In short, you are of Paul, but do not see it, lol
Mid Acts Disponsationalism
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
In short, you are of Paul, but do not see it, lol
lifeisgood
New member
I can see you missed the point, but that's OK, people have a problem understanding me. I'm used to it.
Paul also was of nobody, but of Christ, for Christ, through Christ, and because of Christ.
Hi and I believe it is a CHANGE from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant , after Israel has been saved !!
dan p
In short, you are stupid, but do not see it, lol
Which statement has more substance, yours or mine?
I did.
Reminds me of the insecure individual; ever reading some sort of an affront in another's words.
His notion of "substance" exactly that - his... delusion.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I do not believe :Clete: knows that Danoh the Great is a MAD wacko.
heir
TOL Subscriber
apparently not
My point was not to actually accuse anyone of being stupid but rather to make an equally vacuous statement toward you as you had made toward whoever you were talking too. My intent wasn't even to single you out necessarily. You just happen to be the one who said what I responded too. It could have easily been any one of a dozen or more others.
My point is simply that saying it doesn't make it so!
Saying someone is "of Paul" doesn't make it so any more than my calling someone stupid makes it so. Saying such a thing might sound like or feel like you've scored a point in an argument about Mid-Acts Dispensationalism but you haven't, not really. It would have been better to show him rather than snidely point out his blindness.
I mean, I get it. This is a place where mostly hacks come to hack at each other. I've done it, perhaps more than most. Perhaps there's enough history between the two of you that no such substantive argument would have been worth your time to make, but if so that only further exemplifies my frustration.
It really would be nice, for a change, to come onto this site, open a thread that seems to be on a topic of interest and to discover an actual debate happening where two or more people with active minds engage each other on the merits of the ideals they hold to. It would be shocking and wonderful to find people discussing issues that they actually understand and that they are able to articulate and to defend with the grace that comes from making an eloquent, rationally sound argument.
Instead, even people who happen to share my beliefs, as often as not it seems, squander whatever opportunity that this site presents to convince people of the truth by showing themselves to be no more substantive in the manner in which they argue than are the mindless twits that think a just God could predestine men to rape babies.
If you want to defend Dispensationalism then defend it substantively. That's all I'm saying.
In fact that's good advice for anyone, right?
If you (i.e. anyone reading this) want to defend ANYTHING then defend it substantively!
If you do not do so you are worse than wasting your time, you're tacitly defeating your own position.
If you CANNOT do so then perhaps you should evaluate why that is and keep your mouth shut until you figure it out for fear of discovering that you've offended God Himself by mindlessly defending heresy or worse.
The truth is noble, righteous and pure. It cannot be defended mindlessly. Every mindless argument is productive only to liars, fools and every form of godlessness, especially when made, ostensibly, in defense of the truth!
The truth in the mouth of the mindless is like a gold ring worn in a pig's snout. It spends most of it's time in the mud and it's glory, while perhaps still barely visible, is veiled by slop.
Be better!
Make the argument!
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited:
heir
TOL Subscriber
That's what I would hope would come from you since you've come back. Show us what you have been studying by opening a thread about it. You can start with "what's the nicest thing you can say to a "homosexual".
Let's have a discussion on 2 Corinthians 5:19 KJV!
My point is simply that saying it doesn't make it so!
(This is fun.)
I just couldn't resist!
By the way, glad to see you are still around, Clete.
:wave2:
Hi Tam
You catch on fast.So, does saying that "saying it doesn't make it so," make "saying that saying it doesn't make it so," not so, also?
Of course, me saying so does not make it so.
But then again, me saying so does not make it not so either.
:cheers:
My creating an equivalent statement, replacing "of Paul" with "stupid" demonstrates that saying it doesn't make it so.So, does saying that "saying it doesn't make it so," make "saying that saying it doesn't make it so," not so, also?
Wouldn't you agree?
Lol - watch it, the phrase "Wouldn't you agree?" is one of the hallmarks of Jerry S's decades old narcissism.
That's what I would hope would come from you since you've come back. Show us what you have been studying by opening a thread about it. You can start with "what's the nicest thing you can say to a "homosexual".
Let's have a discussion on 2 Corinthians 5:19 KJV!
A thought... no such being as "a homosexual," really...
Only a sinner walking in his or her particular manifestation of humanity born fallen in Adam.
No such being as "an alcoholic" delivered "from alcoholism," for example.
Such is the false gospel of works that many are led to subscribe to.
The error that "I was an alcoholic; God delivered me and now I don't drink."
What's the deal should they "fall off the wagon"?
That they are lost again?
Our Apostle dealt with all these issues.
What banner does he refer to all as being under, regardless of the particular label "such were"?
The banner of sinners; Romans 5: 12 and Rom. 5:19.
The real issue is sin - a sinner delivered from sin. Was the sinner delivered from sin at the Cross?
"Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners!" - 1 Tim. 1:15.
Saved - and with access into this grace wherein we stand - at peace with God! - Rom. 5:1-2.
Now there we have a victory we can point others too, regardless of their "sin" label - amen!
AMEN!