The ME fallacy's false inheritance

[Hope of Glory]

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

Certainly the Pharisees and any like them would be in view here -- 1) unsaved, 2) misguiding, 3) headed for ETERNAL hell/separation.

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.

And where do you make this "outer darkness" out to be temporal hell?

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.

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.

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.

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:..."

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.

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.

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.

find out more about God's program before you hold your millennial exclusion with too stiff a neck

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.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

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.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

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.

 

[npetreley]

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:

46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

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.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

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.

 

[Hope of Glory]

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.

 

[Hope of Glory]

The comparisons made in Matthew 25 are between the saved and the unsaved, not between goodie saved and baddie saved.

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!

 

[DHK]

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.

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

Tozer must now be added to the growing list of courageous, insightful Christians that the Lord used to warn His people about the world to come and the judgment that precedes it. Men such as W.F. Roadhouse, I.M. Haldemane, R.E. Neighbor, D.M. Panton, Oswald J. Smith, Watchman Nee, R.T. Ketcham, and others in the 20th century were able to see that even most of the "fundamentalist" Christians had fallen into a dangerous denial concerning the Judgment Seat of Christ and the Millennial Kingdom (world to come). I agree with Tozer, that salvation by grace through faith alone has been taught in a manner that obscures the Judgment Seat of Christ. However, I would add that by obscuring the warnings as applicable to the saints, many teachers gradually perverted the freeness of eternal salvation. Therefore, we are in such a sad state today that multitudes of professing Christians believe that the Millennial Kingdom is absolutely free, by grace, through faith alone, but that assurance of eternal salvation is gained by long years of struggling in "hard believism," hoping that one day "it will stick" and that they will "really mean it." Such "Christians" will madly proclaim with a red face that there is now no judgment to come, and that they can sin without stripes or exclusion at the Judgment Seat of Christ. Yet, they will then argue that eternal salvation is gained through keeping God's commandments (as long as you do not call keeping God's commandments "works"). Therefore, what God says is a prize, they now see as a free gift. And what God says is a free gift, they now define as a prize! Only the Devil can sow such tares of madness among God's people. Who will awake in the face of the warnings?

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.

 

[Rufus_1611]

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?

I remind you that this whole doctrine has been long obscured, but our Lord Jesus set it forth fully in Matthew 25. Jesus tells the story there of the man who went into a far country and before leaving, called in his three servants. He gave them talents to be held in trust during his absence...Then he said, 'I will be coming back - remember that I have delivered unto you my goods'...Consider that while he was gone they could have done just as they pleased. They could have done what they pleased with the responsibility. But two of them realized that they were actually on probation while the third did not...The master said to the first two, 'You have been faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many.' The third servant, who did not realize that he would actually be on trial during the master's absence, was cast out as an unprofitable servant.

What are you going to do with that passage? I know the ultra-dispensationalist just gets rid of it by saying, 'Matthew does not belong to us in the church.' Well, I would just as soon believe the modernist when he says Isaiah does not belong to us as to believe the dispensationalist who tells us that Matthew does not belong to us.

...How can we argue that our day-by-day service to God and to our fellow men is not being sharply scrutinized and that it will not be severely judged before the feet of Jesus Christ in that great day?...Brethren, there will be no place to hide then. You tried to settle everything in the spiritual life by one act of believing but there are some things that are never settled until death cuts us off or until the Lord comes..."

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?

 

[Amy.G]

Originally Posted by Tozer

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

:laugh:

Couldn't resist.

 

[DHK]

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?

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!!

 

[skypair]

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

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.

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

Well, I use that as an example. I could have said Pope regarding our time. Sorry if that threw you.

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

No, actually Jesus called them as a group "vipers" and said they had not entered the kingdom nor would they let those desiring to enter go in! Now stop, HoG!

Temporal. Limited in duration.

Temporary. OK. And that is what hell out of the Mt 24:46 judgment is -- exactly as you say, temporary and 1000 years duration until the GWT. But then it turns to the lake of fire!

And if believers were raised to the JSOC and sent to hell, would you not consider that to be the 2nd death?? Yet the 2nd death is reserved for those who go into the lake of fire, Rev 20:14-15.

Is outer darkness synonymous with gehenna or is it simply being excluded from the Kingdom?

From the parable (Mt 24:46), I'd say 1) it is hell 2) for 1000 years.

Either way, it's a saved individual who will not spend the rest of eternity in the lake of fire.

You haven't even established that the church is IN this judgment. Why don't you figure that out first?

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

Because all Christ's enemies have already been slain (Rev 19) but Satan is cast into "bottomless pit" just before the judgment of Rev 20:4.

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.

Good! That's insight I didn't have on that!

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.

Yes, and that is why we are in the mess we're in regarding the rapture reading here. Most I've heard say, "They must have had oil -- their lamps lit." But that is not so. The wick will burn for a short while until it is consumed.

Here's the scenario as I see it: The 5 wise go out in the rapture -- the 5 foolish go looking to buy. Two points here: 1) What other judgment does Christ allow those whom He didn't choose to go out again and have a 2nd chance? 2) Where does the Bible tell us what the foolish virgins might have bought in place of the oil? Rev 3:18 -- "gold, white raiment, eyesalve." During the tribulation Laodicea, a church that is ALL left behind, is to buy these in order to be saved!

So the foolish go and buy and come thinking they are part of the church -- but they are not! They try to enter the wedding in heaven -- but Christ "never knew them" as His fiancee/bride!! So they get cast into hell or any such place?? NO. They will appear, whether living or dead, at the Mt 24:46 judgment as sheep (or goats if they didn't convert)!!! Do you see that?

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.

See, you fall into the same "trap" as those who won't see the rapture in this passage fall into. But if this is not the rapture, why does Christ just leave them behind?? Why does He let them off -- let them avoid going straight to hell -- unless they are to stay on earth with another chance??

...and it gives long lists of sins that will exclude a saved person from the Kingdom,

No, it says "unless ye be born again, ye cannot see [or enter] the kingdom..." That's NOT a list of things that keeps you out. It's one thing that let's you in for sure!!

...and it spends a bit of time warning saved people about behavior that will send them to gehenna.

The Mosaic law said that obedience led to receiving temporal (earthly) promises. Same goes now. OT said some trespasses led to physical death (stoing) -- same goes now (sin unto death). NEITHER testament said that believers would be punished after death. Punished on earth if Messiah/Christ comes back?? To the extent they don't obey, they'll get the same treatment as we do -- chastisement in the kingdom (no rain, for example).

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.

No, no. That's "cult leader talk," HoG. That's blame shifting when you are wrong to shift the problem to someone else.

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.

If I didn't think twice about it, I would swear you are in this for YOUR glory. "Rule and reign" indeed! Paul didn't focus on that, did he? The only ones who ever gave a thought to it was John and James mom, Mt 20:21-23. Paul spoke of a "finsih line prize" and NEVER of heavenly punishment.

Seriously -- do you not have any qualms about believing like the Catholics do in this??

skypair

 

[npetreley]

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!!

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.

 

[Rufus_1611]

That is where your presuppositions come in. You have done injustice to one of the most basic principles of hermeneutics.

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

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.

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​

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.

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.

I guarantee you that none of them believed in ME. You can't read into a passage something that is not there.

Did any of them believe in "probation"?

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!!

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

 

[Rufus_1611]

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.

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

 

[Hope of Glory]

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

:laugh:

Couldn't resist.

He's part of the decomposing posters regiment.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Tozer never supported ME and not one of his writings can support such. There is not one writing of his that says he believes that believers will go to hell under any circumstance. Neither has he ever said that the message Christ came to give was the millenium.


Christ came to be a redeemer and to preach redemption. Period

 

[Lacy Evans]

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.

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.

(DHK directly to Lacy) EIREITAD heresy! post270: (Emphasis and coloring mine):

The lie comes in Lacy, when you have added those words:
"I consider that heresy. Salvation is by grace through faith."

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913 + 1828)

Lie (?), n. [AS. lyge; akin to D. leugen, OHG. lugi, G. l\'81ge, lug, Icel. lygi, Dan. & Sw. lögn, Goth. liugn. See Lie to utter a falsehood.]





1. A falsehood uttered or acted for the purpose of deception; an intentional violation of truth; an untruth spoken with the intention to deceive.

It is willful deceit that makes a lie. A man may act a lie, as by pointing his finger in a wrong direction when a traveler inquires of him his road. Paley.​

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

Jeremiah 9:5 And they will deceive every one his neighbour, and will not speak the truth: they have taught their tongue to speak lies, and weary themselves to commit iniquity.

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.

Matthew 5:22-26
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Tozer never supported ME and not one of his writings can support such. There is not one writing of his that says he believes that believers will go to hell under any circumstance. Neither has he ever said that the message Christ came to give was the millenium.


Christ came to be a redeemer and to preach redemption. Period

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

 

[DHK]

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.