Another verse that blows ME out of the water

[Lacy Evans]

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

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

Mark 9:39-50
39
Quote:
But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.

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

42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

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

Mark 9:38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

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

 

[TCGreek]

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


[/COLOR]


Ye Belong to Christ=Saved?

[/COLOR]

[/COLOR]

Thy/Thee, 1st person singular=The one who belong to Christ?

Let's go back up and see who the "thee" is.




John! Not a Jew in the trib.

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

 

[DHK]

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

Ye Belong to Christ=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.

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

 

[Lacy Evans]

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

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

 

[Lacy Evans]

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

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:

 

[DHK]

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

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.

 

[TCGreek]

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

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.

 

[Lacy Evans]

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

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


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

PS. I will need the post number.

 

[Lacy Evans]

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.

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

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.

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

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

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)

 

[DHK]

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


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

PS. I will need the post number.

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.

 

[Lacy Evans]

DHK:

Any more questions?

Lacy
No.

• DHK

  • 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?

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

 

[av1611jim]

After the rapture of the saints, if a saved person has to go to outer darkness/hell/lake of fire for a thousand years to pay for sins, then Christ's sacrifice was not sufficient.

My Bible tells me that the blood covered it all, not just a portion.

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?

 

[TCGreek]

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?

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

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)

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.

 

[Lacy Evans]

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;

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

Are you big enough a man to stand behind your words, accept the challenge that both I and TCGreek have given you more times now than I can count.
OR,
Are you wimpish enough of a coward to post these petty little squirmishes and not answer the question. The real reason is you can't. If you truly can do what you say you can do, then you stop making these petty posts and demonstrate ME doctrine through the Pauline epistles as we have challenged you. Are you a man or a mouse? which is it?

It is a simple challenge. That is all. Are you up to it.

Come on ME'ers, put up or shut up. ]

It is a straightforward question. Should I also ask the question: Can you understand English? Sheeeesh!

Maybe you just don't know what a Christian is.

your statement is both non sequitor, and nonsensical.

[that one really hurt my feelings]

This constant going back and forth about the ME trash is useless.

Childish mannerisms and attacks indeed.

 

[Lacy Evans]

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

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.

 

[DHK]

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.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Do you have a point here Lacy.

Did you really not get my point?

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.

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

 

[DHK]

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.

 

[Rufus_1611]

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

 

[DHK]

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

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).