No what I'm saying is, since I don't speak Chinese, that vocabulary is useless to me as an exegete. As an exegete, I am forced to understand Scripture in terms of my own words - my own definitions. By MY definition, double predestination makes for a dishonest and cruel God. That contradicts the OTHER verses where He is said to be holy.
I can't accept both conclusions, if I claim to be rational.
I don't see why you are balking at this analysis.
Please don't take this as antagonistic, when I say I can see that is how you draw your conclusions. But there may be the problem --you seem to feel you MUST draw a conclusion to the matter. It took me many years to see I need to be patient with Scripture, and not draw conclusions where my supposed exegesis drew contradictions either in Scripture or in my analysis of my experiences. "Free will" not only doesn't make sense to me (both from logic and from experience), but I don't find it Scriptural, though I tried to earlier in life.
I have drawn many conclusions now, but like before, they are only what I see now, and not only incomplete but subject to correction. By no means are they final. Some BIG ones have been replaced with what seems to me now much more sound (and satisfying). For example, I used to say, and believe, that my future was in God's hands. Yet my theology had it that it depended on me. But now I can SEE how it is in God's hands.
Call it sadism, call it cruelty, call it whatever you like. Double predestination is incredibly evil.
Scripture is inerrant, but I have no direct access to Scripture, only to my interpretations (typically from exegesis, or perhaps from direct revelations). When I say, "my interpretations" it means those conclusions that I feel certain about. Thus my final authority in all matters, ultimately, is feelings of certainty (conscience). In fact I will look to Scripture only to the extent that I feel certain it is the right thing to do. As for me, I actually feel quite certain that we should spend far more time seeking direct revelations than practicing exegesis.
If you don't like the term "authority" substitute your preferred term such as "obligation".
Not sure if that answers your question.
Yes, it does. Thank you.
I'm thinking I haven't properly dealt with your claim that you MUST go with your definitions. Certainly, both eisegesis and exegesis (as we do it --not perfectly) require the use definitions, but to instantly trust my definitions and draw logical conclusions as a result is full of pitfalls.
There is no need to do that. Provisional conclusions, ok. Spending a LOT of time in Scripture is useful in correcting definitions. Reading whole books, whole sections if you can, of Scripture shows parallels the parallel versions don't show. One thing ties to another and whole new themes show themselves.
Many of those themes are so compelling I can't ignore them. My "exegesis" (such as it is) is constantly improved from seeing these things concerning God, his nature, his purposes, his methods and means, his delight in whom he has chosen to place his particular Love... and their nature --incomplete and hardly worth dignifying as a being apart from him, and with him they are only dignified by his indwelling and purposes for them.
All these are assumptions, or concepts (and even the compelling are weak) that go into the ongoing definitions, I (granted) MUST use the best I can.
FWIW the Reformers are always reforming, or should be. It is Scripture that guides us, and we pray for God's Spirit to guide us (call it Direct Revelation, if you wish, but I think many would say the definition of DR shows it to be something else) in life and in exegesis.
