ME (Millennial Exclusion) Posts

My mistake. I actually should have said at least one moderator, instead of moderators.

In case you missed post #25:

In another thread DHK said:

And it could not be answered. You could not demonstrate ME doctrine through the teachings of Paul. It was an impossible feat for you to accomplish…No one could demonstrat ME theology through Pauline teaching….The doctrine of ME is nowhere to be found in the teachings of Paul because it is false doctrine.

 

This was one big foolish game. It proves nothing except that ME advocates love to play games. It does not prove it was wrong for DHK to challenge ME advocates to find ME in Pauline epistles. There is a huge difference. ME advocates build their doctrine on parables, so it was a legitimate challenge to verify it from direct doctrinal teaching in the epistles. ME advocates were unable to do so.

In sharp contrast, there is no "doctrine of hell" based on parables, and therefore there is nothing for anyone to verify in Pauline epistles.

The OP challenge fails big time.

 

Talk about gaming, the idea of trying to win a debate without hearing the opposing side sure seems like a game to me. Are we supposed to try and answer this?

 

Well shoot, if the ME/KA doctrine is false (as I believe it is) then we still ought to be able to prove that, or at least cast doubt on it, even if the proponents do use parables, right?

Les

 

Everyone here agrees unbelievers go to hell (or they should be posting in another section of the forum, if I understand the rules correctly).

Therefore, SHOW ME that unbelievers go to hell using only Paul's epistles. If you can not do this, then you must at least acknowledge that using Paul's epistle's alone is unnecessary to prove a doctrine. Whether you agree with "ME" or not, you should acknowledge that you can not challenge its validity based on whether it can be demonstrated exclusively from Paul's epistles or not.

This is not some weird game, this is elementary logic.

Public school education is much more harmful than most realize.

 

I think they ought to have to prove their doctrine that you can't 'build doctrine on parables' using only Paul's epistles.

 

ME (Mercy Eliminated) proponents don't contend for the faith that was once delivered to the saints. The saints of old believed God. Moses believed God and it was counted unto him as righteousness.

Our faith is counted as righteousness. We have a rightstanding with our Lord.

But when we do sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous.

Christ is my advocate. He stands in my defense, not as my accuser or Prosecutor.

His blood has purchased my pardon and because of that, God's mercies are new in my life every day... as they will be at the JSoC.

The ME (Mercy Eliminated) proponents are trying to make the one who stands in our defense the accuser of the Brethren.

 

Very good point.

 

Mercy Eliminated! Good one. Grace Exterminated would have been good, too, but they don't call it GE. Shame.

 

The title of this thread had me imagining it was started by someone who wasn't sure of the answer to the question, "Do unbelievers go to hell?" It seems that this was not the case.

It also seems strange in the extreme to make the "Pauline epistles" restriction. The epistles were addressed to believers.

Romans 1.7:

7 To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints:​

1 Corinthians 1.2:

2 To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:​

2Corinthians 1.1:

1 ¶ Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints who are in all Achaia:​

Galatians 1.2b:

To the churches of Galatia:​

Ephesians 1.1:

1 ¶ Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and faithful in Christ Jesus:​

And so I could go on. Every one of Paul's letters is addressed to a church, a group of churches, or an individual believer. He certainly reminds those believers what Jesus had saved them from, as for example in Ephesians 2, but it seems more likely that we would find doctrines such as the one you ask about, in the preaching of Jesus in the gospels, and the preaching of the apostles in Acts.

I have just noticed that you say in a later message on this thread that your reason for limiting us to the Pauline epistles is "Because moderators on this board have said that doctrines must be proven from Paul's epistles - if they can't, then the doctrine has been conclusively shown to be false." I know I have only been on the Board a few months, but I have never seen such a posting rule.

Later on, you admitted that you had made a mistake. You wrote: "My mistake. I actually should have said at least one moderator, instead of moderators." You then went on to quote an ordinary reply in another thread from someone who happens to be a moderator. Here is your quote:

And it could not be answered. You could not demonstrate ME doctrine through the teachings of Paul. It was an impossible feat for you to accomplish…No one could demonstrat ME theology through Pauline teaching….The doctrine of ME is nowhere to be found in the teachings of Paul because it is false doctrine.​

I fail to see anything there that gives the impression that the writer was laying down posting rules for the "ordinary members" of the Board. Moderators can surely take part in a debate/discussion like the rest of us. If he had wished to write in the position of Moderator, and to lay down a new posting rule, surely he would have written something along these lines:

"You must not post opinions on this forum unless you can prove them from Paul's epistles."​

As far as I know, there is no such ruling on any forum on the BB.

 

Is this the correct context in which this statement was made?

 

1. You make most of your points off the expression "What if." I really don't get it. I simply don't know.

2. No one for whom Christ died is going to be in the lake of fire (Heb 10:14).

 

To my amazement, one of the ME advocates claimed that the following verse identifies Christ as our oppressor and accuser:

I kid you not. He yanked this verse so far out of context that you can't see it with the Hubble space telescope.

If this is the kind of hermeneutics that leads to the doctrine of ME, well, it speaks for itself.

 

And this fact has been overlooked. It is dangerous to build a theology on the parables, because of their very nature.

 

Please expound.

 

Isn't it obvious from DHK's post that a person can use a parable or set of parables to reach any conclusion he wants?

 

I did not mean that there are any new posting rules being established by the moderators. I simply was trying to show the method of argumentation being used by the poster (who happened to be a moderator).

I wish someone would address the real point. It isn't about one moderator's line of argumentation. That was merely an example. I have heard the argument very frequently in regards to "ME" being false because one allegedly can't completely prove it from Paul's epistles alone. My point is you can't completely prove the doctrine of unbelievers going to hell from Paul's epistles exclusively, and that does not take away from the truth of the doctrine. Likewise, the same line of reasoning does not prove "ME" (or any other doctrine, for that matter) false.

Even if one does not believe "ME", one should still be able to acknowledge when a way of reasoning is faulty.

 

What kind of logic would it take to get universalism from Matthew 25? I don't think these parables are as open to interpretation as I'm supposed to believe. I think the interpretation is pretty obvious and that is why we have to say that you can't get doctrine from parables, because we don't like what they say.

 

Never seen such an argument.

 

No. We say that you cant get doctrine from parables because you can't get doctrine from parables. They illustrate points not make them. This is the very nature of parables and it is elementary. To ignore its simplicity is to expose your agenda.