Matthew 23:13

[Reformed1689]

Right, we all know how you like to disparage others.

I just don't see why you can't simply exegete the passage to show me how your view is correct.

 

[Van]

I just don't see why you can't simply exegete the passage to show me how your view is correct.

Since your views were formulated about 400 years ago, all you seem to do is copy and paste 400 year old arguments, such as attacking the credibility of those holding differing views. Twaddle Just read Matthew 23:13 folks, people entering the kingdom of heaven were blocked by false teachings. Paul says avoid a "different" gospel, Calvinists say false doctrine is a non-problem. Stick to the word, folks.

 

[Reformed1689]

Again, deflection.

Since your views were formulated about 400 years ago, all you seem to do is copy and paste 400 year old arguments, such as attacking the credibility of those holding differing views.

They were not formulated 400 years ago. You really need to study up on history and theology.

waddle Just read Matthew 23:13 folks, people entering the kingdom of heaven were blocked by false teachings. Paul says avoid a "different" gospel, Calvinists say false doctrine is a non-problem. Stick to the word, folks.

Just reading is not exegesis. Why do you refuse to exegete the passage to support your claim? I am trying to stick to the word which is why I am asking for your exegesis. Who knows, maybe you will convince me I am wrong?

 

[Van]

Again, deflection
They were not formulated 400 years ago. You really need to study up on history and theology.
Just reading is not exegesis. Why do you refuse to exegete the passage to support your claim? I am trying to stick to the word which is why I am asking for your exegesis. Who knows, maybe you will convince me I am wrong?

Gee, David denies the doctrines were about formulated 400 years ago. And not one Calvinist objected.

Next, David claims just reading a text to learn what it says is not sufficient. I kid you not.

 

[Reformed1689]

Gee, David denies the doctrines were about formulated 400 years ago. And not one Calvinist objected.

Next, David claims just reading a text to learn what it says is not sufficient. I kid you not.

Do you believe in Exegesis? Should we always just read a verse and come up with it just based on the reading itself? Or should we study to show ourselves approved? Should we rightly divide the word? Should we go back to the original languages or is English good enough? Should we study the original audience, the culture, and original intent? Or is just reading the English good enough?

 

[Van]

Do you believe in Exegesis? Should we always just read a verse and come up with it just based on the reading itself? Or should we study to show ourselves approved? Should we rightly divide the word? Should we go back to the original languages or is English good enough? Should we study the original audience, the culture, and original intent? Or is just reading the English good enough?

Listen to the guy who copy and pastes the study of others twaddle on about study!

Just read Matthew 23:13 folks. No need to hold a doctorate in Greek to discern people were "entering the kingdom of heaven" or that false teachers blocked their entry. Thus "total spiritual inability" is bogus because they had sufficient spiritual ability to be entering, and "irresistible grace" is bogus because they were blocked.

 

[Van]

I see I have been subjected to even more vilification.

Early on the thread, Van uses demeaning such as "twaddle." This is mere validation that what he offers from Matthew 23:13 has no value. He does not view the passage from the Jewish perspective of the author and therefore has no authority to even suggest that what he proposes carries any weight.

Should he have taken the rightful view of the Jewish customs and conditions from which Matthew writes, he would not have made such and error of judgement.

Matthew 23:13 says people were "entering the kingdom of heaven." Thus they had some spiritual ability, and those people were prevented from entering, thus the doctrine of irresistible grace is bogus.

The verse means what it says, just read it.

 

[Reformed1689]

Listen to the guy who copy and pastes the study of others twaddle on about study!

Just read Matthew 23:13 folks. No need to hold a doctorate in Greek to discern people were "entering the kingdom of heaven" or that false teachers blocked their entry. Thus "total spiritual inability" is bogus because they had sufficient spiritual ability to be entering, and "irresistible grace" is bogus because they were blocked.

It is clear that Van has no interest in biblical exegesis or honest debate on this topic. I'm done here. Past due for blocking.

 

[Van]

It is clear that Van has no interest in biblical exegesis or honest debate on this topic. I'm done here. Past due for blocking.

Yet another off topic against the man post. Calvinists use logical fallacies to defend doctrinal fallacies.

Matthew 23:13 says people were "entering the kingdom of heaven." Thus they had some spiritual ability, and those people were prevented from entering, thus the doctrine of irresistible grace is bogus.

 

[InTheLight]

Yet another off topic against the man post. Calvinists use logical fallacies to defend doctrinal fallacies.

Matthew 23:13 says people were "entering the kingdom of heaven." Thus they had some spiritual ability, and those people were prevented from entering, thus the doctrine of irresistible grace is bogus.

Wow. That's your interpretation? "Some spiritual ability" = "being able to enter the kingdom of heaven." And that somehow proves total spiritual inability to be false? What a wonderfully convoluted interpretation.

I read this verse as saying the Pharisees are dissuading people that want to follow Jesus' teachings, which would result in them being able to enter the kingdom of heaven, by discrediting Jesus at every turn, always putting him down, and declaring him a false teacher and false Messiah.

So, not only were the Pharisees not embracing Jesus's teaching ("not enter in yourselves") but by constantly slamming Jesus and his teaching they were creating doubt and unbelief in those that wanted to follow Jesus, thus preventing others from entering the kingdom.

Please don't tell me you think there were literally Pharisees at the doorstep of Heaven that were turning people away?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

[Reformed1689]

Matthew 23:13 does not say that elect people were prevented from going into the kingdom. It also does not say that non-elect were entering the Kingdom on their own. Neither of those things are found in the verse and is being read into the verse by @Van and his pre-supposition. This is exegesis. They only thing this verse ACTUALLY says is that the pharisees and scribes would not allow people to enter the kingdom. It does not speak to whether or not they were successful in this task.

In other words, this verse has no bearing on total depravity or irresistible grace. Nor is that the purpose of this verse.

 

[Van]

Wow. That's your interpretation? "Some spiritual ability" = "being able to enter the kingdom of heaven." And that somehow proves total spiritual inability to be false? What a wonderfully convoluted interpretation.

I read this verse as saying the Pharisees are dissuading people that want to follow Jesus' teachings, which would result in them being able to enter the kingdom of heaven, by discrediting Jesus at every turn, always putting him down, and declaring him a false teacher and false Messiah.

So, not only were the Pharisees not embracing Jesus's teaching ("not enter in yourselves") but by constantly slamming Jesus and his teaching they were creating doubt and unbelief in those that wanted to follow Jesus, thus preventing others from entering the kingdom.

Please don't tell me you think there were literally Pharisees at the doorstep of Heaven that were turning people away?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

Yes, if you are entering the kingdom of heaven, you have the spiritual ability to do it, so that makes "total spiritual inability" a bogus doctrine.

Your view rewrites "entering the kingdom of heaven" to mean wanting to follow Jesus. Nonsense

They were preventing others from entering. Yes we agree, that is exactly what it says. And they could not do that if "irresistible grace" was a valid doctrine.

Please do not put bogus arguments in my mouth, strawmen taste like straw.

 

[Van]

Matthew 23:13 does not say that elect people were prevented from going into the kingdom. It also does not say that non-elect were entering the Kingdom on their own. Neither of those things are found in the verse and is being read into the verse by @Van and his pre-supposition. This is exegesis. They only thing this verse ACTUALLY says is that the pharisees and scribes would not allow people to enter the kingdom. It does not speak to whether or not they were successful in this task.

In other words, this verse has no bearing on total depravity or irresistible grace. Nor is that the purpose of this verse.

Presupposition #1, entering the kingdom of heaven means entering the kingdom of heaven.

Presupposition #2, being prevented from entering means being prevented from entering.

Therefore total spiritual inability is bogus and irresistible grace is bogus.

 

[Reformed1689]

Yes, if you are entering the kingdom of heaven, you have the spiritual ability to do it, so that makes "total spiritual inability" a bogus doctrine.

Nobody here claims that nobody has spiritual ability to enter the kingdom. God changes the hearts of men giving them the spiritual ability to do so.

They were preventing others from entering. Yes we agree, that is exactly what it says. And they could not do that if "irresistible grace" was a valid doctrine.

It does not say the people were prevented.

 

[Reformed1689]

Presupposition #2, being prevented from entering means being prevented from entering.

Except it doesn't say they were prevented.

 

[InTheLight]

Yes, if you are entering the kingdom of heaven, you have the spiritual ability to do it, so that makes "total spiritual inability" a bogus doctrine.

Your view rewrites "entering the kingdom of heaven" to mean wanting to follow Jesus. Nonsense

They were preventing others from entering. Yes we agree, that is exactly what it says. And they could not do that if "irresistible grace" was a valid doctrine.

Please do not put bogus arguments in my mouth, strawmen taste like straw.

Please elaborate.

Do you think there were actual Pharisees at the door of the kingdom of heaven stopping people from entering?

So they acted like Satan's bouncers at the door, keeping people out?



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

[Van]

Except it doesn't say they were prevented.

"for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in."

 

[Van]

Please elaborate. I just did.
Do you think there were actual Pharisees at the door of the kingdom of heaven stopping people from entering? Nope
So they acted like Satan's bouncers at the door, keeping people out? Nope

If you are entering the kingdom of heaven, you have the spiritual ability to do it, so that makes "total spiritual inability" a bogus doctrine.

Your view rewrites "entering the kingdom of heaven" to mean wanting to follow Jesus. Nonsense

They were preventing others from entering. Yes we agree, that is exactly what it says. And they could not do that if "irresistible grace" was a valid doctrine.

 

[InTheLight]

If you are entering the kingdom of heaven, you have the spiritual ability to do it, so that makes "total spiritual inability" a bogus doctrine.

Your view rewrites "entering the kingdom of heaven" to mean wanting to follow Jesus. Nonsense

They were preventing others from entering. Yes we agree, that is exactly what it says. And they could not do that if "irresistible grace" was a valid doctrine.

You're hanging a lot of theology on a single verse, a verse that you admit is not to be taken literally.

Tell us, how are the Pharisees preventing people from entering the kingdom of heaven?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

[agedman]

"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.”​

If there is a verse that Van uses to support human ability, it is this. However, using his own thinking, there is no human ability for apparently such ability is subject to the whims of others.

So even if (and it does not) one reads the verse as Van would desire, there is this matter of the ability of others to prevent entry which invalidates the whole notion of human ability and volition.

Again, ultimately to bring understanding to Matthew one must always consider the Jews and their customs. Without which, one can run off the rails proclaiming what is presented but in error.

To the Jews the way to the kingdom of heaven was a right relationship with the temple and all the sacrifices, offering and law of the temple (think rich young ruler).

The rulers of the temple would prevent certain from the service and in the customary thinking of the Jews those excluded were kept from the kingdom of heaven by exclusion from the way to heaven.

The verse has nothing to do with Gentile or any other human volition and ability.