ECT For MADs: if Scofield was right...

[SaulToPaul 2]

Oh no! Not that dastardly elusive CLUB again. Anything but the CLUB!!!!!

Danoh has two distinct personalities:

1. He pokes fun and ridicules certain posters and is dogmatic
2. He defends the same posters and is much more liberal and flexible

I don't know which one is the real Danoh :idunno:

 

[Danoh]

For you? Nothing but dissension, condescension and conflict. As it always is with you.

ASK ANYBODY.



So you would not feel comfortable in such an environment. Too stuffy, too "you guys."

Example: many if not most of the MADs here are Open View. I"m sympathetic but not fully convinced. But we get along just fine despite that difference, it seems to me. We agree on almost everything else, more often than not. We may offer correction or ask questions, but gently and with respect for one another and for Truth.

On the other hand.

You...YOU are an expert nitpicker for the sake of nitpicking. A needler for the sake of needling.

Edification is not your thing. Your pious platitudes notwithstanding, your condescending dismissals of us are abundant proof.

We don't do that to each other.

You do. Without faith. Like clockwork. It is now what you, Danoh, are KNOWN for.

So if there were such a MAD ONLY club, I'm sure you'll agree it'd be best for all involved if you didn't try getting past the velvet rope.

Didn't read the rest of your post. No point...we're not the same MAD.

How's the receiving end feel?

Ta.

You made my point.

For your kind, things are about a "ta" about an "we got so and so, and good."

You glory that sort of thing. You're petty.

You take issue with me for getting on you about that kind of thing.

You spit on others daily, and high-five one another about it; you then take issue when called on it.

There is no grace in your gospel.

 

[Interplanner]

Why? It's a valid adaptation of a sound Bible word and indisputably biblical concept.

No, it now means 2P2P. That is why I don't use the term D'ism as often. Because people forget. D'ism is to theology what gay is to homosexuality. People forget 2P2P which is a crock.

 

[Danoh]

Danoh has two distinct personalities:

1. He pokes fun and ridicules certain posters and is dogmatic
2. He defends the same posters and is much more liberal and flexible

I don't know which one is the real Danoh :idunno:

No, you don't.

It's very simple - I poke fun at, and am often dogmatically opposed, say, to many of IP's assertions.

But I ALSO concede his point, when I find it valid, and even defend him when he makes a valid point and is attacked by you and yours.

That is one personality - a fair one.

Try it some time, neighbor.

 

[Danoh]

No, it now means 2P2P. That is why I don't use the term D'ism as often. Because people forget. D'ism is to theology what gay is to homosexuality. People forget 2P2P which is a crock.

Your fool, books based ideas are the crock.

Even your 2P2P label was lifted from a book "about," by you.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

For you? Nothing but dissension, condescension and conflict. As it always is with you.

ASK ANYBODY.



So you would not feel comfortable in such an environment. Too stuffy, too "you guys."

Example: many if not most of the MADs here are Open View. I"m sympathetic but not fully convinced. But we get along just fine despite that difference, it seems to me. We agree on almost everything else, more often than not. We may offer correction or ask questions, but gently and with respect for one another and for Truth.

On the other hand.

You...YOU are an expert nitpicker for the sake of nitpicking. A needler for the sake of needling.

Edification is not your thing. Your pious platitudes notwithstanding, your condescending dismissals of us are abundant proof.

We don't do that to each other.

You do. Without faith. Like clockwork. It is now what you, Danoh, are KNOWN for.

So if there were such a MAD ONLY club, I'm sure you'll agree it'd be best for all involved if you didn't try getting past the velvet rope.

Didn't read the rest of your post. No point...we're not the same MAD.

How's the receiving end feel?

Ta.

I placed the pretentious Danoh on "EGGNORE" a long time ago. He is incorrigible and unpleasant, to say the least. He loves to "tear down" not "build up" Madists. I find him, deplorable.

 

[Lon]

Why? It's a valid adaptation of a sound Bible word and indisputably biblical concept.

You are correct, I was just running off your summary prior and any agreement with Covenant Theology (dispensation isn't in that name).

Point well taken however, it is a biblical word. Lon

 

[Jerry Shugart]

We are not overtakers but partakers of the Jewish blessings.

Such as?

 

[intojoy]

Such as?

You're on a need to know basis right now Jerry.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You're on a need to know basis right now Jerry.

Come on pops! Don't keep us in suspense wondering what are the Jewish blessings of which we partake:

We are not overtakers but partakers of the Jewish blessings.

 

[intojoy]

Come on pops! Don't keep us in suspense wondering what are the Jewish blessings of which we partake:

Wait for it..


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[musterion]

No, you don't.

It's very simple - I poke fun at, and am often dogmatically opposed, say, to many of IP's assertions.

But I ALSO concede his point, when I find it valid, and even defend him when he makes a valid point and is attacked by you and yours.

That is one personality - a fair one.

Try it some time, neighbor.

Not what he was talking about.

I know you know that.

 

[musterion]

You are correct, I was just running off your summary prior and any agreement with Covenant Theology (dispensation isn't in that name).

Point well taken however, it is a biblical word. Lon

And concept.

Everyone who even cursorily obeys the Bible is a dispensationalist on some point. EVERYONE. Even the most die-hard, Law-abiding legalist.

 

[Lon]

And concept.

Everyone who even cursorily obeys the Bible is a dispensationalist on some point. EVERYONE. Even the most die-hard, Law-abiding legalist.

Realize, however, as to a systematic theology rather than the Biblical concept: Dispensational theology separates 'by' dispensations. Such drives our systematics in different ways. So, not to disagree with you, but rather to point out the other as important to recognize when we are discussing theology differences. In Him -Lon

 

[Danoh]

...when he (Scofield) said (paraphrasing) that the identity, position, walk and destiny of the Body of Christ is found ONLY in Paul's epistles...and if we take 2 Cor 5:16 and related verses to mean what they seem to mean...then apart from "transdispensational truths" found throughout the Bible, the question is, how much doctrine, if any, should consistent dispensationalists draw directly from non-Pauline parts of the Bible with regard to their identity and walk?

...

"Darby and his Dispies" are in good company.

The Apostle Paul had also been unjustly accused of, and persecuted for, having supposedly invented those things - of God among the Gentiles - that he alone had been given directly by the Lord Himself.

And the Apostle Paul is still viewed in that way by many Jews - even by some within the various Messianic movements within Jewry in our day.

Paul and his Dispies are...in good company.

2 Timothy 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

2 Timothy 2:3 Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. 2:4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier. 2:5 And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully. 2:6 The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits. 2:7 Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things. 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel: 2:9 Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound. 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

 

[DAN P]

"Darby and his Dispies" are in good company.

The Apostle Paul had also been unjustly accused of, and persecuted for, having supposedly invented those things - of God among the Gentiles - that he alone had been given directly by the Lord Himself.

And the Apostle Paul is still viewed in that way by many Jews - even by some within the various Messianic movements within Jewry in our day.

Paul and his Dispies are...in good company.

2 Timothy 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

2 Timothy 2:3 Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. 2:4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier. 2:5 And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully. 2:6 The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits. 2:7 Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things. 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel: 2:9 Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound. 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

Hi and some of the names mention had some truth of dispensationalism and all who have followed have discovered more truth and after we are gone , someone will discover more !!

I believe that most were Acts 2 , like Scofield and O'hair !!

1 Tim 1:9 is before all other verses as it explains how we were called " BEFORE TIME BEGAN ."

dan p

dan p

 

[musterion]

Realize, however, as to a systematic theology rather than the Biblical concept: Dispensational theology separates 'by' dispensations. Such drives our systematics in different ways.

In one sentence, what is your understanding of disp'ism generally...not specifically mid-Acts, not Acts 2, just in general?

 

[musterion]

I'll go first.

The reformed/covenant view: basically views the Body of Christ as the successor and inheritor to all that Israel was and had.

 

[Lon]

In one sentence, what is your understanding of disp'ism generally...not specifically mid-Acts, not Acts 2, just in general?

Dispensationalism is the idea that God works 'differently' in different dispensations.

Covenant Theology is that God works through Covenants toward and unfolding plan toward redemption and His Glory.

Both are rough. Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology are both difficult to summarize, at least from the classes I've taken. -Lon

 

[musterion]

Dispensationalism is the idea that God works 'differently' in different dispensations.

Why the 'quotes' around 'differently'?

Covenant Theology is that God works through Covenants toward and unfolding plan toward redemption and His Glory.

Then it should be easily to prove from a flat statement from Paul (apostle to the Gentiles, no one argues that) that God indeed established a covenant with grace age Gentiles, who heretofore had no such deal with Him. If anyone would have mentioned such a momentous event, it would have been Paul.