #35
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,821
    Thanks
    215
    Thanked 2,671 Times in 1,756 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1720998
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    ON the last point:
    I'm trying to make D'ism collapse. it is a ridiculous approach. It is unhistorical and irrational at many points.
    Saying it doesn't make it so and debunking ideas that a system does not teach doesn't even touch the system, never mind causing it to collapse.

    On the Levitical system:
    It seems you've just stepped into this discussion missing about 50 web pages worth of talk. Many of them fling chapters of Ezekiel at me to show that the sacrificial system will be up and running. The ones that use Jer 31 do not think it is fulfilled in Christ for a minute. Instead it is about another chance for the system and temple to be up and running.
    It is not relevant. The idea that the sacrificial system will be "up and running" is not a teaching of dispensationalism. There may be a dispensationalist who believe it but that isn't the same thing. The error you are making is the equivalent of attempting to debunk Christianity by debunking the teachings of Jim Jones or David Koresh.

    on the title of hebrews.
    It can be about that group in that generation and still have many, many shared points of doctrine to reinforce all believers. that is how is has been treated historically.
    This is precisely how dispensationalism treats it. Same goes for the book of James as well the rest of the non-Pauline New Testament books. The point isn't that the books should be ignored but simply read in context, understanding that they were not written directly to the Body of Christ but rather to those believers who were members of the Nation of Israel.
    This allows you to read the books and understand them to mean precisely what they say without creating contradictions that have to be explained away or "interpreted in the light of (fill in the blank)".

    and then there is the question of the options for the meaning of Hebrews. Is it:

    Christian Jews?
    the whole race?
    the new sense (Rom 2, Rom 9) in which there is both Jew and Gentile?
    Christian Jews would come the closest to describing the intended audience of the non-Pauline epistles but there's a good chance that such a label conjures ideas in your head that are not accurate because you are, to a large degree, living your life as a Christian Jew right now, albeit inconsistently so.
    Dispensationalism teaches that the callings of God are irrevocable (Romans 11:29). If you were called as a Jew then you remained a Jew even after God cut off his covenant with the Nation of Israel as a whole. Paul explains this in Romans 11 when he explains that not all of Israel has been cut off. Thus people like Peter, James, John and their converts continued to be practicing Jews (i.e. lived under the Law) while Paul's converts were forbidden to place themselves under the law. There were thus two groups of believers living under different covenants with different rules and if you are reading a letter written to the group that you don't belong to but apply it to yourself as though it was written to you then you are going to be confused. This is the state of most of modern Christianity.

    hebrews is written in Greek that is more complicated than Luke-Acts. Why would that be? Isn't fair to say that there is at least some variation on the literal meaning given that fact?
    It isn't just the title that lets us know that the letter was not addressed to the Body of Christ. It is the doctrine as well. The doctrine is consistent with the presented in the books written by Peter, James and John.

    On God enforcing the law
    That is a worthwhile distinction; you are the first of those 5 to mention it. I think they are really sensetive about being criticised, so I'm glad you've spoken up. You seem to be referring to a Jewish millenium then. Would good is it to be for just Jews? Why not Gentiles? Do you mean a new sense of Jews--based on faith, Rom 2, 9?
    I'm not sure what you're asking me. Jesus will rule the entire world from Jerusalem and the Body of Christ will not be around during that time. During this period, if you want to come to God, you'll have to go through Israel to do it. That is to say, you'll have to submit yourself to the Law of Moses. The specifics of which laws will be in force and which will not is Christ's prerogative to decide. We can know in general which laws will be in force but past a certain point, it becomes speculation.

    I believe such OT passages were referring to what Christ would accomplish in his own life and those things were done for Israel's sake. His life was lived for them, to justify them too. "OUt of Egypt I called my son" is a hint of this; a 2nd time for "Israel" (christ) to do what was needed for righteousness.
    I don't understand what you're referring to here.


    about speaking directly:
    I grew up in it; I studied at Multnomah under them. I have been on these discussion for years. there are many important pages recently that you don't seem to know. Yes, I find it irrational on many points: eschatology, hermeneutics, specific passages like Acts 13, Gal 3. I still find 'speakers' or 'Bible teachers' or 'experts' who don't know Acts 13 is an official sermon transcript, and really, really don't know what Gal 3 is saying. Almost all of them think the Law is what Moses wrote instead of the praxis of Judaism that Paul grew up in which had certain things to accomplish after the exile. They irrationally ignore other history such as Judas the Galilean (mentioned in Acts 5) and most of the impact and background of the zealot revolt that lasted from Judas to Masada. In fact, it is even called a sin to know of it. Or it is called 'made up' by one of the makeup artists. So a huge volume like Cornfeld's archeological commentary on the Jewish War, published by Zondervan, 2 illustrations per page on average, is total trash to them. If that's not irrational, I don't know what word will work.
    You cannot declare a doctrinal system irrational because it violates the premises of your own doctrinal system! That's called begging the question.

    One thing you need to reconsider is the implied idea that God left a bunch of vitally important information out of the bible. He didn't! I don't need to know extrabiblical history in order to be able to read and understand what the Bible is teaching. That isn't to say that an understanding of history is worthless only that it isn't NECESSARY. God did a really excellent job of writing His Bible and it can be quite well understood without even needing to know a syllable of the original language, never mind a bunch of intricate historical nuance.
    Besides, you act as if there was never a dispensationalist who ever read history or wrote a biblical commentary. Cherry picking your history books is precisely the reason why we don't base our doctrine on anything other than what we find in the Bible. Dispensationalists don't poo-poo your history books and commentaries because they have a problem with history but because they understand that biblical arguments trump your commentaries. You are never ever going to move a dispensationalist one inch off his doctrine by citing history books and commentaries. It's biblical arguments or nothing.

    On shadow to reality
    I don't know if any of the 5 here know what it means. they seem to respond to it like it was poison. Many of them have never read that all God's wrath on Israel fell in that generation after Jesus, that Paul said so two ways, that he said the law was 'the weak and miserable principles of the world' in Gal 4. That's the problem with prooftexts; the 'solve' everything and you stop hearing the Bible. I don't know if any of them know that shadow to reality is in both hebrews 8-10 and Col 2 (where there was neo-Judaism) and sort of connects the two docs as being by Paul.
    First of all, speaking of history, the Pauline authorship of Hebrews has been seriously questioned since the 3rd century (i.e. since before the year 300!). But even if that weren't the case, there is no way to have a coherent doctrine that permits one to believe that Paul authored Hebrews. At least not if you wish to take the bible to mean what it says. This is a topic for another thread but just to give one brief taste of what I'm talking about...

    Paul states explicitly that he did not receive the gospel from men nor was he taught it (Galatians 1:12). It was given to him by direct divine revelation. A point, by the way, that is rationally inexplicable outside of a dispensational perspective (i.e. there is no need for Paul if the Gospel hadn't changed). The author of Hebrews, on the other hand, speaks of the gospel being "confirmed to us by those who heard Him" (Hebrews 2:3). The contradiction cannot be resolved.
    Also, the author of Hebrews speaks in terms of "us" and "we" while Paul talks about "my gospel" and "I, Paul" and says things like "the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation." This group vs. individual way of speaking is consistent with the distinction between the corporate relationship people had with God through Israel vs. the individual relationship those in the Body of Christ have with God through Christ.

    Resting in Him,
    Clete
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  9. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 29th, 2017),patrick jane (August 29th, 2017),Right Divider (August 29th, 2017),steko (August 29th, 2017),Tambora (September 1st, 2017)

  10. #36
    Silver Member JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    3,255
    Thanks
    5,176
    Thanked 1,645 Times in 1,169 Posts

    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    339565
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    Saying it doesn't make it so and debunking ideas that a system does not teach doesn't debunk the system.


    It is not relevant. The idea that the sacrificial system will be "up and running" is not a teaching of dispensationalism. There may be a dispensationalist who believe it but that isn't the same thing. The error you are making is the equivalent of attempting to debunk Christianity by debunking the teachings of Jim Jones or David Koresh.


    This is precisely how dispensationalism treats it. Same goes for the book of James as well the rest of the non-Pauline New Testament books. The point isn't that the books should be ignored but simply read in context, understanding that they were not written directly to the Body of Christ but rather to those believers who were members of the Nation of Israel.
    This allows you to read the books and understand them to mean precisely what they say without creating contradictions that have to be explained away or "interpreted in the light of (fill in the blank)".


    Christian Jews would come the closest to describing the intended audience of the non-Pauline epistles but there's a good chance that such a label conjures ideas in your head that are not accurate because you are, to a large degree, living your life as a Christian Jew right now, albeit inconsistently so.
    Dispensationalism teaches that the callings of God are irrevocable (Romans 11:29). If you were called as a Jew then you remained a Jew even after God cut off his covenant with the Nation of Israel as a whole. Paul explains this in Romans 11 when he explains that not all of Israel has been cut off. Thus people like Peter, James, John and their converts continued to be practicing Jews (i.e. lived under the Law) while Paul's converts were forbidden to place themselves under the law. There were thus two groups of believers living under different covenants with different rules and if you are reading a letter written to the group that you don't belong to but apply it to yourself as though it was written to you then you are going to be confused. This is the state of most of modern Christianity.


    It isn't just the title that lets us know that the letter was not addressed to the Body of Christ. It is the doctrine as well. The doctrine is consistent with the presented in the books written by Peter, James and John.


    I'm not sure what you're asking me. Jesus will rule the entire world from Jerusalem and the Body of Christ will not be around during that time. During this period, if you want to come to God, you'll have to go through Israel to do it. That is to say, you'll have to submit yourself to the Law of Moses. The specifics of which laws will be in force and which will not is Christ's prerogative to decide. We can know in general which laws will be in force but past a certain point, it becomes speculation.


    I don't understand what you're referring to here.



    You cannot declare a doctrinal system irrational because it violates the premises of your own doctrinal system! That's called begging the question.

    One thing you need to reconsider is the implied idea that God left a bunch of vitally important information out of the bible. He didn't! I don't need to know extrabiblical history in order to be able to read and understand what the Bible is teaching. That isn't to say that an understanding of history is worthless only that it isn't NECESSARY. God did a really excellent job of writing His Bible and it can be quite well understood without even needing to know a syllable of the original language, never mind a bunch of intricate historical nuance.
    Besides, you act as if there was never a dispensationalist who ever read history or wrote a biblical commentary. Cherry picking your history books is precisely the reason why we don't base our doctrine on anything other than what we find in the Bible. Dispensationalists don't poo-poo your history books and commentaries because they have a problem with history but because they understand that biblical arguments trump your commentaries. You are never ever going to move a dispensationalist one inch off his doctrine by citing history books and commentaries. It's biblical arguments or nothing.


    First of all, speaking of history, the Pauline authorship of Hebrews has been seriously questioned since the 3rd century (i.e. since before the year 300!). But even if that weren't the case, there is no way to have a coherent doctrine that permits one to believe that Paul authored Hebrews. At least not if you wish to take the bible to mean what it says. This is a topic for another thread but just to give one brief taste of what I'm talking about...

    Paul states explicitly that he did not receive the gospel from men nor was he taught it (Galatians 1:12). It was given to him by direct divine revelation. A point, by the way, that is rationally inexplicable outside of a dispensational perspective (i.e. there is no need for Paul if the Gospel hadn't changed). The author of Hebrews, on the other hand, speaks of the gospel being "confirmed to us by those who heard Him" (Hebrews 2:3). The contradiction cannot be resolved.
    Also, the author of Hebrews speaks in terms of "us" and "we" while Paul talks about "my gospel" and "I, Paul" and says things like "the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation." This group vs. individual way of speaking is consistent with the distinction between the corporate relationship people had with God through Israel vs. the individual relationship those in the Body of Christ have with God through Christ.

    Resting in Him,
    Clete
    Very well said.

  11. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to JudgeRightly For Your Post:

    Clete (August 29th, 2017),Right Divider (August 29th, 2017),steko (August 29th, 2017),Tambora (August 29th, 2017)

  12. #37
    Silver Member patrick jane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    homeless
    Posts
    27,008
    Thanks
    11,661
    Thanked 13,616 Times in 10,951 Posts

    Blog Entries
    27
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147788
    Listen to Clete IP
    1 Corinthians 15:1-2 KJV - 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV -


    Colossians 1:13-14 KJV - Colossians 1:15-16 KJV - Colossians 1:17-18 KJV -

    Colossians 1:19-20 KJV - Colossians 1:21-22 KJV - Colossians 1:23 KJV -

    Colossians 1:25-26 KJV 27, 28, 29 - Ephesians 1:7 KJV - Ephesians 1:12-13, 14 -



  13. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to patrick jane For Your Post:

    Clete (August 29th, 2017),steko (August 29th, 2017),Tambora (September 1st, 2017)

  14. #38
    Body part Right Divider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    8,954
    Thanks
    6,003
    Thanked 9,488 Times in 5,675 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147621

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    But more directly, the Jews were under the first covenant and many other people under similar rules, making Paul create the expression in Col 2 and Gal4, the 'weak and miserable elements of the world' when referring to it.

    You always make up crazy stuff.

    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    Even if you don't see Israel as an example of what would happen, it does not change that the new covenant was put in effect by Christ the Covenant for us. He is our representative. God treats us as though him. This is why it sounds that way in the gospel accounts in both Corinthian passages and why it is the eternal covenant.
    More commentary talk?

    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    The obsession with Israel and the land misses the magnificence of it. And turns the Bible into a chopped up irrelevance in which some inside clique determines which books are for us or not.
    You are the one obsessed with Israel NOT getting the land that God promised them.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

    Has Amos 9:15 been cancelled?

    Eph 2:8-9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:8) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: (2:9) Not of works, lest any man should boast.

    The list: http://theologyonline.com/entry.php?...quot-list-quot Great Bible software: http://www.theword.net/

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Right Divider For Your Post:

    steko (August 29th, 2017),Tambora (August 29th, 2017)

  16. #39
    Body part Right Divider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    8,954
    Thanks
    6,003
    Thanked 9,488 Times in 5,675 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147621

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    wow STP (Mr. Make Up) is back. RD will be so happy. He seems to have forgot how to write 'made up'. Dusty rose today?
    I am happy when STP is around. He tells the truth, whereas you LIE and make stuff up all of the time.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

    Has Amos 9:15 been cancelled?

    Eph 2:8-9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:8) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: (2:9) Not of works, lest any man should boast.

    The list: http://theologyonline.com/entry.php?...quot-list-quot Great Bible software: http://www.theword.net/

  17. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Right Divider For Your Post:

    SaulToPaul (August 29th, 2017),steko (August 29th, 2017),Tambora (August 29th, 2017)

  18. #40
    Body part Right Divider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    8,954
    Thanks
    6,003
    Thanked 9,488 Times in 5,675 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147621

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    Titus 2:15

    I'm not going to let a Tambora look at the Core NT theology and say I have not accepted truth. She full of it to say so. She should be agreeing 95-100%, last I checked on what historic Christianity. She/they WANT division, war, disagreement, etc.
    Just another ignorant lie to put on your HUGE lie pile.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

    Has Amos 9:15 been cancelled?

    Eph 2:8-9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:8) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: (2:9) Not of works, lest any man should boast.

    The list: http://theologyonline.com/entry.php?...quot-list-quot Great Bible software: http://www.theword.net/

  19. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Right Divider For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 29th, 2017),steko (August 29th, 2017),Tambora (August 29th, 2017)

  20. #41
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    12,608
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 2,997 Times in 2,233 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1071729
    Quote Originally Posted by northwye View Post
    "I'm trying to make D'ism collapse. it is a ridiculous approach. It is unhistorical and irrational at many points."

    In a way, dispensationalism has "collapsed" on TOL - into the dialectic game, which older dispensationalists like Steve Quayle, Doug Hagmann or Rodney Howard-Browne do not get into very much. Many of the older dispensationalists did not preach on the doctrines of dispensationalism. But not preaching very much on dispensationalism but holding on to it is deceptive.

    The learning of dispensationalism by people depends a lot upon the Capital C Church over which the clergy class rules as "lords over God's heritage." - I Peter 5: 3. When the dispensationalists took over the Southern Baptist Convention they not only booted out of their seminaries all the professors who were not dispensationaliss, but they got rid of the old Southern Baptist doctrine of the priesthood of the believer. In dispensationalism the preacher must be the "priest" who rules over the doctrines believed by the congregation.
    Can't say I completely disagree with your above.

    Philippians 1:15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: 1:16 The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: 1:17 But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. 1:18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

    At the same time, your own error is just as obvious.

    For you equate the "ism" as the culprit.

    Fact is - take any individual who was already living by the hypocrisy of one rabidly entrenched double-standard or another, introduce them to an "ism" or "ology" or what have you, and such an individual is likely to automatically begin filtering his or her assertion of said "ism" through the lens of the rabidly entrenched double-standard, they had already been living out of.

    I've seen this manifest itself in every walk of life, and...in every "ism" and or "ology" out there.

    Be the individual a former practitioner of one martial art or another; be it a former alcoholic, or some other form of chemical abuse addict; be it a physicist formerly of a different school of physics; be it someone who had once held to one party of Politics or another; be it someone who professes having formerly been Reformed, or formerly Baptist, or formerly Dispensational, or formerly this, or formerly that - the infection that was long their duplicity is ever the same in those formerly rabid in their prior view to begin with - it too often infects where they view and or stand in support of their new view from.

    This is why there is often no getting through to such about this problem - even the attempt of one such might other wise view as one of their own.

    Thus, why we read of the shameful "He came unto his own - but his own received him not..." at the same time; in contrast to that of "But as many as received him..." John 1:11,12.

    For to right off conclude the "ism" and or "ology" of such is itself the culprit, is another form of a double-standard, and is thus also, a hypocrisy, northwye.

    "Ye have not so learned" that from "Christ..."

    In contrast to your "one size fits all" in your above post, He had often made a distinction as to the things that differ between the two...

    Matthew 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

    Nevertheless, Rom. 5:8, northwye.
    Last edited by Danoh; August 29th, 2017 at 12:19 PM. Reason: Clarity

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to Danoh For Your Post:

    steko (August 29th, 2017)

  22. #42
    Fiddle Dee Dee Tambora's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    41,405
    Thanks
    120,645
    Thanked 36,434 Times in 22,761 Posts

    Mentioned
    131 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2148061
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    Titus 2:15

    I'm not going to let a Tambora look at the Core NT theology and say I have not accepted truth. She full of it to say so. She should be agreeing 95-100%, last I checked on what historic Christianity. She/they WANT division, war, disagreement, etc.
    It won't be by me. but by scripture.

    For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

  23. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Tambora For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 29th, 2017),Right Divider (August 29th, 2017),steko (August 29th, 2017)

  24. #43
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    near Olympic National Park
    Posts
    12,045
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 641 Times in 568 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    186459
    Quote Originally Posted by steko View Post
    Nope, we were here first.
    You brought the war, disagreement, etc. and continue to do so.
    Anybody ever tell you, "You're obsessed" ?




    How can you honestly read that OP and say it is the sort of thing that you are? Have you read it?

    Have you got to the point where the land restoration defines so much that you can't agree that God was in Christ reconciling the debt of sin, and rejoice in that? What sort of mob or cult are you?
    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

  25. #44
    Silver Member SaulToPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    17,873
    Thanks
    2,898
    Thanked 18,247 Times in 10,751 Posts

    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147790
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    How can you honestly read that OP and say it is the sort of thing that you are? Have you read it?

    Have you got to the point where the land restoration defines so much that you can't agree that God was in Christ reconciling the debt of sin, and rejoice in that? What sort of mob or cult are you?
    Huh?
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    You're too literal to get it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

  26. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SaulToPaul For Your Post:

    steko (August 30th, 2017),Tambora (September 1st, 2017)

  27. #45
    LIFETIME MEMBER steko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    12,430
    Thanks
    21,797
    Thanked 18,617 Times in 10,439 Posts

    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147692
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    How can you honestly read that OP and say it is the sort of thing that you are? Have you read it?
    Yeah, I read it.
    I don't understand the other question.

    Have you got to the point where the land restoration defines so much that you can't agree that God was in Christ reconciling the debt of sin, and rejoice in that?
    Nope... haven't gotten to that point.
    I rejoice in 2Co 5:19.
    For that matter... it's my commission from the ascended Christ thru the Apostle Paul.

    What sort of mob or cult are you?
    I'm neither.
    Jer 23:5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD[YHVH], that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
    Jer 23:6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he[the Branch] shall be called, THE LORD[YHVH] OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

  28. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to steko For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 30th, 2017),Right Divider (August 30th, 2017),Tambora (August 30th, 2017)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us