ME (Millennial Exclusion) Posts

Something someone posts on the BB could be confusing??

"Say it isn't so, Ethel!!"

:laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

I don't get deeply into a lot of these discussions on various issues, as I don't really have the time to really get into them in any eal depth, these days, but still often do read them. And in accordance with a directive from Dr. Bob to all on the BB, I try and not use the words heresy or heretic, either, as a rule.

But I'll merely say this. Some ideas I see presented among the various members are diametrically opposed to ideas presented by others.

If any idea, is correct, as I see it, Biblically, would not a diametrically opposing view have to be considered as heresy?

Sure seems that way to me.

Ed

 

Yes, it should be considered heresy.

One need look no farther than Millennial Exclusion (ME) for both non-heresy error and heresy. They preach a gospel of grace by faith (they call it spirit salvation). I don't think they are 100% Biblical in this gospel, but they're not so far off that I'd say it was heresy. (I could be wrong, but that's how I see it.)

The problem is that they then go on to preach a second "gospel" of works (which is no gospel at all), where one must do good works in order to be saved and justified. Worse, since the penalty for falling short is 1,000 years in hell, this new "gospel" puts a Christian in bondage once again to fear, which occupies every moment of a Christian's life on earth once they get past the split second they are saved by grace. This is anti-Biblical and is pure, unadulterated heresy.

 

You say some will lose all of their rewards. You also said that crowns are rewards. You then go on to say that you never took the position that not all will rule and reign.

With this said:

1. If all are ruling and reigning, who are they ruking and reigning over?

2. I've never heard of a crownless bride. Without a crown, how are these crownless Christians ruling as the bride?

With this said:

There is not one single O.T. type to bcak this statement up with, yet all the types in Genesis that deal with a bride show her being brought out of the family.

Examples: When the servant went to seek a bride for Isaac he was to go only to the family of Abraham to seek the bride and not to the Canaanites.

His Bride was also found drawing water from the well.

Also look at the examples of Jacob and his wife, and Joseph and His wife.


I know it was a typo and mean nothing of it. Just got a little laugh out of it. Anyway you may want to replace the word Bride where you have the word Bible!
:laugh: :laugh:
Sometimes we write so much that our fingers get in the way of our brain!:laugh:

 

WRONG! Sorry Skypair but you are way out in left field on this one.

You would now be the first baptist I ever met, who believe in a tripartite man, who believes that it is the spirit is our mind, emotions, and will.

To agree with you would be to believe that a dog has a spirit. I surely don't believe that yet I believe that a dog has emotions, and a will.

 

The way I see it, a dog has mind, emotions, and will but does not have self- nor God-awareness which, to me, is the soul.

But many have a "reverse convention" to my soul-spirit delineation. But the Holy Spirit, communing with a donkey's mind/spirit, could make that donkey speak to Balaam 1) because the donkey had a spirit and 2) because the Spirit speaks with mortal spirits (ours included).

skypair

 

I for the most part have stayed out of the ME debate. It is amazing what I am reading on here, masquerading as Baptist doctrine. What is amazing is that there seems to be a few supporters of this heresy.

However, I must say having read the post on this subject, it now gives the post of those same posters, new light. At times I could not understand how they be so opposed to grace. I see why now, for most of them that attacked grace doctrines, are now posting in favor of ME which is clearly all about “me and my works”.

 

As is evident from all the posts advocating a Christian being cast outside of the Kingdom.

 

If this is what they teach, then why do they get uneasy because it is so labeled and should have no place among us?

 

Things they believe:

Millenial Exclusion
Gap Theory
Need more than Christ's Righteousness to attend Marriage Supper of the Lamb

Just to name a few of the teachings that are not found anywhere in Scripture.

What Scripture says about people who fall for such teachings:

That we [henceforth] be no more children, tossed to and fro, and

, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; (Ephesians 4:14)

 

Thank you for yur kind words, again, being spoken, as you say out of love.

 

You're so very welcome.

 

You have definitely sunk to a new level.

 

"And they became a living "spirit"?

I don't think so. The word is soul. That donkey had no spirit.



('Cept mebbe the gumption (spirit) a talking ass would have in the same circumstance) J/K

 

Jim --- tie that in with some other verses for me. I don't even know for sure where you got that one. I believe the word is "pneuma," correct?

See, when Jesus breathed into the disciples in John 20:22, He (like His Father did to Adam) breathed the (a) Spirit into them (him). Now it is no doubt that they became "living" in either case. The issue is what was "enlivened," right? In both cases, I see the soul as pre-existent so give me some help here.

Also, "donkey had no spirit" --- you're saying no "conscience" nor any awareness of self or God, right? That is what I say too only I call that "soul."

skypair

 

Does "servant" in parables = Israel (OT + trib Jews) or not? Simple question.

skypair

 

NOT. (Not always at least)

Simple answer.

 

OK.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul......

.....Soul.

Ecclesiastes 3:21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?.....

......Spirit.


Soul = knowledge of God

Spirit = life


Hence, when man fell his 'spirit' died. Not his soul. Hence, when Jesus said, "What shall a man give in exchange for his soul", He was saying what will you trade intimate knowledge of God for?

Hence he was NOT talking about the new birth. This is also why Paul speaks of man not liking to retain the knowledge of God, nor even to acknowledge Him as God. He was speaking of a man's soul. Mind, will, emotions. All of which we KNOW God with. Jesus said to love God with all your MIND. Jesus said that if we love God we WILL obey His commandments. Solomon said, if we would have wisdom we should FEAR God. And there you have it. Our mind, will and emotions are our soul = the knowledge of God.

But the new birth is WHOLLY an act of God restoring the life lost in the garden. Our spirit.
But I digress.:smilewinkgrin:

 

Thank you for the link. It did tell me something about Robert Govett, but I discovered that Schoettle Publishing exists to promote the doctrine of - what do I call it? Some have been offended by the use of the term "Millennial Exclusion" so I'll follow you in calling it "Kingdom Accountability". (However, I would ask that no one should take my use of that term, and my disagreement with the doctrine, as meaning that I don't believe Christians are accountable, because I certainly do. But I don't believe that any Christians will have to pay for their sins in a 1000 year punishment before acceptance in heaven.)

Back to Govett - I can't find anything about him that is from an impartial source.

Nor have I been able to locate the quote from Spurgeon. Do you know which book or sermon it came from? I may be wrong, but I am fairly certain Spurgeon did not believe such a doctrine either.

On a more general point relating to this thread, I am assuming that there is no way an amillennialist could hold to such a doctrine.

 

There are different aspects of what you wrote that I do not agree with, but I will try to stay on topic. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. So in your scenario above, buying the car was not of faith, and hence was sin. As a result of this sin, you will suffer loss at the judgment seat of Christ. This is the point I am trying to bring out in this discussion.

Those that believe that the JSOC is an awards banquet, often accuse those that don't agree with them of denying the sufficiency of the blood of Christ. The purpose of this thread is to give an opportunity to them to thoroughly prove this view. When they can not do this, it is hoped that they will move on to other arguments for their position, which then can also be dismantled one by one.