ECT How is Paul's message different?
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
I think he thinks what he thinks is better than what we think. Ya think?
Or you could focus instead on actually inputting some thing of use on any of the points raised.
Even Musti attempted that much - for a refreshing change (in his post to me on those Romans 11 issues).
:chuckle:
Rom..5:6-8.
It looks like Danoh doesn't like you very much, Glorydaz? That's okay, he doesn't like Old GM either.
How about 'Danohs Folly Gazette?'
Looks like another so called MAD unable to tackle any of the Scriptural issues explored in the above.
In this case, one who, while ever asserting he has put me on ignore, appears quite obsessed with the very opposite of that.
:chuckle:
But you were never one ever able to contribute an actual thought of your own to a theological issue, let alone, actually lay out a study.
Never.
And nope - I like GD just fine.
As far as I'm concerned, she and I just have our rough moments, here and there.
Rom. 5: 6-8.
musterion
Well-known member
I don't respond to links. If you can't bullet point your responses the way I did my questions, it's not my problem but you don't get the crow victory when people don't oblige your laziness. Besides, you said that whatever I say can be dismissed so I assume it isn't even a serious response anyway.
That's just you deflecting AGAIN.
:chuckle:
1 - I was not declaring any sort of victory, as I don't believe this is about winners and losers - that has no place on a Christian Forum. As usual, you project your own, ever obvious win-lose values into another's intent.
2 - You're the one being lazy. Had you read through that thread, you'd have seen I posted my view at length on there - not just those links.
3 - You're full of it - not only do you post links all the time; but you just as often reference info you read on links (including the very basis of your varying signatures).
Then again, how often do you lay out a passage by passage study on here?
VERY seldom.
You mostly parrot something you read by someone else.
You remain blind to your every double-standard.
You don't have to be that way. But you insist on being just that way.
Where is the victory of the Cross in that?
Its not. Other than in your own, ever obvious self-delusion.
Rom. 5:6-8.
I have never once come across any dispensationalist who asserts that Romans is anything other than Paul doctrinal magnum opus nor any post Acts 2 Dispensationalist that didn't acknowledge Paul's unique ministry and Apostleship to and for the Body of Christ and that the only sense in which Paul's epistles apply to the Jews is in the fact that his gospel is now THE gospel and that there isn't a distinction between Jew and Gentile any longer.
In fact, I've never come across anyone, of any doctrinal stripe, dispensational or otherwise, that carves up Romans the way you're suggesting and as I've already indicated, you're the first person I've ever heard use the phrase "Acts 9/28 hybrid". The point being that there are so few people who hold to such things that it's hardly worth bringing up at all, nevermind spending the sort of emotional energy you've clearly spent on it, not to mention causing the amount of offense that's been caused.
You'd be wise to drop it and focus on debating people on issues that they actually believe. Or at the very least, stop making vague accusations of some sort of association with this hybrid thing. If someone makes an assertion you feel is in error, committing a guilt by association fallacy doesn't do anything to refute the supposed error. Make the argument! They aren't wrong because there's some tenuous connection between what they've said and some weird sect of dispensationalism that no one has ever heard of before that teaches something similar.
In short, you are the only one around here that cares about "Acts 9/28 hybrids". No one here, including you it seems, is even capable of giving a definitive description of what one is.
Clete
Thank you!
People around TOL do that sort of thing all over the place. It drives me nuts!
Linking to a more through treatment of an issue is one thing but people ought to make some sort of effort to make the argument themselves or at the very least post something that gives a nutshell version of the argument. The "argument by Google and YouTube video" debate technique is just annoying.
Clete
musterion
Well-known member
Absolutely.
Nope.
Musti points people to nothing but a link all the time. He and his pals all do. All the time.
I often lay a thing out. Often.
That thread I referenced in response to his post to me about his erroneous Romans 11 view has plenty on it in own words and Scripture.
And why re-write what I find I agree with that someone else has already laid out - just like how you point people to Enyart's "The Plot."
Speaking of which look at how The Plot is spoken against over in the thread by that name on the MAD forum on here.
Fact is, the Hybrid view has been growing (ignorance tends to do that) and has been the source of much divisiveness through out various Mi-Acts assemblies.
Because they go around trashing actual Acts 9 Mid-Acts distinctions.
Ask a few Pastors within any camp within the Grace movement if they've not had to deal with the conflicts the Hybrids have been setting off in their assemblies.
Rom. 5:6-8.
musterion
Well-known member
As a conversation starter in new or existing threads, yes I do, but not as replies to direct, serious questions others want me to answer. That's YOUR scam.
Rubbish. For my posts on that thread to questions similar to yours by Tam were just that - my posts, not links.
I only began that thread with some links.
In fact, one of those links being to doctrine.org - the very site Clete himself recently posted a link to (despite his above comments about hating when people do that).
You guys are something else.
:chuckle:
Rom. 5:6-8.
musterion
Well-known member
Since you despise every MAD here and since no non-MAD seems to think you represent MAD...perhaps you should just leave.
At least confine your efforts to defending your leftist fellow travelers on politics. You just waste your time on Bible topics, as even you have recently indicated.
You find us wearisome and I'm pretty sure we all think the same of you. You have even been invited to provide bullet point objections to anything we have posted, in your own dedicated, protected thread. You refused. What more need be said?
So...go.
At least confine your efforts to defending your leftist fellow travelers on politics. You just waste your time on Bible topics, as even you have recently indicated.
You find us wearisome and I'm pretty sure we all think the same of you. You have even been invited to provide bullet point objections to anything we have posted, in your own dedicated, protected thread. You refused. What more need be said?
So...go.
Because it's lazy and boring.
I never do that unless I have made the argument myself or have at least laid out the major points. I refer people to things that augment MY arguments, I do not rely on others to make my arguments for me.
Okay fine. Whatever. You want to tilt at windmills, have at it.
Clete
musterion
Well-known member
Quixote was crazy but actually believed the windmills were giants. Point is, at least he had sincerity going for him.
Cross Reference
New member
Paul states that the call of God is to preach the gospel. What Paul means by “the gospel” is the fact of the reality of Redemption in our Lord Jesus Christ. Fact. Faith not needed.
Even you had to agree with some of my findings (in some of YOUR posts to the Hybrids, over in the "MAD" forum).
Start your own forum, Musti. That should solve your need to ban any one who calls you out on your double-standard.
Problem solved.
Rom. 5:6-8.
It's so bizarre.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Yeah....he's gone so hard left, he's suffering from derangement syndrome in ever increasing amounts.