The ME fallacy's false inheritance

DHK,

Brother. The respect that I once had for you is being slowly chipped away with each of your posts. Joey Faust is not the founder of Kingdom Accountability and J. Jump has repeatedly demonstrated how he became a kingdom accountability believer outside of the teaching of Pastor Faust. Your continual attacks on Faust without attacking Tozer, Govett, Nee, etc. and play it as though this is some brand new doctrine, demonstrates that you desire to keep this on some sort of personal level against Faust rather than objectively focus on scripture, doctrine and historical teaching. As Lacy pointed out in another thread approximately 50% of The Rod: Will God Spare It addresses what teachers of old said about this doctrine. To say that Joey Faust is the founder of this "aberrant theology" is either the epitome of disingenuousness or the epitome of intentional ignorance. Regardless, I know Joey answers his emails so if you need to personalize this matter with Joey you can send him an email at [email protected].

As to the continued use of "heretic" and "heresy" etc. I thought we had perhaps moved passed this after direction was provided by BB leadership here.I get that my Christian "brethren" like to call people like me who believe in the King James Bible and believe in Kingdom Accountability as being cultic, parasitic, heretics etc. I've gotten used to it as name calling is just part of the sick game that some seem to like to play. Further, I suspect my pastor has also gotten used to being labeled a heretic and so many other names by his "brethren" that he's likely callused from these stripes as well.

Yet now you have gone to a brand new level as you are going to suggest it is abhorrent for him to have the intestinal fortitude to call himself a Baptist. What Joey Faust teaches about the Kingdom is straight from the word of God. If his doctrine is heretical then I am a heretic. If he is to be questioned as to whether or not he is Baptist enough for you, then you can throw that same question my way. Perhaps, you can provide me with a checklist so I can ensure that I'm a Baptist? Maybe, I'm not a Baptist after all as I sure am starting to not feel real friendly to a whole bunch of 'em right about now.

Regardless, none of the above had anything to do with your conversation with J. Jump and J. Jump has nothing to do with Kingdom Baptist Church and did not come to a belief in Kingdom Accountability through Joey Faust. For two years I sought a Bible believing, non-501c3 church. I interviewed or visited over 50 churches in my area and gave up the hunt until my wife sent me an URL for a country church named Kingdom Baptist church and a preacher named Joey Faust. At the time, I was an Arminian and the heresy I thought he'd be preaching was eternal security but by the grace of God we went to that church anyway. The Biblical doctrine that Joey preaches is the only one that I have ever encountered that harmonizes the Bible. It is the only one that settles the Calvinism vs. Arminianism strife. It is the only one that allowed me to believe in OSAS and the only one that allowed me to call myself a Baptist. If you need someone to rail on Joey or Kingdom Baptist church to...I'm your huckleberry not J. Jump or better yet, I would refer you again to [email protected]. In the meantime, if you're all about scripture and are so opposed to philosophy, then how 'bout you stick to scripture and leave Mr. Faust out of your arguments, unless of course your scriptural arguments are not strong enough and you require a distraction to help you along.

 

I already showed you from scripture that the promises of an inheritance are conditional. I showed you direct NT verses that laid out the conditions, both positive and negative.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1066929&postcount=56

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1068316&postcount=202

I showed you OT pictures of men who lost the promised inheritance, and the matching NT applications of some of those same stories..

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1068298&postcount=194

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1068712&postcount=44

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1068316&postcount=202

Exactly what foundation are you looking for?

Love, -Lacy

 

We got one guy debating with people he is ignoring, but apparantly peeking.

We have another guy debating with a brother that isn't even a BB member.

And we're the crazy ones?

 

Oh no he didn't!!!!!:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

"I'm your huckleberry" is my line. We'll just have to make huckleberry pie!!!

I was sitting across the coffee table from Joey arguing, fighting questioning, wrestling, and praying over every imaginable facet of this doctrine, before he ever even thought of writing a book.

Quite frankly, he might admit to "getting it from me" as much as I "got it from him." Perhaps not, he's a little stubborn. But I guarantee, he didn't come up with it. That is a crock!

We poured over old books, Govett, Pember, Nee, Lang, Hudson Taylor, SS Craig, etc.

And most of all we went to war, night after night for months and months, with open Bibles in hand. No one here on the BB has ever once come up with an argument that we didn't consider with great prayer, study and counsel.

So disagree with us! Prove us wrong, We've been wrong before (We used to believe exactly like some of you:laugh: )But please stop with the rhetoric.

Lacy

 

Faust disseminates this doctrine more than any other person I know. I personally believe he is the originator of the current form of what is being propagated. I have never heard of such doctrine in all my years of ministry and I have read many books. I have a personal library of over 2,000 books and many by Tozer. I challenge you to demonstrate to me that Tozer believed such heresy. And throughout this post only I will use the word heresy. If another mod wants to edit me for the use of the word I give him permission to do so. It is not a Baptist doctrine.

I refrain from calling people names. I edited one poster who called someone idiotic insane, etc. I don't do that. I will call a spade a spade. It it is heresy I will say so, but I will refrain from calling you a heretic. As to Dr. Bob's statement I would prefer that you pm him and ask him if he believes that the ME doctrine is actual heresy or not.

If he believes this heretical doctrine than no doubt he will have to get used to it. Many KJVO believers have to put up with the same thing unfortunately. BJU puts out a tract on Ruckmanism declaring it to be a cult, for example.

You can deduce that if you like but it is not necessarily so. You may be misled, mistaken, fooled into someone espousing false doctrine, etc. We had someone on the board that once believed it was not necessary to believe in the deity of Christ to be saved. He eventually changed his mind with a bit of teaching. Should I have called him a heretic, even though his belief was heretical. No, he was untaught in the word.

Any doctrine that denies the atonement, the sufficiency of the blood of Jesus Christ, lends itself to a works salvation is heretical. And that is what ME doctrine does. It is therefore heretical, and we are trying to make you see this. I believe you are blinded to these truths but once your eyes are opened perhaps you will change your mind. How can a denial of the atonement be a Baptist doctrine? It is not!!!!

If you like I can leave Faust out of the discussions unless people ask about the source of the heresy. It is not Biblical which can easily be proved. Some of the statements that have been made are so far out and ridiculous that I have just ignored. They need no rebuttal. All can see on their own that the doctrine makes no sense when garbage is posted. I mean what I say. In other cases I will refute what I see when I have the time.
BTW, there are two many threads running on this topic, so don't be surprised if you see some of them being closed. They need to be amalgamated into just one or two, and people need to expand their interests into other areas of theology. One of the administrators has thought about putting this doctrine into the Other Denominations Forum, because it isn't Baptist.

 

It is inherently Baptist. It sprang out of the same nest as dispensationalism, premillenialism, and modern eschatology/prophesy. I can list many Baptists that taught it 100-200 years ago and many that teach it now. The only other group (besides baptists) I can associate it with at all were the Brethren, who were baptistic except in polity. (SS Craig was a Lutheran, but he is the exception) These Baptists and Brethren who championed ME were respected pastors, missionaries, and authors.

Know your history.

It's funny.

• You have Baptists that teach "eternal security" with little or no accountability.
• You have Baptists that believe if a man doesn't show enough fruit, he was "never saved" (Backloaded).
• You have Baptists who believe you have to "repent" and by that they mean you have to attain to a certain level of holiness before you can even be saved) -frontloaded.
• And you have Baptists who believe that a Born again believer can lose his salvation and fry in the LOF for 1000 years then a Kazillion-times-a-kazillion times more.

But we're the heretics who aren't worthy to debate with those Baptists (according to some moderators).

Love, -Lacy

 

There are plenty of people who claim the name Baptist who have doctrines that are in error, but that does not make them Baptists.

Anyone who believes that the blood of Christ is not sufficient to wash all sin away and save us from the wrath of God in totality, believes a different gospel than the one Jesus and Paul preached. It does not belong in the Baptist only section of the board at the very least. My personal opinion is that it doesn't belong on the board period. And since I've been a member, it has crept into almost every discussion to one degree or another. And even though I have spent a lot of my time debating the error of it, I would like a safe place to post where I would not be constantly confronted with it, because when confronted, I am compelled to defend what I believe is the one and only true gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

And my personal opinion is that you're arguments are much too subjective and emotional. We both have opinions.

Our position on the blood of Christ's suffiency is as total as total can be. Where we disagree is not on the blood's power but rather its application.

We don't plead the blood to try to get us out from under fileal discipline. You just think the discipline is too severe.

Since my thread got zapped, I'll ask the question here. How severe does the scripture say it can get. Much sorer than being stoned to death.

 

This doctrine is inherently Baptist.

I had never heard of most of these men until the last few years, and I still haven't read much of their material.

But, know what? They used to teach it at Dallas Theological Seminary.

They used to teach it at Louisville.

One of the churches that asked me to come pastor is even Southern Baptist, although they joined many years ago when the gospel of the Kingdom was being taught in Southern Baptist circles.

Many other churches that I am in contact with are Baptist specifically because the gospel of the Kingdom is traditional Baptist doctrine. But, as the Baptist denomination moves further and further from the truth (such as backloading works into salvation or removing accountability from a saved person's life), many of them are dropping "Baptist" from their name entirely. (But, the vast majority are still Baptist. Although I have now encountered Kingdom believers in other denominations in the past year, and they became believers by simply reading what the Scriptures say, and both of them have now been accused of being "Baptists in sheep's clothing" by the higher ups in their particular denominations.)

I've been accused of following Faust, but AFAIK, I"ve never met him, and I've not read his book (although it is on my "to read" list). I have simply looked at what Scriptures say, removed the man-made traditions from the mix, and have apparently come to almost identical conclusions.

I didn't read Craig's works until the last few years. I still haven't read extensively from Tozer, Govett, Nee, nor any of the others listed, and what I have read has only been in the last few years.

In one argument a while back, it was suggested that I read some commentaries. Someone else who learned the gospel of the Kingdom from commentaries was admonished to only read the Bible.

One telling fact is that you cannot defend your position without lieing about ours. We teach that you are born from above by simply believing (plus nothing), and that's it! You teach that a saved person will have certain works. Yet you accuse us of teaching a works-based salvation.

If you don't believe the gospel of the Kingdom, that's fine; God has given us free will. But, don't intentionally distort what we have said to match your theology. That's disingenious at best. If you think the Kingdom is synonymous with being born from above, and we obviously don't, when we say works are involved with an entrance into the Kingdom, if you say, "See! You're teaching a works-based spiritual salvation!" That's a lie. It's intentionally misrepresenting what is being said.

 

Why won't you answer my question?

What happens if you don't confess your sins?

 

You have my vote to move such threads into Other Denominations, even the ones I've started.

 

I have answered this before.

If we don't confess our sins, then we have a broken relationship with God, but we don't lose our salvation.

I even compared it to marriage. If you sin against your wife your felloship with her is broken but you don't magically become divorced. The marriage covenant is not nullified, but the fellowship between you is broken. In order to restore the relationship, you must confess and ask forgiveness. If you love her, you will do this.

When we sin against God, our fellowship is broken but He does not remove our salvation. If we love Him we will want to restore our fellowship with Him.

If there is no desire to confess our sin, then we do not have the Spirit within us, we are not saved.

If you need scripture to confirm this, just read all the verses about eternal security. Nothing can separate us from the love of God. No one can snatch them out of My hand. We are sealed for the day of redemption.....and many, many more.

Also read the Psalms as David writes about how his heart is broken over his sin against God. "Restore to me the joy of my salvation".

A believer will be miserable when he sins and will want to restore the fellowship he once had with God. But, if he is not miserable, then he is not a believer but only a pretender.

 

But you may have to spend 1,000 nights in outer couchness.

 

Ouch!
:laugh:

 

Amen, Amy, and I see no reason to complicate these simple truths of Scripture. :thumbs:

 

So, we agree on this!

Now, what are the consequences of not confessing your sins?

 

Forgive me for my skepticism Lacy. I have a large library of books and am well read, especially in biographies. I challenge you to demonstrate that Hudson Taylor believed such garbage.
This thelogy is new to the scene. It comes from Zane Hodges, Joseph Dillon, Robert Wilkin, and Joey Faust--all contemporary figures. That makes it a 20th century doctrine. Your use of other historical figures, theologians, evangelists, missionaries, etc., is deceptive at best.

For example, The SDA's claim Dwight L. Moody as one of their own. They claim that his beliefs on the Sabbath are almost identical as theirs. Therefore he also must be SDA. Will you accept their word on that?

The Oneness Pentecostal (now banned for their heretical beliefs), also claim Dwilght L. Moody as one of their own. They claim that he was charismatic just as they are. Are you going to accept their word on that?

Then excuse me if I don't accept your word when you tell me that such people as Tozer and Hudson spouted off Kingdom Theology doctrine, when in fact, it is a 20th century doctrine, its implications never heard of up until this day.

 

I'd love to see those quotes too.

 

(emphasis mine)

Again you judge my heart. I appreciate the skepticism. I really do. All you would have to do is leave off the part about me being "deceptive" and you would be debating like a Christian.

I have three shelves of kingdom writers. I promise I haven't named anyone I can't quote and tell where I got the quote.

I have provided links on numerous occasions to the original sources available on line.

Why not study more, and judge my heart less.

ROBERT GOVETT (1813-1901)

1. "The Gift and the Prize"

2. "Reward According to Works"

3. "The Millennial Kingdom - One of Reward"

"Mr. Govett wrote a hundred years before his time, and the day will come when his works will be treasured as sifted gold." Charles H. Spurgeon​

"One of the profoundest [works of Revelation] that I know of is the work of Robert Govett. My own opinion is that he brings to his interpretation a more thorough knowledge of the Scriptures in their bearing on the last book of the Bible than any other writer of his generation." Dr. Wilbur M. Smith​

"Few men could equal Govett for originality of thought. He also possessed a well-ordered, disciplined mind. He could trace a theme through Scripture with unerring logic." Dr. Cyril J. Barber, The Minister's Library​

"Reared in Staines, Middlesex, Robert Govett entered Worcester College, Oxford, in 1830, and after graduation was awarded a life fellowship in 1835. Ordained (1836-37), he became curate at St. Stephen's Church, Norwich, where his preaching attracted great crowds until in 1844 he confessed that he had forced his conscience on the matter of infant baptism and forthwith resigned his curacy and his fellowship. Most of the congregation left the Church of England and made Govett their pastor; services were held in Victoria Hall, Norwich, and by 1848 he had baptized 300-400 former Anglicans. Surrey Chapel, Norwich, was opened in 1854, and Govett ministered there to the end of the century. This nondenominational church still flourishes."
"Govett's writings are extensive, of varying quality, and often marked by a high level of scholarship, a superbly logical approach, extraordinary originality, and complete faithfulness to biblical revelation. Much concerned with eschatology (Apocalypse, 1864, and other works), he held that much of the Book of Revelation is to be understood literally." R. E. D. Clark, The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, J. D. Douglas, general editor, page 426.​

​

G. H. LANG (1874-1958)
1. "Inheriting or Being Disinherited"
2. "The Wedding Breakfast (Matt.22:1-14)"

D. M. PANTON(1870-1955)
1. "The Day of Justice"
2. "The Judgment Seat of Christ"
3. "The Two Justifications"

SS Craig (1855-1936) The Dualism of Eternal Life

Tozer was not a Millennial Exclusionist, as far as I know. However he did have salvation and accountability properly divided. There was a whole thread devoted to this subject. If you have Echoes From Eden, please read Chapter 9, "Our Accountability to God: Justified, Saved - But on Trial"

Here are some excerpts.