Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Galationism...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Theology Club: Galationism...

    Originally posted by patrick jane View Post
    ...early here on TOL, i asked why mid-acts ? why isn't it the whole NT and OT. let's talk about this present" dispensation" no matter how or when we arrived in the here and now. i'm not knocking study, it's the needless, fruitless debating and claims of fact as to who started what. we know the Word of God, why argue about exactly when Grace was preached or revealed first ?

    initially, spirited debates are informative and positive, then digress into nit-picking. i have seen many good threads die because nobody can keep it on the OP. certain folks attack and disrupt other folks causing a chain reaction; a wave that never stops -

    [ATTACH]20005[/ATTACH]
    Not sure if your question was ever answered; here are my thoughts on that...

    Regarding your "why Mid-Acts"* and why isn't it the whole NT and OT," it is not that it is not the whole NT and OT, rather; where the whole NT and OT are being viewed from.

    From a Mid-Acts* Perspective.

    This, the result of Induction - the gathering of facts towards their contrastive analysis in an attempt to arrive at an understanding of what they point to.

    Other's "one gospel" conclusion differs due to how they apply Induction.

    Both sides are looking at the same information, but how they are looking at it, differs.

    Because each is actually applying Induction, differently.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    * Or, whatever the label Paul's distinctive ministry is referred to.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    As another example, say, someone holds to Partial Preterism, or Amillennialism, or some other perspective - that is just a label as a means of identifying where each is viewing all Scripture from, in contrast to where others are viewing all Scripture from, when describing differences in understanding.

    The question is not the label, as all a label is, is a handy means of talking about things. As in "Put that 'container of beans' in the cupboard, and put 'that container of eggs,' in the refrigerator."

    And at some point all parties involved in that exchange came to hold to those labels - container, beans, milk, cupboard, refrigerator - as basically communicating the same understanding between said parties.

    Where the nit picking comes in is not so much in difference in labels, nor in difference as to what goes where - the beans the frig, the milk in the cupboard, for example - but in the need that some individuals feel compelled to - to nitpick.

    Out of some personal issue such individuals then rationalize, into some personal mission as their means of justifying their actions against others out of this personal quirk of theirs.

    I suspect these "O foolish Galatians," may once have known better. That they are simply too far gone in their need to lord their issue over others, "that they might glory in your flesh."

    Rather than liberated by truth, such seize it and make it captive to their bondage with them. Never really freed by the truth they profess; such cannot but be compelled to go out and attempt to do likewise as to others.

    Galatianism. Plain and simple...

    "Their conscience" no longer "accusing" them, rather "excusing" their "need." Their conscience long since "past feeling."

    But again, Mid-Acts is just a label summarizing a perspective from which all Scripture is viewed as it is approached.

    Case in point, rather someone like Darby was, the first or not, to begin to see all Scripture from what came to be known as the Dispensational perspective; the real issue is whether or not his basis was sound.

    And the meaning of "soundness" differs: is dependent upon; where each individual thinks he or she, is looking at things from, in contrast to where they might actually be looking at things from...

    ...as much as nit picking is based on what one feels compelled to have to pester, and pester, and pester another with, all the while feeling "right" in their action...all the while, an example of "bondage."

    A neon sign on a dark, lonely road - "Danger: Bondage Ahead!"
    Last edited by Danoh; August 14th, 2015, 09:08 AM.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Danoh View Post
    Not sure if your question was ever answered; here are my thoughts on that...

    Regarding your "why Mid-Acts"* and why isn't it the whole NT and OT," it is not that it is not the whole NT and OT, rather; where the whole NT and OT are being viewed from.

    From a Mid-Acts* Perspective.
    There is more than one Mid-Acts perspective.

    According to the Neo-MAD perspective the Jews who lived under the law could not be saved unless they did works. But that teaching is contradicted by this verse, which shows that any one who believes is saved:
    "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (Jn.3:16).

    Those in the Neo-MAD camp say that a Jew who lived under the law could believe and yet not be saved unless he did works. So they do not believe what is said at John 3:16.

    On the other hand, those in the original MAD camp teach that throughout history men have been saved in only one way--by grace through faith apart from works.
    Last edited by Jerry Shugart; August 15th, 2015, 04:43 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Thus, my words:

      "* Or, whatever the label Paul's distinctive ministry is referred to."

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
        On the other hand, those in the original MAD camp teach that throughout history men have been saved in only one way--by grace through faith apart from works.
        Do you believe Noah's physical salvation was a type of anything?
        Originally posted by Interplanner
        They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
        Originally posted by Interplanner
        You're too literal to get it.
        Originally posted by Interplanner
        The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by SaulToPaul View Post
          Do you believe Noah's physical salvation was a type of anything?
          If you have a point about Noah's physical salvation being a "type" then let's hear it.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
            If you have a point about Noah's physical salvation being a "type" then let's hear it.
            He had faith, obeyed God, and then found Grace in the eyes of the Lord.
            Originally posted by Interplanner
            They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
            Originally posted by Interplanner
            You're too literal to get it.
            Originally posted by Interplanner
            The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by SaulToPaul View Post
              He had faith, obeyed God, and then found Grace in the eyes of the Lord.
              Methinks you lost him on that one.

              Its interesting how that; the more consistent one is in their application of the hermeneutic [the resulting aspects of which he labels Neo-Mad] are often able to see where all views are coming from, yet they themselves are judged of no man.

              But by the false labels of such men, of course...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by SaulToPaul View Post
                He had faith, obeyed God, and then found Grace in the eyes of the Lord.
                So you think that Moses did not receive saving grace until he obeyed?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Danoh View Post
                  Methinks you lost him on that one.
                  Methinks you do not think!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
                    So you think that Moses did not receive saving grace until he obeyed?
                    Noah was righteous and just, then God saved him physically by Grace.
                    Originally posted by Interplanner
                    They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
                    Originally posted by Interplanner
                    You're too literal to get it.
                    Originally posted by Interplanner
                    The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by SaulToPaul View Post
                      Noah was righteous and just, then God saved him physically by Grace.
                      So? I am still waiting for you to prove what you are trying to prove--what ever that might be.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
                        So? I am still waiting for you to prove what you are trying to prove--what ever that might be.
                        He's trying to get you to do the impossible - to think, lol

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Danoh View Post
                          Not sure if your question was ever answered; here are my thoughts on that...

                          Regarding your "why Mid-Acts"* and why isn't it the whole NT and OT," it is not that it is not the whole NT and OT, rather; where the whole NT and OT are being viewed from.

                          From a Mid-Acts* Perspective.

                          This, the result of Induction - the gathering of facts towards their contrastive analysis in an attempt to arrive at an understanding of what they point to.

                          Other's "one gospel" conclusion differs due to how they apply Induction.

                          Both sides are looking at the same information, but how they are looking at it, differs.

                          Because each is actually applying Induction, differently.

                          ----------------------------------------------------------------

                          * Or, whatever the label Paul's distinctive ministry is referred to.

                          ----------------------------------------------------------------

                          As another example, say, someone holds to Partial Preterism, or Amillennialism, or some other perspective - that is just a label as a means of identifying where each is viewing all Scripture from, in contrast to where others are viewing all Scripture from, when describing differences in understanding.

                          The question is not the label, as all a label is, is a handy means of talking about things. As in "Put that 'container of beans' in the cupboard, and put 'that container of eggs,' in the refrigerator."

                          And at some point all parties involved in that exchange came to hold to those labels - container, beans, milk, cupboard, refrigerator - as basically communicating the same understanding between said parties.

                          Where the nit picking comes in is not so much in difference in labels, nor in difference as to what goes where - the beans the frig, the milk in the cupboard, for example - but in the need that some individuals feel compelled to - to nitpick.

                          Out of some personal issue such individuals then rationalize, into some personal mission as their means of justifying their actions against others out of this personal quirk of theirs.

                          I suspect these "O foolish Galatians," may once have known better. That they are simply too far gone in their need to lord their issue over others, "that they might glory in your flesh."

                          Rather than liberated by truth, such seize it and make it captive to their bondage with them. Never really freed by the truth they profess; such cannot but be compelled to go out and attempt to do likewise as to others.

                          Galatianism. Plain and simple...

                          "Their conscience" no longer "accusing" them, rather "excusing" their "need." Their conscience long since "past feeling."

                          But again, Mid-Acts is just a label summarizing a perspective from which all Scripture is viewed as it is approached.

                          Case in point, rather someone like Darby was, the first or not, to begin to see all Scripture from what came to be known as the Dispensational perspective; the real issue is whether or not his basis was sound.

                          And the meaning of "soundness" differs: is dependent upon; where each individual thinks he or she, is looking at things from, in contrast to where they might actually be looking at things from...

                          ...as much as nit picking is based on what one feels compelled to have to pester, and pester, and pester another with, all the while feeling "right" in their action...all the while, an example of "bondage."

                          A neon sign on a dark, lonely road - "Danger: Bondage Ahead!"
                          thank you Danoh, i just now saw your post/thread - yes i agree

                          i understand the perspectives and areas of discussion and that's why i tune in. i was pointing out how threads never reach a level of "good discussion, imo -

                          not all, but mainly the attacking, sidetracking and distracting posts. most know who they are, i wonder if the ones who do it know. i pray i'm not one -

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
                            There is more than one Mid-Acts perspective.

                            According to the Neo-MAD perspective the Jews who lived under the law could not be saved unless they did works. But that teaching is contradicted by this verse, which shows that any one who believes is saved:
                            "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (Jn.3:16).

                            Those in the Neo-MAD camp say that a Jew who lived under the law could believe and yet not be saved unless he did works. So they do not believe what is said at John 3:16.

                            On the other hand, those in the original MAD camp teach that throughout history men have been saved in only one way--by grace through faith apart from works.
                            To anyone reading this post.

                            I hold to some things that Jerry holds to. Others I do not hold to.

                            As is obvious to anyone reading the various threads on here, Jerry will hijack any thread or post towards his decades old need to hound others down who he believes he is right in some view they may or may not hold to, as well as towards his obvious belief that he has a right to hijack every thread and or post in service of this agenda of his.

                            Though I engage others, and at length and with much Scripture, I very soon concluded that where he is concerned I would refuse to exchange with him on where we might agree or not. I believe his motive is wrong. What few times I showed agreement with him, he right off attempted to turn into some sort of an acknowledgement about him.

                            He barks on and on about how some have not understood salvation by grace, all the while demonstrating by all the above that he obviously could care less about applying that grace where those who may not agree with his beliefs are concerned.

                            He will now turn my words here into his favorite topic - him; about how right he is, abut how others must engage him, and about some right he perceives he has to hound others with said favorite topic.

                            Ironically, turning a thread about Galatianism, into a thread about him.

                            It is no wonder so few attempt to share on this forum anymore - the man's incessant need to turn any post into his agenda, and in his condescending manner.

                            I will soon be moving on, as well. For I find that what I signed on this forum for - exploration and sharing with others of like precious faith, and in the spirit of fellowship - is ever sabotaged by this fool's neurotic need.

                            In this, perhaps it is not ironic at all that he has turned a thread about Galatianism, into a thread about him.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Danoh View Post
                              Though I engage others, and at length and with much Scripture, I very soon concluded that where he is concerned I would refuse to exchange with him on where we might agree or not.
                              Once again all you do is to give excuses why you refuse to address the verses which I give to prove that many of your ideas are flat out wrong.

                              All you do is run and hide from those verses and then you attempt to assassinate my character.

                              You are an embarrassment to Christianity.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X