As I have said before, God can use bad eisegesis to save his elect. This is precisely why there are redeemed Roman Catholics.
God is greater than bad teaching and bad preaching.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Behold!... I Stand At The Door And Knock
- Thread starter tyndale1946
- Start date
- Status
God is greater than bad teaching and bad preaching.
You're apparently going by your theology in interpreting the verse. I went strictly by the hermeneutics. One must be willing to allow the text to change one's theology.
If you are going by hermeneutics then you know Jesus is addressing the church, knocking on it's door to see if the church will open up and dine with Jesus. Therefore, you cannot make it a personal salvation verse without performing some massive eisegesis on the verse.
*Revelation 3:14-22*
“And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation. “‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see. Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me. The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’”
So, will the angel (messenger/pastor) open the door or close it when Jesus knocks? Will he admit he needs help or will he keep trying to do it on his own?
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
Sounds all mushy enough, but there is no door.
The lost person is in possession of no door with which to open.
Regardless of whether Jesus or anyone else would like it.
So, Jesus is not knocking on the non-existent.
Jesus is the Door.
Saved individuals are to choose to serve the door and not another, which would not be good.
So you apparently completely missed my exegesis earlier in the thread. Laodicea is a church with people who need the white robes of righteousness, and are spiritually poor and blind. Jesus wants to spew them out of His mouth How does that not describe lost people? Furthermore, why is it "massive eisegesis" to say that the passage means "any man" when that is exactly what it says (not "any church" or "your church").
If I'm doing "massive exegesis," then so are many great scholars agree with me. Alan Johnson calling the passage an "unqualified condemnation" ("Revelation" in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, p. 457). The great Greek scholar A. T. Robertson says, "Picture of the Lord's advent as in Mt 24:33; Jas 5:9, but true also of the individual response to Christ's call (Lu 12:36) as shown in Holman Hunt's great picture" (Word Pictures in the NT, Vol. 6, p. 323).
John R. Rice agrees completely with me that the verse applies to both saved and lost: "Now Crist stands at the heart's door of every Christian (vs. 20) and wants to restore fellowship that has been broken by their worldliness and lukewarmness. But the truth applies to all men everywhere. Christ is at the door. A lost man who wants salvation has only to open the door" ("Behold, He Cometh!" commentary, p. 103). Vincent even says, "Hear--open the door. No irresistible grace" (Word Studies in the New Testament, vol. 2, 474).
Alexander MaClaren has a wonderful take on the verse, agreeing with Rice and me: "True, my text was originally spoken in reference to the unworthy members of a little church of early believers in Asia Minor, but it passes far beyond the limits of the lukewarm Laodiceans to whom it was addressed. And the 'any man' which follows is wide enough to warrant us in stretching out the representation as far as the bounds of humanity extend, and in believing that wherever there is a closed heart there is a knocking Christ, and that all men are lightened by that light which came into the world" (Expositions of Holy Scripture, vol. 11, p. 303).
So what is my "massive eisegesis"?? Please enlighten me. Care to quote a commentary or scholar who agrees with you? Seems to me the eisegesis is yours, since you say it refers to the "messenger/pastor" rather than "any man," which is what the verse actually says.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
When you have an interaction between two rational beings there will always be a response involved. We have to come by faith. And we begin the new relationship with Christ by some action on our part. It's not that we figured it out ourselves, or changed our own hearts, or born ourselves again, but by our being created as rational beings - an action is required on our part. There are various metaphors used to teach us this in scripture. Sometimes this is referred to as entering the strait or narrow gate. Sometimes it's just believing. Sometimes it was referred to as us opening a door. What I like about the pamphlet Bunyan wrote was the detail he uses to show how the Holy Spirit works to bring us to this faith that WE have to exercise.
Theology does tend to move and it is apparent that Calvinism might be moving towards a bizarre direction where it is considered wrong to ask for any kind of response. Some of you guys are getting to the point of considering it wrong to say you came to Christ, or believed in Christ, or received Christ, or opened the door, all of which are Biblical. And all of which are necessary. That's why Owen and Edwards spent time explaining how faith was a condition for salvation. If a metaphor of you opening the door of your heart helps someone understand then it's perfectly alright to use. It does not degrade the idea of monergism.
Who is the cause agent?
Who is the effected agent?
The letter is to the angel at the Church in Laodicea. That's who it's written to. So, who is the angel? Is it an angelic being? The word translated "angel" means messenger. Who is the messenger, God's spokesperson to the Church at Laodicea? Did angels give the sermons and do the teaching? What do you think?
My answer is that the messenger is the elder(s) in the church who give the message from God's word. Will that messenger continue to present a church that has no need for Jesus, or will the church acknowledge it's need. Without Christ, the church is useless, neither hot nor cold. Jesus will spew the church out of his mouth, just as God spewed Israel and Judah out of the promised land. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches.
Yet, here you are, using eisegesis to make this letter be an individual warning to unsaved people who are not even a part of the church. So, yes, you provide wonderful eisegesis.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
The idea of monergism in salvation occurs at two levels. I think all protestants believe that the merit for salvation is totally and 100% of God, with us contributing nothing. We are obviously completely passive in the Atonement and in the imputation of Christs righteousness. So we all agree in monergism at this point.
It's more complicated when it comes to belief. We have to believe, just like the Israelites had to go "look" at the serpent on the pole. Calvinists emphasize, correctly I think, that the Holy Spirit is responsible for bringing a person to that point. There is a quickening or a conviction or a pulling of someone to come to that point. But just how this works is open to interpretation and it does not bother me if someone doesn't see all this exactly as I do. In the case of the imagery of Jesus standing at the door and knocking for a person to let him in my thought would simply be that this is an announcement that the Son of God Himself is actually reaching out to you, sovereignly, and in spite of your sin or backsliding. You're not requiring Him to knock. You had no idea how to reach out to God. You have no right to expect Him to knock and wait for your opening. You aren't even inclined to be interested on your own. You don't know how long He will knock or when He will leave and spew you out of His mouth as He has threatened. This is pretty monergistic in my view and God is still sovereign.
If you go so far as to say that the idea that Jesus is knocking and YOU have to open the door is heresy then you have a couple of problems. There are other verses such as Paul saying that some people have "judged themselves" unworthy of eternal life. You have verses specifically saying that men's most fatal problem is their refusing to believe, and you have the fact that this concept did not seem to bother these old Calvinists that we have listed who used this an an illustration.
Don't over think this.
So every person in the Laodicean church is saved, even though they don't have the white robes of righteousness, are spiritually blind and poor? By all means, interact with this as you accuse me of eisegesis. I dealt with these statements. You did not. So at the very minimum, your exegesis is incomplete.
Rev. 7:13-14 says, "Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, 'Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?' And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."
Therefore, in the context of John's Revelation, white robes show salvation. Yet you say those who do not have white robes in Rev. 2 are saved. Who shall I believe, you or the Apostle John?
So I did eisegesis along with famous Greek scholar A. T. Robertson, awesome preachers such as Rice and MacLaren, commentator Alan Johnson, and many others, such as the great Greek scholar Henry Alford (see the next paragraph). Yet you have yet to give me a scholar who agrees with you. Again, give me one commentary, just one, that agrees with you.
Some call Alford's Greek New Testament, a technical commentary, the greatest Greek technical commentary in history. He wrote, "Our verse is a striking and decisive testimony to the practical freedom of our will to receive or reject the heavenly Guest: without the recognition of which, the love and tenderness of the saying become a hideous mockery.... This blessed admission of Christ into our hearts will lead to His becoming our guest, ever present with us, and sharing in all our blessing" (Vol. 6, p. 592). Hey, I'm in pretty good company with my "eisegesis"!!
Another specific question which you have not yet answered: if Rev. 3:20 is not to lost people as well as saved people, then why does Jesus say, "any man..."???
Here's another. If a born again person (as you say it must be) does not ask Christ in, but rejects Him, what does that mean in his life? Does he lose his salvation? What?
Last edited:
Albert Barnes' notes on the NT (accessed through PowerBible software), makes a point I have been making, that "any man" can refer to lost people. The Greek word for this is tis (τις), the indefinite pronoun in Greek.
Barnes wrote, "Although this originally had reference to the members of the church in Laodicea, yet the language chosen seems to have been of design so universal (ean tiv) as to be applicable to every human being; and any one, of any age and in any land, would be authorized to apply this to himself, and, under the protection of this invitation to come to the Saviour, and to plead this promise as one that fairly included himself."
John F. Walvoord wrote, "To all who will hear, Christ gives the invitation contained in verse 20. Christ is represented in relation to the church as well as to the individual as standing outside the door and awaiting an invitation to come in. This is, of course, true of any local professing church. Christ must be invited to come in and become the center of worship, adoration and love, but it is also true of the heart of man. In this present age God does not force Himself on anyone. No one is saved against his will. No one is compelled to obedience who wants to be rebellious. The gracious invitation is extended, however, that if one opens the door--the door of faith, the door of worship, the door of love--Christ will come in and, having come in, will sup or dine with the one who thus permits Him to enter" (The Revelation of Jesus Christ. Chicago: Moody Press, 1966, p. 97).
Barnes wrote, "Although this originally had reference to the members of the church in Laodicea, yet the language chosen seems to have been of design so universal (ean tiv) as to be applicable to every human being; and any one, of any age and in any land, would be authorized to apply this to himself, and, under the protection of this invitation to come to the Saviour, and to plead this promise as one that fairly included himself."
John F. Walvoord wrote, "To all who will hear, Christ gives the invitation contained in verse 20. Christ is represented in relation to the church as well as to the individual as standing outside the door and awaiting an invitation to come in. This is, of course, true of any local professing church. Christ must be invited to come in and become the center of worship, adoration and love, but it is also true of the heart of man. In this present age God does not force Himself on anyone. No one is saved against his will. No one is compelled to obedience who wants to be rebellious. The gracious invitation is extended, however, that if one opens the door--the door of faith, the door of worship, the door of love--Christ will come in and, having come in, will sup or dine with the one who thus permits Him to enter" (The Revelation of Jesus Christ. Chicago: Moody Press, 1966, p. 97).
Last edited:
Barnes comments are a massive stretch that disregards context. This seems like someone grasping after straws.
Walvoord goes astray when he attempts to make the persons behind the door to be the godless ones who are persecuting the churches. When we see this entire letter as a great encouragement to believers, which it is, it is odd then to take one verse and force it to apply to the wicked whom the rest of the letter declares "would not repent" despite all the plagues God sends them to warn them to repent.
John, here is what Robert H Mounce says about this verse:
Verse 20 is often quoted as an invitation and promise to the person outside the community of faith. That it can be pressed into the service of evangelism in this way seems evident. Compared with other world religions the seeking God of the Judeo-Christian heritage is perhaps it's major uniqueness. In context of the Laodicean letter, however, it is self-deluded members of the church who are being addressed. To the church Christ says, "Behold I stand at the door and knock." In their blind self-, sufficiency they had, as it were, excommunicated the risen Lord from their congregation. In an act of unbelievable condescension he requests permission to enter and re-establish fellowship. (p128-129, The Book of Revelation, by Robert H Mounce, copyright 1977)
The picture Jesus is giving to the church at Laodicea is parallel to what God told the nation of Israel.
*Leviticus 18:24-30*
“Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you (for the people of the land, who were before you, did all of these abominations, so that the land became unclean), lest the land vomit you out when you make it unclean, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. For everyone who does any of these abominations, the persons who do them shall be cut off from among their people. So keep my charge never to practice any of these abominable customs that were practiced before you, and never to make yourselves unclean by them: I am the Lord your God.”
John, do you see the parallel?
Very well, then, how about you exegete the Greek for us?
Um, no, Walvoord never said that. You made it up.
At last!!! You finally find someone--one source--who agrees with you--you think. Actually, he agrees with me, because he says, "That it can be pressed into the service of evangelism in this way seems evident." And do you really believe that the description Mounce gives fits saved people? How does "self-sufficiency" in people who had excommunicated the Lord Jesus point exclusively to saved people?
No, I don't see the parallel you are trying to draw. I see another. The nation of Israel included both lost and saved people. Likewise, the Laodicean church included both saved and lost people.
Now, in order to disprove my parallel, you must actually interact with the texts and points I've been giving you, which you have ignored. (So who is doing real exegesis?) Once again (sigh), for the nth time.
1. Why is the fact that the Laodiceans do not have white robes significant?
2. What about the fact that they are spiritually blind?
3. Spiritually poor?
4. If all the people in the Laodicean church are saved, what would happen if they reject Christ standing at the door of their heart and knocking?
Last edited:
In the Covenant of Israel at Mt Sinai, there were both people of the Promise, justified by faith, and idol worshippers. They all fell under the umbrella of the Covenant. Our Presbyterian brothers and Lutheran brothers would argue the same New Covenant parallel for their children who are under their headship. The New Covenant in baptism covers the unbelieving person under the Covenant. They are not, yet, saved, but they are in a Covenant relationship with God through a believing parent or parents. That is the way it was in Israel.
So, the parallel is very obvious.
Also, Robert H Mounce commentary on Revelation is considered the gold standard, especially in his discussion on the churches. FF Bruce was his editor.
I suspect you are a dispensationalist and not one who holds to Covenant theology. This would be why you don't see the clarity in the text that I see.
Still waiting for your comments on my notes from the actual text. Until then, it seems superfluous for me to answer this post. Come, on, exegete.
I answered. Go back and read. I have gone through the text. I have answered you opinions. I have shown you the problem with your eisegesis. There is no more for me to do on my end. You are free to keep your eisegesis and make a false application to the verse if that is your wish.
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
They need to be cleaned.
No mention of "Spiritually blind" in the passage.
Why try to call that a fact?
No mention of "Spiritually" in the passage.
There is no mention of the word "heart" in the passage.
"If all the people in the Laodicean church are saved, what would happen if they reject Christ standing at the door"?
They are about to have their Candlestick removed.
That is only possible, if they had a Candlestick to start with.
They did.
This has to be disappointing to you, because you know it is a guess.
Whet we do know is there is nothing in the text that would indicate Jesus was addressing lost people.
It would actually be impossible.
Jesus knows they are dead in their trespasses and sins.
Do you change "dead" to "alive"?
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
With displeasing the Lord and deceiving the lost being a couple of the potential issues involved, all requiring several alterations to the original text.
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
Believe what?
Their sin is against God and they must repent and believe the Gospel?
"Believe", alone, is no a process of obtaining salvation, in addition to having The New Birth.
So, you're wanting "believe" to be the means of salvation?
And, then, equating "believe" and "open the door", as another way of salvation, without the New Birth?
I'm so glad you quit adding in "heart"
Am an artist and hate ugly art.
They even say "God hates ugly".
Yeah. And they stayed lost. Irrelevant.
They adopted an illustration that is the opposite of JESUS' illustration.
Satan has been altering texts for his purpose of decieving the lost for a long time.
Playing into the hand of Satan is for men to answer for, not for me to encourage.
"You has He quickened who were dead".
Do you make "dead" to mean "alive"?
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
Look Alan. After listing all the various men, some who were giants of the faith, who did see fit to use this as an illustration there really isn't anything else to say to charges like that. I'm leaving this to you guys at this point with no hard feelings. In fact, to get to be on the side of Edwards, Owen, Bonar, Spurgeon and John R. Rice at the same time makes my day.
- Status