ECT Disposing of a MAD list

Interplanner

Well-known member
Found in the thread on I Tim 6 and MAD:
(It has taken about 2 years to find this after asking Danoh, for one, to do so).

Basic teachings of Mid Acts Dispensational right division
– Jesus, in his earthly ministry, ministered to the circumcision. (Rom 15:8, see here)
– [bold]The mystery of Christ was first revealed to Paul[/bold] (Col 1:25-26, 1 Tim 1:16, and here)
– Prophecy and mystery are different (Acts 3:19-21 vs Rom 16:25)
– Peter and Paul taught different messages (Peter prophecy, and Paul mystery: See here)
– Prophecy has been interrupted. (See here)
– The gospel of the kingdom is not the gospel of the grace of God (See here and here)
– Israel’s Church and the Church, the body of Christ, are different. (See here)




Jesus was ministering in Israel.
He made several indications of reaching out to the nations, though. He trained 82 guys for mission work, leveraging them with his 1st rule: pray to the Lord of the Harvest for more workers. So if they each reached just 2 more guys, thats 246 by the time things were rocking on the day of Pentecost, where 'every nation under heaven were there.' Get the idea. MAD is mad. Acts is about the true purpose of that generation of Israel to be found in Christ himself, to be a light to the nations, as Christ was.

the Mystery of Christ
The only people this was a mystery to was Judaism. Because of their Replacement theology (Gal 3:17), they thought the expansion to the nations was to take place through the law. It was instead to happen through the Gospel, Eph 3:5. The mystery was not an interjection of an unknown work of God out of nowhere. The OT was full of it in the prophets. But it wasn't to be by spreading the Law's ceremonial and dietary rules.

Prophecy vs Mystery
Well, they can't be too different when it is what the prophets mentioned so much. Judaism imagined Judaism all over the planet and started on that. Christ was unimpressed, says Mt 23. It was actually a spread of the Pharisee mentality. No thanks. I detect a bit of 2P2P here, but more on that later.

Peter vs Paul
(sniffs) More 2P2P. Nonsense. They have the same message when Acts 2, 3, 13 are compared--about justification, about Abraham's promises, about what Israel is supposed to be.

Prophecy interrupted.
(Pewwwwww!!! 2P2P!!!) Right: 483 followed by 2000+ followed by 484. yeah, all the time. I simply do not understand how the Bretheren so thoroughly scrubbed the Christian world of the knowledge of the DofJ, but it was so gone by the time the Brethren went to work on Darby's system, it is unbelievable. The DofJ--the best attested ancient calamity and siege in which 1.5M perished--is like gone when the D'ists go to work. Raptured! The proper title for this paragraph should be "History Interrupted."

Two Gospels
(vomits). All based on the simplest of grammatical errors about Gal 2 WHEN THE WHOLE CHAPTER IS ABOUT AVOIDING OTHER GOSPELS ON DANGER OF PAUL'S ANATHEMAS!!! Only D'ism can make people reshuffle Biblical doctrine like this. Like Mormonism. And then, as though we didn't have the account of Acts in the Bible, Peter gets confronted 3 times for what he's doing! So out of touch that even today, I have had 'Messianic Jews' tell me they could not fellowship with me unless I agreed that Peter went to the Gentile homes there in Acts 9, but DID NOT EAT THE FOOD WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE VISION IS ABOUT!!! (vomits 2P2P all over)

One Body
(NDEs). It's interesting to note that in Galatians, the term 'hairesie' (heresy) is not originally a doctrinal word. It means to divide. The flesh divides. The flesh doesn't just divide into two. That's not nearly enough. Why waste a crisis? Really divide when you can. MAD is flesh. It is poorly educated, uninspired, over-cautious human thinking. (More NDEs)
 
Last edited:

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
Mid-Acts dispensational Bible study recognizes the importance of the mystery of Christ revealed to the apostle Paul as doctrine particular to the church in the present dispensation (Rom 16:25, Col 1:25-27, Eph 3:2-4).
While most Bible students would make the most important division in the Bible to be between Israel and the Church or the Old and New Testaments, mid-Acts Bible study teaches the most important distinction in your Bible to be the right division between God’s Mystery purpose, “kept secret since the world began”, and God’s Prophecy purpose, which had been “spoken since the world began” (Acts 3:19-21 vs. Rom 16:25).
Understanding the mystery of Christ revealed to Paul for us clears up the theological confusion that is created by blending Prophecy and Mystery doctrines. Some controversial doctrines resolved by Pauline right division include:
Baptism
Faith and Works
Sign Gifts
Salvation
God’s Will
Tongues
Jesus instructs us to identify Paul as our pattern (1 Tim 1:16; 1 Cor 4:16; 1 Cor 11:1). A failure to operate according to the Lord’s revelations to Paul often leads to frustration with denominational traditions, including:
Tithing
Prayer
Communion
Great Commission
Confession
Sabbaths and Holy Days
If you have been confused by some of these doctrines or frustrated by empty Church tradition, consider the Lord’s revelation to Paul and get some answers (2 Tim 2:7).
Basic teachings of Mid Acts Dispensational right division
– Jesus, in his earthly ministry, ministered to the circumcision. (Rom 15:8, see here)
– [bold]The mystery of Christ was first revealed to Paul[/bold] (Col 1:25-26, 1 Tim 1:16, and here)
– Prophecy and mystery are different (Acts 3:19-21 vs Rom 16:25)
– Peter and Paul taught different messages (Peter prophecy, and Paul mystery: See here)
– Prophecy has been interrupted. (See here)
– The gospel of the kingdom is not the gospel of the grace of God (See here and here)
– Israel’s Church and the Church, the body of Christ, are different.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
This is for discussion, not mechanically repetition. Do you have something to observe about my comments on the 'list.'?
 

Danoh

New member
This is for discussion, not mechanically repetition. Do you have something to observe about my comments on the 'list.'?

What is there to observe - PJ's is the more thorough list; Stam bascially asserts all that in Things That Differ, more or less.

Being that much of Stam's book is along the same line of what I have seen in Scripture over time, I shared Things That Differ with you two years ago, and you rejected it while demonstrating the same cluessness you are still at.

You even related not having bothered reading it.

You have no real interest in actually exploring these issues.

Becuase you have no real skill at being able to objectively.

I am still shaking my head at what you posted about what Romans 2's "law written in their hearts" was referring to.

Clete is dead to rights right about you - you make the stuff up as you go.

Yours is the typical dime a dozen reasoning in just about every school of thought out there that goes and goes and goes at James 2 and Romans 4 until it reasons James 2 into a kind of Romans 4 part two.

That right there is your entire school of thought's basic "one size fits all" approach "until things fit."
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
What is there to observe - PJ's is the more thorough list; Stam bascially asserts all that in Things That Differ, more or less.

Being that much of Stam's book is along the same line of what I have seen in Scripture over time, I shared Things That Differ with you two years ago, and you rejected it while demonstrating the same cluessness you are still at.

You even related not having bothered reading it.

You have no real interest in actually exploring these issues.

Becuase you have no real skill at being able to objectively.

I am still shaking my head at what you posted about what Romans 2's "law written in their hearts" was referring to.

Clete is dead to rights right about you - you make the stuff up as you go.

Yours is the typical dime a dozen reasoning in just about every school of thought out there that goes and goes and goes at James 2 and Romans 4 until it reasons James 2 into a kind of Romans 4 part two.

That right there is your entire school of thought's basic "one size fits all" approach "until things fit."



Then knock it off with your complaints about outside sources! Besides, STam is hardly by himself, since MAD is a subdivision of D'ism. It's rubbish.

Stop commenting on my stuff unless you have a specific thing to say. Like about Rom 2:
What is so mysterious about what I said about Rom 2? He says the nations have the Law in their hearts by nature. Every commentary I have read on Rom 2 says that the nations are judged by that Law and the Jews by the recieved one, but they overlap very substantially as Lewis showed in his "Tao" list at the end of MEN WITHOUT CHESTS.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
Danoh's mentality:
You have no real interest in actually exploring these issues.

Nope only in posting responses to them. Where is your brain?
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
Without reasons, why can't the messianics also say: the land is one part of the trinity? That is what it is like listening to your lists!

That is why it is so annoying to have the mistake-ful list repasted, without reasons.
 

Danoh

New member
Then knock it off with your complaints about outside sources! Besides, STam is hardly by himself, since MAD is a subdivision of D'ism. It's rubbish.

Stop commenting on my stuff unless you have a specific thing to say. Like about Rom 2:
What is so mysterious about what I said about Rom 2? He says the nations have the Law in their hearts by nature. Every commentary I have read on Rom 2 says that the nations are judged by that Law and the Jews by the recieved one, but they overlap very substantially as Lewis showed in his "Tao" list at the end of MEN WITHOUT CHESTS.

Problem is that Romans 1:18 thru 3:20 are actually about the different testings of mankind (including via the Law) that God was proving man's utter hopelessness through towards His pointing man to Romans 3:21 forward - the glory of His Son's Cross!

He starts out with the wrath the world was then ripe for - both Jew and Gentile.

He lays out why.

And then he relates the delay in said wrath that God's having poured out His wrath on His Son towards saving those who believe from said wrath still to come.

The thing about the work of the law written in the Gentile heart is Paul's relating of why God turned from the Gentile all those centuries ago, in Genesis 11.

They knew God was God but became vain in their imaginations, etc.

The Jew eventually ending up in the same boat, with the Gentle, etc.

Worse off even, in some ways.

But for God Who is rich in mercy, etc...
 

Danoh

New member
My "complaint" is NOT about outside sources, but about OVER reliance on their line of thought.

Case in point as to where I find it useful - from a historical perspective - what is your understanding of Paul's use of both the phrase "the Greek" and the phrase "the Barbarian" in Romans 1?

Given the history, why does he use those two phrases there, in the way he does, and what does he mean by them?

The history is SOMETIMES helpful in that kind of thing.

I say sometimes, because other (if not later) sources some times prove otherwise.

I believe you helpful in that kind of thing - to some extent.

You just don't know where I am coming from - because you go too quickly with what you think I meant.

Anyway, what is your perspective from "the history" on those two phrases there in Romans 1?

Thanks.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
I have known 2P2P long enough to recognize it a long ways off.

I don't have any thing readily available on the two terms.
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
Two Gospels
(vomits). All based on the simplest of grammatical errors about Gal 2 WHEN THE WHOLE CHAPTER IS ABOUT AVOIDING OTHER GOSPELS ON DANGER OF PAUL'S ANATHEMAS!!! Only D'ism can make people reshuffle Biblical doctrine like this. Like Mormonism. And then, as though we didn't have the account of Acts in the Bible, Peter gets confronted 3 times for what he's doing! So out of touch that even today, I have had 'Messianic Jews' tell me they could not fellowship with me unless I agreed that Peter went to the Gentile homes there in Acts 9, but DID NOT EAT THE FOOD WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE VISION IS ABOUT!!! (vomits 2P2P all over)

Translated: Sit, Col. Klink, as you are clueless as to the meaning of the term "gospel, and thus, on record, assert/"argue:"

-there is just one piece of good news in the book, not more than one, per your cute, little "(vomits)."

-Judas preached the gospel of Christ of 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV



This, TOL audience, is satanic.


Ssssssssssssssssssss..................


And stuff your sound bite, emotionalism, of "Like Mormonism," as we've seen that slick cliche from all "denominations," sport, and we are not impressed by that zinger, that even a 12 year old can sling up/spam, like hotcakes, Lisa....
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
They always claim to know, but when pressed , are found to utterly fail at comprehending it.


Like what? Either there is a theological 'need' for there to be a restored kingdom or there is not. There's isn't. Nothing needs to happen to or in Israel for the 2nd coming in judgement to take place. That is why there is no Judaic aspect to anything the NT says about the 2nd coming: I Cor 15, Rom 2, 8, 2 Tim 4, Heb 9, 2 Pet 3.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
The objective of the MAD list is to try to come up with a perfect system. There is none. There is just Christ and his mission. That is what needed to happen and did happen. Everything else is rough and tumble history. The mission and its message is perfectly clear though. And that God wanted all of Israel in it instead of fighting to liberate itself.
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
Like about Rom 2:
What is so mysterious about what I said about Rom 2?

Catch that, TOL audience? Hop Sing is attempting to weigh in here, when he is clueless as to what the term "gospel" meant 2000 or so years ago, and "translates" what the term "mystery" meant at that same time, into his "20/21 century lenses," i.e., "mysterious," as in "spooky, unable to be understood,......" No, Hop Sing, the term had the meaning of "secret/not revealed."


I told you to take your seat, Col. Klink.
 
Top