The ME fallacy's false inheritance

That one actually made me laugh out loud! There was an entire thread attacking Tozer of taking this stance!

I guess you can treat it like you do Scriptures, though, and simply ignore the parts you don't like.

How about Govett? Spurgeon gave him high praises for his treatment of the gospel of the Kingdom. Which one of them was the heretic? Govett for preaching it or Spurgeon for supporting him?

Oh, and Govett was writing a century or so before Nee.

 

I asked Amy this question, and it was buried so I bump it up again (Third time now) to see how we should deal with it.

What is the punishment for wilful sin (for one who has "received the knowledge of the truth", has been "sanctified by the blood", and referred to by the Lord as "His people") that is sorer than the OT death by stoning?



Quote:

Hebrews 10:26-30
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

 

First of all, the book of Hebrews was written to Jews who were turning away from the gospel and back to OT Law. It is a warning to them that if they were to go back that there was no other way of salvation. Christ would never come again to offer a second sacrifice.

These people had been there to witness the miracles, signs and wonders of the apostles and KNEW them to be of God, yet some had not yet come to faith in Christ.

To turn away from Christ and go back to the sacrificing of animals was to trample underfoot the Son of God and consider His blood to be unclean.

If they turned away, the only thing they could expect was the judgement of God and the wrath to come.

That's my interpretation.

 

First, you guys claim Tozer as an ME, when clearly by your own words he isn't :laugh:
Then you read what you want to into the passage quoted. There is nothing in that passage that I disagree with. You have just read into it what you want to believe according to your own presuppositions. I actually feel sorry for you.

But I suppose that if Dwight L. Moody can be an SDA, a Oneness Pentecostal, he also could be ME also. RIGHT?

 

I've have heard that answer before.

1) I can't see how it would make anyone feel better about the warning passages to say "Oh that was written to the Jews." Now, with that interpretatiion, Jews either get saved by being good, or else they can lose their salvation if they sin willfully.
2) Heb 3:1, Holy. Brethren. Partakers of the Heavenly calling. "Our profession" (Paul includes himself) Were they saved or lost? There is no such thing as partly saved or almost saved. No division between Hebrew Christians and gentile Christians.
Heb 4:14 We (Paul included) have a great high priest
Heb 4:16 - Who can come boldly before the throne but a saved believer?
heb 10:19-25 -Let us hold fast. Clearly whatever the warning that follows verse 25, Paul includes himself.

Ok if this is true, it should be easily supportable by the text itself. Where do you get this in the book of Hebrews.

So if we do this, what would the punishment be that is sorer than physical death by stoning?

So would they lose their salvation? That would certainly be worse than stoning.

 

That's all you got out of my whole post brother? I worked on all those links for you for a couple of hours. You accused me of being deceptive, hinting that I was just throwing names out there with no support.

I never included Tozer in any list of Millennial Exclusionists. I defy you to find it. He, like Dehaan, was very close and absolutely dead on in the area of accountability. (Free gift vs reward) They had salvation rightly divided. You might tell them they "really believed" in a works salvation too.

But you insinuated that I was lying about all the great men who taught the doctrine, and that Faust, and Hodges made it all up. So I worked half the morning to clear my name of an accused deception.

And all I get is this?

At least say you are sorry, and that you were wrong for acusing me of being deceptive. That would be Christian debate,

Lacy

 

You gave a list of names that are supposed to be ME theologians. The one you tout the most is Govett.
After reading through one of his sermons on the kingdom, here is his conclusion:

There is nothing there about suffering outside of the Kingdom for a thousand years. Where do you get this stuff from. It is deceptvie for you to say that these people believe in a Baptist Purgatory when they don't.


​

 

I don't think you actually read my post. The people that were being warned (not sure if Paul wrote Hebrews or not) were on the edge of salvation and starting to turn back to the Law. If you say they were already saved, then you believe one can lose or forfeit their salvation. You can't apply your soul salvation theory to it, because that only exists in your mind, not reality.

 

I have about 20 books by Robert Govett on my shelf. If I take the time to type up the quotes, will you then apologize for implying that I am lying (deceiving folks) It's a really Sweet way to call me a liar, something which you went on and on about. You even threatened Hog with kicking him off the BB if he kept calling you a liar. I have never called you a liar. But deceiver and liar are synonymous terms are they not?

I doubt you'll apologize, but that would be the Christian way to debate.

Robert Govett, Baptism, The Kingdom of God, And Eternal Life (Norwich: A,J. Tinley) p31.


(Emphasis mine)
"

Robert Govett, Entrance Into the Millennial Kingdom, Four letters to J.T. Molesworth, (Norwich: Fletcher & Son. 1883), 5-6.


(emphasis mine)

 

From 2. "Reward According to Works" Which I already posted and YOU SAID you read.

​

​

 

I read every word I just don't get it? How does their nationality help your cause?

That's what you keep saying, but why do you say that? Can you provide scriptural evidence?

Also is being "on the edge of salvation" even a Biblical concept? what does it even mean? Are they sorta-saved? Half-saved? Again where is this in the text?

First of all there is no "IF". They have "recieved the knowledge of the truth." They have been sanctified by the blood. And they were called "God's people". The conclusion of the passage is "The Lord shall Judge His people",

Secondly, there is a punishment that a saved person can receive that is sorer than death. It's in Heb 4:11 and Heb 12: 16, 17; and Matt 5:20; and Mark 9:47; and acts 14:22; and 2 Pet 1:10, 11;

So it isn't necessarily true that they "lost their salvation"

No. It existed in Govett's mind too.:laugh: :laugh:

Lacy

 

OK let's continue.

Now DHK says

Of course it wasn't in the original (Hog's post #206). That's why it was untrue when you claimed that he said it in YOUR Post 223.


I certainly didn't add anything. I just cut and pasted from your post #223 word for word.


You say (Post 223) (DHK's post where he misquotes HoG)(Emphasis not mine)

You then quote where HoG supposedly says it. Post 206 HoG's original post (emphasis not mine)

Now I'm lying? All I did was find the disputed posts.

You have called me a liar twice today. That's not really the Christian way to debate.

1) I supposedly was deceiving folks about Govett. I provided the quotes and the source info to prove my sincerity (If you're not going to apologize, just say so and I'll move on with life)
2) I quoted you word for word and the proof is there but you say I lied and misquoted you. I quoted you misquoting HoG.

Why do you want me to be a liar so badly?

 

I cannot find anywhere in this thread where DHK called you a liar.

He used the word deceptive, but that is not necessarily calling you a liar. A magician using sleight of hand is deceptive, but he has not lied.

From Websters 1828 Dictionary:
DECEP'TIVE, a. Tending to deceive; having power to mislead, or impress false opinions; as a deceptive countenance or appearance.

I don't see the word liar there at all.

 

I don't want to call you a liar; deceptive yes; but not a liar.
Just as the SDA's infer the Moody is one of their own, and just as the Oneness Pentecostals claim that Moody is one of their own, you claim people all the way from Govett (whom I just read) to Tozer and Hudson Taylor and Spurgeon as siding with your theology. All of it is ridiculous, and not true.
Because Moody preached on the Sabbath, he suddenly became an SDA.
Because Tozer preached on the JSOC and accountability he suddenly became a believer in the 20th century form of Kingdom Theology.
Just because Govett is able to expound on Revelation, and preaches on the MK, it does not mean that he believes in the ME, like you fellows do.

The fact is that you read into other peoples' writings what you want to believe and then post these people's names as ones who beleive the same that you do. And that is deceptive and not true.

 

Let's take a look at his quotes, shall we?

 

OK, I Guess It's "Double Up" Time

Here's my OP brought over as a "peace offering" to ME.

 

Follow Up -- HoG

Good! "Book of Life" (who's saved) and "book of works" (what they did) 2 different things.

The JSOC in heaven post-rapture CONCERNING US obviously does not divide saved from unsaved. As you suggest, you can't even get there unless you are saved. You do believe in and know about the rapture, right? You know that we would appear there in our FINAL glorified bodies, right? These are not some "trash" that God has to get rid of -- they are Christ's bride!

And the "works" judged there are your basic 1Cor 3:9-15 works -- those built on the foundation of Christ and the apostles -- YOUR materials with which YOU built (or better, what you "learned" and "taught," turth or error) "gold, silver, precious stones" or "wood, hay, stubble."

Goats are "clean" but goats are leaders in OT symbology. In fact, the Jews used to let the goats lead the sheep out to graze (much as the Phairsees were supposed to do with the people). Certainly the Pharisees and any like them would be in view here -- 1) unsaved, 2) misguiding, 3) headed for ETERNAL hell/separation.

And where do you make this "outer darkness" out to be temporal hell? Did you mean "temporary?" or "Gehenna" temporal -- outside Jerusalem for 1000 years?

Don't ignore the rest of the parable, HoG. They are cast into outer darkness because they did not give a child nor stranger (the least of these) water, food, clothing, and visitation (witness to them) during the tribulation (Mt 25:40).

I think AC could use that little tidbit of information, don't you? That appears to be AC's injury (Zech 11:15). That could be part of his deception -- that it has happened so that he and his "followers" with him may enter into the kingdom. And we further suspect that he shows up at the postrib "wedding feast" (Mt 22:12-13)! Perhaps he convinces his followers to take his own "marks" in their hand and head.

But God's OT concept of it was for NEW Jerusalem of the MK -- gehenna outside it, Isa 66:24. It is interesting to note that in OT parlance, "new heavens and new earth" are the MK of Christ whereas in the NT, "New Heavens and New Earth" are God's ETERNAL kingdom on earth.

That is the CONSTANT objection of the "traditional church" you despise and outright denies what GOD has said, HoG. "Re-manufacture" it however you will, Mt 25:3 says "They that were foolish took their lamps, and took NO oil with them:..." Now if you've figured out a better way to tell it than Christ, then perhaps you have, what for YOU is, a better religion than He was offering. But I'm gonna say that what He said is pretty clear to me and it ain't "works" in view here but "Holy Spirit." It's not works that gets you "out to meet" the Groom Who is coming for us, it's the Holy Spirit.

Double AMEN to that. I tried once to get the jackals to back off but they smell for blood rather than for the nature of the misuderstanding. But we are aware of Satan's devices, aren't we? We try instead to make all the Bible agree with itself when it appears to teach divergent truths. What might help is for you to "picture" things as you imagine we do, study our assertions, and see where our "nugget of truth" comes from.

I think the focus needs to be on WHO we are accountable to. We are accountable to God for sins against Him and man. These, we confess/agree with God. That is the beginning of making ourselves right. It is God that gives us the power to escape sin and God has a process for that which you are trying to subvert. His process is to

1) convict our conscience of sin (that our actions displease God and/or others). YOU are not likely to get a saved African to quit his adulterous life that is tribal custom without getting that into his conscience where he communes with God -- so don't spue out warnings of a future loss, tell him about the impact it has on this life so he can prove it for himself.

2) He sends a witness confirming what He convicted us of (which IS where you come in -- but not with condemnation, friend [remember to be careful with what you build on Christ's foundation], but with practical testimony of the harm of sin in this life and the possible ostracism from the fellowship, THIS kingdom, 1Cor 5:5.

3) He sends loss -- loss of health, honor, or wealth. As Solomon said, "By humility and the fear of the LORD are riches, and honour, and life." Prov 22:4 Or Prov 3:16 -- "Length of days is in her right hand; and in her left hand riches and honour."

4) Calls the wayward "ambassador" home, "sins unto death."

You know where men got involved in condemning men? When one man laid another down in his gutter to see who was the tallest (old Adrian Rogers-ism). Man comparing himself to man and not to God is all that is. Taking the mote out of another's eye without taking the log out of your own. Listen to me, HoG, find out more about God's program before you hold your millennial exclusion with too stiff a neck to turn and see the truth. I've been praying for you.

skypair

 

If you are interested in this topic it's worth your time. You can find it here.

If you were truly interested in this topic you would care.

That's nice but surely you are not saying Hope of Glory said this? Hope of Glory was pointing out that Spurgeon had a great deal of respect for the doctrines preached by the guy you couldn't care less about.

 

Haven't you figured out yet that all they can do is twist and distort what is said? It helps them puff up their chests and say, "See! I really showed him!" It's easier than using truth.

Oh, and can't forget to throw in the forbidden "h" word, either, since certain people seem to be immune from following the BB rules.