ECT If you want out of the deceptions of MAD read the rebuttal of Bullinger by Ironside.

Status
Not open for further replies.

dodge

New member
I'm glad that you trusted in Christ in '78.
I did so in '79 and was delivered from a very dark, lost eastern mystical pantheism.

You are absolutely mistaken to say that MADists idolize Paul. We honor Christ and His choice from heaven to reveal to Paul the mystery hid from the beginning of the world for our sake.

Is that why pretty much every MADist I have ever debated with says follow Paul while saying the teachings of Jesus was NOT for the B.O.C. ?

Steko, the same revelation was made to Peter ! By MAD's reasoning or lack thereof Peter and every other Apostle would be accursed according to Paul for supposedly preaching "another" Gospel, and I would add that Jesus Himself would have to be accursed as pronounced by Paul for preaching "another Gospel" even though He was the living Gospel revealed to mankind.

It was comforting to hear you trust Jesus, but I would add with much of man's reasoning mixed therein which contradicts scripture.
 

musterion

Well-known member
Yep! In the '80s I encountered Stam and because of my inexperience, I mostly rejected him. I had the attitude that so many do, that we should emphasize the 'red letters'.
In the '90s I ran across a box of books in my shed and began to scan one of his books. Some of it made more sense, by then. In the 2000's I recalled some of what I had read as it correlated with some studies I was doing. During that time, I began to understand Paul's declaration of being Christ's Apostle to the Gentiles. This shaped my studies from that point onward and I began to defend the point that Paul was GOD's unique Apostle to the Gentiles. I observed so many false doctrines and movements which were built on an ignorance of that one truth.
When I came to TOL, some posters, who I am deeply in gratitude to(early on: Chickenman, STP, Lighthouse, Heir, Tambora, GloryDaz, A4T, Nick, John W., Grosnick and lately: Right Divider, Musterion, Danoh and others) used many of his same ideas.
When Heir created the thread, "Things that are different are not the same", I began reading again Stam's book "Things That Differ" and it all fell into place.

Most of all, I want to thank Tetelestai for his absurd arguments which drove me absolutely MAD. His intentions were otherwise, but truth won out and though I wasn't MAD when I came here, I am now and I owe so much of it to him. Too bad for him for all his wasted effort.
Since then, I want to thank GT, LA, IPP, Dodge, Suki Sue, and so many others whose arguments have provided such strong, dark backdrop which has caused the dispensational understanding to shine in contrast and reinforced my dispensational understanding.
The more they talk, the more the dispensational understanding rings true. Thank you, thank you, thank you!
I pray that they will some day come to the knowledge of the truth.

POTY!
 

musterion

Well-known member
Dodge won't care about the facts of this case but...

1. Ironside was basically MAD just like Stam and O'Hair, even writing SAILING WITH PAUL, a good book.

2. But then he did a 180 and publicly went on the attack against MAD.

3. Problem was, he didn't acknowledge his prior position when he did so.

4. Stam had much correspondence with him both before and after his change... they knew each other personally... and Stam called Ironside on his dishonesty. For example, Stam pointed out that Ironside was still selling SAILING, even after he had started attacking what he used to believe... basically the entire premise of that book... without publicly acknowledging his shift. This is what Stam called him on.

5. Ironside got quite nasty in his letters back to Stam. This chain of correspondence is recorded in the book THE CONTROVERSY, which has since been retitled but it still available.

In summary, Ironside comes off looking very unchristian in his communication with Stam. It's also interesting to note that Stam pinpoints Ironside's doctrinal shift at the time he got a job in a large church where water baptism was practiced, if I remember that part of the book correctly. BBS has the original letters on file and says it will provide copies of them to anyone who doubts what is in the book.
 
Last edited:

steko

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Is that why pretty much every MADist I have ever debated with says follow Paul while saying the teachings of Jesus was NOT for the B.O.C. ?

Steko, the same revelation was made to Peter ! By MAD's reasoning or lack thereof Peter and every other Apostle would be accursed according to Paul for supposedly preaching "another" Gospel, and I would add that Jesus Himself would have to be accursed as pronounced by Paul for preaching "another Gospel" even though He was the living Gospel revealed to mankind.

It was comforting to hear you trust Jesus, but I would add with much of man's reasoning mixed therein which contradicts scripture.

Still slow to hear, I see.
 

northwye

New member
"Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
2. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
3. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4. He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5. Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself." I Timothy 6: 1-5

Paul can be subtle. What does he mean in I Timothy 6: 1-2 about servants being under the yoke and they that have believing masters?

In the Old Testament yoke is sometimes used to describe the control of and oppression of a people by evil governments. "Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD of hosts, O my people that dwellest in Zion, be not afraid of the Assyrian: he shall smite thee with a rod, and shall lift up his staff against thee, after the manner of Egypt.
25. For yet a very little while, and the indignation shall cease, and mine anger in their destruction.
26. And the LORD of hosts shall stir up a scourge for him according to the slaughter of Midian at the rock of Oreb: and as his rod was upon the sea, so shall he lift it up after the manner of Egypt.
27. And it shall come to pass in that day, that his burden shall be taken away from off thy shoulder, and his yoke from off thy neck, and the yoke shall be destroyed because of the anointing." Isaiah 10: 24-27

And why does Isaiah 10: 24-27 talk about the yoke of the Assyrian being destroyed because of the anointing? If Isaiah 10 is only talking about the Assyrian oppressing the people of Israel, how does their anointing release them from that oppression?

"For through the voice of the LORD Assyria will be beaten down, As He strikes with the rod."
Isaiah 30:31

"And He will stretch out His hand against the north, Destroy Assyria, And make Nineveh a desolation, As dry as the wilderness."
Zephaniah 2:13

"He shall pass through the sea with affliction, And strike the waves of the sea: All the depths of the River shall dry up. Then the pride of Assyria shall be brought down, And the scepter of Egypt shall depart."
Zechariah 10:11

"Asshur is there and all her company: his graves are about him: all of them slain, fallen by the sword"
Ezekiel 32:22

"Asshur shall not save us; we will not ride upon horses: neither will we say any more to the work of our hands, Ye are our gods: for in thee the fatherless findeth mercy." Hosea 14: 3
.
In Old Testament prophecy, the Assyrian, Assyria and Asshur are in opposition to God and to his people. The Assyrian then is metaphoric spiritually for the false prophet of the New Covenant, for example in Matthew 24: 11, Matthew 7: 15, II Peter 2: 1, or I John 4: 1

As a metaphor spiritually for the false prophet, the Assyrian as seen in Isaiah 10: 24-27 is defeated by the anointing because the people of God who are anointed clearly see the deceptive nature of the false prophet and expose his false doctrines.

Lets go on in I Timothy 6. In I Timothy 6: 11 Paul says "But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.
12. Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.
13. I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;
14. That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:"

Paul says flee these things, get away from strifes of words (word fights, or quarreling), perverse disputings by those destitute of the truth, love of money and being under the yoke of unbelievers, the false prophets.

He ends this chapter by saying "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21. Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen."

Again, Paul is subtle and hard to understand by many in verses 20-21. What does he mean by "opposition of science falsely so called?" He is talking about the way that the "Assyrians," the false prophets and their followers argue for their false doctrines. The key part in Greek says "και αντιθεσεις της ψευδωνυμου γνωσεως,or "and anti-thesis of falsely called knowledge."

αντιθεσεις, or anti-thesis, is a technical term in the early Greek philosophy of the διαλεκτική, or dialectic, before the time of Christ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic

"Dialectic (also dialectics and the dialectical method), from Ancient Greek διαλεκτική, is a method of argument.....The word dialectic originated in ancient Greece, and was made popular by Plato in the Socratic dialogues."

"In classical philosophy, dialectic (Greek: διαλεκτική) is a form of reasoning based upon dialogue of arguments and counter-arguments, advocating propositions (theses) and counter-propositions (antitheses)."

http://www.hotel-ilgattopardo.it/it/component/k2/itemlist/user/83559

"Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) adopted and extended the triad, especially in Marx's The Poverty of Philosophy (1847). Here, in Chapter 2, Marx is obsessed by the word "thesis". It can be said to form an important part of the basis for the Marxist theory..."

"In the eyes of the dialectical philosophy, nothing is established for
all time, nothing is absolute or sacred." (Karl Marx)

The dialectic is a method of arguing against the thesis, that which is truth in scripture.
 

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
Name an absurd argument. I have listed 10 by D'ists in a thread next door.
I contend and maintain, based upon Scripture alone, that the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus from the dead is the Gospel.

And to commemorate His Resurrection, the Lord taught His Church to baptize (Jn3:5KJV Mt28:19KJV, cf. Ro6:4KJV), and furthermore to celebrate the Eucharist, the eating of His body, and the drinking of His blood, which is a reference to 1st Corinthians 15:3 (KJV). Baptism is for when we first believe in the Resurrection, which is what it means to believe in Him (Ro10:9-10KJV and then Ro10:11KJV), and to remember the Resurrection/Him, we are taught to remember 1st Corinthians 15:3 (KJV) in celebrating the Eucharist.

It's not an argument per se. It's just not cohesive.
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Paul said :


If anyone advocates a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. (1Timothy 6:3-5)

Obviously by their own admission those in MAD is conceited and understands nothing;

Not hardly a loss: I know WHO, WHERE,WHY, and HOW salvation was paid, and it was through Jesus Christ NOT Paul.

Did the LORD teach again after he ascended?
 

dodge

New member
Did the LORD teach again after he ascended?

Sure He did He got a UN-saved legalistic man named Paul and taught Paul what He had already taught and opened the understanding of concerning the Gospel, the other Apostles, and brought Paul into the group.

Jesus Never taught anyone to ignore His teachings and follow Paul only !
 

dodge

New member
"the wholesome words of the LORD Jesus" are the same as "the form of sounds words thou hast heard of me" written in Paul's letters

Paul: "I MAGNIFY MINE OFFICE..."

And Paul's office magnified who ? Hint: He was born in Bethlehem.
 

dodge

New member
Yes, he ministry to was glorify the risen ascended LORD.

Paul summed up MAD in the following:

1Co 1:13
Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
1Co 3:4
For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
1Co 3:5
Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

Paul said he was NOT above any other in presenting and leading others to Jesus. Exalting Paul is uniquely MAD.
 

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
Acts 13:30-33 (KJV)
But God raised him from the dead: 31 And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people. 32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, 33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
 

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
Paul summed up MAD in the following:

1Co 1:13
Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
1Co 3:4
For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
1Co 3:5
Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

Paul said he was NOT above any other in presenting and leading others to Jesus. Exalting Paul is uniquely MAD.
But MADists profess only that they follow the Lord, they don't say, "I am of Paul," just that they believe that Paul in particular is the vessel or conduit through which Jesus Christ authoritatively teaches His Church today. :idunno:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top