NO not really YOU believe Stan was right and I do not. Anyone that buys into MAD has done so with yanking scripture out of context to make it say what they want the scripture to say not what it actually says.
When I first read Stam (Acts 9 or Mid-Acts Position); I found I agreed with him on various aspects of things I had already come to the same conclusions on long before I'd even heard of Dispensationalism, let alone, Mid-Acts.
How? Simply thru my own time in Scripture based on Principles of Study the Bible itself teaches, and that I had bothered to identify in the Scripture, because I had wanted to know and had sought out what those might be - in - the - Scripture - Itself.
I also found I did not agree with Stam on some things.
This aspect was basically due to those areas in his great little book "Things That Differ" where it was obvious to me he had not followed the Bible Based Principles of Study much of his many, many solidly sound assertions in that book were clearly based on.
You have yet to prove you even go by any consciously applied Bible Based Principles of Study, and or that you even know what such might be.
I have probably forgotten more actual Study Principles than the likes of you, dodge, might ever fathom; especially given your obvious continuance down your blind alley "well, what it means to me is..."
Later, when I first read Bullinger's (Acts 29 Position) still great book "How to Enjoy the Bible," I found that not only did I agree with the various Study Principles he actually lays out in that great book, but that I did not agree with either many of his conclusions, nor with his obvious departure from the very Principles he had laid out so well in that book.
You are not addressing some clueless individual. I know more than a thing or two about how to trace out an assertion, back to its conclusion; back to its originating premises; and so on, all the way back to the Principles of Study and or their violation, etc.
In most areas of life, not just Scripture, alone.
Thus, I know, not hope, not wonder, not guess at, that most of Stam's, O'Hair's , and Baker's basic assertions were sound.
Til you come clean, you can blow your supposed concern for MADs (even as you slander the likes of a Stam and or a Bullinger, et al in your obvious incompetence) elsewhere.
Your hypocrisy is meeting with deaf ears.
Rom. 5:8
Prov. 27:17
