ARCHIVE: Romans 8 and the Open View

geoff

geoff

New member
DRD,

Did they send the draft letters to a group of (nameless) people randomly hoping that they might just get one that was 18-25?

Because thats what you're saying.

God just randomly knocks on peoples doors hoping that the person there might be one of those who is savable..

lol

God, like the army, knows the name, address, and phone number of all those He is going to draft - John 6:64, Rom 8:28-32.
Foreknown - means KNOWN BEFOREHAND - not 'unknown until after they have been selected'.

BTW, you dont volunteer for salvation... read the verses again. NO ONE comes to the Father except that He is given to Christ... and Christ knows 'who' they are... not that there is a group... he knows 'who', personal, persons.. He also knows who will not believe.

How easy you forget Scripture when your personal philosophical convictions get in the way.

Arminian,
John gives intent to Nicodemus. Dont presume to know what 'real' intention Nicodemus had, I doubt John even knew that. John uses the meeting in a certain way, to reveal Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God, in order that we (and Nicodemus) might believe and have eternal life. He does it by having Nicodemus (a ruler of the Jews, high up in their council (read in the Temple System) approach Jesus after Jesus just cleansed the Temple, as if what they were doing was 'wrong'. Do You see?

Jesus reveals himself as a man sent by God, by signs and wonders, then goes into the Temple and smashes it up, effectively calls them sinners and blasphemers, and THEN the one of the leaders of the Temple (who recognises Jesus has come from God) approaches Him... do you think He would do this and it has NOTHING to do with whats gone on in the Temple? The mode of discussion has Nicodemus REPRESENTING the Cultic leaders... its more than just a discussion about salvation... its about Jesus authority to say the Temple system is defunct and smash the place up. And this, Nicodemus has no answer for.
 
1013

1013

Post Modern Fundamentalist
the point is, the decision to draft thus choosing Americas youth to fight in the war and the figuering out which individuals would do it were handled seperately. There is no need to know the individuals the moment the group is choosen. that can be handled later and by different means. congress approved the draft by a vote of majority. Congress did not approve every single soldier. the draft board did. The draft board figuered out which individuals were to go to war by means of figuering specifically who was born on what date. that the individuals didn't have a choice is beyond the purposes of the analogy.

the choosing of the group was handled via different means than the choosing of the individuals.
 
Last edited:
Arminian

Arminian

New member
geoff,

John gives intent to Nicodemus.
Click to expand...

The intent is found in the words Nic used and not in the words he did not use. Those are the words I referred to. Nothing about the temple was mentioned.

Dont presume to know what 'real' intention Nicodemus had,
Click to expand...

You're the one who brought up the idea that he was being sneaky and had other intentions. I merey repeated what Nic said and what Jesus said. These "other intentions" are what you used to prove your point. But the words aren't there.

John uses the meeting in a certain way, to reveal Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God, in order that we (and Nicodemus) might believe and have eternal life.
Click to expand...

Right.

He does it by having Nicodemus (a ruler of the Jews, high up in their council (read in the Temple System) approach Jesus after Jesus just cleansed the Temple, as if what they were doing was 'wrong'. Do You see?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you're presuming to know what the 'real' intention of Nic was, and you're asking me not to do the same thing. There isn't a hint that Nic was talking to him for that reason. I refuse to 'read' into the narrative ideas that contradict the clear meaning of the text.
 
Last edited:
geoff

geoff

New member
The point I am trying to make, old chap, is that ANY meaning to the words of Nicodemus is given by the CONTEXT John uses them, and the context is in the light of Jesus actions in the Temple.

If it isnt, please explain how they are unrelated, and proof therewith that John has ceased/finished his story about the Temple cleansing and that this is an unrelated and NEW event.

None of the scholars I have read (and thats quite a few now) have been prepared to do that... and most commit to some sort of continuance.

I eagerly await your refutation (I can recommend Morris, Schnackenberg (sp?), Ridderbos, brown, and Beasley-Murray (word commentary) as a starter (several different theological view points there).
 
Arminian

Arminian

New member
Hi geoff,

I'll look at a few commentaries (limit of 6) to see what they have to say and then I'll reply to your post above. I also want to look at the Greek because there's something interesting going on here in my English translation.

Off I go....!

Later,
 
J

Jaltus

New member
I also recommend Carson and Bruce. You spelled Schnackenburg correctly, I believe. Skip Morris. He is, in my opinion, annoying. you may also want to look at Bultman and Culpepper.
 
Arminian

Arminian

New member
geoff,

I've just finished Ridderbos. There's no mention of sinister intent or interest in the temple cleansing. In fact H. R. sees the passage as a "departure" and a "transition" from the previous context which turns to the issue of the "deficiency of faith" of the "many." You'll find this on page 122, but I read about 10 or 15 pages.

The search continues......
 
Last edited:
geoff

geoff

New member
yep,

I didnt agree with Ridderbos on that point <VBEG>
(I got a good mark for it in my exam too lol)
 
Arminian

Arminian

New member
Witherington sides with me in John's Wisdom. Tenny and Carson are hiding under a pile of papers around here, I beleive. The search continues.....
 
geoff

geoff

New member
Arminian,

You will find most of them say there is a 'possible' connection, and a few say there is none (like ridderbos). However, I have not read a really convincing argument as to why we should assume there is no connection. It would be a big Flaw in Johns otherwise good writing style.
 
Arminian

Arminian

New member
Tenny agrees with me on page 47 of the Expositor's Bible Commentary. He says nothing about the temple cleansing. He even goes so far as to describe Nic as "interested," "sensitive" and "open-minded." Tenny says his interest was prompted by the miracles.

Carson is never in his office when he's supposed to be. Now where's his book hiding??? Off I go....!
 
Last edited:
Arminian

Arminian

New member
geoff,

You will find most of them say there is a 'possible' connection,
Click to expand...

I haven't seen those words yet. Perhaps I'm missing them. I haven't seen your description of Nic, either. The search continues....
 
Arminian

Arminian

New member
No help from Hans Frei's The Eclipse of the Biblical Narrative. But that should come as no surprise since the book isn't about John's Gospel and Frei doesn't quote Scripture in that book. hehehe.
 
geoff

geoff

New member
hehe

You are a crazy man..

Once you have read the commentaries... read the passage and reflect on what I said :)

Maybe I will put up the sermon i preached on it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top