ME (Millennial Exclusion) Posts

You mean like these;


Mt 8:12*But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Mt 13:42*And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Mt 22:13*Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.


Those were just from Matthew, I'm sure I can find more.

 

RE: Do believers go to hell?

LeBuick,

Amen and Amen. Hell is there, whether we believe it, or not. But there is a worse thing waiting for those who die in their sins. The Lake of Fire. Both death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. Blessed are they which take part in the first resurrection, on the such, the second death hath no power. I have great joy in my life for God saving my soul from such an evil fate.

Willis

 

I disagree. Paul was writing to the church which is at Corinth. A church is not a building, but an assembly of believers. He was writing to baptized believers that were organized into an assembly with the purpose of carrying out the Great Commissioin and the commands of Christ. A church is composed of believers. He was addressing the believers, the saints of Corinth.

And Paul was not addressing the visitors. He was addressing the church--the saints in Christ, the believers. Read the first chapter carefully.

How good of you to point this out. I hope some of the MEers notice. such were some of you Those were the sins that they had committed when they were unsaved--at least in that passage. But those were not the sins that I was referring. Every sin that I posted was a sin committed by a believer mentioned in the first epistle.

There were some that denied the resurrection. Paul spends an entire chapter correcting those who deny it.

You are entitled to you opinion. But the Word of God plainly says: "How say some among you (believers) that there is no resurrection of the dead." They, if they were not denying it, were at least in doubt of the doctrine. And that was a small minority--some of you.

The key words were not as far as salvation is concerned.
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus."--none whatsoever. But this speaks of salvation. It is not based on unconfessed sin. There is no condemnation to those that are in Christ, to those whose sins are under the blood. There is no thin ice here. Salvation is not dependent on confessed or unconfessed sin. If it was it would be a works based religion.
However it is not a licence to sin either.
Confession is for believers only. 1John 1:9 applies only to believers. Its purpose is to restore a beleivers fellowship to God. Sin separates a believers fellowship with God; his walk with God. But it has not bearing on his salvation whatsoever. To bring salvation in this matter is ludicrous. John was addressing saints, even including himself: "If we confess our sins..." John says that we need to daily take our sins to the Lord, confess them and maintain our daily walk with the Lord. We have a relationship not a religion.
"If I regard iniquity in my heart the Lord will not hear me." (Psa.66:18)
Confession of sin or the lack thereof does not affect our salvation.
But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't confess our sin and maintain our fellowship; I never suggested that.

--An OT quote, which has no bearing on NT salvation.

I have no argument with this Scripture. Do you?

 

In hell a thousand years

I see this point made often. "Where does the bible directly say someone will be in hell 1000 years?"

Well where does the bible even say Christ will rule and reign a thousand years? Exactly one place as far as I am aware. Since the scripture lists the duration of the kingdom as 1000 years in only one place, it is not strange that the scripture does not even give a direct answer to the duration of punishment for those who miss the kingdom.

When those who belong to Christ are said to be able to miss the kingdom and end up in hell fire, it seems reasonable to assume that they will be in the hell fire for 1000 years, concurrent with the duration of the millennial kingdom.

 

Thanks for the reply, Mike, but that just raises a few more questions in my mind:

1. If you were simply "trying to show the method of argumentation being used by the poster (who happened to be a moderator)", why mention the fact that he is a moderator at all? It is clear from several of the replies on this thread that I was by no means the only person to imagine that you meant that the moderators, (later changed by you to "a moderator") were/was laying down a rule for postings.

2. If your question was really something like, "Do doctrines have to be provable from the Pauline epistles to be correct?" then why start a thread with the question, "Do unbelievers go to hell?" You say yourself that this was only an example, but no one would realise that from your thread title, or from your OP. There is nothing in the title or OP that obviously connects this thread with the one which it later turned out to be concerned with, even for people who had been following the other thread (but with 41,512 threads on the BB, I doubt that anyone follows them all).

 

Correction, the Church SHOULD BE made up of only believers but since we do not know the heart of man (only God does) we go by testimony and lifestyles that give validating markers it may well be true. But even then we are not to assume they are not saved but allow them to (as Paul puts it) Examine their OWN selves to know whether or not they are in the faith.

Else how can false teachers and false prophets come in unawares :thumbs:

 

I agree, but that does not change the fact that Paul was addressing Christian believers. If hypocrites were present when that letter was read, Paul makes it abundantly clear in 1 Corinthians 1.2 that he is not addressing them:

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.​

 

I fail to see your logic or point. You are asking the board to apply just the writings of Paul, and allow no one to jump outside, then you in your need to disprove, jump outside Pauls writings with Lazarus. What gives? All I see is a political agenda or doctrinal slant or maybe even a game that falls beyond the Bible.

unless you can prove otherwise, this will be my last post on the thread.

To address you properly.....

"Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction"

This statement alone proves to be your down fall in your quest. Even if your location is not that "hell" those that endure this punishment will argue that they cannot tell the difference. In fact it could be argued very fervently with your views held, we would then have two hells.

You said..

This statement has no logic. What would be the point of being everlasting destruction, if there is a end to the destruction? Being aware of one's own existence, thoughts, surroundings must be intact in order that the destruction to be everlasting and mean anything. If the person body burns and burns and burns, but the person is only aware of this burning for the 1st day, then what would be the point of the body burn 3000 years after the awareness is gone from the body? If we look back after say...750,000 years and the body is still on fire and there be no awareness from that person, what is the point God is making? Do you feel God needs to fire to roast marshmallows?

In order to have a point of any kind, after 7 million years of the body being punished, the soul must be aware or it is meaningless.

YOU SAID...

In 1 Thessalonians 5 we read...

You must ask yourself, why does Paul use "sudden destruction" here. And "everlasting destruction" in our passage? There must be a good reason.

In the Greek your case gets weaker.

aiphnidios (sudden)
aiōnios (everlasting)

aiōnios is the word used in Romans 6:22.

In this case aiōnios is used for the life or after life of the believer. Being that the same word is used, it must have the same meaning. Are people aware of this aiōnios life? Does Heaven last a day, or forever?

 

Of course his letter was directed toward the believers but that does not mean the letter was not also intended for those who assumed or be pressumed they were His, meaning Christs. Otherwise what was the point of explaining the distinction between the lost and the redeemed what are already saved. As I stated the main body of the letter was to believers but more specifcally to the those who MADE UP the Church there, which included both the saved and unsaved, or what was the point at all for this:

This examining correlate to 1 Cor 11:28 in which believes are told to examine themselves before they partake of the Lords Supper.

Or another in 2 Cor where Paul is begging those under the reading of his letter to be reconciled to God. I thought they were all already believers who are presently and eternally reconciled unto God. But here we see Paul praying (pleading or begging) for them TO BE reconciled unto God.

Why would Paul say such if he was not still reaching to the lost who were in the church.

There are many more I can use but these portray that which I am speaking to. Yes, Paul was speaking to believers but he was not so remiss to think there were no false believers amoung them, and he charge from Christ was to give the Gospel always, everywhere. Even in the Church.

Editted out

 

Paul does not (in my opinion) deny that there may have been unbelievers present when the church met for worship, but that is not the same thing at all as saying that those unbelievers were actually "in the church". That is a contradiction in terms.

 

Bible Boy I think we have a simple misunderstanding. I never said that Christ did not die for everyone. I never said that Christ did not shed His blood for the sins of the world.

But Christ's blood does not "cover" the sins of the world. Shedding and covering are two different things.

If the sins of the world are "covered" then the entire world is saved.

The blood must be applied. And not everyone applies the blood of Christ.

Maybe that clears up what I was trying to say.

 

So you believe there isn't one person in the assembled church that is lost, but that ALL are saved who are members of a local bodies?

Please tell me, I misunderstood you. If not, please tell me how false teachers and or false prophets are IN the Church. Please explain why Paul is telling the Corinthians to 'examing themselves to see if they are in the faith or not because they are actaully reprobates'. If Paul is speaking only to believes, you need to really bring light to his misunderstanding brother.

Please tell me I misunderstood you. To assume every believer in the Church is truely saved is a statement I have seen over and over in churches where people who thought they were saved, truely came to a knowledge of truth later - and could tell you themselves that God convicted them over their lost condition they were truely in. As a Pastor and Evangelist I have seen this often. Glory to God they became saved, but the fact of the matter is they were lost and believed themselves saved.

 

I don't know how Paul could of made it any plainer, "to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus".

I think if he meant all that were there he would of said "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, that are sanctified in Christ Jesus.

He didn't say it that way, He said "to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus."

Those two words mean a lot.

 

I have already stated that Bob. The letter WAS addressed to the believers, but do you believe they can loose their salvation? If not, then you must address the fact he is also speaking to those in the church assembly who are not believers. The letter was to be read to all but the letter was primarily address to the Church.

I can write a letter to my brother, but still make mention to others around him as well who claim to be apart of our relationship (whether friendship, family, whatever), without the letter ever having to be specifically written to them. The same Paul did here as well.

Otherwise, I would ask that to would also explain why those beleive must examine themselves to know if they are in the faith or not, and if not then they are reprobates. And also that Paul is pleading if not begging for those of the Church TO BE reconciled to God, when we know that as a beleiver we ALREADY ARE reconciled. Who then is Paul addressing, the believer who has lost their salvation or lost and unsaved in that assembly of believers?

 

If by "assembled church" you mean "people present at a church service or other meeting", then no, of course I do not believe that every one of them is saved. Maybe I'm making too much of this - perhaps I am getting "hung up" (as I think the American expression goes) on what it means to be in the church. All I am trying to say is that Paul addresses his epistles to "saints" - those who actually are "in Christ". At the same time, he knows that there are "wolves in sheep's clothing", pretending to be in the church but in actual fact not really knowing the Saviour, and maybe people such as those you mention when you say you have many times come across people who thought they were saved, but in actual fact were not at that time. I join you in praising God that those you mentioned were later truly saved. But were they really members of Christ's church when they were unsaved? I don't mean, "Were their names on the membership roll?", but were they in reality part of Christ's body?

 

I see where the problem was.

I agree they were never apart of the body of Christ (spiritually) but that they were only apart of the assembly (physically) who claimed Christ.

When I was speaking of the Church, it was to the end that those people made a profession of salvation and became a member of the assembly of believers - which is 'called' the Church.

I see what you are stating and glad we both agree. God be praised, and my you continue to be under His hand of guidence and blessing.

 

Thanks for the reply Allan;
You are saying exactly what I am saying. As a matter of fact, in Paul's day there were more unbelievers among the church body than there are today. It was a time of transition from the Law unto Grace and many came just to see what they were talking about, it was new to them. Also, others followed just for the food.

No, I agree he was addressing the whole body, that is why he said "to them" who are sanctified. Or else he would of just said "that are sanctified. I think it is plain, Paul was making an exclusive statement and not a inclusive one, even though he address the whole body.

It seems we all three agree, being sanctified is another question though.

 

If we don't confess, what is he faithful and just to do?

 

I agree completely Brother Bob, it is similar to the letters written to the Churches in Revelations. In that case the letters were generally written to the entire Church, however, it is hard for me to believe an entire Church, multiple congregations around an area, every preacher, deacon and pew sitter, all needed to return to their first love. I think as a general concensus and possibly a majority doctorinal group moved off course but there is always that woman in the crowd who comes forth whith her two pennies (just an analogy) in hand who really does get what it's all about.

@ DHK, I will respond to your post this evening when I return. From what I can see, you seperate righteousness from salvation? If I were to summerize how I read your post, you are saying one can be saved and not righteous??? In other words, I can be a child of God yet resemble a child of the devil (Jn 8:44). I will be continual prayer on this thought and will respond when I get time this evening.

Mt 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

 

So your doctrine of hell is based on assumption instead of God's word.

What would happen if you threw out your assumptions? I think you're doctrine would fall.