ME (Millennial Exclusion) Posts

I had never seen this tactic until I ran across this hyper-dispensationalist philosophy of you can't use three books of the Bible to prove a doctrine. Thus, I'm not fully confident about this, but I don't remember the virgin birth being taught in the Pauline epistles and I would suspect that there is a whole host of teachings that if we meditated on, we would not gather from Paul. However, I do see multiple places where Paul warns believers about the JSOC.

 

Can you illustrate your point with scripture, or do you believe that insulting my intelligence is an argument?

 

1. And then the other person who reads annihilationism from the parables will wonder how come everyone else missed what he saw.

2. Where do we draw the line? Whose interpretive schema should be followed?

 

There you go. I bet if the parables said that at the JSOC, no matter how licentious your life was and no matter that you did no works for Jesus, you will still get a pony and a well done good and faithful servant...if it said this...we likely wouldn't be having a debate about getting doctrine from parables.

"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;" - 1 Timothy 6:3​

 

Could you make an annihilationist argument from Matthew 25?

 

Where does this doctrine come from? Is there a Bible verse somewhere that says parables illustrate points but don't make them (not sure I recognize the difference between those two, but anyway...) or is this a teaching of man and if so who's the man so I can study his words?

 

I am a Moderator in this forum and I consider your accusation patently false. Perhaps you misunderstood a point that a fellow Moderator was attempting to make regarding sound doctrine? There has been no directive from the BB Webmaster or the BB Administrators stating that for the purposes of this board all doctrinal positions must be strictly supported solely by the Pauline Epistles. I hold to the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy. The Bible does not contradict itself or lead one to err. Thus, the entire Word of God is suitable for doctrinal purposes.

 

No one said it was a BB rule, it was a statement by DHK who IS a moderator. Does the entire word of God include parables?

 

Hallelujah :thumbs:

 

Would people that start threads in favor of ME, please put a disclaimer in the thread title or OP... that way, those of us that know it is a heresy, and have chosen to not participate in the endless drivel, that proves nothing, will know it is just "another one of those threads"

 

You misunderstood him. Read the quote. Doesn't say that doctrine has to be proved from Paul's epistles only.

 

KD is a Kingdom Denier; one who denies the gospel of the Kingdom that John and Jesus came preaching, with which this board is infested with them. They embrace the EIREITAD heresy. Their main defense of their doctrinal errors is calling you names, lieing about what you said, then when you call them on it, substitute their own words and tell you that's what you really meant. Most of them use no Scripture, but have plenty of vituperation to go around. They will refuse to answer questions, and if you give them a hypothetical case, call it ridiculous, but if you don't answer one of their questions within 3 minutes, you are avoiding the question, and if you do answer the question repeatedly with answers they don't like, they will claim that you never answered it.

Now, onto your statment. I agree with you wholeheartedly, and Scripture supports you. Most of those who believe in the gospel of the Kingdom agree with you. But, those who embrace the EIREITAD heresy claim that rewards are only good. Even if you earn punishment, you won't get punished. You just won't get as much good stuff.

 

How can they sneak in unawares if they do?

 

1. Maybe I can do what others have done and find annihilationism there. But I'll have to learn their schematic approach.

2. It all comes down to one's interpretive approach.

 

No, I think you should mark all your threads 'not ME'. :thumbs:

 

type, type, erase, erase :laugh:

 

Here lately, it would be easier to do it that way!!

If there were no ME threads, CA thread, and KJVO threads...this board would be empty...

Oh, I forgot... CCM, and Legalism... Oh, and wine, and tobacco..

 

What happens if you refuse to confess your sins?

 

It sounds to me like you are just parrotting if you can't give me an interpretive approach that would actually come up with the doctrines you claim I should be able to teach from these parables. It's like the Catholic teaching that reading the bible will make you go crazy, just intended to scare folks away from actually trying to read a parable and understand it.

 

It is strange, but the restriction was placed by those at whom this thread is aimed. Accountability is a major theme of the NT, and it's a house built upon the foundation presented elsewhere. Yet, there are some, one of whom is a moderator, who seems to find it necessary to prove a doctrine using only the Pauline epistles, minus Hebrews.

This thread was to show the fallacy of that.

However, and answer to their challenge is forthcoming. I won't hold my breath to wait on them to even try to prove that unbelievers go to hell, though.