What establishes your hermeneutics?

Okay , I hereby give you my permission WD !

 

That would be a first

 

So , has your "free will" been fettered in the past ?

 

Now THAT is rich! You spend all your time telling us not only what we believe, but WHY we believe it!! What a [censored].

 

Are you throwing out oxymorons to be funny?

 

I don't ever recall me telling you WHAT you believe, but WHY I think you believe the way you do. I'm not really surprised you can't see the difference. I dont' find you "censored" to be funny, either. Great christian witness

 

WD , look at yourself square in the mirror and tell us that you are as objective as possible when dealing with Calvinists . You would never say that any of us were programmed to believe what we do from some sinister outside forces , would you ? Nah , you're better than that .

I know you must hold the record for saying "strawman" the most times on the BB when your rational faculties have been strained beyond their limits .

 

Do you even know what a strawman is? I'm guessing not...

If you have already forgotten, I came to the BB as someone who just started to believe in the so called "doctrines of grace". I came questioning what I believed my entire life, and trying to refute it. I do believe that since the Holy Spirit cannot be behind both calvinism and non cal, that there most definately is some kind of "outside force" that does influence one of the two sides.

What beloved calvinist was born this month, Rippon?

 

First of all, we never discussed our hermeneutical approach.

Secondly, you didn't give me your hermeneutical rendering of the passage but you only gave me your theological one.

Thirdly, to dismiss the plain reading of the text for a proposed theological view IS NOT hermeneutics.

Fourthly - and most importantly - concerning what we were discussing, I was looking for someone to be able to refute the plain meaning of the text based on its sentence structure (in English or Greek) because I TO HELD the majority of the same thing you spoke of till I noticed the wording of the sentence. AND IT WAS THEN I ASKED or better postulated - could the giving of these men to Jesus by the Father have been given as one group but with two distinct parts based on verse 12. That this portion is not about them being saved (since Jesus is praying about a FUTURE event and everything is in the past tense) but that THIS portion is about them beening placed in His watch care from death so they will fulfill they respective purposes. I agree that one group is readily most often spoken of as those who believed and obeyed and they are most often refered to, and it is what I have always held to. My problem is with the sentence structure which says "I have kept them...and none are lost, except the Son of Perdition.

If scripture states all are kept except this one, I was asking, what other conclusion can we make that does not do damage to the text as it was written than those whom the Father gave Him He gaurded while He was here, and none were lost except for Judas to fulfill prophesy.

What other rendering is there??

THAT is all I'm trying to figure out. Not that I believe it but I can not refute it so I asked.

 

Regarding the thread and peoples attitudes.

Seriously, I'm ashamed of you all. (not that any really care)

I'm by no means perfect but you guys/gals are seriously getting ridiculous with you anti's against the others.

Actaully, Amy, thank you for watching your step when the rest us of fall (at least here in this thread )

God leads his children and they learn what God reveals, regardless of if it is Calvinism or Non in spite of ANY of your prejudices. God has NEVER used just one group but both throughout the history of the Church. Godly and God fearing men and women of God are not Calvinists nor Non but children of God who Love their Father and seek to do His will in thought and deed.

The Baptist board is becoming more of tuff war than a debate and fellowship board.
I'm all for comparing and debating systems and theologies but do we really have to bring in things like - you can only be (fill in your thelogical view) if you study, or just listen to the (fill in a theological view) to know that people are using human understanding to try and understand scripture, or,...or,...,et.... (no they are not direct quotes but modified for effect)

Come on, we all get caught up and sometimes, yes, the proverbial hair flies, but THIS is getting disgusting.

 

You don't know many Calvinists. I know one who was Charismatic and was converted simply by reading Ephesians 1. (I'm not referring to myself.) He didn't shed his charismania immediately, but he realized the error of believing in the free will of man.

 

Actually Tiny Tim and Amy are both correct, Amy starts at the beginning and Tim takes it a little deeper on the Hermeneutical level.. It would probably do one good to read a few books on Hermeneutics, my own personal recommendation would be books written by Virkler,Zuck, and Hatrill which would fill in the gaps and round out a good understanding of hermeneutics. I know every body likes Ramm but I think he leaves to much out(just my opinjon).:godisgood: All this other stuff on the thread is just hijacking.

 

I made a post but it vanished . POB , you are wrong . This thread has not been hijacked . I think Is.40:28 has made many cogent observations regarding biblical interpretation . Don't be so dismissive . We have to see various hermeneutical principles being worked out here with specific passages . I do think some are sloppy in their hermeneutics , but let's see some dialog on the subject .

 

This is rich...now I'm being told how many calvinists I know. :laugh:

Is ESP one of the "hidden truths" of calvinism, too? The whole reason I started believing calvinism in the first place was because of a very good friend who led our small group.

 

The reason you don't know many Calvinists is because you're so negative and hateful.

There -- I didn't tell you WHAT, but WHY. You seem to think that's okay. Or do I need to quote you to yourself?

 

Opinions are like nostrils...

The whole reason I started believing calvinism in the first place was because of a very good friend who led our small group.

 

Very good Tiny, except that I would move the Lexicon down to #6 and I would move literary (genre) up to #1 and context up to # 2. I seem to hold a extreme minority position on grammer and definition. I believe that definition is often determined by context. Too many times people will find a definition among the list of alternates that they like and then try to shove that definition into the context. And grammar is often, but not always, purely incidental. Again, context establishes the meaning of the grammar.

Nice worksheet too. I think I'll steal it.

 

I think the internet has a lot to do with it. That's the way it was for me, anyway. I was doing some research and googled the word "calvinism", and my life began to change that night. I had already grown dissatisfied with the answers I was getting from my pastors on certain questions, and I was amazed at how these calvinistic theologians were answering my question before I could even ask them. It was as if they were reading my mind.

Internet blogging and web sites are the bane of authoritarian control freaks. As a long-time IFBer, I had been threatened many times with dower consequences if I dared to venture from the approved doctrines of my local demigod-like leader. We've seen this play out in other ways - like the overthrow of Dan Rather and his producer in their attempt to discredit the Pres with a false document - it was exposed in the blog world.

Information is out there and is readily available to anyone with a computer. The internet is a wonderful thing! (except for the porno of course)