Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

102 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

joneames
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 21

Posted 4/22/2004 1:27 PM (GMT -6)

victoryword
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181

Posted 4/23/2004 9:42 AM (GMT -6)

Recommend you read CALVINISM -- TEN LITTLE CAVEATS by Bob Moore
http://www.bobmoorepainting.com/Calvin/

Moore seems to take the Open Position (see chapter 8 and also chapter 4). So if you want a book written against Calvinism written from an Open Theist perspective, this may be what you are looking for. And it's free. He has a chapter on Romans 9
http://www.bobmoorepainting.com/Calvin/Ch9.htm

If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com

Hobbes
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63

Posted 4/24/2004 7:30 AM (GMT -6)

Hi Jon,

On John 6:The following is from a response to Van Lees position on Total Depravity - see: Dr. Van Lees’ paper on Man’s Radical Corruption at
http://www.covenantofgracechurch.org/article%201.htm
and Man’s Moral Corruption at http://www.covenantofgracechurch.org/article%202.htm

John 6:44 states, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him…”

Dr Van Lees interprets this scripture thusly, “This statement begins with a universal negative, "No one can come to Me. . . ." and also, “Jesus said that no one has the ability to come to Him on their own.”

Van Lees expounds on this when he says, “This is what Jesus was addressing when He said, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him . . . " Fallen man may look at Jesus and be impressed with his moral teaching; he may think that Jesus is interesting, but, apart from God's divine initiative, he will never come to Christ for salvation. He has no desire to submit to God or to believe the gospel; he lacks the moral ability to come to Christ.”

Another aspect of the Reformed understanding involves the concept that the “drawing” is irresistible and the person being drawn does not REALLY have a choice. They are “compelled by irresistible superiority.” Again, from Dr. Van Lees, “Everyone that is drawn by the Father will come. It was not merely an enticement or encouragement to come. Second, the Greek word translated as "draw" is elko. Gerhard Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament defines elko as "to compel by irresistible superiority. The linguistic and lexicographical meaning of elko is "to compel (Kittel, Vol. 2, p. 503).”

If all we had were verses 43-51 I confess that I would be hard pressed to refute the Reformed interpretation given above. But as usual, misinterpretation, Reformed or otherwise, is usually due to not taking the entire immediate context into account.

The Reformed understanding of this text does not take into account the explanation that the writer of the account himself gives. In verse 65 it says, “And He was saying, ‘FOR THIS REASON I have said to you, that no one can come to me unless it has been granted him from the Father.’” Two questions need to be answered.

1) Who is the “you” that Jesus is referring to?
2) What is the “for this reason” that Jesus said what He did to “you”?

Both questions are answered by the realization that the “you” are the disciples, and the reason Jesus was saying, “…that no one can come to me unless it has been granted him from the Father” was because many of the disciples were grumbling, saying, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” (Verse 60) The difficult statement was, “He who eats My flesh and drinks my blood abides in Me and I in him.” (Verse 56)

Jesus was saying that those who were around Him, physically, while He was ministering on the earth, were drawn to His physical person by the Father and were His disciples because the Father had granted it or had drawn them. Even the grumblers. The grumbling disciples being spoken of are not the 12, but were “many” (verse 60). Being drawn by the Father is NOT equated with eternal life. Believing is equated with eternal life (verse 47). Verse 64,65: “But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe [PLURAL], and who it was that would betray Him [SINGULAR]. And He was saying, ‘FOR THIS REASON I have said to you, that no one can come to me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

ALL those who were disciples of Jesus had been drawn, even those who did not believe, and even he who was going to betray him. Dr. Van Lees’ grammatical argument from the Greek word “elko” is problematic. The problem is Van Lees applies it universally and he applies it to salvation. Jesus did not apply it universally to all people everywhere in all times; He applied it to the disciples who were following Him in His earthly ministry. Neither does Jesus equate being drawn with eternal life. He equates believing with eternal life.

Verse 66-67: “As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?”

Many disciples “withdrew.” How could they withdraw if they hadn’t been drawn in the first place? This tells us that the drawing, though compelling, is not necessarily effectual or irresistible. Many had been drawn, but they did not believe, and so when Jesus spoke a hard saying, it says that they withdrew and were “NOT WALKING WITH HIM ANYMORE.” This tells us that the compelling drawing (elko) was to physically follow Jesus around, to WALK with Him, NOT an irresistible, monergistic, effectual drawing to eternal life. Verse 67 tells us that the disciples who did not believe and withdrew were NOT any of the twelve.

In verse 70 Jesus says, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?” Here Jesus is saying that even Judas was “chosen” – Judas had been drawn. And He is speaking in the context of ALL those who had been drawn, but he distinguishes the 12 from the rest.

I think it’s interesting that Jesus NEVER said that Judas didn’t believe. John makes a distinction between those who didn’t believe and the one who would betray Him in verse 64. Nevertheless, Judas was drawn, indeed he was chosen by Christ Himself, but he betrayed the One to whom he was drawn.

So, Van Lees equates the drawing with eternal life and he applies the drawing universally. Neither of these assumptions can be supported from the context. The context tells us the drawing was to the physical person of Christ, and it was a drawing to be His disciple during His earthly ministry.

One last point. Verse 44: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him…”

In verse 65 Jesus paraphrases HIMSELF: “…no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

There is a difference in meaning between “draws” and “granted” and yet Jesus is obviously referring to His previous statement where He said, “draws” when He says, “…I HAVE SAID TO YOU, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted…”

From this I must conclude that doing an etymological study on the word “draws” (elko) to support a doctrinal belief not stated in the immediate context is an over-exegesis. Especially since Jesus apparently said “draws” one time and then used the word, “granted” when referring to “draws”. Jesus Himself didn’t make a distinction between “draws” and “granted.” Apparently it wasn’t that big a deal to Him whether a person was “drawn” or “granted.” He used the words interchangeably.

And so, when Dr. Van Lees says, (quote) “This is what Jesus was addressing when He said, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him . . . " Fallen man may look at Jesus and be impressed with his moral teaching; he may think that Jesus is interesting, but, apart from God's divine initiative, he will never come to Christ for salvation. He has no desire to submit to God or to believe the gospel; he lacks the moral ability to come to Christ” (close quote) - he is flat-out wrong! What Jesus was addressing were the disciples who were drawn to follow Him in His earthly ministry. Dr. Van Lees’ position, which is illustrative of the Reformed position in general, COMPLETELY ignores the immediate context, and ignores the explanation given in the text itself, and eisegetes the notion that the compelling drawing is to eternal life. The immediate context says, “he who believes has eternal life.” Peter sums it up when he says in verse 69: “We have BELIEVED and come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”

Hope that helps - have a nice day! Smile

Alan Rhoda
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680

Posted 4/24/2004 10:41 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by joneames

can anyone in here (again regarding debating calvinism) help with the calvinist proof text John 6, the whole "no one can come unless the father draws him."

Hi Jon,
Quick point regarding John 6: The verse says "no one CAN come UNLESS ..." What this means is that the Father's work of drawing is a necessary condition for someone's coming to saving faith in Christ--IF God does NOT draw a person then they cannot come to Christ. The verse does not say that the Father's drawing is a sufficient condition for salvation. As such, the verse does not teach irresistible grace, unconditional election, or any other distinctively Calvinist doctrine. In fact, the verse is perfectly consistent with the Arminian notion of "prevenient grace". So when Calvinists try to press this verse into service as a prooftext for their system, they are reading more into the text than it says. That's eisegesis (reading into a text what isn't there), not exegesis (reading out of a text what is there).

Hope that helps.

Alan

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 4/24/2004 11:47 PM (GMT -6)

Clear me up on causation, Alan, because I just told Jon something different on another thread about John 6. I made the same essential distinction you do here, but I called them something else.

I understood a “sufficient cause” to be equivalent to what you’re calling a “necessary cause,” an act which is necessary to producing the desired outcome but which does not necessarily produce that outcome. Swinging a bat is necessary to hitting a homerun, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that if you swing and connect that you’ll hit a home run. A “efficient cause” was what I was calling your “sufficient cause.” An efficient cause would be pulling the trigger of a loaded 45 placed between one’s eyes. That would be the efficient cause of one’s death, an act which cannot fail to produce the effect. I though sufficient causes were necessary to their effects without necessitating them, while efficient causes necessitated their effects. But you distinguish between necessary and sufficient. Where does “efficient” causation come into your explanation?

Aristotle distinguished between four causes: Material (the material out of which something is made; the material cause of a hour is the wood and other materials out of which it was made), Formal (the appearance or form of a thing; the formal cause of a square is “squareness”), Efficient (the bullet which causes death), and Final (the purpose or object for which an action is done; the final cause of my posting this is to gain accurate knowledge). Only efficient causes actually produce something distinct from themselves. So are “necessary” and “sufficient” two sub-categories of “efficient” causes?

Tom

Hobbes
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63

Posted 4/25/2004 6:36 AM (GMT -6)

Alan – Your point is well taken but is not necessary. The immediate context of the verse indicates “no one can come unless the Father draws” is concerning the disciples who were drawn to follow Jesus in His earthly ministry. When engaging Calvinists on this text, all one has to do is show that the drawing does NOT pertain to the so-called Elect, but only to the disciples. You have accepted a Calvinist presupposition - that is, WHO are those that are drawn – and consequently your argument is based on the idea that those who are drawn include more than those that Jesus was talking about in this context.

To all - If you read all of Jon’s posts, you should perceive a certain desperation. He has come out of Calvinism (no easy feat that, especially if you’ve been raised in it) and is struggling with certain Calvinist arguments and proof-texts, and is in conflict with his father (perhaps other family members as well) who he loves. He has used the shotgun approach on this board – perhaps we could direct him, as well as ourselves, to this thread, and this thread only, and focus on Jon’s problem, perhaps we can be of assistance to this young man in his struggle. As can be plainly seen, I do not spend much time dialoging on boards like this. I do check in from time to time to see what’s going on, but seldom participate. If a running conversation leaves this thread and goes to another one would somebody please direct me to it so I can keep up, and put in my two cents worth now and then?

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 4/25/2004 7:16 AM (GMT -6)

Hobbes-

Appreciate your comments, but it’s not at all clear to me that the passage in question embraces only the disciples. Quite the contrary, the context appears to me to suggest that Jesus has more in mind that just the disciples and that his point is universal in application. Even if you’re right about the scope of Jesus’ words, a determinist can still argue that the calling of the disciples then was irresistible and that we shouldn’t therefore have any objection in principle to God calling everyone in the same way. So some further argument is needed to show that divine calling (even if it’s only of Jesus’ disciples) isn’t irresistible, and it appears to me that pointing out the logic of Jesus’ meaning (what it actually means and what it doesn’t necessarily entail) does that and applies to both Jesus’ disciples and everyone else who believes.

Jon, I really encourage you to get Robert Shank’s two books “Life in the Son” and “Elect in the Son.” They’ll really help you.

Tom

Hobbes
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63

Posted 4/25/2004 1:29 PM (GMT -6)

Tom – In my original post I said,

If all we had were verses 43-51 I confess that I would be hard pressed to refute the Reformed interpretation given above. But as usual, misinterpretation, Reformed or otherwise, is usually due to not taking the entire immediate context into account.

One must keep reading past verse 51. My position is based on Jesus’ statement in verse 65,

“And He was saying, ‘For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.’”

Jesus here refers to the statement in question, which is verse 44. Jesus is telling us here (verses 60ff.) WHO he was talking to and WHY he said what he did in verse 44. What I’m saying is that even though it appears that Jesus was speaking universally in verse 44, He Himself says in verse 65 that he was not. He was addressing the disciples who no doubt were wondering what was going on in light of the “withdrawing” (v 66) of many of their brethren upon the hearing of the hard saying, which was,

“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.”

This caused many of the disciples to WITHDRAW and NOT WALK WITH HIM ANYMORE (v 66). It seems clear (to me, anyway) that verse 44 should be understood (per Jesus Himself referring to it in v 65) in the context of verses 60-71.

You said,

Even if you’re right about the scope of Jesus’ words, a determinist can still argue that the calling of the disciples then was irresistible and that we shouldn’t therefore have any objection in principle to God calling everyone in the same way. So some further argument is needed to show that divine calling (even if it’s only of Jesus’ disciples) isn’t irresistible, and it appears to me that pointing out the logic of Jesus’ meaning (what it actually means and what it doesn’t necessarily entail) does that and applies to both Jesus’ disciples and everyone else who believes.

I understand, and I appreciated Alan’s pointing that out. For myself, I would consider that a fallback position, one that I might pursue if my current position can be shown to be incorrect – from the immediate context. I thought I was pretty clear in my original post that the drawing is NOT irresistible, which is demonstrated by the fact that many disciples WITHDREW. Indeed, that is Jesus’ very point in verse 64,

“But there are some of you who do not believe.” The drawing, though compelling, is resistible. That is the point of, “Did I not CHOOSE YOU, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?” Judas was chosen, he was one of the twelve – verse 71.

My motivation in all this is not to dispute various interpretations, even sympathetic interpretations, (although I find it interesting and stimulating – thank you Alan and Tom) but to help Jon. I think any number of y’all that frequent these boards are more than capable of doing that – support, encouragement, and exegetical help. Calvinists have an impressively overwhelming and internally consistent intellectual construct. Those of us who understand that much of it is based on misinterpreted scripture are needed when a cry for help is heard from one struggling to break free of Determinism.

Alan Rhoda
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680

Posted 4/26/2004 9:56 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by TGB

Clear me up on causation, Alan. ... I understood a “sufficient cause” to be equivalent to what you’re calling a “necessary cause,” an act which is necessary to producing the desired outcome but which does not necessarily produce that outcome. Swinging a bat is necessary to hitting a homerun, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that if you swing and connect that you’ll hit a home run. A “efficient cause” was what I was calling your “sufficient cause.” An efficient cause would be pulling the trigger of a loaded 45 placed between one’s eyes. That would be the efficient cause of one’s death, an act which cannot fail to produce the effect. I though sufficient causes were necessary to their effects without necessitating them, while efficient causes necessitated their effects. But you distinguish between necessary and sufficient. Where does “efficient” causation come into your explanation?

A sufficient condition is one which is, as the namely implies, sufficient to bring a certain result about. In other words, the conditional

(1) If [sufficient condition] then [result].

is true. A necessary condition is one which is necessary to bring a certain result about. In other words, the conditional

(2) If NOT-[necessary condition] then NOT-[result].

is true.

To illustrate, what are the necessary conditions for starting a fire? Well, if you have no oxygen, then there will be no fire. So oxygen is a necessary condition. In addition, if you have no fuel, then will be nothing to burn, and thus no fire. So some sort of fuel is a necessary condition. Again, if you have no spark or input of energy of sufficient magnitude to ignite the fuel, then there will be no fire. So some kind of igniting spark is a necessary condition for a fire. What happens when you put all of them (oxygen, fuel, and spark) together? You then have a sufficient condition, for the combination of the three necessary conditions will ordinarily give rise to a fire. Thus we would say that those three conditions are individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions for a fire.

How does this relate to Aristotle's four causes? It's really an independent distinction. In the above example, the efficient cause would be the application of the spark to the fuel-oxygen combination. It is an efficient cause because it is what "sets off" or "triggers" the ignition. So an efficient cause can be a necessary condition. It can also be a sufficient condition, as the ignition of a hydrogen bomb 5 feet from you is both sufficient to bring about your demise and it is the efficient cause that brings about your demise. At the same time, there can be necessary conditions and sufficient conditions that are not efficient causes, so they are not sub-categories of efficient causes. For example, having a sibling is a necessary and sufficient condition for my not being an only child, but having a sibling is not an efficient cause of my not being an only child. The efficient cause, rather, is my parents, who acted so as to produce a sibling for me.

Hope that clarifies.

Alan

Alan Rhoda
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680

Posted 4/26/2004 10:05 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Hobbes

Alan – Your point is well taken but is not necessary. The immediate context of the verse indicates “no one can come unless the Father draws” is concerning the disciples who were drawn to follow Jesus in His earthly ministry. When engaging Calvinists on this text, all one has to do is show that the drawing does NOT pertain to the so-called Elect, but only to the disciples. You have accepted a Calvinist presupposition - that is, WHO are those that are drawn – and consequently your argument is based on the idea that those who are drawn include more than those that Jesus was talking about in this context.

I appreciate the point, Hobbes. While I am not entirely convinced by your argument that Jesus really meant "no one of you disciples can come unless the Father draws", I do think you raise an interesting interpretive possibility, one that hadn't occurred to me before. I'll have to look at the full passage more carefully to consider your argument. With respect to Jon's concern, I don't think we have to definitively decide between the interpretations you and I have proposed. Having more than one possible counter to the Calvinist interpretation allows us to say (1) it is not clear that "no one" is really universal in scope, and (2) EVEN IF it is, it doesn't prove that God's drawing is anything more than a necessary condition for salvation.

God bless,
Alan

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 4/26/2004 10:30 AM (GMT -6)

TGB:

Is it possible you are confusing cause with condition?

"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

Hobbes
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63

Posted 4/26/2004 12:43 PM (GMT -6)

Alan – you said, “While I am not entirely convinced by your argument that Jesus really meant "no one of you disciples can come unless the Father draws", I do think you raise an interesting interpretive possibility, one that hadn't occurred to me before. I'll have to look at the full passage more carefully to consider your argument.”

Thanks, Alan. I would be interested in your critique.

I acknowledge that there is nothing in the context that would indicate that Jesus was NOT speaking universally - UNTIL verse 65. But in light of verse 65 it seems to me that we wouldn’t want to disregard Jesus’ own thoughts on the matter! He said, “FOR THIS REASON I have said to you, ‘no one comes…” The reason has to do with the disciples, not the general public. Any attack on my position must deal with what I am saying concerning verse 65 and how it relates to verse 44. Again, I would be interested and open to your critique.

With respect to Jon's concern, I don't think we have to definitively decide between the interpretations you and I have proposed. Having more than one possible counter to the Calvinist interpretation allows us to say (1) it is not clear that "no one" is really universal in scope, and (2) EVEN IF it is, it doesn't prove that God's drawing is anything more than a necessary condition for salvation.

I agree completely.

Lee Merrill
booted

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723

Posted 5/6/2004 1:31 PM (GMT -6)

Hi everyone,

quote:
Hobbes: "no one of you disciples can come unless the Father draws"... I acknowledge that there is nothing in the context that would indicate that Jesus was NOT speaking universally - UNTIL verse 65.

JN 6:65 He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."

But why is "no one" here referring only to the disciples? Jesus did make a statement similar to this, which he may have been referring to:

JN 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me.

This is a similar thought, stated positively, speaking not to his disciples, but to those who thought he should be king and feed them bread every day.

And I think there are indications that Jesus is speaking universally, in the very next verse, even:

JN 6:45 It is written in the Prophets: "They will all be taught by God."

Surely this doesn't refer only to the disciples alive then.

JN 6:46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.

And that is certainly a universal statement, which doesn't mean just the disciples.

JN 6:47 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.

Here eternal life is even mentioned, I think these verses may all be taken together, "drawn," "taught by God," "has everlasting life." And again, from this very verse, we have a statement that clearly applies to all believers:

JN 6:44 "... and I will raise him up at the last day."

Not just the true disciples alive at that time will be raised up, all believers will indeed be raised up. Also "him" here references either "comes to me" or "draws", and implies success, "I will raise him up," not "I may raise him up." If it refers to "comes to me," then we may refer back to verse 37, and see that all that the Father gives Jesus will come to him, thus we have irresistible election here, even if "draw" does not bring everyone drawn. If "I will raise him up" refers to "draw," then we also have irresistibility as well.

Blessings,
Lee

P.S. I did post a question about whether "helko" (to draw) always implies success, and was shown that it doesn't. It sometimes refers to magic spells, which no one says are always successful. So I think the word in and of itself does not imply irresistable calling.

==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald)

Hobbes
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63

Posted 5/9/2004 6:16 AM (GMT -6)

Hi Lee,

I’m sorry – I just now saw your post. I’m not really very good at being involved in more than one thread at a time.

To what and to whom is Jesus referring in verse 65 when He says, “"This is why I told you…”?

You said, “But why is "no one" here referring only to the disciples? Jesus did make a statement similar to this, which he may have been referring to:

JN 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me.

This is a similar thought, stated positively, speaking not to his disciples, but to those who thought he should be king and feed them bread every day.”

So…you are saying that verse 65 refers to verse 37 and NOT verse 44? On what basis?

I agree that the drawing is not irresistible. That is obvious from the context. “Many disciples withdrew…”

Please read my original post on this thread (if you haven’t already). Most of my answers to your questions are contained in it.

Could you kindly direct me to the thread you mentioned concerning “helko”?

- Hobbes

larris
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181

Posted 5/11/2004 9:48 PM (GMT -6)

can anyone in here (again regarding debating calvinism) help with the calvinist proof text John 6, the whole "no one can come unless the father draws him." Greg Boyd, could really use your help here, too. I think too many people are getting away with using this as a proof text, especially James White.
_____________________________________________________________________

Once people have been that brain washed it’s pretty hard to convince them of anything else, regardless of how many proof texts you have.

Quote: A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.

I often think that some people like to believe in predestination because they like to think that they are “special” while others are NOT. It’s really an ego trip.

But as far as John 6 goes, here’s what I think.

First of all you have going here in the gospels what might be deemed progressive revelation. And as events transpire and Jesus teaches more, things also change.

Now we have in chapter 6 two statements that are very much that same.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.

John 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

Verse 65 is a repeat of what he said in verse 44. Only like us he uses a different word when explaining something. In verse 44 he uses the word “draw”, while in reminding them of what he said in verse 44, in verse 65 he uses the words “were given unto him”.

However the really important word in verse 65 is the word “Therefore”. This word refers back to what was previously said, giving us the reason he said this to begin with.

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I give to you, they are spirit and they are life. But there be some among you that believe not (my words). For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not (his words) and who should betray him. AND HE SAID, THEREFORE (or that is why) I said (previously) to you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

He specifically said “Know man can come unto me except the Father draw him.” in directly referring to those who were present, not only listening to him, but to those of THAT TIME. What happens immediately after he gets done with this discourse? The very next verse states:

66. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Well, gee, they were being “drawn” what happened? Why did God quit drawing them? As the story progresses we find out a little more.

67. Then said Jesus UNTO THE TWELVE, Will you also go away?

Oh, THE TWELVE, well now it seems to me that they had a little part to play, in “the play”. They had a little part to play in the specific prophecies of the messiah. And it then states of Judas;

68. Then Simon Peter answered him. Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

Later in Acts Peter shows that the Lord purposely AT THAT TIME, had only drawn a certain amount of individuals to Christ for specific reasons.

Acts 1:15
and in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowls gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalme; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Peter knew that according to prophecy their had to be 12 apostles, that were ordained as witnesses of his resurrection.

The specific reasons that these people were drawn, was to be of that cream of the crop number who would bear witness of the resurrection of Christ. So that one could also take the place of Judas among the Twelve. And he drew Judas, so that Judas could fulfill his role, by the total freedom of his own will. Judas was specifically chosen because of his character which the Lord already knew. By his very character, his very heart which only God knows, he had his son choose Judas, knowing that he would betray him. Because he was just that kind of person by choice.

All these things had to take place in a certain manner, in order to fulfill prophecy. But once these prophecies were fulfilled things changed.

John 12:31,32
Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

It is Jesus NOW, and ever since his death and resurrection, who now draws all men unto him. God his Father, while Jesus was on earth in his earthly body of flesh drew the men he needed unto his Son. But once the son was crucified and glorified and back with his Father, it became the Son who drew all men unto himself, and thus unto his Father also. For no man could come to the Son while he was here on earth except through the Father. And now no man can come unto the Father who is in heaven except through the Son. And specifically the WORDS of his son, which are spirit and life, just like they were back then.

Jesus is calling and drawing EVERY MAN, but not every man will answer that call. But that is THEIR DECISION! For God’s will is not that ANY MAN SHOULD PERISH, but that EVERY MAN should come to a knowledge of the truth. God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked should repent of his ways. For God so loved THE WORLD that he gave his only begotten son, gave him to what? To be crucified, and WHEN he was crucified, when he was lifted up on that cross, is when he began to DRAW ALL MEN TO HIMSELF!

And that’s the first place all men look to the cross, to the death of Jesus, his payment for their sins. Before they ever know much of anything about Jesus the one thing they know is that he died for their sins. And the next thing they should be looking at is his resurrection, then his teachings which will when followed lead one to repentance of sin, thus delivering them from their sins, by getting them to QUIT SINNING habitually. Thus he draws ALL men to him, but some don’t stick around, and THAT IS THEIR CHOICE!

___________________________________________________________________
"And can anyone else help me with what "exegesis" really means, and why it's proclaimed so much by Calvinists, and why they charge that their opponents never exegete the text?"
___________________________________________________________________

Yes the truth is that "exegesis", which all groups do to one degree or another on their perspective pet doctrines, and which I was also originally indoctrinated into applying to the scriptures, really means EXIT-JESUS .

You think I kidding right, well I'm not! Take a look at Webster's definition.

Main Entry: ex·e·ge·sis
Pronunciation: "ek-s&-'jE-s&s, 'ek-s&-"
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural ex·e·ge·ses /-'jE-(")sEz/

Etymology: New Latin, from Greek exEgEsis, from exEgeisthai to explain, interpret, from ex- + hEgeisthai to lead [ASTRAY (my comment)] an explanation or critical interpretation of a text.

Exitjesus, is in reality an interpretation of scripture with applied hermeneutics. In other words, it's not just reading it for what it says, because in reality most of us morons can see it's NOT REALLY SAYING THAT.

So to make us think that we can't read, and that they have to READ IT FOR US, they Exitjesus it. That means they dig in their systematic bag of tricks, which they gave a big fancy pansy name to, just to impress us, and they pull out some explanation they call "scientific" hermeneutical principle, that MUST be applied to the text, to make it say what they want it to say. Again this is not just Cavinist doctrines, but any doctrine by any group that is not really true to fact of the Word of God.

You asked: "and why they charge that their opponents never exegete the text?"

Again let me say, that what I am going to explain here dose not specifically refer to just those of Cavinistic persuasion. But in fact refers to any and every one of every belief. All denominations have been taught to apply these things to the texts of the Bible. So in refering to "they", I am not just referring to Calvinists.

What they are referring to by "text", are all the isolated verses of scripture that they (or anyone) take out of context. When they claim that their opponents never Exitjesus they their specific text, they are saying, that their opponents are not reaching into the hermeneutical bag of tricks and slapping the same faulty explanation on it that they are.

Again it should be noted that their opponets have their own false doctrines that they will apply the exitjesus on. So as I say I am not endeavoring to pick on Calvinist. For anytime a doctrine is not really true to fact you have to exitjesus it. In fact the more off it is, the more hermeneutics you have to apply to it. The truth is one might not be off on predestination, but one could be way off in another area or subject of the Word of God. There are many subjects that we have to get right on.

You see they just try and give you some scientific sounding explanation for why the Bible either says something it dose not say, or dose not say something it actually says.

Hermeneutics was developed to make the errors of men seem true to all us poor suckers. And as we adopt their explanations and usage of hermeneutic to the text we further the error. And they are even admitting as much.

Bakers Theological Dictionary
Scholars did not develop a theory of hermeneutics from abstract considerations, but the practical issues of exegesis (as well as controversy in interpretation) DROVE THEM TO THE FORMATION OF HERMENEUTICAL THEORY.

What he is saying is that men had controversial interpretations that others did not agree with. So they then came up with so called "principles" (hermeneutics), that they then could apply to the texts they used to make their interpretations seem right.

Many if not most of these systems of hermeneutics revolved around men's interpretation of books like Revelation. At least this is where you can get a good example of what I am trying to explain.

For instance you go back in time to before the Reformation, many people that read the book of Revelation started thinking THE CHURCH, i.e. Roman Catholic Church was Babylon the Harlot, and the pope was the antichrist. I mean they fit the scenario pretty well. But now the church and her henchmen could not have people thinking this kind of stuff, so they had to come up with a way, to make Revelation NOT SEEM TO SAY THAT.

Now at first they just scared people into believing it didn't say that, by torturing and burning them at the stake. However that tactic didn't keep working as well as they would have liked, a bunch of people rebelled and started their own Churches, got kings behind them, and were able to go on interpreting the book of Revelation in that manner. DRAT, the sword and the stake weren't working any more.

Well they thought, "Let's try THE PEN". Hence in walks the Jesuit Alcazar with a sneaky idea, to make everyone think that those things written in the book of Revelation could not apply to THE CHURCH and THE POPE because HEY they were already over and done with. He called his systematic form of hermeneutic (interpretation) THE PRETERIST SCHOOL of interpretation. For PRETERIST means PREVIOUSLY HAPPENED.
Unfortunately not many people fell for this one, however it is being revived now in our time.

Since that didn't work, as always Jesuits to the rescue, the Jesuit Rebera came up with another idea. He called his interpretation "THE FUTURIST SCHOOL". According to his hermeneutic all the events of the book of Revelation were still yet to happen in the FUTURE, therefore the harlot and the antichrist beast could not be THE CHURCH and THE POPE.

Meanwhile the Reformers were convinced that the events of the book of Revelation were taking place right before their eyes, and they called their form of interpretation "THE PRESENTIST SCHOOL" of interpretation. Get it, PRESENT, as in PRESENTLY HAPPENING. And you couldn't convince them that THE CHURCH and THE POPE were not the Harlot and the Beast. The other name by which this form of interpretation was or is currently know by is THE HISTORICAL. The Presentist interpretation after a few hundred years had to change its name, because Jesus didn't actually come soon enough.

Hence it went from PRESENTLY HAPPENING, to having happened to being in the process of time happening, hence HISTORICALLY happening. And eventually all three were mixed and matched The PREVIOUSLY happened, the PRESENTLY happening, and it's happening in the FUTURE. So if you have PAST, PRESENT and FUTURE what do you have? You have THE HISTORICAL, because that's what HIS-STORY is, past present and future.

However with the new found freedom to come up with interpretations things didn't stop there. Enter in THE SPIRITUAL interpretation. This is actually one of the oldest forms of interpretation, under the guise of a NEW NAME. The original name was THE ALLEGORICAL system of interpretation.

We now have at least FIVE things in our hermeneutical bag of tricks, that we can draw on to EXITJESUS each particular text. Now we are told that these "principles" are used with a "scientific precision" in order to come up with the correct interpretation. But in truth you just pick whatever one you want out, depending on what you are trying to prove. OH YEA I FORGOT you also have THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION, so we need to add that to our bag of tricks.

You can have five different people and one verse of scripture, and depending on what they either have been taught, or what they want to believe, they can each apply a different principle to the text to try and explain it to you. As they do this they are practicing "Exitjesus" on the text.

Now there is such an abundance of scripture, that usually refutes all these errors people come up with, that something had to be done about that. Enter in THE DISPENSATIONAL Form of interpretation, to add along with all these others. Because in Dispensational interpretation, you are able to cut out almost the entire Bible except selected verses from Paul's epistles. Dispensationalism exits Jesus better than any other form of Exitjesus since it totally cuts the gospels out as being written to or applied by you in this day and time.

ALL Exitjesus runs pretty much around these forms of interpretations, mixing and matching at will, to make the text say what you want it to say, and especially convince someone else it's actually saying that. Of course most of the time it's not really saying what they say it says, and that's why they really have to delve into Exitjesus.

Now I realize that many people are going to disagree with this, but that's just because before you ever read the Word, you got exitjesused, by some preacher who got exitjesused in seminary, by theologians who got exitjesused in the same way. Therefore you don't know your exitjesused, because the point of exitjesusing is to convince you that a lie, a false doctrine is the truth.

No man alive today, with the exception of a few, who practically found all this out by accident, realize that the manner in which they have been educated to handle the Word of God with exitjesus and hermeneutics, is actually a method of deceit, used to twist the scripture into saying what you want it to say. Like me, they have been trained to think that it is used to rightly divide the word of truth. I learned that if I were to ever really understand the scriptures I must like Paul see these things for what they really are and renouce them.

2 Cor. 4:1-2
Therefoe seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

Paul was also taught the "art" of hermeneutics and exitjesus in the schools he attended. It's what made him wrongly divide the scriptures and think what he believed was the truth. But after this was revealed to him, he renouced it. That is he got rid of all theological, hermeneutical practices that are applied to the scriptures to twist it. He received mercy because he did this thing unknowingly. That is why he calls it "the hidden things of dishonesty". I also did this unknowingly for years.

Yes it's not just a matter of what exitjesusing is, it's a matter of what it's for, which is a highly refined form of rhetoric, which convinces a person something is true when it's not. Hence it's a form of brain washing and especially of programming a brain to think along certain lines.

Once you have been thoroughly exitjesused, by having you head crammed full of all kinds of hermeneutics and theology, you have been programmed to come up with the answers or doctrines that were pre-programmed into your brain. The reason for this is because theology and hermeneutics and Exitjesus is and never was OF GOD, but rather was passed down to us through Greek Philosophy. That is why Paul said the following things.

Col. 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you (meaning to lead you off as prey away from the truth of Christ) though PHILOSOPHY and vain deceit: after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world and not after Christ.

The very "theology" you practice on the Bible was originally given to Socrates via a demon, taught to Plato, who passed it on to Aristotle who refined it further and had the nerve to call it a "science". That's what it was called during the time of Paul as well as now.

1 Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.

You see at that time Aristotle had said, and it was widely taught that there were three speculative sciences mathematical, physical and theological. However theology was not a true science as was mathematics and physical science. Therefore it was a "science falsely so called." It was a science falsely so called because in true science your aim is to learn about something and discover it's truth. But that was not what theology was invented for.

IF you study theology, not along the lines of “Gee how can I use this stuff to understand God’s Word better”, but along the lines of “How is this stuff used to deceive me and pervert God’s word.” That’s when you start to understand what words like Exitjesus are truly all about. And once you get all their claptrap out of your head, the Word just explodes with true understanding. This is because theology actually usurps the place and work of the Holy Spirit in guiding a man into knowledge of the truth. It also blinds the man to what he can essentially glean for himself from the written word. While at the same time making him think he knows the truth, but actually keeping him in a state of “ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.

In the love of Christ,
larris

P.S. I would like to say something about progressive revelation. It progressed from Genesis to Revelation and then STOPPED! Some people will progessively revelation you right out of the Bible, to where they are getting some "new thing". There is no more "progressive revelation", it over and done. What there IS (and we all know what IS, IS.) Is that there is progessive understanding of the revelation that has already been given. That dosen't have to mean that we uncover any thing new, as much as for us it's just "RECOVERING" the understanding of whats already been given, and learning to understand it in the same manner as those to whom it was given to. If I can say, just understand Romans exactly the same way Paul understood it when he wrote it, I'm ahead of the game.

I alway pray to God and say, Lord, I know how so and so undersands this, I know how some of the Churches understand it, and I know how I've understood it. But please help me to understand it like you actually meant it. This might be what I think it means but what did YOU mean? Consiquently I have at times been DRAWN to an understanding I never heard before, but it's not new, it's just recovered. I also never take my understanding for granted. I have been in the depths of deceit, and the nasty thing about being decieved is that when you are deceived you don't know it. Therefore no matter how much I think I know something, I alway keep in mind that I could be wrong if not on the whole, then on points, and that's enough to get you off track enough, so that you miss the mark of the truth.

God Bless.

"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31)

feelinahole
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754

Posted 5/12/2004 8:50 AM (GMT -6)

Larris: I would answer you, but I wouldn't know where to start. You got so much going on there...

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 5/12/2004 2:13 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by larris

can anyone in here (again regarding debating calvinism) help with the calvinist proof text John 6, the whole "no one can come unless the father draws him."

Politica KILLS theology. And I hate proof-texting, by anyone.

Hobbes
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63

Posted 5/12/2004 7:18 PM (GMT -6)

Larris,

You are the ONLY other person I’ve ever seen or read who has the same understanding of John 6:44 as me! And for the same reasons! Wooo-hooo!

Secondly, I also agree with your thoughts on “exegesis”. However, even though supreme IRONY abounds in the history and activity of such matters, sarcasm generally doesn’t work. The IRONY of the situation naturally causes one to tend towards sarcasm, I understand completely, but I have gone to quite some trouble to root it out of myself and my writing. Over the last few years I have been involved with helping several Calvinists come out from under that deception – it IS possible for that to happen! – and I have found that sarcasm, even though it seemed appropriate to me, was counterproductive. What you have to say is very, very good in my opinion. I loved it! Perhaps a more straightforward presentation and less sarcasm would make it even better. Just food for thought…. Smile

- Hobbes

PS – Question: What kind of hermeneutic is it that says, “The 66 books (no more, no less) of the Protestant Bible is THE Word of God and NOTHING else is”?

larris
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181

Posted 5/13/2004 6:55 AM (GMT -6)

Dear Hobbes,

Sorry I didn't really realize that I was being sarcastic, my aim was at satire and perhaps the over use of "the Pun". However I do believe that there is one comment I made that I should strike from the record, so as not to overtly offend someone, which wasn not my intention. For the purpose of all discourse should be to persuade towards what one believes is the truth, with regards to the fact that it is the truth that makes us free in Christ.

I have edited the piece, and hope to have explained myself more clearly, that I am not picking on one group but everyone. And in picking on everyone, also on myself, since in the practice of refined hermeneutics I have in the past convinced others that what I believed was true when it was not. However no one was more shocked to find out what I believed was not true, than myself. Please let me know if it sounds a little less ofensive and directed at just one group.

I thank you for bringing it to my attention, and I too will endeavor to root it out of my replies, so as to better serve Christ.

Thank you also for your first comment on John 6:44. I fully understand how you felt there. When you can find at least one person who agrees with you on an issue, it's like ALRIGHT, I'm NOT NUTS, it really could be saying that.

God Bless,
In Christ,
larris

"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31)

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 5/13/2004 10:51 AM (GMT -6)

The ironic thing is that though she mocks exegesis, she in fact attempts it herself. Bandit

While I certainly agree that some MAY misuse exegesis and hermeneutics to serve their own presuppositions, there is a huge difference between sound exegesis and unsound exegesis.

One of most basic rules of hermeneutics/interpretation of any book is context.

Paying due attention to context prevents us from isolating a verse from its proper background and forcing it to mean what we might want it to mean (eisegesis). It seems to me that the real difference between Calvinists and us freewillies is actually philosophical rather than biblical. We simply approach the text with different presuppositions, and thus our conclusions are different.

I think another real factor in this tendency to distrust scholarly exegesis (which is nothing more than interpreting the Bible, precisely what larris has attempted to do) is that Calvinism, being thoroughly systematic and logically internally consistent, has tended to be the more scholarly acceptable view as opposed to Arminianism.

Because it is more internally logically consistent than traditional Arminianism, one thing the Open View does so masterfully, I think, is to much more effectively challenge the Calvinistic point of view than Arminianism traditionally has. The traditional view of foreknowledge held by Arminians makes lends itself quite well to the arguments of the Calvinists. If the future is truly 100% settled, ALL is predestined/predetermined. The Arminian argument that God can know something will definitely happen without causing really makes no difference if ALL is definitely foreknown in this way. Any freedom we may have is at best an illusion of freedom.

Hobbes
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63

Posted 5/13/2004 6:54 PM (GMT -6)

Larris: There’s a very fine line between sarcasm and satire, yes?

John Earp: One of most basic rules of hermeneutics/interpretation of any book is context.

Response: I agree completely. It is THE most important rule. I think that much of what Larris was describing was not hermeneutics but presuppositions on which the hermeneutics are based.

John Earp: It seems to me that the real difference between Calvinists and us freewillies is actually philosophical rather than biblical. We simply approach the text with different presuppositions, and thus our conclusions are different.

Response: A Calvinist would say that his presuppositions are BIBLICALLY BASED. So would an Arminian, and so would an Open View-er. Those of us who disagree with Calvinism would say that those presuppositions are based on misinterpretation of scripture. Which is what the Calvinist would say about us. The whole thing is circular. One’s interpretation is derived from one’s presuppositions which are derived from one’s interpretation etc etc etc. To be honest, I think that the theology and philosophy one holds, to a great degree, has to do with personality type and personal issues. As one confronts and resolves personal issues, one’s theology changes - ever notice that? I’ve found that just confronting Calvinism from a doctrinal or intellectual position doesn’t work very well. But if you can uncover and deal with the personal issues that make a person WANT to believe in something like Calvinism then the doctrinal and intellectual stuff becomes secondary and easy to deal with. I think Larris is right in that there is a lot of brainwashing – training the mind to think in certain ways – when it comes to doctrine and methods of scripture interpretation.

I agree with you concerning traditional Arminianism. As a matter of fact, I discovered Open View Theism as a result of my extreme dissatisfaction with Arminianism. I’m not completely satisfied with the Open View either; I think Boyd accepts too many Calvinist presuppositions, but I, like you, have found much more solid anti- Calvinist arguments among Open Viewers than among Arminians.

Hey Larris – you didn’t answer my question about the Protestant Canon – speaking of presuppositions!?

- Hobbes

larris
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181

Posted 5/15/2004 4:00 AM (GMT -6)

John Earp: The ironic thing is that though she mocks exegesis, she in fact attempts it herself. While I certainly agree that some MAY misuse exegesis and hermeneutics to serve their own presuppositions, there is a huge difference between sound exegesis and unsound exegesis. One of most basic rules of hermeneutics/interpretation of any book is context.

Yes, you are right, and I know it looks like I am attempting it myself. However what I do is not “exegesis”, because reading things in context is not exegesis. I learned how to read, long before theology ever got a hold of me. They just list it as exegesis to throw you off course that they actually NEVER use it. Again, I learned how to read context in grammar school, long before any theologian ever got a hold of me. But when I came to Christ, when I came to The Church, then they had to “teach me to read The Bible.” And that’s where you get programmed with hermeneutics.

The ONLY time they ever attempt to use context, is when and if what they are using it on has no bearing one way or the other on the false doctrines they are espousing to begin with. In that manner they make it LOOK LIKE it’s this great basic rule of exegesis. When in reality it’s something any first grader can basically do, and dose, until a theologian gets a hold of him and he attempts to read the Bible.

One would have assumed (and they count on this), that all these great writers and theologians, read the context of what they then taught that became doctrine. When in reality they happened upon one or two isolated verses of scripture, that they cried “EUREKA, I’VE GOT IT“! And thus drew a FALSE conclusion, and formed a whole Church around it. We take WAY TOO MUCH for granted in believing what these so-called great men of faith came up with.

For instance take this word in the Word.

paralogizomai, to reckon wrong, misreckon, miscount; hence to draw false conclusions. Then to cheat or deceive by false statements.

James 1:22 But be ye doers of the Word, and not hearers only deceiving (paralogizomai) your own selves.

Once one studies the scripture, and draws a false conclusion as to it’s meaning, he then has deceived himself. Once he deceived himself, he then starts making false statements regarding his conclusion.

apatao to deceive to delude especially with false statements.

Eph. 5:6 Let no man deceive you (delude you with false statements.) with vain words: for because of these things (deceiving others with false statements) comes the wrath of God on the children of disobedience.

planao, to make to wander, cause to err, lead astray; especially of religious deceit or doctrinal error.

Eph. 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive (planea from planao, to make you wander, cause you to err and lead you astray from the truth contained in God’s word. To seduce you.)

The interlinear translation gives a greater picture of exactly HOW this is done.

14. that no longer we may be infants, being tossed and carried about by every wind of the teaching in the sleight of men in craftiness with a view to the SYSTEMATIZING of error.

pros tean methodeian tean planeas

Now I might just be an uneducated idiot, but it seems to me that this verse in reality is trying to tell us something about just HOW they lie in wait to deceive? SYSTEM....METHOD...SYSTEMATIZE, METHODIZE. Now where in the world am I going to find anything remotely related to God with the word SYSTEMIZE in it?

Paul was specifically speaking about THEOLOGY, because ALL systmetized theology can be historically and directly traced back to Greek Philosophy. Something that we are told to BEWARE of more than once in Scripture. This is not interpretation this is FACT!

Col. 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you (lead you off a prey) through PHILOSOPHY and vain deceit, after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world and not after Christ.

Theology Encyclopedia Americana, (1961 ed.)

para. 1
The term first appears in Plato’s Republic (book ii, chap. 18) with reference to poetry (Greek scripture) According to Plato norms must be prescribed to which the poetry (scripture) must conform in matters of theology. ...In Aristotle’s Metaphysics (book vi, chap. 1, sect. 19), it is one of the three speculative sciences.

para. 2
According to Theodore of Cyrrhus (5th century A.D.) it meant the Old and New Testaments, a usage which we can link up with the pagan Greek mythical theology mentioned above.

para. 3
(1079-1142) In the West down to the time of Abelard, the term “theology” was associated with heathenism. Abelard changed the meaning of the word, For him theology was as much the study of the Christian doctrine of God displayed in Holy Scripture and the church fathers, as of the doctrines of God found in writers outside the bible and the Church. With this use, the modern history of the term begins.

It was not the actual meaning of the word that changed but the APPLICATION. The very same theology of Plato, now applied to the Bible, rather than just Greek religious writings.

Bertrand Russell’s book, The Wisdom of the West shows concisely how Christianity adopted pagan theology and applied it to the Holy Scriptures. Paul said it would lead you as prey away from Christ, away from the truth. Facts are facts, they are not an interpretation. Theology was and always will have originated from the Greek Philosophy of Socrates, via Plato, via Aristotle. It was and always will be a means to deceive, nothing more and nothing less. And until people untangle themselves from its clutches, they will NEVER rightly divide the word of truth. Since it is historical fact that Socrates claimed to have a daimone, which he got his information from, it is then in fact originated from devils, and thus a “doctrine or teaching of devils.” False teachers are not just those who teach false doctrine, they are those who teach philosophy, that is theology, hermeneutics, exegesis et.

It is not my fault that the so-called “great men”, the teachers and theologians do not want to take heed to the Word and take it seriously. They totally ignore the fact that philosophy will lead one away from the truth in Christ. And those great so called scholars and theologians of the Church know exactly where their theology comes from and choose to apply it to God’s Holy Word anyway. They are hearers and not DOERS of the word, deceiving their own selves and us.

If you have not read and understood Plato’s Republic, you do not truly know what theology, hermeneutics, and exegesis is, because that is where it all started. It is a means of corrupting written documents, and convincing people they say things they DO NOT say! Greek Philosophy has been and always will be SEDUCTIVE. People would rather hob knob with the great educated, those who throw the big words around to impress us, than they would be obedient to God.

John Earp: Paying due attention to context prevents us from isolating a verse from its proper background and forcing it to mean what we might want it to mean (eisegesis).

You are absolutely right, and saying exactly what I was saying. Exegesis is used to force the text to mean what we want it to mean. Therefore in using context, I was not attempting exegesis. If a man reads a secular story and understands it for the manner in which the author intended is he applying systematic hermeneutics to it? I don’t think so. But then if some college professor gets a hold of the same book and applies literary criticism to it, is he applying systemized hermeneutics to that same book? Most probably, because all hermeneutics is is literary criticism. A man could write a story JUST TO WRITE a story, and by the time they get done with it in college Lit., it’s gained meaning and “depth” the author never intended. Probably the guy just wrote it, to get some bucks for his next drink.

John Earp: It seems to me that the real difference between Calvinists and us freewillies is actually philosophical rather than biblical. We simply approach the text with different presuppositions, and thus our conclusions are different.

Doesn’t presupposition mean to “suppose before hand”? We approach the text with something we “supposed beforehand”. That means that we already had something in mind BEFORE we ever read the text. Do you think that is the way in which we should approach the Bible? And here we go, where did that presupposition, what we supposed the Bible was saying before we ever really read it, came from? It came from the luck of the draw. That is, it came from whoever got a hold of us first to implant the idea in my head to begin with. In one way or the other, we have all started out with certain doctrines implanted in our heads before we ever came to the Word of God. If I suppose the Bible says something or teaches something, before I ever really read the whole bible for myself, I will naturally gravitate to those texts which seem to prove it out.

John Earp: It seems to me that the real difference between Calvinists and us freewillies is actually philosophical rather than biblical.

Well obviously I would not use that word. But if you are referring to subject matter, or belief, then yes I would agree. Yes absolutely. We might be right on in that man has the free will to come to Jesus and be saved. We could be correct on that “subject”. However there are many subjects in the Word of God, and thus though we could be right on that particular subject we could be right OFF on another area of doctrine. And it pretty much falls back to what we were led to believe by those who initially got us into all this, and planted those presuppositions in our heads.

john Earp: I think another real factor in this tendency to distrust scholarly exegesis (which is nothing more than interpreting the Bible, precisely what larris has attempted to do) is that Calvinism, being thoroughly systematic and logically internally consistent, has tended to be the more scholarly acceptable view as opposed to Arminianism.

If a first grader reads Sally, Dick and Jane and then tells you what the story says are they “interpreting it”? Most often Sally, Dick and Jane need no interpreter. We don’t need a systematic approach to understanding it. Calvinism has in fact been thoroughly systematic and logically internally consistent, in that it leaves SPOT out of the story. Is it an “interpretation” to see the following?

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.

John 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

John 12:31,32
Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

It is not interpretation to see in the regular Joe, as one reads, that time went by and events took place that changed what he said earlier. Why I can just look at the fact that two sentences are even numerically said long before the last sentence. I don’t need an interpreter, and I don’t need to interpret, I just need to read it and use the brain God gave me to understand it.

If exegesis and systematic applied Hermeneutics did not look similar to just reading and understanding the Word, and using your head, it would not work so well to deceive us.

Most simple people can READ. And most simple people can take things for what they say. Scholars hate that, because it threatens the whole system upon which their JOBS are based. Specifically here so called “Biblical Scholars”, who tend to love to disprove what the Bible is actually saying. Now I know that there have been some sincere great scholars, who worked their lives away to give us great reference works, and for these men I have a great respect. For instance those who worked to give us Lexicons, Concordances, Interlinear and true historical facts, I have great respect. But for those who idled the time of their lives away writing systematic theology and hermeneutics, just to twist the Word into what they wanted it to be, there is little to no use for, other than to fulfill the apostasy of Christianity. Thus the difference between true scholarship and false scholarship.

True scholarship tends to teach a man how to learn for himself and use his own brain. False scholarship tends to bring a man into bondage to the thoughts and ideas of others. ALL true theology was intended to deceive and bring men into bondage to the beliefs of others. NOT to scientifically come to a true and accurate understanding of the Word of God. That is historical fact that can only be refuted with false facts and a refusal to believe it. People must see it for what it is and renounce it as Paul did. Would to God, they would all renounce it and the theologians of our day would go out and get a REAL JOB.

Hobbes: Hey Larris – you didn’t answer my question about the Protestant Canon – speaking of presuppositions!? (Which was: – Question: What kind of hermeneutic is it that says, “The 66 books (no more, no less) of the Protestant Bible is THE Word of God and NOTHING else is”?

I have no problem with these 66 books being the word of God and nothing else clause. Simply for the reason that I know that if you can’t figure it out in 66 books, 67 are not going to get you any closer. As to the exact sequence of event that led to this, it is something I studied at one time and then forgot. So I would have to brush up.

I have read quite a few of the so-called “lost or left out books of the Bible.” I would point to the epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16). I have a copy of something that claims to be that epistle. In it there are some statements that are similar to ones that Paul might make. But it’s just a different voice. How to explain that. It’s like once you are read and read and read and read something that someone has written, you get to recognize their voice, and to know the person. When you read something else and it’s not really that person you “hear” it. To me what I hear when I read the epistle claimed to be from Paul to the Laodiceans, it just sounds different than all his other epistles. He had a real way of wording things, and it’s more like someone wrote it that wanted us to think it was Paul.

It’s funny because I remember the first time I saw a book in the library called “The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden”, Well I almost “crossed” myself and I’m not even Catholic. To me at that time something like that was straight from the pits of hell. But the Holy Spirit kept slapping me on the head over it, and I finally with cross and garlic in hand read it. And that experience really helped free me up from the religious theological training that was ingrained in me.

There are many false and forged letters that say they came from the original guys. This was a problem from the start.

2 Thes 2:2
Now we beseech you, brethren by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That you be not soon shaken in min, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by LETTER AS (if) FROM US, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means...

I’m just glad they got 66 books that I truly believe are for sure scripture. If they had their way today, they’d definitely cut out the book of Daniel. And you know the Catholic Church tried to cut the book of Revelation when people started attributing all the nasty stuff in there to the Pope and the Roman Church.

My actual favorite of any extracurricular book is The Shepard of Hermes. I love that book and I believe it has a lot of truths rendicent of scripture, from a purely Gentile perspective. Of course I have learned a lot since I last read it and if I were to read it again I might change my mind on that. However that book really helped me in coming to repentance in a lot of areas in my life at the time I read it, for at that time I still held to many beliefs that were based on scripture but actually false.

In the Love of Christ,
larris

"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31)

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 5/15/2004 4:10 PM (GMT -6)

Larris,

Dr. Boyd is a theologian who uses theology, philosophy, exegesis, hermeneutics, etc., to come to his conclusions about Scripture and to formulate his systematic theology. He used to be a professor of systematic theology, in fact. Do you think he is somehow by definition deceived because he uses these things that you so loudly denounce? Not all theologians, philosophers, and exegetes are false teachers as you seem to imply.

As to presuppositions, yes, we all have them and they are impossible to avoid. Just like your presupposition that ALL theology derives from pagan philosophy."

Case in point--We all act on the presupposition that we are ABLE to act, and this presupposes that we are able to choose to act in the first place, after deliberating about the choice and the coming to a decision.

I agree with you that SOME theologians, exegetes, and philosophers are deceived and are not faithfully teaching God's word. However, I think you are painting with too broad a brush. Openness theologians such as Boyd, Pinnock, Sanders, and Haskers and Openness philosophers such as Basinger have revolutionized the field of theology in the past few years. I personally had little patience to read theological books until I came across the writings of Open Theists. For the first time in my life, I find theology a THRILLING subject.

Hobbes
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63

Posted 5/15/2004 8:04 PM (GMT -6)

Dear Larris,

I agree with you. Systematic theology is vanity and futility. One of the major battles that I've had with Calvinists is their propensity to "compare" scripture with scripture. They call it "the analogy of faith." You've done a little of that yourself. Smile

So far, I have been able to refute (to MY satisfaction, anyway) ANY Calvinist proof text FROM THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT of whatever verse they are using. I do not have to refer to ANY other verse when doing so. The ONLY time that "comparing" one scripture to another is 100% safe is when the scripture itself does so, e.g. Paul's Old Testament quotes in Romans 9-11.

There is a common hermeneutic used in systematic theology that says that the plain passages should interpret the less plain. I think that's ridiculous. In order for two passages to be compared one must be sure that both passages are talking about the same thing. How can you be sure that both passages are talking about the same thing when one of them is "less plain"? So I have a little hermeneutic of my own: No comparisons allowed unless the text itself does the comparing. This pulls the rug out from under the Calvinist (or ANY systematic theology) because they can't interpret, say, Romans 9 in terms of Ephesians 1. I hold that those two texts are about completely different things and have nothing to do with each other. The key to the meaning of any text is in the immediate context - period. If the meaning of the text is indecipherable from the immediate context, then you don't know what it's talking about do you? So HOW can ANY other text be "compared"? In that case, one must learn to live with not knowing. Passages in this category that come to mind would be the "restrainer" in Thessalonians. Paul knew whom he was talking about and the Thessalonians knew whom he was talking about, but we don't. Another example would be the "perfect" of 1st Cor 13. Any attempt to define "the perfect" of 1st Cor 13 in terms of any other passage is highly suspect because we cannot be sure of the validity of the comparison because we don't know what 1 Cor 13 is talking about. Systematic theology is based on comparing scripture with scripture. I reject the validity of that presupposition, that different scriptures OUGHT to be compared, UNLESS the comparison is made in the text itself.

IF the Bible is "one book from one Mind" then the "system" will take care of itself. Which brings us back to my question - that you never answered BTW - why should I expect the Protestant canon and only the Protestant canon to be "the Word of God"?

I'm familiar with all the extra-Biblical works you named. You'll notice I quoted the 2nd Book of Adam and Eve in one of the other threads. So is the Shepard of Hermas "scripture"? What about the Book of Enoch? As I'm sure you know, Enoch is quoted in Jude AS AUTHORITATIVE. James quotes a scripture (James 4:5), and he calls it scripture, that does not exist in any canon or book that we have. It has been completely lost. There are several “scriptures” quoted in the New Testament that do not exist anywhere that we know of. What is scripture and who decides?

You said, “I’m just glad they got 66 books that I truly believe are for sure scripture.”

How do you know that? Have you studied the issue of interpolated passages, especially in the Gospels? (E.g. the goobered up last chapter of Mark.) What's your opinion on that issue? How about serious questions concerning the authenticity of Hebrews, James, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation? Never mind the Epistle to the Laodiceans. Is it possible that the "Bible" that we have today has been corrupted?

I am VERY interested in how Greek thought has permeated Christianity. In my studies on this question I have come to much the same conclusion as you. I intend to find and read the Bertrand Russell book you mentioned, I had not heard of it. I am eagerly awaiting Greg Boyd's book, The Myth of the Blueprint. I understand that it has something to do with the Platonic and Manichean influence in Augustine. I agree with you, but how would you document your claims that systematic theology is Greek in origin? Is there a definitive work on this question?

Sorry for all the questions. I am very interested in this issue.

- Hobbes

larris
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181

Posted 5/16/2004 8:10 AM (GMT -6)

Larris: pros tean methodeian tean planeas Now I might just be an uneducated idiot, but it seems to me that this verse in reality is trying to tell us something about just HOW they lie in wait to deceive? SYSTEM....METHOD...SYSTEMATIZE, METHODIZE. Now where in the world am I going to find anything remotely related to God with the word SYSTEMIZE in it?

Albert: OK. First of all, leaving aside your transcription of eta as "ea", it's tes planes, not tean pleaneas as you state.

Thank you Albert, I am sometimes lacking in transliteration, guess I put too much long “a” in the “eta” sound.

Albert: Secondly, methodeia means "trickery", or in the plural "tricks". What the word "method" means in English has nothing to do with what methodeia means in Greek. You're actually distorting the Word of God away from its true meaning when you introduce foreign meanings to words.

You asked me, “Now where in the world am I going to find anything remotely related to God with the word SYSTEMIZE in it?

1942 edition of Webster’s International Dictionary to the English Language.

method, French, methode, from Latan methodus, from Greek methodos method. synonym, system.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, says,

methodian, craft, wiliness, New Testament [from methodeuo]

methodeuo, [methodos], to treat by method: to use cunning devices, employ craft, Lxx.

methodos, a following after, pursuit: esp. pursuit of knowledge, scientific inquiry, investigation, method of inquiry, method, Plato., etc.

All these words can be seen at: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/enggreek?lang=greek&lookup=meth&type=begin&options=Sort+Results+Alphabetically

You and I both know that those different letters there are simply inflection and do not change the basic meaning of the word. To the Greeks the word meant “method”. That means to those who Paul wrote to in Ephesus that word meant what Plato said it meant, not what later Biblical Scholars said it meant to cover the tracks of where it really came from. When Paul used this word in writing to the Ephesians their minds went directly to PLATO.

Albert, you stated: You're actually distorting the Word of God away from its true meaning when you introduce foreign meanings to words.

You are right it is distorting the Word of God away from its true meaning when you introduce a foreign meaning to the words. However I am not the one that introduced the foreign meaning, that happened somewhere along the line in the translation of the KJV (as it dose in other Bibles). What I did was simply uncover the foreign introduction and get back to the original meaning.

There is a few other places this goes on, and all for the purpose of cloaking the deception of systematized theology. However I would say that theologians for the most part (probably the whole part) do not realize this. For the deception we have going on has been passed down from generation to generation, with the true intent of the practice of it being hidden from man.

In the love of Christ,
larris

"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31)

102 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:37 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual