Dikaioumenoi - Exegesis required

[John Bauer]

The ability to describe a point of view is no indication on its own that it is actually what the biblical authors intended to communicate. The latter is what must concern us.

-- Dikaioumenoi, comment on "Appointed to Eternal Life - Acts 13:48," Christian Forums, November 9, 2025.

 

[Josheb]

The ability to describe a point of view is no indication on its own that it is actually what the biblical authors intended to communicate. The latter is what must concern us.

-- Dikaioumenoi, comment on "Appointed to Eternal Life - Acts 13:48," Christian Forums, November 9, 2025.

I'm inclined to agree with Dikaioumenoi's argument except for two points: 1) human volition is irrelevant so when monergists entertain the notion it is relevant they've already conceded territory to the synergist that should never be yielded and 2) Ephesians 1 was written to the already-regenerate, already-saved believer about the already-regenerate, already-saved believer and not unregenerate non-believers and I don't read that critically important point in the post. Freth has abused the Ephesians 1 text.

I, personally, would also probably split hairs over the statement, "So yes, believers truly choose Christ and obey Him. But they do so because God first chose them in Christ," because any choice the already-regenerate, already-saved believer makes is done solely and entirely because God has already worked in that sinner to free him from the death and enslavement of sin and given new birth to the creature as a whole, not because some always-existing volitional faculty was suddenly freed or otherwise enabled. God remakes the sinner to the point where the sinner no longer lives; Christ lives in him/her. To be thoroughly monergistic in salvation there is nothing in the conversion process that can be attributable to the sinner.

Maybe I missed something. Was there something specific in that Post #12 warranting amendment or correction iyo?

 

[His clay]

The ability to describe a point of view is no indication on its own that it is actually what the biblical authors intended to communicate. The latter is what must concern us.

-- Dikaioumenoi, comment on "Appointed to Eternal Life - Acts 13:48," Christian Forums, November 9, 2025.

I'm not following what you are asking for. I definitely do appreciate the focus on authorial intent. I also agree that holiness is the fruit and not the cause of election. I can definitely go into significantly greater detail, but I'm asking for a bit more clarity on what you are asking for.

 

[John Bauer]

I'm not following what you are asking for.

Threads in the Quotes forum aren't necessarily up for discussion—although discussion is certainly welcomed. It is for sharing important, meaningful, poignant, or helpful quotes that one happens to come across in his or her reading.

In this case, I thought the person's quip perfectly captures the frustration some of us have with those who engage in proof-texting. You ask for a biblical argument and the other person simply argues in defense of their view, which doesn't at all address the request. It is one thing to "describe a point of view" but that is "no indication, on its own, that it's actually what the biblical authors intended to communicate."

 

[His clay]

Threads in the Quotes forum aren't necessarily up for discussion—although discussion is certainly welcomed. It is for sharing important, meaningful, poignant, or helpful quotes that one happens to come across in his or her reading.

In this case, I thought the person's quip perfectly captures the frustration some of us have with those who engage in proof-texting. You ask for a biblical argument and the other person simply argues in defense of their view, which doesn't at all address the request. It is one thing to "describe a point of view" but that is "no indication, on its own, that it's actually what the biblical authors intended to communicate."

Thanks for the clarifying comment on the purpose of this particular forum. Because of a seminary background, I think of the quote to be common sense. But I can see that a lot of people who engage in forums have no clue when it comes to making contextual, grammatical, linguistic, and historical arguments that focus upon the original author's intent. Their depth stops at the level their perception of the English.

It really does hurt to see comments of "philosophy" or "over my head" or "put it on the bottom shelf for me," when I spell out the linguistic realities of a passage like Eph 1:4-6. And often, I'm not at all trying to be over their head. Much heavier content could easily be written. And I use basic analogies like going to the store to get groceries, but I guess that going to get groceries is over their head. So I think that a lot of the negative feedback is just simply a poisoning the well defense mechanism (because I don't buy the idea that getting groceries is difficult content). My comments are (perhaps) new and thus difficult to understand, and different from their view means that they have to bash it, and if they cannot make legitimate points against it, then they resort to calling the view names.

All of that to say, trying to help people past their depth level elicits all sorts of comments. It can be discouraging when you see such brazen apathy and combativeness when you are simply trying to push the argument toward authorial intent. Pardon my quote mine here, ". . . perfectly captures the frustration some of us have . . ." <--Yes!

 

[John Bauer]

It really does hurt to see comments of "philosophy" or "over my head" or "put it on the bottom shelf for me," when I spell out the linguistic realities of a passage like Eph 1:4-6. And often, I'm not at all trying to be over their head. Much heavier content could easily be written.

I don't mind admitting that I sometimes use AI for exactly this purpose. I write a seminary-level response to someone, then paste it into AI and ask it to "dumb it down" for me. And it does a masterful job, most of the time.