Another verse that blows ME out of the water

[Lacy Evans]

The first three chapters of Romans deal primarily with the unsaved.

Show me one of Paul's warning passages where the threat is "shall not inherit the Kingdom og God" is "describing the condition of the unsaved."

1 Cor 6:9, 10
Gal 5:21
Eph 5:5
2Thess 1;5

When you get through those, you might understand Rom 2: 3-11; 8:17; 11:21-22;

 

[Lacy Evans]

Casting stones are we?

Dude! That was just a tiny pebble. More boulders coming i assure you. But your head is plenty hard, or else you would have already shied away from Accountability teaching.

Lacy

 

[av1611jim]

Hmmmm.
I showed DHK his error. Proved I was not putting words in his mouth. Even quoted him. And what's this I hear????


crickets.....

 

[Lacy Evans]

Jerusalem Cricket
[SIZE=+1]This cricket species is one of the most unattractive insects at KOP, in my opinion. They can be found beneath dead wood or other solid objects laying on the ground.[/SIZE]

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Why is Paul giving a "long lesson" about salvation to BELIEVERS?????

Paul establishes who he is in Ch 1 vs. 1-3

1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

That is the gospel of eternal salvation. That gospel is why Paul was called into the ministry and it is how he opens this Epistle. and it was his habit to write Epistles concerning such.

Am I the only one puzzled about this.

No. There are a few others who have been beguiled into such a mind set on this board as well.

This would be like teaching the ABC's in College English 101 and 2+2 in Algebra 101.

You and others have made such claims as this but even today preachers all across the country preach and teach different messages regarding salvation. Because the theme of scripture is Christ and Him crucified.

Also, if it is dealing with, as you sy, along lesson on salvation, why didn't Paul give this long lesson to the Phillipian Jailor? Why didn't Philip give this "long lesson" to the Eunich?

He did.

Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Answer: The gospel of Grace is simple and easy enough to be given to a child.
Something amazing to think about:
When the Phillipian jailor wanted to be saved, he didn't sign up for a 6 week course entitled "What makes man a sinner & what he must do to be saved 101."

He knew he wasn't saved without 2, 3, or 4 chapters to tell him he was unsaved.
He knew he wanted to be saved. He asked and it didn't take 3 or 4 chapters nor 3 or 4 verses to tell him how to get saved. It was simple, BELIEVE.

This is quite true. However this is not evidence for ME.

To say that Romans (especially chapter 10) is to show someone how to be saved is to take away from the simplicity in John. Nowhere in John does it say to do anything more than believe.

Believe means more thyan excepting some facts. It is to put your trust in someone. If you have not trusted Him you have not believed Him. You folks seperate faithfulness from belief. But you did not get that from scripture.

Guys it is simple. To try and draw a summary out of Romans dealing with "unsaved" individuals and how to lead them to Christ is taking it out of context. If you believe that Romans 1 deals with the unsaved, 2 deals with the unsaved, etc, is to totaly reject the Liberty in Galations, the principles in John, and the simplicity in Acts.
So which books are inspired? ALL and all are in harmony when kept in context.

You have reached som logical fallacies:

1. Understanding that Romans is addressing eternal salvation takes it out of context.

The theme and context of all of scripture is Christ and Him crucified. To believe anything else is anothger gospel and heresy.

2. Believing that Romans 1 & 2 deals with eternal salvation is to totaly reject the liberty in Galatians, the principles in John and the simplicity in acts.

This is the biggest fallacy of all. God can deal with any issue he wants from book to book and keep the context of scripture as a whole in tact as He has done.

 

[DHK]

Show me one of Paul's warning passages where the threat is "shall not inherit the Kingdom og God" is "describing the condition of the unsaved."

1 Cor 6:9, 10
Gal 5:21
Eph 5:5
2Thess 1;5

When you get through those, you might understand Rom 2: 3-11; 8:17; 11:21-22;

What foolishness Lacy!
To see how foolish your doctrine is think of it this way. Romans is the longest of all the epistles. It deals with the doctrine of salvation more extensively than any other book of the Bible. It also devotes three chapters to the affairs of Israel. In spite of all of that the "kingdom" means very little to Paul. In fact in the entire epistle he uses the word "kingdom" only one time:

Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

And the context here is about ethical matters--not doing those things that would offend your brother. Thus even where the word kingdom is used, it has nothing to do with the salvation, the JSOC, or even the MK. It is used only this one time in the entire epistle.

Paul doesn't talk about the kingdom. But his entire epistle is about salvation. That puts your doctrine of ME at odds with Paul doesn't it?

 

[Lacy Evans]

What foolishness Lacy!

Ok You went and changed my doggone bug.

Bug Changer!!!

Oh sorry.

So are you indeed saying that since all the good doctrines are taught by Paul and Romans is Paul's longest book that we should be able to prove absolutely every single Christian using just the book of Romans?

Do you have a verse for this because even Carl Denson (or any Pauline Dispensationalists, Hyperdispensationalists, or Ultra Hyper Super Duper Dispensationalist I ever read) never took it that far. Can we call this Romanic Dispensationalism? (RD)


Bug Changer!

 

[Accountable]

Dude! That was just a tiny pebble. More boulders coming i assure you. But your head is plenty hard, or else you would have already shied away from Accountability teaching.

Lacy

:BangHead: My head is pretty hard! God Bless!

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Show me one of Paul's warning passages where the threat is "shall not inherit the Kingdom og God" is "describing the condition of the unsaved."

1 Cor 6:9, 10
Gal 5:21
Eph 5:5
2Thess 1;5

When you get through those, you might understand Rom 2: 3-11; 8:17; 11:21-22;

The word Kingdom never refers to land or territory. It can be correctly translated to "rule" or "reign". So whenever we see the phrase Kingdom of God it can be corectly translated rule of God.

To limit the phrase Kingdom of God or rule of God to only the future is to suggest that He is not currently ruling, reigning, or soveriegn. But it is clear that God's rule and reign is both present and future. This is backed up by the use of the phrase in the gospels. Mrk 1:15, Mrk 9:1, luke 9:27 (pentecost), Luke 10:9-11.

1cor 6:9 & 10 can most certainly be eternal salvation. For it is inherited. And as Peter wrote it is an inheritance that is incorruptable and reserved only in heaven and kept by God. It cannot be losdt or corrupted.

The use of the word inheritance does not have to indicate the millenium as those who bcome eternally saved receive this inheritance as a result of the new relationship. Salvation is more than just receiving eternal life. It is about a relationship.

Limiting the Kingdom or rule of God to the millenium began as recently as the 19th century. It fails to acknowledge that the Kingdom is much more that a time period on a plot of land in the future. It is God's rule as a whole.

 

[Lacy Evans]

The word Kingdom never refers to land or territory. It can be correctly translated to "rule" or "reign". So whenever we see the phrase Kingdom of God it can be corectly translated rule of God.

Does that mean you don't believe that christ will rule in the future from David's throne?" Is it all Spiritual or is it both? (I'm just trying to see where you are coming from.)

To limit the phrase Kingdom of God or rule of God to only the future is to suggest that He is not currently ruling, reigning, or soveriegn. But it is clear that God's rule and riegn is both present and future. This is backed up by the use of the phrase in the gospels. Mrk 1:15, Mrk 9:1 (pentecost)

I never limit the phrase at all. I'm fully aware of the spiritual aspects of the KOG/KOH. I also know that the phrase normally refers to the Millennial Kingdom future. There are only a few verses where the Kingdom Universal ("spiritual Kingdom", if you will) is in view. Those are the exceptional verses.

However The Word of God threatens Christians with "losing their inheritance" (Shall not inherir the Kingdom) in the Scriptures I referenced.

So what do you say. Is the warning that if you do the bad things in the list and don't repent you lose your salvation?

 

[Accountable]

Paul establishes who he is in Ch 1 vs. 1-3

That is the gospel of eternal salvation. That gospel is why Paul was called into the ministry and it is how he opens this Epistle. and it was his habit to write Epistles concerning such..

You truly believe that Paul wrote epistles to saved believers about how to get saved? Really?

You and others have made such claims as this but even today preachers all across the country preach and teach different messages regarding salvation. Because the theme of scripture is Christ and Him crucified..

Surely you would agree with me that there comes a time when we "lay aside" as stated in Hebrews, and teach the believers and train them according to II Timothy 2.
I preach Christ and Him crucified daily. As I go door to door and have evangelistic meetings in 3rd world villages. But once they are saved, I go on as God requires in Hebrews.

This is quite true. However this is not evidence for ME. .

I am not sure why you have directed this to me. Though I believe in ME, I have not mentioned it in this blog. I have simply tried to relay the message of Paul for Believers to be aware of the possible of leaving the knowledge of God.

Believe means more thyan excepting some facts. It is to put your trust in someone. If you have not trusted Him you have not believed Him. You folks seperate faithfulness from belief. But you did not get that from scripture..

Believe means nothing more than believe. Paul didn't add anything to it. Why should you and I?
You state that we seperate faithfulness from belief. AMEN to that! Please don't tell me that you add faithfulness to belief for salvation. Spiritual salvation is not merited on how faithful I can be but on how faithful Christ was, faithful unto death. If you merit your salvation from your faithfulness, you my friend have gone beyond the additions of the "Romans Road" seekers, and have landed somewhere in the Book of Mormon! (Joking of course!)

You have reached som logical fallacies:

1. Understanding that Romans is addressing eternal salvation takes it out of context.

The theme and context of all of scripture is Christ and Him crucified. To believe anything else is anothger gospel and heresy..

This comes from your failure to understand the gospel of the kingdom.

2. Believing that Romans 1 & 2 deals with eternal salvation is to totaly reject the liberty in Galatians, the principles in John and the simplicity in acts.

This is the biggest fallacy of all. God can deal with any issue he wants from book to book and keep the context of scripture as a whole in tact as He has done.

So you to not believe in the context of scriptures? God can deal with anything whenever He wants to. Are we now to say there is no order to Scripture?

 

[Accountable]

I say this with a soft voice of concern not anger. The problem boils down to this. You guys who refuse the Kingdom truths need someone to be worse of than you to keep you in heaven. Anytime we see God dealing with folks behaving sinfully, you must make them unsaved to keep a crown on your head. You need people to be bad, sinners to be wicked, and saved to be perfect. Unfortunately, you can't put all of this in a nut shell.

 

[Accountable]

To limit the phrase Kingdom of God or rule of God to only the future is to suggest that He is not currently ruling, reigning, or soveriegn. But it is clear that God's rule and riegn is both present and future. This is backed up by the use of the phrase in the gospels. Mrk 1:15, Mrk 9:1 (pentecost)

Jesus is not presently King. He is our High Priest.
Satan now rules and reigns as Prince here. It is not until Satan is dethroned and Christ puts Himself into the position as King with His bride, that He will be King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
Also, as through the O.T. Types, The ruler ruled with His Bride. Where is The Bride of Christ? SHe is yet to be completed. How is He ruling without her?

 

[DHK]

So are you indeed saying that since all the good doctrines are taught by Paul and romans is Paul's longest book that we should be able to prove absolutely every single Christian using just the book of Romans?

If you are willing to listen to reason here are some of the many reasons why we requested you to use Pauline theology:

1. We were all tired of your circuitous and allegorical interpreations of the parables of Christ. BTW, I got to thinking if this (or the previous) thread was in the Other Denominations forum, Bob Ryan would have been all over you using the same parable you were using, only using it to prove soul sleep and annihilation of the wicked. We don't accept either of your interpretations: ME or annihilation of the wicked. The parables of Christ don't teach either.

2. Both the books of the gospels and the book of Acts are historical accounts--the gospels give us the history of Jesus and Acts, the history of the Apostles. Revelation is an apocalyptic book about things yet to come. Now between Acts and Revelation we have the epistles--didactic doctrinal letters meant to teach the early believers the doctrines that they needed to know. Each epistle is a doctrinal book. James might be considered more practical than doctrinal, nevertheless there is much teaching in James as well. Paul writes more than half of the epistles; he is the most prolific writer in the NT. The book of Romans is a beautiful treaatise on the subject of salvation. If ME is related to salvation it ought to be found in that book. But it is not there. In fact, it is not in any of his books.

3. The reason you find it in the gospels is that Jesus came preaching the gospel of the kingdom. He came to the Jews. But the Jews rejected him, crucifying him instead. As John so succinctly puts it:
"He came to his own but his own received him not." (John 1:11)
He offered them the kingdom; they rejected it. It won't be offered again until he comes in glory with his holy angels at the end of the Tribulation Period. The "Kingdom Gospel" so-called, is no longer preached. Jesus came doing miracles. The Apostle did signs and wonders. All of these have come to an end. (i.e. the sign gifts of the Spirit). The miracles of Jesus demonstrated his deity. The miracles that the Apostles could do authenticated them as messengers of the gospel, and the gospel message as a message from God (1Cor.14:21,22).
Now Christ says. An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign. There shall no sign be given unto them but the sign of the prophet Jonah; for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so shall the son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
--There is the gospel message.

The short and sweet of it is that the kingdom message was preached only to the Jews, and they rejected it. So why go to the gospels and try to resurrect a message that has already been rejected and was not directed to us in the first place. We don't find that message in the epistles. It is not the gospel that is preached today, nor preached by Paul. It is not the simple message of John 3:16 either.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Jesus said that His kingdom is not of this world. Jesus is King whether you want to call Him that or not, Accountable.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Jesus is not presently King. He is our High Priest.
Satan now rules and reigns as Prince here. It is not until Satan is dethroned and Christ puts Himself into the position as King with His bride, that He will be King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
Also, as through the O.T. Types, The ruler ruled with His Bride. Where is The Bride of Christ? SHe is yet to be completed. How is He ruling without her?

Viva la Reina! En Christo, Rey de Reyes!

Vida en el reino, En Christo!

 

[Amy.G]

Jesus is not presently King. He is our High Priest.
Satan now rules and reigns as Prince here. It is not until Satan is dethroned and Christ puts Himself into the position as King with His bride, that He will be King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
Also, as through the O.T. Types, The ruler ruled with His Bride. Where is The Bride of Christ? SHe is yet to be completed. How is He ruling without her?

1Ti 6:13 I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate,
1Ti 6:14 that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ,
1Ti 6:15 which He will bring about at the proper time--He who IS the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
1Ti 6:16 who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him {be} honor and eternal dominion! Amen.

 

[Lacy Evans]

If you are willing to listen to reason here are some of the many reasons why we requested you to use Pauline theology:

It is not the gospel that is preached today, nor preached by Paul. It is not the simple message of John 3:16 either.

1 Cor 6:9, 10
Gal 5:21
Eph 5:5
2Thess 1;5

 

[Accountable]

Jesus said that His kingdom is not of this world. Jesus is King whether you want to call Him that or not, Accountable.

There is no doubt of who He is to me, but I take scripture literally. At this time, He is High Priest. Though I give Him place in my life as my Authority, I know that one day He shall rule with his Bride as King of Kings. If you believe He already has this position, (I don't truly recommend this but) turn on yur one eyed demon and see what the Kings, Emporers, and rulers of this wicked age are up to. I doubt that all have allowed Christ to be ruler over them. God Bless.

 

[Accountable]

Viva la Reina! En Christo, Rey de Reyes!

Vida en el reino, En Christo!

Amen mi hermano en Cristo. Dios dabe, Dios sabe.