ME (Millennial Exclusion) Posts

1. Why when called upon to demonstrate your doctrine from Paul, there was such hesitation and avoidance?

2. You will have to pick that up with an annihilationist.

 

You deny it in your theology. (and no it is not emotionalism; it is fact). You do the same as the Catholics do thought would deny the same thing. Understand this!!
As long as one has to "work their way into the kingdom" or "if there is sin bad enough to keep them out of the kingdom" both of which you believe, then the blood of Jesus Christ was not sufficient enough to cover all their sins. That is just plain facts J.J. Plain facts. Either Christ's blood covers all sin and keeps all believers out of a "Baptist Purgatory," or it doesn't. You decide. You cannot believe in ME, and the sufficiency of the blood of Christ at the same time. If you believe in the sufficiency of the blood of Christ, there is no ME, for the blood of Christ is sufficient enough to cover all of our sins even those ones that you say would supposedly keep one out of the kingdom.

 

1. For example in Matt 13, Jesus explains many of his parables. Now, I can runaway with the explanation.

2. But where there are no such clear explanation, I must be tentative, while relying on plainer texts. Now, this is my hermeneutical approach to the parables.

 

I haven't read the whole thread, but the premise is flawed. Something does not have to be from Paul's epistles to be true, or applicable to this age. The moderator's do not say that.

But 2 Thess 1 does make clear that those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ go into eternal destruction. That is a clear statement that all unbelievers go to hell. It's from Paul's epistles, and it coincides with what is said elsewhere in Scripture.

 

Yes John used that phrase, but notice something interesting. John used that phrase two times, but only in chapter one and he was the ONLY gospel writer to use that phrase. I would go on, but it wouldn't make much difference anyway.

Jesus' kingdom was not of this world system, meaning it had nothing to do with a "physical" rule over the earth. The reason being is that aspect of the kingdom had already been promised to Israel. There was no need to deal with that.

However there is another aspect of rulership over the earth and that is the heavenly (spiritual) rulership over the earth. So yes they were looking for a King, but most did not want the portion of the kingdom He was offering, but there were a number that did.

Now you are contradicting yourself. First you said that Jesus came as the King of "His" people. Where they "His" people or not?

So please tell me how some where saved and some were not. What did the "saved" believe that the "unsaved" did not?

Yeah and you have never been able to prove your point with Scripture. You simply make statements that all the Jews were not saved, but you have never given anything to back up that statement leaving it as merely your opinion.

And?

Really. So please tell me what is wrong with this message of salvation is: If you believe that Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, died and shed His blood on your behalf a sinner you are saved.

Please tell me how I don't understand what salvation is? What other than the finished works of Christ is missing there?

And you have a problem with backing up any of your "emotional" opinions.

 

Just because you "claim" it as fact does not make it so!

OOOOOOOOO . . . . comparing us with Catholics again. Oh that's not emotionalism. Sure. :thumbs:

No those are YOUR words. Christ's blood is PERFECTLY sufficient, but again there is no Scripture that indicates that He applies His blood to those that don't want it. If there is then please put it forth so we can take a look at it.

Not it's just more plain opinion DHK. Plain opinion. Your "opinion" is NOT fact. All you have given is YOUR opinions and NOTHING else.

 

OOOOOOOOO . . . "Baptist Purgatory" that's not an emotion-laced argument. Sure. :thumbs:

Christ's blood CAN cover all sin. It doesn't automatically. If it did then there would NO NEED to confess sin. You don't have to confess something that has already been dealt with and covered by the blood. Again there is no logic in that. None.

Opinion alert!

Now here is a true statement. Let me bold the most important word. Christ's blood IS sufficient, but that does not mean it DOES cover every sin. Those are two different statements!

 

What sins might I ask that the blood of Christ do not cover?

 

I think the games with the Mercy Eliminated/Millenial Exclusionists, has gone on far enough.

They will not hear solid Biblical Doctrine concerning the sufficiency of the blood of Christ.

It is fruitless to continue to share the truth with those who refuse to accept it.

 

Well at least we can agree on something! :wavey:

 

Obviously, ME proponents say it doesn't automatically cover any sins you commit after you believe. So the best way to be sure you don't spend 1,000 years in hell is to wait to believe until a split second before you die.

 

It depends upon what you are talking about. As far as eternal salvation is concerned, all sins are absolutely 100% covered for all eternity.

But there are sins that we as Christians commit that we will be held accountable for in a fileal way. In other words, the Blood of Christ, is not our plea to save us from our Father's chastening rod. Our obedience, mercy, good works, resistance to temptation, (All of Christ's works in us as we yield) will be our plea for reward.

 

Mark 9:39-50 is not a parable.

PS. prediction: This post will be ignored by EIREITADers

 

Paul didn't write Mark so they're still covered.

 

Talk about avoiding a direct question, and a particular line of reasoning. I just proved that an unbeliever will never have the opportunity to be cast bodily into Hell. They get their bodies when Hell is thrown into the LOF.

So who is the warning to (hint: maybe the ones it is addressed to?)

 

1. So the blood of Christ takes care of my salvation but not my sanctification?

2. But Paul says that Christ became both my salvation and sanctification (1 Cor 1:30). Am I forced to choose between you and Paul?

 

What is the purpose for a father to chasten his children?

Is it merely punishment or payment for wrongdoing such as a prison sentence?

Or is there another purpose?


I will check back later after church.

 

1. In another place Jesus says, "All that the Father give Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out" (John 6:37). "Certainly not," ou me, translates the strongest negation in the Greek (same as in 10:28).

2. You might wish to separate this verse from eternal salvation and say it refers to eternal salvation but not Millennial exclusion, because Christians who didn't measure up will be cast into outer darkness.

3. But Jesus says that the one who comes to Him will certainly not be cast out. Millennial exclusion is not viable at this point.

 

Your sanctification is not 100% guaranteed. Sanctification is a cooperative arrangment. We must cooperate with the Spirit in order to be sanctified. So yes the blood of Christ CAN take care of your sanctification, but "you" or "I" might not keep our end of that bargain. And if we don't then the blood of Christ will not cleanse us.

If everything was covered at one point in time for all time then there would be no need to confess that which has already been forgiven. There's simply no logic in that whatsoever.

 

Jesus asked the Father to sanctify us through the Word, not through our actions.