ECT How is Paul's message different?

[Danoh]

MADs as a general rule have the saving Gospel down with better accuracy and clarity than anyone else here, but some forever rebuke MADs over relative trifles while they lolbro up to avowed enemies of the cross.

Make of that fact what you want but it is a fact.

What's the point of going on forever about "the saving gospel" while ever spitting on anyone you and your pals look down your noses at as being not of your number.

By that criteria, the following would not have been ANYONE's "saving gospel."

2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, NOT IMPUTING THEIR TRESPASSES UNTO THEM; and hath committed unto us the word OF RECONCILIATION. 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: WE PRAY YOU IN CHRIST'S STEAD, be ye reconciled to God. 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

It remains amazing how willfully blind you and yours are to that.

You might as well be rabid Calivinists - only you and yours the supposed chosen.

You each remain that dense to this obvious fact about each your testimony before men.

For in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the Lord is not depicted "truth smacking" the merely lost or confused, nor the lost (shepherdless) sheep of the house of Israel.

Rather, those "in Moses' seat" who not only used the fact that they were possessors of the Truth of God's Word to spit on said shepherdless sheep: whom they considered not of their number, but mixed the truth of God's Word into a Hybrid of truth and error.

I pity your kind. I really do. You each conclude that because you hold to the same hypocrisy, it is somehow proof that you are right to be that way.

Well, you are not.

Rom. 5:6-8 proves you are better than no one.

None of us are.

 

[Danoh]

I don't know about everyone else here, but I'm still waiting on a response to this...

Its been given...

Shawn's 25 points (Hybrid errors):

https://forwhatsaiththescriptures.f...0/refutation-of-acts-9-28-hybrid-theology.pdf

A chart showing a contrast between actual, consistent Acts 9 MAD and the errors of the Acts 28 Position and the Acts 9 /Acts 28 Hybrid:

https://forwhatsaiththescriptures.f...imelines-acts-9-acts-28-acts-9-28-hybrid1.pdf

Plus various posts on these issues over in the MAD forum in which I have pointed out various other Hybrid errors.

Threads like this one:

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117303-A28D

That one thread represents how off the Acts 9 / Acts 28 Hybrid views are.

How much more do you need?

Further, I never asserted YOU hold any of those errors.

You might or might not. You'll have to read those and then respond to their valid assertions.

Lol - that MAD forum thread I mentioned might be why Musti deflected with his "saving gospel" hide behind.

Ten to one, JR, you perhaps do not hold to some of the Hybrid errors I deal with on that thread, if any.

:chuckle:

Rom. 14:5; Rom. 5:6-8.

 

[musterion]

Yep. Fact.

 

[Clete]

Take a look at this chart comparison of actual Acts 9 Mid-Acts with the Acts 28 view, and also, with that of the Acts 9 / Acts 28 Hybrid asserted on here by the Hybrids as Acts 9 MAD.

https://forwhatsaiththescriptures.f...imelines-acts-9-acts-28-acts-9-28-hybrid1.pdf

Note any immediately obvious differences?

As for their three gospels of Paul, one is supposedly "the gospel of God...to the Jew first..."

Another is supposedly "A dispensation of the gospel" to Jews and Greeks or some such (Greeks being their asserted error that said Greeks were "God-fearing / Israel blessing Gentiles."

Still a third is "THE dispensation of the grace of God" God supposedly committed unto Paul near the end of Acts.

In this third gospel error the Ephesians in Ephesians 2 are not the same Ephesians of Acts 20.

:doh:

I mean, those are the kind of false-positives such base their many errors on - on some supposed difference between "A dispensation" and "THE dispensation."

Clearly, their failure is in basic rules of grammar, incorrect study approach somewhat, together with a poor ability at properly reasoning through a thing via the relevant passages.

Another of their errors is that the Romans Paul praises the faith of in Romans 1 are the Jews he condemns in Romans 2.

Their "logic"?

"Because Paul says they are "CALLED a Jew."

In other words "prosylites." To his credit, RD does not hold to that last error of theirs. Neither apparently, does Musti.

STP has asserted that Romans 11:25's "fulness" took place near Acts 28.

Another of their errors is that Romans 11's grafting in refers to those Greek Gentiles in ISRAEL's Promises, which is why the reference to being cut off (which they erroneously assert refers to loss of salvation).

And so on...

You can read their errors over in the "MAD" forum.

But again, their greatest error is their intolerance and insolence towards any MAD who does not hold their errors, or worse - points them out to them.

This too is repeatedly evident over on the "MAD" forum.

Case in point, of many on there..

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117303-A28D

Rom. 14:5; Rom. 5:6-8.

So who around here has ever proposed or defended either of the following two points (taken from the pdf you linked too)...

- Paul’s “Acts” epistles (Gal., Thess., Cor., Rom.) ARE IRRELEVANT TO US. THEY ARE NOT TO OR ABOUT US. Paul’s “post-*‐Acts” or “prison epistles” (Eph., Phil., Col., Phile., Tim., Tit., Phile.) are to and about us.

- Paul did not preach the Gospel of Grace until Acts 20:1-*‐4, 2, (Phil. 4:15). And just what Gospel message was he preaching between Acts 9 and Acts 20?? They say 1 Corinthians 15:3-*‐4... aka the Gospel of Grace!


Personally, I don't see how anyone could be persuaded that such a convoluted system could be true. Akham's razor is supposed to be one of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism's best defenses. This seems way way way too confused and complicated. And I've never come across anyone who believes it. Not that they don't exist but merely that they a few and far between.

I think most of the Mid Acts believers here on TOL came to the teaching through Bob Enyart's or Bob Hill's ministry which ought to have them firmly in the Acts 9 camp.


Clete

 

[musterion]

- Paul’s “Acts” epistles (Gal., Thess., Cor., Rom.) ARE IRRELEVANT TO US. THEY ARE NOT TO OR ABOUT US. Paul’s “post-*‐Acts” or “prison epistles” (Eph., Phil., Col., Phile., Tim., Tit., Phile.) are to and about us.

- Paul did not preach the Gospel of Grace until Acts 20:1-*‐4, 2, (Phil. 4:15).

As you know, that right there is pure,100% Acts 28. But there are no 28ers on TOL (as far as I know). But Danoh doesn't care, he HAS to be contentious, so he runs with this constant "hybrid" slander against ALL who disagree with Pope Danoh the First's definition of MAD. That and other things make me wonder hard about him and I'm not afraid to say so.

Akham's razor

Occam's.

 

[glorydaz]

:rotfl:

Consistently, and daily, you are repeatedly proven a liar on TOL by all sorts of people (other than by your dishonest pals), through your own words.

You above is one more case of that.

Regarding the issue of what the mystery of godliness refers to - RD asserted it refers to Christ at His 1st Advent...



I ribbed that...



GD, wrongly asserted...



She then added the following to her proof of her consistent inability to properly discern what she reads.



Aside from those passages I had already cited as the basis for my assertion, I added that...



GD responded with more of her self-delusions and reading into a thing...



In short, she asserted she referenced some other pdf, not the one I mentioned to RD when I posted to him to simply...



But, as I have already noted about your delusions of grandeur, GD...

:rotfl:

In short, you are full of it.

And thanks for your comedy of errors.

:chuckle:

Rom. 5:6-8.

Ah, you're now in competition with the Town Clown. What will you call your rag?

 

[glorydaz]

That's the thing about the Acts 9 / Acts 28 Hybrids: their persistently obvious inability to properly discern the actual sense of the passages and or another's words to them (case in point, STP's recent nonsense that people on the Flat Earth threads debating what VERY LITTLE he posted in his USUAL weak defense of his positions, were just angry and proud).

The same nonsense heir and GD both often hurl at anyone who disagrees with them and or punches crater size holes in their flimsy arguments.

:rotfl:

But that's the Hybrids for ya, they base their many errors on reading things into a thing.

And some of their number (on here, and elsewhere on the net) consistently stoop to lying, and to changing their stories, and to denying they ever said a thing.

They're an amusing bunch; that's for sure.

:chuckle:

Rom. 5:6-8.

The Gossip Monger in Chief has to be awarded to Danoh.

First it was just STP and Heir, and it's expanding by the day.

 

[Danoh]

So who around here has ever proposed or defended either of the following two points (taken from the pdf you linked too)...

- Paul’s “Acts” epistles (Gal., Thess., Cor., Rom.) ARE IRRELEVANT TO US. THEY ARE NOT TO OR ABOUT US. Paul’s “post-*‐Acts” or “prison epistles” (Eph., Phil., Col., Phile., Tim., Tit., Phile.) are to and about us.

- Paul did not preach the Gospel of Grace until Acts 20:1-*‐4, 2, (Phil. 4:15). And just what Gospel message was he preaching between Acts 9 and Acts 20?? They say 1 Corinthians 15:3-*‐4... aka the Gospel of Grace!


Personally, I don't see how anyone could be persuaded that such a convoluted system could be true. Akham's razor is supposed to be one of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism's best defenses. This seems way way way too confused and complicated. And I've never come across anyone who believes it. Not that they don't exist but merely that they a few and far between.

I think most of the Mid Acts believers here on TOL came to the teaching through Bob Enyart's or Bob Hill's ministry which ought to have them firmly in the Acts 9 camp.


Clete

Pay Musti and GD no mind on these issues: both are ever proving they haven't a clue what their pals actually hold to.

Likewise with other of their pals and those who brown-nose them.

On that first point, you may have confused the assertion about what the Acts 28ers believe about those epistles as being what Acts 9 / Acts 28 Hybrids believe about those epistles.

Neither of which is the Acts 9 Mid-Acts Position. Ask the various Acts 9 Mid-Acts ministries.

The Hybrids believe, for example, that the Romans were not in the Body, but were prosylites. Thus, that what Paul writes about Gentiles, say, in Romans 9-11, is supposedly describing Gentile grafting in to Israel's Promise: that Paul is writing Romans to get them out of said grafting in, and into the Body, because 70AD is soon approaching.

Likewise with the Galatians, and so on - they were supposedly in Israel's Promise, and so on - which is what the Hybrids are talking about when they say that Paul's Acts epistles need to be rightly divided from his Post-Acts epistles.

In contrast, the Acts 9 Mid-Acts Position is that all those Paul is writing to in all epistles are already in the Body.

As to your 2nd point, both the 28ers and the Hybrids hold that Paul had preached more than one gospel.

While the Hybrids hold that Paul preached "the gospel of God" "the gospel of Christ" and "the gospel of the grace of God," or some such.

Actual Acts 9 holds that all gospels: Mystery and Prophecy, fall under the umbrella term "gospel of God" which is why both Peter and Paul use the phrase.

While the gospel of Christ IS the gospel of the grace of God.

Paul clearly connects all three phrases in Romans 15, which mirrors his words in Ephesians 3.

And both Acts 28ers and Hybrids hold that the mystery in Romans 16, and 1 Corinthians 2 was hidden in the OT, in contrast to Ephesians 3's mystery, which hid in God.

Actual Acts 9 MAD holds that Paul preached one mystery throughout - all of it hid in God until Paul.

Again, for more of their errors, read through STP's and heir's posts over in that Acts 28 thread in the MAD forum. It was a short thread.

Rom. 5:6-8.

 

[DAN P]

As you know, that right there is pure,100% Acts 28. But there are no 28ers on TOL (as far as I know). But Danoh doesn't care, he HAS to be contentious, so he runs with this constant "hybrid" slander against ALL who disagree with Pope Danoh the First's definition of MAD. That and other things make me wonder hard about him and I'm not afraid to say so.




Occam's.

Hi and it is easy to see why Clete rejects Galatians is because Gal 1:23 reject his theory , what Paul was preaching , GRACE !!

dan p

 

[Clete]

Occam's.

I should have known that. :doh:

 

[Clete]

Pay Musti and GD no mind on these issues: both are ever proving they haven't a clue what their pals actually hold to.

Likewise with other of their pals and those who brown-nose them.

On that first point, you may have confused the assertion about what the Acts 28ers believe about those epistles as being what Acts 9 / Acts 28 Hybrids believe about those epistles.

Neither of which is the Acts 9 Mid-Acts Position. Ask the various Acts 9 Mid-Acts ministries.

The Hybrids believe, for example, that the Romans were not in the Body, but were prosylites. Thus, that what Paul writes about Gentiles, say, in Romans 9-11, is supposedly describing Gentile grafting in to Israel's Promise: that Paul is writing Romans to get them out of said grafting in, and into the Body, because 70AD is soon approaching.

Likewise with the Galatians, and so on - they were supposedly in Israel's Promise, and so on - which is what the Hybrids are talking about when they say that Paul's Acts epistles need to be rightly divided from his Post-Acts epistles.

In contrast, the Acts 9 Mid-Acts Position is that all those Paul is writing to in all epistles are already in the Body.

As to your 2nd point, both the 28ers and the Hybrids hold that Paul had preached more than one gospel.

While the Hybrids hold that Paul preached "the gospel of God" "the gospel of Christ" and "the gospel of the grace of God," or some such.

Actual Acts 9 holds that all gospels: Mystery and Prophecy, fall under the umbrella term "gospel of God" which is why both Peter and Paul use the phrase.

While the gospel of Christ IS the gospel of the grace of God.

Paul clearly connects all three phrases in Romans 15, which mirrors his words in Ephesians 3.

And both Acts 28ers and Hybrids hold that the mystery in Romans 16, and 1 Corinthians 2 was hidden in the OT, in contrast to Ephesians 3's mystery, which hid in God.

Actual Acts 9 MAD holds that Paul preached one mystery throughout - all of it hid in God until Paul.

Again, for more of their errors, read through STP's and heir's posts over in that Acts 28 thread in the MAD forum. It was a short thread.

Rom. 5:6-8.

So what I guess I'm still not getting is what difference does it make?

As with any group, there are always people who want to split the same hair three different ways.

I can't see that it makes an ant leg's worth of difference one way or the other. At the end of the day they all teach salvation by grace alone through faith alone, a message that they could not have gotten anywhere other than from the Apostle Paul's writings. So they have a differing opinion about when it all got started and/or fully implemented and they differ about whether the Romans were saved this way or that way. Who cares? The Romans are all dead now (physically) and they either got saved or they didn't. I just don't understand what the big deal is, except as an academic exercise.

I mean, look, if someone comes around and tells me that the book of Romans wasn't written to or about me, I'll laugh them out of the room. It's patently ridiculous. No one believes that! Oh sure, you could probably find a loony bin here and there that houses just the right fruit cake theologian who wrote some book that basically no one has read that attempts to pass that off as something worth considering and someone somewhere will show up to follow his lead but that doesn't make it a real faction of Dispensationalism any more than the Branch Davidians are/were a faction of Christianity.

Maybe I'm wrong and there's some odd ball faction that has gained some traction with a group of people in some section of the country that I'm not familiar with or even aware of but since none of them are here on TOL, it seems to me that it would be more productive to just let the nut jobs be crazy (because they're going to be anyway) and engage people on theology that they actually believe rather than harping on the details of a faction that no one here actually holds too based on a thinly veiled guilt by association fallacy.

That's just my two cents. It's worth what you paid for it.

God bless!
Clete

 

[musterion]

Hi and it is easy to see why Clete rejects Galatians is because Gal 1:23 reject his theory , what Paul was preaching , GRACE !!

dan p

Clete was just quoting someone, Dan.

 

[musterion]

[MENTION=16688]Danoh[/MENTION]

Gentile grafting in to Israel's Promise:

Rom 11:17, 20-21

Whoever they were, Paul warns his "wild olive tree" readers that they too could lose something the natural olive branches had lost, if they did not "continue in goodness."

1. Who are these wild branch readers that Paul addresses?

2. What had God grafted them in to? What root and fatness is this?

3. Was the potential cutting off a valid threat to them at the time Paul wrote Romans? (Answer is obviously YES)

4. So since the wild branches HAD to "continue in goodness" at the time Paul wrote, what would their continuing in goodness entail at that time? What would it look like? How would they know they were still being good, thus still connected to the root?

5. Paul says the natural branches could be grafted back in. What would the natural branches have needed to do to be grafted back in?

 

[musterion]

Pay Musti and GD no mind on these issues:

Yet he can't stop himself sniping at us constantly. Something here doesn't add up.

 

[Danoh]

So what I guess I'm still not getting is what difference does it make?

As with any group, there are always people who want to split the same hair three different ways.

I can't see that it makes an ant leg's worth of difference one way or the other. At the end of the day they all teach salvation by grace alone through faith alone, a message that they could not have gotten anywhere other than from the Apostle Paul's writings. So they have a differing opinion about when it all got started and/or fully implemented and they differ about whether the Romans were saved this way or that way. Who cares? The Romans are all dead now (physically) and they either got saved or they didn't. I just don't understand what the big deal is, except as an academic exercise.

I mean, look, if someone comes around and tells me that the book of Romans wasn't written to or about me, I'll laugh them out of the room. It's patently ridiculous. No one believes that! Oh sure, you could probably find a loony bin here and there that houses just the right fruit cake theologian who wrote some book that basically no one has read that attempts to pass that off as something worth considering and someone somewhere will show up to follow his lead but that doesn't make it a real faction of Dispensationalism any more than the Branch Davidians are/were a faction of Christianity.

Maybe I'm wrong and there's some odd ball faction that has gained some traction with a group of people in some section of the country that I'm not familiar with or even aware of but since none of them are here on TOL, it seems to me that it would be more productive to just let the nut jobs be crazy (because they're going to be anyway) and engage people on theology that they actually believe rather than harping on the details of a faction that no one here actually holds too based on a thinly veiled guilt by association fallacy.

That's just my two cents. It's worth what you paid for it.

God bless!
Clete

The following about you is tongue in cheek.

1- 1 take it then that as with the Acts 9 /Acts 28 Hybrid, you also do NOT believe that various parts of Romans, like, say, any part of Romans 9-11, are to and about the Body of Christ?

Actual Acts 9 MAD holds that throughout Romans Paul is at times describing the Believing Remnant of Israel; at other times, Unbelieving Israel; and at other times; formerly lost Jews and Gentiles now in the Body; and lost Gentiles, including on Romans 9-11.

Not to the Hybrids, he is not.

See there own words here:

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?98401-The-letter-from-Paul-to-the-Romans

Likewise with other parts of Paul's Acts Epistles - "not to us, nor about us!" assert the Hybrids.

2 - I take it you also do NOT hold that Galatians 3 and 4 are describing Body Truth about us, and to us?

So assert the Hybrids.

Actual Acts 9 MAD asserts that Galatians 3 and 4 are to us and about us and that chapter 4 is Paul's application of allegory to the Body of Christ.

3- I take it you assert this passage applies to ANY MAD who does NOT hold to the Hybrid's errors?

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

So assert the Hybrids.

Take a look at some of their other assertions, and my dealings with them on them, once more - contrary to their false assertion that I never have.

Heir on Paul's supposed 2nd sending.

While you are at it, note their same pattern as that of the likes of STP over on the FE threads - the false charge that anyone who disagrees with them is just being proud and arrogant.

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?113707-the-first-and-second-sending-of-Paul

Again, I don't think they are up to no good in that; they're just VERY poor at properly discerning one writer or another's actual intent; including that of anyone who disagrees with them.

Where I do find them knowingly up to no good is in their misrepresenation of another's words to them, no matter how often one points out to them that their accusation is not where one was coming from.

All of which I find...amusing.

Which, of course, ticks them off.

:chuckle:

Nevertheless, Rom. 14: 5 - in memory of Rom. 5: 6-8 - in each our stead.

 

[Danoh]

Yet he can't stop himself sniping at us constantly. Something here doesn't add up.[/COLOR]

Rubbish, it is you and GD who have been doing the sniping in the above.

Just as you both did on Tam's thread about her granddaughter's homework assignment.

Which I ignored so as not to derail Tam's thread by not giving you exactly what you were after - setting off your obvious pettiness in another.

Rom. 5:6-8.

 

[Danoh]

[MENTION=16688]Danoh[/MENTION]



Rom 11:17, 20-21

Whoever they were, Paul warns his "wild olive tree" readers that they too could lose something the natural olive branches had lost, if they did not "continue in goodness."

1. Who are these wild branch readers that Paul addresses?

2. What had God grafted them in to? What root and fatness is this?

3. Was the potential cutting off a valid threat to them at the time Paul wrote Romans? (Answer is obviously YES)

4. So since the wild branches HAD to "continue in goodness" at the time Paul wrote, what would their continuing in goodness entail at that time? What would it look like? How would they know they were still being good, thus still connected to the root?

5. Paul says the natural branches could be grafted back in. What would the natural branches have needed to do to be grafted back in?

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?113152-Romans-11-Issues

(Together with the Acts 9 / Acts 28 Hybrid version by heir and my addressing her on said Hybrid errors.)

But that is about all the answer you deserve, Musti.

The less said to you, the less you can twist in service of your ever evident double-standard.

:chuckle:

Rom. 5:6-8.

 

[musterion]

Oh.

 

[Danoh]

Oh.

You've yet to say a peep about my having proven several times already that your endless accusations I had never laid those things out to anyone on here, were just your same old unfounded notions.

:chuckle:

Rom. 5: 6-8.

 

[glorydaz]

Rubbish, it is you and GD who have been doing the sniping in the above.

Just as you both did on Tam's thread about her granddaughter's homework assignment.

Which I ignored so as not to derail Tam's thread by not giving you exactly what you were after - setting off your obvious pettiness in another.

Rom. 5:6-8.

Poor Danoh....sniping while complaining about sniping. :chuckle: