By eisegesis they mean: “an interpretation, esp. of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter’s own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.”
HT: Will
A case of eisegesis? I don’t think so. Not because I agree or disagree with Dr. Ergun Caner, president of Liberty Baptist Theological seminary.
Rather, it’s a simple snippet. Yes, similar to the Romans 9:13-14 that Dr. Caner mentions in this video clip.
37 seconds is simply not enough to side with either an Arminian or Calvinistic reading of the text.
In all fairness to Dr. Caner.
TC, I’m not sure I grasp your point here. These 37 seconds represent an eisegetical approach to Scripture exactly because the point Caner makes is the opposite of the point Paul makes. That fits very well the definition of eisegesis.
Will,
I get your point. But which part of this snippet lends itself to the charge?
Question: Did God hate Esau just because he was Esau, or did God hate Esau because of what Esau did?
Answer: To continue God’s purpose of election, regardless of what Esau had done yet.
“though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’” -Rm 9:11-13 (ESV)
He never spoke against this text, which is what I think TC is saying. He asked a question, and the answer is quite evident in the text at hand. There was no eisegesis here, although he did imply Calvinists are wrong in how he spoke.
Jake,
Of course he takes issue with a Calvinistic reading of the text. But your general take on what I’m after is spot on.
All I did was paraphrase a portion of the text I quoted below the answer that was from the section of scripture he was dealing with. =)
Caner takes off from v.13…
Come on, TC, that’s some pretty petty hair-splitting there. Caner’s point was obvious. He clearly implied that God’s hatred of Esau was based on what Esau would do later in life. In other words, he read his own interpretation into that text, completely ignoring the context. I.e., eisegesis.
I guess I’m just a little confused about why you would make an issue out of a technicality.
For what it’s worth, on my blog I called it “Scripture Twisting.” So I guess you’re addressing Justin Taylor’s take on it, not mine.
Will,
Do we want to go on a mere implication? All I’m saying is that we need more that what is offered in Caner’s 37 sec.
I haven’t read JT’s take. But my “A Case of Eisegesis?” as a response to your “Scripture Twisting” is more like it.
Caner’s point is unmistakable. He insists that God’s hatred/rejection of Esau is because of what Esau’s actions. The text explicitly says that is not the reason. Therefore, I conclude, that Caner either (a) hasn’t read the rest of Romans 9–including the previous verses–at all, or (b) is inserting his own ideas onto the text, completely ignoring the meaning of the text.
The fact that he is president of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary leads me to seriously doubt that he has not read Romans 9. Thus, I conclude that he is inserting his own ideas onto the text, completely ignoring the meaning of the text.
That’s not eisegesis? Maybe I’m just missing your point, TC. But it seems pretty clear to me that he is leading his audience to believe the exact opposite of what the passage teaches.
What “more” are you looking for? What does he have to do or say for it to qualify in your mind as eisegesis?
I realize that. When I said section I did not mean the exact part he quoted, but the general area of the part he quoted. After all, the fact that he ignored this was part of the irony, no?
Now we’ve been forced to debate the implied because of 37 sec.
Will,
By text you mean vv.11-12? But Caner never mentions these verses. That’s my point. But if he’s taking an Arminian reading of this text, then I grant your contention.