The ME fallacy's false inheritance

[Rufus_1611]

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.

Alright, so be it...you believe it applies to the Jews. I believe Tozer was speaking against this heresy.

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.

 

[npetreley]

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

This verse, all by itself, is most telling. How can they be rejected from the kingdom (as ME states) and still be called children of the kingdom?

 

[Lacy Evans]

I don't want to call you a liar; deceptive yes; but not a liar.


. . . you claim people all the way from Govett (whom I just read) to Tozer and Hudson Taylor and Spurgeon as siding with your theology.

This is funny. I think I would like to go another round.

Can you please tell this deceptive deciever exactly where he EVER said Spurgeon or Tozer were millennial exclusionists? If not, THEN WHO IS TRYING TO DECEIVE WHO?

As far as Govett and Taylor, I already provided the direct quotes. It is not even questionable. Both believed that a saved Christian could be excluded from the Kingdom.

 

[James_Newman]

This verse, all by itself, is most telling. How can they be rejected from the kingdom (as ME states) and still be called children of the kingdom?

Ears to hear but he hears not.

 

[DHK]

Ears to hear but he hears not.

The physical children of Abraham who should have inherited a kingdom rejected the kingdom and were cast into outer darkness. How hard is this to see.

He came to his own (the Jews--the children of the kingdom); and they received him not.
But as many as received him to them gave he power to become the sons of God even to them that believe on his name.

Which ones inherited the kingdom?

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

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

Never seen that of him more importantly did he ever write that save believers born again Saints will spend eternity in hell under any circumstances. Unless you can provide that quote you are just trying to prop up your heresy with nothing.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Never seen that of him more importantly did he ever write that save believers born again Saints will spend eternity in hell under any circumstances. Unless you can provide that quote you are just trying to prop up your heresy with nothing.

He said...

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..."

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

 

[Lacy Evans]

Never seen that of him more importantly did he ever write that save believers born again Saints will spend eternity in hell under any circumstances. Unless you can provide that quote you are just trying to prop up your heresy with nothing.

So which part of our doctrine is, in your opinion, heresy?

• That a Christian, if disobedient and unrepentant, is subject to very serious negative reward at the JSOC? (Tozer, Dehaan,)
• That that punishment may include being excluded from reigning with Christ during the Millennium? (this is the line for ME -AE Wilson, H Taylor, Hodges, C. Stanley)
• Of the the one excluded will be cast into outer darkness/The underworld/Hell for the duration of the Kingdom? (Govett, Lang, Nee, SS Craig, Faust, Myself, etc.)

I personally have never included Tozer or Dehaan in the ME camp. And no one in these discussions (AFAIK) has ever tried to claim either taught the hell part. However I find their views on Christian accountability very refreshing and edifying.

My point is that not all MEers (I doubt even all of the ones here on the BB) teach the Hell part. So some we claim as ME proponents were just that. they taught that a Christian could be excluded from the Millennial Kingdom.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

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

Not at all. It sounds like he believed the saved person could lose their salvation.

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..."

 

[Rufus_1611]

So which part of our doctrine is, in your opinion, heresy?

• That a Christian, if disobedient and unrepentant, is subject to very serious negative reward at the JSOC? (Tozer, Dehaan,)
• That that punishment may include being excluded from reigning with Christ during the Millennium? (this is the line for ME -AE Wilson, H Taylor, Hodges, C. Stanley)
• Of the the one excluded will be cast into outer darkness/The underworld/Hell for the duration of the Kingdom? (Govett, Lang, Nee, SS Craig, Faust, Myself, etc.)

I personally have never included Tozer or Dehaan in the ME camp. And no one in these discussions (AFAIK) has ever tried to claim either taught the hell part. However I find their views on Christian accountability very refreshing and edifying.

My point is that not all MEers (I doubt even all of the ones here on the BB) teach the Hell part. So some we claim as ME proponents were just that. they taught that a Christian could be excluded from the Millennial Kingdom.

I'm not running for any office and I endorse this message. Well said.

 

[DHK]

He said...



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

Why do you try to argue from the point of a parable? It doesn't matter. We don't know. Here is his conclusion of the matter. And that is what does matter:

..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..."

That conclusion can be taken a number of ways.
I can agree with it without reading into it your theology.
So why do you read into a person's writings things that are not there?

 

[Rufus_1611]

Not at all. It sounds like he believed the saved person could lose their salvation.

Very well. Since this is obviously not the case as AW Tozer taught the eternal security of the believer...what was he talking about?

"To escape the error of salvation by works we have fallen into the opposite error of salvation without obedience.” - AW Tozer​

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

So which part of our doctrine is, in your opinion, heresy?

• That a Christian, if disobedient and unrepentant, is subject to very serious negative reward at the JSOC? (Tozer, Dehaan,)
• That that punishment may include being excluded from reigning with Christ during the Millennium? (this is the line for ME -AE Wilson, H Taylor, Hodges, C. Stanley)
• Of the the one excluded will be cast into outer darkness/The underworld/Hell for the duration of the Kingdom? (Govett, Lang, Nee, SS Craig, Faust, Myself, etc.)

I personally have never included Tozer or Dehaan in the ME camp. And no one in these discussions (AFAIK) has ever tried to claim either taught the hell part. However I find their views on Christian accountability very refreshing and edifying.

My point is that not all MEers (I doubt even all of the ones here on the BB) teach the Hell part. So some we claim as ME proponents were just that. they taught that a Christian could be excluded from the Millennial Kingdom.

I can just say that we as saints disagree in the exlusion Part. To say that believers will be in hell is complete heresy. To say that the message Jesus came to preach is the millenium is heresy.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Why do you try to argue from the point of a parable? It doesn't matter.

Parables matter.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" - 2 Timothy 3:16​

Why do you cast out scripture you don't understand?

We don't know. Here is his conclusion of the matter. And that is what does matter:

Only those that see but see not and hear and hear not can not know.

"Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." - Matthew 13:13​

That conclusion can be taken a number of ways.
I can agree with it without reading into it your theology.
So why do you read into a person's writings things that are not there?

I have not done so.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Very well. Since this is obviously not the case as AW Tozer taught the eternal security of the believer...what was he talking about?

"To escape the error of salvation by works we have fallen into the opposite error of salvation without obedience.” - AW Tozer

​

I dont know but it doesnt sound like ME either. Where did he write that Saints will be excluded in any way?

 

[DHK]

Parables matter.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" - 2 Timothy 3:16​

Why do you cast out scripture you don't understand?
Only those that see but see not and hear and hear not can not know.

Don't put words in my mouth and misconstrue what I said. Now you are the one say silly and ridiculous things. I think you know very well that I was referring to the conclusion of a parable that you keep harping on supposedly quoted by Tozer. I have told you before, and I tell you again, that to determine doctrine out of parables without evidence from other NT teaching leads to heresy. That is how the cults operate and that is how you are operating! Leave it!!

"Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." - Matthew 13:13

So leave it. Your eyes are darkened that you cannot see the meaning of the parable, and yet you go on and on about it.
​

I have not done so.

If I can read that passage and agree with it fully, then it becomes obvious that you are reading into it whatever you want.
"There is no God." (Psalm 14:1)
Read into Scripture whatever you want.

 

[James_Newman]

Don't put words in my mouth and misconstrue what I said. Now you are the one say silly and ridiculous things. I think you know very well that I was referring to the conclusion of a parable that you keep harping on supposedly quoted by Tozer. I have told you before, and I tell you again, that to determine doctrine out of parables without evidence from other NT teaching leads to heresy. That is how the cults operate and that is how you are operating! Leave it!!

So let it be written! So let it be done!

So leave it. Your eyes are darkened that you cannot see the meaning of the parable, and yet you go on and on about it.
​

If I can read that passage and agree with it fully, then it becomes obvious that you are reading into it whatever you want.
"There is no God." (Psalm 14:1)
Read into Scripture whatever you want.

Or ignore what you don't like/can't explain.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Don't put words in my mouth and misconstrue what I said. Now you are the one say silly and ridiculous things.

You had better apologize Rufus. Putting words in someone's mouth is not nice.

 

[DHK]

So let it be written! So let it be done!

Or ignore what you don't like/can't explain.

James I have explained it. You can go back in the posts and read my explanation. But I am weary of the same question beng continually asked. I am also weary of a method of interpretation of parables that is hermeneutically incorrect and is popular with cults. It upsets me greatly when I see this going on. It tells me that people are not studying their Bibles but only following blindly the teachings of a man. That is a pity.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

From what I have seen the last few days concerning the ME trash, its proponents are only on here to question God's Holy Word and mock His people.