Nang's SPOTD is Tet's Hit Out of the Park!

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Nang may require the same surgery?

 

[tetelestai]

so what type is tet?

I'm actually O+

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

so what type is tet?

The "type" that talks a lot but, says nothing!

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Nang and TeT are attempting to prove that, Dispensationalists have a
connection to Satanism! These two "geniuses" have the same disease!
It's called; "Ignorance!"

 

[chrysostom]

The "type" that talks a lot but, says nothing!

I didn't know you went to the same church

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Nang, don't take offence, I have known some ignorant people who
can at least use a microwave unit, as long as someone else pushes
the buttons!

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I didn't know you went to the same church

I didn't know you had, no wit? We both learned something today!

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Hey Nang, this thread has been getting a lot of notice! That only
proves that, even a "dopey thread" like this one, can be successful!

 

[john w]

Observe, the deception, insanity, habitual lying, of this obsessed Craigie Tet. Corky the Clown-this thread:


“I, the other hand, don't even have to invoke any alleged affiliation between Satanists and Dispensational doctrine.Dispensationalism is antichrist. Crowley and LeVay are irrelevant.”- PneumaPsucheSoma


“I agree.However, since the topic of the thread is the linking of Dispensationalism and Satanists, I'll show more.Next I'll show the connection between the Plymouth Brethern/John Nelson Darby/Dispensationalism and the occultist Helena Blavatsky… That's the point of the OP. Aleister Crowley came from John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren….Crowley was a satanist and an occultist. Anton LaVey was an admirer of Aleister Crowley. LaVey wrote the Satanic Bible, and relied heavily on Crowley's teachings. Crowley based his aeons on Darby's Dispensations. Darby based his dispensations on a vision by a teenage girl. It's an ugly tangled web Delmar. .. C.U.L.T(Naggie)… Exactly.Darby was no different than Joseph Smith and Charles Taze Russell. In fact they all invented their false teachings right around the same date (the age of the cults)…. That's why I like to show the roots and origin of Dispensationalism,.. Darby's teachings were rooted in the occult long before Crowley was even born….I gave you a side by side comparison of the occult terms that Darby and Helena Blavatsky used.Darby used the same exact occult terms Helena Blavatsky used."-Craigie/Corky Tet. The Clown





“They are deniers of the new covenant….. Dispensationalists deny the New Covenant.Dispensationalists claim Jesus is going to oversee animal sacrifices. Dispensationalists claim God still has a plan with certain fleshly people. These beliefs are a slap in the face to what Christ Jesus accomplished on the cross….You can't deny the New Covenant, and at the same time claim to adhere to Paul's gospel.Denying the New Covenant & Adhering to Paul's Gospel are mutually exclusive…. Denying the new covenant is a MAJOR point in my career.A denial of the New Covenant is a slap in the face to what Christ Jesus accomplished on the cross… If you deny the New Covenant is in place right now, then you deny what Jesus accomplished on the cross… The New Covenant was implemented with the shed blood of Christ Jesus.If you deny the NC, then you deny what Christ Jesus accomplished on the cross..”- Craigie/Corky Tet. The Clown

Vs.

“I've never said Dispensationalists aren't saved. In fact, I've made it clear that I think all Dispensationalists are brothers and sisters in Christ.Can't say the Dispies say the same about me. According to Dispies, I'm a demon, spawn of satan, child of the devil, a serpent, a wicked liar, etc.”-Craigie/Corky Tet. The Clown



Thus, on "As Craigie the Clown Spins:"

Dispensationalism, according to our hero, Big Top Craigie:

-is linked to Satanists
-is antichrist
-is from the occult
-denies the New Covenant, Paul's gospel, and thus denies what Christ Jesus accomplished on the cross.


And yet, according to Craigie, dispies are saved!!! Praise God!!! Believe whatever you want, preach whatever you want!!!!

This punk is extremely troubled/obsessed, to be kind; demonic being the only other option.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I see TeTs back! Let the ignorant comments begin! You go first TeT, then,
it's Nang's turn! After you guys are finished then, it's the intelligent folks
turn!

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Observe, the deception, insanity, habitual lying, of this obsessed Craigie Tet. Corky the Clown-this thread:

He's obsessed with John Nelson Darby!

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I think Nang may have an obsession with John Nelson Darby, as well?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Well, Nang has checked out! Whose next?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Tet is a follower of, "Homer Strut Caste" although he won't admit it publicly!

 

[Nang]

:thumb:



Not all of those who consider themselves dispensationalists say that the new covenant is not in effect since the cross. Some do, some don't.
What I see in scripture is that the prophesied new covenant would be made with a reunited national 'believing' Israel. The Hebrew writer says the same.

The difference between dispensational and covenantal on this point is the identity of 'Israel'.

Agreed. This is the big hangup . . .

If the Body of Christ is composed of all believers since Adam, and is identified as being 'Israel', then one comes to a particular conclusion based on that presupposition.

This is my position . . .

If the Body of Christ is composed of believers since Pentecost, and does not include believers prior to that event , then one is classified as an Acts 2 dispensationalist and this presupposition also has its particular conclusions.
If the BOC is composed of those believers since Acts 9 and none prior, then one is a Mid-Acts-Dispensationalist.

I was familiar with what is called Hyper-Dispensationalism before I came to TOL. I learned what MAD was when I arrived here.

The main thing that comes into view here is that the scripture throughout affirm that the New Covenant will be made in the future with the nation of Israel.

If this were so, what was David's Psalm 40 all about?

My position is that the Lord Jesus proclaimed the New Covenant in His blood, shed for many, at the last supper. I take this to mean that the New Covenant and the provisions of the New Covenant were established at the cross......unilaterally.

I believe that "establishment" is actual ratification of the new covenant, cut with Christ's blood.

A covenant is entered into by at least two parties.

Temporal contracts work this way, but the new covenant is the Everlasting Covenant, which I believe Jesus Christ performed in its entirety, in His Person alone.

This is where we certainly will not agree on the basis of the argument of synergism vs monergism. I believe that the gift of Christ's work on the cross must be willingly received by the recipient. :idunno:

You are identifying the differences between Dispie and CT correctly. I believe Jesus Christ performed all of the new covenant, and that His righteousness achieved by so doing, is imputed to an elect people chosen by God, both Jew and Gentile, referred to as His church.

Again, the plain speech of Scripture states that the New Covenant is to be established with a reunited Israel.

By Paul, who said this would be worked "according to the election if grace." Romans 11:5

Not the entire nation of Israel would receive the new covenant, but only a remnant chosen by God. Israel, as a nation has not obtained what they sought under the old covenant of works/law, but the elect out of the nation of Israel have obtained it by the new covenant of grace . . "AND THE REST ARE BLINDED." Romans 11:7-10

Which reduces our differences down to the old battle between the Sovereignty of God in Election, and the defense of autonomous free will.

Some believe that this happened at Pentecost. I don't. Peter still appeals to national Israel after Pentecost in Acts 3 to repent so that GOD would send the Lord Jesus back and finally fulfill the remainder of those things spoken by the Prophets since the world began.

I am a beneficiary of the New Covenant in Christ's blood and I believe that I have entered covenant with GOD through the cross.

Please explain to me, if the new covenant is future for the nation of Israel, how did you became a beneficiary of the new covenant? What does the New Covenant in Christ's blood mean to you, exactly? How did you enter covenant with God through the cross?

I believe, as Paul affirms, that GOD will make His New Covenant with Israel in the future when He takes away their sins.
Rom 11:27

So the nation of Israel remains under the curse of their sins, to this day? God did not take away any Jewish sins on the cross? You said that Jesus established the new covenant on the cross, but He will not forgive the sins of Israel, until the last day?

This is all made much easier to understand, if one puts aside the entire nationality of Israel, and sees that a remnant of Jews are saved by the cross work of Jesus Christ exactly how a remnant out of all the nations is saved by the cross work of Jesus Christ. The remnant are God's people, whose sins the Messiah bore in His sacrificial suffering and redeemed in His death. Isaiah Chapter 53

These are called part of "all Israel." Romans 11:26

If you and I have been saved in the same way, by the same Savior, we too, are part of "all Israel" . . "for they are not all Israel who are of Israel." Romans 9:6

Yes, and.......'we shall reign on the earth'.

The church of the true Israel, Jesus Christ, will reign with Him without end, in the new heavens and new earth. This is an eternal promise; not a temporal promise.

Thank you for giving me a straight-forward and intelligent answer. This kind of response is sorely lacking on TOL these days, and I appreciate you and respect you, even though we differ.

 

[Nang]

A student, are you? Teach us about this obviously scriptural term, "covenant of grace." Do, be a dear, Naggie.

I could but I won't waste my time . . .

You would only trample my sincere and truthful answer under your feet, and continue to call me names.

Why should I bother with you?

 

[john w]

If you knew Paul's gospel, you wouldn't be a follower of John Nelson Darby.

Tell us what "Paul's Gospel" is-break it down for us. Chapter, verse..... Specifics. And leave out what your Preterist teachers, such as Russell, Hanegraaf....................................................................taught you what it is. And leave out your "Darby...Bullinger...Fulfilled..." spam. Do be a dear, and unpack it for us.

 

[tetelestai]

I could but I won't waste my time . . .

You would only trample my sincere and truthful answer under your feet, and continue to call me names.

Why should I bother with you?

Yep, it would be pointless.

Notice how the more Dispensationalism is exposed, the nastier Johnny gets?

 

[john w]

Here comes heir with her "three different gospels" and "three different eternities", and "three different kinds of believers" etc.

Craigie asserts, like Naggie, that his Saint Judas preached "the gospel" of 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV, and asserts only one piece of good news is in the bible.
.

 

[musterion]

Did Christ say that He would personally, Himself, destroy the Temple? I remember that being asked a few weeks ago but I do not recall an answer.