Total Inability in the Gospel of John

[Pastor_Bob]

"Having," as in a necessity? No. We talk about Greek and knowing the biblical languages as a means to knowing the text of Scripture better, to better understand the author's intent.

All other things being equal, do you consider someone learned in Greek better qualified to preach, teach, or pastor?

 

[thatbrian]

All other things being equal, do you consider someone learned in Greek better qualified to preach, teach, or pastor?

You are asking if the ability to better understand the original intent of the Author makes one a better conveyor of it. I ask you, how on Earth does it not?

 

[TCassidy]

All other things being equal, do you consider someone learned in Greek better qualified to preach, teach, or pastor?

All things being equal? Yes.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

You are asking if the ability to better understand the original intent of the Author makes one a better conveyor of it. I ask you, how on Earth does it not?

Of course, this presupposes that the only way to understand the original intent of the “Author” [I assume the capitalization indicates you mean the Holy Spirit rather than the human authors. I apologize if that is not the case.] is to learn Greek. I, personally, do not hold to that position. I do not believe the original intent is hidden or at all difficult to comprehend.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

All things being equal? Yes.

I do not disagree. I believe anything we can do to better equip ourselves to rightly divide the word of truth makes us more effective in our preaching and teaching. This would include gaining a working knowledge of biblical languages; but, as has been stated above, certainly not the end.

 

[Reformed]

I, personally, do not hold to that position. I do not believe the original intent is hidden or at all difficult to comprehend.

Bob, I do not believe that not knowing the original languages disqualifies a man from the pastorate. There is more to being an under-shepherd than preaching, although preaching is one of the main functions. However, not having a working knowledge of the original languages limits a pastor. He is forced to rely on the exegetical conclusions of others instead of proving those conclusions correct and in the process appropriating those truths into his soul. Without knowing the original languages a pastor will need to have a more expansive reading list. After all, someone else has done the translation work and no two exegetes are the same. Can a pastor thrive in his ministry while not knowing the original languages? Yes. But he will (and should!) spend more time in research and preparation when working with the text. Can a more intimate knowledge of the original languages provide him insight and appreciation than his counterpart who does not have an intimate knowledge lacks? I think the answer to that question is also "yes".

 

[thatbrian]

Of course, this presupposes that the only way

You didn't ask the question framed that way, and I didn't answer it that way. No one said that knowledge of Greek was the "only way" to understand the texts.


Here's what you asked: "All other things being equal, do you consider someone learned in Greek better qualified to preach, teach, or pastor?"

The answer remains: That goes without saying!

 

[Pastor_Bob]

You didn't ask the question framed that way, and I didn't answer it that way. No one said that knowledge of Greek was the "only way" to understand the texts.

That’s fair enough. In your opinion, what are some acceptable ways, independent of learning Greek, for one to “better understand the original intent of the Author”?

 

[thatbrian]

That’s fair enough. In your opinion, what are some acceptable ways, independent of learning Greek, for one to “better understand the original intent of the Author”?

I'm afraid that this will not go over well here, but you asked. . .

Even more vital to understanding the Bible than a good working knowledge of the original languages, understanding the covenantal framework of how God works with mankind is far, far more important, IF one already has access to good English translations (assuming we are talking about the US) and a few solid commentaries to help with historical context and some other details that scholars are good at pointing out.

Covenant Theology provides the big-picture necessary to understand the smaller parts. Without it, the Bible lacks cohesion. With it, it flows and the Redemptive Narrative becomes clear.

If CT is too much for a Dispensationalist to bear, then I would say Biblical Theology is the most important tool in understanding the content of the Bible. Biblical Theology gives a big-picture grid that Systematic Theology then can rest upon.

The Bible is about Jesus. He said as much, so if our system, or lack of one, does not help us see it that way, all of the Greek and Hebrew study in the world won't be of any value in understanding what the Holy Author had intended by His words.

 

[SheepWhisperer]

That’s fair enough. In your opinion, what are some acceptable ways, independent of learning Greek, for one to “better understand the original intent of the Author”?

First and foremost: know the Author

....... the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 1 John 2:27

 

[thatbrian]

First and foremost: know the Author

....... the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 1 John 2:27

That text was directed to the Apostles, otherwise we have Jesus and the Spirit appointing and equipping teachers for no apparent reason.

 

[utilyan]

"Having," as in a necessity? No. We talk about Greek and knowing the biblical languages as a means to knowing the text of Scripture better, to better understand the author's intent. Knowing Greek is not an end unto itself and it is not an issue of salvation. We have been quite clear on this; you simply decline to listen.



Again, this is not true. This is the logical fallacy of a "Straw Man." First, listening is not a work. Second, we argue the Holy Spirit may regenerate whomever He chooses to regenerate. Upon regeneration the "soil" is ripe for Gospel planting and the preaching of the Gospel will result in a conversion. That's what we think. You may think differently, and that's fine, but you may not misrepresent our position, as you continue to insist upon doing.




You have not shown how Calvin's quote disagrees with my statement.



I find it interesting you've posted the form "krinετε," as it is not the lexical form. This is showing the likelihood that you have no clue when it comes to the languages.

Also, when it comes to the Jews, it must be remembered that they had been "entrusted with the oracles of God" (Romans 3:2) and so when Jesus comes upon the scene, they should have responded to Him faithfully. Jesus is the fulfillment of everything the Old Testament was about. For a faithful Jew, accepting Him would have been quite natural. Instead of demonstrating faithfulness, most of the Jews demonstrated their unfaithfulness by rejecting Christ.

As for commentaries, you obviously haven't looked very far.

#1 But the Jews in Antioch had rejected the eternal life that is to be found in Jesus, and Paul had to turn to those who were “worthy” (v. 46)

John B. Polhill, Acts, vol. 26, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 308.

#2
Paul and Barnabas gave a straightforward answer to their disparaging words. It was right and proper, they affirmed, that Jews should have the first opportunity of hearing and believing the good news. Had the Jews of Pisidian Antioch accepted the message, theirs would have been the privilege of evangelizing their Gentile neighbors, in accordance with the terms of Israel’s world mission laid down in the Isaianic servant songs and their contexts. But if they refused to receive the light themselves, they could not be allowed to pursue a dog-in-the-manger policy. The life of the age to come1 had been brought near to them here and now as God’s free gift in Christ; if they showed themselves unworthy of the gift by declining to accept it, there were others who would appreciate it: it would be offered direct to the Gentiles.

F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 265–266. (Emphasis mine)

#3 " ‘judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life’ ” It is difficult to hold the concept of predestination, which is emphasized so often in Acts, with the concept of mandated individual personal response. No one can come to faith without the drawing of God (cf. John 6:44, 65), but we are judged by whether we respond. By their rejection of Paul’s preaching of the gospel, they revealed their true selves (cf. John 3:17–21). The blame for lack of response cannot be placed on God. He has provided a way, His Son, but He is the only way!

Robert James Utley, Luke the Historian: The Book of Acts, vol. Volume 3B, Study Guide Commentary Series (Marshall, TX: Bible Lessons International, 2003), 170.
​

It isn't that we're "taught" we deserve hell; the Bible is quite clear that we do--All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; we are condemned already; etc.



This is another strawman. We (all-inclusive) have no idea who is elect and who isn't. I would have no way of knowing whether or not God had chosen you or not. We preach Christ to all without exception and we leave the results to the Holy Spirit.

When I was a pastor, I led our church to do door-to-door evangelism, which we did. We sought to proclaim Christ to all. We had a person in our church who was (not a member) an unbeliever and we prayed for him continually--that God would change his heart and cause him to desire Christ. We also pleaded with him to come to Christ.



This is inane nonsense that demonstrates a total lack of understanding on your part.

The Archangel

"We (all-inclusive) have no idea who is elect and who isn't. I would have no way of knowing whether or not God had chosen you or not."

1 John 3

10By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.

Maybe not obvious to some folks.


"It isn't that we're "taught" we deserve hell; the Bible is quite clear that we do--All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; we are condemned already; etc."

Being in hell is actively sinning against God, Your saying you deserve to do God wrong.

We can SCRIBBLE IN bible that "all mankind matter fact goes to hell" that still would not equate to the divine judgment that you "DESERVE" to go to hell.

You are jumping the gun on a judgement call only God can make, It doesn't matter how many times you let the air out of God's tires.


παρρησιασάμενοί δὲ ὁ Παῦλος καὶ ὁ Βαρναβᾶς εἶπον, Ὑμῖν ἦν ἀναγκαῖον πρῶτον λαληθῆναι τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ· ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἀπωθεῖσθε αὐτὸν καὶ οὐκ ἀξίους κρίνετε ἑαυτοὺς τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς ἰδού, στρεφόμεθα εἰς τὰ ἔθνη



Μὴ κρίνετε, ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε·

1“Do not judge so that you will not be judged


Somebody should have given Jesus the memo about already existing conditions.


You have no right to judge any deserving hell.


Acts 10

28And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Even more vital to understanding the Bible than a good working knowledge of the original languages, understanding the covenantal framework of how God works with mankind is far, far more important, IF one already has access to good English translations...and a few solid commentaries to help with historical context and some other details that scholars are good at pointing out.

What authors do you consider to be adept at conveying a proper understanding of this covenantal framework?

 

[Reformed]

What authors do you consider to be adept at conveying a proper understanding of this covenantal framework?

Bob,

Check out many of the resources at 1689federalism.com: Recommended Reading List

P.S. Pascal Denault's book is excellent: The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology (Revised Edition)

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Bob,
Check out...

Thank you for your input. I can already see that I would have majors areas of disagreement just by reading the FAQs. But, I find it interesting and helpful to understand what others believe even when we disagree so that I might disagree intelligently.

 

[Reformed]

Thank you for your input. I can already see that I would have majors areas of disagreement just by reading the FAQs. But, I find it interesting and helpful to understand what others believe even when we disagree so that I might disagree intelligently.

Bob,

Still some good reads on that list even if you are a Dispensationalist. Studying the covenants yields significant perspective imho.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[thatbrian]

Bob,

Still some good reads on that list even if you are a Dispensationalist. Studying the covenants yields significant perspective imho.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

I would agree. The main thing I would stress, which I was lacking for decades and I think that Evangelical church lacks, is a big-picture view of the Bible. We tend to read the Bible like reference book or an owner's manual, but it is a novel!

It is, in a sense, the greatest love story ever told, but when read and studied topically, the drama is missed completely, and we bore ourselves and others (if we preach or teach) that way.

 

[thatbrian]

What authors do you consider to be adept at conveying a proper understanding of this covenantal framework?

Reformed beat me to it.

One could have some understanding of covenant theology yet remain a dispensationalist. See my reply to him (Reformed) for my further opinion.