OK... I still have these nagging questions:

[av1611jim]

Not surprised at your response.
I'm not dining on milk, but you are dining on a false teaching.

There's not much else to say.

IF it is a false teaching then you ought to be able to Scripturally refute my post. You will not touch it because you know it is true.

 

[Amy.G]

IF it is a false teaching then you ought to be able to Scripturally refute my post. You will not touch it because you know it is true.

Your false teaching has been scripturally refuted over and over again by me and others smarter than me. I know it is false, but you have been blinded and refuse to see it.

 

[av1611jim]

Your false teaching has been scripturally refuted over and over again by me and others smarter than me. I know it is false, but you have been blinded and refuse to see it.

Ditto.

Therefore one of us is wrong huh?

I USED to believe exactly as you do.:smilewinkgrin: So you haven't provided anything whatsoever that I haven't ALREADY considered while investigating this doctrine years ago.:smilewinkgrin:

Maybe one day you will forget your own pride (as I had to do) and be honest with Scripture and then submit to this truth. Maybe.:wavey: :wavey:

 

[Amy.G]

Ditto.

Therefore one of us is wrong huh?

I USED to believe exactly as you do.:smilewinkgrin: So you haven't provided anything whatsoever that I haven't ALREADY considered while investigating this doctrine years ago.:smilewinkgrin:

Maybe one day you will forget your own pride (as I had to do) and be honest with Scripture and then submit to this truth. Maybe.:wavey: :wavey:

Maybe you will submit to the truth. I already have.

 

[DHK]

IF it is a false teaching then you ought to be able to Scripturally refute my post. You will not touch it because you know it is true.

It was refuted. You might say it was refuted by the conspicuous absence of the inability of all of you to demonstrate any Biblical foundation for this false doctrine. There was a simple question asked:
[FONT=&quot]

. "Please demonstrate the doctrine of Millennial Exclusion through the teachings of Paul."

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.
On two threads you simply wasted time and answere nothing.
Look at this post:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...&postcount=194

From page 20 to page 31, 12 pages were taken up in avoiding this question until the thread had to be closed. Trivial answers: "Why does it need an answer; why isn't Matthew good enough, etc. The thread is called: "The ME fallacy's false inheritance."

In another thread (also now closed) "Another verse that blows ME out of the water,"
on Page 17, you can read the same question:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...&postcount=167

That thread also went 31 pages. No one could demonstrat ME theology through Pauline teaching. So what were we left with?
12 Pages on one thread and 14 pages on another--a total of 26 pages of Me'ers trying to answer a question that they never even came close to answering. You couldn't. Paul only uses the word "kingdom" but one time in the book of Romans, and it is not even in the context of Kingdom theology or ME theology whatsoever. It is in the context of ethics. The doctrine of ME is nowhere to be found in the teachings of Paul because it is false doctrine. 26 pages (most of which were spent avoiding the question) are proof enough that this doctrine cannot be demonstrated through Scripture.




[/FONT]

 

[standingfirminChrist]

To be honest, DHK, I do not believe the ME'ers even tried to answer the question. All they did is danced trying to avoid having to answer it.

 

[Hope of Glory]

What you have done is asked a question in an anti-biblical manner, and expected a sermon(s)-length answer in short order.

We are to build upon a foundation. Scriptural foundation shows us that God restored the earth in 6 days, and shows how that relates to our redemption. Building upon a scriptural foundation shows us that he says to about already saved people, "Then opened he their minds, that they might understand the scriptures," in Luke 24:45.

Building line upon line lets us know that there are two deaths spoken of in Hebrews 2:9, and it's not a mistake; it's the mirror image of the two deaths spoken of in Isaiah 53:9. You're reading along and you see the note in the margin of Isaiah, and you file it away, then when you're reading along and you find in Hebrews 2:9 a mention of "death" and "the death", and you're building upon a foundation, and you know that Isaiah talks about him regarding two deaths, and you have been studying "the death", and you find two deaths spoken of in Hebrews 2:9... ah-ha!

But, if you don't build upon a solid foundation, or you build the walls first, or something, then you think things like David was punished for adultery.

However, I have discovered from living here in Alaska, that many people build their houses in that manner. Many people buy trailers, then add a front room, then a back room, then a roof over the entire thing so they can have a garage, then they will add some sort of foundation. Or, sometimes they build a house on spruce pilings, which 20 years later have to be replaced. Or, in the example of the house in which I now live, they build a one room cabin, then add an arctic entryway, then add an indoor bathroom, then save up enough to expand, so they pick up the entire house, pour a new, larger foundation, then put the house on it and then add onto it.

Building the foundation first works better, but is not necessary.

So, I will respond to your unbiblical and unreasonable demands to expurgate parts of the Bible that you don't like. But, you demand something that will take at least a sermon length response, and probably more, and anticipating the level of attacks upon it by certain individuals, it will take some time that I'm not overly motivated to provide. However, I have to have the time to do, motivated or not.

Which brings to mind something interesting. While in Anchorage (part of what my time has been used doing), I had some free time, so went to the religious bookstore. While I was unable to find a Bible that included only the Pauline letters, I did find more than one Bible that excluded them. Most of them also excluded James.

But, I was asked to submit some juried work to an art show, which is good advertising for me, but I had to hand deliver it, which was a 5.5 hour drive away, I returned Saturday at 2 AM, had to pick up a charter at 6:30 AM, had to do my radio show all day Saturdary, had my usual Sunday schedule, had to take the charter back to the ferry this PM, have to be back in the bus at 6 AM, and will not have any spare time to devote to this sort of basic, but lengthy, sermon until at least Wednesday.

Although I am considering simply taking some of the previous stuff posted and excising the stuff from Matthew and Hebrews that you detest so much. Oh, I need some new sermons, so I'll probably do some new stuff for you.

 

[skypair]

I haven't forgotten this argument. I'm chewing on it.

Where I'm holding up now is here: When reward and practical sanctification (The work-out-your-salvation-salvation) is in view we still seem to be viewed Biblically as servants.

Good points! In each appearance in scripture, the useage is either parabolic or practical.

Where salvation and our absolute (positional) righteousness In Christ is in view, we are no longer servants.

That's what I see.

Now applying the parabolic uses to the "kingdom of heaven" parables, we get quite a different "picture," don't you think? In fact, I love it how in Mt 20, Jesus makes all those looking for work out to be field hands even though 4/5's of them were Israel. But in that parable, notice that those hired in the 11th hour are called in and paid first, 20:9!! That's US!! At that rapture!!

skypair

 

[skypair]

Many folks within modern Christendom have lost either the ability or the desire to study out exactly what any given doctrinal word means within its context.

HI jim --- It seems that if YOU think YOU have found the truth, YOU also have quit, gotten lazy about looking into it any further, right? C'mon. Give us all a break!

First off, if you haven't understood that we are already IN our church MK, you too need to get up off your lazy butt!! We've got a Gentile Passover, Pentecost, new covenant, spiritual kingdom, etc. and our "exclusion" and "punishment"/chastisement is here and now in Christ's presence (where 2 or more are gathered in My name, there am I). Then, following us, Israel will have their Pentecost, MK, new covenant, etc. in the presence of Messiah.

It seems to me that most will assume "saved" always means for eternity,

It does. Salvation of the SOUL is immediate and eternal.

... "sanctification" always is passive on our part,

NEVER! We are "yoke-fellows" with the Holy Spirit. I think you are talking about Calvinists who claim they don't "do" anything themselves. :laugh:

"redemption" always is about our spirit/soul (they do not seperate the two, i.e. 'soul' vs 'spirit) and so forth.

Again, Calvinists can't distinguish (else their whole "garment" would unravel! For free will its SOUL immediately, SPIRIT progressively, and BODY eventually.

This then is the root of the problem in my opinion. Faulty teaching and lazy study habits. Truly Paul accurately described our times when he spoke to those in his time:

I will say that you ME-erw have challenged my own beliefs and helped me see an aspect of the kingdom that I had taken but little notice of. I hope it is working that same for you. But there is no need to condescention, jim.

skypair

 

[Rufus_1611]

It was refuted. You might say it was refuted by the conspicuous absence of the inability of all of you to demonstrate any Biblical foundation for this false doctrine. There was a simple question asked:
[FONT=&quot] 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.
On two threads you simply wasted time and answere nothing.
Look at this post:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...&postcount=194

From page 20 to page 31, 12 pages were taken up in avoiding this question until the thread had to be closed. Trivial answers: "Why does it need an answer; why isn't Matthew good enough, etc. The thread is called: "The ME fallacy's false inheritance."

In another thread (also now closed) "Another verse that blows ME out of the water,"
on Page 17, you can read the same question:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...&postcount=167

That thread also went 31 pages. No one could demonstrat ME theology through Pauline teaching. So what were we left with?
12 Pages on one thread and 14 pages on another--a total of 26 pages of Me'ers trying to answer a question that they never even came close to answering. You couldn't. Paul only uses the word "kingdom" but one time in the book of Romans, and it is not even in the context of Kingdom theology or ME theology whatsoever. It is in the context of ethics. The doctrine of ME is nowhere to be found in the teachings of Paul because it is false doctrine. 26 pages (most of which were spent avoiding the question) are proof enough that this doctrine cannot be demonstrated through Scripture.

[/FONT]

You have for the third time called this doctrine Kingdom theology. Again, please be aware that we are not preaching Kingdom theology, this is a wholly different doctrine and is antithetical to Kingdom Accountability.

The Matthew thing was nothing short of bizarre and it is just odd to have folks saying they don't like James, we shouldn't argue from Hebrews and above all don't use a gospel to preach the Kingdom. I suppose we should feel blessed that ya'll believe Paul's epistles apply to Christians because we're beginning to run out of books.

As to Paul, it is Paul that tells us to run the race, it is Paul that was worried about keeping his body in subjection so that he might not be a castaway.

"I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." - 1 Corinthians 9:26-27​

What is Paul worried about? What is a castaway? Does a castaway get a pat on the head and a well done good and faithful servant?

 

[Rufus_1611]

HI jim --- It seems that if YOU think YOU have found the truth, YOU also have quit, gotten lazy about looking into it any further, right? C'mon. Give us all a break!

First off, if you haven't understood that we are already IN our church MK, you too need to get up off your lazy butt!! We've got a Gentile Passover, Pentecost, new covenant, spiritual kingdom, etc. and our "exclusion" and "punishment"/chastisement is here and now in Christ's presence (where 2 or more are gathered in My name, there am I). Then, following us, Israel will have their Pentecost, MK, new covenant, etc. in the presence of Messiah.

Already in our church millenial kingdom? First, if you believed this wouldn't you be calling it a bi-millenial kingdom? Second, when you look around at this world do you honestly believe that this is the kingdom of God? It kind of looks to me like someone else is reigning right now but I guess I'm deceived.

It does. Salvation of the SOUL is immediate and eternal.

NEVER! We are "yoke-fellows" with the Holy Spirit. I think you are talking about Calvinists who claim they don't "do" anything themselves. :laugh:

Again, Calvinists can't distinguish (else their whole "garment" would unravel! For free will its SOUL immediately, SPIRIT progressively, and BODY eventually.

I will say that you ME-erw have challenged my own beliefs and helped me see an aspect of the kingdom that I had taken but little notice of. I hope it is working that same for you. But there is no need to condescention, jim.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Partial rapture -- or like the 5 foolish virgins where unbelievers in the church are left behind?? See, that last makes great sense to me. The "foolish" may even be excluded from the MK if they never believe. They may, indeed, see hell for 1000 years. But I would submit that they will then appear at yet the 3rd JSOC, the GWT, and go to the "lake of fire."

The way I see it as of now, they do indeed appear at the GWT.

That's because we haven't considered the whole parable yet. We got to the place where the wise were taken and the foolish were "left behind," right? What happens next? The foolish "go and buy," right? (Mt 25:10-11) And "afterward" (postrib) they came to the "door" -- for all practical purposes, they believed on Christ else why would they come to the closed "wedding door?" That isn't the GWT, is it? It's more like gathering at the church awaiting for another rapture, to me (there are some who believe in more than one, right?).

Now to these virgins, does Christ say, "go into outer darkness?" NO! That, again, is what the traditional church and those "to whom the parable is not given" ADD to the text. It's NOT there!! Instead Jesus said, "I never knew you."

That is, they were never His bride or espoused to Him during the age when He was calling out a bride! I mean, compare this to your wedding, Lacy. You likely didn't have other women claiming to be your bride but what would you have told them?? "I'm sorry, I don't even know you?"

Now, let's see if this at all has any "scripture interprets scripture" parallels. Have you considered Rev 2-3? Five churches are told to repent (trib references to left behind churches/foolish virgins) and 5 (less obvious) are raptured all or in part. Do you see that these, if I am right, will have a trib opportunity to convert??

What of those who are found? Why do we assume that there are none, especially with the careful way this verse is worded?

Rev 20:11-12?? I see this in 2 phases as it is given here -- #1) All MK believers taken to heaven but their "place" (their eternal inheritance) is the EARTH and eternal Israel/Jerusalem there. Well, God is "reforming" the earth so, for now, no place is found for them except after the GWT, they will enter NJ for the trip to New Earth. #2) Then the souls, spirits, and bodies of the lost are gathered (again, before the reformed earth) to the GWT for judgment. These last are the ones cast into the LoF.

Now study this through -- don't be "lazy" or jim will get on your case! :laugh:

skypair

 

[skypair]

HoG,

How's the stained glass coming??

We are to build upon a foundation. Scriptural foundation shows us that God restored the earth in 6 days, and shows how that relates to our redemption. Building upon a scriptural foundation shows us that he says to about already saved people, "Then opened he their minds, that they might understand the scriptures," in Luke 24:45.

This is "thin" logic at best. Can you amplify where we can see the connection without the editorial?? I mean, ALL Christians do this, not just y'all.

Building line upon line lets us know that there are two deaths spoken of in Hebrews 2:9, and it's not a mistake; it's the mirror image of the two deaths spoken of in Isaiah 53:9. You're reading along and you see the note in the margin of Isaiah, and you file it away, then when you're reading along and you find in Hebrews 2:9 a mention of "death" and "the death", and you're building upon a foundation, and you know that Isaiah talks about him regarding two deaths, and you have been studying "the death", and you find two deaths spoken of in Hebrews 2:9... ah-ha!

Again, sounds "thin." You probably ran across 10 times as many verses where "death" is mentioned twice but that your doctrine can't be read into.

But, if you don't build upon a solid foundation, or you build the walls first, or something, then you think things like David was punished for adultery.

Basically, the law was the law before there was a law. That's what got the pre-flood folks in trouble. They "took as many wives as the would" when God had told them "one man - one woman" Gen 2:23-24. Paul tells us the same regarding the law in Rom 5:13. To say that David was somehow "exempt" is just downright dishonest to yourself and to the Bible.

But go ahead and give us your perspective. We will try to be respctful, won't we guys? (npeterely, amy, DHK)

skypair

 

[av1611jim]

Dhk, Amy, et al:
Since it took me many months of study to understand this, I do NOT expect you to get it on a message board in 'sound bites'. But for your personal study I exhort you to copy these passages and then in your own time, praying for the Holy Spirit to show you TRUTH (not who is right or wrong) and then come to your own conclusions.

I found that either Paul is teaching conditional salvation as do the Arminians, or Paul is teaching about something else. What that something else is, is for you in your prayerful study to decide.

Romans 8:13,17, 11:20,21, 14:12
1 Corinthians 3:15-17, 6:7-10, 9:24-27, 10:1-12,22, 11:29-32, 16:22
2 Corinthians 5:9-11
Galatians 5:19-22, 6:7-8
Ephesians5 :4-7, 6:9
Philippians 3:10-11
Colossians 1:22-23, 3:25
1 Thessalonians 4:6
1 Timothy 2:15, 3:6, 5:6,12 ,6:8, 9
2 Timothy 2:12,13

There are many more such passages of warning to believers but these should get you started. You asked for "Pauline" Scriptures but have denied the use of Hebrews which I (and many other godly men) believe to be Pauline. Nevertheless, I have complied with the caveat that I hold no unrealistic hope (based on your previous responses) that you will aquiesce to these Scriptures. I expect you to begin denying these as well. Your position smells of Bullingerism. You have also denied the use of the Gospel writings which reminds me of:

1 Timothy 6:3-4 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; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

It seems you are in a pickle when you refuse to hear the WORDS of our Lord Jesus.

In anycase, here is your request (demand) and I trust we shall hear no more of your railing accusations.

 

[DHK]

What you have done is asked a question in an anti-biblical manner, and expected a sermon(s)-length answer in short order.

We are to build upon a foundation. Scriptural foundation shows us that God restored the earth in 6 days, and shows how that relates to our redemption. Building upon a scriptural foundation shows us that he says to about already saved people, "Then opened he their minds, that they might understand the scriptures," in Luke 24:45.

Ridiculous! I asked you to demonstrate your doctrine without using the historical books of the Bible, but rather the doctrinal books of the Bible. That, in essence, is what my question boiled down to. The epistles taught the early church doctrne. The gospels and and Acts gave history. Your foundaton is faulty. Your foudation is buillt upon parables, something any NT scholar will tell you ought never be used to teach doctrine. Yet that is the foundation of ME doctrine. It is the worst method of hermeneutics one could ever have. Secondly, you use allegorization, another boner when it comes to hermeneutics.
Let me tell you about allegorization:

The fist one to use allegorizaton was Origen.
Origen, by some was called the father of Arianism. He held to many heresies, and eventually was declared a heretic, even by the Catholic Church.

The one to popularize the allegoric approach to the Bible was Augustine, the champion of the Catholic faith, but also a heretic to what is known as the Baptist faith. He held to many unbiblical doctrines such as purgatory. So your method of interpretation was introduced into Biblical history by two heretics. Doesn't say much about it, does it?

Your foundation is faulty. The epistles which teach doctrine don't teach about the kingdom, and for good reason. The gospel is not about the kingdom. It is about believing in Christ by faith, and what he did on the cross. It is about his shed blood, the price that he paid on the cross for the penalty of our sins, a doctrine that you deny by your belief in ME. You deny that Christ paid the full penaly for our sins, if one has to suffer 1000 years more because of their failed works or sin. That is a denial of the atonement. That is heresy.

 

[DHK]

1 Timothy 6:3-4 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; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

You need to take this verse to heart and find out what those verses that you posted really mean.

 

[av1611jim]

You need to take this verse to heart and find out what those verses that you posted really mean.

I listed a gaggle of verses (all Pauline BTW) and THIS is the best you can do?

Buzt! Wrong answer!

As expected (prophesied?) you deny them.

Look. I was TRAINED in Pauline dispensationalism. I KNOW all your arguments against this doctrine. Yet the BEST you can offer sounds strangely like a Bullingerist Parrot.

Now. Try something different. I know it will be hard for you to do because you really LOVE being right. (As do MOST Dispensationalists). But just try it. Try and be honest with yourself.

 

[DHK]

I listed a gaggle of verses (all Pauline BTW) and THIS is the best you can do?

Buzt! Wrong answer!

As expected (prophesied?) you deny them.

Look. I was TRAINED in Pauline dispensationalism. I KNOW all your arguments against this doctrine. Yet the BEST you can offer sounds strangely like a Bullingerist Parrot.

Now. Try something different. I know it will be hard for you to do because you really LOVE being right. (As do MOST Dispensationalists). But just try it. Try and be honest with yourself.

As I have told others I don't respond to someone who lists a "gaggle of verses." That's the way the cults answer me in the Other Religions Forum. If those prove the ME doctrine then you take them one by one (and it need not by all at once,) and demonstrate how they do. You start the discussion. Take the first few verses listed in Romans 8, and tell me how they teach ME doctrine. Don't be foolish enough just to tell me that they do, because I know that they don't. If you tell me that you don't have to list any verses because every single verse in the Bible teaches ME doctrine would anyone here be foolish enough to believe you? As Josh McDowell wrote: "Evidence Demands a Verdict."
Can you provide such evidence that will bring a verdict clear enough to convince anyone here?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

It is quite evident that not only were you trained in dispensationalism, but you were also trained in Millenial Exclusion... so much training that your mind has been programmed to reject the truth.

 

[James_Newman]

As I have told others I don't respond to someone who lists a "gaggle of verses." That's the way the cults answer me in the Other Religions Forum. If those prove the ME doctrine then you take them one by one (and it need not by all at once,) and demonstrate how they do. You start the discussion. Take the first few verses listed in Romans 8, and tell me how they teach ME doctrine. Don't be foolish enough just to tell me that they do, because I know that they don't. If you tell me that you don't have to list any verses because every single verse in the Bible teaches ME doctrine would anyone here be foolish enough to believe you? As Josh McDowell wrote: "Evidence Demands a Verdict."
Can you provide such evidence that will bring a verdict clear enough to convince anyone here?

Why don't you help us out by explaining what kind of evidence you will accept? We have been doing these threads over and over for what, three years? What about 1Cor 3:17?

1 Corinthians 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
What does defiling the temple mean in chapter 3, and what does Paul mean when he says God will destroy any man that defiles the temple? I should point out that Paul calls this stuff the milk of the word, so you ought to be able to discern these things if you are a meat eater.