I started a related thread questioning whether or not ME proponents are brainwashed by Joe Faust. This thread is more about the flimsy reasoning they have adopted from Faust. My question is, have you ever seen an ME proponent base his argument on the plain reading of scripture? I'm sure I may have missed such a thing (and feel free to cite references), but here are the patterns I perceive to be most prevalent: 1. ME advocates rely most heavily on parables and analogies. Parables are by nature once removed from reality, because they are stories meant to convey a message. Parables, themselves, are not THE message. Indeed, Jesus even used parables in order to prevent some people from getting the message. 2. ME people draw tenuous connections between other scriptures to parables. For example, one ME argument is based entirely on the idea that goats are clean animals, and then they plug that fact into the parable of the sheep and the goats. This is TWICE REMOVED from the real message because it takes an unrelated fact (that goats are clean animals) and then pretends to establish from this fact that the goats must symbolically represent believers in a parable! It assumes their reading of the parable is correct, which is based on the assumption that their substitution of believers for goats is correct! Does anyone actually believe this is a sound method of establishing doctrine? 3. ME advocates ignore the scriptures that are NOT parables which speak directly against their teaching. What of when Paul says that people who preach another gospel (which is no gospel at all) by works, they should be accursed? This is not a parable. It requires no interpretation. It does not require that you apply any OT law about clean animals to understand it. Yet the ME advocates dance around this scripture and others like it (Romans 8:1, Col 1:13, etc.)! They prefer to establish their doctrine based on parables, symbols, and innuendo. The fact is, you can build just about any bizarre and false doctrine you like on parables, symbols, and innuendo. It's the easiest way to build doctrines on lies and then call it "scriptural". All you have to do is assign whatever meaning you like to the symbols, assign importance to any element you like, and go from there. They are, after all, symbolic illustrations, so you can manipulate them any way you want. That's why it's so easy to take a parable about Jews (the vine) and change it to mean it's a parable about believers. If this is the kind of scripture exegesis Faust encourages, I recommend avoiding Faust like the plague. .