ME (Millennial Exclusion) Posts

Yes, that was me. Sorry I didn't make it clear.

Sorry, but I just don't see where the context of Mark 9:47 demands an end of time reward. It could mean that, but it could also mean a temporal reward of some kind. Seems like the point Jesus is trying to make is "whoever is not against us is for us" and not to offer a teaching about a millenial reward of some kind.

As for 43-47, I think my comment that you asked about covers that.

Les

 

An excellent point! The only place we see the 1000 years mentioned is Revelation, a book full of symbols and allegory. Couldn't the 1000 years be symbolic like a lot of what we see in Revelation? Seems like if we are going to take the 1000 years literally, we also need to be on the lookout for some kind of big creature with seven heads and 10 horns. Sounds like a Japanese monster movie - Gojira vs. the Beast - lol.

Seriously, IF the mention of the 1000 year reign in Revelation is truly symbolic, then the whole ME/KA doctrine falls like a house of cards.

Les

 

It falls anyway. The mention of 1,000 years in Revelation is a 1,000 year reign of Christ. It says nothing of 1,000 years in hell for believers. So even if it's a literal 1,000 year reign, it still doesn't have anything to do with ME.

 

Revelation interprets the symbols for us.

Revelation 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

Revelation 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

Where does the thousand years get interpretted? It is not figurative, it is a literal time span.

 

Just because it isn't specifically interpreted doesn't mean it isn't symbolic. Since so much else is symbolic it seems reasonable that the 1000 years is also symbolic. Do those ten kings really only reign for one literal hour?

Les

 

Do you really mean to make your theology more ridiculous than it already is? I'd say one sign that you haven't cut off your hand is that you type too fast for a "one hander." :laugh:

skypair

 

Maybe it is symbolic. What would it be symbolic of? If the hour that the ten kings reign for is not a literal 60 minutes, it must be symbolic of some certain period of time. It would probably be a short period of time. But it would be a literal reign regardless. If the thousand years is not strictly literal, does that erase the truth of the millennial kingdom? I see no reason to interpret the thousand years as anything other than literal, but I cannot conceive of it meaning anything as nebulous as most folks would like. It must be a definitive period of time that has an end, because we are told what happens when the thousand years are finished.

 

I should have stopped you earlier then -- before you really believed what you were saying.

Rev 20:13: "...and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire." Death and hell's contents --- unbelievers --- are delivered up bodily before the GWT. They are judged bodily. They are cast with death and hell into the lake of fire = 2nd death, a PHYSICAL one.

Lacy -- as I just noted, death and hell that gave up souls will receive their bodies when it goes into the lake of fire.

Will you ever just ask questions about things you don't understand? You're not teaching or edifying anyone with these ridiculous false notions of ME. Do you see, in this case, that what you affirm is patently false?

skypair

 

Actually you don't (obviously) know how slowly I type either. You're just popping off. But my point was that you don't know what kinds of offensive things, things that in my flesh I counted dear (like an eye) or that I regarded as essential (like a right hand) that I have indeed cut off.

It just works better for your argument (today) to act as though you do know me that well.

 

In the meantime I will give you some more to think about.
If Lot were living in this day and age and you had met him not knowing who he was what conclusion would you come to?
Here was a man who offered his two virgin daughters to be abused all night by a crowd of homosexuals. He and his wife liked the surroundings of that sinful city, that was about to be destroyed by the wrath of God, so much that they had to be forcefully taken and dragged out of that their physical lived might be spared. Even then his wife turned back and was turned into a pillar of salt. Shortly after Lot got drunk, committed incest with his two daughters, which conceived. They brought forth sons, both of which would father two nations. These nations would be forever a thorn in the neck of Israel forever.
And yet, in spite of all of that, the Bible calls Lot "that righteous man," "a just man." He was saved. His sins were under the blood. The reason that he was saved is that he beleived in Jehovah as his God. I will expect to see Lot in heaven. You judge his life. I am certain that had you judged him by his fruit today you would have condemned him as unsaved.
Lot was a believer. Did he keep on confessing his sins over and over again. Apparently not.

There are many such examples in both OT and NT.
Annanias and Sapphira received judgement for theirs sin in this world only. I expect to see them in heaven. They were believers. Their sin was hypocrisy. They died with unconfessed sins in their lives. There will be no chastisement for them in the afterlife.

In 1Cor.11:30 where it describes believers as "weakly, sick, and many of you "sleep." or are dead. They died with unconfessed sin because of their abuse of the Lord's Table. They were believers. Read the context before that verse. They were coming to the Lord's Table in drunken state, and gluttonous. God judged them. Did unconfessed sin keep them from heaven? No. To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

In 1Cor.5, there was a man that committed incest, a horrible sin, not even so mentioned among the Gentiles. Paul admonishes them to take Biblical action of excommunication, that is, to put such a one out to the church. Later on we read that the same individual came to a place of repentance (for that sin) and was admitted back into the church. But there were believers in the church that had committed horrible sins: drunkeness, gluttony, incest. These cannot be denied. The incest was repented of. But the gluttony and drunkenness was not confessed. They were stricken down of God before they had a chance to confess. Yet I beleive they are in heaven today.

We go to heaven because of our standing before God; that standing of righteousness which we are given when we put our faith and trust in Christ. We are forgiven of all our sins: past present and future. There is nothing that can separate us from the love of God, yea even from God himself. He will never leave us or forsake us. Our sin can separate us from him in our walk or fellowship with him. But it will never take away our salvation. Never! Not even in a thousand year torment called a Baptist Purgatory or ME.

 

If you pour a bucket of water into the ocean, the bucket of water becomes an insignificant part of the ocean. The bucket of water is no longer a bucket of water.

The warning said Hell, not the LOF.

 

The reason Jesus came to set up a better and living way.

I do not expect to see them there, but you expect to see pedophiles, incests, adulterers etc, so why am I not surprised you expect to see them there.

He was put out of the church and had to repent and come back in anew. IMO

He will never leave you, so he goes along on the adultery and incest trip, right.

Tit 1:
15: Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
16: They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.


I know you didn't ask me but thought I would go ahead and answer.
In your church, you can't trust anyone can you, for you don't know what they are up to, being they can commit any sin known to mankind.

 

1. Sorry I wasn't trying to give that impression at all. I wrote the post in haste and remembered it was from a moderator, but I didn't remember who exactly it was. I have limited time to post so I try to focus on the important issues. Please forgive me for the impression that I gave.

2. I thought the subject title was effective. My point was not just that doctrines don't have to be proved from the Pauline epistles, but that doctrines about hell don't need to be proved from the Pauline epistles alone.

 

This is just my impression, not a scriptural stance: I get the impression that physical death is not so much a punishment as it is God's means of putting a stop to the Christians who are dishonoring His name. I think that's why the man who commited incest was not immediately slain, but people like those who were disrespectful of the Lord's supper did fall asleep, and Ananias and Sapphira, who lied to the Holy Spirit, were slain. The issue wasn't the severity of their sins (at least the way WE measure severity) or else I would think the man who commited incest would have been among the first to die.

Again, just my impression.

 

It helps if I don't think you are weird enough to kill 5 of your kids, too. This is a very dangerous doctrine you are playing with, Lacy. It makes a harlot out of Christ's bride and insists that SHE save herself from hell.

As I have said many times before, you posit a purgatory that we all know doesn't exist except in the minds of Catholics.

But worse, you offend your brethren -- even, I'm sure of it -- "little ones." "It were better for you if a millstone..."

This is "willful sin" on your part beause instead of trying to discover your error, you resist the Spirit that expressly speaks contrary to your words.

Your first erroneous assumption has to be that there is NO rapture for the church because that is the ONLY way we could appear at some of these "judgments" you so fear! Rapture -- "that where I am, there you shall be also!" John 14:1-4

God is not mocked -- you reflect your own persoanl "fear of judgment and fiery indignation" that scripture says a willful sinner will experience, Heb 10:27. You are, thereby, excluded from the kingdom and from His "rest" already!!

Heb 3:11 "They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.
11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)
12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.
13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.
14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

You have taken to heart something we all know is a deviant doctrine -- purgatory. Just stop it! I don't know what "kicks" it gives you to pervert God's love and worse, maybe, to make yours sound so much like MYSTERY BABYLON's doctrines but God's gonna put the flames to your little pile of stubble (if He doesn't cause something worse to happen to you in this life before that!).

We were going along just fine with your inquiries and the mostly dispensational answers I was giving to help you. Why did that not allow you to yet distinguish between the church's vs. Israel's judgments??

skypair

 

Tough stuff, but it's essentially what I believe to. I think DHK laid it out quite well too.

 

This is the kind of thing that makes me laugh. Are you seriously warning Lacy to heed this warning? And that for warning others to heed the warnings? Surely you think that verse is written to Jews or something.

 

We probably need to start up another thread if we're going to go into this in any depth.

My point is that the ONLY place we have any mention of Christ reigning 1000 years is in one verse in a book that is filled with with symbols and allegory. Even in Revelation I can't find any reference to the 1000 year reign being located on Earth, in a physical kingdom. Maybe I'm missing it but I've read over it several times now and don't see it. Given that Jesus repeatedly made it plain in His earthly ministry that His kingdom was "not of this world", it seems like a real stretch to stake this doctrine of a 1000 year tour in hell for christians on one verse in a book full of symbolism.

Les

 

The thousand years in hell is symbolic for however long the kingdom that the disobedient believer doesn't inherit lasts. Some folks say it's a literal thousand years and I tend to agree with that interpretation. Jesus' kingdom was not and still is not of this world. It will be the world to come when He returns.

Revelation 5:10
10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

I know, I know, revelation is full of symbols and maybe the earth symbolizes something else...

 

Saved people are warned about missing the Kingdom, and some of those are warned about gehenna. The Kingdom, we're told is 1,000 years, and even if the length is symbolic, it's still aionian, which is limited in duration. Do those who are sent to gehenna sent for the entire period? Do those who rule and reign only reign for part of it? How about those who are simply being ruled over, but not in gehenna?

We're told in 1 Corinthians 15:24 that when the Kingdom is finished, that Christ will hand the reins back to the father: Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

So, whether the 1,000 years is literal or figurative, it's still temporary.