Hermeneutics: Interpreting Scripture

[GWH]

I'm suggesting an actual adherent is not needed. There are plenty of them who have written and posted on the internet where the pejorative is not included. It's ultimately all about interpretation of long identified Scriptures. If you want to do your Thesis, Anthesis process, just post the Thesis (from a pro-TULIP article and or the Anthesis and provide the Synthesis and maybe others will try to keep you honest and objective. If you want to change a Calvinist, or someone that says they came to their own conclusions as did Calvin, good luck.

Another request that I've made before: Please post all verse references in a way they'll get picked up by the system for the link to the written verse. Postings such as "v.25" will not work. Thanks.

Yes, I should have said that a congenial TULIPist is preferred rather than needed.
Remember that the T-A-S process is equivalent to SwS and both = harmonization in the vein of 1Thes. 5:21,
and per that verse the goal is not to change a Calvinist or an Arminian but rather to harmonize whatever is true in both.
Oh yeah re v.25.

 

[studier]

The greatest and first of all is this: that Jesus Christ is Savior. Given that the Bible makes abundantly clear He is, there should be no dispute or disagreement about that regardless of respective philosophies.

The problem with this is, certainly there is consensus on the statement itself (I'd add that God the Father is also Savior). But from here it becomes loaded with interpretive theory that man's choice to believe is works as is inferred in your post and in the theory of election itself.

Then this theory backtracks and concludes anyone who thinks men have the ability to and do make a decision to believe in Christ as Savior are not truly believing in Him as Savior but in themselves as saviors.

The problem is in election interpretation and in disagreements re: TULIP.

I think what @GWH is attempting to do by means of harmonizing/synthesizing techniques (begun long ago) is to look at the Scriptures from different viewpoints and see how they might synthesize into a better understanding by both viewpoints. This is simply taking perceived contradictions and paradoxes in Scripture and attempting to find any truth in either viewpoint that leads to a better or higher understanding of Truth.

 

[GWH]

Oh, I most definitely know what I believe regarding election - no question about that - and it is that I believe it 110 percent true and correct - I simply cannot see how grace unto salvation would be possible without it because salvation would then have to
be by works as that is all that would remain, and no one can be saved by their works regardless of how slight they might be; that is, grace demands election, and election demands grace.
Salvation can only come as a free gift, fully and completely, from a merciful and gracious God through Jesus Christ with no prerequisites demanded other than those who receive it were chosen (elected) for it by God outside of their actions.
Anything that is deemed necessary to be added by man over and above that, is to say that Christ's offering/sacrifice was insufficient to satisfy the Father's requirements to bring salvation to fruition, which we know could not be possible.

I would like to make a suggestion if I might: It seems the thread's analysis is proceeding biblically bottom-up for the most part - at least as far as I've observed so far. I think by using that approach, it will be almost impossible to come to a consensus between the different camps because there are so many different interpretations that can be applied depending upon perspective.
My suggestion is to instead approach it top-down, with the great doctrines discussed first, then proceeding to the more detail and supportive ones if necessary. The greatest and first of all is this: that Jesus Christ is Savior. Given that the Bible makes abundantly clear He is, there should be no dispute or disagreement about that regardless of respective philosophies. The question that then that should be addressed and worked out is what does it mean in the gospel sense, that He is? Once agreement is reached on that, the lower lever issues, will tend to fall into place behind it on their own for the most part. Otherwise, trying to come to a consensus will be like trying to push a thread or herd cats.

The issue is not whether the doctrine of election is true or not, but rather what is the best understanding of the teaching in GW regarding that topic.

I would prefer to wait until later to discuss what you said next, but at this point may I point out that faith is not a work,
but rather it is accepting the free grace/gift of salvation, and the problematic part is explaining how God can force some
to be saved without showing them favoritism over those He denied such determination.

Regarding your suggestion, I completely agree and I am chagrined that you apparently are unaware that
my Kerygma thread is devoted to doing what you suggested. My concern is both spiritual and doctrinal harmony/unity.

I think consensus can be achieved among those whose hearts are not calloused.
If you know any congenial TULIPists on CC, please invite them to participate in this systematic Bible study (SBS).

At this point (after perusing the Kerygma thread or lesson on our website: <truthseekersfellowship.com>) are you on board
with discussing the online description of TULIP as studier suggested? What I found is this:

T – total depravity, meaning souls are unable to exercise sufficient moral free will (MFW) to seek salvation. Scriptures cited as support for this view include Mark 7:21-23, Rom. 6:20 & 1Cor. 2:14.

U – unconditional election, meaning that souls need not satisfy a divine requirement such as faith or repentance, but God chooses to save some while damning the rest to hell.

L – limited atonement, meaning that Christ died to pay the penalty of sin only for elect souls. This requires rejecting Scriptures supporting God’s love for all humanity (such as John 3:16, 1Tim. 2:3-4, Acts 2:21 and 1John 2:2) in favor of those saying “many” (Matt. 20:28, Heb. 9:28).

I – irresistible grace, meaning that elect souls cannot resist or refuse God’s will for them to be saved. Scriptures cited include Rom. 9:16, Phil. 2:12-13, and John 6:28-29.

P – perseverance of the saints, meaning that the elect cannot repudiate their salvation and commit apostasy, because God perseveres in keeping them saved. Scriptures cited include John 10:27-28, Rom. 8:1, 1Cor. 10:13 & Phil. 1:6.

Over....

 

[studier]

Yes, I should have said that a congenial TULIPist is preferred rather than needed.
Remember that the T-A-S process is equivalent to SwS and both = harmonization in the vein of 1Thes. 5:21,
and per that verse the goal is not to change a Calvinist or an Arminian but rather to harmonize whatever is true in both.
Oh yeah re v.25.

The way I read the process, both should be changed to a higher understanding.

 

[studier]

At this point (after perusing the Kerygma thread or lesson on our website: <truthseekersfellowship.com> are you on board
with discussing the online description of TULIP as studier suggested? What I found is this:

T – total depravity, meaning souls are unable to exercise sufficient moral free will (MFW) to seek salvation. Scriptures cited as support for this view include Mark 7:21-23, Rom. 6:20 & 1Cor. 2:14.

U – unconditional election, meaning that souls need not satisfy a divine requirement such as faith or repentance, but God chooses to save some while damning the rest to hell.

L – limited atonement, meaning that Christ died to pay the penalty of sin only for elect souls. This requires rejecting Scriptures supporting God’s love for all humanity (such as John 3:16, 1Tim. 2:3-4, Acts 2:21 and 1John 2:2) in favor of those saying “many” (Matt. 20:28, Heb. 9:28).

I – irresistible grace, meaning that elect souls cannot resist or refuse God’s will for them to be saved. Scriptures cited include Rom. 9:16, Phil. 2:12-13, and John 6:28-29.

P – perseverance of the saints, meaning that the elect cannot repudiate their salvation and commit apostasy, because God perseveres in keeping them saved. Scriptures cited include John 10:27-28, Rom. 8:1, 1Cor. 10:13 & Phil. 1:6.

It depends upon how hard one wants to work on this: See here for example

 

[studier]

@GWH I'm just redoing your post to fix verse references in hopes they'll work:

I just reviewed MT as follows:

Matt. 11:27 sounds pro-T, but it is antidoted by Matt. 11:28.
Matt. 13:13-14 / Isa. 6:9-10 is cited by the Ts, but Matt. 13:15 indicates that God should not be blamed for callous hearts.
Matt. 16:17 sounds like a T possibility, but then Jesus rebukes Peter in Matt. 16:23.
Matt. 16:27 is akin to Rom. 2:6-11, which emphasizes that God does not show favoritism, to the Ts don't cite that one.
Matt. 23:37 is one of the clearest pro-MFW verses in the NT, and it is likely the other synoptics do not differ from MT,
so the seminal verse comparable to Rom. 9:10-24 & 1Cor. 2:14 might more likely be in John.

@GWH I note that so far the only links that work on this repost are the ones I fixed. Odd system.

 

[rogerg]

but at this point may I point out that faith is not a work,

Faith is a work. Anything that we must contribute to our salvation, anything, makes it a work simply because it would be ours to contribute - only by God's work can it be imbued it within someone. Not only would it be a work, but if a prerequisite to becoming saved, a law, but no one can be saved by their keeping of law. Besides, I do not believe we are saved by our faith but by Christ's faith freely imputed unto those whom He saves - He being the Savior, not us. Our faith accompanies salvation but is not its cause.

[Jhn 6:29 KJV] 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

[Phl 1:29 KJV] 29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

 

[studier]

So, @GWH a discussion mainly on T?

Thesis: Faith is a work - a work of God not a work of man

Thesis: [God] gives to man to believe on Christ.

 

[rogerg]

The problem with this is, certainly there is consensus on the statement itself (I'd add that God the Father is also Savior). But from here it becomes loaded with interpretive theory that man's choice to believe is works as is inferred in your post and in the theory of election itself.

Then this theory backtracks and concludes anyone who thinks men have the ability to and do make a decision to believe in Christ as Savior are not truly believing in Him as Savior but in themselves as saviors.

The problem is in election interpretation and in disagreements re: TULIP.

I think what @GWH is attempting to do by means of harmonizing/synthesizing techniques (begun long ago) is to look at the Scriptures from different viewpoints and see how they might synthesize into a better understanding by both viewpoints. This is simply taking perceived contradictions and paradoxes in Scripture and attempting to find any truth in either viewpoint that leads to a better or higher understanding of Truth.

The question then that needs definition, resolution, and clarification is: what is a Savior, and what must He do as the Savior to be the Savior? I do not think that the concept of a Savior should not be synthesized for a better understanding, as what the Savior is, is a non-negotiable point of departure regarding the doctrine of salvation. The Savior, in order to save, cannot save just save a little or somewhat - He either fully is and fully saves, or He isn't and doesn't - no middle ground there. So, the question then to be answered is: which one is He?

 

[rogerg]

I do not think that the concept of a Savior should not be synthesized for a better understanding

@studier
@GWH
I misstated the above. It should have instead read "I do not think the concept of a Savior can be synthesized for a better understanding".
Sorry for any confusion.

 

[studier]

The question then that needs definition, resolution, and clarification is: what is a Savior, and what must He do as the Savior to be the Savior? I do not think that the concept of a Savior should not be synthesized for a better understanding, as what the Savior is, is a non-negotiable point of departure regarding the doctrine of salvation. The Savior, in order to save, cannot save just save a little or somewhat - He either fully is and fully saves, or He isn't and doesn't - no middle ground there. So, the question then to be answered is: which one is He?

A Savior is someone who saves.

A Savior does whatever He needs to do to save.

From here we get into interpretations of what man needs God to do for him and what God has left man able to do in response to God and we're right back to asking TULIP to define what a Savior is as I previously addressed.

And we're right back at minimum to the Thesis I posted above in response to your post about Faith. So, the best approach in this is not these theoretical-based narratives but looking at Scriptures and dealing with them as @GWH is proposing.

The thinking that there is no middle ground negates man's ability to be informed by and to respond to God. So, this statement is an assertion based upon a foundational presupposition(s) that's contained in and evidenced by the Thesis you put forth about Faith, which BTW, has some interesting content for your side, which as I understand him, @GWH is attempting to draw out. Then comes the Antithesis to see if it takes us to Synthesis - better understanding - to clear up some seeming contradictions in the Text, which is part of what this Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis/Harmonization concept is all about.

 

[studier]

@rogerg

Sorry I didn't alert you on #508.

cc @GWH

 

[rogerg]

A Savior is someone who saves.

A Savior does whatever He needs to do to save.

From here we get into interpretations of what man needs God to do for him and what God has left man able to do in response to God and we're right back to asking TULIP to define what a Savior is as I previously addressed.

But the third sentence contradicts the first two: if the Savior saves, then there is nothing remaining for those saved to do to become saved as it has already occurred. All of man actions therefore are after, and from, salvation, so salvation cannot be dependent upon man in any way. Now, those who are saved, by having become saved, do manifest changes within themselves but that is from that salvation, not its cause.

 

[rogerg]

The thinking that there is no middle ground negates man's ability to be informed by and to respond to God. So, this statement is an assertion based upon a foundational presupposition(s) that's contained in and evidenced by the Thesis you put forth about Faith, which BTW, has some interesting content for your side, which as I understand him, @GWH is attempting to draw out. Then comes the Antithesis to see if it takes us to Synthesis - better understanding - to clear up some seeming contradictions in the Text, which is part of what this Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis/Harmonization concept is all about.

A response to God by man comes as a result of salvation, not as a demand by God to contribute to the process, otherwise, Christ wouldn't be a Savior who fully is the Savior.

 

[studier]

But the third sentence contradicts the first two: if the Savior saves, then there is nothing remaining for those saved to do to become saved as it has already occurred. All of man actions therefore are after, and from, salvation, so salvation cannot be dependent upon man in any way. Now, those who are saved, by having become saved, do manifest changes within themselves but that is from that salvation, not its cause.

But again, a Savior is someone who saves and does whatever He needs to do to save. The disagreement and seeming contradiction come about when we discuss what He needs to do to save. Your Faith Thesis is a pertinent discussion.

 

[studier]

A response to God by man comes as a result of salvation, not as a demand by God to contribute to the process, otherwise, Christ wouldn't be a Savior who fully is the Savior.

This is interpretive theory with no Scripture posted. Again, your Faith Thesis is applicable.

 

[rogerg]

This is interpretive theory with no Scripture posted. Again, your Faith Thesis is applicable.

I'm a little confused, didn't you agree that it is the Savior who saves?

Anyway, these verses might help to clarify/reinforce. In 3:5, we are told salvation is by nothing that we may do or can contribute - that salvation is solely from/by His mercy.

[Tit 3:5-7 KJV]
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

 

[GWH]

It depends upon how hard one wants to work on this: See here for example

I see in the example some relevant Scriptures but several that do not have to do with the disputed points so we can use it as a reference but what I found seems more succinct.

 

[studier]

I'm a little confused, didn't you agree that it is the Savior who saves?

Anyway, these verses might help to clarify/reinforce. In 3:5, we are told salvation is by nothing that we may do or can contribute - that salvation is solely from/by His mercy.

[Tit 3:5-7 KJV]
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

The discussion about the Savior has not yet gotten to the point of precisely what the Savior needs to do for man. The discussion would include things such as giving him Faith which is the yet unanswered Thesis you in essence put forth and I'm leaving for the awol @GWH to address with an Antithesis.

Titus3:5 doesn't say that there is nothing we may do or can contribute. It says we don't do "works of righteousness" which is not defined in these few verses. And these verses do not say we cannot believe the Gospel.

Although we can see where Faith might be inserted here in Titus3:7 because this is Paul who also wrote Eph2:8, these verses do not specifically mention Faith until Titus3:8 in close context.

So., we're right back to discussing your Faith Thesis.

 

[GWH]

Faith is a work. Anything that we must contribute to our salvation, anything, makes it a work simply because it would be ours to contribute - only by God's work can it be imbued it within someone. Not only would it be a work, but if a prerequisite to becoming saved, a law, but no one can be saved by their keeping of law. Besides, I do not believe we are saved by our faith but by Christ's faith freely imputed unto those whom He saves - He being the Savior, not us. Our faith accompanies salvation but is not its cause.

[Jhn 6:29 KJV] 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

[Phl 1:29 KJV] 29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

First our agreement: we are saved by God’s grace through faith which should NOT be viewed as a work or law. More later because I am traveling.