The ME fallacy's false inheritance

[James_Newman]

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.

It is obvious from his writing that Tozer believes there is something being taught in that parable that must be dealt with as a believer. Why don't you show the scripture that teaches us not to get doctrine from parables, since you think we don't study our bibles enough.

 

[Lacy Evans]

To say that the message Jesus came to preach is the millenium is heresy.

I wouldn't say that was his only message, but it seems to be his primary one.

What do you think about all the folks who came up to him and asked if he was at this time going to restore his Kingdom? Do you think they understood it to be a "spititual kingdom"?

I think they were thinking clearly about the promised Messianic Kingdom. And if the Kingdom Jesus preached was primarily something else, then why did he never correct his followers who wanted to know about the Kingdom?

Matthew 20:20-23
20 Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.
21 And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.

Here was a golden opportunity for Jesus to explain that the Kingdom wasn't the Millennial Messianic Kingdom that the Jews were expecting (but rather the church, Heaven, God's rule in our hearts, etc.)

22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.

But instead he explains that somebody will sit on his Left and Right in the very Kingdom that they are expecting (Although it was the Father's place to determine who.)

 

[Rufus_1611]

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

It hinges on what you believe he was referring to relative to the unprofitable servant. I believe all three servants were Christians, I believe this is what Tozer was pointing out. Others, apparently believe the servants were Jews or that we're not to even to bother trying to understand a parable or establish doctrine from a parable(not that one comes to an Accountability belief off of this one passage anyway). If you believe that the servants in question are believing, saved Christians, then what?

The first two servants are rewarded for the faithfulness...

"His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord." - Matthew 25​

...and that reward includes being made ruler over many things. I believe the faithful servants will be rewarded by ruling in the millenial kingdom.

The third servant is rewarded for his lack of faith and his lack of profit...

"And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." - Matthew 25:30​

The question then becomes what is outer darkness and if we believe in OSAS we have to ask when will this unfaithful servant enter Heaven?

Tozer doesn't address these questions of duration and specifics of outer darkness etc. but he does suggest that the 3rd servant is a Christian and he is speaking to Christians when he asks...

What are you going to do with that passage?

Which is a very poignant question. For every Christian must do something with that passage. Now, you can say it applies to the Jews or don't worry about it, it's just a parable. However, Tozer speaks in opposition to the ultra-dispensationalist just getting rid of it and saying it doesn't apply to us.

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.

I am not saying that Tozer said out loud he believed Christians were going to spend 1,000 years in hell. However, I do believe he was sounding a warning to unfaithful, unprofitable Christians and I do believe that he believed that the servants of Matthew 25 were Christians. Once you establish this, then the question is "What are you going to do with that passage?"

 

[standingfirminChrist]

I think they were thinking clearly about the promised Messianic Kingdom. And if the Kingdom Jesus preached was primarily something else, then why did he never correct his followers who wanted to know about the Kingdom?

Maybe you should stop thinking so hard and let the Spirit reveal the truth.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Matthew 25 is not speaking about Christians. As has been pointed out previously (and apparently ignored), it is dealing with tribulation.

The Christians are no longer on the earth during that period. They have been raptured.

 

[DHK]

It is obvious from his writing that Tozer believes there is something being taught in that parable that must be dealt with as a believer. Why don't you show the scripture that teaches us not to get doctrine from parables, since you think we don't study our bibles enough.

Here are some guidelines from my own notes:

"A narrative, fictitious but agreeable to the laws and usages of human life, by which either the duties of men or the kings of God, particularly the nature and history of God's Kingdom are figuratively portrayed." (Trench on Parables)
It is an earthly story taught to present a spiritual truth.

How to Interpret a Parable.
A. Use common sense.
B. Treat God's Word reverently.
C. Accept everything as essential except that which when held mars the parable.
D. Find the central teaching. Everything which illuminates it is essential.
E. Notice the introduction and the application which are given. Always interpret a parable in its context.
F. Make the interpretation natural and easy, maybe not to discover, but so after discovered.
G. Do not use parables to teach doctrines. They may be used to strengthen the doctrines.
H. Always interpret the unknown in the light of the known.
I. Do not force your ideas into a parable.
J. Be sure your interpretations do not contradict other parts of the Bible.

 

[James_Newman]

Here are some guidelines from my own notes:

"A narrative, fictitious but agreeable to the laws and usages of human life, by which either the duties of men or the kings of God, particularly the nature and history of God's Kingdom are figuratively portrayed." (Trench on Parables)
It is an earthly story taught to present a spiritual truth.

How to Interpret a Parable.
A. Use common sense.
B. Treat God's Word reverently.
C. Accept everything as essential except that which when held mars the parable.
D. Find the central teaching. Everything which illuminates it is essential.
E. Notice the introduction and the application which are given. Always interpret a parable in its context.
F. Make the interpretation natural and easy, maybe not to discover, but so after discovered.
G. Do not use parables to teach doctrines. They may be used to strengthen the doctrines.
H. Always interpret the unknown in the light of the known.
I. Do not force your ideas into a parable.
J. Be sure your interpretations do not contradict other parts of the Bible.

OK, maybe Trench can give us a scripture since you can't.

 

[DHK]

It is obvious James from the very word "parable" itself, that it was never meant to teach doctrine. It is a story, an illustration. It is used to illustrate doctrine that has already been taught. We don't get doctrine from parables. Parables always illustrate previously taught doctrines. They are illustrations that let in the light of the doctrine that is being taught. They don't teach the doctrine.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Don't put words in my mouth and misconstrue what I said.

My apologies if I misconstrued what was said. I thought you were saying parables weren't profitable for doctrine and they required other scripture to make doctrine.

Now you are the one say silly and ridiculous things.

If you say so.

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.

Supposedly? Are you now questioning the authenticity of the quote?

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.

Right and when I asked you who this hermen guy is that sets these rules and what scripture he uses for this argument, you said what?

That is how the cults operate and that is how you are operating! Leave it!!

Define cult and how I am part of one and I will consider your counsel. By the traditional definition I am party to a cult, by the contemporary definition you are in error.

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)

There is a God.

Read into Scripture whatever you want.

Respectfully, that is not very wise counsel.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

I wouldn't say that was his only message, but it seems to be his primary one.

What do you think about all the folks who came up to him and asked if he was at this time going to restore his Kingdom? Do you think they understood it to be a "spititual kingdom"?

What they were looking for is not an indication of what Christ was preaching. They were Jews who were not looking for the humbel servant. Clearly they missed that part in Isaiah 53. But thanks for proving my point.

I think they were thinking clearly about the promised Messianic Kingdom. And if the Kingdom Jesus preached was primarily something else, then why did he never correct his followers who wanted to know about the Kingdom?

He did time and time again. John 3 is a clear example of this.

Here was a golden opportunity for Jesus to explain that the Kingdom wasn't the Millennial Messianic Kingdom that the Jews were expecting (but rather the church, Heaven, God's rule in our hearts, etc.)

Did you miss the part where He died on the cross?

[/quote]But instead he explains that somebody will sit on his Left and Right in the very Kingdom that they are expecting (Although it was the Father's place to determine who.)[/quote]

Well thanks for the scripture on that... anyway maybe you should take a look at Isaiah 53.


Why do you think saved Jews were willing to crucify Him?

 

[DHK]

Here is an example:
Luke 18:1-2 And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;
2 Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man:
The truth being taught is that men ought always to pray, and not to give up praying. To illustrate that truth he gives a parable, an illustration from vs. 2-8 of the unjust judge.

 

[James_Newman]

It is obvious James from the very word "parable" itself, that it was never meant to teach doctrine. It is a story, an illustration. It is used to illustrate doctrine that has already been taught. We don't get doctrine from parables. Parables always illustrate previously taught doctrines. They are illustrations that let in the light of the doctrine that is being taught. They don't teach the doctrine.

Really? I think you ought to be able to provide specific examples from scripture to show that parables always illustrate previously taught doctrines. And then tell me what the previously taught doctrine that is being illustrated in that parable is.

 

[James_Newman]

Here is an example:
Luke 18:1-2 And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;
2 Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man:
The truth being taught is that men ought always to pray, and not to give up praying. To illustrate that truth he gives a parable, an illustration from vs. 2-8 of the unjust judge.

That is a great example, lets look at it.

Luke 18:1-8
1 And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;
2 Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man:
3 And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary.
4 And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man;
5 Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.
6 And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith.
7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?
8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

The judge is a figure for God. The woman is a figure for a believer crying out to God. The avenging is a figure for... avenging!

 

[npetreley]

The Pharisees and many (if not most) of the Jews of Jesus' day:

1. They were self-righteous and convinced they had to earn their way into the kingdom through works.

2. They enjoyed their positions of power and privileges of their positions, especially when it meant they could judge others.

3. They were so focused on the physical and political kingdom that they missed the truth of the Bible and did not recognize Jesus for who He really is.

Sound like any folks you know?

 

[Lacy Evans]

Matthew 25 is not speaking about Christians. As has been pointed out previously (and apparently ignored), it is dealing with tribulation.

I will defer to AW Tozer:

From Echoes of Eden Ch 9

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.

The Christians are no longer on the earth during that period. They have been raptured.

That's a wonderful story. If you back it up with scripture I might buy it.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Maybe you should stop thinking so hard and let the Spirit reveal the truth.

Do you believe the Spirit reveals truth by not thinking very hard?

 

[James_Newman]

Do you believe the Spirit reveals truth by not thinking very hard?

Like those charismatic guys who get scared when you get them thinking and it starts making sense. They just shut their brains off and denounce you as having a devil.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

This thread has gotten completely off topic.

 

[James_Newman]

This thread has gotten completely off topic.

We aren't allowed to start any new topics.

 

[Rufus_1611]

This thread has gotten completely off topic.

You think the thread has gotten completely off topic or the spirit revealed that to you?