Millenial Exclusionists sound off!

[Craigbythesea]

Now you take the high road and want to debate scripture? I have answered you at every turn with scripture. I suppose if you want, we can start over.

Please start a new thread, and let's limit the discussion to the Scriptures. No name calling, no putting words into each other mouths, no bashing, no mention of Joey Faust, no posting without praying first and while we are posting, etc.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Please start a new thread, and let's limit the discussion to the Scriptures. No name calling, no putting words into each other mouths, no bashing, no mention of Joey Faust, no posting without praying first and while we are posting, etc.

That would be wonderful beyond my wildest dreams. Prepare to be thoroughly schooled!

Lacy

 

[Craigbythesea]

 

[David M Walker]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Now you take the high road and want to debate scripture? I have answered you at every turn with scripture. I suppose if you want, we can start over.

Please start a new thread, and let's limit the discussion to the Scriptures. No name calling, no putting words into each other mouths, no bashing, no mention of Joey Faust, no posting without praying first and while we are posting, etc.

</font>[/QUOTE]AMEN to that CBTS, I hope that will be true!! NOW we're gettin' somewhere... may we all learn the truth about this according to Scripture and ONLY according to Scripture

(thanks to all for posting, i'm learning a lot)

 

[Bartholomew]

Dear Craig,

Thank you very much for your reply to my question. However, I'm not sure I understand it:

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
the "standard" OSAS doctrine is based, at least in part, on the sovereignty of God and predestination. Although the OSAS crowd very badly misunderstands what the Bible says about the sovereignty of God and predestination, these doctrines are, when properly understood, Biblical doctrines. OSAS, of course, is not a Biblical doctrine, but it does have a Biblical foundation of a sort. Millennial Exclusion has no Biblical foundation at all.

Why do you say this? Millennial exclusion is (in most, if not all cases) built upon the same foundation as OSAS, plus the foundation of warning passages applied to Christians. Now I know you disagree with the OSAS bit, but you actually agree that the warning passages are to be applied to Christians. Your only disagreement with the exclusionists on this point seems to be the duration of the punishment (1000 years vs. infinite). However, this does not change the fact that the doctrine is (at least partially) built upon a teaching that you believe to be true but which the "standard OSAS" teachers don't, namely that the warning passages are to be applied to Christians. You also said:

Yes, Joey Faust is right to apply the warnings of apostasy in the New Testament to Christians. He apparently came to that conclusion by taking God at His word without distorting it to suit his fancy. However, he is still sucking is thumb and walking around with his security blanket (even though his blanket is badly tattered and full of gaping holes). As a consequence, he refuses to take God at His word when it comes to the consequence of failing to heed the warnings. He takes the warnings very literally, as they were intended to be, but he spiritualizes the consequences. That is not just poor hermeneutics—that is something far, far worse!

But WHY is that "far, far worse"? It seems to me illogical for you argue this is a "doctrine from hell", and yet "standard OSAS" isn’t. If OSAS leads to professing Christians living bad lives and not care (as I’ve seen you say before) then surely OSAS with some severe punishment thrown in for 1,000 years will at least limit that?

Finally let me say that I read your posts with great interest. I think it is possible that you are correct here, and that I am wrong. However, I find your hatred of this doctrine quite strange and illogical. The way two very opposite camps (eternal security and limited security) gang up on this in a way they don’t attack each other makes me wonder whether this is actually evidence that the doctrine is true.

Thanks for your answers,

Bartholomew

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea

As for Joseph Augustus Seiss, I am going to read his commentary on Revelation and see for myself how much you and Joey have mutilated his actual words.

I was wrong about Seiss. He was a partial rapturist who believed unfaithful Christians can go through the trib. (I agree) But he was not a millenial exclusionist. Forgive me.

Lacy

 

[Craigbythesea]

Thanks for your answers

Should God be willing, they will be forthcoming—perhaps tonight.

 

[Craigbythesea]

I was wrong about Seiss. He was a partial rapturist who believed unfaithful Christians can go through the trib. (I agree) But he was not a millenial exclusionist. Forgive me.

Your sins have been remitted.

John 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. (KJV, 1769)

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I was wrong about Seiss. He was a partial rapturist who believed unfaithful Christians can go through the trib. (I agree) But he was not a millenial exclusionist. Forgive me.

Your sins have been remitted.

John 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. (KJV, 1769) </font>[/QUOTE]. . . this time!

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Your sins have been remitted.

. . . this time!

Thanks for not making me do any "Hail-Marys". Those chant-thingys give me the willys.

Lacy

 

[Craigbythesea]

Your only disagreement with the exclusionists on this point seems to be the duration of the punishment (1000 years vs. infinite). However, this does not change the fact that the doctrine is (at least partially) built upon a teaching that you believe to be true but which the "standard OSAS" teachers don't, namely that the warning passages are to be applied to Christians.

Widely held faulty conceptions of the sovereignty of God and predestination virtually force the OSAS crowd to believe in OSAS. Consequently millions of Christians believe in some form of that doctrine.

The multitude of conditional passages in both the Old and New Testaments can NOT be truly conditional if the precepts of OSAS are true. Therefore, millennial exclusionists are basing their beliefs on conditional passages which cannot be truly conditional—and that totally erodes the very foundation upon which millennial exclusionism is based. Consequently only a handful of Christians believe in millennial exclusionism. Millennial exclusionism is a self-excluding doctrine.

But WHY is that "far, far worse"? It seems to me illogical for you argue this is a "doctrine from hell", and yet "standard OSAS" isn’t. If OSAS leads to professing Christians living bad lives and not care (as I’ve seen you say before) then surely OSAS with some severe punishment thrown in for 1,000 years will at least limit that?

I wrote,

That is not just poor hermeneutics—that is something far, far worse!

I can understand poor hermeneutics—I see it all the time. However, Joey Faust is not guilty of just poor hermeneutics—he is guilty of mutilating the Scriptures with no foundation (see above) to in any way justify it. Not only is his interpretation of every conditional passage in the Bible concerning salvation faulty (as in traditional OSAS) but his interpretation of most of the passages in the Bible concerning the kingdom of God are also faulty—and not to just a small degree, but radically so.

In order for OSAS to be true, the entire Church would have to have been wrong for 1500 years, and the majority of it to have been wrong the next 500 years.

In order to Joey Faust’s doctrine to be true, the entire Church would have to have been wrong for 1800 years, and the vast, vast, majority of it to have been wrong for the next 500 years. To believe in such a doctrine is totally absurd.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Those chant-thingys give me the willys.

Me too!

 

[Bartholomew]

Hi Craig,

The multitude of conditional passages in both the Old and New Testaments can NOT be truly conditional if the precepts of OSAS are true.

Why do you say this?

Also, I understand (I think) why you don't believe in millenial exclusion, but I don't want to discuss that here. I just wondered why you thought it was "a doctrine from hell" when you don't believe "standard OSAS" is "from hell". I can see why you think it is even less likely to be true, but not why it is worse. The plain fact is that millennial exclusionists keep the warnings. Even if we are not severe enough with them (as you believe), surely keeping them is better than throwing them away?! That's what I don't understand about your position.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Also, I understand (I think) why you don't believe in millenial exclusion, but I don't want to discuss that here. I just wondered why you thought it was "a doctrine from hell" when you don't believe "standard OSAS" is "from hell".

Hi Bartholomew,

As I have already posted, there are clear and logical reasons for a man to believe in "standard OSAS," but there are no clear or logical reasons for a man to believe in millennial exclusion. That leaves me with only a few possibilities to consider:

1. Those who believe in millennial exclusion are lacking is sufficient intelligence to know any better.

2. Those who believe in millennial exclusion are lacking is sufficient knowledge to know any better.

3. Those who believe in millennial exclusion are mentally ill and not able to think in a rational manner.

4. Those who believe in millennial exclusion do so because of Satanic influences.

Over the past year and a half I have gotten to know some millennial exclusionists and I have learned that possibilities number 1, 2, and 3 do not apply to them. That leaves me with possibility number 4,

Those who believe in millennial exclusion do so because of Satanic influences.

 

[David M Walker]

MILLEN'IUM, n. [L. mille, a thousand, and annus, year.]
A thousand years; a word used to denote the thousand years mentioned in Revelations 20. during which period Satan shall be bound and restrained from seducing men to sin, and Christ shall reign on earth with his saints.

Craigbythesea,
What is your definition of "saint"?
Davidbythecity

p.s. SAINT, n. [L. sanctus.]
1. A person sanctified; a holy or godly person; one eminent for piety and virtue. It is particularly applied to the apostles and other holy persons mentioned in Scripture. A hypocrite may imitate a saint. Ps. 16.

 

[Craigbythesea]

What is your definition of "saint"?

A true believer in Christ.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Amen, Brother Craigbythesea -- Preach it!

Saints come in two flavors:
1. Born-again (mostly gentile) redeemed
Church Age elect saints
2. Jewish Israeli elect saints

 

[James_Newman]

Positionally every believer may be a saint, but there is a practical sainthood that believers are called to.

Romans 1
1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

He is obviously speaking to believers here, if their faith is spoken of throughout the world. So the called to be saints is not talking to unbelievers called to get saved. They are beloved of God, called to be saints. We see the same statement made to the Corinthians...

1 Corinthians 1:2
Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:

The church in Corinth IS sanctified in Christ Jesus, and they are called to be saints. This is not calling them to get saved, they are already saved. They have a higher calling beyond initial salvation, just as we all do.

2 Peter 1
9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

We, as believers, have been called to practical sainthood, to reign with Christ as one of His saints. We must make that calling sure, it is not an automatic function of salvation.

Revelation 14:12
Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Brother James,

Although I can not agree with your exegesis of Rom. 1:7 and 1 Cor. 1:2,

Rom. 1:7. to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Cor. l:2. To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours: (NASB, 1995)

I certainly do agree that practical sainthood is the intent and desire of God for all of us, and if we are not measuring up 100%, the fault lies with us and not in Jesus or his atonement.

You and I are the only gospel that many people are going to read, and the manner in which we live our lives may make the difference in the destiny of those who are watching us from day to day.

1 John. 3:7. Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous;
8. the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. (NASB, 1995)

There is NO excuse for sinning for,

No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.

 

[Dr. Bob]

We are saints for certain by action and acclamation of God, not of man or a church. But that, as has been mentioned, is a "position".

Acting as saints is a trait little noted on the BaptistBoard . .