Tartanarmy,
Have you and I been reading the same forum?
Proof Regeneration Precedes Faith
Well we both agree with your statement. But prior work/drawing is not the same as regeneration.Traveler wrote:Sean
You won't believe the Gospel unless there has been a prior work of the Spirit upon you! "No one can (no ability) come to Me except the Father draw him". I don't think Jesus could have made it any simpler.
Peace.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)
-
_tartanarmy
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:26 pm
- Location: Australia
Steve, I do believe we are both reading the same forum, but for the life of me, I cannot understand some of your unreasonable assertions, and that is exactly what they are, assertions.
Not exegesis Steve, and as someone hoping to engage in a debate, take what I am saying as something which might help you engage in a debate.
Why dont you lay it out for us here.
What is your argument for faith precedes regeneration and how do you refute the Calvinist understanding?
Or
Prove libertarian free will from scripture. If you can prove libertarian free will from scripture, I will immediately become an Arminian.
No! I will become an Open Theist.
I am serious by the way.
If you can prove libertarianism from scripture, my Calvinism will self destruct immediately.
Mark
Not exegesis Steve, and as someone hoping to engage in a debate, take what I am saying as something which might help you engage in a debate.
Why dont you lay it out for us here.
What is your argument for faith precedes regeneration and how do you refute the Calvinist understanding?
Or
Prove libertarian free will from scripture. If you can prove libertarian free will from scripture, I will immediately become an Arminian.
No! I will become an Open Theist.
I am serious by the way.
If you can prove libertarianism from scripture, my Calvinism will self destruct immediately.
Mark
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Alrighty then, I made several observations about multiple passages in this post:tartanarmy wrote:
If I have missed something (Sean?) please forgive me and patiently re--present what I missed. When threads get longer, I kind of loose track at times. I am not deliberately ignoring anything
Mark
http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.ph ... c&start=67
You did not respond to what I stated, but instead posted this:
Sean, for your consideration,
Several texts from 1 John demonstrate that regeneration precedes faith...
I read this response and I don't see how this helps. First, it doesn't explain the texts I provided in the link above. But more than that, your view seems to contradict itself. Let me explain;
1 John is written to believers. It is meant to edify those who are already saved. And yes, I've already read your objection to this conclusion from your forum. The passages hold true and do not contradict my understanding.
"Every one practicing righteousness has been born of Him"
"Every one believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God"
How true! This is how we can know who is truly walking in the faith.
I would argue that pressing this back to the point of conversion is beyond the scope of the context and intent of the epistle. 1 John is written to give assurance to believers. John is explaining what people can perceive. Is it really possible to perceive the moment someone believes (either before or after regeneration)? No matter what view you hold, these passages from 1 John hold true. Pressing one possible interpretation at the expense of other passages on the same subject just doesn't convince me.
So Finally, to piece this all together you have stated that regeneration must come first because (Rom 8:8) Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. And you state that faith would please God, making regeneration necessary since it brings faith.
This is where I'm at a loss to understand the reformed position. I'll first state what I believe is your assertion as simply as I can so I don't confuse myself. :)
-Those in the flesh cannot please God
-Faith pleases God
-Regeneration produces faith, this pleases God
-Repentance occurs, this pleases God
-These things are righteous actions that please God (per 1 John 2:29)
-The Holy Spirit is given to dwell in this previously regenerated person
If this is so, then it seems to contradict one of your own cited texts.
Rom 8:8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
Paul defines one who is "in the flesh" as one who does not have the Spirit of God dwelling in them!
So being consistent to your system, regeneration produced faith would not be enough to say exegetically that one is pleasing to God. It's not regenerated faith that pleases God, it's the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Something we both already agree on comes after faith.
So I don't see how even the 1 John texts you cite help, since they contend that one who is born of God is practicing righteousness, yet Paul states it's the one who has the Spirit dwelling in them that is not in the flesh and is pleasing to God. The fact is that these are the same event. Being born of God is receiving the Holy Spirit.
It doesn't seem that regeneration, in the Calvinist use of the term, fits the context of what the bible states as "pleasing to God". Instead, it's the indwelling of the Spirit and being led by it is what is pleasing to God.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)
Mark (Tartanarmy),
This forum is full of lengthy posts where I have, at one time or another, exegeted almost every verse that you and the other Calvinists have brought up. If you go back to the earliest threads of this forum, you will find many of your objections answered by myself, or by others. If I am not taking the time at this late stage in the dialog to re-exegete every text, it is due to a combination of factors:
1) I, or others, have already addressed the passage previously;
2) I am too busy to spend time repeating what has been said at length earlier;
and/or
3) The Calvinists (in many cases, yourself) have neglected to interact with the earlier exegesis.
I have perceived a fundamental difference between most of the Calvinists who post here and myself. Namely--
With reference to myself,
1) I am here to give the most responsible biblical answers of which I am capable to people's questions. If a person has honest difficulties with the answers I give, I don't mind clarifying or defending a point that was not adequately supported in my earlier answer. Having stated and proved my case, I am not interested in, nor do I have the time for, endless, repetitious bickering. I actually have nothing to prove. I give the answers that I find in scripture, and leave it to the presumed integrity and intelligence of my reader to take or leave my conclusions. It does not matter to me if the reader leaves agreeing with me or not. I have no theological hobbyhorses and no ax to grind. My interest is in the whole counsel of God, and I attempt to understand the biblical teaching on many subjects not impacted by the Calvinist debate. Calvinism is one of the least important topics in my hierarchy;
2) I have very little time in my life to spend on the internet. I come here to fulfill an obligation which is laid upon me as a teacher, who has a lot of people asking me questions. I come here, answer as best I know how, and then go about my business elsewhere. The internet is perhaps the smallest avenue of ministry in my life;
3) My answers are not regurgitating arguments or interpretations from books and favorite speakers. I have not reached my conclusions other than by personal searching and studying of the scriptures themselves. I spent the first thirteen years of my ministry reading almost nothing but the Bible. About 80% of my present ideas took shape during that season. The remaining 20% of my ideas were shaped through the sixteen years that I was obliged to teach verse-by-verse through the Bible at the Great Commission School. The points I raise in discussion are almost always those that were formulated in my own private meditation and study of the text itself. From time to time, I will repeat a cogent point that I have heard from another teacher or author, but I do not care to repeat unexamined arguments, and will not repeat another man's argument unless it fits admirably the pattern of truth that I have arrived at in my own study of the Bible itself;
4) I have no interest in attacking people. I do not perceive myself as being at war with other Christians.
By contrast, some Calvinists seem to exhibit an entirely different mindset, one with which I cannot relate:
1) They discuss only Calvinism, as if it is a subject of prime importance (e.g., have you posted under any other topic at this site?). One would think that Calvinism was the gospel itself, judging from the emphasis placed upon it by some;
2) They have an great deal of time on their hands to hang out-on internet message boards--here and elsewhere. It makes me wonder when they find time to have a life. I don't mean to judge motives, but the impression I receive from observation is that some people have little opportunity to be heard in real-life, relational settings, and the internet provides their only opportunity to get themselves "published." With many such people, my impression is that there would be no other medium that would print what they have to say, or how they say it;
3) It seems as if the Calvinists who post here are repeating canned arguments and "proof texts" that they have read or heard from other Calvinists. It often appears as though they have done little personal study of the actual Bible, and did not come to their understanding of these texts simply by reading the passages in their biblical context with an understanding of the author's flow of thought. When it is obvious that they are misusing a text, and when this is pointed out to them, they generally do not answer the relevant criticism, but simply move on to the next proof text in their list. As I pointed out in an earlier post, it reminds me of arguing with Jehovah's Witnesses. They follow exactly the same rhetorical procedure--no answers to cross-examination. After a while, people who care more to know the truth and to show respect to the scriptures look for more responsible correspondents;
4) It is clear that most (though not all) of the Calvinists who show up at this forum are on the attack. They seem incapable of engaging in charitable dialog about the things of God. Those who disagree with them are the enemy, who must be demolished at all costs. A couple of notable exceptions would be David and Jugulum. There may be others I am forgetting.
It is apparent that you and I perceive the nature of the dialog here quite differently. If you and I are reading the same threads, and seeing things so differently, then it must be something about our eyes that is different. One of us is apparently blind, or hallucinating. Whether that person is you, or whether it is me, is a matter that we do not seem to be able to agree upon. Regardless of which of us may be the blind one, the presence of this condition either in you or in me would seem to make dialog futile. Don't you agree?
This forum is full of lengthy posts where I have, at one time or another, exegeted almost every verse that you and the other Calvinists have brought up. If you go back to the earliest threads of this forum, you will find many of your objections answered by myself, or by others. If I am not taking the time at this late stage in the dialog to re-exegete every text, it is due to a combination of factors:
1) I, or others, have already addressed the passage previously;
2) I am too busy to spend time repeating what has been said at length earlier;
and/or
3) The Calvinists (in many cases, yourself) have neglected to interact with the earlier exegesis.
I have perceived a fundamental difference between most of the Calvinists who post here and myself. Namely--
With reference to myself,
1) I am here to give the most responsible biblical answers of which I am capable to people's questions. If a person has honest difficulties with the answers I give, I don't mind clarifying or defending a point that was not adequately supported in my earlier answer. Having stated and proved my case, I am not interested in, nor do I have the time for, endless, repetitious bickering. I actually have nothing to prove. I give the answers that I find in scripture, and leave it to the presumed integrity and intelligence of my reader to take or leave my conclusions. It does not matter to me if the reader leaves agreeing with me or not. I have no theological hobbyhorses and no ax to grind. My interest is in the whole counsel of God, and I attempt to understand the biblical teaching on many subjects not impacted by the Calvinist debate. Calvinism is one of the least important topics in my hierarchy;
2) I have very little time in my life to spend on the internet. I come here to fulfill an obligation which is laid upon me as a teacher, who has a lot of people asking me questions. I come here, answer as best I know how, and then go about my business elsewhere. The internet is perhaps the smallest avenue of ministry in my life;
3) My answers are not regurgitating arguments or interpretations from books and favorite speakers. I have not reached my conclusions other than by personal searching and studying of the scriptures themselves. I spent the first thirteen years of my ministry reading almost nothing but the Bible. About 80% of my present ideas took shape during that season. The remaining 20% of my ideas were shaped through the sixteen years that I was obliged to teach verse-by-verse through the Bible at the Great Commission School. The points I raise in discussion are almost always those that were formulated in my own private meditation and study of the text itself. From time to time, I will repeat a cogent point that I have heard from another teacher or author, but I do not care to repeat unexamined arguments, and will not repeat another man's argument unless it fits admirably the pattern of truth that I have arrived at in my own study of the Bible itself;
4) I have no interest in attacking people. I do not perceive myself as being at war with other Christians.
By contrast, some Calvinists seem to exhibit an entirely different mindset, one with which I cannot relate:
1) They discuss only Calvinism, as if it is a subject of prime importance (e.g., have you posted under any other topic at this site?). One would think that Calvinism was the gospel itself, judging from the emphasis placed upon it by some;
2) They have an great deal of time on their hands to hang out-on internet message boards--here and elsewhere. It makes me wonder when they find time to have a life. I don't mean to judge motives, but the impression I receive from observation is that some people have little opportunity to be heard in real-life, relational settings, and the internet provides their only opportunity to get themselves "published." With many such people, my impression is that there would be no other medium that would print what they have to say, or how they say it;
3) It seems as if the Calvinists who post here are repeating canned arguments and "proof texts" that they have read or heard from other Calvinists. It often appears as though they have done little personal study of the actual Bible, and did not come to their understanding of these texts simply by reading the passages in their biblical context with an understanding of the author's flow of thought. When it is obvious that they are misusing a text, and when this is pointed out to them, they generally do not answer the relevant criticism, but simply move on to the next proof text in their list. As I pointed out in an earlier post, it reminds me of arguing with Jehovah's Witnesses. They follow exactly the same rhetorical procedure--no answers to cross-examination. After a while, people who care more to know the truth and to show respect to the scriptures look for more responsible correspondents;
4) It is clear that most (though not all) of the Calvinists who show up at this forum are on the attack. They seem incapable of engaging in charitable dialog about the things of God. Those who disagree with them are the enemy, who must be demolished at all costs. A couple of notable exceptions would be David and Jugulum. There may be others I am forgetting.
It is apparent that you and I perceive the nature of the dialog here quite differently. If you and I are reading the same threads, and seeing things so differently, then it must be something about our eyes that is different. One of us is apparently blind, or hallucinating. Whether that person is you, or whether it is me, is a matter that we do not seem to be able to agree upon. Regardless of which of us may be the blind one, the presence of this condition either in you or in me would seem to make dialog futile. Don't you agree?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_tartanarmy
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:26 pm
- Location: Australia
How condascending Steve!
About the only thing you said which I agree with is
That is true. My views are hated and would really struggle to get an audience for sure.
I will leave you to get on with all of your "other" important work.
I do not just post on Calvinism, see my other sites where I speak about all kinds of things.
The fact I have posted in threads here about Calvinism, and then proceed to address Calvinism, seems rather consistent don't you think?
Even the Arminians are staying on topic! but I wouldn't accuse them of what you are accusing some Calvinists, nor would I accuse them of teaching that Arminianism is the gospel etc. It is a cheap shot.
You do not even want to encourage me as a fellow brother, in that you decidedly give praise to some other Calvinists here, but deliberately make no mention of me! Is that supposed to endear me to you?
As far as rhetoric is concerned, you are the one who prods for a response and we Calvinists try to show restraint, and for some of us, that particular grace comes a wee bit more easilly.
You accused Calvinists of reading other peoples hearts earlier on and then you sarcastically respond to me by asking if we are both reading the same thread!
Maybe in your mind you think you are being humble or whatever, as some of your above response tries very hard to communicate, but I am not quite seeing it myself.
My biggest problem with you is your constant making of assertions without exegesis. I wonder if you know technically what exegesis actually is, and I do not say that to be harsh, I just do not see it anywhere.
You presupose Libertarianism in EVERYTHING you write, and therefore, me asking you for proof of libertarianism in scripture is a simple enough request, or one would think so.
I also do not mind repeating what I passionately believe hundreds of times if I have to, and I must say, perhaps I have more time than you set aside for such an endeavour, but please do not condascend to think that "whatever" else you are doing "away from the Internet" is qualatively so much more important than what some others might be doing on the Internet.
It says more about what you are trusting in than what you or I or anyone else may be doing in His service.
I get really fed up when other Christians bag others who dedicate much time, passion and energy in the "lesser" service of Internet forums as if what they are doing is the "real" work.
Smacks of pride to me.
I am just glad and thankful to know that God has people here, there and everywhere in between, and has no class system in place!
Mark
About the only thing you said which I agree with is
With many such people, my impression is that there would be no other medium that would print what they have to say, or how they say it;
That is true. My views are hated and would really struggle to get an audience for sure.
I will leave you to get on with all of your "other" important work.
I do not just post on Calvinism, see my other sites where I speak about all kinds of things.
The fact I have posted in threads here about Calvinism, and then proceed to address Calvinism, seems rather consistent don't you think?
Even the Arminians are staying on topic! but I wouldn't accuse them of what you are accusing some Calvinists, nor would I accuse them of teaching that Arminianism is the gospel etc. It is a cheap shot.
You do not even want to encourage me as a fellow brother, in that you decidedly give praise to some other Calvinists here, but deliberately make no mention of me! Is that supposed to endear me to you?
As far as rhetoric is concerned, you are the one who prods for a response and we Calvinists try to show restraint, and for some of us, that particular grace comes a wee bit more easilly.
You accused Calvinists of reading other peoples hearts earlier on and then you sarcastically respond to me by asking if we are both reading the same thread!
Maybe in your mind you think you are being humble or whatever, as some of your above response tries very hard to communicate, but I am not quite seeing it myself.
My biggest problem with you is your constant making of assertions without exegesis. I wonder if you know technically what exegesis actually is, and I do not say that to be harsh, I just do not see it anywhere.
You presupose Libertarianism in EVERYTHING you write, and therefore, me asking you for proof of libertarianism in scripture is a simple enough request, or one would think so.
I also do not mind repeating what I passionately believe hundreds of times if I have to, and I must say, perhaps I have more time than you set aside for such an endeavour, but please do not condascend to think that "whatever" else you are doing "away from the Internet" is qualatively so much more important than what some others might be doing on the Internet.
It says more about what you are trusting in than what you or I or anyone else may be doing in His service.
I get really fed up when other Christians bag others who dedicate much time, passion and energy in the "lesser" service of Internet forums as if what they are doing is the "real" work.
Smacks of pride to me.
I am just glad and thankful to know that God has people here, there and everywhere in between, and has no class system in place!
Mark
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hello Sean,
Your response:
"Well we both agree with your statement. But prior work/drawing is not the same as regeneration".
How so? Jn:6:44 seems to make clear that this particular drawing work of the Father results in being "raised" on the Last Day by Jesus. Sounds like a regenerative act to me. Now I am no student of Greek. But I wrote a note in my bible taken from a bible study that the word "draw" iin Greek is "elko". The instructor of the class said elko means to 'compel by irresistable authority'. Jn 6:37-40. "All that the Father gives me WILL COME TO ME...I shall LOSE NONE...my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day". The order here seems to place the emphasis upon the prior drawing of the Father which results in 'looking to the Son' and therefore the one drawn- believes. How is my understanding incorrect?
Peace
Bob
Your response:
"Well we both agree with your statement. But prior work/drawing is not the same as regeneration".
How so? Jn:6:44 seems to make clear that this particular drawing work of the Father results in being "raised" on the Last Day by Jesus. Sounds like a regenerative act to me. Now I am no student of Greek. But I wrote a note in my bible taken from a bible study that the word "draw" iin Greek is "elko". The instructor of the class said elko means to 'compel by irresistable authority'. Jn 6:37-40. "All that the Father gives me WILL COME TO ME...I shall LOSE NONE...my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day". The order here seems to place the emphasis upon the prior drawing of the Father which results in 'looking to the Son' and therefore the one drawn- believes. How is my understanding incorrect?
Peace
Bob
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Mark,
I did not intend to offend you by not listing you among the exceptions to my general statement. The statement was, in fact, about you primarily. Do I expect that to endear me to you? Not particularly. Is that supposed to be my goal? Are your posts calculated to endear you to others? I did not come here looking for friends. I am interested in speaking the truth in love. Whether this endears people to me should not be on my list of concerns.
You say that the only place you can be published is the internet because (as you put it): "My views are hated and would really struggle to get an audience for sure." Perhaps I should play the part of a true friend and tell you a little secret. It isn't your views that are unpublishable or offensive to audiences. There are hundreds of published authors (some of them very popular) who proclaim just the same views as yourself. It is the chip on your shoulder that repels audiences.
You wrote:
"The fact I have posted in threads here about Calvinism, and then proceed to address Calvinism, seems rather consistent don't you think?...Even the Arminians are staying on topic! but I wouldn't accuse them of what you are accusing some Calvinists, nor would I accuse them of teaching that Arminianism is the gospel etc. It is a cheap shot."
I don't know what subjects you may have addressed at other forums. All I know is that the Calvinism issue is the only one that throws your switches here. The Arminians, as you say, have done pretty well in staying on-topic in this Calvinist forum. However, almost all of them can be found posting at a dozen other forums here, on subjects unrelated to the Calvinism/Arminianism controversy. I have seen no evidence of anyone having an Arminian hobbyhorse here. I can't search the internet to discover all the other websites where you post, but I can scan your name at this site and see scores (perhaps hundreds) of posts from you, invariably, in the Calvinism section. From the evidence you have given us of your interests, this would seem to be an obsession. What I can't figure out is, why you think it so important.
I don't know how you choose your priorities, but I will share how I choose mine. If a certain area of study makes me more loving, humble and Christlike, I wish to devote my attention to that subject. Calvinism is certainly not one of those subjects, as seems to be demonstrated (at least to me) by your attitude and obsession with this topic.
It seems to me that Calvinism only is important if it is untrue. This seems paradoxical, but here is my reasoning:
If Calvinism is untrue, but is believed, it may lead to a number of behavioral problems related to a fatalistic outlook. I have known people who concluded that they must not be of the "elect" since they had sought hard for God and not yet come to know Him. Believing that God loved and elected some, but not others, led these people to discontinue their attempts to find God. To you, this may simply mean they were indeed not elect, but to me, this means that a false doctrine discouraged them from believing that God is the rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Sometimes Calvinism has the opposite effect, causing someone to assume himself to be "elect" with the result of giving a false sense of security, and a slackness in Christian obedience. I do not say that all Calvinists succumb to such imbalances, but many do, and it can generally be traced to their views about election. That is why I say that Calvinism is important only if it is not true. As a false doctrine, it can generate bad fruit.
On the other hand, if Calvinism is true, it is unimportant. It has no practical ramifications that do not equally inhere in non-Calvinism. Both Calvinists and Arminians can glorify God, can live holy lives, can be humble and faithful disciples, and can love God and their brethren. Calvinism does not contribute anything distinctly to these ends. All Calvin provides is a theory about what was going on behind the scenes that led to our conversion. Obviously, a person may be converted, and live a Christian life without having any such knowledge of these "behind the scenes" activities of God.
Calvinists often say that Calvinism is valuable in keeping the saint humble (about his depravity, apparently), but I have not necessarily seen this fruit in most of my Calvinist correspondents, so I think Calvinism must exert very little influence in this direction.
Some Calvinists say that Calvinism alone can provide assurance of salvation. However, this doctrine is quite capable of delivering a false assurance as easily as a genuine assurance. To a logical and humble person, it would seem that believing in Calvinism must inhibit any full assurance of salvation, since that doctrine teaches that any present evidence of regeneration ultimately may be proved imaginary by the failure to die faithful (many cases can be produced of people who had exemplary evidences of salvation, early in life, but who apostasized and died in unbelief).
As I have said elsewhere, if believing Calvinist doctrines were essential to our spiritual well-being, it seems strange that so many believers prior to Augustine lived in ignorance of these doctrines, and yet often showed remarkable sanctity and martyr's courage. If it is an important doctrine, why did Jesus and the apostles never speak clearly enough about it to allow the first ten generations of Christians to see it in their teachings?
You wrote:
"My biggest problem with you is your constant making of assertions without exegesis. I wonder if you know technically what exegesis actually is, and I do not say that to be harsh, I just do not see it anywhere."
This makes a good point. We all talk about exegesis here, but we have never set out a definition. We may be speaking past each other when we use this word, all the while assuming different definitions. Here are three sources that define the word for us:
Miriam-Webster Dictionary:
"EXPOSITION, EXPLANATION; especially : an explanation or critical interpretation of a text."
Oxford Dictionary:
"Critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially of scripture."
Wikipedia:
The word exegesis can mean explanation, but as a technical term it means "to draw the meaning out of" a given text. Exegesis may be contrasted with eisegesis, which means to read one's own interpretation into a given text. In general, exegesis presumes an attempt to view the text objectively, while eisegesis implies more subjectivity.
One may encounter the terms exegesis and hermeneutics used interchangeably; however, there remains a distinction. An exegesis is the interpretation and understanding of a text on the basis of the text itself. A hermeneutic is a practical application of a certain method or theory of interpretation, often revolving around the contemporary relevance of the text in question.
Traditional exegesis requires the following: analysis of significant words in the text in regard to translation; examination of the general historical and cultural context, confirmation of the limits of the passage, and lastly, examination of the context within the text.
I think many Calvinists believe that exegesis primarily involves detailed analysis of Greek words and tenses. However, this is only necessary when the English version gives a false sense through poor translation. In a good translation, most biblical texts can be easily understood without an advanced knowledge of the Greek language. Occasionally, a translation is incorrect or unclear. In such cases, analysis of Greek vocabulary and grammar becomes essential to exegesis. However, the Greek language is just as capable of manipulation by a teacher as is English.
In the vast majority of texts, the best exegesis is to consider the various contexts of a passage: 1) the immediate context, involving the sentences before and after the passage, so as to follow the author's flow of thought; 2) the context of the whole book in which the passage is found; 3) the context of all the writings of the same author; and 4) the context of the whole Bible.
The whole range of hermeneutical principles provides the tools for exegesis--not just Greek grammarical analysis. One might expect me to disparage3 the importance of such Greek analysis, since I am not a Greek scholar. However, it is clear that people in the first centuries of Christianity (who all spoke Greek as their native language) were capable of disagreeing about the meaning of many texts (and even disagreeing with the way modern Calvinist Greek scholars interpret them). This should demonstrate that correct understanding of the Bible does not depend upon knowledge of Greek alone, or primarily.
In your saying that you exegete texts and that I do not, I am at a loss to know what examples you may have in mind. Can you point me to an example of your exegesis in any part of this forum? In my answers, I attempt to show why the text should be understood the way that I represent it. In the process, I analyze the context (and the Greek, when necessary) and apply normal rules of hermeneutics. By contrast, it seems to me that you simply run a string of verses, assuming that they teach whatever you have in mind, and do not make an effort to show that they have the meaning you assign to them. Here is an example of one of your typical presentations of evidence (Found at http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=1756&start=0. Each series of dots represent an elipsis where you quote a passage you were critiquing):
.....
Parallel = Everyone ever born is the poor innocent recipient of this thing called Original sin from our first parents Adam and Eve. Poor children.
Text to consider
Psa 58:3
The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from the womb, speaking lies.
.....
Parallel = All sinners are not only poor unfortunate sinners, but they have a tendency to follow the pattern of their fallen parents in rebellion against God.
Text to Consider
Rom 1:29-32
being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; being full of envy, murder, quarrels, deceit, evil habits, becoming whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, insolent, proud, braggarts, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, perfidious, without natural affection, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous order of God, that those practicing such things are worthy of death, not only do them, but have pleasure in those practicing them.
......
Parallel = The Supreme Ruler so respects mans will that He only offers a cure to those who will eat the cure. He will not force anyone to take the cure. Such would be ungentlemanly, wouldn’t it?
Text to Consider
Isa 61:1
The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is on Me; because Jehovah has anointed Me to preach the Gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
Eze 11:19
And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you. And I will remove the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them a heart of flesh,
......
Parallel = God is expected, or demanded to save everyone! Grace is not grace, it is expected!
God must save everyone if He has the power to do so. Salvation is not an act of mercy but a deed demanded by the guilty.
Text to Consider
Rom 9:15 For He said to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion."
Rom 9:18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will, He hardens.
.......
Parallel = Condemnation is not justified, nor hell deserved for all men without exception!
Text to Consider
Rom 9:19-23
You will then say to me, Why does He yet find fault? For who has resisted His will?
No, but, O man, who are you who replies against God?
Shall the thing formed say to Him who formed it, Why have you made me this way?
Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel to honor and another to dishonor?
What if God, willing to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction; and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy which He had before prepared to glory;
........
Parallel = God must save everyone if He has the power and ability to do so.
He has no right to withhold grace. He has no right to save some and condemn the rest, when He has every right to condemn all...
He has absolutely no right to have mercy on whomever He decides to show mercy.
We reject that God, preferring a God who lets us decide for ourselves if we will be saved or not, even though we cannot save ourselves. Even though we hate God and spit in His face, and would hang Him on a cross all over again, especially if this Calvinist God is the God of scripture! But we know better.
God would never choose to save whoever He desires to show mercy and leave others to perish. That is not my God. My God pleads and years and strives for all, even though He knew before I was born whether I would end up in Hell or not! Even if He knew I would definitely end up in Hell, He still made me anyway...............
Text to Consider
Pro 16:4 Jehovah has made all for His purpose; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
Jer 31:3 Jehovah has appeared to me from afar, saying, Yea, I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore with loving-kindness I have drawn you.
Joh 17:2 even as You have given Him authority over all flesh so that He should give eternal life to all You have given Him.
Joh 17:9 I pray for them. I do not pray for the world, but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours.
Joh 17:20 And I do not pray for these alone, but for those also who shall believe on Me through their word,
Your citation of scripture is not exegesis, but assertion. You present the material as if these are verses that Arminians have forgotten about and have no way of explaining. If you were to exegete the passages, you would attempt to demonstrate that the passages mean what you believe they mean, and that they cannot mean what Arminians believe they mean. Have you attempted this in any of your posts? Perhaps you have, but I have forgotten where. Would you supply me with an example of your doing exegesis? That would be very helpful.
I did not intend to offend you by not listing you among the exceptions to my general statement. The statement was, in fact, about you primarily. Do I expect that to endear me to you? Not particularly. Is that supposed to be my goal? Are your posts calculated to endear you to others? I did not come here looking for friends. I am interested in speaking the truth in love. Whether this endears people to me should not be on my list of concerns.
You say that the only place you can be published is the internet because (as you put it): "My views are hated and would really struggle to get an audience for sure." Perhaps I should play the part of a true friend and tell you a little secret. It isn't your views that are unpublishable or offensive to audiences. There are hundreds of published authors (some of them very popular) who proclaim just the same views as yourself. It is the chip on your shoulder that repels audiences.
You wrote:
"The fact I have posted in threads here about Calvinism, and then proceed to address Calvinism, seems rather consistent don't you think?...Even the Arminians are staying on topic! but I wouldn't accuse them of what you are accusing some Calvinists, nor would I accuse them of teaching that Arminianism is the gospel etc. It is a cheap shot."
I don't know what subjects you may have addressed at other forums. All I know is that the Calvinism issue is the only one that throws your switches here. The Arminians, as you say, have done pretty well in staying on-topic in this Calvinist forum. However, almost all of them can be found posting at a dozen other forums here, on subjects unrelated to the Calvinism/Arminianism controversy. I have seen no evidence of anyone having an Arminian hobbyhorse here. I can't search the internet to discover all the other websites where you post, but I can scan your name at this site and see scores (perhaps hundreds) of posts from you, invariably, in the Calvinism section. From the evidence you have given us of your interests, this would seem to be an obsession. What I can't figure out is, why you think it so important.
I don't know how you choose your priorities, but I will share how I choose mine. If a certain area of study makes me more loving, humble and Christlike, I wish to devote my attention to that subject. Calvinism is certainly not one of those subjects, as seems to be demonstrated (at least to me) by your attitude and obsession with this topic.
It seems to me that Calvinism only is important if it is untrue. This seems paradoxical, but here is my reasoning:
If Calvinism is untrue, but is believed, it may lead to a number of behavioral problems related to a fatalistic outlook. I have known people who concluded that they must not be of the "elect" since they had sought hard for God and not yet come to know Him. Believing that God loved and elected some, but not others, led these people to discontinue their attempts to find God. To you, this may simply mean they were indeed not elect, but to me, this means that a false doctrine discouraged them from believing that God is the rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Sometimes Calvinism has the opposite effect, causing someone to assume himself to be "elect" with the result of giving a false sense of security, and a slackness in Christian obedience. I do not say that all Calvinists succumb to such imbalances, but many do, and it can generally be traced to their views about election. That is why I say that Calvinism is important only if it is not true. As a false doctrine, it can generate bad fruit.
On the other hand, if Calvinism is true, it is unimportant. It has no practical ramifications that do not equally inhere in non-Calvinism. Both Calvinists and Arminians can glorify God, can live holy lives, can be humble and faithful disciples, and can love God and their brethren. Calvinism does not contribute anything distinctly to these ends. All Calvin provides is a theory about what was going on behind the scenes that led to our conversion. Obviously, a person may be converted, and live a Christian life without having any such knowledge of these "behind the scenes" activities of God.
Calvinists often say that Calvinism is valuable in keeping the saint humble (about his depravity, apparently), but I have not necessarily seen this fruit in most of my Calvinist correspondents, so I think Calvinism must exert very little influence in this direction.
Some Calvinists say that Calvinism alone can provide assurance of salvation. However, this doctrine is quite capable of delivering a false assurance as easily as a genuine assurance. To a logical and humble person, it would seem that believing in Calvinism must inhibit any full assurance of salvation, since that doctrine teaches that any present evidence of regeneration ultimately may be proved imaginary by the failure to die faithful (many cases can be produced of people who had exemplary evidences of salvation, early in life, but who apostasized and died in unbelief).
As I have said elsewhere, if believing Calvinist doctrines were essential to our spiritual well-being, it seems strange that so many believers prior to Augustine lived in ignorance of these doctrines, and yet often showed remarkable sanctity and martyr's courage. If it is an important doctrine, why did Jesus and the apostles never speak clearly enough about it to allow the first ten generations of Christians to see it in their teachings?
You wrote:
"My biggest problem with you is your constant making of assertions without exegesis. I wonder if you know technically what exegesis actually is, and I do not say that to be harsh, I just do not see it anywhere."
This makes a good point. We all talk about exegesis here, but we have never set out a definition. We may be speaking past each other when we use this word, all the while assuming different definitions. Here are three sources that define the word for us:
Miriam-Webster Dictionary:
"EXPOSITION, EXPLANATION; especially : an explanation or critical interpretation of a text."
Oxford Dictionary:
"Critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially of scripture."
Wikipedia:
The word exegesis can mean explanation, but as a technical term it means "to draw the meaning out of" a given text. Exegesis may be contrasted with eisegesis, which means to read one's own interpretation into a given text. In general, exegesis presumes an attempt to view the text objectively, while eisegesis implies more subjectivity.
One may encounter the terms exegesis and hermeneutics used interchangeably; however, there remains a distinction. An exegesis is the interpretation and understanding of a text on the basis of the text itself. A hermeneutic is a practical application of a certain method or theory of interpretation, often revolving around the contemporary relevance of the text in question.
Traditional exegesis requires the following: analysis of significant words in the text in regard to translation; examination of the general historical and cultural context, confirmation of the limits of the passage, and lastly, examination of the context within the text.
I think many Calvinists believe that exegesis primarily involves detailed analysis of Greek words and tenses. However, this is only necessary when the English version gives a false sense through poor translation. In a good translation, most biblical texts can be easily understood without an advanced knowledge of the Greek language. Occasionally, a translation is incorrect or unclear. In such cases, analysis of Greek vocabulary and grammar becomes essential to exegesis. However, the Greek language is just as capable of manipulation by a teacher as is English.
In the vast majority of texts, the best exegesis is to consider the various contexts of a passage: 1) the immediate context, involving the sentences before and after the passage, so as to follow the author's flow of thought; 2) the context of the whole book in which the passage is found; 3) the context of all the writings of the same author; and 4) the context of the whole Bible.
The whole range of hermeneutical principles provides the tools for exegesis--not just Greek grammarical analysis. One might expect me to disparage3 the importance of such Greek analysis, since I am not a Greek scholar. However, it is clear that people in the first centuries of Christianity (who all spoke Greek as their native language) were capable of disagreeing about the meaning of many texts (and even disagreeing with the way modern Calvinist Greek scholars interpret them). This should demonstrate that correct understanding of the Bible does not depend upon knowledge of Greek alone, or primarily.
In your saying that you exegete texts and that I do not, I am at a loss to know what examples you may have in mind. Can you point me to an example of your exegesis in any part of this forum? In my answers, I attempt to show why the text should be understood the way that I represent it. In the process, I analyze the context (and the Greek, when necessary) and apply normal rules of hermeneutics. By contrast, it seems to me that you simply run a string of verses, assuming that they teach whatever you have in mind, and do not make an effort to show that they have the meaning you assign to them. Here is an example of one of your typical presentations of evidence (Found at http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=1756&start=0. Each series of dots represent an elipsis where you quote a passage you were critiquing):
.....
Parallel = Everyone ever born is the poor innocent recipient of this thing called Original sin from our first parents Adam and Eve. Poor children.
Text to consider
Psa 58:3
The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from the womb, speaking lies.
.....
Parallel = All sinners are not only poor unfortunate sinners, but they have a tendency to follow the pattern of their fallen parents in rebellion against God.
Text to Consider
Rom 1:29-32
being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; being full of envy, murder, quarrels, deceit, evil habits, becoming whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, insolent, proud, braggarts, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, perfidious, without natural affection, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous order of God, that those practicing such things are worthy of death, not only do them, but have pleasure in those practicing them.
......
Parallel = The Supreme Ruler so respects mans will that He only offers a cure to those who will eat the cure. He will not force anyone to take the cure. Such would be ungentlemanly, wouldn’t it?
Text to Consider
Isa 61:1
The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is on Me; because Jehovah has anointed Me to preach the Gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
Eze 11:19
And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you. And I will remove the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them a heart of flesh,
......
Parallel = God is expected, or demanded to save everyone! Grace is not grace, it is expected!
God must save everyone if He has the power to do so. Salvation is not an act of mercy but a deed demanded by the guilty.
Text to Consider
Rom 9:15 For He said to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion."
Rom 9:18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will, He hardens.
.......
Parallel = Condemnation is not justified, nor hell deserved for all men without exception!
Text to Consider
Rom 9:19-23
You will then say to me, Why does He yet find fault? For who has resisted His will?
No, but, O man, who are you who replies against God?
Shall the thing formed say to Him who formed it, Why have you made me this way?
Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel to honor and another to dishonor?
What if God, willing to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction; and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy which He had before prepared to glory;
........
Parallel = God must save everyone if He has the power and ability to do so.
He has no right to withhold grace. He has no right to save some and condemn the rest, when He has every right to condemn all...
He has absolutely no right to have mercy on whomever He decides to show mercy.
We reject that God, preferring a God who lets us decide for ourselves if we will be saved or not, even though we cannot save ourselves. Even though we hate God and spit in His face, and would hang Him on a cross all over again, especially if this Calvinist God is the God of scripture! But we know better.
God would never choose to save whoever He desires to show mercy and leave others to perish. That is not my God. My God pleads and years and strives for all, even though He knew before I was born whether I would end up in Hell or not! Even if He knew I would definitely end up in Hell, He still made me anyway...............
Text to Consider
Pro 16:4 Jehovah has made all for His purpose; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
Jer 31:3 Jehovah has appeared to me from afar, saying, Yea, I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore with loving-kindness I have drawn you.
Joh 17:2 even as You have given Him authority over all flesh so that He should give eternal life to all You have given Him.
Joh 17:9 I pray for them. I do not pray for the world, but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours.
Joh 17:20 And I do not pray for these alone, but for those also who shall believe on Me through their word,
Your citation of scripture is not exegesis, but assertion. You present the material as if these are verses that Arminians have forgotten about and have no way of explaining. If you were to exegete the passages, you would attempt to demonstrate that the passages mean what you believe they mean, and that they cannot mean what Arminians believe they mean. Have you attempted this in any of your posts? Perhaps you have, but I have forgotten where. Would you supply me with an example of your doing exegesis? That would be very helpful.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Ok Bob, explain this one to me.Traveler wrote:Hello Sean,
Your response:
"Well we both agree with your statement. But prior work/drawing is not the same as regeneration".
How so? Jn:6:44 seems to make clear that this particular drawing work of the Father results in being "raised" on the Last Day by Jesus. Sounds like a regenerative act to me. Now I am no student of Greek. But I wrote a note in my bible taken from a bible study that the word "draw" iin Greek is "elko". The instructor of the class said elko means to 'compel by irresistable authority'. Jn 6:37-40. "All that the Father gives me WILL COME TO ME...I shall LOSE NONE...my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day". The order here seems to place the emphasis upon the prior drawing of the Father which results in 'looking to the Son' and therefore the one drawn- believes. How is my understanding incorrect?
Peace
Bob
John 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
So how did Judas come to Him? Did he come of his own "free will" or did God draw him? Either answer gives Calvinism problems, since the crowd turning back is what is used as proof that they were not being drawn by God or they would have remained. Yet Judas remained. So he must have been drawn, but does that mean he will be given eternal life? I don't think so:
John 17:12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.
So was that lose none or lose one?
So how did Judas "come" to Jesus? If by his own power, then how is that possible? If by the power of God then how was he "lost" since all (not most) who come are raised to life?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)
Why do you think Judas came to Him, in the sense He was talking about in John 6? In the same sense that the other disciples came? That is, obviously Judas was following Jesus around--he was physically present--but was he ever a genuine believer? Did he ever come in the same sense as the others? If you think so, is it an explicit teaching, or your best guess? If it's not an explicit teaching, on what grounds are you factoring it into the exegesis of John 6?Sean wrote:So how did Judas come to Him?
What does John 6 say about Judas, and Jesus' knowledge of him? How is Judas grouped in the actual context of John 6, which is where you're trying to use him to make inferences?
I would say that John 17:12 taken by itself looks like it's grouping Judas with the others as what the Father gave to the Son. It does seem to say that Judas was "lost". But it also calls him the son of destruction in that verse, and I see no reason to think that Jesus' intent in that passage was to teach that Judas was being guarded as the others were. (That is, I can see how the wording would lead to that conclusion, but there's no contextual reason to think that was Jesus' point.)
But I would say that John 6:64-65 seems to group Judas with those who were not believing, who were not coming--and that's explicitly related to John 6:44.
For that matter, just try reading through Jesus' prayer in John 17 with the assumption that Jesus is praying for Judas along with the other 11. They have kept your word? They know that everything that you have given me is from you? They have received the words and have come to know in truth that I came from you? They are yours? I am glorified in them? Keep them in your name that they may be one? Keep them from the evil one? I have sent them into the world? I consecrate myself that they also may be sanctified in truth?
Outside verse 12, it doesn't seem to work at all. And in verse 12, only the phrase "not one of them has been lost except..." can be read as implying that he's part of "them". Unless you insist that all the other things Jesus said about "them" apply to Judas in the same way as to the others, why insist that "given" and "guarded" apply to him in the same way? Why insist that "lost" implies he ever belonged to Jesus in the same way?
This is the man who, even when he was following Jesus, even before he betrayed Him, was embezzling from the ministry!
Unless you can show me some very strong reason to think that Judas ever truly believed, then I'm going to conclude that it's simply flat-out wrong to infer that his case affects the meaning of John 6 in any way, shape, or form.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: