[geocentrism] Re: [Geocentric] Predestination
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 12:43:21 -0800 (PST)
...Continued.....
Romans 3:19. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to
them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world
may become guilty before God. 20. Therefore by the deeds of the law there
shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of
sin. 21. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being
witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22. Even the righteousness of God which
is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there
is no difference: 23. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in
Christ Jesus:
This verse does not even mention Predestination. You should see by now that
you are using a verse that cannot be demonstrated to even address
predestination to ?Read? interpret the only verses that do talk about
predestination specifically and exactly.
Romans 8: 28. And we know that all things work together for good to them
that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. 29. For
whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of
his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30. Moreover whom
he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also
justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
This harmonized with the Story of Adam, his choices and Predestination.. the
two have nothing to do with each other!
Ephesians 1:5. Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by
Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6. To the
praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the
beloved??.11. In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being
predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the
counsel of his own will: 12. That we should be to the praise of his glory, who
first trusted in Christ.
These verse cannot be taken external of the rest of scripture.. the fact that
you attempt to demonstrates your error not mine..... Rather then letting the
scriptures do the specking you must speak for it, because your proof text
doesn?t even use the terms you are trying to address! Secondly You cannot
ignore the fact that one must be in Christ to have the redemption as stated
everywhere. The imperative for action is, and in deed the very definition of
the term itself to submit to Christ, is mans response and resposibility to
God. You either ignore how one gets into Christ or you don?t understand it?
which is it? How exactly does one get into Christ and or without submission to
God? What does it mean to Call on the lord?...who's calling who?...What does
the term trust mean how do you trust, he specificaly mentions the fact that
they first trusted how do you trust in Christ if you have no say so?..Untill
you can do that not only do you have no argument but you are not
even addressing what that scripture states you are only addressing things that
it deoes not!....... Scripture dose not say he has, did or will force himself
on them. You can't even begin to make that argument without assuming its true
in the first place because what is specifically found/ mentioned in the text
cannot be demonstrated to even address the predestination issue without
assuming that that is what it is discussing in the first place because it
doesn?t even mention those terms! 1Peter 4:11. If any man speak, let him speak
as the oracles of God;
No mater how you want to define the term ?foreknow? (to know as in a
relationship) the fact is it is foreknowledge that was and is his
discriminating factor specifically and exactly not the fact that man is unable
to make choices??... It does not say or imply that there was and is no choice
or free will of men your proof text doesn?t even use or mention those
terms!.?This should highlight for you the fact that you must assume the way you
?read? the meaning first then apply your meaning to how you read everything
that follows no mater how specific everything else is or is not??.You take
scriptures that don?t even mention the terms and issues at had and use them as
your "Proof Text" to define the only scriptures that do define and outline the
terms and issues?This is the whole and THE PROBLEM I have tried to bring out
as to the why we cant agree on scriputre. The Calvinistic argument like all
the other false doctrines use someone?s assumptions and/in the ?readings? to
define what is actually read. The approach to scripture for Calvinism is the
exact same approach the Roman Catholics use. You only reject their scholarship
in favor of yours but you are both the exact same thing doing the exact same
things! What?s worse both point the finger at the other?..God help us! Matthew
7:2. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. ? You should have read the
plain definitions and issues found in scriptures plainly predestination and
the law and use those to define the meaning of text where you think the issue
is or might be addressed you have your exegetical method all backwards!....The
illogic of your position can then be easily seen in the fact that your Proof
text doesn?t even mention choice or Predestination. Your approach is one that
effectively states never mind what scripture specifically states because
scripture must be ?read? in ?light? of your understanding of
what it does not state!???.. You attempt to define the specific in ?light? of
the Obscure??Logic demands you start with the known or specific and work to the
Unknown or obscure ?.. You have employed the very same reasoning used by the
relativist???. never mind what nature demonstrates specifically or exactly, it
must be interpreted in light of our understanding of what nature does not
state!........By now I would think that your circular fallacy and inconsistent
approach would be evident to even to you and everyone else?.You start with
obscurity that can only be demonstrated if you assume that your position is
correct in the first place, you then proceed to move from the non specific to
the specific verses to define/ explain meanings based on the non specific and
obscure "proof text" that doesnt even use the terms or even synonyms for the
terms!
Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Me in Blue
1) I affirmed that the Mosaic Law was the law being discussed in Romans 3.
Why do you ascribe the opposite position to me? I belabored this in the
exegesis that "ho nomos" refers to the Mosaic Law, and explicitly pointed this
out. My exegesis of Rom. 3:19 firmly and incontrovertibly established that we
(and the entire world) are under that Law, which was one of two crucial
premises I was getting across (the other contained in verse 20). Yet you, in
your numbered point 3, act as if you're correcting me when you're only
repeating back my own exegesis to me. Is there some misunderstanding here? IF
you affirm it is the law of Moses then what is your argument? You can?t use the
fact that we were not able to keep the law of Moses as the reason for not being
able to obey Christ?. for the law of Moses was never meant to bring us to God
in the first place Galatians 3:24. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to
bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith??.But
the law of Moses itself states we were to hear Christ. God repeats that on the
Mt of transfiguration?The fact that we could not keep the law of Moses is
irrelevant for making any case for obedience, it was never meant to reconcile
man to God in the first place. God in the Flesh however was.. Hebrews 4:14.
Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens,
Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15. For we have not an
high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but
was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16. Let us
therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and
find grace to help in time of need?. So not only is the imperative on man here
but you now have no logical argument for claiming man cannot obey God because
your argument is based on the law of Moses which as the scripture points out is
apples and oranges? Again God in the flesh which
Calvinism knows about but can?t seem to grasp the significance of??..Romans
does not address the inability of man to obey Christ it address mans inability
to obtain righteousness via the Law of Moses.. Calvinism equates the two as
essentially the same in terms of obedience?..nowhere does scripture make that
claim in fact it does just the opposite!..You could not keep the law of Moses
to redemption but if you can submit to Christ then you will obtain redemption
back to God? The submission to Christ is a imperative on man never God!...The
Law of Moses could not would not and that was already decided even before the
law itself was Given, for Christ was slain from the foundation of the world.
That being so there is no logical argument in using the law of Moses as the
example we could not keep it for God had already predestined/determined that to
be the case before the Foundation of the World.. but nowhere does he speak to
that effecy concerning the lamb himself. In fact just
the opposite we would be able to seek him, we would be able to find him and
obtain him & redemption through him?the whole point of Moses law is mute with
regard to Predestination for predestination was already determined before the
law itself. the law of moses does not prove no free will it only pointing to
Christ in the flesh. Him we can obey for the very fact that it was
predetermined that we would and could obey him! Romans 9:29. For whom he did
foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son,
that he might be the firstborn among many brethren?the issue was always the
method of predestination and the what and who to obey not whether or not their
was a ability to obey?.the law of Moses itself was predetermined not to be path
to redemption. It was only a training tool you don?t train a robots, you
program them,?.You do train men made in the image of God who have free will and
choice?.Predesdination does not determine free will and free will
does not prohibit presedstination...predestination is a method (forknoledge)
of God where free will is a choice of man....When God chose the method by
virtue of his omnipotence & foreknowledge determines who would and would not be
saved for with God you can?t separate the foreknowledge and the method itself.
The end result of both is completely known to God beforhand. This has nothing
to do with mans ability to choose...... You are greatly confussed!
(2) The context for 2 Cor. 10:5 is the verses before and after it, exactly!
verse 6. And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your
obedience is fulfilled?again the imperative is on you?. The things in Galatians
and 1 Corinthians are commands?..you should meditate on that!
which take absolute priority over its meaning, NOT something in Galatians or
1 Corinthians. Your approach is tantamount to saying that whatever may be
stated in the verses immediately surrounding the phrase "taking into captivity
every thought" is to be thrown out, because you want to shift the entire ground
of Paul's point regarding the tearing down of strongholds (v. 4) casting down
imaginations (v. 5) and being ready to revenge all disobedience (v. 6). This
forced-fit "context" of yours exposes the glue driven into the seam, because
the warfare requiring spiritual weapons to tear down high things that exalt
themselves against the knowledge of God is not an internal one but an external
one against a disbelieving, sin-ridden world. The scripture does not
distinguish between internal and external you are simply asserting that just
like you have with everything else!?.Paul states 1Chorinthinas 9:26. I
therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that
beateth the air: 27. But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection:
lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a
castaway?.
So, again you flit away to Galatians and I Corinthians and refuse to focus on
the text (for a third time), making entirely gratuitous assertions (that
contradict its immediate context in its own chapter) about how you alone
provide the "proper" context (so-called). This demonstrates your weakness in
both the knowledge and the exercise of the scripture in your inability to use
and correlate relevant context.
(3) You say I have not demonstrated a single verse that shows that anyone was
forced to obey Christ. I wasn't until now aware that this was at stake, but
since you feel it is pertinent, I'll provide a passage that is extremely
interesting in this regard.
Isaiah 45:22-23: "Be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and
there is none else. I have sworn by Myself, the word is gone out of My mouth in
righteousness, and shall not return, that unto Me every knee shall bow, every
tongue shall swear." Let's unpack this: There is a command issued for the
entire world to be saved. Then God swears an oath that this command will be
obeyed, asserting that the word gone out of His mouth (the command "Be ye
saved, all the ends of the earth") shall not return (fail to be obeyed), with
the blatant assertion that the entire world would be saved. I would think even
you, Allen, would hesitate to poo-poo or explain away this command for the
entire world to be saved, insofar as God added an oath in His Own Holy Name as
an imprimatur assuring the absolute certainty of its fulfillment. The world is
commanded to be saved, and God in His good time will compel it to be so, lest
His oath that He swore be invalidated and His honor
besmirched by the failure of the world to obey. God will not allow that to
happen: the universe would crack into pieces before that will happen. However,
it's anyone's guess how you might choose to minimize the thing God thought
sufficiently important that He swore it would happen as commanded. How does
have anything to do with free choice and the Predestination of God?.....It is
you are equating the two as one in the same thereby eliminating Free choice.
God Commands it to happen and it absolutely will. I have no problem with
that?..You still don?t show how God?s Command and Mans Choice relate As in the
Case of Adam where he had free choice but God had already Predestined?.You miss
the point altogether one has nothing to do with the other?. God and Man don?t
have the same perspective within the universe your argument equivocates the two
perspectives. Romans 9:29. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate
to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he
might be the firstborn among many brethren?..you simply have no argument only
philosophical assertions of interpretations about things that scripture no
where state, in spite of what scripture specifically and exactly does state!
(4) It is my assessment in this dialogue that you are indulging in eisegesis
(the reading into a text something that is external to it, proceeding either
from your own theology or some distant scripture that may or may not be related
to the point in question), and I alone have properly conducted exegesis
(letting the vocabulary and grammar of the words themselves naturally unfold
the meaning inherent in them as presented). One is to conduct exegesis FIRST,
consider immediate context SECOND, consider more distant context and the
explicit direct meaning of the rest of the Bible THIRD, and only then bring
into the picture INFERENCES from other verses. You take this last step and
make it first, and have done so like clockwork. For I at no time have denied
that the Scriptures are packed with moral imperative. After I taught
Systematic Theology (over two hundred recorded lectures), I undertook a four
year lecture series on the moral imperatives of Scripture, totaling 151
hours of lectures on that topic alone (and I failed to exhaust the topic). You
are shooting bullets where I'm not standing. But like I said, the question
isn't whether the Scriptures contain moral imperatives, the question is whether
or not the presence of moral imperatives implies ability to obey them. Again
you have it backwards, the burden of proof is on anyone who asserts otherwise
to demonstrate not merely assert that you cant obey when scripture and God say
that you can again the difference between the law of Moses and the law of
Christ nowhere does scripture say that we cannot obey Christ the law of Moses
was a school master to bring us to Christ(GoD) it was never intended to bring
us to God so you cannot equate the two?.....That whole problem with your
argument you ascribe the meaning to a verse about our obedience to Christ that
does not even address the issues of ability to obey Christ specifically and
then use that meaning to read every other verse no mater
how specifically it is?this is particularly peculiar when you are trying to
use the fact that the verse in Rom 3:19 is making the point that one cannot
reach the righteousness of God via the law of Moses, because the law of Christ
is not the same thing,, you have not demonstrated where we do not have the
ability to obey Christ law you simply assert that based on the fact that we
could not obtain salvation via the law of Moses when the law of Moses was
never supposed to be able to bring us to God in the first place where Christ on
the other hand is. The imperative to obey Christ is on man not Christ nowhere
does scripture state that it is impossible for man to submit to Christ?It is
your argument that is engaging in eisegesis (the reading into a text something
that is external to it, proceeding either from your own theology or some
distant scripture that may or may not be related to the point in question),
This is the hidden premise that you tacitly assume when you continue to
generate big lists of choices, appeals, beseechings, etc., and you assume
everybody also accepts this tacit, unstated premise, so that your conclusion
naturally and inexorably flows. But it's that secondary premise that is under
attack, and your case only gets stuck in the mud worse when you merely multiply
more items that require that suppressed premise to be made valid. You're a
fireman pouring water on the unharmed house next door to the actual
conflagration. Nothing I've said has caused you to do anything more than throw
more hoses at a non-problem. You keep steeling yourself for a task that doesn't
extricate you from the problem, apparently because you don't see that your
argument has a fatally weak flank that is quite exposed, a weakness affecting
the mass of citations you've made as to their relevance. I have already
demonstrated that Adam had Free choice although God had already predestined /
determined. The two do not depend on each other You miss the very verse that
lays out what predestination is in the first place??. Romans 9:29. For whom he
did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son,
that he might be the firstborn among many brethren?.your whole exegetical
process is all backwards and puts the cart ( the meaning you ascribe to a verse
that does not even address predestination or the lack of free will) before the
horse ( the only specific verses that do address those issues and the
relationship between them?.regardless of how you define the term ?foreknow?..it
was ?foreknown? before Adam had brought sin and eth in the world.
(5) You write, "... that argument is exactly like Jews like you were/are
expecting." I'm not Jewish. Where'd you get that idea? I suppose that you're
possibly a victim of your own bad sentence construction and meant to say
something to the effect that I, a Presbyterian, am expecting the same things
like the Jews were/are. But -- exegetically -- that's not what you wrote. You
either (1) got my culture and religion completely wrong, or (2) sounded an
indistinct trumpet. (Good thing God doesn't sound an indistinct trumpet.) I
did not state you were Jewish, only that you like the Jews are looking for the
Messiah to force his will upon men.
(6) I'm nonplused at your insistence that I mounted my case on the grounds of
subjective feelings. I've already told you that my subjective experience (and
that of every human being) is of freedom of the will. So, my discounting of
that position goes against my feelings, for I agree with Paul: Let God be true,
but every man a liar (Rom. 3:4). It is YOUR position that is harmonious with
your feelings on the matter. I'm nonplused for another obvious reason: that my
argument was couched in purely objective, analytical, grammatical, philological
terms, and as one who presented an extended series of lectures on linguistics
(by invitation) at Christ College in Lynchburg, Virginia last year, I know what
dispassionate, clear thinking looks like on the topic of language and meaning.
My discussion embodied it. Your replies fell short.
You make a argument and define terminology from a verse that does not even
address the issue under consideration?Your argument would only be true if there
was a valid argument made from elsewhere (a foundation outside of your
assertions) that would demonstrate that your reading of that verse is correct.
However you merely assert your given reading as the meaning and then use that
meaning to read the rest of scripture regardless of what the rest of scripture
no matter how specific about the issue at had it is?... Again you are all
backwards, this is your circular error..
(7) I'd recommend to you the volume, "Exegetical Fallacies," by D. A. Carson
of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. This is must reading for anyone who
dares to venture into serious debate over the meaning of Scripture: it shows
how to avoid classic errors of reasoning and linguistics in dealing with the
Scriptures. You'd benefit from this volume, which is among the best in its
class... the blind leading the blind
(8) Paul insisted on even the penal provisions of the Mosaic Law as still in
force and applicable to him. Acts 25:10-11 -- ".... to the Jews have I done no
wrong, as thou very well knowest. For if I be an offender, or have committed
any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these
things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them." Paul is
saying that if any of the capital charges against the Mosaic law that the Jews
were accusing him of were true, he would accept the death penalty under that
Law. His endorsement of the Law of Moses, and of the legitimacy of the Jews'
approach to juridical matters (except not in reference to the gravamen of the
charges), is extraordinary considering the swirl of events around the Apostle,
which leads to his appeal to Caesar. The law of the Jews was also integrated as
the Jewish secular law ( they still had one you know) which was supposed to be
consistent with the law of Moses however as Paul
points out by this time Christ nailed the Law of Moses to the cross
?specifically and exactly? it is not in effect! Again you demonstrate your
error by missing what the subject of the text is because as you sate latter in
this post you don?t have to go outside the verse to get its meaning..?!
Because you refuse to take it in context..
(9) This debate is not a matter of eloquence, but of substance. I have no
idea why you drew attention to an irrelevant aspect of the exchange, when
substance is what matters. That said, it should be noted that eloquence is
hardly forbidden in light of Proverbs 15:23 -- "There is joy for a man in his
utterance; a word in season, how good it is." I am waiting for the Substance,..
Telling me how you read scripture is not the same as telling me where to read
it. Your post however insist that it is see point 11
(10) I was wrong about the 10-foot-pole I alleged you were using. It's more
like 20 feet in length based on this latest reply. I think you're heading in
the wrong direction, good intentions notwithstanding.
(11) You write, "Really Martian [sic -- your persistent misspelling of my
name], you can't ignore the context with the rest of scripture and call it
exegesis!" Of course I can -- one MUST establish the sentence's internal
meaning first (exegesis) before we can enter into hermeneutics and systematics
(the relationship of the verse to the rest of scripture). You're making a
classic error in your approach to context. Taking a verse's context into
account is only HALF of the hermeneutic procedure. The other, equally critical
half is to determine what the text CONTRIBUTES to its context. It is you who
are indulging in a piecemeal approach. You wave your hand and say, in effect,
"These are not the droids you're looking for." And some might buy that, but the
more mature believer will not. This second step in the hermeneutic process is
the one you continue to miss completely. You are the one indulging in
systematics at the expense of exegesis. I believe in systematics (I've
taught it at seminary level), but not at the expense of exegesis, lest we
loosen our ties to the sacred Scriptures themselves. It is for this reason that
books with titles like "Toward an Exegetical Theology" by Dr. Walter C. Kaiser
Jr. were written: to properly anchor theology TIGHTLY to the specific
Scriptures that explicitly and directly teach the points in question. (This is
another issue you and I have: your repeated insistence on elevating an
inference to a direct teaching of Scripture, when it is only an inference and a
mortally wounded one at that.)You can?t establish the internal meaning of
scripture without placing it context ..the fact you think you can demonstrates
why you have no understanding of what is is talking about and you get easily
confused by ?law? and ?the law? God only has one law but where the law of
Christ is in effect the law of Moses was done away with and where the law of
Moses was in effect the law of Christ had not come! . The classical error
in exegesis is yours general or undefined terms must be defined by the
context you have everything backwards?.. You take a undefined term within a
verse and use it to define the specifically defined terminology elsewhere in
scripture.!? (Use it- you determine & define what it means then apply your
definition to the rest of scripture that is specific and exact where you can
only demonstrate your definition if and only if your position is true in the
first place?this is your circular fallacy..it is in your exegesis as well as
your argument as a whole..The irony here is that not only do you admit it you
even brag about taking that approach??.. You are blind and cant see afar off )
this whole posting here demonstrates that fact ..It might be helpful for
everyone to read this more then once.
(12) A presupposition is defined as a precontemplative commitment, the hidden
baggage under the hood of an argument -- sometimes hidden even from the one
making the argument (hence the adjective "precontemplative"). This is the realm
in which your discussion continues to founder.
(13) Note that on this forum, I'm not the only person to tell you that you've
missed key points where you were adequately answered and needed to re-read
previous posts. At least one other participant said the same thing of you. That
makes two witnesses, which might at least provoke you to consider whether
you're "slow to listen and swift to answer" rather than "swift to listen and
slow to answer" (James 1:19). That helps immensely on sprawling topics such as
this the one in this thread. Say what you will about the recent dialogue
between Steven Jones and me, but there was clear progress in the engagement: we
moved meaningfully from one point to the next, despite our significant
differences. The argument developed: it went somewhere, slowly but surely. Your
approach to THIS dialogue, at least up until now, has tended to insure its
stagnation, not progress, in the discussion. Im sorry what is the key point
there the topic was a rich man and it did not state that He could
not only that it was hard?No one is denying salvation is of and the work of
God for only with God is salvation possible. The issue is whether or not we
can/ have the ability to obey and submit to Christ Jesus which is not the same
thing as keeping the law of Moses because the law of Moses requires perfection
in obedience where Christ who came in the flesh commanded confession when we
sin to stay in him and as long as we are in Christ then perfection is accounted
to us?. Perfection/righteousness could never be obtained in the law of Moses
because it was based on our works of the law? However our works in Christ
enable us to be accounted as worthy. Luke 20:35? the issue is and always was
one of the who, what & how to obey not free will or obedience itself.
(14) I've given you a big fat juicy target. There are lots of bullet holes in
the walls around it, but nothing hit the target yet. This debate won't advance
one micron until something hits the target. Ball's still in your court. If
we're to "redeem the time, for the days are evil," you'll need to engage my
points in some meaningful way. I won't presume to insist upon it for certain,
but it is at least possible I'm not the only on this forum waiting for you to
do so.
Your positions scripturally and logical untenable. Philosophically, even if
you could demonstrate your position the very nature of no free will makes this
whole debate mute as you nor would have no control over what is being said and
the folk who here have no choice about what they do or do not do about the
issue raised here so it would make very little difference in any case?However,
since you are wrong and I have demonstrated that free will has nothing to do
with predestination this doctrine is in error and if we do not submit ourselves
to God,? Moses won?t be there to argue the logic of anyone?s case.
PS My apologies for miss spelling your name. I consider you a great man
Martian and I am personally honored and grateful that you are here with the
rest of us to discuss all these issues. Not withstanding your arguments are
greatly in error I encourage you reevaluate your position.
Martin Selbrede <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Allen,
(1) I affirmed that the Mosaic Law was the law being discussed in Romans 3.
Why do you ascribe the opposite position to me? I belabored this in the
exegesis that "ho nomos" refers to the Mosaic Law, and explicitly pointed this
out. My exegesis of Rom. 3:19 firmly and incontrovertibly established that we
(and the entire world) are under that Law, which was one of two crucial
premises I was getting across (the other contained in verse 20). Yet you, in
your numbered point 3, act as if you're correcting me when you're only
repeating back my own exegesis to me. Is there some misunderstanding here?
(2) The context for 2 Cor. 10:5 is the verses before and after it, which take
absolute priority over its meaning, NOT something in Galatians or 1
Corinthians. Your approach is tantamount to saying that whatever may be stated
in the verses immediately surrounding the phrase "taking into captivity every
thought" is to be thrown out, because you want to shift the entire ground of
Paul's point regarding the tearing down of strongholds (v. 4) casting down
imaginations (v. 5) and being ready to revenge all disobedience (v. 6). This
forced-fit "context" of yours exposes the glue driven into the seam, because
the warfare requiring spiritual weapons to tear down high things that exalt
themselves against the knowledge of God is not an internal one but an external
one against a disbelieving, sin-ridden world. So, again you flit away to
Galatians and I Corinthians and refuse to focus on the text (for a third time),
making entirely gratuitous assertions (that contradict its immediate
context in its own chapter) about how you alone provide the "proper" context
(so-called).
(3) You say I have not demonstrated a single verse that shows that anyone was
forced to obey Christ. I wasn't until now aware that this was at stake, but
since you feel it is pertinent, I'll provide a passage that is extremely
interesting in this regard.
Isaiah 45:22-23: "Be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and
there is none else. I have sworn by Myself, the word is gone out of My mouth in
righteousness, and shall not return, that unto Me every knee shall bow, every
tongue shall swear." Let's unpack this: There is a command issued for the
entire world to be saved. Then God swears an oath that this command will be
obeyed, asserting that the word gone out of His mouth (the command "Be ye
saved, all the ends of the earth") shall not return (fail to be obeyed), with
the blatant assertion that the entire world would be saved. I would think even
you, Allen, would hesitate to poo-poo or explain away this command for the
entire world to be saved, insofar as God added an oath in His Own Holy Name as
an imprimatur assuring the absolute certainty of its fulfillment. The world is
commanded to be saved, and God in His good time will compel it to be so, lest
His oath that He swore be invalidated and His honor
besmirched by the failure of the world to obey. God will not allow that to
happen: the universe would crack into pieces before that will happen. However,
it's anyone's guess how you might choose to minimize the thing God thought
sufficiently important that He swore it would happen as commanded.
(4) It is my assessment in this dialogue that you are indulging in eisegesis
(the reading into a text something that is external to it, proceeding either
from your own theology or some distant scripture that may or may not be related
to the point in question), and I alone have properly conducted exegesis
(letting the vocabulary and grammar of the words themselves naturally unfold
the meaning inherent in them as presented). One is to conduct exegesis FIRST,
consider immediate context SECOND, consider more distant context and the
explicit direct meaning of the rest of the Bible THIRD, and only then bring
into the picture INFERENCES from other verses. You take this last step and
make it first, and have done so like clockwork. For I at no time have denied
that the Scriptures are packed with moral imperative. After I taught
Systematic Theology (over two hundred recorded lectures), I undertook a four
year lecture series on the moral imperatives of Scripture, totaling 151
hours of lectures on that topic alone (and I failed to exhaust the topic). You
are shooting bullets where I'm not standing. But like I said, the question
isn't whether the Scriptures contain moral imperatives, the question is whether
or not the presence of moral imperatives implies ability to obey them. This is
the hidden premise that you tacitly assume when you continue to generate big
lists of choices, appeals, beseechings, etc., and you assume everybody also
accepts this tacit, unstated premise, so that your conclusion naturally and
inexorably flows. But it's that secondary premise that is under attack, and
your case only gets stuck in the mud worse when you merely multiply more items
that require that suppressed premise to be made valid. You're a fireman pouring
water on the unharmed house next door to the actual conflagration. Nothing I've
said has caused you to do anything more than throw more hoses at a non-problem.
You keep steeling yourself for a task that
doesn't extricate you from the problem, apparently because you don't see that
your argument has a fatally weak flank that is quite exposed, a weakness
affecting the mass of citations you've made as to their relevance.
(5) You write, "... that argument is exactly like Jews like you were/are
expecting." I'm not Jewish. Where'd you get that idea? I suppose that you're
possibly a victim of your own bad sentence construction and meant to say
something to the effect that I, a Presbyterian, am expecting the same things
like the Jews were/are. But -- exegetically -- that's not what you wrote. You
either (1) got my culture and religion completely wrong, or (2) sounded an
indistinct trumpet. (Good thing God doesn't sound an indistinct trumpet.)
(6) I'm nonplused at your insistence that I mounted my case on the grounds of
subjective feelings. I've already told you that my subjective experience (and
that of every human being) is of freedom of the will. So, my discounting of
that position goes against my feelings, for I agree with Paul: Let God be true,
but every man a liar (Rom. 3:4). It is YOUR position that is harmonious with
your feelings on the matter. I'm nonplused for another obvious reason: that my
argument was couched in purely objective, analytical, grammatical, philological
terms, and as one who presented an extended series of lectures on linguistics
(by invitation) at Christ College in Lynchburg, Virginia last year, I know what
dispassionate, clear thinking looks like on the topic of language and meaning.
My discussion embodied it. Your replies fell short.
(7) I'd recommend to you the volume, "Exegetical Fallacies," by D. A. Carson
of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. This is must reading for anyone who
dares to venture into serious debate over the meaning of Scripture: it shows
how to avoid classic errors of reasoning and linguistics in dealing with the
Scriptures. You'd benefit from this volume, which is among the best in its
class.
(8) Paul insisted on even the penal provisions of the Mosaic Law as still in
force and applicable to him. Acts 25:10-11 -- ".... to the Jews have I done no
wrong, as thou very well knowest. For if I be an offender, or have committed
any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these
things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them." Paul is
saying that if any of the capital charges against the Mosaic law that the Jews
were accusing him of were true, he would accept the death penalty under that
Law. His endorsement of the Law of Moses, and of the legitimacy of the Jews'
approach to juridical matters (except not in reference to the gravamen of the
charges), is extraordinary considering the swirl of events around the Apostle,
which leads to his appeal to Caesar.
(9) This debate is not a matter of eloquence, but of substance. I have no
idea why you drew attention to an irrelevant aspect of the exchange, when
substance is what matters. That said, it should be noted that eloquence is
hardly forbidden in light of Proverbs 15:23 -- "There is joy for a man in his
utterance; a word in season, how good it is."
(10) I was wrong about the 10-foot-pole I alleged you were using. It's more
like 20 feet in length based on this latest reply. I think you're heading in
the wrong direction, good intentions notwithstanding.
(11) You write, "Really Martian [sic -- your persistent misspelling of my
name], you can't ignore the context with the rest of scripture and call it
exegesis!" Of course I can -- one MUST establish the sentence's internal
meaning first (exegesis) before we can enter into hermeneutics and systematics
(the relationship of the verse to the rest of scripture). You're making a
classic error in your approach to context. Taking a verse's context into
account is only HALF of the hermeneutic procedure. The other, equally critical
half is to determine what the text CONTRIBUTES to its context. It is you who
are indulging in a piecemeal approach. You wave your hand and say, in effect,
"These are not the droids you're looking for." And some might buy that, but the
more mature believer will not. This second step in the hermeneutic process is
the one you continue to miss completely. You are the one indulging in
systematics at the expense of exegesis. I believe in systematics (I've
taught it at seminary level), but not at the expense of exegesis, lest we
loosen our ties to the sacred Scriptures themselves. It is for this reason that
books with titles like "Toward an Exegetical Theology" by Dr. Walter C. Kaiser
Jr. were written: to properly anchor theology TIGHTLY to the specific
Scriptures that explicitly and directly teach the points in question. (This is
another issue you and I have: your repeated insistence on elevating an
inference to a direct teaching of Scripture, when it is only an inference and a
mortally wounded one at that.)
(12) A presupposition is defined as a precontemplative commitment, the hidden
baggage under the hood of an argument -- sometimes hidden even from the one
making the argument (hence the adjective "precontemplative"). This is the realm
in which your discussion continues to founder.
(13) Note that on this forum, I'm not the only person to tell you that you've
missed key points where you were adequately answered and needed to re-read
previous posts. At least one other participant said the same thing of you. That
makes two witnesses, which might at least provoke you to consider whether
you're "slow to listen and swift to answer" rather than "swift to listen and
slow to answer" (James 1:19). That helps immensely on sprawling topics such as
this the one in this thread. Say what you will about the recent dialogue
between Steven Jones and me, but there was clear progress in the engagement: we
moved meaningfully from one point to the next, despite our significant
differences. The argument developed: it went somewhere, slowly but surely. Your
approach to THIS dialogue, at least up until now, has tended to insure its
stagnation, not progress, in the discussion.
(14) I've given you a big fat juicy target. There are lots of bullet holes in
the walls around it, but nothing hit the target yet. This debate won't advance
one micron until something hits the target. Ball's still in your court. If
we're to "redeem the time, for the days are evil," you'll need to engage my
points in some meaningful way. I won't presume to insist upon it for certain,
but it is at least possible I'm not the only on this forum waiting for you to
do so.
Notwithstanding the incisive tone of our give-and-take, I nonetheless do hold
you in high esteem as a brother in Christ, and I do surely recognize your zeal
for Him and His Word.
For the King,
Martin
On Jan 26, 2007, at 4:48 PM, Allen Daves wrote:
Martain, I am having the same issues with my post ....Me blue
Sigh. I'm very sorry to say that your answers were evasive and
unintentionally disingenuous.
At no point did you confront the issue of harmonizing "every thought captive"
in 2 Cor. 10:5 with your notion of freedom. Sorry you feel that way but the
scripture needs no commentary it is strait forward, if you do not add your
thoughts to it or ignore the demonstrated context. You walked right around it,
but there it still is: an 800-pound gorilla in the room. The 800 lbs Gorilla in
the room is 1.the fact that we are still presently under law ....Gal 6:2 &
1Chorinthians 9:21. To them that are without law, as without law, (being not
without law to God, but under the law to Christ,).......... 27. But I keep
under my body, and bring it into subjection:. 2.that the imperative for action
is always demonstrated on the reader/ man not God 3.The Fall of Man
demonstrates that Free choice and Predestination have absolutely nothing to do
with each other ..... asked for a focused discussion of that clause and how it
is that "taking into captivity every thought" is consistent with
the idea that the will is free. You devote three sentences to this issue, none
of which grapple with or even touch the question that was posed. It does not
need much Commentary just your willingness :) to accept and obey..........You
don't even cite any of Paul's words in your own explanation -- Really? My
response was full of Pauls letters & Romans Ill include it at the bottom incase
you missed it..... so it is no wonder that you say "this verse does not... make
any claims that God is controlling anyone....," I have already demonstrated
Pauls Comments on Self Control and subjugating one Self , and the law that we
are not under and the law we are.... what else is there..? ..because you roll
right over the powerful wording of Paul and don't touch it with a ten foot
pole. If I quote Paul?s excoriation to exercise oneself & the law of Christ and
that is "not touching it" with a ten foot pole then your commentaries that
ignore what is plainly stated and ignores what is there
and referencing comments on "free will" that don?t exist should be called
what? You again flit off like a butterfly to other Scriptures and hide from
this text. Why? How did I hide?...Nowhere did it state there is no free
will/choice and you still have not demonstrated that it does....You are only
telling me how you "feel" about it not what it stated. Even After I show you
verbatim in scripture your error.....Why do you attempt to hide in Koine Greek
from the context of the law in Romans which is the law of Moses? Why do you
ignore the fact that we are most certainly under law?
Worse yet is the embarrassing attempt to deal with Rom. 3:19-20. So, I'll
have to do what you failed to do....LOL
""Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the
law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held
accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in
his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.""
The first verse asserts that the Law speaks to "those who are under the law."
Who is that? Paul's in mid-sentence here, and continues on to explain who they
are: "so that every mouth may be stopped..." How many mouths? Only the mouths
of Israelites? No, EVERY mouth is stopped, because the law speaks to EVERYBODY,
because EVERYBODY is under the law. If this isn't clear enough, we're still in
mid-sentence, and Paul compounds the point: "so that every mouth may be
stopped, and the WHOLE WORLD may be held accountable to God." The WHOLE WORLD
is held accountable to God as a consequence of the fact that the WHOLE WORLD is
under God's Law, and God's Law speaks to them on that account. So the subject
of the sentence is defined with three equipollent terms: the law speaks (1) to
those who are under the law, which is (2) everybody, which is (3) the whole
world. The law speaks to all so that all are accountable to God to keep it.
I'll parse verse 19 for you exegetically:
hoidamen de: for we know
hoti: that
osa: what/whatsoever/whatever
ho nomos: the law (article in front indicating Mosaic law; Paul drops the
article (writing "nomos" instead of "ho nomos") rendering the term anarthrous,
which he does when he means law-based-justification as in Romans 6:14, where
the Mosiac law is not in view. Irrelevant! because as I stated elsewhere 1.
Context,...All of Romans is contextual specific in its contrast between the
Moses & Christ..Romas5. For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the
law, 2. We are specifically under the Law of Christ therefore the law discussed
in Romans is not just contextually defined as Moses but specifically prohibited
from just being every law Galatians 6: 2. Bear ye one another's burdens, and so
fulfil the law of Christ. a1Chorinthians 9:21. To them that are without law, as
without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to
Christ,).....3.The fact that the term Law itself and commandments used by
Christ and the Apostles are synonymous by definition of the terms
themselves. ......................... We are under the law so he must be
discussing some law I wonder which law he is referring to..umm .......maybe
Paul means the Roman common law....!? .........Really Martian, you can?t ignore
the context with the rest of scripture and call it exegesis!
legei: speaks/says
tois: to them (accusative case)
en too: under/in
nomoo: that law
lalei: speaks (the subject "it" is taken from the preceding nomoo)
hina: in order that/so that (Greek grammar renders this ecbatically,
constituting what follows to be the purpose/teleology of what precedes it)
pan: all/every (adjectival form)
stoma: mouths
frage: are shut/stopped
kai: and (standard copulative conjunction, not the epexegetical conjunction
rendered "even" in English, although either sense supports my position in this
thread)
hypodikos: accountable (compounded from "under" and "judgment/obligation")
genetai: accomplished/established/realized
pas: entire/total
ho kosmos: the world
too theou: to God.
Note that Greek syntax doesn't follow English sentence structure. I know.....
It is inflective when spoken and contextual driven when written ..........which
is what you are disparity trying to avoid.
Each language has its own syntax (German is notorious for placing the verb at
the tail end of the sentence, which can be intolerably long before arriving at
the word at its end that explains the intent).
I won't conduct a similar analysis of verse 20 because I'm assuming it's
evident on the face of it that it expressly teaches that human beings are
constitutionally incapable of discharging the very thing that verse 19 holds
them completely accountable to do. If your next reply suggests that you reject
the prima facie meaning of verse 20, then I will also parse it word-for-word as
Paul wrote it to establish this point, although it strikes me as superfluous at
this juncture to go through the trouble.
In sum: the law speaks to everybody, and everybody is accountable to obey it,
and nobody is able to obey it. This pair of verses sets forth an irrevocable
obligation that God presses upon every human being, while simultaneously
asserting the total inability of a single human being to do what is commanded.
Only To do what is commanded of God Via the law of Moses not to do what is
commanded under the law of Christ ...in fact the law of Moses speacks to that
when it prophesied about Christ .XXXXXXXXXXXX..You totally ignore that fact and
you must for good reason for as soon as any context is applied the fact that
Romans is much about the law of Moses is unmistakable and destroys any argument
entirely .. That verse does not say you cannot choose God it only states you
cannot do so via the law Moses in fact Romas5. For Moses describeth the
righteousness which is of the law,..I suppose he could be discussing the Roman
common law?. 3. For they being ignorant of God's
righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not
submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God....that is as specific as
your argument is vague . Martin, the scripture sniping here is your
argument......9. That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and
shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt
be saved. 10. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the
mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11. For the scripture saith, Whosoever
believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12. For there is no difference between
the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call
upon him. 13. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be
saved............This is the whole point why Christ ( God in the Flesh) had to
come in the Flesh. So that flesh man could be reconciled back to the spiritual
father via the mediator God in the flesh because the
ordinances themselves could not but Our Obedience to Christ In the Flesh can
and Does. Obedience Christ is all ways demonstrated as willing on the part of
the participant ...."Philipians 2:12...Work our your own salvation" "1Tim
4:7...and exercise thyself rather unto godliness........ 16. Take heed unto
thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt
both save thyself, and them that hear thee."............. "James 2:18...shew me
thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works"....
James 4:7. Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will
flee from you......again, is as specific as your argument is obscure
....................you have not nor can you demonstrate anywhere where Christ
forced anyone to Obey him........I can and have shown you where he asks us but
never forces and neither have/can you.....again.. Revelation 2:4. Nevertheless
I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first
love. 5. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do
the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy
candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. ...............Not God will/
did do it for you... Martian you simply have no argument you keep telling how
you read it but you cant show us where it is to be read in scripture.
This invalidates the view that God would not command something we are
constitutionally unable to do, ........... Irrelevant! ....That was never a
issue ..of course he would but you miss the purpose of the law in the first
place it was never meant to bring us to righteousness it was to .. Romans 3:21.
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed
by the law and the prophets ( what was manifested is God in the Flesh Christ to
whom we can obey/submit ourselves to....... 31. Do we then make void the law
through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. 1Chorinthians 9:21. To
them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but
under the law to Christ,)
Galatians 3: 24. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto
Christ, that we might be justified by faith...........Romans 8:1. There is
therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not
after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2. For the law of the Spirit of life in
Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 3. For what the
law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own
Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the
flesh:...Now how do we Get into Jesus...?
and since your position is that the appearance of moral imperative and
commands in Scripture implies ability, and this pair of verses contradicts that
opinion of yours, It contradicts your position there is no free will not mine,
that we are to submit ourselves to God. It is/ could only be a contradiction if
your position were true but that is what you have failed to demonstrate yet.
Your must demonstrate your position as true first before you use your position
to interpret your references...you have it backwards.....you have a major
obstacle to overcome. I'm no more impressed with large cut-and-snip stretches
of Scripture than our Lord is impressed with verbose prayer. Jesus confounded
the Pharisees continually with arguments based on ultra-precise grammatical
points in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, noting also that "the scripture
cannot be broken." THIS scripture cannot be broken. You need to track through
my exegesis of Rom. 3:19 and demonstrate that it is
incorrect. I know what Paul wrote, in the language he wrote it. Romans is the
most extended exposition of Christian doctrine in the New Testament, and
chapter 3 is a pivotal chapter that requires scrutiny and care, not
quick-and-dirty hit-and-runs that are evasive on the face of it. Come on in,
the water's fine -- don't gather goosebumps at the edge of the pond, sticking
your toe in and then withdrawing it sheepishly. Debating the meaning of
Scripture is not a matter of colliding opinions, it's a matter of "How do you
read?" (Luke 10:26). For all your wordiness the difference in the final
analysis is that you are reading into scripture what is not there and ignoring
what is specifically the context ( law of Moses verse Christ). Merely asserting
how you see things which are never plainly stated anywhere but do plainly state
just the opposite elsewhere. .."Merely asserting ones position no mater how
emphatically demonstrates nothing"
I suspect your curious distinction between the law of Christ and the law of
Moses would have difficulty dealing with the final verse of Romans 3. Verse 31
states, "Do we then make void the law of God through faith? Nay, God forbid.
Rather, we establish the law." we establish the Law of God and in law of Christ
.............Romans 10:4 Christ is the end of the law for Righteousness (again
the law of Moses)... oh there it is verse .5. For Moses describeth the
righteousness which is of the law, ....he could be discussing the Code of
Hammurabi? .....You may remember the law of Moses itself prophesied about the
coming of the Messiah and the fact we were to listen and Obey him not watch him
be forced on anyone...in fact that argument is exactly what the Jews like you
were/are expecting.............The law we establish is .. Galatians 6:2..so
fulfill the law of Christ....& again .1Chorinthians 9:21. To them that are
without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but
under the law to Christ,).....................you miss the fact that we are
most certainly still under law! In all of scripture it demonstrates the
imperative to exercise, take heed, watch, obey and submit (all words which are
specifically used & with the other term yourselfs) is on man to do not God to
force upon you.....Your attempts to avoid the law of Christ and the fact we are
instructed to obey him not Moses law and at that never forced either in example
or by specific statement are completely void of any scriptural debate. You have
and are only telling us your assertions as to what you think and how you feel
about reading scripture not anything actually read in scripture.....
Since the article is used ("ho nomos"), the law of Moses is law referred to.
Christians establish the law of Moses. In fact, only THEY can do so, since the
greatest commandment requires love for God, and only Christians can obey that
without feigning their love. This doesn't involve works-salvation, for Romans
3:21 makes it clear that the Law of Moses itself testifies to a righteousness
from God that is established apart from the law (namely, through faith, James
2;18-24 show me thy faith without works I will shew thee my faith by my works
..you belive that ther is one God thou doest well the devils belive and doeth
tremble o vain man know ye not that faith witout works is DEAD.....Ye see then
how that by works a man is jsutified and not by faith only.........as the rest
of this chapter, on into chapter 8, establishes).
I hate to be a stick-in-the-mud, but I'm awaiting for the kind of response I
requested the last go-around. Hasn't arrived in my mailbox yet, and the
material below doesn't make the grade, for reasons that have been belabored
before. I've shown you how to conduct an exegetical analysis, to treat the
Scripture with respect and care, and so that template should help you formulate
a reply that should hold water, if your position is the correct one.
In the Lamb,
Martin
Summary
Martain, for all your eloquent speech and "exegetical" remarks on scripture
and Koine Greek you at no time have you demonstrated
1.as you put it to me A single " explicit direct statements" .to the effect
there is no free will or Choice........How you "feel" it "reads" does not count
as how it "reads" own as well as in its own context.
2. That we are not under law or that the verse you like so much in Romans I
like it too only all of it not just your snib-bits... is discussing any other
law then the law of Moses..I have demonstrated that we are under law with
explicit direct statments and the context of Romans 3 is Moses law.
3. The fact that scripture demonstrates the imperative for actions on
man....you have been provided with numerous ones that Ask, encourage oneself
but you have not demonstrated even one where someone was forced to obey
Christ....I don?t think demons count. I have demonstrated the imperative of
action is on man, and that this position is based on circularly fallacies, it
can only be demonstrated as true if and only if you assume that it is true in
the first place.
4. how you submit your self if it is not you in contol..I have demonstrated
that we are commanded to exersice among otherthings self control
5. demonstrait how anyone gets into Christ without them calling or willingly
sumbiting to the Lord. I have demonstrated not God but rather a person must
Call on the Lord not wait for god to call himself for you.
6.or Even attempted to explain how predestination relates to free choice at
all since predestination was already in effect even before Adam brought sin and
death into the world. He was spiritually alive........I have demonstrated they
do not depend on each other.
__._,_.___
Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members | Calendar
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to
Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Visit Your Group
Yahoo! 360
Share what matters
Share your photos, blog.
Control who sees what.
Yahoo! Toolbar
Get it Free!
easy 1-click access
to your groups.
Yahoo! Groups
Start a group
in 3 easy steps.
Connect with others.
.
__,_._,___
Other related posts:
