ECT Rom 11:26 MEANS ??

musterion

Well-known member
But 1 Cot 3:1o-15 tells it all and there will diappointment at the BEMA SEAT , what say you ??

dan p

It seems a preterist (WHICH IP IS MOST DEFINITELY NOT, JUST ASK HIM) would have to say this passage is null and void. Either it already happened...spiritually...in Christ...I guess...or it was simply a figure of speech. Either way, not at all literal and we're to pay it no mind.
 

Interplanner

New member
It seems a preterist (WHICH IP IS MOST DEFINITELY NOT, JUST ASK HIM) would have to say this passage is null and void. Either it already happened...spiritually...in Christ...I guess...or it was simply a figure of speech. Either way, not at all literal and we're to pay it no mind.


lol, it is after this life! You sound so certain but are so ignorant. If the preterist says the 2nd coming in judgement happened already, we should all laugh at that. I don't. The 2nd coming in judgement was delayed. The destruction of Jerusalem/Israel was not.
 

Interplanner

New member
Yet you despise MADs.


If you are familiar enough with Paul, you find that he thought the final judgement was coming very soon and had no sense of delay, as did Mark, Matt, Peter. Soon = right after the DofJ, as in Rom 2, first for the Jew then for the Gentile.

Luke is essentially transcription of Paul's teaching and he has no conception of a delay between the DofJ and the final judgement.

This is why you Must need to talk things through rather than censor.
 

Danoh

New member
Hi and the GRAFTING happens in the MILLENNIAL KINGDOM !!

In Rom all those that are GRAFTED in can also BE TAKEN out or CUT OUT AGAIN as verse 21 says !!

So here you can lose your GRAFTING , like losing your salvation and you are not the only one that has a hard time with Rom 11!!

I have already did an OP on Rom 11:26 !!

dan p

Problem with your theory is that the ones that were cut off can get back in.

Because the cutting off; the grafting in, and or the getting back in, are NOT the issue of salvation.
 

DAN P

New member
It seems a preterist (WHICH IP IS MOST DEFINITELY NOT, JUST ASK HIM) would have to say this passage is null and void. Either it already happened...spiritually...in Christ...I guess...or it was simply a figure of speech. Either way, not at all literal and we're to pay it no mind.


Hi and do you believe that he has FORMULA as to find those figures of SPEECH ??

I know that BULLINGER wrote a book on FIGURES of Speech , an maybe he could be using it ??

dan p
 

DAN P

New member
If you are familiar enough with Paul, you find that he thought the final judgement was coming very soon and had no sense of delay, as did Mark, Matt, Peter. Soon = right after the DofJ, as in Rom 2, first for the Jew then for the Gentile.

Luke is essentially transcription of Paul's teaching and he has no conception of a delay between the DofJ and the final judgement.

This is why you Must need to talk things through rather than censor.


Hi and an I will ask you to leave , and the Many here help me a lot and I will talk to anyone that just wants to debate OR just to talk an I have a lot of rough edges , but I am what I am !!

dan p

dan p
 

DAN P

New member
Problem with your theory is that the ones that were cut off can get back in.

Because the cutting off; the grafting in, and or the getting back in, are NOT the issue of salvation.


Hi and there is not GRAFTING into the Body of Christ as we are parts of His Body , EARS and ETC ETC !!

Read the above post again and I said it LIKE LOSING YOUR SALVATION !!


There are plenty of GENTILES entering the Millennial Kingdom as Matt 25 reveals 32-33 !!

Is Matt 25:32-33 a figure of SPEECH ??

dan p
 

Danoh

New member
Hi and there is not GRAFTING into the Body of Christ as we are parts of His Body , EARS and ETC ETC !!

Read the above post again and I said it LIKE LOSING YOUR SALVATION !!


There are plenty of GENTILES entering the Millinnal Kingdom as Matt 25 reveals 32-33 !!

dan p

No problem on my part as to the sense of the grafting in NOT being a reference to a grafting into the Body.

This thing is so MAD simple; it amuses me to no end that even some MADs cannot see it.

What was it that Israel TEMPORARILY lost?

I mean what did Israel lose as an agency, not Israel as to each individual Israelite's salvation - which is a different issue.

And this that Israel TEMPORARILY lost - who did it go to, not only TEMPORARILY, but in a very different, UnProphesied role?

What was it Paul said to Israel they were nowhere even remotely fit to be, in Acts 13, as to their Prophesied role and what that role was?

And how did Israel TEMPORARILY lose it, and how can Gentiles access being a part of it?

And how will Israel access it when it is theirs to access once more?

Again, we're not talking salvation here.

There is another issue here. One that salvation is a part of but is not the same issue.

What was Israel's standing? Who were they to have been? Who are they to be?

Right answers are only found...through right questions.
 
Last edited:

DAN P

New member
No problem on my part as to the sense of the grafting in NOT being a reference to a grafting into the Body.

This thing is so MAD simple; it amuses me to no end that even some MADs cannot see it.

What was it that Israel TEMPORARILY lost?

I mean what did Israel lose as an agency, not Israel as to each individual Israelite's salvation - which is a different issue.

And this that Israel TEMPORARILY lost - who did it go to, not only TEMPORARILY, but in a very different, UnProphesied role?

What was it Paul said to Israel they were nowhere even remotely fit to be, in Acts 13, as to their Prophesied role and what that role was?

And how did Israel TEMPORARILY lose it, and how can Gentiles access being a part of it?

And how will Israel access it when it is theirs to access once more?

Again, we're not talking here.

There is another issue here. One that salvation is a part of but is not the same issue.

What was Israel's standing? Who were they to have been? Who are they to be.

Right answers are only found...through right questions.


Hi and that will be this , an they LOST :

#1 , They lost there MESSIAN ttemporarily

#2 , They Great Tribulation was set ASIDE !!

#3, They are still THE TAIL

#4 The New Covenant was also set aside

#5 They did not enter the Promised LAND

#6 They did not BECOME Kings or PRIESTS

#7 Mark 16:15-18 was also set aside

I am sure that I missed some , off the top of my head

dan p
 

DAN P

New member
I have that book and I doubt IP would even TOUCH it or allow it into his house.


Hi and Bullinger does have some truth , BUT it needs to be FILTERED by 2 Tim 2:15 !!

I have his book on NUMBERS and HOW TO ENJOY THE BIBLE , but I has sent aletter to them in Indiana and I do get their news letter as a friend gave them my home address and also get Richard Jordans news letter also the same way !!

I learned what Acts 28er know as we had 2 Acts 28er , and Pentcostal , Acts 9 and also Acts 13 in our assembly !!

Now you know how potent it kis when I ask him how he was saved OR how Paul was saved , they RUN !!

dan p
 

Danoh

New member
Hi and Bullinger does have some truth , BUT it needs to be FILTERED by 2 Tim 2:15 !!

I have his book on NUMBERS and HOW TO ENJOY THE BIBLE , but I has sent aletter to them in Indiana and I do get their news letter as a friend gave them my home address and also get Richard Jordans news letter also the same way !!

I learned what Acts 28er know as we had 2 Acts 28er , and Pentcostal , Acts 9 and also Acts 13 in our assembly !!

Now you know how potent it kis when I ask him how he was saved OR how Paul was saved , they RUN !!

dan p

DanP...

Ac28 has a clear testimony on how he was saved.

He does not, however, kow tow to being baited.

Rightly so.

He also does not post on here much.

As for Bullinger, it is a version of some of his erroneous views that some Mads on TOL have adopted and assert are Mad views.

Views Mad has NEVER held to because Mad does NOT study things in the erroneous way in some things that the Acts 28er does.

I'm sure you're familiar with how that in Bullinger's still great book on how to study the Bible, he lays out all these principles for how to study things, only to every so often violate said principles - in that same book.

I forget when he wrote it, or if he wrote it after he no longer held to MAD, but it is clear in that still great book that he was already into a habit of violating sound principles in favor of first impression conclusions on some things that can only end one up at views that are not MAD based.

I say that even though I have a very high regard for him - he was a brilliant individual like few within recorded Christianity and that book is still held in a high regard by many who are not even Dispensational.

When you have a minute, take a look at his piece in that book "This is that, but what is this?"

Both his brilliant mind, and yet it's sabotage of the obvious are evident in that article.

He is so spot on in that book on so much, only to go south on other things.

You sit there, run his assertions through the principles he so well lays out (to see how that kind of thing works in actual practice) only to find yourself wondering every so often, what happened that it appears he simply threw those great principles to the wind, at times.

Great, great book on the principles of studying a thing out - even for its' unexpected lesson from the great man - on the dangers of failing to be consistent...in their application.
 

DAN P

New member
DanP...

Ac28 has a clear testimony on how he was saved.

He does not, however, kow tow to being baited.

Rightly so.

He also does not post on here much.
/QUOTE]


Hi and he , the Acts 28er does not seem confidence as he should be , when you know what they believe and IF he had a clear treatment , WHy DID HE RUN ??

You know why , HE DOES NOT KNOW ,who are you KIDDING ??

If you know that he can EXPLAIN Acts 9:6 , do you want to help HIM ??

DAN P
 

musterion

Well-known member
Hi and Bullinger does have some truth , BUT it needs to be FILTERED by 2 Tim 2:15 !!

I have his book on NUMBERS and HOW TO ENJOY THE BIBLE , but I has sent aletter to them in Indiana and I do get their news letter as a friend gave them my home address and also get Richard Jordans news letter also the same way !!

I learned what Acts 28er know as we had 2 Acts 28er , and Pentcostal , Acts 9 and also Acts 13 in our assembly !!

Now you know how potent it kis when I ask him how he was saved OR how Paul was saved , they RUN !!

dan p

So Jordan still does mail list shenanigans?
 

DAN P

New member
So Jordan still does mail list shenanigans?


Hi and a man GM may know from the SOUTHGATE GRACE ASSEMBLY gave my home address to these groups and I find most Grace Assembly will some what help new believers BUT I get more from my own study , at this point in time !!

Years ago , there was not a good teacher , any where to be found !!

KJV-ONLY is not for me and that is what I use !!

Fred Price and Joseph Prince and even Chuck Swindoll , NOTHING!!

When I really started to learn , was when I talked to R C Brock and than I took off BUT many will not agree , but I do !!

KJ-ONLY is not for me !!

dan p
 
Last edited:

DAN P

New member
Sorry Dan, but your math forgot to factor in that this was said 700 years earlier, and when Paul read it he used it as finished and completed. These images and terms are all through his teaching as already operative.

That's the thing about prophecy. You have to know when it is given and when it is said to come about. It can sound "future" but are we the only future.

And then there's the small matter of 11:30. Everything God is now doing is in and through faith in Christ. There are no more ethnes to deal with, no reason to, and no NT passage has any Judaic details about the coming in Judgement.


Hi and will you explain what Rom 11:30 MEANS ??

dan p
 

Danoh

New member
Hi and will you explain what Rom 11:30 MEANS ??

dan p

Yo, DP, you never gave me your take on the sense of Romans 16:26's "the scriptures of the prophets."

As I recall, Brock had held that Paul was referring to his own writings.

That is my understanding also.

Although I CAN see how it can fit both that and the more commonly held understanding.

What's yours?

Thanks

:)
 

DAN P

New member
Yo, DP, you never gave me your take on the sense of Romans 16:26's "the scriptures of the prophets."

As I recall, Brock had held that Paul was referring to his own writings.

That is my understanding also.

Although I CAN see how it can fit both that and the more commonly held understanding.

What's yours?

Thanks

:)


Hi and I did explain in my own OP , LON rOM 11:26 !!

dan p
 
Top