ME (Millennial Exclusion) Posts

I'm sorry but I get tired of Lot being mischaracterized:

Yes, Lot chose to go live near and then later specifcally IN Sodom. But let us remember some things scripture says about Lot and Sodom.

Though No one will disagree that offering his two virgin daughters up to the Crowd was not right, my question is, why was he not rebuked by God for that? Did he do this often with his daughters and the men of the city? If not why did he do it now? Context of what was happening and what would cause him to offer up his virgin daughters to the men of city (in the place of those two who came under the protection of his roof) is what you should look at to better understand the nature of the act in question. Though deplorable to us, was there something else he could have done to save those he was OBLIGATED to protect under his roof? What other option did he have, since he did not know what they were, nor what they could or could not do for themselves?

Most of us would not give our raped daughter to be wed to the man that raped them, but that is part of the Law which God gave to Moses. We, in our heightened moral sensiblities would say that would be immoral and sin, and yet it was part of God righteous, good, and holy Law to Israel.

[But is due to that article of Law in which King Davids daughter told her brother that raped her, all he had to do was ask their father (King David) to marry her and he would. It was not something allowed, except regarding rape and her shame would not remain if he took her to wife.]

(IOW - there is much more to the story . That is why God calls him 'Just Lot')

Anther: Did Lot enjoy the city around him? Was he bothered at all by it?
I think you will find God in great measure disagreeing with you.

I does not appear God agrees here. Lot was vexed every day by their lawless deeds.

Another:
Did Lot try to remain in his city of pleasure?
Since we just proved it was a place of vexation to him, why then did he linger?
Simple, he lingered/waited not for his pleasures that he couldn't leave behind (again that has been proven absolutely false). So why 'linger' or why was he 'waiting'?
If you look at the passages before it you will see why Lot was 'waiting/lingering'.

Now some speculate there are two possibilities here regarding his sons-in-law.
1. Lot had two other daughters that were married.
2. (and most likely) These men were bretrothed to Lots two virgin daughters and therefore the bretrothal in their custom WAS a binding marriage, yet still not applicable for all marital aspects until the formal marriage was completed.

Lot had warned these men the night before to leave the city, and he was 'lingering' or 'waiting' for those who he had warned. If they were espoused to his virgin daughters it would be consistant to assume that he was waiting/lingering for their husbands-to-be to come with or for them if they were leaving and not returning.

Time was pressing and the Angels led them outside the city to flee.

Another:
Lot did not get himself drunk. His daughters conspired to get him drunk. And he did not KNOWINGLY have incestuous relations with his daughters.

He didn't realize (most likely due to grief at the loss of his wife, extended family, friends, loss of life...) he was getting drunk, and certainly didn't know that he was having relations with his daughters.

And due the sins of his DAUGHTERS two nations came forth because they took it upon themselves and go outside their authority to do what they willed according to what they thought was a good choice. - At least to them it was a good choice.

 

Yes, I have.
Your problem is that you have trouble distinguishing between the literal and the symbolic. You even fail to see a parable when it is right before your eyes. If you pick up a book written on the parables, you will find out that not every parable starts out: "and he spole a parable unto them saying..." Jesus often spoke in parabolic language without that introduction.

Another of your problems is that you fail to look at the context--the entire context.
Go back a few verses and you will find that the disciples are arguing among themselves who would be the greatest among them. How does Christ answer them? Here is what he says:

Mark 9:36-37 And he took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them,
37 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.

As Jesus often does he uses a parent (father)--child relationship in teaching a lesson. This is a parable. And this parable, which he begins here in verse 36 does not end until the end of the chapter in verse 50. There is an entire parallel running throughout this whole passage that the kingdom of God is like a little child.
Thus we have Lacy's OP

Quote:
Mark 9:38-50
38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
But the Scripture does stem from a parable, and indeed it is part of it.
You see vs. 36-40 are simply an interruption by John of what Jesus was teaching. John's thinking was no doubt stimulating in some way by Jesus' teaching. John had seen some that were casting out demons by the power of Christ. It is evident that by this time Jesus had more than just 12 disciples; more than just those close 12 that had accepted his teachings. There were many that had become his disciples. There were 120 in the upper room if you recall. And for the most part the crowds sided with Jesus, but the Pharisees and Saduccees incited them out of their own jealousy to stir up unneeded trouble.
So these other disciples were not against Christ.
Jesus gives a universal truth. "Whosoever shal give you a cup of water to drink in my name because you belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward."
It reminds me of a song.

Giving a cup of water to God's servant is the least we can do, and God promises a reward for even such a small service for that.

• 1. Yes he is speaking to his disciples. Yes John is included. A reward is given to what may seem as the most insignificant service for Christ.

1. These are Jesus' words. He speaks of some universal truths, not to just John but that which applicable to all. The "you" is generic--that is applicable to all.
2. Certainly John is saved. Peter gave his great confession, and John was right there and affirmed it as well.
3. These warnings in vs.42-48 apply to all, especially the unsaved. But they are figurative in nature. Here is where the MEers have trouble differentiating between what is literal and what is figurative. Often they have a key-hole method of interpretation that gets them into trouble. It is an either all or nothing approach to Scripture, which isn't alwasy true.
4. The message is to those whom Jesus said it was to: those who would cause his children to stumble. Note how the Father--son relationship continues. The teaching is that it is better that you would cut off your hand or pluck out your eye if it is going to cause you to stumble, or cause others to stumble and go to hell. Obviously it is not that literal that one should do such a thing. The teaching is that a person should do the right thing that he does not go to hell. Hell is real, but the cutting off of one's hand is more of a figurative expression. The description of Hell is full of figurative expressions describing to us how horrible it will be. "The worm that dieth not" is figurative, but the meaning that it portrays is worse than the actual picture that it gives.

There is no talk of the MK here.
There is no talk of ME here.

What it is, is a relationship between a father and his son. There is an interlude where John asks a question. The rest is illustrative material of Jesus answering the question of who should be greatest in the kingdom. Often the kingdom is simply an expression to relate to the Jews heaven. He was speaking more of humility and pride and leadership than he was about the actual literal MK.

 

Of course in all of DHK's talk about context he is neglecting the overall context of exactly WHAT these Jews were LOOKING for.

Hence the MAJORITY of Jesus' teaching is about the NATURE AND REQUIRMENTS of the Kingdom.

He ALSO neglects the FACT that the whole Bible is about this Kingdom, (lost by Adam and soon to be restored by Jesus).

 

Probably will be. See that "bed," Rev 2:22. You're already part way in it!

Yup, once you're in the great tribulation, you'll have a very remote chance of "overcoming"/surviving till Christ returns. I prefer not to take that chance.

Absolutely! But there are 2 appearings in the last times --- one for rapture (here cited in the air) and one for wrath (the one you are apparently holding out for where He comes to the earth wielding the sword in His mouth!).

Notice the TWO events I referred to --- "at His APPEARING and His KINGDOM."

Quite true. Did you notice in that same chpater that Paul says we are resurrected in this life -- while we live -- into bodies of "terrestrial glory?" Lames, you got a lot to learn but just keep asking questions --- we'll get there!

skypair

 

And just where do you draw that fact from?
If this is your premise no wonder your theology is all askew.
The first Messianic promise in the Bible is in Genesis 3:15, and there is certainly no reference to the kingdom. Both OT and NT revolve around the cross--that is the redemption of man through Christ.

 

Who Is Denying The Kingdom?

I keep reading from the ME camp that folks on BB are denying the gospel of the Kingdom preached by John and Jesus.

1. Have I been misreading all along? What have I overlooked?

2. Is the denial of the ME doctrine equivalent to a denial of the gospel of the Kingdom Jesus preached?

3. This is no ordinary charge.

 

It's a denial of part of it, but just as "ME" is intended to be derogatory by focusing on only one part of the gospel of the Kingdom, "KD" is just as accurate by focusing on the one part they blind themselves to.

This is not to be confused with the EIREITAD heresy, btw.

Oh, I would prefer a civil discourse, as you have and only a couple of others have been shown to be capable of. But, since certain people are given free rein to denigrate, castigate, and vituperate, as well as question whether people are saved or not, and instead of being corrected are even joined in by those who should be correcting them with twisting and distortion of words, I think that this example of "KD" highlights, through lampooning, the nastiness, untruthfulness, and hatefulness of their words.

However, I would prefer to simply discuss and debate Scriptures. But, until certain people are stopped, I did do talk radio at one point in the past, so I have experience in giving it back the same way it's received.

The funny thing about it is that I have friends who are pastors of other denominations, and only the Baptists tend to be as hateful, nasty, and untruthful as a few of those here have shown.

 

Why can a Christian suffer loss at the JSOC?

Many folks think that at the judgment seat of Christ, believers can suffer the loss of good rewards. This is true, as far as it goes.

We know that we are commanded to do our absolute best for the Lord. (Love the Lord your God with all your mind, etc.) To him that knoweth to do good, and does it not, to him it is sin.

So if we lose any rewards, we did not do our best, even though we were required to. This lack of a complete effort was a sin. As a consequence of that sin, we receive fewer rewards at the JSOC.

The question now arises: Why does a Christian suffer the consequence of his sin by receiving fewer rewards when Jesus Christ is his advocate and has already paid for all his sins?

The point behind this question (so no one thinks I am “ambushing” them) is as follows:

I hear folks repeatedly say that if God were to temporarily punish a believer after death by casting him into outer darkness, cutting him asunder, etc. that this would somehow negate the forgiveness of sins we have through the blood of Christ. They tend to say that as long as chastisement happens in this life it’s okay, but for some reason when one dies and faces the judgment seat he can no longer be held accountable in any way for his sin. But it is clear, that even speaking solely of the loss of positive rewards, God still holds the believer accountable, and chooses to dispense his good rewards according to the whether the believer served the Lord fully, or sinned by not giving the Lord his all.

God wants all of his children to receive a full reward at the judgment seat. He is prepared to give it to everyone of us. If he does not give it to us, it is a consequence of our sinful refusal to run the race and avail ourselves of the practical power of the blood of Christ to overcome the world.

And please don’t try to play word games. Trying to say “loss of rewards”, is different than “punishment” just does not make any sense. Use whichever word you would like. Either way, the Christian receives a negative consequence after death due to his sin that Christ already paid for. Why?

If all you folks out there that believe the Judgment seat of Christ is an awards banquet can not answer this, you would do well to at least stop spouting off about how believing that a Christian can receive punishment at the JSOC somehow means that one is denying the sufficiency of the blood of Christ. Simple belief on the Lord Jesus Christ will give one eternal life, regardless of what temporal consequences are faced during this life, at the judgment seat, or in the millennium.

 

How about substantiating your affirmatives with Scriptural references?

 

At the JSoC, we are judged according to our works... not our sins. Our sins were paid for at Calvary. We cannot be judged for them as the price was paid by none other than the one sitting on the throne we will be standing in front of.

He cannot deny Himself. He has paid for our sins and will not hold us accountable for our sins.

At the JSoC are judged for our works; how we live as Christians, our testimony before men, our witness in the earth.

If we build using wood, hay, stubble, we will suffer loss of rewards (The Crown of Life, The Crown Incorruptible, The Crown of Rejoicing, The Crown of Righteousness, The Crown of Glory). Those are the rewards that we will forfeit if we are not faithful in that which the Lord doth require of us.

Nowhere in the Word of God does a saved person end up in hell or outer darkness.

 

Which one's are you challenging?

 

So you see, we can sin and not lose crowns. Just don't have any wood, hay and stubble on you when you get there, because that stuff is bad, but not a sin mind you. Wood hay and stubble means telling people that they will be judged for sins at the JSOC. God is really gonna judge those folks for their uh works, but not their sins.

 

So, are you saying that sins aren't works?

If not, then just what type of bad works are you talking about?

What is sin?

 

You missed the whole point. Building with wood when the Lord prefers gold is a sin. And if we forfeit our reward, he is holding us accountable for the sin of building wrongfully, by not giving us a reward.

I also believe he paid for my sins. The question is, why do you think he will give a believer fewer rewards as a result of his sin?

 

All sins were paid for at the cross. Don't believe it? Doesn't make it any less factual.

 

What if they have sinful works?

 

Free ride.

 

He will not give a believer fewer rewards as a result of his sin. The believer forfeits rewards as a result of works, not sin.

Nowhere is the word 'works' in 1 Corinthians 3 translated as sin.

Why not? Because Christ already paid the full payment for our sins with His blood.

 

I don't necessarily agree with that premise. I think we are either in or out, no grading on the curve.

Les

 

So what if His bad works outweigh only the loss of the Crowns? Then what?
Also, without a crown, how does this Christian partake in the rulership role of the Bride?