The ME fallacy's false inheritance

Well, perhaps I overstated it a bit. I do believe that church discipline is necessary and that the church IS the "kingdom" from which unrepentant adulterers, etc. (the whole list y'all give) should be "excluded."

Now if you can "see" that, then perhaps we've found unity, eh?

skypair

 

From the parable of the lost coin, we can know the national identity of the woman.

This woman was a Bride to be and the ten coins were her dowry.
In Jewish custom (as skypair pointed out), the bride to be sewed ten coins in a band and wore that band across her forehead as a wedding crown.

10 in the Bible almost always represented nations of the world. This woman was a gentile bride. She was a picture of the Church, for, the Church is the Bride of Christ.

The woman was upset because one coin was missing; showing us there is a certain number to be reached before Christ comes. She had to find that one coin before the Bridegroom came! Christ has not come yet, because the Church has not finished doing its work.

Bring them in, bring them in
Bring them in from the fields of sin

The coin represents lost sinners. she had to light a candle to find the coin.

Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father which is in heaven. She was taking the light of the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ (the candle) into a dark world to illuminate that one lost sinner (the coin).

 

Perhaps we have understanding but certainly we are not unified.

When you say the church IS the kingdom....what does that mean? Do you have a crown already? Are you currently reigning?

 

Believe me I wasn't trying to derail this thread when I asked the question: In the parable of the lost coin, what does the broom represent. I appreciate that at least two people ventured a guess. One said:
"the Broom represents the work of the Church in finding lost souls."
I believe the other said "it was the work of the Holy Spirit"

The reality is that the broom represents an instrument used to sweep up dust and whatever other unwanted particles that might be lying on a person's floor. It is to be taken quite literally, not representing anything at all. Not everything in a parable must represent something. They are simple illustrations meant to drive home a point. All three of those parables: the lost coin, the lost sheep, the lost son, were summed by Christ:

Luke 15:10 Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.

John Newton said: I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see.
The meaning of the parable is simple. We need not complcate it by trying to attach symbolic meaanings to everything in the parable.
This is the failure (usually of those of the ME persuasion)--drawing doctrine out of parables that isn't there--making things represent doctrine that it doesn't. They push the parable too far and come out at the other end with false doctrine.

 

Is it possible for those believing in the current theology known as "kingdom Theology" without using either Matthew or Hebrews?

 

In the Parable you deal with, she lost a coin. To whom did it belong to before it bacame "lost?" It was hers. Even when it was away from her, the ownership did not change. To believe it is a type of a sinner who has not redemption, is to say that it is a type of one who was born from above, lost his salvation, and regained it. I do not teach this theory. I believe, onced we are born from above, we are saved. We may be removed from the emmediate fellowship of our redeemer, but the fact of the new birth still remains. We need not to be saved over and over again. What if the woman in this parable lost the coin again a week later? Would the coin again, be unsaved?

 

Not only is it possible but it is a certain reality. MK/ME is born out of a close study of New Testament writings to the churches, i.e. Galatians, 1&2 Corinthians, 1&2 Thessalonians, Romans, Revelation, Luke, Mark, John, etc. As a matter of fact, one is confronted with this doctrine in every book of the Bible either in typology, symbolism, literalism, or in parabolic form. Paul repeatedly refers to historic facts to typify and illustrate this doctrinal truth. In addition; Paul himself was unsure of his reward early in his writings to the churches but became assured of his crown at the last (as can be seen in his letters to the Phillipians and his pastoral letters.)

 

These parables are not comparable to the parables we have been discussing. What is the warning in the parable of the woman who lost the coin?

 

"Kingdom Theology" is quite opposed to "Kingdom Accountability". Kingdom Accountability can make arguments from many to most books of the Bible, though they would not desire to take out Matthew, Hebrews or any other book of the Bible the way hyper-dispensationalists seem to do.

 

My mistake: I'll just refer to you as a bunch of MEer's insted.

 

There was no warning. Let's not get off topic. I only used that parable to show that not every single item in a parable represents some kind of doctrine. Don't force your doctrine into a parable when it isn't there. That is my point. The parable in and of itself has nothing to do with this discussion.
It is my "parable" (illustration) for you.

 

I don't beleive you can. Both books are written to those with a Hebrew background; a Jewish audience. Take that factor out of the equation and you are lost (in your theology). Just look at this thread. The majority of your quotes come first from Matthew and then second from Hebrews--both books addressed to Jews. Matthew addresses his gospel to the Jews. His theme is to present Christ to the Jews as the Messiah, the King of the Jews. Thus the Kingdom is one of his major themes. Is it any wonder that most of your quotes are taken from this book?

 

Can you demonstrate ME point by point from Paul?

 

If I'm not mistaken, only person answered your question, and he simply said that it represents a saved person cleaning out his life.

Since 10 is the number of law and responsibility, and Skypair obviously sees that this is involving a saved person, then you should show what is wrong with his interpretation instead of simply saying "See?"

But, the KD's (Kingdom Deniers) want to make the parables just a bunch of cool stories. But, since they obviously are about saved vs unsaved, they don't really apply, and since they don't really mean anything, why study them?

 

Not really sure who you are talking to brother!:saint:
I have not posted anything from Matthew or Hebrews, therefore "most of my quotes" can be found in the above post.

I do understand what you are saying. I was trained in the very theology you are espousing!:thumbs: I now call it "pen-knife theology" because it tosses out many precious sections of Scripture in order to support its otherwise unsupportable and undernourished weight. You may know it as "dispensationalism" or "ultra-dispensationalism". While I would agree that Scripture demonstrates different 'dispensations' in which God deals/dealt with man and his responsiblity to live a holy life before God; I do NOT agree that we are given liberty to exclude whole BOOKS of the Bible as being "not for us".

I came to understand this doctrine (ME/MK) by way of studying PAUL'S epistles. Admittedly, I was introduced to it by reading Faust, I only accepted it after much prayer, study, struggle, and down right anger! I was NOT about to give up my "pet" a.k.a Darby, Larkin, Scofield, et al. While Pastor Faust's book was the "ox goad" that got this believer moving, it was Paul's epistles which convinced me.

FWIW; Just because I read something does not automatically mean I accept it. I am not THAT stupid! I have other books in my library which teach other doctrines that I totally reject. (for example "New Age Interpretation of the Scriptures, and Christian Science with Key to the Scriptures) So please do not even GO there!!! OK?

And I think if you are really honest, sir, you will find that my brethren who also beleive this doctrine are not one note Jonnies either as concerning supportable Scripture for this teaching!

 

Why not MIer's and accentuate the positive?

 

Yes. I can. And I have done so, which is why I believe it today!:thumbs:

 

SFIC also answered, and I believe he said it represents the believer.
I don't believe in numerology because it can be taken to an extreme, although some numbers may take on some significance. This again demonstrates your weakness of allegorization. You are also demonstrating the MEer's dependency on parables. TCGreek asks you the same question (but in different words) that I do. Demonstrate ME theology step by step using Paul's theology. That means don't use the parables. It seems you will be lost without parables and be confined with straightforward doctrine.
Previously you have being concocting doctrine out of parables and thus been coming up with your aberrant theology. But you can't do that through the Pauline epistles can you?

 

1. I know of no one who denies the Kingdom who have been engaged in these discussions.

2. We deny what has been commonly called the ME approach to the Kingdom. We cannot be true to the Scripture and deny the Kingdom.

3. We deny the cafeteria approach to the parables because of a "certain" predilection.

4. Until one's understanding of the parables fits the ME grid, you will not rest.