tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post2785715672617550843..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Sovereign grace in ProverbsPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger75125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-31700010099979458462008-07-02T15:48:00.000-07:002008-07-02T15:48:00.000-07:00Johnny D.I did not see your comment that way at al...Johnny D.<BR/><BR/>I did not see your comment that way at all, so no worries. <BR/><BR/>Please also know that I really wasn't trying to light a match. I always want to hear from people with different views than me, it will I strengthen mine own or cause me to reconsider what I think. <BR/><BR/>Praise be to GodMitchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02362366468793301910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-74230609145937172952008-07-02T15:34:00.000-07:002008-07-02T15:34:00.000-07:00Oh, and just to "be clear" (!) my recommendation t...Oh, and just to "be clear" (!) my recommendation to read a good book was not meant snootily (as in, "Try reading a book sometime, pal") but as, Read a book instead of my feeble commentary. As I reviewed the comment, I could see it could be taken the first way, and that was not my intent.<BR/><BR/>Thanks to you, too, Mitch. And Dan, for starting it. Lighting the match, in true Pyro fashion.James Scott Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07641370124346172648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-33684928639352255822008-07-02T15:13:00.000-07:002008-07-02T15:13:00.000-07:00This dim lit brain of mine sees that you disagree ...This dim lit brain of mine sees that you disagree with the last two sentences of Dan’s post which read-<BR/><BR/><I>The doctrine of sovereign grace is called Reformed, or Calvinistic. But Calvin and the Reformers got it from the Bible — all of it.</I><BR/><BR/>Not sure why you disagree with the first sentence, but easy to understand why you disagree with the second:)<BR/><BR/>You also do not agree with the “exception to the context rule” that Dan stated. This is all I’ve been able to glean from your comments thus far. <BR/><BR/>It still does not answer how the verse is not monergistic? Seeing as the last two sentences of the post are not applicable to the meaning of the verse and I fail to see how even in context this verse is not viewed monergisticly. I do appreciate the recommendation of reading a good book, Lord knows I need to read good books. I also thank you for your time and trying to teach me something new.<BR/><BR/>God blessMitchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02362366468793301910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-90266625977415872282008-07-02T14:53:00.000-07:002008-07-02T14:53:00.000-07:00As I said, I can't be any clearer -- which may be ...As I said, I can't be any clearer -- which may be my bad (see? No Pelagianism here!) But I think if you'll read all my comments thus far, in order, and ponder them, you'll see the simple points I'm trying to make. <BR/><BR/>Or, you can go enjoy a good book. <BR/><BR/>I recommend the latter.James Scott Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07641370124346172648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-79603418615083544182008-07-02T14:46:00.000-07:002008-07-02T14:46:00.000-07:00Johnny Dialectic,Sorry for the confusion, I though...Johnny Dialectic,<BR/><BR/>Sorry for the confusion, I thought that you did not agree with Dan’s exegesis. Since you do, how is this verse not monergistic? Dan’s interpretive paraphrase-<BR/><BR/><B>The ear that hears, listens and obeys; and the eye that perceives God’s truth – Are not even both of them direct acts of Yahweh?</B><BR/><BR/>I’m struggling to see how this is not monergistic, perhaps you could shed a little more light to this dim lit brain of mine.Mitchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02362366468793301910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-16368162833890914192008-07-02T14:37:00.000-07:002008-07-02T14:37:00.000-07:00JD: You're not accusing anyone of eyes-egesis, are...JD: You're not accusing anyone of <B><I>eyes</B></I>-egesis, are you?<BR/><BR/>Dan: Point taken. And I agree with your point.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-70768728102849605382008-07-02T14:30:00.000-07:002008-07-02T14:30:00.000-07:00It's really not that complicated, but people are n...It's really not that complicated, but people are now eise-smimming. I already said I agree with Dan's exegesis of the text. What Dan said about "eyes" and "ears" is not controversial at all. It's rather obvious this is not mere physicality here.<BR/><BR/>It's trying to stuff the verse into a Calvinist hole that is an added jump that just doesn't work (we've moved from exegesis to theological pegging now). Proverbs itself and the OT won't allow that. You can believe in monergistic soteriology if you like, but this verse doesn't help the case. There are others that do.<BR/><BR/>That's all. I don't think I can't be any clearer. So...he who has ears to hear, let him hear.<BR/><BR/>(sorry...a little...)James Scott Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07641370124346172648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-35447820565164213412008-07-02T14:03:00.000-07:002008-07-02T14:03:00.000-07:00Believing that men must respond believingly and ob...Believing that men must respond believingly and obediently is not a dividing-point between Arminianism and Calvinism.<BR/><BR/>The dividing-point is the answer to the question: how to dead, blind, God-hating, useless, helpless people manage to do that?<BR/><BR/>Or, put in terms of this verse: both believe man must "see" and "hear." But how do the deaf and blind manage it?<BR/><BR/>This verse answers THAT question.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-11485127527956530592008-07-02T13:59:00.000-07:002008-07-02T13:59:00.000-07:00Stefan,No worries, I thought somehow I wrote or im...Stefan,<BR/><BR/>No worries, I thought somehow I wrote or implied that our sanctification was like auto pilot. I am trying to square Johnny Dialectic’s premise with this particular Proverb and still can’t see it. I was hoping to get some further clarification from him about 20:12 and how it fits with “premise of choice” or the “if you do x, you will get y”. <BR/><BR/>I guess in the end Dan said it best when he wrote <I>I’m still waiting for someone to tell us more about the text, as I’ve tried to do.</I> It seemed that Johnny Dialectic would be ideal for this since it appears that he does not agree with Dan’s exegesis. <BR/><BR/>Anyways, sorry if I played any part in the confusion.Mitchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02362366468793301910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-10639883282510126512008-07-02T13:45:00.000-07:002008-07-02T13:45:00.000-07:00Sorry, Mitch, I should have been clearer. In one ...Sorry, Mitch, I should have been clearer. In one of your comments, you were questioning Johnny Dialectic, when he wrote:<BR/><BR/>"It is suffused with the premise of choice. As is the entire OT."<BR/><BR/>Since he's writing it from an Arminian point of view—meaning that we choose even whether to be saved or not—I disagree with it as well. But since I had brought up the question of "choice" (regarding obedience to God) in one of my own comments, I thought I should clearly enunciate where I myself stand on this.<BR/><BR/>I know, I was belabouring a patently obvious point. But duh, sometimes one can't see the nose in front of one's own face (or whatever the expression is—I'm referring to myself here).Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-79553383212034339112008-07-02T13:08:00.000-07:002008-07-02T13:08:00.000-07:00Stefan,Thank you for your input; I am a bit perple...Stefan,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your input; I am a bit perplexed though. Where have I said or implied that believers “automatically obey and please God”? All I wanted was more information on why JD disagreed with Dan’s exegesis, nothing more. If I said or even implied that we do absolutely nothing in our sanctification then please forgive me, for that is not what I believe.Mitchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02362366468793301910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-54699958866872293372008-07-02T13:03:00.000-07:002008-07-02T13:03:00.000-07:00"Mongergism" in the first paragraph should, of cou..."Mongergism" in the first paragraph should, of course, be "Monergism." That's why merely "smimming" over one's own writing is never a good idea.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-56516413511327000432008-07-02T13:01:00.000-07:002008-07-02T13:01:00.000-07:00Johnny Dialectic: The call to obey, etc., does not...Johnny Dialectic: The call to obey, etc., does not contradict mongergism. Non-believers cannot obey God, they cannot please Him. Monergistically regenerated believers can, but they must still choose to do so.<BR/><BR/>Mitch: Just because we have ears to hear and eyes to see doesn't necessarily mean that we will hear and see in the way God calls us (believers) to do so. If we automatically obeyed and pleased God, why then would every book in the Bible—possibly without a single exception—at some point implore the audience to lead godly lives, to walk in the ways of God, to take up Christ's cross and follow Him, and so on?<BR/><BR/>I'm not talking about a works-based righteousness, here. Even a backsliding believer is still saved, praise be to God! But God calls us to participate in His glorification and exaltation; to participate in His saving of lost souls through the Great Commission; and so on. And on the most intimate level, we will never overcome sin in this lifetime, but He calls us to be vigilant against temptation, and to avoid sinning. All of this is stuff that we choose to do out of love for Christ. We can't do it alone, which is why we have the Holy Spirit dwelling within us to help us. But we can choose to obey and be helped by the Holy Spirit, or disobey, in which case the Holy Spirit won't do it for us. As believers, we have that choice. Non-believers don't even have the luxury of choosing to disobey God, since that's all that they are capable of doing.<BR/><BR/>Hope my comment makes sense and isn't too rambling.<BR/><BR/>Dan, if I'm off track, please correct me.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-66823174025054033722008-07-02T12:47:00.000-07:002008-07-02T12:47:00.000-07:00JD,I took it as you applying that to Pr.20:12; it ...JD,<BR/><BR/>I took it as you applying that to Pr.20:12; it does not fit with what you wrote so I wondered how you saw the verse. Are you saying that Pr. 20:12 is related to Pr. 2:3, 20? <BR/><BR/>You seem to disagree with Dan’s exegesis of the text, all I wanted was what you think the text says. Again, not wanting to get anything started, just wanting to try to understand where you are coming from on this verse.Mitchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02362366468793301910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-87945116996169093882008-07-02T12:13:00.000-07:002008-07-02T12:13:00.000-07:00Mitch, I was responding to the "no context rule" c...Mitch, I was responding to the "no context rule" comment Dan made. Don't you think this book called Proverbs, overall, calls upon man to "get" wisdom and "act" wisely, and NOT act "unwisely"? And giving the general promise that wise acts will have good results, and unwise acts bad results? And therefore, it tells us, choose the wise way?<BR/><BR/>This does not fit with strict monergism.<BR/><BR/>Of course God made "ears to hear and eyes to see." But we must "call out for insight and cry aloud for understanding" (2:3) and then "walk in the ways of good men and keep to the paths of the righteous." (2:20)<BR/><BR/>Or do you believe that we have no part to play in obedience to the precepts of Scripture?James Scott Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07641370124346172648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-26966274844946471732008-07-02T10:34:00.000-07:002008-07-02T10:34:00.000-07:00Knowing you said generally, but I also fail to see...Knowing you said generally, but I also fail to see how this is “suffused” with the premise of choice for us. Are you saying that this verse is “suffused” with the premise of choice for the Lord or for Man?<BR/><BR/>Not wanting to stir up a hornets nest, just would like some further clarification.Mitchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02362366468793301910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-34842895253793666522008-07-02T10:30:00.000-07:002008-07-02T10:30:00.000-07:00Sorry I’m confused and need a little guidance-As w...Sorry I’m confused and need a little guidance-<BR/><BR/><I>As wisdom literature, the context is responsibility for one's actions. Generally, that IF you do X, you will get Y; but if you do Z, you will not.</I><BR/><BR/>The hearing ear and the seeing eye, The Lord has made both of them (Proverbs 20:12, ESV)<BR/><BR/>Where is the *If <B>YOU</B> do X, you will get Y* part in this text?Mitchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02362366468793301910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-64115216487158748692008-07-02T09:08:00.000-07:002008-07-02T09:08:00.000-07:00Dan, your treatment of the text is fine...until a)...Dan, your treatment of the text is fine...until a)last two sentences of your post, and b) the "exception to the context rule" comment you made. <BR/><BR/>Regarding a), it's a matter of opinion. I just don't see the strict monergism, without Calvinist lenses on. It seems to me a bit of round hole/square peg idea. <BR/><BR/>On b), I gave you a context argument which undermines the whole monergism thesis. I'd be happy to consider your response.James Scott Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07641370124346172648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-29601589358861501572008-07-02T08:54:00.000-07:002008-07-02T08:54:00.000-07:00I'm concerned, because a couple of commenters (Pen...I'm concerned, because a couple of commenters (Penn and Strong Tower) have alluded to God's sovereignty in our sanctification. God is sovereign over all, and sovereign over our salvation, and ultimately sovereign over our sanctification as well.<BR/><BR/>But I'm concerned because for the last six months, I got hung up on the idea that it's all up to the Holy Spirit to magically turn me into a mature, sanctified believer. As a result, I stagnated, and the passion I had when I was first saved left me. In fact, the reality is that in book after book of the Bible, the Lord<BR/>—either directly or through His human writers—calls believers to take an active role in their spiritual growth. Nothing happens except by the grace of the Father, the work of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, but within those parameters, it is up to us as believers to live up to our calling.<BR/><BR/>God gives us believers the <B><I>ability</B></I> to discern (see) and obey (hear)—and praise His Mighty Name for that. <I>But it's up to us to choose to actually discern and obey.</I> We do not automatically please God simply by virtue of the fact that we are saved. Although we have assurance of salvation—and praise God from everlasting to everlasting for that as well—we are called nevertheless to serve God, to obey God, and to walk in His ways.<BR/><BR/>If non-believers attempt to do this, they are just digging themselves further into a hole, for then it amounts to nothing more than salvation by works. But on the flip side, it is incumbent upon believers to do just this—to actively take up the Cross of Jesus and follow Him—to walk in the ways of the Lord. Now, if believers do this <I>for the wrong motivations</I>—thinking that if they don't they won't get into heaven, or fearing judgement by their churchgoing peers, for example—then it still amounts to works-based righteousness. But we are called upon to do lead godly lives from the right motivation—out of love for the trinitarian God, out of gratitude for what He has done to us and for us, and out of a sense of service to Him.<BR/><BR/>"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind...[and] You shall love your neighbour as yourself," said Jesus in Matthew 22:37-39, alluding to Deuteronomy 6:5 (the Shema, which starts with "<B><I>Hear,</B></I> O Israel" in 6:4) and Leviticus 19:18. "On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets," he added in Matthew 22:40, meaning the whole of Scripture. Over and over again, the fundamental call in Scripture is to hear and obey the Lord. Non-believers are incapable of doing this or pleasing the Lord, but it is incumbent upon Believers to do just this.<BR/><BR/>So to get back to the Proverb at hand, the Lord God has indeed made the hearing ear and the seeing eye and given it to us (believers in both Old and New Testament times, and post-New Testament as well), but it is up to us to hear and see what God calls us to hear and see, and not use our gifts of discernment and obedience for purposes that do not glorify God.<BR/><BR/>And/but ultimately, it is all by His grace alone, and all for His glory alone. All praise be to the Lord God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, from everlasting to everlasting.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-20708670292860479792008-07-02T08:50:00.000-07:002008-07-02T08:50:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-8104936147419154532008-07-02T05:24:00.000-07:002008-07-02T05:24:00.000-07:00Johnny Dialectic — But I don't see Calvinistic sty...<B>Johnny Dialectic</B> — <I>But I don't see Calvinistic style monergism here</I><BR/><BR/>Well, that does tell us about <I>you.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm still waiting for someone to tell us more about the <I>text</I>, as I've tried to do.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-82951517253125423852008-07-02T01:17:00.000-07:002008-07-02T01:17:00.000-07:00That's true, Mike, but had I simply left my smimmi...That's true, Mike, but had I simply left my smimming alone, I wouldn't have gotten the concept! (BTW, the more I look at "smimming", the more it resembles an Olympic sport....)Susanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08289347868497438542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-82303622050384543662008-07-01T21:47:00.000-07:002008-07-01T21:47:00.000-07:00If you already know the concept, you can "smim" it...If you already know the concept, you can "smim" it.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09456884689908680100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-20660835715110579242008-07-01T18:38:00.001-07:002008-07-01T18:38:00.001-07:00Ok, I confess: I was smimming the Spurgeon page (...Ok, I confess: I was smimming the Spurgeon page (see my link above) when I posted a comment, so when I went back and reread it, I had to delete it. I was musing about Spurgeon's apparent shift of the responsibility of hearing from God to man in the entry (his being a Calvinist and all), but then if one reads the last sentence to that entry (Spurgeon ends with a supplication to the Lord), one can see that God is still the initiator of our hearing! How interesting.... <BR/><BR/>"My Father, my elder Brother, my sweet Comforter, speak now in lovingkindness, for Thou hast opened mine ear and I am not rebellious."--CHS, Evening by Evening, July 1.Susanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08289347868497438542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-32274896157965943032008-07-01T18:38:00.000-07:002008-07-01T18:38:00.000-07:00Wisdom literature written by whom? Learned from wh...Wisdom literature written by whom? Learned from whom? Being that neither David nor Solomon gained an iota from the wisdom within the wisdom literatrue, I wonder just who is the wise one who wrote this. Let me quess, mmmm....<BR/><BR/>Oh yah...here it is...<B>, <I>,"Give your servant therefore an understanding mind to govern your people, that I may discern between good and evil, for who is able to govern this your great people?”<BR/><BR/>10 It pleased the Lord that Solomon had asked this. 11 And God said to him, “Because you have asked this, and have not asked for yourself long life or riches or the life of your enemies, but have asked for yourself understanding to discern what is right, 12 behold, I now do according to your word. Behold, I give you a wise and discerning mind, so that none like you has been before you and none like you shall arise after you."</B></I> Rather a prophetic passage would you not say? Because this is referring to Jesus not Solomon.<BR/><BR/>Now, to truly understand what DJP is saying wouldn't it be wise to look at the context of where the context came from if there is a context for the context? This was not Solomon's wisdom, not his understanding, and therefore could not have been his obedience that is being spoken about in proverbs.<BR/><BR/>Pride test here: Who do you see yourself to be, the fool of proverbs (the sinner in the temple) or the wise son of proverbs (the Pharisee in the temple)? Now, it is truth that the WISE SON is one Jesus Christ who Solomon does represent. But, the fact is that God granted him this request right after Solomon had violated the Law and deserved death. Such grace is, not according to obedience to commands, but according to the grace of God's sovereign choice. The historic record is that Solomon is the fool of proverbs, not the wise son. Yet, God gave him wisdom so that he might rule His people called after His name, Israel.<BR/><BR/>The pragmatist would say, well we just need to obey and all will be okay, trust and obey, cause there's no other way to be happy in Jesus, then to trust and obey... The man of faith though says, yes there is, and God shows us his love not in that we loved him, but he loved us, first, and gives himself up for us so that we obtain the truth, he obeyed. Just like he did for Solomon and David and all those of faith who can calim the proverbs as their own. And, that faith gives us a happiness that is beyond external understandings, mechanisms; talismans of obedience by which we can shake down God. Our blessings are of grace, and not the result of pragmagic.<BR/><BR/>I like the doubly intended meanings of proverbs (small case for the emer**** who might be reading), of course when did Jesus not speak in proverbs ;) things like do not become a pleadge for another or you will pay, or something like that. Which is interesting because Jesus became a pledge for us and paid. But I digrease (doubly intended for the purpose of the wheel that is now coming round).<BR/><BR/>What we know of the commandments is that "if" we keep them, it demonstrates that we have love for him. The interesting thing is that it is the love of God spread abroad in our hearts that makes all the difference. And we do not spread it, nor do we know how to, and we don't even have the right knife.<BR/><BR/>Commandments are imperatives and always, the indicative is contained in the commandment if it is obedient. If it is disobedient the indicative is without the imperative, operative as it is, autonomously, doing its own thing by its own volition and not according to the commandment.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, it is always curious that God would choose such losers as Solomon, such a fool- in fact, there is no sin that anyone here, reading this, can say they sinned that Solomon hasn't already laid claim to- yet, this is the man who was taught by his father who was not his better. And by his mother, having perfumed her own bed so to speak, who went on, but not in shame, to concieved him, a bastard. She, who was still an adultress when she taught him these sayings. She who died an adultress. They were taught to Solomon by Solomon's adulterer of a father (many times over having spilt his fountain far and wide) who died, cold, and unable to comfort himself, nor able to be comforted by others; his life long mode of narcissitic appetites, unabated. No wonder he was depressed.<BR/><BR/>The only obedience either man ever knew was that which was worked in them, both to will and to do.<BR/><BR/>But, I got side tracked, from the wisdom of Job, who, though a righteous man, also forgot who created the ear, and all other things including the understanding and the obedience. Such was Job's sin that he did not recognize who the potter was and so says that he had heard but did not understand, but having seen gained wisdom.<BR/><BR/>And of course I presuppose some things differently now because I am Calvinistic where I would not have before. Still, if we step back, the creation account is about a God who made man in his image. And the eyes of his understanding were not darkened when he did so, nor was that image in man such that he could knowingly choose to disobey Himself.<BR/><BR/>My vote is with DJP, cause he's bald...Strong Towerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13834108238546908018noreply@blogger.com