having a certain bias or filter when you come to the text will make you want to downsize whatever you read into something that fits preference/bias etc. That has always been the case. The key is "not to do that" because its a form of downsizing for the gospel scope that would need an explicit statement not merely inference to fit a bias.
I completely agree. The same problem works in reverse: having a certain bias when you come to the text will make you oversize whatever you read.
That is what happened in this op.
You should change that.
You change that based on what the text of Revelation 3 actually states and not what certain biases may downsize or oversize the text to say.
What the text actually factually undeniably irrefutably
states is those words were spoken to the angel and believers in Laodicea and thos in the church in Laodicea who were knonw by Christ.
That's what the text actually states! It does NOT in any way shpe or form remotely imply anywhere in the text those words are spoken to unregenerate non-believers.
And you and renniks can argue with me all you like about failed logic and "certain biases" but the text states what the text states and both of you are ignoring what is actually stated. And
you as the author of this op should understand what I am saying to
you, the author of this op: there may well be passages in the Bible that do in fact speak about "
the arminian model is an open system," of a sinner's volition but Revelation 3:22 is not one of them and you are screwing up your own op when you post what is exegetically verifiable. And if your response is to appeal to supposed "certain biases" while you ignore your own then you're screwing up your own op even more.
I don't know where you got the idea Rev. 3:22 is about Arminian volitional openness but I don't care, because it is wrong. Any plain
objective,
unbiased reading of the text sees what it
states, and what it actually factually states is the words were spoken to those in the church known by Christ. It is not a verse applicable to unregenerate non-believers.
And, Bob, there isn't a single verse in the entire Bible that explicitly states a sinner's volition is causally related to salvation. That position has always been a function of inference. That inference is almost always eisegetic (I have never read an Arminian, Wesleyan, or Traditionalist provide an explicit report from scripture and what they do present is invariably interpretive). In contrast, the monergists can point to explicit statements in scripture showing God is causal. We have explicit statements. Inferences made from those explicit statements are then exegetical, not eisegetic. Both soteriologies use inference. Monergists are exegetically inferential and the synergists are eisegetically inferential.
The premise of prevenient grace is one such example of eisegetic inference.
The premise prevenient grace frees up the sinner's will is another example.
The premise the sinner's will has power is another such example.
The premise God made His plan of salvation dependent on an unregenerate sinner's will is another.
The premise God limit's Himself soteriologically is another example.
The premise God cannot or does not coerce salvation is another.
Not rying to be hurtful. Those are simply the facts of Arminian soteriology as they assert them relevant to what scripture explicitly states. There are no verses in the entire Bible stating any of these beliefs. The synergist will justify these positions by first interpreting a scripture and then using that interpretation to support the position.
Neither mon nor syn can escape the practice of interpretation but is the interpretation exegetical or eisegetical?
This op eisegeted Rev. 3:22. It did not exegete that verse.
I provided an exegesis and you not provided an alternative, especially not an exegesis of Rev. 3:22 that addresses the
facts the words were spoken to those in the church in Laodicea known by Christ.
I'm simply pointing that out and doing so the error will be corrected, the op amended accordingly, and we can discuss the op sharing common ground....
with God's word. It does no one here any good to have consensus between us if that consensus is not shared with God's word.
