ECT If MAD is false, what is true?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
That's what I mean by it's speculation or maybe a better word deduction. That's taking Paul's words out of context then when his actions go against those words a conclusion is drawn to reconcile. The rcc does the same thing with Matt. 16:18 making Peter the head of the church. They ignore context and verses that are in conflict with that deduction. I think it's better to consider Paul's words within the context of what he's talking about then we can understand why he said it. When we do that it's then in agreement with his practice of baptizing.
If I'm taking those words out of context on their face value then what did he mean? Go ahead and tell us what he meant when he said he was not sent to baptize?

To take the stand that there is one baptism and Paul was not sent to baptize is in conflict with him practicing baptism. Whenever Paul practiced something that isn't part of the gospel, we are given an explanation as to why he did it. We never see that with him baptizing. In Acts 19 he even baptizes them after they had already been baptized. So that doesn't agree with "he wasn't sent to baptize" when he does it even though they had already been baptized. It also doesn't agree with "he did it to compromise" why would he need to compromise when they had already been baptized.
Actually, they had only been baptized with John's baptism, which clearly was not the one baptism.:dunce::duh:

And Paul didn't compromise. He became as they so they might listen to what he had to say when he preached the mystery they had never heard [:listen:because it was previously unrevealed].

Too much conflict to support the deduction.
What deduction? I said "induce," not "deduce."

Good point. I don't have a problem basing something on a single verse when that verse is taken in context and isn't in conflict with other verses. Therefore no deduction is necessary.
How convenient.:rolleyes:

1) The new Covenant isn't for the body of Christ. 1 Corinthians 11 refutes this directly.
Prove it.

Catholicism is true, and "Catholics on the way to full communion" is true.
:hammer:

This is a ridiculous statement, and there is nothing direct about it. The topic is privileged people at christian potlucks who take too much too eat or are always first. "One gets hungry; another gets drunk." Paul was showing how generous Christ was about sharing with all. What he said about the new covenant there applies as much to the apostles as to the Corinthians as to us.

The mark of amateur and Dispensational theology is to unget the passage it is dealing with. Every which way but the plain meaning. Always some artificial distinction generated by some system somewhere else.
What is the New Covenant?

Yep :thumb:

F-R-A-U-D...

Forever

Ranting

About

Understanding

Dispensationalism
:chuckle:
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
The New Covenant was the accomplishment of Christ for believers. It was between God and Christ and Christ was acting on our part. We enjoy justification from sins and eternal life through Christ. He condensed it all down by saying his blood (suffering) was the completion of the new covenant, at the last supper.

This gospel also brings the Spirit of God for God's work. He renovates the believer in a completely different way than the law did, and he spreads the message all over the earth through the Spirit.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
The New Covenant was the accomplishment of Christ for believers. It was between God and Christ and Christ was acting on our part. We enjoy justification from sins and eternal life through Christ. He condensed it all down by saying his blood (suffering) was the completion of the new covenant, at the last supper.

This gospel also brings the Spirit of God for God's work. He renovates the believer in a completely different way than the law did, and he spreads the message all over the earth through the Spirit.
Scripture?
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
This is a ridiculous statement, and there is nothing direct about it. The topic is privileged people at christian potlucks who take too much too eat or are always first. "One gets hungry; another gets drunk." Paul was showing how generous Christ was about sharing with all. What he said about the new covenant there applies as much to the apostles as to the Corinthians as to us.

The mark of amateur and Dispensational theology is to unget the passage it is dealing with. Every which way but the plain meaning. Always some artificial distinction generated by some system somewhere else.

LOL.. This is pure denial by the MAD proponent, ignoring:

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for[f] you. Do this in remembrance of me.”[g] 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

Paul does chide them for failing to act properly regarding this sacrament, but then he reaffirms their participation in the new Covenant by telling them that they are, in fact, to drink from its cup.
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
1. You just said nothing.

2. Irrelevant, that it is "constructed by man," as to whether it is true, unless you assume that God is down here teaching us,"constructing," in person.

Moron. Sit.

Love how this kind of post gets those who think their tradition is infallible going. It really exposes those who are here to humbly debate their theology and those who are arrogantly here to proclaim their own tradition and ignore others.
 

Danoh

New member
LOL.. This is pure denial by the MAD proponent, ignoring:



Paul does chide them for failing to act properly regarding this sacrament, but then he reaffirms their participation in the new Covenant by telling them that they are, in fact, to drink from its cup.

Of the various individuals on here who together hold a very similar view in many things, one group might be said to consist of Interplanner, Tetelestai, and I Am A Berean.

And yet, there are some things they each hold a different understanding of.

Likewise is the case with those on here who assert a Mid-Acts Dispensational Perspective, or Acts 9 Dispensationalism.

The majority outside of TOL who hold to Mid-Acts Dispensationalism hold to 1 Cor. 11's communion.

A few do not. Most do. One or two, and perhaps one or two more on TOL, do. Most on TOL do not appear to.

Again; as with any school of thought, there are bound to be different understandings on one thing or another here and there by the participants within a same school.

The thing to do is to alert others to the fact that the view one is espousing may or may not be held by others within one's particular school of thought.

Not only out of respect for the views of one's fellows within a same school, but also, so as not to misrepresent one's view as being the view held by all within said school.

At the same time, the responsibility of those of you on here who do not hold to Mid-Acts Dispensationalism is to remember that the above has been pointed out to you.

Unless you simply have no interest in fair play.

Thus, far, very few on either side of this issue have continually appeared to show that fair play towards one and all as to this issue, is not your desire.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
LOL.. This is pure denial by the MAD proponent, ignoring:

Paul does chide them for failing to act properly regarding this sacrament, but then he reaffirms their participation in the new Covenant by telling them that they are, in fact, to drink from its cup.
Is every cup used at "communion" the new covenant in His blood? Or was it just the first one? Does it count if the cup contains grape juice instead of wine? And where does Paul tell then that they are to drink from said cup?

where else does Paul refer to the new covenant?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top