Hermeneutical Principle in Interpreting Scripture

[Reformed]

NOTE: I am placing this thread in the Calvinism & Arminian Debate forum because it will invariably turn that way. I am just saving time.

With Mark Corbett's thread having been closed, I want to turn the attention on how to approach scripture when a single word or phrase seems to be the central point of a person's argument. For instance, the word "called" in Matthew 22:14 was cited as proof that the Gospel call can be rejected (conditional election). I made the case earlier in the thread that how "called" is used in Romans 8:28-30 makes the word unconditional. All who are called will come to faith in Jesus Christ. I need to thank a friend of mine who texted me a short blog article by John Piper on this very topic. I had to chuckle when I read it. For a moment I thought ole' John was following the recently closed thread and decided to comment on it. Here is a snippet from Piper:

...when you use a word, you don’t know yet what that word means just because you are familiar with the word. You don’t know what “set” means or “run” means until you see it, or the word “rock” — like rock a chair or rock music. The words have to have a context. And as soon as you have discerned from the immediate context how it is being used, then you have come to terms, and a word becomes a term with a definitive meaning in the context.

Here is the link to John Piper's blog article: What Is the Difference Between ‘Called’ and ‘Chosen’? It is worth the read.

 

[BobRyan]

NOTE: I am placing this thread in the Calvinism & Arminian Debate forum because it will invariably turn that way. I am just saving time.

With Mark Corbett's thread having been closed, I want to turn the attention on how to approach scripture when a single word or phrase seems to be the central point of a person's argument. For instance, the word "called" in Matthew 22:14 was cited as proof that the Gospel call can be rejected (conditional election). I made the case earlier in the thread that how "called" is used in Romans 8:28-30 makes the word unconditional. All who are called will come to faith in Jesus Christ. I need to thank a friend of mine who texted me a short blog article by John Piper on this very topic. I had to chuckle when I read it. For a moment I thought ole' John was following the recently closed thread and decided to comment on it. Here is a snippet from Piper:



Here is the link to John Piper's blog article: What Is the Difference Between ‘Called’ and ‘Chosen’? It is worth the read.

1. Pouring extreme inference into the text to bend it to extremes to which it does not go - is not the same thing as objective exegesis.

2. Revisit point 1.

Romans 8 does not say the much-imagined and much-needed "All who are called will come to faith in Jesus Christ."

There is no doubt that God is not "Willing" that any should perish.

Acts 17:
30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.

using the form of extreme inference poured into the text - that you suggest above - would turn 2 Peter 3 and Acts 17:30 into universalism.

This is irrefutable.

 

[utilyan]

NOTE: I am placing this thread in the Calvinism & Arminian Debate forum because it will invariably turn that way. I am just saving time.

With Mark Corbett's thread having been closed, I want to turn the attention on how to approach scripture when a single word or phrase seems to be the central point of a person's argument. For instance, the word "called" in Matthew 22:14 was cited as proof that the Gospel call can be rejected (conditional election). I made the case earlier in the thread that how "called" is used in Romans 8:28-30 makes the word unconditional. All who are called will come to faith in Jesus Christ. I need to thank a friend of mine who texted me a short blog article by John Piper on this very topic. I had to chuckle when I read it. For a moment I thought ole' John was following the recently closed thread and decided to comment on it. Here is a snippet from Piper:



Here is the link to John Piper's blog article: What Is the Difference Between ‘Called’ and ‘Chosen’? It is worth the read.

Piper tries to say the called means basically "invite" because it was the end of the parable of the wedding feast.

That doesn't matter. Even in the story EVERYONE is sent a invitation, and even a guy who accepts the invitation is thrown out for not respecting the wedding.

The invitation is obviously God's part. Its a tough sell that Piper's side would even believe God to send the invitation to everyone or that it could even be refused as it was.

The Romans 8 verses are explaining in past tense what the saints went through. If you read the whole chapter there is a distinction between the Saints who are the First Fruits and the author and his congregation who are creatures.

The creatures are still in bondage and it is their HOPE to be saved.


The subject of HOPE as a virtue cannot exist with Calvinism.

Lets look at this verse from that chapter:

24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

He says we are saved by hope. (Sola Spero?)

If you know your elect....well that is not hope at all. If you are already regenerated guaranteed, there is no hope, hope has been destroyed. As Paul says: Hope that is seen is not hope.

I wish i could draw a flow chart here:

He says you get saved by HOPE, Hope is part of the big 3 Faith, Hope, and Love.

If you already see it, that is not hope, You can't hope to be elect if you already know your elect. you can't hope to be regenerated because you already see your regenerated.


Paul doesn't say he one of the saints who got called. He says he is one of the creatures in the trenches, praying to the spirit and praying that the spirit has a better prayer then his own for him, and praying to be saved. And HOPING he will be saved.

Exactly like he says If it were guaranteed to him, he could not call it HOPE.

 

[Mr. Davis]

BobRyan said:

This is irrefutable.

Only to closed minds like all who believe Ellen White's heresies.

TCassidy, along with others, have refuted "free will." Christ chose his disciples. And, "as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." (Acts 13:48) True then, true now.

Man is spiritually DEAD in his trespasses and sins. (Eph 2) A spiritually DEAD man can do nothing but sin. He is not regenerate with a new inclination not to sin.

Only God ALONE can make him ALIVE. He regenerates and brings faith to His elect. There is ABUNDANT
scripture in John where Jesus declares that those who believe have eternal life. They will not be condemned. They shall NEVER perish!

We are not saved by our obedience. (Romans 5:19). We are saved by Christ's finished work on the Cross.
As I have said before, Christ's sacrifice was for all of our sins. Past, Present, and Future. He sacrificed
Himself once for all time. (Hebrews confirms this). Because He is always interceding for us, our forgiveness is certain. But, when we sin, we must confess (1 John 1:9). This is mandatory to maintain fellowship with Him. We will NEVER lose our relationship with Him.

THIS is irrefutable.

 

[utilyan]

BobRyan said:

This is irrefutable.

Only to closed minds like all who believe Ellen White's heresies.

TCassidy, along with others, have refuted "free will." Christ chose his disciples. And, "as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." (Acts 13:48) True then, true now.

Man is spiritually DEAD in his trespasses and sins. (Eph 2) A spiritually DEAD man can do nothing but sin. He is not regenerate with a new inclination not to sin.

Only God ALONE can make him ALIVE. He regenerates and brings faith to His elect. There is ABUNDANT
scripture in John where Jesus declares that those who believe have eternal life. They will not be condemned. They shall NEVER perish!

We are not saved by our obedience. (Romans 5:19). We are saved by Christ's finished work on the Cross.
As I have said before, Christ's sacrifice was for all of our sins. Past, Present, and Future. He sacrificed
Himself once for all time. (Hebrews confirms this). Because He is always interceding for us, our forgiveness is certain. But, when we sin, we must confess (1 John 1:9). This is mandatory to maintain fellowship with Him. We will NEVER lose our relationship with Him.

THIS is irrefutable.

If you were " A spiritually DEAD" person then you would already been destroyed with nothing to save.


"All corruptible natures therefore are natures at all only so far as they are from God, nor would they be corruptible if they were of Him; because they would be what He himself is. Therefore of whatever measure, of whatever form, of whatever order, they are, they are so because it is God by whom they were made; but they are not immutable, because it is nothing of which they were made. For it is sacrilegious audacity to make nothing and God equal, as when we wish to make what has been born of God such as what has been made by Him out of nothing." --St. Augustine


St. Augustine makes a point here. You can't start spiritually dead because then you claim to be a GOD who makes things from nothing.

God created you. Now after your creation you can become corrupt. But if you become so corrupt that there is nothing GOOD, "Totally Depraved" , Then your nature ceases to exist, you have been destroyed.

There is NOTHING TO SAVE THERE. Think about it, Murder and Rape are evil things. Do you think God will save MURDER to bring to heaven?

If there is absolutely NOTHING good about you, if you are totally depraved, your nature is equated with sin like murder. There is absolutely NOTHING there to save.

This all comes from a mistake of FALSE HUMILITY. Its a good start for a sinner to say "i am good for nothing" and repent ect. But thats not the best start nor the whole truth. His skewed view is self refuting. IE. IF he is good for nothing , he is also not good for judging himself.

 

[Mr. Davis]

utilyan said:
If you were " A spiritually DEAD" person then you would already been destroyed with nothing to save.

This appears to be your whole argument in a nutshell.

Christ talked about the spiritually dead. He never said they were destroyed, with nothing to save.

[One] of his disciples said unto him, "Lord, [permit] me first to go and bury my father." (Matthew 8:21)

But Jesus said unto him, "Follow me; let the dead bury their dead." vs.2

"let the dead" are persons spiritually dead. A reference to Ephesians 2:5 is included in the Scofield
reference Bible.

So, your argument is categorically refuted!

But don't take my word for it, take Jesus'.

 

[Yeshua1]

Contex rules this discussion, as well as what the Greek terms chosen by the Holy Spirit, and also taken into account the whole of the scriptures.

Bottom line, those here who refute OSAS will have to refute Jesus Himself, as he plainly stated that he will rise up ALL granted to Him by the Father to get saved!

Are you able and willing to refute Jesus on this?

 

[Yeshua1]

If you were " A spiritually DEAD" person then you would already been destroyed with nothing to save.


"All corruptible natures therefore are natures at all only so far as they are from God, nor would they be corruptible if they were of Him; because they would be what He himself is. Therefore of whatever measure, of whatever form, of whatever order, they are, they are so because it is God by whom they were made; but they are not immutable, because it is nothing of which they were made. For it is sacrilegious audacity to make nothing and God equal, as when we wish to make what has been born of God such as what has been made by Him out of nothing." --St. Augustine


St. Augustine makes a point here. You can't start spiritually dead because then you claim to be a GOD who makes things from nothing.

God created you. Now after your creation you can become corrupt. But if you become so corrupt that there is nothing GOOD, "Totally Depraved" , Then your nature ceases to exist, you have been destroyed.

There is NOTHING TO SAVE THERE. Think about it, Murder and Rape are evil things. Do you think God will save MURDER to bring to heaven?

If there is absolutely NOTHING good about you, if you are totally depraved, your nature is equated with sin like murder. There is absolutely NOTHING there to save.

This all comes from a mistake of FALSE HUMILITY. Its a good start for a sinner to say "i am good for nothing" and repent ect. But thats not the best start nor the whole truth. His skewed view is self refuting. IE. IF he is good for nothing , he is also not good for judging himself.

Paul demolishes the concept of full free will remaining to us, as His glorious point is that salvation is the gift of God to whomever He wishes it tobe cast upon, dependent upon His will, and not the will of the fallen creature!
Thank God that is true, for if salvation depends upon us coming to Christ for it, left to our own device, NONE would ever get saved!

 

[Mr. Davis]

Paul demolishes the concept of full free will remaining to us, as His glorious point is that salvation is the gift of God to whomever He wishes it tobe cast upon, dependent upon His will, and not the will of the fallen creature!
Thank God that is true, for if salvation depends upon us coming to Christ for it, left to our own device, NONE would ever get saved!

Also, ONLY God can keep us! We are much too weak in ourselves to do so. "I am weak, but He is strong..." as the chorus goes.

 

[Yeshua1]

If you were " A spiritually DEAD" person then you would already been destroyed with nothing to save.


"All corruptible natures therefore are natures at all only so far as they are from God, nor would they be corruptible if they were of Him; because they would be what He himself is. Therefore of whatever measure, of whatever form, of whatever order, they are, they are so because it is God by whom they were made; but they are not immutable, because it is nothing of which they were made. For it is sacrilegious audacity to make nothing and God equal, as when we wish to make what has been born of God such as what has been made by Him out of nothing." --St. Augustine


St. Augustine makes a point here. You can't start spiritually dead because then you claim to be a GOD who makes things from nothing.

God created you. Now after your creation you can become corrupt. But if you become so corrupt that there is nothing GOOD, "Totally Depraved" , Then your nature ceases to exist, you have been destroyed.

There is NOTHING TO SAVE THERE. Think about it, Murder and Rape are evil things. Do you think God will save MURDER to bring to heaven?

If there is absolutely NOTHING good about you, if you are totally depraved, your nature is equated with sin like murder. There is absolutely NOTHING there to save.

This all comes from a mistake of FALSE HUMILITY. Its a good start for a sinner to say "i am good for nothing" and repent ect. But thats not the best start nor the whole truth. His skewed view is self refuting. IE. IF he is good for nothing , he is also not good for judging himself.

Totally depraved refers to our spiritual condition, not our physical state, as that refers to us not being either able or willing to come to Jesus to get saved by ourselves, as that MUST be the work of God towards us for salvation to occur!

 

[Reformed]

The purpose of my OP was to draw attention to the importance of understanding what a word means. Apparently that concept is lost on some posters in this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Yeshua1]

The purpose of my OP was to draw attention to the importance of understanding what a word means. Apparently that concept is lost on some posters in this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Just look at the big trouble people have when trying to define All as always meaning all persons, but the context can also refer to all as of the elect, those to be saved!

 

[Mr. Davis]

The purpose of my OP was to draw attention to the importance of understanding what a word means. Apparently that concept is lost on some posters in this thread.

Yeshua1 wrote:
Context rules this discussion, as well as what the Greek terms chosen by the Holy Spirit, and also taken into account the whole of the scriptures.

Is this more in keeping with the intent of the OP?

What is the relationship between
Hermeneutics
and exegesis?

Are there other verbs "to believe" besides 'pistos'?
(I think this is the right word. Feel free to correct me).

Mr. Davis

 

[Revmitchell]

Just look at the big trouble people have when trying to define All as always meaning all persons, but the context can also refer to all as of the elect, those to be saved!

It never refers to all of the elect without the use of the word elect. Never.

 

[Yeshua1]

It never refers to all of the elect without the use of the word elect. Never.

It would not be correct to have all refer to all having their sin debts paid for by death of Jesus though, correct?

 

[Revmitchell]

It would not be correct to have all refer to all having their sin debts paid for by death of Jesus though, correct?

Yea why not?

 

[Yeshua1]

Yea why not?

For if all sinners had their sin debt paid in full, why are there any in Hell?

 

[Revmitchell]

For if all sinners had their sin debt paid in full, why are there any in Hell?

If I buy a gift for you what has to be done by you to make that gift yours? You have to receive it. I buy it, I give it to you by handing it to you and then you reach out and receive it. No one claims that the receiver of the gift bears any credit for the giving of the gift just because they reached out and took it into their possession. If you tell me no I do not want that gift, it does not change the fact that I bought that gift for you.

John 1:12 says those who received were given the power to become the children of God.

 

[Iconoclast]

"BobRyan,

Romans 8 does not say the much-imagined and much-needed "All who are called will come to faith in Jesus Christ."

You still get it wrong each time...
Jn 6:37 teaches...ALL who are given...SHALL COME

Romans8 says....WHOM He did....FOREKNOW...

There is no doubt that God is not "Willing" that any should perish.

2PET3 IS SPEAKING OF THE ELECT....NOT ONE WILL PERISH

This is irrefutable.

This is what is irrefutable.

 

[Mr. Davis]

The purpose of my OP was to draw attention to the importance of understanding what a word means. Apparently that concept is lost on some posters in this thread.

In the book of John, according to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, all of the occurrences of "believe" refer to #4100. This is said to come from 4102: "to have faith in," "to entrust," "to commit," "to rely upon," (Christ, especially for one's spiritual well-being; assurance).

While faith may ebb and flow, eternal life is continuous. In fact, while God gives us faith, that is not the reason why He saves us. His reason is mercy and love. He called His elect from before the foundation of the world. (See specifically, Ephesians 1, Ephesians 2, and Romans 8).

More could be said. Would anyone like to comment?