Featured Choosing Part II

In John 1 "He came to His OWN and His OWN received Him not" --

But in John 15 Christ speaks specifically of the disciples - whom He chose to serve in that ministry. Just as in 1Cor 12 the Holy Spirit chooses the gifts to give - and the ministry of those who are already saved.

The selection of Ministry is specific to the individual - but the "whosoever will" for salvation is for all - "I will draw ALL unto Me" John 12:32.

God is "Not WILLING that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance" 2Peter 3.

And of course in John 6 "Have I not chosen the Twelve and yet one of you is a devil"??

"I stand at the door and knock if ANYONE hear my voice AND OPENs the door I WILL come in" Rev 3

in Christ,

Bob

 

Two points for accuracy because "details matter" even when trying to slam some non-Baptist denomination.

1. This is in the "other denominations section" of the Board not the "we only care about Baptist ideas" section. I see you only have 128 posts so far -- so it is possible that this subtle detail may have gotten by you just then.

2. I did not quote Ellen White unless it is your suggestion that the Bible texts I listed were authored by Ellen White. Is that what you were thinking??

I put the quotes in red so some of our readers would pick up on the fact that this is a quote of actual scripture.

In John 1 "He came to His OWN and His OWN received Him not" --

But in John 15 Christ speaks specifically of the disciples - whom He chose to serve in that ministry. Just as in 1Cor 12 the Holy Spirit chooses the gifts to give - and the ministry of those who are already saved.

The selection of Ministry is specific to the individual - but the "whosoever will" for salvation is for all - "I will draw ALL unto Me" John 12:32.

God is "Not WILLING that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance" 2Peter 3.

And of course in John 6 "Have I not chosen the Twelve and yet one of you is a devil"??

"I stand at the door and knock if ANYONE hear my voice AND OPENs the door I WILL come in" Rev 3

===========================

If what you are saying is that you find these scriptures uncomfortable so you would prefer not to have to deal with them - let me ask you a question - what form of denomination could not thrive on such scripture-avoidance methods if they were never able to give a Bible answer for their traditions and doctrines??

 

The "unqualified" baptist response?

And from what you apparently deem as the 'unqualified participants,' (which mind you include the view held by a majority of non-Calvinistic Southern Baptist scholars today), we have these replies:

HERE

And HERE

And some followup HERE


For those interested...

 

Speaking of which

"Martin Luther's On the Bondage of the Will is an example of polemic theology. It was written in answer to a polemic titled The Freedom of the Will by Desiderius Erasmus."

 

Thanks for not bowing out Bob.

 

You are most welcomed on that one and thanks for the post of support ! I have noticed that you have done that more than once and I offer my sincere appreciation sir. :jesus:



I will say this however - I have been slammed much more efficiently over on the "Other Denominations Board" over the years than I have been here on this thread or on this remarkably well behaved section of the BB.

In fact I find that those who post with the most acrimony and vitriol when they post to me over on that other section - are often quite well behaved here when they post to me - (at least by comparison).

So what you are seeing from me here -- is me having a bit of a break.:godisgood:


It is my opinion that "sola scriptura" is a much better model for testing doctrine than "sola vitriol".

in Christ,

Bob

 

Oh I agree on scripture.....however I think it is often improper to simply throw scripture back and forth like water balloons.

Person A: This scripture proves this.....and you are wrong
Person B: That scripture proves nothing of the sort....and you are wrong

etc.

 

Good point. However it would be a mistake to suppose that the primary purpose of the exchange is to convince/convert the other person to a given POV. That is almost never possible. And each of us can retreat to the "we always say we are right" confines of our own home denominational groups - that is very easy and rather pointless as I think almost everyone would agree at least on the face of it.

For that reason I am fine with the scenario where there is an open exchange on a Bible doctrine where the opposing position totally runs aground and all the person is left with is some acrimony and vitriol as a response to the Bible points raised. Predictably they will at all costs not change their view. However they cannot control the reader. And very often the reader soon begins to figure out that one of the two views has run out of Bible evidence in favor of a particular view.

The real benefit occurs when both sides give their best Bible based presentation and the objective unbiased (often non-participating) reader has a chance to compare. two views at full strength. I prefer maximum objectivity not only in a direct appeal to the Bible but also in appealing to the authorities that are on the side that opposes me - as evidence in my favor. For example the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and the "Westminster Confession of Faith" -- D.L. Moody, R.C Sproul, C.H Spurgeon and even Catholic historians such a Thomas Bokenkotter and Pope John Paul II.

So when discussing a point with Catholics - I present both the Bible evidence - as well as evidence from their own sources to make my case -- when possible. (The Faith Explained for example by Leo Tress comes in handy at times when discussing a given point with Catholics.)

if one side uses an "all-name-calling" strategy mixed in with one or two texts and avoids answering the hard questions - the reader has "nothing" to recommend taking that same POV as his/her own.

If both sides present well-reasoned Bible positions and both try to outline the weakness in the opposing POV - the reader wins by every measure.

And in those rare cases - I win in that I gain more notes for my files and can reduce my presentation to a more pointed set of Bible proofs. I am not the author of my views and given that this is the case - I do have a certain degree of freedom to adopt a better one should it ever show up.

In real life - we all have a chance to give a bible study to someone who is not at all interested in debate or controversy - just Bible facts. And in those cases - I know from my experience on the internet - when I am giving such a solid presentation on a given subject that the one studying with me is not likely to find anyone that will surprise them or challenge the view to the point of overturning it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

None of these are proper contextual based responses but merely examples of pure eisgesis that completely ignore immediate context and force into the text what is simply not there.

Bob's post is equally wrong. The preceding context has nothing to say about missions but about PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP "IN CHRIST" the vine and fullness of joy and answered prayer.


11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.

Here is Christ's reason and it has nothing to do with apostleship or missions but with PERSONAL JOY


12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.

Nothing about apostleship or missions but PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS with each other.


13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

Nothing about apostleship or Missions but about PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH CHRIST as friends.


16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

The preceding context to this verse has NOTHING to do with apostleship, authority of apostolic office, missilonary endeavors but is totally and completely about their PERSONAL IN CHRIST relationship as represented by the vine and banches. How did they become part of that relationship, not primarily due to their own choice but primarily due to His choice. Their choice was the consequence of His choice first and that is how they were saved (v. 3) or became part of the vine. Their fruit IN THAT PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP with Christ is "ordained" as well:

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.- Eph. 2:10

Paul is not talking about the apostolic office or authority or missions of the Ephesians but He is saying the very same thing Jesus says in John 15:1-16 - they were chosen by Christ to be in the vine, that was God's workmanship and their fruits in this personal "in Christ" relationship were also "ordained" by God.

This context has NOTHING to say about the apostolic office, its authority or the Great Commission but is purely RESTRICTED to their PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP with Christ as "branches" IN THE VINE.

 

You are describing the soul of Calvinism as many have posted it here on this forum.

My post said this --

In John 1 "He came to His OWN and His OWN received Him not" --

regarding -- "You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you..." (John 15:16a NASB)

In John 15 Christ speaks specifically of the disciples - in the context leading up to this -- "Have I not chosen the 12 and yet one of you is a devil")

Just as in 1Cor 12 the Holy Spirit chooses the gifts to give - and the ministry of those who are already saved.

The selection of Ministry is specific to the individual - but the "whosoever will" for salvation is for all - "I will draw ALL unto Me" John 12:32.

God is "Not WILLING that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance" 2Peter 3.

And of course in John 6 "Have I not chosen the Twelve and yet one of you is a devil"??

"I stand at the door and knock if ANYONE hear my voice AND OPENs the door I WILL come in" Rev 3

===========================

In your response you did not quote a single point from that post other than a reference to John 15 -- however John 6 is most certainly context leading to the statement in John 15.


in Christ,

Bob

 

I was referring to the OP and its presentation of your position.

As usual, you are not competent to present or base your responses on a contextual based exegesis or contextual based exposition of the text but jump and run and pit scripture from one context to another context and we know any thing can be proven or disproven by that kind of practice. You practice this kind of run, jump and pit routine with every text of scripture we debate and so it makes no difference what text we prove by context repudiates your theory you just simply respond the very same way and thus following you is an endless cycle of dealing with eisgesis instead of exegesis like a dog chasing its tale getting nowhere.

Note, my post and my intepretive exposition was strictly contextually based. Go learn what that means in regard to proper exegesis and expositionary interpretation as you have no clue and simply do not practice it.

 

I have noticed over my short time on BB, second only to the "H" bomb leveled by many is the claim of "proof texting". Both sides are guilty of this, when someone wishes to illustrate a point of disagreement, almost with machine like response and precision, one who disagrees is "proof texting", assuming of course "I" and only "I" have the correct and proper interpretation.

Theology is so much "messier" than mathematics.

 

This one of the reasons I believe in systematic theology and confessionalism from the Reformed perspective. The sound wisdom of others, scrubbed against scripture, provides a sound foundation.

 

I certainly do not "poo-poo" ST. But it itself is still often open to the vagaries of we mere mortals. It does, provide solid frame work for one to make "theological" decisions of position.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with ,proof texting just as long as you demonstrate your use is consistent with the IMMEDIATE context.

However, there are some who characteristically practice the eisgetical art of run from the context and jump to another context and pit one against the other when one or both are either dealing with different things in context.

When this becomes a characteristic habit then it turns the discussion into an endless merri-go-around. If you are honest you know I don't practice that but I characteristically appeal to the context for every scripture I use whereas prooftexting wthout context is an exception to the rule. If you think otherwise, then provide the evidence to the contrary?

Indeed, what you are doing is precisely another form of eisgesis. When a person can't overthrow facts or a contextual based exposition they respond by redirection of the conversation as you have done or ridicule. What I pointed out is validated by bob's post and easy to see. However, compare it to every post I have made on this thread and you can easily see the difference.

 

The rule of practice is that everyone tends to eisegete ideas into the text to fit a certain bias. This is why I keep appealing to the existence of the "objective unbiased reader".

The rule of theory is that everyone strives to one day be clean and objective in exegeting the text without bias.

With math - only objective exegesis is possible. One cannot "wish" a different answer and then swear it is so - due to the fervent wish.

in Christ,

Bob

 

You side stepped each of the Bible points raised in the post and chose to rant "instead".

Instructive.

I pointed to the John 6 information that occurs as context going to John 15. You apparently find the details of the text "inconvenient' and so you settle for rant.

You have free will - you can choose to do that if you wish but it is not a compelling form of response.

in Christ,

Bob

 

First, in this thread you have no such post!

Second, in this thread my comments are contextually based and my facts are contextually based.

Third, the contextual based facts that I present you ignore, run from , make no comment in your response on the other thread.

Fourth, your post found on another thread of which you accuse me of ranting against is ranted against because you ignored the contextual based facts I presented that oppose your interpretation of that text (Jn. 15:1-16) but instead chose to RUN from the immediate context to defend your theory but JUMPED to other texts in other contexts and then used them to PIT your prooftext as you wrongly interpreted it in it context against the expositional facts I presented in the John 15 context.

Finally, as long as you choose this RUN, JUMP and PIT type of argumentation no reasonable or rational discussion can possible exist and you know that.

Now, if you can answer the contextual based arguments I supplied for my exposition by demonstrating from the context that I have not been faithful to facts of the context do so or bow out. THUS FAR YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO IGNORE any kind of contextual based response to my contextual based post.