Kingdom Exclusion

[Linda64]

Who is Watchman Nee?

Some link please.

http://withchrist.org/MJS/neelee.htm

http://www.watchmannee.org/

http://www.ministrybooks.org/watchman-nee-books.html

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/n01.html

There ya go!

 

[Lacy Evans]

I have been preaching and teaching for 30 years and I have never heard of your "Baptist Purgatory" doctrine until I read it on this board. It is a new doctrine, and has a new following just like any other cult does. What shall we call it? "Faustism?"
When folks followed the teachings of Miller they were called Millerites. Because of his doctrine they were then called Adventists. When Ellen G. White entered the picture with her emphasis on the Sabbath they were called SDA. You also will be tagged with a name outside that of Baptist.

It isn't Biblical. It is outside the realm of historic Christianity. And the verses you have posted can be refuted easily--every one of them. You take Scripture out of context and apply them to your unscriptural doctrine, and then say that the orthodox view is wrong. You have gone contrary to Scripture with your own "private interpretation," a mark of a cult. You refuse to be objective or corrected by the Scriptures, even when the Scriptures prove you to be wrong. It is like arguing with a J.W. They also refuse to be corrected. Your mind is made up. You will not change no matter how much Scripture is shown to you, or no matter how many times one shows you that the Scripture you are using is out of context. You have taken on new doctrine like most cults and are following it. That in itself should be the biggest red flag to you that it is wrong. Are all Christians up to just a very few years ago wrong? Can you demonstrate this doctrine through the the standard commentaries that have stood the test of time such as Barnes, Matthew Henry, John Gill, Jamieson, Faucett and Brown, etc. Or must you resort to some off the wall commentaries who believe in other heresies as well? Commentators such as Watchman Nee? Your positon is indefensible.
DHK

Like I said, It could go on forever. I refute every single argument with IN CONTEXT Scripture, so someone says it is not orthodox. I then prove that it has been taught by many reputable men and for a very long time and I am accused of following men and not God. So then I refer back to the Scriptures that supposedly can be "easily refuted" (Although no one has) and I hear again that it is not orthodox.

When you are finally frustrated because I answer every argument, you start associating me with cults who don't even teach the diety of Christ.

Nice.

Off the wall? SS Craig? Robert Govett? GH Peters? You have got to be kidding me!

I love Matthew Henry but I'm definitely going to take Watchman Nee's commentary on Baptism over his. He sprinkled babies. So much for "orthodox".


Lacy

 

[James_Newman]

The Rising of the Martyrs is that which is called the First Resurrection, being, as it seems, a prerogative to their sufferings above the rest of the Dead; who as they suffered with Christ in the time of his patience, so should they be glorified with him in the Reign of his Victory before the Universal Resurrection of all.…The Second Resurrection to be after the End of the 1000 years, Justin Martyr, by way of distinction, calleth...the Eternal and Universal resurrection of all together; namely, in respect of the former which was Particular, and but of some. And that it is common both to the Godly and to the Wicked, and not the Wicked only, may appear, in that there are two Books opened for the Dead, (ver. 12) whereof one is the Book of Life; which argues two sorts of Dead to be judged.... The reason was, because this having part in Resurrection prima (First resurrection) was not to be common to all, but to be a privilege of some , namely, of Martyrs, and Confessors equipollent to them, if God so would accept them. Moreover, the belief of this Prerogative of Martyrs in Resurrectione prima was that which made the Christians of those times so joyously desirous of Martyrdom. These things will perhaps seem strange, but they will be found true, if duly examined….Yet thus much I conceive the Text seem to imply, That these saints of the First resurrection should reign here on earth in the New Jerusalem in a state of beatitude and glory, partaking of Divine presence and vision of Christ their King; as it were in an Heaven upon earth….

The Works Of The Pious And Profoundly-Learned Joseph Mede (London:
Printed by Roger Norton, 1672), 604-605, 772.

 

[J. Jump]

1. is a teaching that is very unorthodox to Christianity through the ages.
2. and the belief that only a true remnant believes this.

Those are 2 characteristics of a cultic teaching.

Let's use your man-made criteria and apply that to what Christ taught. Oh geez we get a cult. So Christ was a cult leader eh? Yeah that's exactly what the mainstream said during His day.

If so, prove it.

Prove that it's not. See we can do this all day.

Why do you think the mainstream was wrong then, but right now.

History repeats itself and far more often than not it is a remenant. It was a remnant when Christ was on the earth the first time and the Bible speaks of a remenant throughout Scripture.

Jesus told John to write to the seven churches. He mentioned nothing of church history... that is eisogesis not exegesis, which makes for bad doctrine.

Do you think it is just odd coincidence that the seven letters reflect upon church history? And I'm so tired of hearing this excuse of that's not exegesis that's eisogesis if it's something that someone doesn't agree with.

"Broad is the way".... is not talking about mainstream Christianity.. It is talking about the lost.

There is nothing there that is speaking to the "lost." This was a addressed to disciples not lost folks. I know it slaps church tradition square in the face, but we have to let Scripture say what Scripture says instead of adding to it what we want it to say.

 

[Diggin in da Word]

Exclusion From the Kingdom - Recently, I have heard a new doctrine proposed. It is that unfaithful Christians of this age will not be in the kingdom. That is, they will not participate in the millennial reign of Christ on earth, but will be excluded. Some actually teach that they will suffer in the lake of fire during this time because of their unfaithfulness. As it turns out, this is not a new doctrine at all. Appendix 5 in the book called Forgotten Truths written by Sir Robert Anderson is titled "Exclusion From Millennial Kingdom." (on pages 148-150)
This appendix begins, "Exclusion from the millennial kingdom, we are told by some, will be the penalty imposed on Christians who lapse into immoral practices. And in proof of this we are referred to such passages as 1 Cor.6:9, 10; Gal.5:21; Eph.5:5, etc." He goes on to refute this false teaching on the basis that the kingdom of God as mentioned in the epistles of Paul is not a synonym for the millennial kingdom of Christ but refers to the spiritual kingdom of God (see Romans 14:17; 1Corinthians 15:50).

The true believers in Christ have already been translated into the kingdom of His Son (Colossians 1:13). Rather than giving a way into the kingdom, the passages in question (1Corinthians 6:9 and others) are exhorting us to walk worthy of the calling we have and not follow after the perversions of this world. 1Thessalonians 2:12 states, "That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory." 2Thessalonians 1:5 states, "...that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer." As Sir Robert Anderson says, this is "a reference not to the future state, but to the place and calling of the Christian here and now. It is akin to the exhortations of Ephesians 4:1." This is where we are called upon to walk worthy of the vocation wherewith we are called.

So, when was this refutation of the doctrine of millennial exclusion written? It was initially published in the year 1914--that is, 90 years ago. There is nothing new under the sun.



taken from: http://www.learnthebible.org/thoughts_200407.htm



Sir Robert Anderson refuted the false doctrine of kingdom exclusion in 1914 just as any child of God should refute it today.

 

[Hope of Glory]

I grew up in Baptist churches, and if I visited other churches, about half of them taught Kingdom truths, about half preached salvation over and over, and a small hanful preached this watered down gospel that talks out of both sides of its mouth and says, "salvation is not of works" and "if you don't have works, you're not saved". Now, the latter is the majority. The Bible is correct that in the latter days there will be a great falling away. I know that some apply "falling away" to salvation (yet still try to claim that salvation is secure), and ignore that it's a falling away from the truth.

Lacy is right in one thing, though. Although the teaching of Kingdom truths faded away from the Baptist churches (and a lot of Baptist churches changed their names when "mainstream" Baptists abandoned these teachings), there is a small, but sizable minority that coalescing around these truths that Baptists once held so dear.

If the Kingdom and salvation are the same thing, then why is one a gift and one is of works? Do you earn your salvation? More doublespeak.

The only thing that was missing in the past was that the evangelical churches at least didn't slander Baptist churches that taught the Kingdom by lieing about what they said and calling it things such as "Purgatory", when no such idea or word was ever used.

If your argument is valid, why do you need to resort to lying and slandering and misrepresenting what someone else has said?

 

[Diggin in da Word]

who is doing the lying? It is quite clear that when one rightly reads and divides the Word of God that kingdom exclusion is a false doctrine.

Who is doing the slandering? Those who teach that Christians will be excluded from the kingdom or cast into hell for 1,000 years are slandering God's Holy Word.

 

[James_Newman]

I think that anyone who believes you can sow to the flesh and not reap corruption is deceived. The bible backs me up on it.

Galatians 6:7-9
7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.


What happens if we faint?

 

[Lacy Evans]

bad post. i misread. edited to cover my carelessness. my bad

 

[Lacy Evans]

who is doing the lying? It is quite clear that when one rightly reads and divides the Word of God that kingdom exclusion is a false doctrine.

Who is doing the slandering? Those who teach that Christians will be excluded from the kingdom or cast into hell for 1,000 years are slandering God's Holy Word.

All powder and no cannon balls . . .BOOM!

Can you please refute the doctrine with scripture.

lacy

 

[webdog]

This is also in strict contradiction to the fact that my Daddy loves His children. Why would he bust our rear with a belt? The answer... He wouldn't.

Oh wait . . .but he did. Mean old Daddy!

Lacy

Busting your rear end is quite different than throwing you out of the house for a thousand years!

 

[DeafPosttrib]

Page 21 already?! Wow! Debate! Debate!

Linda, DHK, Tinytim, standingfirminchrist, diggin, and many others are right, they do not agree with your belief of millennial exclusion. Because it is man-making doctrine, and it is unbiblical. Nowhere in Bible teaching that a saved person shall be suffer in hell during 1000 years so called 'millennial kingdom'. There is not a single verse in Bible supports Kingdom Exclusion doctrine.

BUT, I agree with James, Lacy, Faust and others, that a lazy servant shall be cast away into hell, because there are so much overhwlemed proofs in Bible with warnings and conditonals, we cannot afford to neglect them.

Also, you should be aware that Bible shows us lot of conditional warnings, therefore, these cannot be unconditonal security salvation as what most baptists believe.

Matt. 25:30 doesn't promise us that a lazy servant shall be finally being released out of the outer darkness beyond the judgement day. Outer darkeness is very clearly speak of eternality punishment same with hell & lake of fire, all of these are go include with final eternality destiny, where lazy servants and unbeliefs shall be spend.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

[Lacy Evans]

He goes on to refute this false teaching on the basis that the kingdom of God as mentioned in the epistles of Paul is not a synonym for the millennial kingdom of Christ but refers to the spiritual kingdom of God (see Romans 14:17; 1Corinthians 15:50).


Sir Robert Anderson refuted the false doctrine of kingdom exclusion in 1914 just as any child of God should refute it today.

Refuted? That was his argument? That there is no real Literal Kingdom? That the Kingdom is "spiritual"? Is that how you refute it? Oh my!

Lacy

 

[Lacy Evans]

Busting your rear end is quite different than throwing you out of the house for a thousand years!

Of course you are right. It's a wonder he lets you back at all.



Heb 10:29 -
Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Praise God for his abundant mercy!!

Lacy

 

[J. Jump]

As Sir Robert Anderson says, this is "a reference not to the future state, but to the place and calling of the Christian here and now. It is akin to the exhortations of Ephesians 4:1." This is where we are called upon to walk worthy of the vocation wherewith we are called.

Of course the kingdom has to do with the hear and now. You are qualifying yourself in the hear and now to rule in the future. The Christian has been called to a new land. Is anyone here in a new land yet?

If this is the land of our calling then we got a raw deal.

We have a heavenly calling to a heavenly land just as the nation of Israel had a calling to a physical land. There were some that didn't qualify to enter this new land, falling short of their calling, but on the right side of the blood.

And so it shall be with Christians who are wondering in this wilderness awaiting the heavenly land. Unfortunatley some of us are going to fall short of our calling just as the Israelites did. And I said us, because just as Paul knew he wasn't exempt, neither am I.

Paul was worried about being a castway and disapproved on that day. Why would he say that if there was no worry of being a castaway or being disapproved on that day.

I think I'll takes Paul (God's Word) word and if Paul feared being a castaway then there is a great chance that I could as well.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

When I was growing up, I made my mother mad all the time and got whipped with a switch at least 3 times a week, yet she never disowned me, she never told me I could not live under her roof; she never kicked me out for any period of time.

Is God any less loving? He chastens whom He loves, yet He will not put His children out of His House.

Jesus went and prepared that place for me many years ago and that place is reserved for me and nothing will hinder me from occupying that place for all eternity.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Of course you are right. It's a wonder he lets you back at all.



Heb 10:29 -
Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Praise God for his abundant mercy!!

Lacy

You are talking double tongued, Lacy. First you speak of a God who will cast His children into outer darkness, then you speak of His abundant mercy. It is not merciful to send away those you love, especially to a place of torment.

If we are God's children, as I know I am, we have an assurance that we will not be cast out into that place where there is weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

I think I'll takes Paul (God's Word) word and if Paul feared being a castaway then there is a great chance that I could as well.

You say this, yet you continue with a false doctrine of kingdom exclusion for the saved.

Why not take John's writings as well, who said:

Revelation 20:10 10

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

 

[Linda64]

Of course the kingdom has to do with the hear and now. You are qualifying yourself in the hear and now to rule in the future. The Christian has been called to a new land. Is anyone here in a new land yet?

If this is the land of our calling then we got a raw deal.

We have a heavenly calling to a heavenly land just as the nation of Israel had a calling to a physical land. There were some that didn't qualify to enter this new land, falling short of their calling, but on the right side of the blood.

And so it shall be with Christians who are wondering in this wilderness awaiting the heavenly land. Unfortunatley some of us are going to fall short of our calling just as the Israelites did. And I said us, because just as Paul knew he wasn't exempt, neither am I.

Paul was worried about being a castway and disapproved on that day. Why would he say that if there was no worry of being a castaway or being disapproved on that day.

I think I'll takes Paul (God's Word) word and if Paul feared being a castaway then there is a great chance that I could as well.

1Co. 9:27

“Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.” – 1Co 9:27

The context here is not Paul’s salvation, but his Christian service. Paul was concerned that he would be castaway in the sense that he would be put on a shelf in this life or that his service would be rejected or disapproved at the judgment seat of Christ. The same Greek word is translated “rejected.” Paul was not afraid that he would be lost. He testified that he knew Christ would keep him (2Ti 1:12). What he feared was falling short of God’s high calling for his life. The context makes this plain. He is talking about running a race and winning a prize. To confuse this passage with salvation is to misunderstand the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Salvation is not a reward for faithful service. The Bible plainly states that salvation is by grace, and grace is the free, unmerited mercy of God (Eph 2:8-9). Anything that is merited or rewarded, is not grace (Ro 11:6). On the other hand, after we are saved by the marvelous grace of God, we are called to serve Jesus Christ. We are created in Christ Jesus “unto good works” (Eph 2:10). If a Christian is lazy and carnal, he will be chastened by the Lord (Heb 12:6-8), and if he does not respond, God will take him home (Ro 8:13; 1Co 11:30; 1Jo 5:16).

Things Hard To Be Understood by David Cloud

Where does it say that Paul would "be excluded or cast away" from the Kingdom? The Kingdom is NOT a reward for service--our crowns are our rewards. ALL believers are rewarded. (2 Cor. 5:10; 1 Cor. 3:11-15). The "fire" in 1 Cor. 3:15 does not mean the fire of hell--this is where the Catholics get their doctrine of "purgatory". No believer is going to excluded from the Kingdom. There will be many who will "suffer loss of reward"--but they will not be tossed into "outer darkness" to be "purged" for 1,000 years. That is a lie!

 

[J. Jump]

It is not merciful to send away those you love, especially to a place of torment.

It is if the other option is send them away permanently!

I don't understand why people think that God is going to allow unfaithful Christians to rule and reign right along side those that have been faithful and died to self and all the things that we are supposed to do as Christians.

What is my motivation to do the right thing if I can be saved and live any ole way I want to and still get everything else every faithful Christian is going to get. That doesn't even make sense.