What establishes your hermeneutics?

[Rippon]

Okay , I hereby give you my permission WD !

 

[webdog]

That would be a first

 

[Rippon]

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

 

[npetreley]

Thanks for telling me what I believe...but I think I can handle it. It really looks nothing like what you posted, btw.

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

 

[webdog]

Are you throwing out oxymorons to be funny?

 

[webdog]

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

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

 

[Rippon]

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 .

 

[webdog]

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?

 

[Allan]

This is part of discussion Allan and I were having on John 17:12.
I'm open to criticism of my hermeneutical approach.
I haven't studied at a seminary or bible college, so mine is mostly influenced by pastors, teachers, and authors I respect. (and my husband, who I also respect).

So I was interested in what styles of hermeneutics are out there and how they influence our exegesis or interpretation of the Bible.

Is Allan's style more right than mine or mine more right than his? How can we know?
Is the style the sole determiner of how we will interpret a verse?
Must you change your style before your interpretation will change?

For the Calvinists, I assume that many of us were raised non-Calvinist, like myself and others I have seen here testify. Did your style of hermeneutics change before you embraced a different interpretation? Or did the interpretation of one or several passages change before you changed your approach to hermeneutics?
These may not be answerable questions for some, or at least not previously thought out answers. And my initial questions may not be very well phrased, but hopefully it's enough to get the ball rolling.

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.

Jhn 17:12 “While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

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.

 

[Allan]

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.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

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.

I disagree.

Fourthly[/B] - 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.

Just for context of the original discussion:

Originally Posted by TCGreek
So does "Kept" mean kept physically but not salvifically in Jude 1, 21, 24?

I don't think "kept" is the word that the John 17:12 passage hinges on.
I think it's the phrase rendered here:

John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

If you look back to the beginning of John 17 and notice verse 6 where the phrase is first used in the chapter, it seems that Jesus has a group within the 12 that He refers to as "those you gave me".

I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word.

The ones that the Father gave obeyed His word. Judas did not obey the word, even though he appeared to for a while.
So Jesus' words in verse 12 about those that the Father gave Him would appear to exclude Judas which is why Judas was not kept, but was lost.
He never was given to Jesus from the Father as a true son.
He was chosen because of his sonship with Satan.

and a page or two later this:

So Christ chose one or took one unto Himself who was not given Him by the Father?

Depends on what you mean by"took one unto Himself".
As a disciple, yes.
As a true son, no.

The point that I have been making all along is that Judas is not part of the "group" that the Father gave to the Son.
If he were, then Christ would keep him and not lose him just as John 6:39 says:

And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

I pointed out in the exchange above that the "giving" verbal phrase is what the passage hinges on. It is familar and defined language in the gospel of John.
When Jesus speaks about who the Father gives Him in any context in John, it is for salvific purposes only. There is no other purpose stated for why someone might be given to the Son. John 10:29 is another example of this use of the salvific "giving".

I have since made it abundantly clear that Jesus "chose" Judas as a disciple, and that Judas was not "given" to Jesus by the Father.
The KJV rendering of " none of them is lost, but the son of perdition" is apparantly a very accurate rendering of the Greek.
I quote from my commentary:

Note carefully, He did not say, "except the son of perdition," rather, "but the son of perdition". He belonged not to "them", that is to those who had been given Him by the Father. The disjunctive participle is used here, as frequently in Scripture, to contrast those belonging to two different classes. Compare Matt. 12:4; Acts 27:22, Rev. 21:27. Not one of them given to Christ can or will be lost.

Judas is in a different group or "class" as He was chosen to be a disciple by Christ, but he was not of those who were given to Jesus by His Father.
Two different groups, not one group with two different purposes.
Two different groups with two different purposes.

 

[Aaron]

One must become indoctrinated into calvinism, not the other way around.

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.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

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.

I also know of one young man who after coming to Christ, began by reading the book of Ephesians and by the time he got to 2:8,9 he was telling mutual friends of mine that he saw that his faith was a gift from God and not of himself.

It gave them something to smile about since neither had ever discussed their views on Ephesians with him nor their Calvinistic beliefs, yet here he was telling them what he had just learned while he was reading his Bible.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

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.

 

[Rippon]

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 .

 

[webdog]

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.

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.

 

[npetreley]

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

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?

 

[webdog]

Opinions are like nostrils...

Funny how you claim to be so accepting, yet you're so belligerent that you missed the last line in my post.

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

 

[J.D.]

Here is a list from where I taught hermeneutics this past spring in Bible Study at church:

The 7 steps to understanding the Bible​

In order to properly apply a Bible scripture to your life, you have to properly interpret the scripture.

If you apply the scripture without the proper interpretation it is called eisegesis. This is using the Bible in a wrong way. It is making the Bible say what you want it to say. It is adding to the Bible.
When you first interpret the scripture, then apply it, it is called exegesis. This is drawing the meaning of the text from the text. This is what we should be doing.

Here is a list to run through when you approach a scripture. Remember to always pray first and let God direct your steps.

1) Lexical: When you read a passage, do you know what all the words mean? Define all questionable words. Remember, as someone has said before, “If the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense.”

2) Literary: What section of the Bible are you in? Prophecy, narrative, poetry, letters, history, etc.

3) Historical/Cultural: When was the book written? What was going on in history at the time the book was written? What did this passage mean to the original readers?

4) Theological: What are the other scriptures in the Bible that deal with the same subject as this scripture? Imagine all the writers of the scripture sitting around a table discussing this scripture, what would they say?

5) Contextual: Look at the scriptures surrounding this scripture, in what context is the verse written in?

6) Orthodox: If the meaning of the scripture can be debatable, How has the church interpreted this passage in the past? That may give you an idea. You are not bound to believe someone’s interpretation, but it may give you fresh way to look at the passage.

AFTER, you interpret what the passage says:

7) Application: Ask, “What does this mean for me today?” “Why did God put this in the Bible?” “If this wasn’t in the Bible, how would this affect my life?” “What can I get out of this passage that will help me, or help others?”

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.

 

[J.D.]

It was said somewhere in all these threads that Calvinism is once again growing among the churches (or something to that effect). Does anyone have an idea why that is?

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)