The ME fallacy's false inheritance

[DHK]

And I have done so at great length. He and I had quite a lengthy discussion about it, in between npetreley's fabrications and vituperations.

But next, after being asked to throw out the parables, we're asked to throw out the books of Matthew and Hebrews.

Tell ya what. I have the perfect Bible for KD's. It's one I used in an object lesson. If the entire Bible is about being spiritually saved or not, I took a Bible (it was an old one, don't worry), I ripped out every page except for one. Then, I ripped out that page, and I was left with two verses. That's all you need for how to be saved forever and ever.

I was left holding a tiny scrap that contained Acts 16:30-31.

So, the KD's want to start eliminating parables, entire books... What do you want us to elminate next?

I figured on the ridicule once I gave the challenge. You answered in the exact same manner that the Oneness Pentecostal people did when I challenged them to give me a clear presentation of the gospel message without using the Book of Acts. How does one get saved? Tell me without using the Book of Acts. They can't. It is impossible for them to do so because they believe that both baptism and the baptism of the Holy Spirit (evidenced by tongues) are necessary for salvation. And you can't get that doctrine anywhere but the Book of Acts. If your doctrine is confined to only one or two books, then it is cultish. That is the way cults operate. Some cults like J.W..s and even SDA's must rely on the Book of Ecclesiastes for some of their doctrine. Without it they would not be able to prove some of their heresies. And so it goes. If either you are confined to a book or can't do without a book, you are standing on dangerous ground.

 

[DHK]

I'm not meaning to be nit picky here but the doctrine of "Kingdom Accountability" or "Accountability" is not commonly called "millenial exclusion". Like "Christian" or "Baptist" this expression is used primarily by its detractors such as the "Kingdom Deniers" or the "EIREITAD" folks.

Kingdom accountability--I beleive that.
It is referred to in the Bible as "Jesus will rule with a rod of iron."

 

[Rufus_1611]

I figured on the ridicule once I gave the challenge. You answered in the exact same manner that the Oneness Pentecostal people did when I challenged them to give me a clear presentation of the gospel message without using the Book of Acts. How does one get saved? Tell me without using the Book of Acts. They can't. It is impossible for them to do so because they believe that both baptism and the baptism of the Holy Spirit (evidenced by tongues) are necessary for salvation. And you can't get that doctrine anywhere but the Book of Acts. If your doctrine is confined to only one or two books, then it is cultish. That is the way cults operate. Some cults like J.W..s and even SDA's must rely on the Book of Ecclesiastes for some of their doctrine. Without it they would not be able to prove some of their heresies. And so it goes. If either you are confined to a book or can't do without a book, you are standing on dangerous ground.

...and when you start tearing out books of the Bible and say that doesn't apply to me, it applies to someone else...that too places you on dangerous ground. Regardless, Kingdom Accountability does not rest on two books. Perhaps for one of our new threads we can focus on a minor prophet such as Jonah and discuss all of the Kingdom Accountability elements in it?

 

[Amy.G]

I figured on the ridicule once I gave the challenge. You answered in the exact same manner that the Oneness Pentecostal people did when I challenged them to give me a clear presentation of the gospel message without using the Book of Acts. How does one get saved? Tell me without using the Book of Acts. They can't. It is impossible for them to do so because they believe that both baptism and the baptism of the Holy Spirit (evidenced by tongues) are necessary for salvation. And you can't get that doctrine anywhere but the Book of Acts. If your doctrine is confined to only one or two books, then it is cultish. That is the way cults operate. Some cults like J.W..s and even SDA's must rely on the Book of Ecclesiastes for some of their doctrine. Without it they would not be able to prove some of their heresies. And so it goes. If either you are confined to a book or can't do without a book, you are standing on dangerous ground.

I asked HoG to repost where he took Paul's teachings to prove that he taught ME, but he has ignored it so far.
(post #209)

 

[skypair]

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.

And you aren't the first or last to be deceived, avie. Line up behind Catholics, Reform, Mormons, "Jonesies," Wac(k)os," etc.

As I reported on another thread --- Does God speak through the Pope and tradition or the Pope and tradition for God? NEITHER. Leave them out of it unless they have something tenable to offer. What ME offers us is "warmed over purgatory" -- another view of the same thing.

It ought to all end in this -- the CHURCH is not destined for any of the judgments that put people in 1000 years of hell.

skypair

 

[Amy.G]

It ought to all end in this -- the CHURCH is not destined for any of the judgments that put people in 1000 years of hell.

skypair

I wish I had a dollar for evertime that has been stated in these debates. It just doesn't sink in.

 

[Rufus_1611]

I wish I had a dollar for evertime that has been stated in these debates. It just doesn't sink in.

Because it is repeated over and over again it should sink in? I believed that once...does that mean it sunk out?

 

[skypair]

That actually blows the KD's beliefs out of the water, for we are the ones who are espousing a literal and future Kingdom.

Now you KNOW that is not true, HoG! There is a partial kingdom now -- a future kingdom for 1000 years. Why do you want to say such things???

skypair

 

[skypair]

Jesus' kingdom is of the world to come.

Technically, James, it was not for when He spoke those words.

skypair

 

[DHK]

...and when you start tearing out books of the Bible and say that doesn't apply to me, it applies to someone else...that too places you on dangerous ground. Regardless, Kingdom Accountability does not rest on two books. Perhaps for one of our new threads we can focus on a minor prophet such as Jonah and discuss all of the Kingdom Accountability elements in it?

Just like the cults I debate with--more ridicule. If you claim to be saved, and a Baptist, can you at least debate like one. I have not torn any Scripture out of my Bible. All Scripture is inspired of God. Do you go to the Book of Genesis to demonstrate ME? How about Leviticus? or Obadiah? or even Philemon? If so, then take these books and demonstrate to me ME doctrine. But I can take every one of these books and show you that there is a message of redemption in each one. That is what the Bible is all about. Redemption through Jesus Christ. You have been challenged to demonstrate the truthfulness of your doctrine simply through the Pauline epistles. Perhaps if it were truly Biblical and you claim that we shouldn't throw any book out of the Bible then (using your logic) I should demand that you demonstrate ME doctrine in every book of the Bible. Will you do that for me. After all every book of the Bible is inspired. Demonstrate your doctrine in every book of the Bible, not just one or two. I can use the same logic as you. You are the one that is throwing out 64 books of the Bible. Don't have much left do you??

 

[Rufus_1611]

Just like the cults I debate with--more ridicule. If you claim to be saved, and a Baptist, can you at least debate like one. I have not torn any Scripture out of my Bible. All Scripture is inspired of God. Do you go to the Book of Genesis to demonstrate ME? How about Leviticus? or Obadiah? or even Philemon? If so, then take these books and demonstrate to me ME doctrine. But I can take every one of these books and show you that there is a message of redemption in each one. That is what the Bible is all about. Redemption through Jesus Christ. You have been challenged to demonstrate the truthfulness of your doctrine simply through the Pauline epistles. Perhaps if it were truly Biblical and you claim that we shouldn't throw any book out of the Bible then (using your logic) I should demand that you demonstrate ME doctrine in every book of the Bible. Will you do that for me. After all every book of the Bible is inspired. Demonstrate your doctrine in every book of the Bible, not just one or two. I can use the same logic as you. You are the one that is throwing out 64 books of the Bible. Don't have much left do you??

I'm not ridiculing. Is it not a truth that you don't think Matthew and Hebrews apply to Christians? Was Tozer ridiculing you when he said a similar thing about you hyperdispensationalists? If not, why is it important to you for us to make an argument without using two books of the Holy Bible? This was a characteristic of Swedenborgianism, where they take out all sorts of books and say it doesn't apply to them...that would be an actual cult and an actual cult characteristic.

 

[Amy.G]

Because it is repeated over and over again it should sink in? I believed that once...does that mean it sunk out?

Evidentally.

 

[lbaker]

Matthew 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.


Just how bigga' ole boy are you any how, Brother Les?

LOL - well I am a pretty good sized old boy, I guess.

But, obviously the kingdom isn't contained within my physical body. Jesus was speaking about the fact that His kingdom is a spiritual kingdom, and is "within" us spiritually. Note that in your quote Jesus says the kingdom is "of heaven", not of the earth.

Les

 

[lbaker]

That could be understood any number of ways that don't require throwing out every verse that shows a literal kingdom with Christ reigning on this earth. But folks would rather grasp on to a 'literal' interpretation of 'within us' and 'spiritualize' the rest of the bible. That is very strange to me.

I don't see my interpretation as being "literal" at all. It is obviously a spiritual "within" that Jesus is referring to. How could anyone's body literally, physically, contain a kingdom, even an earthly one.

Les

 

[DHK]

I'm not ridiculing. Is it not a truth that you don't think Matthew and Hebrews apply to Christians? Was Tozer ridiculing you when he said a similar thing about you hyperdispensationalists? If not, why is it important to you for us to make an argument without using two books of the Holy Bible? This was a characteristic of Swedenborgianism, where they take out all sorts of books and say it doesn't apply to them...that would be an actual cult and an actual cult characteristic.

With this petty little argument, instead of just taking the challenge, you are only proving the point and demonstrating that your ME doctrine is more akin to that of a cult; for you cannot demonstrate it to be true outside of these two books. Right?

 

[Hope of Glory]

I figured on the ridicule once I gave the challenge. You answered in the exact same manner that the Oneness Pentecostal people did when I challenged them to give me a clear presentation of the gospel message without using the Book of Acts. How does one get saved? Tell me without using the Book of Acts. They can't. It is impossible for them to do so because they believe that both baptism and the baptism of the Holy Spirit (evidenced by tongues) are necessary for salvation. And you can't get that doctrine anywhere but the Book of Acts. If your doctrine is confined to only one or two books, then it is cultish. That is the way cults operate. Some cults like J.W..s and even SDA's must rely on the Book of Ecclesiastes for some of their doctrine. Without it they would not be able to prove some of their heresies. And so it goes. If either you are confined to a book or can't do without a book, you are standing on dangerous ground.

Once again, you are alleging something that I never said.

Did I ever say that you could only show it in Acts?

Or, did I simply say that if that's all it's about, then that's all you need?

 

[Hope of Glory]

LOL - well I am a pretty good sized old boy, I guess.

But, obviously the kingdom isn't contained within my physical body. Jesus was speaking about the fact that His kingdom is a spiritual kingdom, and is "within" us spiritually. Note that in your quote Jesus says the kingdom is "of heaven", not of the earth.

Les

The phrase “kingdom of God” appears in 68 verses of the NT and the single word “kingdom” appears 158 times in 150 verses. The majority of the passages on the kingdom can be easily proven by plain reading to be something that is literal and future and we know that it will last a thousand years.

But, there are five main passages in the NT that are used by those who believe that the kingdom of God is simply spiritual and only in the hearts of men rather than a physical, literal, and future kingdom that shall last one thousand years. These passages are: Luke 17:20-21; Romans 14:17; 1 Corinthians 4:20; Colossians 1:13; and Revelation 1:9.

[FONT=&quot]One thing to keep in mind is that these are exceptional passages. A basic rule of Bible interpretation is that if the majority of texts teach one view and there is an apparent exception to the rule that seems to contradict the others, then the proper approach is to consider possible interpretations of that exception that harmonizes with the clearer texts.

This passage in Luke 17 is easily excluded from the list because the more appropriate translation, in almost ever translation and even in the KJV translators' notes is "among you".

So, do we throw out a couple of hundred verses in favor of four, or do we investigate those four to see if they really contradict?

How many contradictions are you willing to accept in Scriptures?
[/FONT]

 

[DHK]

Once again, you are alleging something that I never said.

Did I ever say that you could only show it in Acts?

Or, did I simply say that if that's all it's about, then that's all you need?

No, you misunderstood my post. I used the Oneness Pentecostal cult for an example, who cannot present the gospel except by using the Book of Acts.
In the same way your ME doctrine is defeated if you can't use the books of Matthew and Hebrews, both of which are addressed to a Jewish audience. Just as the Oneness Pentecostal needs Acts, you need Matthew and Hebrews. Your doctrine, as TCGreek pointed out, should be demonstrable through Pauline epistles, or other books of the Bible; not just confined to one or two books of the Bible, if it is a viable Biblical doctrine.

 

[Hope of Glory]

With this petty little argument, instead of just taking the challenge, you are only proving the point and demonstrating that your ME doctrine is more akin to that of a cult; for you cannot demonstrate it to be true outside of these two books. Right?

Yeah, right.

There have only been a few hundred pages that include passages from many, many other books. Maybe Habakuk was omited from the list. But, the threads have gone from Genesis to Revelation.

There was an entire thread on the book of James alone.

You were already asked if we could start a thread on the book of Jonah.

I will have to wait until I expurgate my Bible of Parables, Matthew, and Hebrews before I respond. Oh, perhaps I should rip out James, as well. Then I'll get back with you.

 

[James_Newman]

No, you misunderstood my post. I used the Oneness Pentecostal cult for an example, who cannot present the gospel except by using the Book of Acts.
In the same way your ME doctrine is defeated if you can't use the books of Matthew and Hebrews, both of which are addressed to a Jewish audience. Just as the Oneness Pentecostal needs Acts, you need Matthew and Hebrews. Your doctrine, as TCGreek pointed out, should be demonstrable through Pauline epistles, or other books of the Bible; not just confined to one or two books of the Bible, if it is a viable Biblical doctrine.

Are you saying that you can't contend with the oneness pentacostals without cutting out the book of Acts? You aren't making a whole lot of sense. It seems that, for whatever reason, you think that if we can't show the doctrine out of books that you have approved for official church doctrine, then you have won? Show me any doctrine, and I can just keep requiring you to find another book that teaches it until you run out of scripture and then I can say that proves you are in a cult.