Calvinist & Arminian Thought Un-Biblical?
Rick_C,
Interesting! Today we had a missionary speaker at church who is the Dean of Academics at a bible college in the Phillipines. He has a doctorate plus post doctorate work and teaches New Testament Greek at the college, so I was eager to question him about a certain passage and the meaning of a particular Greek verb. I told him how I thought it should have been translated and why, and asked his opinion. He opined that it could be taken a couple ways. When I persisted in discussing the subject, he replied "we do theology, but God isn't bound by it". Wise words!
Interesting! Today we had a missionary speaker at church who is the Dean of Academics at a bible college in the Phillipines. He has a doctorate plus post doctorate work and teaches New Testament Greek at the college, so I was eager to question him about a certain passage and the meaning of a particular Greek verb. I told him how I thought it should have been translated and why, and asked his opinion. He opined that it could be taken a couple ways. When I persisted in discussing the subject, he replied "we do theology, but God isn't bound by it". Wise words!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
Greetings Brody,Hi Paidion,
Does it in any way bother you to say and teach that God is limited in his knowledge of anything, whether future events or anything?
I say and teach that God is omnicient (all-knowing). I assume that your question relates to open theism, since its opponents continually make the false claim that open theists believe that God is less than omnicient.
To know that a sentence is true or false, implies that the sentence has truth value, that is, it is either true of false. Sentences about future choices of people do not have truth value. They are neither true nor false now. They become true or false, when the person has made his choice.
If it were true now that I will raise my hand at some future time, I could not refrain from raising it at that time. If it were false now, then I could not raise it at that time. In other words, I would not have free will.
So to answer your question, it does not bother me in any way to say and teach that God does not know the unknowable, any more than it would be to say and teach that God cannot do the undo-able.
For example, would it in any way bother you to say and teach that God cannot create a stone so large that He could not lift it?
It wouldn't bother me in the least, since contradictions are not objects of power.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
My stuff's interesting, huh? Um, thanks! I just sort of made up the "dialogue" as I went, lol (and I admit I had "Paul" get slightly emotional and opinionated there at the end ... uh, and of course, meaning I did)!!Hello, Homer, I see you wrote:Interesting! Today we had a missionary speaker at church who is the Dean of Academics at a bible college in the Phillipines. He has a doctorate plus post doctorate work and teaches New Testament Greek at the college, so I was eager to question him about a certain passage and the meaning of a particular Greek verb. I told him how I thought it should have been translated and why, and asked his opinion. He opined that it could be taken a couple ways. When I persisted in discussing the subject, he replied "we do theology, but God isn't bound by it". Wise words!
'Interesting, though, that you mention this Greek expert you talked to. How we "go back to the original" (Greek in your case). This is exactly what I'm really attempting to do in by-passing post-biblical thinkers and go back to how the Jews saw things. That is, the Bible authors, with Luke being a kind of exception (yet I feel he was probably either a convert to Judaism or at least a "God-fearer" before he believed in Christ. I haven't researched this out yet, a theory) ....
I've just undertaken a new historical study of "Jewish beliefs on Predestination" (and Free Will), etc. I've studied this some before but haven't really targeted it. I can't believe I waited this long!
I leave you with a quote from a rabbi who was relatively contemporary to the NT Era, Rabbi Akiva (who believed Shimon Bar Kosiba, aka, Simon Bar Kochba, was the messiah; Bar Kosiba being killed in 135AD by the Romans). In the Mishnah (Ethics of the Fathers 3:15), Rabbi Akiva says:
"Everything is foreseen, and free choice is granted."
Hmmmmm.....I'm sure a Calvinist or Arminian could take this quote and interpret Akiva to be "in my camp" as they quote Fathers as "proofs" (or at least "support"). But as I have been trying to say in this thread -- the Jews were JEWS and, therefore by definition, could not be Calvinists or Arminians (it seems so simple to me, the guys weren't born yet), lol
Yes, Homer, we do our theology alright. And God remains GOD no matter what for even guys like Paul who saw "though a glass darkly" ....
I appreciate your wisdom and posts, Homer!

Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth
Homer . . . . continuted from another thread:
In studying various topics, I've referenced Josephus, the Mishnah (as with Rabbi Akiva, above), the Talmud, OT Pseudipigrapha, Intertestamental Literature, and NT Era Jewish and/or Jewish-Christian Writings.
In the last week I've been going to Jewish sites to find their articles and to see who they reference. I have a lot of work to do as I have never really "targetted" Jewish ideas about "Predestination and Free Will," etc. I had several bookmarked and am currently arranging what I have.
As a preliminary to whatever I might find; Josephus' description of: Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes has him categorizing them in "philosophical schools" as he was writing to a Gentile audience. It might be possible to see each of these as somehow compatible to a "current category" (Calvinistic or Arminian). I'm sure this has been done.
However, I've never seen any of these groups as being exactly like modern day Christians in their views. Certain similariites may be there but I'm still un-convinced that the Jews had point-by-point detailed concepts such as we see in some, if not most, forms of modern day Calvinism.
Josephus also spoke of Zealots being a major school in first century Judaism. Today, experts in this field believe there were at least twelve or more "sects" at the time of Jesus, as distinguished from Josephus' four.
I have a lot to sort out here! Especially since Judaism has never really had a "systematic theology" as schools in Christian thought have (Calvinism, Arminianism, etc.)....
I'll leave you with the link I got the above quote from Rabbi Akiva from:
The Paradox of Free will: Six Questions
by Tzvi Freeman
This is a fair amount of reading and I'm not sure which form of Judaism the author is in (probably Conservative, is my guess). As a Christian I don't base my views on Judaism, per se. But if the Jews can shed light on our theological problems I see no reason why we shouldn't research what they have.
Lastly, I'm beginning to wonder if I may be able to identify Jewish views on "Calvinism and Arminianism." I know the Rabbis often had ongoing debates and didn't seem to come to final conclusions. But I still maintain that, as a rule, the Jews weren't philosophical in their general approach. I could be proven wrong, to some degree anyway....
The first book I got on related themes was "The New Testament Background" edited by C.K. Barrett (considered a classic). Since then I've read a lot of liberal scholars, such as Elaine Pagels; not because I accept their liberal theology but because they have so much historical information. Most of these authors concentrate on the NT Era (and stuff related to the Historical Jesus) which takes them on into the Early Fathers.There, you wrote:Rick,
Have you been reading some of the many books on biblical social archaeology such as "The Handbook of Biblical Social values?
You said:
Quote:
...I'm also very interested in the details of the Jewish worldview of biblical times (which can be found in extra-biblical materials.
What are some of the materials you refererred to?
In studying various topics, I've referenced Josephus, the Mishnah (as with Rabbi Akiva, above), the Talmud, OT Pseudipigrapha, Intertestamental Literature, and NT Era Jewish and/or Jewish-Christian Writings.
In the last week I've been going to Jewish sites to find their articles and to see who they reference. I have a lot of work to do as I have never really "targetted" Jewish ideas about "Predestination and Free Will," etc. I had several bookmarked and am currently arranging what I have.
As a preliminary to whatever I might find; Josephus' description of: Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes has him categorizing them in "philosophical schools" as he was writing to a Gentile audience. It might be possible to see each of these as somehow compatible to a "current category" (Calvinistic or Arminian). I'm sure this has been done.
However, I've never seen any of these groups as being exactly like modern day Christians in their views. Certain similariites may be there but I'm still un-convinced that the Jews had point-by-point detailed concepts such as we see in some, if not most, forms of modern day Calvinism.
Josephus also spoke of Zealots being a major school in first century Judaism. Today, experts in this field believe there were at least twelve or more "sects" at the time of Jesus, as distinguished from Josephus' four.
I have a lot to sort out here! Especially since Judaism has never really had a "systematic theology" as schools in Christian thought have (Calvinism, Arminianism, etc.)....
I'll leave you with the link I got the above quote from Rabbi Akiva from:
The Paradox of Free will: Six Questions
by Tzvi Freeman
This is a fair amount of reading and I'm not sure which form of Judaism the author is in (probably Conservative, is my guess). As a Christian I don't base my views on Judaism, per se. But if the Jews can shed light on our theological problems I see no reason why we shouldn't research what they have.
Lastly, I'm beginning to wonder if I may be able to identify Jewish views on "Calvinism and Arminianism." I know the Rabbis often had ongoing debates and didn't seem to come to final conclusions. But I still maintain that, as a rule, the Jews weren't philosophical in their general approach. I could be proven wrong, to some degree anyway....
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth
Rick,
I'm a little late in reviewing this thread. However, I've noticed appeal to Jewish thought in sorting out some of our "theological problems" as you put it. While I think and agree we can learn from the Hebraic sense in which the NT was delivered, we must remain cautious with regard to Rabbinic teaching and interpretation. They were certainly as divided a group as we are over various theological issues. Anyway thats my 2cents.
Peace,
Bob
I'm a little late in reviewing this thread. However, I've noticed appeal to Jewish thought in sorting out some of our "theological problems" as you put it. While I think and agree we can learn from the Hebraic sense in which the NT was delivered, we must remain cautious with regard to Rabbinic teaching and interpretation. They were certainly as divided a group as we are over various theological issues. Anyway thats my 2cents.
Peace,
Bob
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hello Bob,
1] Was Jesus a Rabbi in a "rabbinical" setting?
2] (Yes, he was) Do you agree with this?
3] Why would we need to be remain cautious about rabbinic interpretations...when we have the NT? (with Jesus speaking as a rabbi within his own historical context).
4] Isn't the NT itself a kind of rabbinical teaching based on its "Rabbi" (Jesus)?
Here's a quotation from A Conversation with N.T. Wright:
I don't understand why you feel we need to have caution about Jesus and the NT in their own Hebraic (Jewish) context...(I really don't get it)!
Can you help me out on this, please? (I want to understand why folks feel this way).
Thanks,
Rick
I have some questions:You wrote:I'm a little late in reviewing this thread. However, I've noticed appeal to Jewish thought in sorting out some of our "theological problems" as you put it. While I think and agree we can learn from the Hebraic sense in which the NT was delivered, we must remain cautious with regard to Rabbinic teaching and interpretation. They were certainly as divided a group as we are over various theological issues. Anyway thats my 2cents.
1] Was Jesus a Rabbi in a "rabbinical" setting?
2] (Yes, he was) Do you agree with this?
3] Why would we need to be remain cautious about rabbinic interpretations...when we have the NT? (with Jesus speaking as a rabbi within his own historical context).
4] Isn't the NT itself a kind of rabbinical teaching based on its "Rabbi" (Jesus)?
Here's a quotation from A Conversation with N.T. Wright:
Is there anything in this excerpt that you disagree with, Bob?Response magaizine, Summer 2005 wrote:Q: As a scholar, one of the important issues you’ve dealt with is the historical Jesus. What is the value of the “Third Quest” for the historical Jesus, in which you are involved, particularly as it relates to Christian engagement in a postmodern world?
A: (N.T. Wright): The first historical “quest,” or the “Old Quest,” was very much part of the Enlightenment, and indeed a particular branch of that, because Albert Schweitzer, who chronicled it 100 years ago, was himself very much like a Christian version of Nietzsche, trying to take some of the philosophical movement of the Enlightenment and Christianize it. In Schweitzer’s Quest of the Historical Jesus, the heroic image of Jesus, this great figure who took on the world, was rather like Schweitzer himself. No disrespect; Schweitzer was a great man, but the problem was that by putting Jesus into the first century, people said that that made him totally irrelevant. They said, “What? Who needs this first-century, wild-eyed apocalyptic fanatic? That wasn’t a very nice time to live. People thought very silly things then. They thought the world was going to end. Why should we learn anything from that, except at the level of generality of self-sacrifice, and noble ideals, and so on?”
That’s one of the reasons the quest went into abeyance through half of the 20th century in terms of major serious scholarship in Europe and America. The problem then is that when the quest went into abeyance, people start inventing Jesuses to suit their own other ideologies, as the Nazis did. But when the “New Quest” got going in the 1950s, it didn’t get going very far because it had its feet tied down by all the buildup of theories about early Christianity, particularly in the work of Rudolf Bultmann, many of which we now see to be neither historically nor theologically warranted.
When the Third Quest got going, it was a real attempt to put Jesus back in his first-century Jewish context, as Schweitzer had done, but to do it much better. And with the Dead Sea Scrolls and all the fresh work on the Apocrypha, there was a lot more possibility of that. One of the key things which I think has emerged from a lot of the Third Quest work is to see that, for a first-century Jew, the point is that when God does for Israel what he’s going to do for Israel, it will have worldwide cosmic implications. And so, if Jesus really believes that he is bringing the story of Israel to its climax — and I’ve argued that’s precisely what he believed — then this won’t just be, “Oh, well, that’s funny; somebody in the first century thought that the Jewish story was getting to where it was going.” No. This was going to be God’s means of addressing and reconciling the whole world. And that’s precisely what Paul and others say.
So it isn’t that we have to translate the first-century Jewish message in order to become relevant for the rest of the world. What Christianity is all about — much to the horror of the Enlightenment — is that world history really did reach its climax, not when Thomas Jefferson wrote the American Constitution, or Voltaire or Rousseau wrote what they were writing, but when Jesus of Nazareth died and rose again. And that we have to re-tell that story in each generation in order to discover what it means for us to live out of it and to make it our own in a fresh way. That means living with that whole narrative, right through the narrative of Israel, the narrative of Jesus, and the narrative of where the world has come from and gone to since then.
The key phrase for me, which is something Jesus says to the disciples at the end of John’s Gospel, is, “As the Father sent me, so I send you.” In other words, we track what it meant for Jesus to be Jesus and to do what he did within the world of first-century Judaism so we can transpose and say, “Because he’s done that, our task is to be for the world what Jesus was for Israel.” That is the definition, really, of the Christian task — to be for the world, in the power of the Spirit, what Jesus was to Israel. So each generation has to go back and learn afresh what it was that Jesus was doing in his own context. We can never finish learning that. And each generation then has to say, “Now what would that mean for us, in our context, where we are now?” (bold, mine for emphasis)
I don't understand why you feel we need to have caution about Jesus and the NT in their own Hebraic (Jewish) context...(I really don't get it)!
Can you help me out on this, please? (I want to understand why folks feel this way).
Thanks,
Rick
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth
Hi Rick,
I need to clarify something. I agree Jesus was a rabbi. What made His teaching unique among the rabbi's of His time was that He did not appeal to any other rabbinic authority or school of thought in validating His interpretations of Torah. His only appeal was to the Father for His authority
and truth claims. It was in this sense or what was in the back of my mind
when I suggested caution about what other rabbi's theological positions were, and how divided a group they are now as well as then. The old adage, "Ask four rabbi's a question and you'll get five different answers"
is the same with Christian theologians, past and present. Now I do value learning as much as possible about 1st century Judaism. However, you would probably agree that we have a greater body of knowlage to work with than they did because we have the greater revelation with the NT.
Getting the Hebraic sense of what the Jews understood about Torah is indeed an important pursuit. For instance the Parables of Jesus take on a diiferent nuance when viewed through a Hebraic lense. Since the Parables
represent the central body of Jesus' teaching, I do believe taking the time to understand them from a 1st century Jewish point of view is very important. Rabbi's employed parables as a teaching medium to draw disciples. Personally, I am only beginning to study this. Not many within the church circles I've hung out in has devoted time to their study. That's sad. We have a great deal to learn from them. Amen?
Peace in Him,
Bob
I need to clarify something. I agree Jesus was a rabbi. What made His teaching unique among the rabbi's of His time was that He did not appeal to any other rabbinic authority or school of thought in validating His interpretations of Torah. His only appeal was to the Father for His authority
and truth claims. It was in this sense or what was in the back of my mind
when I suggested caution about what other rabbi's theological positions were, and how divided a group they are now as well as then. The old adage, "Ask four rabbi's a question and you'll get five different answers"
is the same with Christian theologians, past and present. Now I do value learning as much as possible about 1st century Judaism. However, you would probably agree that we have a greater body of knowlage to work with than they did because we have the greater revelation with the NT.
Getting the Hebraic sense of what the Jews understood about Torah is indeed an important pursuit. For instance the Parables of Jesus take on a diiferent nuance when viewed through a Hebraic lense. Since the Parables
represent the central body of Jesus' teaching, I do believe taking the time to understand them from a 1st century Jewish point of view is very important. Rabbi's employed parables as a teaching medium to draw disciples. Personally, I am only beginning to study this. Not many within the church circles I've hung out in has devoted time to their study. That's sad. We have a great deal to learn from them. Amen?
Peace in Him,
Bob
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hello Bob,
Thanks for your reply.
I still don't understand why you feel we should have this caution about the rabbis. As a Christian I don't believe in them...(I'm not following you here, sorry). Maybe I just differ with you and a lot of other Christians on this, I don't know....
To me, knowing the positions of the other rabbis as best we can is paramount in biblical interpretation. The NT itself gives us some of this information but other Jewish texts give much more. Some Christians have alleged that I "believe" in these non-canonical texts. In a certain sense I probably do in as much as they line up with Scripture. I think Jesus and the Apostles believed in the book of 1 Enoch -- or at least in some of its teachings. To the extent that 1 Enoch is compatible with the NT, I have no problem as seeing it as "inspired." But this isn't to say I think it should be in the Bible. The Dead Sea scrolls and numerous other intertestamental writings actually give us the historical context of Jesus: What people were believing then.
Yes, I see the NT as a greater body of knowledge (of course, it is the teaching we believe)! But the NT didn't appear out of the blue in a historical vacuum! I would say we have a greater body of knowledge to work with because anyone with a computer and a library card can know more about 1st century Judaism than the earliest of Early Fathers! Yet we do know that several Early Fathers saw the book of 1 Enoch as "inspired." I'm not sure what other Jewish books they were familiar with offhand. But in comparison to what we have now it was probably limited, especially by the late 2nd century, I would think.
Yet it was more than what they understood about the Torah. There were the other writings that not all Jewish groups accepted. For example, the Sadducees only believed in the Pentateuch (thus rejecting all other writings). The Mishnah, compiled by about 200AD was the preserved oral traditions of the Rabbis (Pharisees) since the destruction of the Temple. So what the Mishnah says can probably be traced back to the NT era. Later the Mishnah was included in the Talmud.
In about 90AD or shortly after, at the Council of Jamnia the Jews banned and destroyed (burned) many apocalyptic books...they rejected these, seeing them as something like "end times madness." That it was these kinds of teachings that led people to believe they were the Messiah and hence, the many messianic revolts, which led to the destruction of the Temple (in the Council's view). The NT mentions a few of these would-be messiahs.
Anyway, to bring this thread back on-topic:
On another thread I asked if there is anyone or any text in the Bible that asked, "Which comes first? Regeneration or Faith?" I haven't been able to find this as an issue to the Jews (including the NT Jews). One Calvinist replied saying he couldn't find this in the Bible either.
Which brings me back to the "gist" of this thread. Jews didn't think like Gentiles because they weren't Gentiles! They didn't mix philosophy into their theology to such a great (HUGE) extent as did (post-NT) Early Fathers! Augustine's beliefs were in large part based in pagan philosophy...and he prooftexted! And to this day, Christians are debating philosophies (Calvinism: Determinism, Arminianism: Free Will).
I still maintain that Jews didn't think like these later men. But this doesn't solve the current debates. However, it does open another door, option: Which is why I have become very interested in N.T. Wright. He compares the NT to contemporary Jewish writers like Philo and other NT era writings. Put another way, he goes by what was debated when Jesus was alive rather than later guys. This gets us much closer to what Jesus and the Apostles taught and actually believed!
Thanks,
Rick
Thanks for your reply.
You wrote: I need to clarify something. I agree Jesus was a rabbi. What made His teaching unique among the rabbi's of His time was that He did not appeal to any other rabbinic authority or school of thought in validating His interpretations of Torah. His only appeal was to the Father for His authority and truth claims. It was in this sense or what was in the back of my mind when I suggested caution about what other rabbi's theological positions were, and how divided a group they are now as well as then.
I still don't understand why you feel we should have this caution about the rabbis. As a Christian I don't believe in them...(I'm not following you here, sorry). Maybe I just differ with you and a lot of other Christians on this, I don't know....
To me, knowing the positions of the other rabbis as best we can is paramount in biblical interpretation. The NT itself gives us some of this information but other Jewish texts give much more. Some Christians have alleged that I "believe" in these non-canonical texts. In a certain sense I probably do in as much as they line up with Scripture. I think Jesus and the Apostles believed in the book of 1 Enoch -- or at least in some of its teachings. To the extent that 1 Enoch is compatible with the NT, I have no problem as seeing it as "inspired." But this isn't to say I think it should be in the Bible. The Dead Sea scrolls and numerous other intertestamental writings actually give us the historical context of Jesus: What people were believing then.
I "ask what other rabbis" and first century Jewish schools of thought believed to better understand the context of Jesus. You can't get much of this information from the earliest of Early Fathers. Traces may be found but most of the Fathers were Gentiles and may not have been all that familiar with actual NT era documents, and therefore, of NT era beliefs (Btw, the Jewish Early Father, Hegesippus, c. 110-180AD, was at least one exception to Gentile Early Fathers).You also wrote:The old adage, "Ask four rabbi's a question and you'll get five different answers" is the same with Christian theologians, past and present. Now I do value learning as much as possible about 1st century Judaism. However, you would probably agree that we have a greater body of knowlage to work with than they did because we have the greater revelation with the NT.
Yes, I see the NT as a greater body of knowledge (of course, it is the teaching we believe)! But the NT didn't appear out of the blue in a historical vacuum! I would say we have a greater body of knowledge to work with because anyone with a computer and a library card can know more about 1st century Judaism than the earliest of Early Fathers! Yet we do know that several Early Fathers saw the book of 1 Enoch as "inspired." I'm not sure what other Jewish books they were familiar with offhand. But in comparison to what we have now it was probably limited, especially by the late 2nd century, I would think.
Amen.You went on and wrote:Getting the Hebraic sense of what the Jews understood about Torah is indeed an important pursuit. For instance the Parables of Jesus take on a different nuance when viewed through a Hebraic lense. Since the Parables represent the central body of Jesus' teaching, I do believe taking the time to understand them from a 1st century Jewish point of view is very important. Rabbi's employed parables as a teaching medium to draw disciples. Personally, I am only beginning to study this. Not many within the church circles I've hung out in has devoted time to their study. That's sad. We have a great deal to learn from them. Amen?
Yet it was more than what they understood about the Torah. There were the other writings that not all Jewish groups accepted. For example, the Sadducees only believed in the Pentateuch (thus rejecting all other writings). The Mishnah, compiled by about 200AD was the preserved oral traditions of the Rabbis (Pharisees) since the destruction of the Temple. So what the Mishnah says can probably be traced back to the NT era. Later the Mishnah was included in the Talmud.
In about 90AD or shortly after, at the Council of Jamnia the Jews banned and destroyed (burned) many apocalyptic books...they rejected these, seeing them as something like "end times madness." That it was these kinds of teachings that led people to believe they were the Messiah and hence, the many messianic revolts, which led to the destruction of the Temple (in the Council's view). The NT mentions a few of these would-be messiahs.
Anyway, to bring this thread back on-topic:
On another thread I asked if there is anyone or any text in the Bible that asked, "Which comes first? Regeneration or Faith?" I haven't been able to find this as an issue to the Jews (including the NT Jews). One Calvinist replied saying he couldn't find this in the Bible either.
Which brings me back to the "gist" of this thread. Jews didn't think like Gentiles because they weren't Gentiles! They didn't mix philosophy into their theology to such a great (HUGE) extent as did (post-NT) Early Fathers! Augustine's beliefs were in large part based in pagan philosophy...and he prooftexted! And to this day, Christians are debating philosophies (Calvinism: Determinism, Arminianism: Free Will).
I still maintain that Jews didn't think like these later men. But this doesn't solve the current debates. However, it does open another door, option: Which is why I have become very interested in N.T. Wright. He compares the NT to contemporary Jewish writers like Philo and other NT era writings. Put another way, he goes by what was debated when Jesus was alive rather than later guys. This gets us much closer to what Jesus and the Apostles taught and actually believed!
Thanks,
Rick
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth
Hi Rick,
Quote: "On another thread I asked if there is anyone or any text in the Bible that asked, "Which comes first? Regeneration or Faith?"
Well not in the way you put it bro. But neither was the "Trinity" doctrine or many other "doctrines" the body has debated over the centuries.
THE central NT question; was Jesus the Messiah according to the Torah? As for what "lense" we may try and understand Scripture from whether Hebraic or Hellenistic, both sides err. However, truth is truth. We are dealing with primarily propositional truth(s) and how it corresponds to reality, not abstract thought, right?
Now in my mind, the propositional truth claim that "regeneration precedes faith (saving faith)" is self-evident when you compare it to how life works, whether it be spiritual life or natural life. Every finite contingent being must have a "Beginner or Begetter". We do not "self generate" nor do we have the ability to do so. Only God brings things to life. Your "so called free will" has nothing to do with it. This is what John is telling us in many passages I've apealed to during this debate. It is in this sense that John informs us of God's activity in salvation. To be sure, John
didn't say or ask does regeneration precede or follow faith. He didn't need to! He already new how God brings life.
In Him,
Bob
Quote: "On another thread I asked if there is anyone or any text in the Bible that asked, "Which comes first? Regeneration or Faith?"
Well not in the way you put it bro. But neither was the "Trinity" doctrine or many other "doctrines" the body has debated over the centuries.
THE central NT question; was Jesus the Messiah according to the Torah? As for what "lense" we may try and understand Scripture from whether Hebraic or Hellenistic, both sides err. However, truth is truth. We are dealing with primarily propositional truth(s) and how it corresponds to reality, not abstract thought, right?
Now in my mind, the propositional truth claim that "regeneration precedes faith (saving faith)" is self-evident when you compare it to how life works, whether it be spiritual life or natural life. Every finite contingent being must have a "Beginner or Begetter". We do not "self generate" nor do we have the ability to do so. Only God brings things to life. Your "so called free will" has nothing to do with it. This is what John is telling us in many passages I've apealed to during this debate. It is in this sense that John informs us of God's activity in salvation. To be sure, John
didn't say or ask does regeneration precede or follow faith. He didn't need to! He already new how God brings life.
In Him,
Bob
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Bob,
You wrote:
Your idea of regeneration prior to faith entails spiritual life prior to faith, however, no one is in Christ prior to faith and our life is in Christ.
Romans 8:10 (NASB)
10. If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.
Colossians 2:13 (NASB)
13. When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,
Your system necessarily has people regenerated, born again, prior to union with Christ, while in a state of unbelief, just as the Westminster Confession boldly proclaims.
You wrote:
One of the difficulties with your position is that regeneration is a metaphor and can only partially be compared to physical birth and life. If it was, we would be able to maintain our spiritual life without God, just as a child can live if both parents are dead.Now in my mind, the propositional truth claim that "regeneration precedes faith (saving faith)" is self-evident when you compare it to how life works, whether it be spiritual life or natural life.
Your idea of regeneration prior to faith entails spiritual life prior to faith, however, no one is in Christ prior to faith and our life is in Christ.
Romans 8:10 (NASB)
10. If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.
Colossians 2:13 (NASB)
13. When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,
Your system necessarily has people regenerated, born again, prior to union with Christ, while in a state of unbelief, just as the Westminster Confession boldly proclaims.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean