Behold!... I Stand At The Door And Knock

[AustinC]

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.

Do you have altars setup for each person with an icon representing your admiration? Just curious.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

No, you did NOT answer my points. I just went through and did a word search on the pages. I'm the only one that mentioned "white robes," among other things.

Here are my exegetical points again that you have IGNORED:

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?

And yet you dare to accuse me of "massive eisegesis." As you point at me you have numerous fingers pointing back at yourself. You have not even done basic exegesis, which deals with the actual text.

 

[AustinC]

No, you did NOT answer my points. I just went through and did a word search on the pages. I'm the only one that mentioned "white robes," among other things.

Here are my exegetical points again that you have IGNORED:

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?

And yet you dare to accuse me of "massive eisegesis." As you point at me you have numerous fingers pointing back at yourself. You don't even have exegesis.

*Revelation 3:14-22*
“And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write:
Jesus is having John write to the pastor/message bringer who represents Him in the church at Laodicea.

‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation.
This is the words of Jesus.

“‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot!
The message is being spoken to the church and the church is not obeying the message.

So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.
This is a parallel to what God did to Israel and Judah when God spewed them out of the land. The church will be spewed out of Laodicea.

For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked.
The pride of the Laodicean church was its self sufficiency. It didn't believe it needed the King to rebuild their broken down life. This is a direct parallel to the fact that an earthquake had destroyed Laodicea in the past and the city had told Rome it didn't need financial assistance. They could rebuild (and they did) without government assistance.
The church was clueless that it was poor, wretched, pitiable, 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.
Since Laodicea thought it was self-sufficient and independently wealthy, Jesus gives unsolicited counsel.(because they are poor, blind, and naked) He says:
1) Buy the Refiners fire gold (Micah) It is the refining of God that makes one rich.
2) But White garments. God makes one white as snow. Jesus says the church at Laodicea is so spiritually poor that they have no clothes.
3) Buy salve. (Laodicea was known for selling a local eye salve - Paul may have used this salve under Luke's direction). Jesus is the salve for our blind eyes. When He is applied to our blind eyes, we are able to see.

Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent.
This points us to Hebrews 12 where we are told that God disciplines us because we are his children. If we were illegitimate, God would not discipline us.

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 door is the Church at Laodicea. It is the believers there whom Jesus loves, reproves, and disciplines. It is those whom He admonishes to be zealous and repent. It is to those that he knocks and condescends to have them open to Him.

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.
An unsaved person doesn't conquer. Only the believer who has been admonished to persevere in every letter before this can conquer. The rest of Revelation will show the believer how to conquer.
This comment is also parallel to the end of Ephesians 1 and beginning of Ephesians 2 where Jesus sits on the throne next to the Father and, because we are made alive with Christ, we are seated at the throne with Jesus.

He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’”
Listen to what the Spirit is saying. To whom is the Spirit speaking? Answer: The churches.

So, John, nowhere is Jesus ever telling the unbeliever to "open the door of their heart to Jesus when he knocks." To teach that from this passage is to use eisegesis in the passage, not exegete the passage and teach what Jesus is teaching.

 

[John of Japan]

Finally.

*Revelation 3:14-22*

For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked.
The pride of the Laodicean church was its self sufficiency. It didn't believe it needed the King to rebuild their broken down life. This is a direct parallel to the fact that an earthquake had destroyed Laodicea in the past and the city had told Rome it didn't need financial assistance. They could rebuild (and they did) without government assistance.
The church was clueless that it was poor, wretched, pitiable, 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.
Since Laodicea thought it was self-sufficient and independently wealthy, Jesus gives unsolicited counsel.(because they are poor, blind, and naked) He says:
1) Buy the Refiners fire gold (Micah) It is the refining of God that makes one rich.
2) But White garments. God makes one white as snow. Jesus says the church at Laodicea is so spiritually poor that they have no clothes.
3) Buy salve. (Laodicea was known for selling a local eye salve - Paul may have used this salve under Luke's direction). Jesus is the salve for our blind eyes. When He is applied to our blind eyes, we are able to see.

So they are spiritually poor, blind, and naked Christians? Again you skirt the issue. As I've said, in the usage of John's Revelation, not having white robes indicates lost people. Cf Revelation 4:4, 6:11, 7:9-14.

Again you failed to exegete.

Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent.
This points us to Hebrews 12 where we are told that God disciplines us because we are his children. If we were illegitimate, God would not discipline us.

I fully recognize that there were saved people in the church.

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 door is the Church at Laodicea. It is the believers there whom Jesus loves, reproves, and disciplines. It is those whom He admonishes to be zealous and repent. It is to those that he knocks and condescends to have them open to Him.

You have failed completely, once again, to deal with the words "If anyone...," (Greek ἐαν τις), which personalizes v. 20 beyond the church.

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.
An unsaved person doesn't conquer. Only the believer who has been admonished to persevere in every letter before this can conquer. The rest of Revelation will show the believer how to conquer.
This comment is also parallel to the end of Ephesians 1 and beginning of Ephesians 2 where Jesus sits on the throne next to the Father and, because we are made alive with Christ, we are seated at the throne with Jesus.

Again, of course there were saved people in the church. Christ had not yet taken away their lampstand.

He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’”
Listen to what the Spirit is saying. To whom is the Spirit speaking? Answer: The churches.

Correct.

So, John, nowhere is Jesus ever telling the unbeliever to "open the door of their heart to Jesus when he knocks." To teach that from this passage is to use eisegesis in the passage, not exegete the passage and teach what Jesus is teaching.

Repeated saying so doesn't make it so. If I am committing eisegesis, I have plenty of company among the great scholars of the Bible, already quoted. You, on the other hand, have not given a single reference of a scholar who agrees with you. The one commentary you quoted agreed with me, not you, yet you called it "the gold standard."

There you stand, all alone--mistaken.

 

[AustinC]

Finally.

So they are spiritually poor, blind, and naked Christians? Again you skirt the issue. As I've said, in the usage of John's Revelation, not having white robes indicates lost people. Cf Revelation 4:4, 6:11, 7:9-14.

Again you failed to exegete.

I fully recognize that there were saved people in the church.


You have failed completely, once again, to deal with the words "If anyone...," (Greek ἐαν τις), which personalizes v. 20 beyond the church.

Again, of course there were saved people in the church. Christ had not yet taken away their lampstand.


Correct.



Repeated saying so doesn't make it so. If I am committing eisegesis, I have plenty of company among the great scholars of the Bible, already quoted. You, on the other hand, have not given a single reference of a scholar who agrees with you. The one commentary you quoted agreed with me, not you, yet you called it "the gold standard."

There you stand, all alone--mistaken.

John, you are using eisegesis to push a white robe in Revelation 4, 6 and 7 onto the letter to the church in Laodicea.
You are inferring that the entire church is unredeemed because Jesus says to "purchase white garments from Him." Note that in the other passages there was no "purchase" necessary. So, why is Jesus telling the church that he advises them to purchase white garments? It is precisely to show Laodicea that they are blind, naked and poor. They do not have their own, self-sufficient, means of purchase. Jesus is their only means of righteousness. This is precisely the problem Israel had as it attempted to declare it's self-sufficiency from God.

So, nothing that you have provided, so far, even remotely makes the letter to Laodicea applicable to those who have the mark of the beast. To the pagans outside the church.

You are clearly using eisegesis in the passage and simply refuse to acknowledge what you are doing.

 

[John of Japan]

John, you are using eisegesis to push a white robe in Revelation 4, 6 and 7 onto the letter to the church in Laodicea.
You are inferring that the entire church is unredeemed because Jesus says to "purchase white garments from Him."

No I'm not. Please pay attention and stop misrepresenting me. This has gotten very old.

 

[John of Japan]

I hope the moderators will close this thread soon. I'm tired of AustinC's personal attacks, misrepresentations, and refusals to answer my actual position.

I used to respect him on the BB, but now that I've actually interacted with him in detail for the first time, that thought has gone by the wayside.

 

[AustinC]

I hope the moderators will close this thread soon. I'm tired of AustinC's personal attacks, misrepresentations, and refusals to answer my actual position.

I used to respect him on the BB, but now that I've actually interacted with him in detail for the first time, that thought has gone by the wayside.

John, it's not personal. It's observed fact that you have used eisegesis in interpreting the letter to the Laodicean church. You have presented your idea, using one greek word to attempt to make the letter point to the unsaved I have presented an observation of the letter that many Reformed scholars hold, yet you claim I am alone. That is untrue. I will point you to Sinclair Ferguson, Eric Alexander, Kevin DeYoung, John Piper, RC Sproul, and Allistair Begg for some examples.
You approach Revelation from a dispensational presupposition, which lends itself almost exclusively to eisegesis in Revelation. That is your approach. I find your approach wanting.

 

[Alan Gross]

Justification is obtained after the sinner is Pardoned from their sins.

When a sinner is told to "believe" without the Conviction of their sins through the word they can only believe in their "belief", without God or Regeneration.

For a lost sinner to "believe",without the Conviction of their sins through the word, and Repentance and Faith Granted by God by the New Birth, is not the Regeneration of the soul.

It leaves them in their sin, without God or Repentance and Faith, which are both gifts of God in the New Birth.

When a sinner is told to "have faith" without the Conviction of their sins through the word they can only believe in what they think their "faith is", without God or Regeneration.

No Jesus. No Pardon from sin. No Justification.

Same thing when a sinner is told to "sign a decision card" or pray the sinner's prayer with or without a mourner's bench, or to "open a door" they can't open, without the Conviction of their sins through the word they can only sign or pray or open what their belief is in their "decision" to try to find a handle that not there, without God or Regeneration.

No Jesus. No Pardon from sin. No Justification.

They have to peradventure have been Granted REPENTANCE and Faith, which comes by the New Birth, in the preaching of the Gospel, in the Holy Ghost's use of Jesus' blood and Gospel to save them.

To assume faith Justifies, or belief or chosing or praying or opening a door they can't open is to propose a religion exists besides Christianity, on which these various other gospels are held to, with wasted determination.

Jesus and His Blood and Gospel bringing the New Birth by the Holy Spirit are included in the salvation of sinner's in Christianity.

With them are Granted Conviction, and the twin gift of Repentance and Faith, in their Regeneration.

"Yeah, well I think a sinner can be the initiator of their salvation and they are rational, they play a part, they mentally "believe", ON THEIR OWN?

UTILIZING THEIR "NOT INABILITY"?

THAT IS WHAT THE APOSTASY OF CHRISTIANITY NOW SAYS, IN AGREEMENT WITH APOSTASY OF CULTS, LIKE THE RCC, HER HARLOT DAUGHTERS, AND PREACHERS IN THE PAST THAT TOOK THEIR PART IN IT, BUT IT IS ANOTHER GOSPEL IN ANOTHER RELIGION APART FROM NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIANITY.

That's why I put five of you and your other religion you embrace on "ignore".

I have no use for all the alterations to the Bible it requires to continually dishonor the Lord and deceive lost souls.

It'another Gospel.

Jesus is the Savior

 

[John of Japan]

John, it's not personal. It's observed fact that you have used eisegesis in interpreting the letter to the Laodicean church. You have presented your idea, using one greek word to attempt to make the letter point to the unsaved I have presented an observation of the letter that many Reformed scholars hold, yet you claim I am alone. That is untrue.

You accused me of "massive eisegesis," not just "eisegesis." Thus, you made it personal. You didn't really debate me, you know, just criticized me.

You have never pointed out that exact "massive eisegesis," refusing for a long time to even comment on my points. That's kind of like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, then when some one asks you where, you say, "Well, I know it's here somewhere."

(And by the way, it's two Greek words.)

You approach Revelation from a dispensational presupposition, which lends itself almost exclusively to eisegesis in Revelation. That is your approach. I find your approach wanting

I admit I'm a dispensationalist. But frankly, the only connection between dispensationalism and Rev. 3:20 is literal interpretation. That fact alone casts aspersions on your own ability to exegete. And only one of the men I quoted was a dispensationalist, as far as I know. If you have proof that my exegesis of Rev. 3:20 is dispensational, trot it out. Otherwise you are on a rabbit trail to nowhere. (I teach Dispensational Theology in college and seminary. I think I would know if I was interpreting the verse dispensationally.)

I will point you to Sinclair Ferguson, Eric Alexander, Kevin DeYoung, John Piper, RC Sproul, and Allistair Begg for some examples.

Oh, really? So trot out the quotes. Otherwise, this statement is meaningless.

 

[Salty]

Six hour alert
This thread will be closed no sooner than 2000 GMT/ 4 pm EDT / 1 pm PDT

 

[AustinC]

You accused me of "massive eisegesis," not just "eisegesis." Thus, you made it personal. You didn't really debate me, you know, just criticized me.

You have never pointed out that exact "massive eisegesis," refusing for a long time to even comment on my points. That's kind of like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, then when some one asks you where, you say, "Well, I know it's here somewhere."

(And by the way, it's two Greek words.)


I admit I'm a dispensationalist. But frankly, the only connection between dispensationalism and Rev. 3:20 is literal interpretation. That fact alone casts aspersions on your own ability to exegete. And only one of the men I quoted was a dispensationalist, as far as I know. If you have proof that my exegesis of Rev. 3:20 is dispensational, trot it out. Otherwise you are on a rabbit trail to nowhere. (I teach Dispensational Theology in college and seminary. I think I would know if I was interpreting the verse dispensationally.)


Oh, really? So trot out the quotes. Otherwise, this statement is meaningless.

LOL, John, I already pointed these out. I don't expect to change your dispensational view, which skews your understanding of Revelation and in fact skews your understanding of the letters and John's connection to the Old Testament and the Prophets.
Having been raised in dispensationalism, I see the huge flaws that caused me to miss almost all of what the Apostle John was pointing out in his vision and letter. I cannot go back to a failed eschatology when the church didn't ever hold that view until sometime in the 1800s. But, you feel free to hold it if you wish.

 

[John of Japan]

LOL, John, I already pointed these out. I don't expect to change your dispensational view, which skews your understanding of Revelation and in fact skews your understanding of the letters and John's connection to the Old Testament and the Prophets.
Having been raised in dispensationalism, I see the huge flaws that caused me to miss almost all of what the Apostle John was pointing out in his vision and letter.

You take far too much upon yourself to seek to tell me what I believe. You are wrong. There are some who take the view that the seven churches are seven eras in the church age, but that is not necessary for dispensationalism, and I don't believe it. In my class, the seven churches are seven actual first century churches. Period. End of story.

I cannot go back to a failed eschatology when the church didn't ever hold that view until sometime in the 1800s. But, you feel free to hold it if you wish.

Virtually all church fathers until Origen were premil. I could give extensive quotes. (The tribulation was not much of a topic in the church fathers.) And then, virtually none of them followed Origen in eschatology until Augustine.

You really, really need to study more about this before making such statements.

 

[AustinC]

You take far too much upon yourself to seek to tell me what I believe. You are wrong. There are some who take the view that the seven churches are seven eras in the church age, but that is not necessary for dispensationalism, and I don't believe it. In my class, the seven churches are seven actual first century churches. Period. End of story.


Virtually all church fathers until Origen were premil. I could give extensive quotes. (The tribulation was not much of a topic in the church fathers.) And then, virtually none of them followed Origen in eschatology until Augustine.

You really, really need to study more about this before making such statements.

Well, historically the Church has been amillenial. It was understood that we are presently living in the great tribulation. The 1000 years was understood to be figurative language and a figurative number, much like the 144,000 is a number that encompasses the entire Church body.
But, as I said, dispensationalism gets most of Revelation mangled and it fails to grasp the great relevance to our present world as well as the great encouragement for believers to continue to persevere in faith. Sadly, dispensationalism removes relevance and keeps pushing Revelation to the future when it is so very relevant to the present.

But, we will not agree so I will bow out from this discussion with you. You may have the last word.

 

[John of Japan]

Well, historically the Church has been amillenial. It was understood that we are presently living in the great tribulation. The 1000 years was understood to be figurative language and a figurative number, much like the 144,000 is a number that encompasses the entire Church body.

...

But, we will not agree so I will bow out from this discussion with you. You may have the last word.

Here's my last word. Baloney.

 

[Salty]

Six hour alert
This thread will be closed no sooner than 2000 GMT/ 4 pm EDT / 1 pm PDT

This thread is closed - & and that is no baloney