Featured What is the Righteousness of God?

While I have never thought this passage a proof text against depravity, you have made a very good point. The subject of the passage is not people who are prevented from entering the kingdom (they are entering it) but instead it is those who would prevent people from entering. Jesus is dealing with the sin of the Pharisee, not the salvation of those they shut out. This shows how easily it is to misapply or misinterpret Scripture when we are searching for support of a specific agenda. I do have my own issues with Calvinism (with some versions more than others), but it is asinine to assume that the Calvinistic leaning of one’s theology determines whether or not it can be defended biblically.

 

I agree with you in principle. One of many ways people attempt to nullify Scripture is ignoring the context in order to support their agenda. I think more often than not, however, it is a matter of misinterpretation as they unintentionally bend scripture to their understanding. Here is the verse in its context:

The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. But the greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted. But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves....

 

Please re-read my post. I am not advocating Calvinism. I am saying that they are just as (perhaps more so ...maybe not) "biblical" as you. Interpretation is different and obviously at least one side is wrong (I suspect both to an extent). Also, in all fairness, you are misrepresenting or misunderstanding Calvinism as a whole to be the position (at best) that some Calvinists hold. Maybe it would be better to stick to the OP. It was/is a much more interesting topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

My apologies. I’ll rephrase the statement: Your reply to my post is flawed in that it fails to address its actual content.

It is "biblical" in that it is derived from Scripture (look up the definition of "biblical").

There are aspects to your position that are based strictly on your own interpretation. Some do not appear necessarily orthodox (your position is not necessarily a majority interpretation). If I were to use "biblical" in that sense, then it is a meaningless term. Your previous explanation of the first of the "eight woes" illustrates interpretation over Scripture on your part, so you are on very weak ground here.

The problem is that Calvinism does not conflict with Scripture, but with your interpretation of Scripture. You are elevating your understanding to the level of Scripture.

What is interesting is that when one studies the view of Scripture (the worldview of Israel and through the early church), one can't help but realize that they do not separate the actions of a person from what they believe/who they are. I wonder if this is a uniquely western thing. Anyway, I'll rephrase. Defining TULIP as "Calvinism" represents error and excludes what was at one time a majority of Calvinists. Narrowing down TULIP to your own definition decreases the Calvinists of whom your comments address as representative of the whole. It is better to simply deal with doctrine (which you started out doing, BTW, very well).

Yes, it is.

 

Van,
The reason that I suggested you revisit my post was precisely because your comments were not engaging what I had written. This is what I actually wrote:

I mean it to go both ways (the crux of truth is not how it measures up to or against Calvinism). You have taken my comment severely out of context. As I am not a Calvinist, I am not interested in defending Calvinism, and I fear that this is the corner into which you are trying to back me into.

I somehow miss the relevance here, but that is fine. You seem quite articulate and I assumed that you did not come up with your views in a vacuum.

You did, but you did so out of context and may not have realized the broader text in Matthew 23.

First, I don’t know that grandstanding is necessary as anyone who wants to follow this thread has the ability. While I find it disrespectful in discussion, I also don’t wear my feelings on my sleeve and am pointing this out in case it is something of which you are doing unaware. You can lose the “note folks, that….” and simply converse. Second, I do not think your view is asinine (unless you are insisting that your understanding IS Scripture…which actually seems may be the case here).

:laugh: Nonsense - even though we disagree I appreciate your view and your comments. You often bring up some very good points, and it is only in a minority of things where we disagree. No animosity from me.

 

See where you say "and therefore"? That's where you stop being biblical (per your definition) and start being Van. I'm sure whatever "folks" you are addressing can see this (if they have at least an elementary reading comprehension). More scripture, less Van and you'll be fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

This is such a strange conversation, Van.....I don't recall the quarks in our past encounters, but whatever. The only thing I find odd about your behavior is the way you address a fictional audience (the "folks") throughout our dialogue. Everything I have discussed concerns your positions. Nothing (except maybe your habit of addressing the "folks") addresses your behavior. I do not know you and can only deal with your positions as you present them here. But I will add that I don't believe we can separate our beliefs from ourselves so easily (another topic).

No one has spoken of a man entering Heaven (not even the Scripture you paraphrase in your eisegesis). What was being discussed was the Kingdom, but I get your point. To address your observation, I neither agreed nor disagreed about how the man entered the Kingdom. This was because (as I already pointed out) you are taking the passage far out of context and imposing a conclusion about the ones entering the Kingdom that don't exist. But if it helps - of course a man does not enter the Kingdom on his own accord without the Holy Spirit's work. A man enters the Kingdom of his own accord with the work of the Spirit. I don't even know how this is questionable given that we have Scripture, but I'm not really shocked that it is.