ME (Millennial Exclusion) Posts

I'm sorry, I still don't see hell in that verse. I don't think Paul means what you think he means. :thumbs:

 

You have your right to your opinion.
The fact remains that in over 24 pages now (far over 24 pages--now in four threads) you still haven't been able to answer:

Why is that James?

 

Once again you have proven my point for me. Eternal salvation is about a substitute dying on a person's behalf. This substitute was always an animal and NEVER a k/King.

Jesus came as the King to save "His" people from their sins. And He was murdered as their King. That's not the message of everlasting life that is the message of the kingdom.

You say that the disciples didn't understand the message and one even faught against it, but were somehow saved. Wow . . . that's about all I can say.

They put their faith in Him that He was telling the Truth that He was "their" King. That is not the message of everlasting life. They followed Him LONG before He ever mentioned ANYTHING about dying.

We even have one going to his brother and saying "we have found the Messiah." The ONLY people even "looking" for the Messiah were "saved" people. So these people were saved before Jesus ever crossed their path and they had never heard that Jesus was going to die for them. They were disciples of John and John was preaching the coming kingdom.

 

1. No one has to throw out the parables. We just have to interpret them in light of plainer texts.

2. And I'm sure the annihilationist would argue that your argument is flawed for missing his point.

3. While we all claim the Spirit in interpretation, we must not be made to contradict plain teachings of Scripture.

 

Apparently you also fail to see the sufficiency of the blood of Christ. You also fail to see that Christ is our Defense Attorney, not our Prosecutor. You also fail to see that nowhere in Scripture do God's children get cast into outer darkness/hell.

Spiritual glasses would help you focus on Christ and who He is.

 

The biggest reason why ME doctrine is false despite it's use of parables is a fundamental misunderstanding of salvation--it denies the sufficiency of the blood of Christ.

 

Why is this still hanging around several days after I already proved that this is incorrect? We have shown several times where Paul taught these Truths and preached the kingdom and how one is acceptable to rule and reign with the King of kings and the Lord of lords.

 

So, maybe the problem is not with using the parable, but it's with the hermeneutic approach. Where does the bible tell us not to use parables for doctrine?

 

Am I to assume that those on your face are such spectacles?

 

It's because ME is a fairy tale just like the doctrine that unbelievers go to hell.

 

IT is common sense James. What is a parable. It is an illustration. Listen to any preacher's sermon. Does the illustration he uses teach the point he is preaching on or does it illustrate it. Hopefully it simply illustrates it. It helps give understanding to the teaching being taught. New doctrine is never taught from an illustration. That is all that a parable is--an illustratioin--an earthly story with a heavenly meaning. It illustrates doctrine, not teaches it.

 

Certainly sounds likes some folks are trying to throw out parables when you say you can't teach and/or develop doctrine with the parables.

While I would agree that you can't do it with parables alone, but to say that you aren't going to be able to find doctrinal teachings in parables is simply being short-sighted as to Scripture.

And we have never taught something from the parables that is not taught elseswhere in Scripture either the OT or NT.

Well he can argue that until the cows come home or he is blue in the face, but you simply can't use one defintion for a word and then change the definition to the totally opposite thing in the same sentence or same passage.

Well just because a claim is made doesn't mean it's so. I think we both know that .

I think there are a great many on this board that contradict the plain meaning of Scripture by trying to make the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of grace through faith into the same message. It is very plain that they aren't the same and contextually can't be the same. One has to do with the work of Another on a person's behalf and the other has to do with a faith that works. That's not the same thing. And that's pretty plain, but people try to reword the Scripture such that the two can be jammed together, but there are all kinds of contradictions that are placed on Scripture when doing that, but they are simply ignored or reworked. .

 

1. There's no place in the Bible which says parables cannot be used to formulate a doctrine.

2. But when parables are used to contradict plainer texts, which are didactic in nature, we must reread those parables.

 

I challenge you to show where any of us have said that his blood was insufficient. You will have plenty of time, because I'm on my way out the door.

But, not a single one of us has said that.

Npetreley and a few others said, then others started aping them, but we have never said it.

 

As a matter of fact, my physical glasses do help me to see the written Word more clearer. My spiritual glasses help me to discern and glean truth from that written Word.

Maybe you need some of both.

 

This response is much more useful than my response. James, I encourage you to read this as well.

 

I'm not sure what your trying to say here. Christ came as king, not savior?
Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world! Doesn't sound like a king to me.
You make the same mistake the Jews made. They were looking for an earthly king, but Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world".

Jesus came to the Jews, not saved people as you say. Some of them were saved but certainly not all of them. We have discussed this adnauseam. The Jews were the elect of God to bring the Messiah into the world to save the world of the penalty of sin.

I think you do not understand what salvation is. If you think Judas and all those Jews that cried "crucify" were saved, then you have a definite problem understanding spiritual things.

 

No it doesn't. That is just more emotionalism on your part. You people keep claiming that, but you've never been able to prove it. We have NEVER denied the sufficiency of the blood of Christ. We just said that Christ doesn't give His blood to those that don't want it, where others say all of our sins are forgiven at one point in time and then we have to ask forgiveness for something that supposedly was already forgiven.

I honestly don't see how anyone can believe that. There's no way in the world for that to make sense. Maybe you can explain why I have to confess something "for forgiveness" when it's already "supposedly" been forgiven.

 

Interesting. You believe that the parable is 'illustrating' a doctrine, but then you deny the illustration. It gives an understanding, and then you deny the understanding by saying you can't get doctrine from the illustration of the doctrine you are trying to understand!

 

According to DHK, the parables are didactic in nature.