My main objection was that Izzy characterized yet again that Lance does not
give a whit about scripture just because what she believed about the answer
to whether Judas is saved or not is made clear in the English version of her
text. Izzy has a bee in her bonnet against anyone that she labels a
liberal. She thinks that all liberals must view scripture in a way that is
far lower than her own exalted view. I called it a scripture bomb. She
felt that by throwing out a verse the discussion was over. In reality her
misunderstanding of the verse caused her to come to the wrong conclusion.
Izzy (and I believe Judy) have made the claim that they do not need to
understand Greek or Hebrew because 'the Spirit will lead us into all truth'.
This of course is a complete misunderstanding of this verse. All truth does
not equal all information. It equals the breaking in upon ourselves by God
a revelation of His Son Jesus Christ - the Truth.
I then gave an explanation of how understanding the Greek text behind the
verse she quoted from John would allow her to understand why people believe
that it is possible that Judas will be in heaven. Following basic grammar I
asked her to consider what the words 'keep' mean in Greek (as two are used)
to illustrate what it meant when it says that Judas was lost/not kept.
Because Izzy was reading it in English she was unable to see that Jesus was
not using the word 'keep' in a salvation sense. Think of Jesus' words to
Peter, 'Do you love me?' in John 21. Reading in English one would think
Jesus uses the same word for love that Peter replies with. But Peter uses
phileo while Jesus uses agapao. Without knowing Greek one could easily come
to the wrong conclusion about this passage. Knowing the Greek one can
exegete it with far more confidence. Hope this helps.
Jonathan
It is incredible to me that anyone would disagree with the importance of exegetical studies. I attend regular, normal churches -- Baptists, EV Free, Four Square, Assembly of God -- that sort of thing. Absolutely no one I know believes that the Spirit's presense in our lives supercedes the need for exegetical and contextual studies. To believe otherwise is to foster ignorance in the name of "truth." I don't know if anyone sees a problem here, but "ignorance" and "truth" are not complimentary terms. To disagree is to argue against the example of the Bereans and such scriptures as "Study (give attention to ) ........ handling aright the [scriptures]." Perhaps we reject Jonathan because of the label - "liberal." There are two admitted liberals (Jon and Lance) on this List and a third (BillyT) who is forced into this category perhaps against his will. Apparently what makes them liberal is the fact that they disagree with those who proudly wear the mantle of "conservative." I can tell you there surely is no other reason. All three have a profound respect for what is written. There are simply no disagreements on this forum that do not center themselves in the Written Message, unless, of course, we argue about the value of a particular contribution (i.e. Kruger or Polanyi [sp ?] }.
I, for one, could care less if one is conservative or liberal. I just want to know if their understanding of things shared has any validity. Such wording is worthless because no one on this forum could possibly come up with a working definition of "liberal" or "conservative"
Thank you, Jonathan.
JD
