Another verse that blows ME out of the water

To TCGreek, DHK, AMY, or anyone else that wants to. . .

Bumped post. Just curious if anyone can exlain it to me.

Does "Ye Belong to Christ" mean that the person he is speaking to is saved?

Thy/Thee, 1st person singular=The one who belongs to Christ?
Let's go back up and see who the "thee" is.

John! Not a Jew in the trib. Is John saved? (He belongs to Christ) Do the warnings in vs 42-48 apply to John?

 

Lacy, I would love to engage you in a healthy discussion, but your debating tactics, I do not appreciate.

 

Yep, It is Scripture. It is from Mark. It is in the Bible. I believe it. Any more questions?

 

OK I can be a bit of a smart alek, I admit. I'm sorry.

But you tell me something. What is the difference between your coming up with a random condition that I must meet, and my turning it back on you?

It was like, "I know! let's make them prove it using different scriptures that they already proved it with!"

I debated a Pauline Dispensationalist named Carl Denson (before he was banned) right here on the BB for weeks. I've already been down that road.

"till my change come, -Lacy

 

No. That will do just fine Brother DHK. I thank you for your time. Give my reguards to the wife.

Lacy

PS. I LOVE YOU MAN!!!!!:love2:

 

You didn't like our original question?
Did you want me to change it?
If ME doctrine is a viable doctrine you should be able to explain it. If you don't like the Pauline Epistles, then how would you like to explain ME doctrine out of the book of Zephaniah for me. Is that any better a challenge for you?

It was a question Lacy. Can you answer a simple question without attacking the messenger of the question.

 

1. I went back to your #242 post in the previous discussion and your reference to Mark 9 was an interjection, which was not addressed to anyone in particular.

2. Why the interjection when we were asking for the ME doctrine to be demonstrated from Paul? This interjection must have only been a tactic to divert attention from the real issue, proving ME from Paul.

3. Therefore, we are under no obligation to address Mark 9.

 

There . . .you . . .go . . .again. (Ronald Reagan)


(sigh) Show me where I attacked someone, so I can apologize.

PS. I will need the post number.

 

That's cool. I fixed that. I edited it to where it is addressed to you (and others) on THIS thread.

I'm sorry man. But nobody was asking about Paul on this thread. So we're cool right?

You are under no obligation to answer any question I ask. I not anybody.

I believe in Soul Liberty. That means you don't have to mind me and I don't have to mind you. We can however come together in mutual submission and debate like men.

That tactic of "answer my question or else you lose" is not my thing.

'Till my change come, -Lacy (nobody)

 

The other thread closed, quickly filling up the last number of pages with indirect attacks. They were not breaking rules or calling names. But instead of answering a simple questioin it is the childish mannerisms: Why should I; you don't answer mine; I don't see the reason; why are you cutting books of Scripture out of your Bible; this is not necessary; etc., etc., These are unnecessary attacks or diversions.
Instead of answering a question:

Please demonstrate ME doctrine through the teachings of Paul.

We get the above stated diversions, excuses, red herrings, non sequitors, and statements that make no logical sense whatsoever.
In essence, all day long all of you have told us "We cannot demonstrate ME doctrine through Pauline teaching therefore it is not a viable doctrine and should not be taught."

That is the message that most people on this board has been reading. That is what we have been getting, because not one of you have stepped up to the plate and answered a simple question. You have only complained about it.

 

How many question would I have gotten had I said "yes"?:laugh: :laugh:

 

So in other words what you are saying is that a believer can sin all his lil ol heart wants yet he is still gonna hear 'well done thou good and faithful servant' since his sins are paid for at the cross right?

 

1. Aren't you the one who brought the discussion here from the previous thread?

2. This is not necessary. Let's deal with one question at a time. How about that?

3. You address the Paul question and then we can address the Mark 9 question. That sounds reasonable to me.

 

Quotes from various and sundry ME opponents on the thread in question.

[that one really hurt my feelings]

Childish mannerisms and attacks indeed.

 

Thing is (and no reflection on you) I spent about two hours finding quotes, and typing them up with the sources to prove that Govett preached Millennial Exclusion. Why? Because I was called a deceiver (Now out in W. Texas, that's just a purty word for "liar".)

So after I proved it, did I get any concessions or apology from the person who called me a liar? No. So I'm really kinda wondering if It would really make any difference if I took the time to show from Paul's writings, the same doctrine that Mark 9, Matt ch5, ch18, and Hebrews ch10, ch12, teach.

 

Do you have a point here Lacy.
Perhaps you are just enumerating the number of times you et. al. were asked to answer a simple question, and you are still avoiding it. I can't believe you are still doing this. Really, I would rather discuss Scripture. Perhaps I should start deleting these posts that are not related to Scripture, but just complaints.

 

Did you really not get my point?

Does it make you mad when I refuse to answer your questions. Well it makes me mad when I answer yours and I'm still a deceiver. So delete me if you feel it's the right thing to do, but you'll have to ban me to get me to stop defending my honor when you accuse me of deceiving and attacking folks.

good night

 

I never said that you "directly" attacked anyone. What I said is that you and the other ME believers have already spent pages and hours and hours of time and space refusing to answer a simple question. Of what profit is that to the board, the posters, those wanting to engage in fruitful debate? Sure, I have used some sarcasm and have tried at times to goad you into answering a question, but it seems like nothing has worked. So again I will come to the same conclusion. If you cannot demonstrate your ME doctrine through the Pauline epistles I will conclude that it is a bogus doctrine and encourage all who read this thread to stay away from it as they would run away from the plague.

The Bible says:
1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

It is quite evident that you are not ready to give an answer for your doctrine.

 

To demonstrate that KA proponents are not Matthew and Hebrews centric (DHK) nor do they dwell on James (nPetreley) Scripture cited by Kingdom Accountability proponents in one KA thread are listed below. Likely, not all were used for direct arguments for KA but you get the picture.

A.W. Tozer on the JSOC and Outer Darkness
Matthew 25:30
James 2:22
Hebrews 11:16-19
Romans 4:2-3
Romans 11:29
Revelation 20:2,7,10
Matthew 25:41
2 Corinthians 5:10
1 Corinthians 9:24
Proverbs 13:24
1 Corinthians 3:15
Romans 8:1
Matthew 12:36
Luke 12:46
Matthew 4:17
Colossians 3:23-25
Philippians 3:14
Matthew 7:21-22
James 2:15-16
Luke 10:36-37
James 2:12-13
Revelation 19:8
1 John 2:28
1 John 2:24
Luke 10:20-22
2 John 1:9
John 15:10
Matthew 25:23
1 Peter 2:12
John 19:13
Acts 18:12-17
Acts 25:10
2 Peter 1:3
2 Timothy 2:12
1 Corinthians 10:12
Luke 12:4-5
1 Thessalonians 5:23-24
Malachi 2:17

 

1. It has been well demonstrated and even admitted from some of you that Tozer does not believe in ME. So let's just put that foolishness to rest quickly.
2. Posting a list of verses proves nothing. The J.W.'s, Mormons, and every cult under the sun do the same thing. If you can't give a logical explanation of how ME doctrine is found in the Pauline gospels, then I will assume it is not there. I have already come to that conclusion any way after two days of asking and getting nowhere. (clarification: this is my second day, and it is half over).