Theology Club: The Things That Differ

[Danoh]

Danoh, what if the Jews repented and accepted Christ and there was no stoning of Stephen? What do you think would have happened in God's plan?

Feel free to ask yourself that question; see what it allows the seeing of.

And while you are asking it of yourself; observe how you go about attempting to solve for its answer; observe both what principles you appear to either follow and or break.

As you do, write them down to yourself; worded as a principle....

'Okay, what principle or principles, does (Moses; the Lord; Paul; or whomever) appear to be following here?' And or 'what principle or principles does this writer appear to be basing his assertions on, here; in this passage?'

Write out your findings to yourself worded as principles you can then rely on and or avoid consciously...

I constantly do this kind of thing.

It's been a great resource whenever I have sought to study out one thing or another...

 

[Clete]

Had Israel repented then Jesus would have returned and set up Israel's Kingdom.

After that it isn't clear how thing would have proceeded because then it would be like the Preterists wrongly think it is now and all of Israel's prophecies would have been fulfilled.

There could still have been a Body of Christ and a Grace Gospel but it seems it likely would have waited until after Israel's Kingdom period had come to an end unless God simply decided to have a second group of believers that had nothing at all to do with Israel. The point is that its all speculation. We don't have any way of knowing because everything in the New Testament is all based on the facts of history the way it did actually happen. If it had happened differently then things would be different. That's obviously a simplistic thing to say but I'm not sure there's much else that can be said.

You know what's cool though! We worship a God that would not have broken in half had things not worked out in a particular way. Regardless of how things turn out, our God is the only wise and poweful and just God and He is more than able to overcome any obstacle and defeat any enemy without having to fix the game in advance or to sneak a peak into the future to see what was going to happen.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Danoh]

By the way - welcome to the MAD Forum; Clete.

 

[ClimateSanity]

By the way - welcome to the MAD Forum; Clete.

Looks like I'm in now.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Consider that Paul and The Mystery* are not a "replacement" of Israel and the Prophetic aspect of God's Two-Fold Plan and Purpose: Prophecy and Mystery.

_______

* In my understanding, just as the Prophetic aspect is one aspect of God's Two-Fold Purpose but is comprised of various aspects as to Israel, The Mystery is also singular, not plural.

Yes, and there would be no fulness of him that filleth all in all.
That would not work. :up:

 

[Danoh]

Yes, and there would be no fulness of him that filleth all in all.
That would not work. :up:

Yep...

Ephesians 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

Ephesians 3:15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,

Nice; how those two passages fit together.

In other words...

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

 

[Clete]

By the way - welcome to the MAD Forum; Clete.

I didn't even know there was a MAD forum!

 

[Danoh]

I didn't even know there was a MAD forum!

Lol - that's because you don't speculate enough :chuckle:

Which reminds me - MAD is huge now - where are they that this wonderful home of ours is too often literally a ghost town?

One 28er (only Paul's last 7 epistles, etc) did tell me he took a look around way back when; saw too much bickering and passed.

Personally, as off as the 28er is; they still have alot that is worthy - because they focus so much on Paul's last 7 epistles - where all the advanced Bodt material is found.

One tends to get really good at finer and finer distinctions within those areas one focuses on.

An Orthodox Rabbi once shared with me some things from Ezekiel that cleared up some things for me in John's Revelation.

 

[Clete]

Lol - that's because you don't speculate enough :chuckle:

Which reminds me - MAD is huge now - where are they that this wonderful home of ours is too often literally a ghost town?

One 28er (only Paul's last 7 epistles, etc) did tell me he took a look around way back when; saw too much bickering and passed.

Personally, as off as the 28er is; they still have alot that is worthy - because they focus so much on Paul's last 7 epistles - where all the advanced Bodt material is found.

One tends to get really good at finer and finer distinctions within those areas one focuses on.

An Orthodox Rabbi once shared with me some things from Ezekiel that cleared up some things for me in John's Revelation.

I don't even understand what real difference it makes. What do Acts 28 people believe different than I do other than the distinction between Acts 9 and Acts 28?

Mostly it seems they want to make a big deal about water baptism and/or Communion observances and that kind of thing and mostly all they seem to accomplish is to turn the Gospel of Grace into a list of Thou shalt nots. Thou shalt not get water baptized, though shalt not take communion - ever, etc.

And even the ones that make an effort not to do that feel to me like they're still just straining out gnats to swallow camels. It just makes things way too complicated.

Besides, if Paul was the first in the Body of Christ and he entered that Body in Acts 9 then how does that not settle the debate? I don't get it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Danoh]

Yo, Clete; here is a study of the Acts 28 Position from a Mid-Acts Perspective...

He does a pretty good job of contrasting the main differences between what he understands as A9D and what the 28er understands as A28D.

http://www.tcmusa.org/publications/heath/HeathLiterature/ACTS28.pdf

Personally, they are brothers and sisters in the Lord.

 

[ClimateSanity]

I don't even understand what real difference it makes. What do Acts 28 people believe different than I do other than the distinction between Acts 9 and Acts 28?

Mostly it seems they want to make a big deal about water baptism and/or Communion observances and that kind of thing and mostly all they seem to accomplish is to turn the Gospel of Grace into a list of Thou shalt nots. Thou shalt not get water baptized, though shalt not take communion - ever, etc.

And even the ones that make an effort not to do that feel to me like they're still just straining out gnats to swallow camels. It just makes things way too complicated.

Besides, if Paul was the first in the Body of Christ and he entered that Body in Acts 9 then how does that not settle the debate? I don't get it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I don't get it either. What I really don't get is the MADist at TOL being called Acts 28rs.

 

[Tambora]

I'm not sure it's a big deal either.
But I do want the info on all the views.

 

[Tambora]

Yo, Clete; here is a study of the Acts 28 Position from a Mid-Acts Perspective...

He does a pretty good job of contrasting the main differences between what he understands as A9D and what the 28er understands as A28D.

http://www.tcmusa.org/publications/heath/HeathLiterature/ACTS28.pdf

Personally, they are brothers and sisters in the Lord.

I liked this statement in the link:

the view does not bring answers, it just throws away the problems

 

[Clete]

I don't get it either. What I really don't get is the MADist at TOL being called Acts 28rs.

Who calls us that?

 

[Danoh]

Who calls us that?

Not you; and what was said was meant as a ribbing.

What was said was you "ALMOST 28ers, lol"

Which is not the same as saying someone " is a 28er."

 

[ClimateSanity]

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Danoh]

I liked this statement in the link:

the view does not bring answers, it just throws away the problems

In other words, rather than actually solving for the seeming problems the 28ers sees in Acts as to Paul's ministry, the 28er ends up ignoring them by coming up with solutions that are actually not solutions at all.

The 28er arrives at these supposed solutions by way of an oversimplification of the passages.

At the same time, it is the extreme to which he ends up taking his oversimplifications that ends him up a 28er.

Charles Welch is its origin - the man simply concluded on some things too soon in the process of induction of information towards forming a working premise; deduction from said working premise to a conclusion; assertion from said conclusion.

During his induction or information gathering; he ended up isolating some words and passages from the whole, and as a result, ended up at a working premise formed out of distinctions that are not really there.

 

[Danoh]

Thanks for the clarification.

LOL!

Welcome to the mad, mad world of TOL MADs :chuckle:

 

[Danoh]

Thanks for the clarification.

I made that clear before, and all you had to do is what you have done at other times - ask me.

Though the distinction was there all along - the the word 'almost' not only in caps, but followed by a :chuckle: