The ME fallacy's false inheritance

I'll respond to part of your post, then I have to get back to work.

Why do you assume the Pharisees would have been unsaved? After Jesus died, their rejection of him would have been enough, but pre-cross?

No one can argue that they were misguiding, although they were declared by Scripture to be righteous.

Temporal. Limited in duration.

Is outer darkness synonymous with gehenna or is it simply being excluded from the Kingdom? Either way, it's a saved individual who will not spend the rest of eternity in the lake of fire.

Why do you assume that it's the man of sin who is the "friend" at the wedding feast?

But, yes, because of his damaged right hand and damaged right eye, and the relation of where you can receive the mark of the beast, that's part of why I think the passage warning saved people about gehenna are related to the tribulation period.

Ironically, the "traditional church" usually goes with the KJV reading of "gone out", then interpret that to mean "never lit". Most don't see that they are going out (which is a marginal note in the KJV). But, either way, the "traditional church" tends to see the five foolish virgins as those who weren't really, really, really, truly saved. They were on the "verge" of being saved. Or, their works prove they weren't saved.

But, for their lamps to have been going out, they had to have oil in their lamps, and the passage says they took their lamps.

Why does it have to be an either/or? Sure, someone who doesn't know better needs to be warned about the behavior. But, what about someone who does know better?

By modern standards, the Bible is very negative. Psychologists and psychiatrists always talk about positive reinforcement. And, positive reinforcement is good! (The Bible tells us that we will receive good things for good behavior!) But, the Bible spends a lot more time being negative, warning us about bad behavior. It warns that the unsaved will spend forever and ever in the lake of fire, and it gives long lists of sins that will exclude a saved person from the Kingdom, and it spends a bit of time warning saved people about behavior that will send them to gehenna.

The Bible gives both. Present consequences and future consequences. Why should we omit teaching one or the other when the Bible teaches both.

Funny thing about that is, we're not the ones who concentrate so much on exclusion, as those who don't want to be held accountable for their behaviors do.

Sure, it's a real and future danger, based on present works, that can get us excluded from ruling and reigning, and there are long lists of don't's with warnings about being excluded, but the focus should be on the do's.

The focus should be on the faithful servant who got a return.

But, doesn't mean that we should ignore the one who did nothing, and as a result was punished.

 

Geneva Bible (1599)
GNV Matthew 25:8 And the foolish said to the wise, Giue vs of your oyle, for our lampes are out

The lamps were already out. They took them empty, they took no oil. They foolishly thought they could ride in on the coat tails of the five that were wise.

 

The lamps could not have been going out, for the virgins would not have trimmed them while they were burning. Matthew 25:7 clearly says they all trimmed their lamps. They put the wicks in the proper place and prepared to go to meet the Bridegroom.

 

All the parables in Matthew 25 echo and/or lead up to this statement:

The ME folk can indulge in their vain imaginations about etymology 24 hours a day, but the fact is, this is talking about ETERNAL punishment, and ETERNAL life. It isn't about 1,000 years. The comparisons made in Matthew 25 are between the saved and the unsaved, not between goodie saved and baddie saved.

 

Amen. So says the Word of God. and we know that the Word of God is truth.

 

Verse 4: But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.

In crocks in addition to their lamps.

Verse 8: σβεννυνται Going out. It's something in progress. Present tense. Linear action.

Perhaps you can tell me how they were going out if they were never lit.

 

Your works-based spiritual salvation is heresy!

We're not saved spiritually based on our works!

Works do no enter into whether we are saved or not!

Judgment is based on our works!

 

Ok, I was interested, I read it again. (not the first time).
The only reference to ME was in the editor's remarks here

Even here the editor's remarks do not come right out and say that anyone will be excluded from the MK, only that it must be claimed by hard works. It is a works salvation that is being promoted--nothing new under the sun. Many of the old time theologians promoted a type of faith plus works salvation in explaining "One must work out their own salvation." It is not an uncommon position. There arer plenty arminians on this board that believe the same thing. That is how they interpret James 2. But none of them believe in ME.

 

Do you consider Tozer to be an Arminianist?

The way I read the Tozer essay. He believed the unprofitable servant to be a believer. You may have stated it but what do you do with that passage? Is the unprofitable servant a saved in eternity believer?

 

Wow! I didn't know A.W. Tozer was a member of the BB! I must have missed his posts.

:laugh:

Couldn't resist.

 

That is where your presuppositions come in. You have done injustice to one of the most basic principles of hermeneutics. Never take doctrine from a parable unless it is well established elswhere in Scripture. You are forming new doctrine from parables. That is how cults operate. You assume ME doctrine by the conclusion of a statement of a parable. If I were you I would study that parable out by scholars who lived at his time and find out what they believed. I guarantee you that none of them believed in ME. You can't read into a passage something that is not there. There is no purgatory there unless perhaps you are reading Catholicsim, and even then it may not be there. You are reading what you want to read. Study a bit. Find out what it really means. Don't just assume it means ME. It doesn't!!

 

Sorry, I'm "at work" too -- in Saint Louis on layover without my dear bride, :tear: Looks like I got more time off than you, though. Thanks for taking time.

 

He's also misrepresenting Tozer if he's saying Tozer preached ME. Tozer saw accountability in some of the same places as ME folk, but I get the impression Tozer wasn't even sure what these scriptures meant.

I'm not surprised Tozer was big on accountability, though. He was often very legalistic to the point where he made up logical fallacies to support his conclusions. I recall reading in one book by Tozer that if you're divorced (even if you were divorced as a non-believer), you are not allowed to re-marry as a Christian, period. His reason? It's the (Biblical) law.

But more revaling was his reasoning than his reason. I'll have to paraphrase, but it was something like "If you're saved while you're in jail for theft, they don't let you out of jail just because you're forgiven. You still have to pay your (civil) legal debt."

The problem is that he mixed up the spiritual with the legal, and lost his way en route to getting to the conclusion he wanted (that you aren't allowed to remarry). Using his own reasoning, if you are divorced, then you have already paid the civil legal debt. You are free, according to civil law, to remarry. So it has nothing whatsoever to do with how forgiveness affects your civil life. He's trying to superimpose his understanding of Biblical law onto civil law in order to make his argument, and it simply doesn't work.

Again, this mistake in reasoning is due to his legalistic idea of "how things should be". So it comes as no surprise to me that he'd be equally as "works-oriented" and legalistic about things like the kingdom parables.

 

I have or Tozer did? I thought we were talking about Tozer here?

Oh wow...I get what this is about then. Parables aren't scripture and if you believe they are then you're involved in a cult. What cult was Tozer in? Who is in charge of that hermeneutic principle that says we should never take doctrine from a parable and what scripture do they use for that argument?

"For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:" - Matthew 13:12-14​

Yeah...um...I really don't care what scholars say so much. I'm only focusing on this issue because your side likes to say it's a brand new doctrine or says it isn't a Baptist enough doctrine and no one has ever preached it before accept for certain contemporaries etc.

Did any of them believe in "probation"?

I would appreciate the counsel however, if you were studied on this matter you would recognize that Kingdom Accountability is not purgatory.

 

Did Tozer believe that the unfaithful servant was a saved believer?

 

He's part of the decomposing posters regiment.

 

Here: is the quote and the link. If you don't see it, it's because you are so bent on "winning this debate" that you have forgotten common decency.

Do you see it now? I guarantee my 6th graders know that a deceiver is a liar.

PS. I'll teke that as a "no" DHK that you will not apologize. I publically forgive you and count you as a dear brother in Christ. But I am not the judge.

 

Did Tozer believe that the unfaithful servant was a saved believer?

 

I don't know. He doesn't say. Do you?
The parable seems to be directed to the Jews, as most parables concerning the Kingdom are. Compare Scripture with Scripture. Here is your key:

Matthew 8:11-12 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.
12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

--The children of the Kingdom were the Jews. The Jews rejected Christ. They (like the unprofitable servant) will be cast into outer darkness. This is not your Baptist Purgatory (ME). It has nothing to do with it. This is the same fate as any unbeliever would get: hell and the LOF.
Look at the contrast in Mat. 8:11-12. The Gentiles would come from the east and west and would sit down with the Jewish Patriarchs. They would be the ones in the Kingdom of Heaven.
In verse 12 the ones excluded from the kingdom (but not at the same time or concurrent with the kingdom) are cast into outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. This was the here and now of the time of Christ. It was a message to the Pharisees--to the very ones who were going to crucify Christ. Even if you applied it to the time of the MK, it would be Hell and the LOF, not ME. There is no ME in these Scriptures.