John 3:16

[Saved4ever]

@ Saved4ever - What do you think about when someone would say to you that God has wiped our slates clean, removed the death penalty off our prison sentence, if we will only humly accept His gift?

In your On the bases of the work on the cross you seem to say that it can only be one way, either God paid for the sins or he didn't. What if you're missing a third option? What if He's made a substituionary sacrifice that is sitting on His desk that He is saying is suitable to cover over our sins, as long as we take it? It's like we've been found guilty in a court of law, have received a sentence of the death penalty, but the judge turns and says I tell you what, I'll go ahead and commute your sentence as long as you admit right here and now that you are truly guilty and sorry for what you did. Have you ever thought about that way of looking at scripture before?

I have heard people present it that way but I think that we have to look at how we arrive at a place where we can accept the gift.
1)We are a sinner, seperated from God by that very sin, Spritually we are dead.
2)By no merit of our own we are chosen by God to be his workmanship.
3)We are given grace(free gift we do not deserve) by that grace we are affored faith.
4)It is that faith that gives us not only the ablity but the desire to know and follow God. For having been dead in sin we are now alive by the work of Christ on the Cross, it is then that we see the magisty of God, and the choice is simple beileve on Him who saved us.

As for the court room I think you missed a peice in it. Our lawyer who of Himself is perfect and there can be found no blame in him, takes the penalty for the sin.

As for you last question weither it is either saved or damned. Yes I believe that for we know that there are only two places that we can go Heaven and Hell, there is no third option.

 

[Saved4ever]

Please provide Scriptures.

So you are going to deny the exsistance of many forms of Love?

Sounds like you are an advocate of Limited Atonement. That is a theory, and it involves human reasoning and assumptions.

So Unlimited Atonement is just a theroy, yes if we looked at just the Love of God we would say that He would pay for everyone's sin. But we must also look at the Justice of God, which if we just followed that we would all be condemned to Hell. So we must balance the attributes of God and see that yes some are going to be saved and some will not be. What is the difference between them? Nothing! We know that when God looks at me He looks at me through the perfect blood of Jesus Christ, for He has payed for my sins. To say that He payed for your sins but will not credit that to you unless you accept Him, is putting a stipulation on the Grace of God, for then it is no longer grace it is earned, and we know that grace can not be earned.

But no limitation is placed on who believes.

It is true that in the John 3:16 we see no number put to the saved. But we do see many places where Jesus is called our good shepard. For He knows all the sheep of his flock and if one wanders he will leave the rest to go find it. For if we believe that He truely is the Son of God, and the Father has given Him the saved. Then it is Jesus who would know how many will be saved. No where are we going to be given a number on how many will be saved for it is not for us to know. So to discredit Limited Atonement based on the fact that we know not a number is absured. For it is in the heart of man that he is saved and we can not know 100% if that heart is true. So why give us a number when we are unable to know if one is saved.

Yes. That was not a salvation issue, and not election to salvation.

So you are saying that God can make any choice He wants as long as it does not affect salvation?

Different reference. It is from Malachi 3, and it says, Jacob have I loved (the descendants of Jacob) and Esau have I hated (the descendants of Esau) and describes the wickedness of the descendants of Esau. As for the word 'hated,' recognize the concept behind the word. Jesus said that His followers must hate their parents and family. God did hate the wickedness of Esau's descendants, and He also hated the wickedness of the children of Israel.

I would have to disagree, this whole part of Romans 9 talks about the soverign choices of God. Weither it be to love Jacob and hate Esau(a refernece used since the Jews in Rome would have known the story) or to God's ablity make us into what he wants us to be. And who are we to question our creator? or His choices?

The Bible tells us that God is merciful to all. It is by His mercies that we remain alive. The passage in Exodus which Paul quotes in Romans 9 makes clear that God is merciful to those who love Him and keep His commandments. The passage about the potter and clay is found in both Isaiah and Jeremiah, where God describes the wickedness of His people.

You state that "God is merciful to all", but then in the next sentence you say that "God is merciful to those who love Him and keep His commandments". Two very opposing views of which the second I believe. For it is who loves Him that He will show mercy to. But it is how we come to love Him that is the salvation in it. For He turns the heart of stone that we have into a heart of flesh and then draws us to Him, giving us the Faith and thus we come to love Him and by that love we desire to keep his commandments.

As for the Potter and the Clay, yes he describes the wikedness of the people but does not the Potter make some pots for glory and some for wickedness? That not only His grace will be shown in some but that His wrath and justice may be known in others?

Incorrect. God chose the patriarchs because they remained faithful to Him in spite of the worldwide apostasy. Abraham was in the line of the patriarchs. God made promises to Abraham, conditioned upon Abraham obeying God. (It took Abraham over 100 years to finally get there.) Israel was descended from Abraham, and because of God's promise to Abraham He invited Israel to be His people, on condition that they keep His covenant. Ex. 19:1 - 8

So you are saying that Abraham was able to after 100 years earn salvation? And that God had no part in him being able to keep the commandments? By that logic we would see that if one can earn the salvation that they are given, then one could lose the salvation that one once had. Now that is a slippery slop to go down.

Because God knows the heart. That is why He chose David over his brothers, for example.

So God choice David based apon David, not what God could do through David?

In summary . . . misunderstanding of Calvinism? I don't think so.

I think you have misunderstood the very nature of Calvinism. It is to glory God by revieling His soverign, perfect, just, loving, and merciful will.

 

[Tzaousios]

That is not supported either by history or exegesis, at least as it is sometimes applied. If you believe it is, please present the exegetical evidence here.

Wow, you must be omniscient or something to be able to write it off before I even post the source? Why ask if you are just going to dismiss it out of hand?

At any rate, it is Augustine's De diversis quaestionibus VII ad Simplicianum (395), which is both a historical document and an example of masterful exegesis.

So, what "job categories" and "salvific categories" do you see in the text then?

Exactly the things that you and Archierieus do not see and have already determined that you are not willing to see. That God has chosen individuals and groups specificually to carry out certain purposes in history and has determined their spiritual statuses, all according to his sovereign will and plan.

 

[archierieus]

Wow, you must be omniscient or something to be able to write it off before I even post the source? Why ask if you are just going to dismiss it out of hand?

It is not supported either by the history referred to in Romans 9, or by exegesis--with which I am familiar, in this case. But, since you made the statement, you certainly should be given the opportunity to back it up. Augustine? I just now took a look, I notice generally a good bit of philosophy including references to Plato, and his writings certainly were well received by the medieval Church. Philosophy, ideas and the like all have their place. But they are not Biblical exegesis nor a substitute for Biblical exegesis. NT exegesis starts with the Greek words, analyzes them grammatically, reviews the etymology, determines inflected meaning based on the occurrences of a word form and context, and so forth.

So please, here, for this discussion, link to the Biblical Greek exegesis you are referring to, from the article, and since no doubt many do not read Latin, pls. cite to an English language source.

That God has chosen individuals and groups specificually to carry out certain purposes in history

Without question, for example, the Israelites.

and has determined their spiritual statuses, all according to his sovereign will and plan.

That is where your position statement parts company with Scripture as it reads. But if you believe you have EXEGETICAL support for this statement, from Romans 9, as you seem to claim, please post it here. Otherwise, so far, it is only your opinion.

Dave

 

[Tzaousios]

It is not supported either by the history referred to in Romans 9, or by exegesis--with which I am familiar, in this case. But, since you made the statement, you certainly should be given the opportunity to back it up. Augustine? I just now took a look, I notice a good bit of philosophy including references to Plato, and the article seems to have been well received by the medieval Church. That certainly is not 'exegesis.'

Which exegesis? I know you are familiar with the one(s) to which you subscribe. Surely, however, you are not familiar with all on the subject? That would be quite an accomplishment if you were.

Secondly, your statement about Augustine and philosophy is a prefabricated trope on the order of the ones that you often reproduce as a quick drive-by "debunking" of something you predict will smack of the dreaded "Calvinism."

I know that on several occasions in discussions with you and others who believe as you do about Romans 9 that I have clearly indicated that Augustine's work must be divided into periods, the early of which was colored by a reliance on Neoplatonic frameworks, and the second on a rigorous embracing of Paul's theology of grace and election. Secondly, the "medieval church" absolutely did not accept what he wrote in Ad Simplicianum, but sheepishly backed off from it and later condemned it at Trent and Vatican II. It is no wonder that they did this since Luther, Calvin, and a host of other Reformational theologians were quite fond of the theology he expounded therein.

However, please, here, for this discussion, link to the Biblical Greek exegesis you are referring to, from the article, and since no doubt many do not read Latin, pls. cite to an English language source.

What article? I cited a primary source, not a secondary review of literature. The exegesis is also found within the letter to Simplicianus. Not only is it found there, but in almost all of Augustine's treatises after the year 395. I will see what I can find online. I definitely have a hard copy citation of an English translation.

That is where your position statement parts company with Scripture as it reads. But if you believe you have SCRIPTURAL support for this statement, please post it here. Otherwise, so far, it is only your opinion.

Scripture as who reads it? You? The Holy Spirit? You plus the Holy Spirit? The Reformers? The Reformers plus the Holy Spirit? The Church fathers? The Church fathers plus the Holy Spirit?

 

[bleitzel]

I have heard people present it that way but I think that we have to look at how we arrive at a place where we can accept the gift.
1)We are a sinner, seperated from God by that very sin, Spritually we are dead.
2)By no merit of our own we are chosen by God to be his workmanship.
3)We are given grace(free gift we do not deserve) by that grace we are affored faith.
4)It is that faith that gives us not only the ablity but the desire to know and follow God. For having been dead in sin we are now alive by the work of Christ on the Cross, it is then that we see the magisty of God, and the choice is simple beileve on Him who saved us.

Hi Saved4ever, so we differ in where we believe someone would be ready to accept the gift. You believe that they cannot get there except by God giving them the ability, and I believe that all people have the ability already.

To your first point, spiritually dead just means that we are on the path to eternal death, not eternal life, not that we can't respond to the Gospel. (And this is a whole separate discussion I'm sure!)

To your third point, grace sertainly comes from God, but the faith is our own. Specifically if you are referring to Ephesians 2:8, it has been conclusively shown that the phrase "not form yourselves, it is the gift of God" refers to grace not faith.

To your fourth point, we were dead in sin and now are alive by the work of Christ on the cross but this death and life are figurative in that Paul is talking about our eternal condition that we will receive once we die.

So in conclusion, you believe that man cannot hear the word of God unless God allows him to hear it, whereas I believe that all of those teachings are taken out of context and man does have the ability and responsibility to hear the word of God and put it into action.

As for you last question weither it is either saved or damned. Yes I believe that for we know that there are only two places that we can go Heaven and Hell, there is no third option.

On my second post I was actually asking about the predestined part, not the part about there being two outcomes. No, I don't believe in a third place besides Heaven and Hell! lol.

My question was do you believe that all people are predistened? Either to eternal salvation or to eternal damnation? The Calvinists and Arminians believe that, but I do not.

 

[bleitzel]

But we must also look at the Justice of God, which if we just followed that we would all be condemned to Hell. So we must balance the attributes of God and see that yes some are going to be saved and some will not be. What is the difference between them? Nothing! We know that when God looks at me He looks at me through the perfect blood of Jesus Christ, for He has payed for my sins. To say that He payed for your sins but will not credit that to you unless you accept Him, is putting a stipulation on the Grace of God, for then it is no longer grace it is earned, and we know that grace can not be earned.

What is the difference between them? No it's not nothing, it is belief. Whosever believes. Is this a stipulation, yes. Does it mean we earn grace, no. The concept of earning, of a workman's wages is debunked by Paul in Romans 4:4-5

"4Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness."

It is a shame that such great theologians as Luther, Calvin, et. al. misunderstood faith to be a work, and that so many here on these forums do the same. But if Paul does not see faith as a work, should you? If Paul actually says the opposite, that the Jews believed works would save them but instead that it is faith that saves us, shouldn't we take his word for it. Calvinism posits an illogical argument where it says that it is salvation by grace, not by works. And that the grace is through faith given by God, not by man because if it were by man then it would be a work. Paul says our faith is not a work, and therefore the faith can be (and is) from us!

 

[archierieus]

Which exegesis? I know you are familiar with the one(s) to which you subscribe. Surely, however, you are not familiar with all on the subject?

'Which' exegesis? That is not the nature of serious exegesis. It is not a question of WHICH exegesis, but one of accuracy and textual evidence. Thus the importance, as well, of peer review, that is textually competent peers.

Secondly, your statement about Augustine and philosophy is a prefabricated trope

Incorrect. It is a response to just this morning reading what you cited from.

on the order of the ones that you often reproduce as a quick drive-by "debunking" of something you predict will smack of the dreaded "Calvinism."

The issue, to this student, is always one of accuracy. If position statements are presented which do not appear to be Scripturally accurate, expect them to be shot down.

I know that on several occasions in discussions with you and others who believe as you do about Romans 9 that I have clearly indicated that Augustine's work must be divided into periods, the early of which was colored by a reliance on Neoplatonic frameworks, and the second on a rigorous embracing of Paul's theology of grace and election.

You have not held such discussions with me. I am interested in Scripture. Augustine brought much to the table in addition to Scripture which logically would have colored his take on Scripture. Nor are his writings Scripture alone. Human reasoning, philosophy and traditions also are included in his writings.

Secondly, the "medieval church" absolutely did not accept what he wrote in Ad Simplicianum, but sheepishly backed off from it and later condemned it at Trent and Vatican II.

Please review this article, and see what you think of the treatment of Augstine's Rom . 9 theology:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/1THOMIST.TXT

Scripture as who reads it? You? The Holy Spirit? You plus the Holy Spirit? The Reformers? The Reformers plus the Holy Spirit? The Church fathers? The Church fathers plus the Holy Spirit?

Scripture as it reads, on its face. Pretty straightforward.

 

[archierieus]

I just now took a look at 'To Simplian' as well as 'Propositions From the Epistle to the Romans.' You call that exegesis? That's not exegesis. That is commentary. Please, cite to credible NT exegesis.

 

[Tzaousios]

'Which' exegesis? That is not the nature of serious exegesis. It is not a question of WHICH exegesis, but one of accuracy and textual evidence. Thus the importance, as well, of peer review, that is textually competent peers.

Yes, and who are the peers here?

The issue, to this student, is always one of accuracy. If position statements are presented which do not appear to be Scripturally accurate, expect them to be shot down.

If they do not appear Scripturally accurate according to your interpretation, which more often than not is aimed almost solely at constructing a defense against those whom you characterize as Calvinists.

You have not held such discussions with me. I am interested in Scripture. Augustine brought much to the table in addition to Scripture which logically would have colored his take on Scripture. Nor are his writings Scripture. Human reasoning, philosophy and traditions.

No, I have, because I recognized your reaction to it. Any time Augustine is mentioned he is discarded out of hand because people automatically set him up as a shibboleth from the depths of a Roman Catholic or Calvinist hell.

Notice also that I did not deny that there is "human reasoning, philosophy, and traditions" which color Augustine's work. However, I qualified it by saying it colored primarily his early work. His later work stripped much of it away for a quite plain reading of Romans. He was forced to examine the text through his own eyes rather than those of Plotinus. You would have known this if you had studied any of his later work without anti-Calvinist blinders on.

Do you mean to tell me that you have a special power that allows you to strip away all human reasoning and temporal conditioning?

Please review this article, and see what you think of the treatment of Augstine's Rom . 9 theology:

Fr. Most takes a typically Roman Catholic view of Augustine's later work, which is to discard it in favor of the much more watered-down, philosophy tinged, Magisterium-friendly exegesis of Thomas Aquinas. Talk about corruption by human philosophy and reasoning, Aquinas was the father of Scholasticism after all.

Scripture as it reads, on its face. Pretty straightforward.

Believe me, I am no postmodernist. But how is it humanly possible to divorce all of one's human reasoning, cultural influences, and temporal conditionings to produce a completely "plain," unbiased, and pure exegesis of Scripture?

 

[Tzaousios]

I just now took a look at 'To Simplian' as well as 'Propositions From the Epistle to the Romans.' You call that exegesis? That's not exegesis. That is commentary. Please, cite to credible NT exegesis.

So, you have read Ad Simplicianum in English in its entirety? I find that hard to believe considering I have not provided the citation yet or a link online.

Propositiones is an entirely different work that was written several years before Ad Simplicianum and Augustine's repudiation of the theology it contained. In Propositiones he explains Romans according to Catholic tradition and using the Neoplatonic framework. This is almost entirely absent in Ad Simplicianum.

That's not exegesis. That is commentary. Please, cite to credible NT exegesis.

Oh please, I would expect better analysis than that from you. By credible do you mean your own personal exegesis, that of Arminius, Wesley, Finney, or someone else who is diametrically opposed to Calvinism?

 

[Saved4ever]

Hi Saved4ever, so we differ in where we believe someone would be ready to accept the gift. You believe that they cannot get there except by God giving them the ability, and I believe that all people have the ability already.

To your first point, spiritually dead just means that we are on the path to eternal death, not eternal life, not that we can't respond to the Gospel. (And this is a whole separate discussion I'm sure!)

To your third point, grace sertainly comes from God, but the faith is our own. Specifically if you are referring to Ephesians 2:8, it has been conclusively shown that the phrase "not form yourselves, it is the gift of God" refers to grace not faith.

To your fourth point, we were dead in sin and now are alive by the work of Christ on the cross but this death and life are figurative in that Paul is talking about our eternal condition that we will receive once we die.

So in conclusion, you believe that man cannot hear the word of God unless God allows him to hear it, whereas I believe that all of those teachings are taken out of context and man does have the ability and responsibility to hear the word of God and put it into action.

On my second post I was actually asking about the predestined part, not the part about there being two outcomes. No, I don't believe in a third place besides Heaven and Hell! lol.

My question was do you believe that all people are predistened? Either to eternal salvation or to eternal damnation? The Calvinists and Arminians believe that, but I do not.

On where grace comes from the place that lays it out best is Ephesians 2:8-10. Now as for saying that that Grace is what is referred to as the Gift of God is not going to be accurate, cause grace by definition is a free/unmerited gift from God. So to say that grace is the gift does not define what the gift is. Also we know that being saved can not be the gift for it a byproduct of faith, and for it to be the gift we would have to skip the whole step of faith as it relates to salvation. So in the basis of the very we have only one option left and that is that Faith is the gift that is not of ourselves. Now this is not to say that we are not able to exercise this faith or that it does not become ours, but that the act of having faith is brought about by the gracious act of God. But my support does not end there for the reason for this God inspired faith is that it is meant to glorify God, and by it not being of oursleves it solely brings glory to God.

As for being predestined into salvation, I very much believe that God has elected those that He would save before the foundation of the world. And has laid before His workmanship the works that He is going to use us to carry out. If for no other reason than bring glory to Him who made me. As for scripture I am going to stay in ephesians for the first one, Ephesians 2:10, where we see that we are His workmanship created in Christ Jesus for good works. Notice that it does not say in Christ Jesus and their own faith, but on Christ Jesus, for it is his own attoning work on the cross that cleanes our sins. These good works where laid down before us by God that we would walk in them. Now how could good works be laid out for us if God did not elect us to salvation?

 

[archierieus]

So, you have read Ad Simplicianum in English in its entirety? I find that hard to believe considering I have not provided the citation yet or a link online.

Scanned it, determined it is NOT exegesis but a treatise and commentary. That is not acceptable as evidence.

Propositiones is an entirely different work that was written several years before Ad Simplicianum and Augustine's repudiation of the theology it contained. In Propositiones he explains Romans according to Catholic tradition and using the Neoplatonic framework. This is almost entirely absent in Ad Simplicianum.

A good illustration of why it is unwise to rely on such works for an understanding of doctrine. And a clear acknowledgment that the treatises were not inspired as Scripture is inspired. Scripture, please.

By credible do you mean your own personal exegesis, that of Arminius, Wesley, Finney, or someone else who is diametrically opposed to Calvinism?

I don't give a hoot for commentaries or treatises authored by Arminius, Wesley, Finney, Calvin, Augustine or anyone else. Scripture only, please.

 

[Tzaousios]

Scanned it, determined it is NOT exegesis but a treatise and commentary. That is not acceptable as evidence.

No, you scanned it, decided it did not jive with your personal theology, and discarded it out of hand as a "commentary." You have a convenient set of labels there to apply when you don't want to consider something that makes you feel uncomfortable.

Where did you fine the complete text of Ad Simplicianum online? I am pretty sure it is not online in an English translation or the Latin.

A good illustration of why it is unwise to rely on such works for an understanding of doctrine. And a clear acknowledgment that the treatises were not inspired as Scripture is inspired. Scripture, please.

So instead rely on your own interpretation and create a doctrine that you are able to stomach?

Also, I can guess that your are going to tell me something to the effect of looking at the original language and arriving at a "plain" reading. Well, the very act of translating the Bible or other documents is itself an interpretation of the text before one even begins to analyze it.

I don't give a hoot for commentaries or treatises authored by Arminius, Wesley, Finney, Calvin, Augustine or anyone else. Scripture only, please.

Once again, hiding behind the "Scripture only" trumpet blast rather than dealing with historical exegesis and "commentary." You were quick to discard these other theologians but not yourself, whom I included in that line. Why was this?

Why did you conveniently leave out my comments on the link you provided? It did not say what you posted that it said.

Time to remove the anti-Catholic and anti-Calvinist blinders and see things more clearly. I have removed mine and my anti-Arminian blinders.

 

[Epiphoskei]

I typically check my work against the work product of reputable translation committees, such as the Lockman Foundation, and others. Just did that again now. You mentioned the KJV and what you assert is a translation error. However, current versions say the same thing, and, interestingly enough, the Amplified Bible puts it this way:

You can, of course, insist that all of them--the NASB, the NIV, the KJV, the KJV2, the Amplified, etc., are wrong. But as far as how much weight to give your insistence, it should be compared with the work product and reviews, of the major translations. If you indeed believe that they all are wrong and made a translation error, then PLEASE contact the translation committees, present your evidence, and then do let us know the outcome. Incidentally, I assume you are conversant with the lead translator for the Lockman Foundation? He is a contributor to the B-Greek Digest. If you need his email addy, I can get it for you.

It's not wrong, it's antiquated, which causes it to be misunderstood. "So" means "in this way" often in English, but with far less regularity in newer texts.

Yes, Leviticus is a good source to study about atonement. Skipping a step? The Bible is the first step, for this student, and any other source is measured against the Bible.

If that were true, you couldn't read it. If you used your literacy or ability to understand the English language to understand the Bible, those are your first steps.

As for Leviticus, Yom Kippur was the day of atonement for the holy places, described in ch. 16 and 23. Ch. 1 through 6 describe the process of making an atonement for the individual sinner. As well, Leviticus and Numbers explain the purpose of the evening and morning daily sacrifice, to make atonement for the unknowing sins of the people. In reading what you posted here, it appears you may not understand the process. I do encourage you to study Leviticus first, in detail, then perhaps resume the discussion. I may start a thread about atonement, possibly. You seem to be an advocate of the theory of limited atonement, which puts quite a different meaning to the word and process, than the doctrine of general atonement.

How do you intend on removing "The priest shall make atonement for him and his sins will be forgiven" from the Bible over a dozen times?

Atonement covers up sins such that God does not count them towards the one who was covered. It is always efficacious.

 

[archierieus]

No, you scanned it, decided it did not jive with your personal theology, and discarded it out of hand as a "commentary." You have a convenient set of labels there to apply when you don't want to consider something that makes you feel uncomfortable.

How would you know all that? You are referring to motives and the like here. How would you know about someone else's motives? The fact is that commentary is commentary, regardless of who writes it. Commentary is not Scripture.

Where did you fine the complete text of Ad Simplicianum online? I am pretty sure it is not online in an English translation or the Latin.

I did find it this morning, actually, I recall several links to it. Another source would be the Post-Nicene Church Fathers, as well as Ante-Nicene, complete text online, I don't recall the website right now but it is a link on my other computer.

So instead rely on your own interpretation and create a doctrine that you are able to stomach?

Once again, you seem to be referring to someone else's motives. How would you know that is the intent? But as for interpretation of Scripture, the goal is to avoid any subjectivity, any commentary, anything beyond a precise understanding of Scripture as it reads, in the original language. There remains the issue of which manuscripts are most reliable, I tend to go with Nestle-Aland 27th ed, but certainly there are others. BTW the 'Received Text' is not one of the more reliable ones.

Also, I can guess that your are going to tell me something to the effect of looking at the original language and arriving at a "plain" reading. Well, the very act of translating the Bible or other documents is itself an interpretation of the text before one even begins to analyze it.

NT exegesis is a pretty advanced science, with recognized parameters, throughout the world community of students. And there is vigorous peer review, to help weed out potential bias and achieve objectivity. It is indeed a highly developed discipline.

Once again, hiding behind the "Scripture only" trumpet blast rather than dealing with historical exegesis

What you have referred to so far is not 'exegesis.'

and "commentary."

'Commentary' is not Scripture, is not inspired by God, hence is not reliable, except so far as it corresponds with Scripture.

You were quick to discard these other theologians but not yourself, whom I included in that line. Why was this?

Incorrect. Neither my views nor anyone else's views are reliable, Scripture is reliable, with commentary weeded out. Scripture and valid exegesis are accurate sources.

Why did you conveniently leave out my comments on the link you provided? It did not say what you posted that it said.

Please specify what you are referring to. I recall posting a link to an article about Augustine's theology and Aquinas. I recall asking you to comment on it. Please specify whatever beyond that you are referring to.

Time to remove the anti-Catholic and anti-Calvinist blinders and see things more clearly. I have removed mine and my anti-Arminian blinders.

Sounds like an assumption that such 'blinders' are on. Since you are referring to someone else, that is not something you would be in a position to know. Not blinders, but a blindfold should be on, looking at Scripture without regard to any preexisting agenda or doctrinal or philosophical slant.

 

[archierieus]

It's not wrong, it's antiquated,

Then you seem to be saying that the major versions which follow that are 'antiquated'? For example, the Amplified Bible is antiquated in Jn. 3:16?

If that were true, you couldn't read it. If you used your literacy or ability to understand the English language to understand the Bible, those are your first steps.

If you are referring to the meaning of words, of course word meanings in a particular book of the Bible are determined by studying each occurence of the word, in the various inflections, and looking for a consistent pattern of meaning--and studying the etymology and usage of the word from classical Greek going back to Homer and all the way down to the time of writing, then as used in the LXX, Intertestamental, early Christian literature, etc. A semantic range is developed, and understanding of the meaning is further refined. Actually, of great interest to me, at least, is going back earlier than Homer, all the way to Indo-European origins, but that is sometimes of limited utility.

How do you intend on removing "The priest shall make atonement for him and his sins will be forgiven" from the Bible over a dozen times?

No intention to do such a thing. But take a look at what the penitent sinner is to do in order for the priest to make atonement for him, in those chapters.

Atonement covers up sins such that God does not count them towards the one who was covered. It is always efficacious.

Provided the penitent complies with the conditions. Otherwise, we see the words repeated, there shall be no atonement for him or similar words.

 

[Tzaousios]

How would you know all that? You are referring to motives and the like here. How would you know about someone else's motives?

Excuse me for the "assumptions," but I have examined enough people's comments around here to predict what they will say. I am not clairvoyant, obviously, but pretty close to accurate predictions.

I did find it this morning, actually, I recall several links to it. Another source would be the Post-Nicene Church Fathers, as well as Ante-Nicene, complete text online, I don't recall the website right now but it is a link on my other computer.

I am almost certain that Ad Simplicianum is not in that collection at ccel.org/fathers, newadvent, or any other place that I have come across online. Please provide the link if you can find it and I will explain what I mean in all of this.

NT exegesis is a pretty advanced science, with recognized parameters, throughout the world community of students. And there is vigorous peer review, to help weed out potential bias and achieve objectivity. It is indeed a highly developed discipline.

It does not seem very advanced when it can pick and choose what counts as exegesis and what can be written off as mere commentary. I also do not understand how historical exegesis does not count or cannot be referenced. Does Augustine's doctrinal discussions with Jerome not count as "peer review?"

What you have referred to so far is not 'exegesis.'

Here I will employ one of your favorite tropes: "This does not constitute a legitimate source and is only your opinion," et al.

'Commentary' is not Scripture, is not inspired by God, hence is not reliable, except so far as it corresponds with Scripture.

Don't paint me into a heretical box. I never said that it was inspired by God as if it is equal with Scripture.

Incorrect. Neither my views nor anyone else's views are reliable, Scripture is reliable, with commentary weeded out. Scripture and valid exegesis are accurate sources.

Yes, one could argue that your interpretation of "plain Scripture" is uninspired and does not count, but I have not gone that far. I would not have posted that comment if I was not interested in people's thoughts, whether I agree or not.

Are you saying that all of the "exegesis" you have offered here are ex cathedra statements of unvarnished truth and present Scripture as it is supposed to be? If everyone had the ability to do this there would be no need to talk about it, defend, or apologize. As I mentioned before, the very act of reading, translating, and processing the text is an interpretation.

Please specify what you are referring to. I recall posting a link to an article about Augustine's theology and Aquinas. I recall asking you to comment on it. Please specify whatever beyond that you are referring to.

With reference to the article you posted, nothing beyond that particular instance. You did not respond to my comments on the link in the previous post. I was disagreeing with your analysis that the person who wrote it was accepting the later Augustine as Catholic dogma.

Sounds like an assumption that such 'blinders' are on. Since you are referring to someone else, that is not something you would be in a position to know.

How so? A majority of your work at CF is centered around sparring with Calvinists and apologizing against their interpretations. Yes, you adopt a more civil tone than that of the emotionalized, hysterical Calvinist-haters. But the interpretation that you offer most of the time appears to be the standard evangelical, Arminian-tinged (minus eternal insecurity) one that tends to explain away the more difficult concepts in Paul's writings.

 

[archierieus]

Excuse me for the "assumptions," but I have examined enough people's comments around here to predict what they will say. I am not clairvoyant, obviously, but pretty close to accurate predictions.

However, what you posted, and what I responded to, directly addressed someone else's intentions and motives (in this case mine) that is something you would have no way of knowing, and no right to judge. the work product is certainly amenable to evaluation, but not the motives.

I am almost certain that Ad Simplicianum is not in that collection at ccel.org/fathers, newadvent, or any other place that I have come across online. Please provide the link if you can find it and I will explain what I mean in all of this.

I will see if I can look it up in the morning.

It does not seem very advanced when it can pick and choose what counts as exegesis and what can be written off as mere commentary.

It is not an issue of 'pick and choose.' NT exegesis is a recognized science. If you do not understand the distinction, let me provide you with a link to an online digest which expressly deals with NT Greek exegesis. It is the b-greek digest, and here is the link:

The Biblical Greek Mailing List (B-Greek)

Check it out and see what the discussion topics address. If you like, post a query there about Augustine's works, as for it being NT Greek exegesis. See what they have to say, and do let us know.

I also do not understand how historical exegesis does not count or cannot be referenced.

Are you referring to neo-patristic exegesis, historical-grammatical exegesis, historical-critical exegesis, or which other type of historical exegesis?

Does Augustine's doctrinal discussions with Jerome not count as "peer review?"

'Peer review' would refer to the published work product of a NT student in something like the B-Greek digest--something on that level or better. The B-Greek list certainly is informal, but a handy tool. I have posted there in the past, and received some excellent feedback from distinguished NT scholars. Robust peer review would object to any commentary or subjective content in an exegesis, and anything not directly supported by the textual evidence.

Here I will employ one of your favorite tropes: "This does not constitute a legitimate source and is only your opinion," et al.

Very well, then look for defiinitions of NT Greek exegesis if you like.

Yes, one could argue that your interpretation of "plain Scripture" is uninspired and does not count, but I have not gone that far.

Nothing I post is inspired. Only Scripture is inspired. The goal is achieving an accurate understanding of inspired Scripture as it reads.

Are you saying that all of the "exegesis" you have offered here are ex cathedra statements of unvarnished truth and present Scripture as it is supposed to be?

No such statement or inference has been made. If anything is posted by anyone, then by all means it should be examined, critiqued and picked apart on the basis of Scripture. I do not have a problem with that, in fact would expect it, and of course will do that myself.

As I mentioned before, the very act of reading, translating, and processing the text is an interpretation.

Identifying the data is not interpretation. Interpreting the data is what would ordinarily be published for peer review and discussion.

How so? A majority of your work at CF is centered around sparring with Calvinists and apologizing against their interpretations. Yes, you adopt a more civil tone than that of the emotionalized, hysterical Calvinist-haters. But the interpretation that you offer most of the time appears to be the standard evangelical, Arminian-tinged (minus eternal insecurity) one that tends to explain away the more difficult concepts in Paul's writings.

My interest is in accuracy. If I find inaccurate treatment of Scripture, or philosophical ideas and rationalizations mingled with Scripture, I will most definitely point it out. The issue is accuracy. If you or anyone else finds ANY Scriptural inaccuracy in anything I post, I want to be the first to know. Please show me from Scripture where it is inaccurate. Any such post will be carefully examined in the light of Scripture and the original language. And I very definitely will do so in regard to what others post.

 

[PT Calvinist]

Scripture and valid exegesis are accurate sources.

Scripture is silent on plenty of issues...what then? Isn't Valid Exegesis labeled by opinion?