Hermeneutics: the right questions, the right answers

[Guest]

Greetings Haas,

Paul lays out an order in Romans 8:29-30 (regeneration is not mentioned here). Do you think Paul, moved by the Holy Spirit, had a purpose for the order that is laid out?

Romans 8:29-30 (English Standard Version)
29For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

First, agreed, that regeneration isn't specifically mentioned in this passage. Yet we know that those Paul was writing about (the believing Romans and us!) have, at some time, been born again. Calvinists would probably say that regeneration happens approximately when "those whom he called he also justified" ("effectual calling" being the Calvinistic belief that those whom God calls are the elect and will be regenerated; justification being the "when" God imputes the righteousness of Christ to the believer; that is, if in fact, a person is a believer at this time)! I'm not sure if Calvinists believe regeneration occurs at this specific time-junction of justification or not. I think so, but I could be wrong.

I might start a new threat about N.T. Wright's thoughts on these things...(who has a different take on "imputed righteousness" (Christ's to us) than most Protestants)! A lot of Calvinists really don't like this man. I think he's onto something...Well, anyways....

And, yes, Paul has a logical order that is self-explanatory (it is easy to see which follows which, and why, it makes sense). Now, though Calvinists & non-Calvinists have ideas about what each "stage" means; their interpretations aren't necessarily what Paul really had in mind!

Don't you think it would have been strange if the foreknew, predestined, called, justified, and glorified part would have been in a different order?

Paul had a way with words (and often jumps back and forth on topics, especially in Romans). I imagine he could have laid them out in a different order and managed to get his ideas across (Note: he mentions them and just keeps moving along and doesn't elaborate)! Btw, I don't think Paul had a "grand systematic theology" in mind when he used these terms, and in this order. He surely had things in mind but I don't feel he intended these "verses" to be a "framework" for an entire theological system where each "stage" is used to build upon the next (if Paul had wanted to do that we would have his version of Calvin's Institutes)! Romans is the closest thing we have, perhaps, to a "systematic theology" in Paul's writings. But it doesn't explain each teeny tiny detail of what happens at each of these stages (as the Institutes of Calvin do).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I especially don't think Paul, nor any other Jew of honor in the first century, would DARE-PRETEND to comprehend intricate details in the Eternal Mind of GOD ALMIGHTY; "theorizing" on His Decrees and insisting that these, said theories, are THE Truth!!! (and expect that life would go on as per usual)....
Now, Gentiles might be able get away with it....
(due to ignorance brought on by philosophy: Nonsense!!!).....

We serve a very Merciful God.

(I just had to let that out)....
Not directed toward anyone in particular, but my imo to everyone generally.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(just edited that in, not to totally interrupt the flow of the post or anything).....


Ahem. Okay, Haas, um....so, where was I?

I see these verses, and the terminology used, more as Paul's "summary of God's grand acts" (before and after human history). I'm not saying it is necessarily wrong to take these various stages and make a theological system from them. But reading more into them than Paul actually meant and adding things he probably never thought about wouldn't be the right thing to do, imo.

We need more threads that actually do exegesis, imo (wouldn't this passage be a good one? But I have to go back to work next week...sigh).
Oops---Attitude Check: Praise the Lord I have a job!!!

I attend a church that preaches and teaches the doctrines of Grace. This summer alone I have heard three different testimonies from three different men at the church....

I hear the pastor week in and week out preach expository messages. He also preaches the gospel (Matthew 4:17, Luke 13:1-5, Romans 3:23-25, Romans 6:23, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Romans 5:6-8, I John 4:10, Acts 17:30-31, Romans 10:9-13, Ephesians 2:8-10, etc.).

Back to these men. Each one expressed how they didn't want to be there. Two of them, separately, expressed that they couldn't stand the pastor and what he was saying. Then what.....God rocked their worlds! Just like he rocked mine, just like he rocked yours. They are cool with the pastor now and they are cool with what he has to say. Praise God for His amazing grace.

Yes, Amen, God rocked my world too: JESUS REIGNS!!!

Praise God...Hallelujah! Oh, and, I'm not exactly sure what these guys didn't like about your pastor's messages or what they became convinced about. I know "Doctrines of Grace" means the Gospel from a Calvinist or Reformed perspective (which of course, they believe is the Bible's perspective too).

I may not believe everything, well, I don't, that Calvinists and Reformed people do. But one thing you don't hear a lot about is that most non-Calvinist Protestants probably agree with (I don't know?) maybe 75-90% of what John Calvin taught. I have a book that quotes him a lot and each quote is totally awesome! Now where did I put it?

Also, I would like to say (in case some Calvinists here don't know) that we non-Calvinists listen to or read Calvinists and benefit from much of what they say. I know Steve likes various Calvinist preachers and writers (like the Puritans). I enjoy R.C. Sproul as long as he's not talking (or like, "harping") about TULIP; though I've heard him out on that. John MacArthur, I like (except TULIP...and I'm "charismatic"). Charles Stanley....wait! He's not a Calvinist (only a 1 pointer?)...kinda? Ahhhh, nm

Thanks, Haas, in Christ,
Rick

[vernesmooth]

Rick wrote:

I may not believe everything, well, I don't, that Calvinists and Reformed people do. But one thing you don't hear a lot about is that most non-Calvinist Protestants probably agree with (I don't know?) maybe 75-90% of what John Calvin taught. I have a book that quotes him a lot and each quote is totally awesome! Now where did I put it?

Also, I would like to say (in case some Calvinists here don't know) that we non-Calvinists listen to or read Calvinists and benefit from much of what they say. I know Steve likes various Calvinist preachers and writers (like the Puritans). I enjoy R.C. Sproul as long as he's not talking (or like, "harping") about TULIP; though I've heard him out on that. John MacArthur, I like (except TULIP...and I'm "charismatic").

Please be sure to identify for me the 25% or so that those guys have wrong and you have right so that I can get it as close to 100% correct as possible. (I Corinthians 13:12)

Rick wrote:

Praise God...Hallelujah! Oh, and, I'm not exactly sure what these guys didn't like about your pastor's messages or what they became convinced about.

The way I understood their testimonies is that they didn't like that the pastor was confronting them with Scripture about sin and the need for a Savior. What I heard them saying they are now convinced of is their need for Christ as Lord and Savior.

One of the guys did say that at first he hated the doctrines of grace (past tense) when he first heard them taught.

Anyway, I am sure you are aware that churches all over this country (I have also heard horror stories about parts of Europe ie. Sweden) don't faithfully preach the Word. "We wouldn't want anyone to be offended and not come back. We wouldn't want people to stop giving us their money."

What needs to be taught is the gospel.

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Luke 13:1-5

And what if someone doesn't come back......?

I Corinthians 1:18
18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Blessings in Christ,

Haas

[vernesmooth]

Maybe we can get the ball rolling with some Historical-Grammatical hermeneutics (oh yeah, with some critical in there, but not too systematic sarcasm ).


Author: Matthew (also called Levi see Mark 2:14, Luke 5:27)


Date: Most likely written in the 50’s or 60’s A.D. (prior to the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.)


Matthew’s intended audience was most likely Jewish.

Why? 1) Genealogy starting with Abraham. 2) Christ shown to be King and Messiah of Israel with over 60 quotes from OT prophecies showing Christ’s fulfillment of these promises. 3). Matthew cites Jewish customs without explaining them (in contrast to the other Gospels). 4) Christ is often referred to as “the Son of David”. 5) Matthew is sensitive to Jews in regards to God’s name when he says “the kingdom of heaven” instead of “the kingdom of God”. 6) Matthew’s themes all rooted in OT and set to display Israel’s messianic expectations.

Purpose: Showing that Jesus is the Israelites long awaited Messiah (and King).

Matthew details 5 major discourses:
1) Sermon on the Mount (chs. 5-7). 2) Apostles sent out or commissioned (ch. 10). 3) Parables (ch. 13). 4) Discourse on childlikeness of a believer (ch. 18]. 5) Christ’s second coming (chs. 24-25).

above info paraphrased from various Bibles, study Bibles and commentaries.

Interesting quote on interpretive challenge:

“As noted above, Matthew groups his narrative material around five great discourses. He makes no attempt to follow a strict chronology, and a comparison to the Gospels reveals that Matthew freely places things out of order. He is dealing with themes and broad concepts, not laying out a time line. [The MacArthur Bible Commentary pg. 1115 John MacArthur]”

Matthew 13

The Parable of the Sower

13:1 That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat beside the sea. 2 And great crowds gathered about him, so that he got into a boat and sat down. And the whole crowd stood on the beach. 3 And he told them many things in parables, saying: “A sower went out to sow. 4 And as he sowed, some seeds fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured them. 5 Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where they did not have much soil, and immediately they sprang up, since they had no depth of soil, 6 but when the sun rose they were scorched. And since they had no root, they withered away. 7 Other seeds fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked them. 8 Other seeds fell on good soil and produced grain, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. 9 He who has ears, let him hear.”

The Purpose of the Parables

10 Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” 11 And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:

“‘You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.
15 For this people's heart has grown dull,
and with their ears they can barely hear,
and their eyes they have closed,
lest they should see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them.’

16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. 17 For truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.

The Parable of the Sower Explained

18 “Hear then the parable of the sower: 19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is what was sown along the path. 20 As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, 21 yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away. 22 As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. 23 As for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty.”


I provided Matthew 13:1-23 above. Hopefully it will be helpful to read and reference as we try to break it down and talk about it.

Here is Isaiah 6 as well:

Isaiah 6

Isaiah's Vision of the Lord

6:1 In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. 2 Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. 3 And one called to another and said:

“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts;
the whole earth is full of his glory!”

4 And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. 5 And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!”

6 Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. 7 And he touched my mouth and said: “Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for.”

Isaiah's Commission from the Lord

8 And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Then I said, “Here am I! Send me.” 9 And he said, “Go, and say to this people:

“‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand;
keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’
10 Make the heart of this people dull,
and their ears heavy,
and blind their eyes;
lest they see with their eyes,
and hear with their ears,
and understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed.”
11 Then I said, “How long, O Lord?”
And he said:
“Until cities lie waste
without inhabitant,
and houses without people,
and the land is a desolate waste,
12 and the Lord removes people far away,
and the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land.
13 And though a tenth remain in it,
it will be burned again,
like a terebinth or an oak,
whose stump remains
when it is felled.”
The holy seed is its stump.



Rest in Christ,

Haas

[Guest]

I know of no place in the Bible where anyone ever asked:
"Does regeneration come before or after faith?"

You mean someone poking at the idea that the New Birth comes before faith?
As in say, Nicodemas asking Jesus if a man must enter into his mother’s womb a second time?
Or when the people around the stinking body of Lazarus failed to grasp resurrection power and Jesus proceeds to instruct them in exactly that?
or when the Prophet could not understand how a valley full of dead dry bones could ever be raised up and live?
Something along those lines?

In the Bible I've not read where:
Anybody said a single thing about "What order did they happen in?"

You mean even The Apostle John when he says that we are Children of God, not by our own will, but of God and such things like that?

I have never seen in the Scriptures where:
These things were "issues" of concern (from Genesis to Revelation).

Really, tell that to the more than 5000 people who no longer walked with Jesus after He told them that they could not believe on Him unless it was first granted of the Father? Or those that could not believe because they were not Sheep! Joh 10:26

Tentatively, therefore, I present an argument that:
The people who wrote the Bible didn't think in EITHER Calvinistic OR non-Calvinistic (or Arminian) categories.

It is simply a patently absurd argument that does not deserve any more time than it takes to read the whole of John Chapter 6. Eph 1 and 2, Romans 8 and 9, Acts 10, Gen 50 etc etc

If it can be demonstrated they didn't (cannot be proven otherwise):
1. Why should we? (if we are serious about having a Biblical Worldview)?

Having a serious Biblical world view is one thing, and not having one is another.
One gives birth to good hermeneutics, the other, human tradition.

There's my Challenge! to all of you Bible Scholars!
(Btw, I'm really looking for any evidences for this...haven't found a thing yet)....
Thanks,
Rick

Reminds me of a story Spurgeon once told, that had a most earnest man, who had claimed to have read his Bible many times over, whilst face down on the ground, prostrate before it, and could see no shred of election to salvation within it’s pages.

Spurgeon suggested to the dear fellow that he get up, sit in a comfy chair, and perhaps he might read and see truth more clearly, rather than in such an uncomfortable posture!

Mark

[Guest]

Mark,

If you will read your own answers to Rick )assuming they are the best you can provide to his challenge), you will find that his challenge remains unanswered--and, possibly, unanswerable.

[Guest]

If you (Mark) will read your own answers to Rick )assuming they are the best you can provide to his challenge), you will find that his challenge remains unanswered--and, possibly, unanswerable.

Yes, Steve, not even remotely close....no answers at all.

Btw, I'm still looking & haven't found a thing......

We know that, since the Reformation, people have been saying (and debating about) these things. But no one in the Bible did, that I know of.

Thanks,
Rick

[Guest]

Hi Rick,

Quote: "We know that, since the Reformation, people have been saying (and debating about) these things. But no one in the Bible did, that I know of."

Well, maybe not in the Bible. But the Rabbi's did and had their own schools of thought on many subjects; i.e., salvation, messiah, resurrection, etc... I am trying to find some good sources for a better understanding of the Hebraic sense or nuances in scripture. Can you recommend any? If we are really trying to capture the 1st century understanding of Jesus and the Apostles, it seems it would be helpful
to have a Hebrew perspective. Amen?

In Him,
Bob

[Guest]

Alrighty then, the idea that regeneration precedes faith has no biblical warrant based upon the notion that no one ever discusses it, debates it, mentions it even. Is that the challenge?

So if I carry that logic into say whether anyone in the Bible made an issue over the Trinity or Justification, Imputed righteousness or any number of such ideas, are those who say such things going to use the exact same standards of hermenuetics?

Is that it?

And Steve, if perhaps unanswerable, why even bother to defend Arminian/Calvinism at all? Why even think about debating Mr White or anyone else?

Why dont you just make your position to be that the whole idea of Regeneration precedes faith is not something anyone in scripture was even remotely interested in discussing, defending etc?

Make that your position and forget about trying to defend any and all other areas of Arminian thought.

I mean lets face it, if there is no emphasis in scripture regarding regeneration preceding faith, then the whole Arminian/Calvinism thing is a whole lot of booha over nothing really.

I will go on the record as saying that if Calvinists are wrong that scripture explicitly teaches regeneration precedes faith, then they are people to avoid at all costs, for they would be pathetic, trivial and altogether a great cause of division within the body of Christ. They should be disciplined as schismatics and handed over to the Devil in order to repent.

But if they are right, that is another matter entirely.

Mark

[Guest]

And just another thought.

Considering the reformation was the clearest and most blessed time in Church history, for which none of us would even be Christians today, is it really wise to just make those involved out as being overly concerned about such things?

That is what I am hearing.

Man, if we could only grasp a small glimpse of what those guys had!
Yet, some here want to judge them like they were bringing up such non Biblical ideas as regeneration preceding faith etc. Incredible really.

For those of you romanticising about first century Christianity and the early Church Fathers etc, I guarantee you would not only not want to fit in with them, but they would boot you out faster than Paris Hiltons conversion.

[Guest]

Hi Mark,

you wrote:

I will go on the record as saying that if Calvinists are wrong that scripture explicitly teaches regeneration precedes faith, then they are people to avoid at all costs, for they would be pathetic, trivial and altogether a great cause of division within the body of Christ. They should be disciplined as schismatics and handed over to the Devil in order to repent.

I think I would be a little more charitable towards Calvinists then you would apparently be, but I agree that anyone who is schismatic should be warned and disciplined as such (Titus 3:10).

But my question to you is, would you also flip this statement over and apply it the other way? Would you say that if it is true (pre-faith regeneration), then the non-Calvinists are the schismatics that should be handed over to Satan?

In other words, do you see this issue as the line in the sand that is worth dividing over? And if so, do you think Jesus and the apostles were plain enough about it in scripture to make it an obvious non-negotiable? And if that is true, how do you explain the current debate on the issue?