Steve Updates

If you've been following the blog, you know that I've been dialoguing with "Steve the Arminian." He responded to this email by avoiding my exegesis.

The Dark Knight helped me formulate my response. Rather than repeat my arguments, I ... well, here is my response:

Steve,

So far you have evaded every textual and grammatical argument I provided. You assume the correctness of your own position while expecting me to defend my own, and meaningful dialogue doesn't happen that way. You are injecting a foreign meaning into Jesus' discourse by attempting to read verse 45 back into verses 37 and so on.

I have demonstrated that the Father gives some to the Son, the Father draws some to the Son, and this same group of individuals is taught by the Father and believes in Christ. The sovereignty of God is magnificently displayed in this text.

Steve, you continue to present the argument that verse 45 must be understood *in spite* of what precedes it. That is not how exegesis is done. I, on the other hand, continue to argue that we must begin at the beginning of Jesus' speech, and exegete forward. We must consider verse 45 *in light* of what has come before.

If you choose to evade my textual and grammatical arguments, there isn't much point in continuing our discussion =).
I hope this conversation has been benficial for you.

In Christ,
Casey Ryan
AOMin

Steve responded within the hour! Here was his latest email:

Casey,

The only way you can say the below is to have not understood simple flow of thought exegesis. I have answered your exegesis continually (I have agreed with most of it but you stop at v.45) with contextual common sense answers. You however, again and again, refuse to see the flow of thought in the context. I am sorry your tradition has blinded you to common sense flow of thought exegesis. We will have to agree to disagree. But, thanks for the go around. WE WILL HAVE TO AGREE TO DISAGREE. But, I am glad we are on the same side. See you in the Lord.

In Christ,
Steve


See. Nice guy. Nevertheless he tabled our discussion because he knows he cannot exegete the passage (in order) and stand by his conclusions.

I must say though, I did laugh aloud when he accused me of being blinded by my tradition when it is he who is blinded to tradition.

Simon (the Dark Knight) pointed out that Steve seemed more interested in preaching at me than having to defend his position. He told me that it's best to end a conversation when it reaches that point anyhow.

And even as Steve demonstrated his willingness to go to any length to defend his traditions, I learned a lot from our discussions. Maybe I should write him and tell him that I'm now a better apologist because of him? Somehow I don't think that would be a wise idea *grin*.